# Military Can't Stand On Guard For Free



## Bograt (29 Oct 2004)

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/albers102904.htm

Military Can't Stand On Guard For Free
by Paul Albers 

October 29, 2004

It is often said that there are no atheists in a foxhole. People tend to reconsider their objections to religion when bullets start whizzing by only inches from their head.

It isn't much of a stretch then to say that there are no Liberals in a Canadian submarine. When you are nearly at 200-300 metres below the ocean's surface in a rusty sub with useless torpedo tubes, unreliable computers, leaky hatches, questionable electrical wiring, and little emergency equipment, the idea of drastically increasing military spending doesn't sound so bad.

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It did sound bad to Liberals only a few months ago. During the election campaign they claimed that Stephen Harper's modest plan to slow the decline of the armed forces would create a $50 billion dollar black hole in the federal budget. They returned to power by stoking fears that the Conservative plan would force them to cut healthcare and other vital services, or run massive deficits.

At the time, the Liberals had projected a $1.9 billion budget surplus for this year. The Conservatives planned on there being a $4 billion surplus for 2003-2004, even though they expected it to be much higher. Now that the election is over and the facts have come back that the surplus will be in excess of $9 billion.

Harper was right, but if you think the Liberals are surprised, then you must accept the absurd idea that the Official Opposition had better information on Canada's financial state than the government itself. It is far more reasonable to believe that the government kept Canadians in the dark for their own purposes. By concealing the true size of the surplus the Liberals picked up the $7 billion difference with no strings attached and little public input on what should be done with it.

This illustrates a pattern of behaviour by the Liberals that has brought the armed forces close to the breaking point. The Mulroney years were famous for grandiose fiscal promises that were broken over and over, so the Liberal's tactic of keeping expectations low is frequently seen as a positive. What it really accomplishes, however is that it provides the Liberals with the means to manipulate the public.

With a secret surplus, the government can dress itself in the robes of prudence while throwing untold billions away on gun registries, sponsorship handouts, fat expense accounts (with no receipts) and every other form of waste possible. On the other side of the coin, when there is a call for tax cuts, they can point at the artificially small size of the surplus and say it can't be done, likewise with anything else they don't care for, like increasing military spending.

The inquiry into the Chicoutimi fire may put the blame on the insulation on the wires, or on some other faulty part aboard the submarine, but none of that absolves the government of its liability. Ottawa committed to an expensive lease-to-own deal with less caution than someone purchasing a used car.

Attempting to shift the blame to the military officials who recommended the subs doesn't wash since the armed forces are limited to making recommendations that fit within the financial and operational boundaries defined by the government. In this case, the choice was between old, problematic subs, or no subs at all.

Our armed forces have grown accustomed to working with old, worn, and faulty equipment. The planes used by the Snowbirds are older than the pilots in most cases, likewise for Sea Kings and their pilots. The Iltis jeeps are poorly suited for patrolling hostile territory, C-130 Hercules transport planes can barely get off the ground, and the new Cormorant helicopters are grounded for cracking tail rotors. From the military's point of view, 20-year-old subs are a step up.

It is unacceptable to watch the military suffer extreme neglect at the hands of the very government they have sworn to defend. It is all the worse when that same government has accumulated so much of the nation's wealth that there are still large surpluses even after billions are wasted or lost. And it is worse still to cheat the soldiers out of the help they need by misrepresenting the true state of the nation's finances. It is the government's job to ensure that the military has what it needs, and that tax monies are wisely spent. The Liberals have failed in both cases.

I have no idea how Lt. Chris Saunders voted in the past, or even if he voted at all, but his death is equally the result of, and a warning against further neglect of the military.


----------



## Gunnar (29 Oct 2004)

Amen brother.   

You can usually see what the Liberal's real motivations are if you follow the money and/or the electoral probability.  The Libs cheerfully buy votes, express outrage at anything that is unpopular, schedule long and involved investigations into their fiscal malfeasance until everyone has forgotten about it and it can safely be swept under the rug.  Then they go out and kiss babies, and everyone loves them again.  Unless they are NOT bureaucrats who have to put their life on the line using the Libs lack of principles to protect them.


----------



## Storm (29 Oct 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> I have no idea how Lt. Chris Saunders voted in the past, or even if he voted at all, but his death is equally the result of, and a warning against further neglect of the military.



What happened to waiting for the results of the investigation to find out what actually is to blame? The Liberal government has given people more than enough rope to hang them without resorting to speculation before the facts are determined.


----------



## Booya McNasty (29 Oct 2004)

I agree wholeheartedly, but it made me think of a few questions.  

When you look at history of Canada, the Liberals have ruled more often than naught - ever since Mackenzie & Blake.  They keep getting elected time and time again, they're called Canada's Ruling Party.  Does this mean that, in general, the CF is doomed?  If there is a Liberal government (that will pay lip service to the military) elected at least once every decade, where does that leave the people of the service?  Do the benefits of a Liberal government outweigh the cost?  Is one or two lives of servicemen worth it when you're looking at Canadian society as a whole?

Now I know what everyone one the Choutoumi (sp?) would say.  I guess you can also ask the exact same questions about the US situation.  I'm far from a a left leaning liberal pinko, I just think that it raises a fairly interesting topic.  If the people vote in a government that has a crappy policy towards their military, should we be complaining about the government or the people who vote in that government?  I'd love to hear from anybody about this.......


----------



## banko (29 Oct 2004)

I always say that the problem with democracy is that too many stupid people get to vote...

Maybe if we got rid of the "first past the post" system we would be better off... it seemed that in the last election the liberals didn't get that many more votes than the conservatives, but they did get enough to win in their individual ridings. An equal representation system would seem much more fair. It would also mean that if you voted for one of the other small parties (like the green party) they might have actually won a seat... 

Of course, the liberals wouldn't want equal representation because Ontario might lose some of it's clout...

Although, in my riding I must say that the liberal candidate did the most campaigning and advertising BY FAR. I knew her name and gace months before I knew who the conservative candidate was. It seems that the conservatives didn't campaign very well at all...


----------



## JBP (30 Oct 2004)

I am not happy with any of the major parties/choices out there. I didn't want the liberals in power, I didn't want the conservatives in power. I also didn't want the marxist/leninist party in power either...

I did vote green party. Why? Because I knew they wouldn't win, and I didn't want my vote going towards the other fruit cakes. But you have to wonder what would have happened IF... The conservatives got into power. Wouldn't it be nice to see some EXTRA money and not extra CUTS come to the military for even just ONE year??? I think it would be a good idea to get ANYONE else into power, even for a short while. That way there will still be a parade square left when I swear in!

I am really not happy with the liberals in charge of my province, country or home town. McGinty lied outright, didn't follow his campaigne promises, our current prime minister might as well grabe his ankles and take it like a good lad from the USA and the guy in my hometown wouldn't even let us build a new 4 pad arena to get a OHL hockey team!!! 

I'm sick of these lying cheating politicians, unfortunately it will always be that way. But why not vote for the liar that will at least make your career/profession better!

I'll say it now with no shame or fear, next time I'm voting for Stephen Harper/whoever thier leader is at that time. As long as thier program stays mostly the same. Not that they haven't screwed us over in the past either, but my god. You folks know better than I do it's high time the Forces get fixed!!!

Joe
 :threat:


----------



## Boydfish (30 Oct 2004)

The Canadian Liberals are the "Natural Ruling Party" for one reason and one reason alone:  They will do whatever it takes to win the election.  The average Liberal candidate would happily bribe somebody to push their mother under the wheels of a bus if it meant one extra vote for them.  This is also shown in how they govern, essentially them first, others get crumbs if something falls off the table.  It's easy to win if you simply have no ethical compass.

The biggest problem with the CF funding is that it has become far too political in nature.  The CF is supposed to be a "guardian agency" of the confederation, but has instead simply become a vehicle for political pork-barreling and posturing.  The spending choices of the Canadian government for the CF often wiegh more on political factors than on what is really needed.

In many ways, the approach that the Canadian government takes on funding for the CF seems very...unprofesional...for lack of a better word.  While political oversight of military spending is one of those things we have to live with in a Westminster democracy, there is no reason for the depth of control that the government exercises over the CF's spending.  In other words, the government should be saying "OK, CDS, here is your $13 billion dollars for FY 2005.  For that money, we expect the attached list of capabilities.".  Then the government shuts the hell up.  If the CDS figures that to achieve item #15 on the government's list of required capabilities that the Army needs 4 infantry regiments of 3 battalions each and the funds required for that are able to be done out of the $13 billion, then "poof", four regiments it is.

For capital purchases, the CDS should simply have to make the business case that said item is needed, based on the list of capabilities required as provided by the government, the amount of dollars they need, what's wrong with the current items in inventory and then sit back.  If the government still wants that capability on the list, they fork over the cash and the CF as an organization buys what they judge to be the best item for the job, no matter if we're talking about socks or main battle tanks.  If Bombardier gets it's market share _ain't_ a consideration.

The reasoning behind this is expertise:  The CDS and the senior staff of the CF are assumed to be experts in the art of making war.  As such, when we're trying to shop for things that are used to break other people's things, we want them making the choices, not a politician.


----------



## JBP (30 Oct 2004)

Boydfish,

I do agree with what your saying and your idea of how it "should work"... But it doesn't. The MND and the CF DO give reports and lectures to the brats in parliament, but if #15 on thier list of "Capabilities" doesn't fit in the budget, they simply say "O-well!" and look the other way. They don't care, really. They've proven that I think now. I don't need to say it, honestly do I? They don't give a rats ass! And THEN they will announce another sweeping budget cut here or there because the welfare weenies don't have enough crack in thier veins... 

Well, that's probably a very hard and one sided look at it. Not all people on welfare do drugs...  :blotto:

Every time I see something bad happen to our military it makes me upset, so I'm just going to join and do what I can with what I get!

Hail


----------



## Boydfish (30 Oct 2004)

Recruit Joe, I understand that what I described isn't the way it is, instead you have the mess that's currently in place.

In broader terms, the state of the CF is simply a symptom of a larger corruption in the confederation.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2004)

Repeat after me.... PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

There's where the biggest problem lies.   The fiddling with Public dollars for partisan purposes - whether it is building a gun registry in New Brunswick, ad money in Quebec, Grizzlies from London, transferring Hornet maintenance for Winnipeg or (an idea of the 1988 Conservatives) building a Bv206 assembly line in Calgary rather than just buying them.   

I hate regional benefits. I hate industrial offsets and I hate the mindset that exists in Canadian industry that even if a project is profitable on its own Canadian industry will not act unless they get government money put into the project.   On the grounds that if they don't get it someone else will   -   in one respect I can see the rationale its the only way to get their tax dollar back - BUT I STILL HATE IT.

OK   I ranted again.   I sorry.   Much better now.

That department has got to be put under an all party oversight committee (it probably is but if it is it seems to have been particularly ineffectual).


----------



## JBP (4 Nov 2004)

> Recruit Joe, I understand that what I described isn't the way it is, instead you have the mess that's currently in place.
> 
> In broader terms, the state of the CF is simply a symptom of a larger corruption in the confederation.




I do agree 100% with you. I remember reading an article about a year ago in the local newspaper, basically it was about how the government jobs are all taken by a "buddy's pal". Basically, you know somebody, you get in. Doesn't really matter if your actually the right person for the job. Everyone wants on the gravy train, you make the minimum requirements and your in if you have a pal. It's human nature, but apparrently it's gotten all the way through all levels of our government really bad basically. I can imagine that happens everywhere though? How do a lot of people move up in a corporation or company? Politics through social life etc with co-workers etc... That's life! Who ya know not what you know.

Interesting to say the least? Wonder what would happen if there was an open "job bid" like unions sometimes do, everyone temp loses thier jobs and has to reapply. No guaruntee of your job back, just a shuffle to stir shit up!

I suppose the gravy-train government croonies would never let that happen of course.

 :'(


----------



## armyrules (8 Nov 2004)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> The government ignores the military until it they need the CF to use as a political tool



   you explained everything in that one sentence nice job brother


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Nov 2004)

Ummm.....the sole purpose of the Army is to be used as a political tool.  We serve no other function but to operate according to the government's wishes....so that doesn't strike me as particularly insulting... ???


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2004)

> The government ignores the military until it they need the CF to use as a political tool



I think he means a political tool as in "pass the gravy", rather than as a tool to impose the Government's will on an opponent.

The recent US election made me think a bit more about our system. The Electoral College in the United States allows each precinct to go "first past the post", and yet requires the candidates to appeal to as broad a cross section of the electorate as possible. Just look at the difference between the "Blue" (Democrat) states and the "Red" (Republican) states. Bush appealed to the vast swath of "middle America" in both senses of the word, while the Dem's were confined to the East and Left coasts. 

A straight first past the post system rewards the volume of votes, so it is in the interest of the parties to attempt to appeal to the urban "masses" rather than the less populous rural ridings and provinces. If Alberta had a population base like Ontario, then you would hear radically different policies coming out of Paul Martin's mouth. PR systems of various sorts place too much power in the hands of "fringe" parties, and usually result in unstable coalition governments. If you think an unethical Liberal party is bad now, imagine what sort of deals they would cut to curry favor with the "Greens" or the "Bloc" to keep their coalition (a true coalition of the bribed and coerced) in power.

The need is to demonstrate the need for an effective Armed Forces and educate the public to support the creation and maintenance of the same. This doesn't have to mean a much bigger or vastly more expensive force (we could probably do wonders with some internal reshuffling), just the widespread recognition we are an important political tool and a valuable part of society.


----------



## Bograt (8 Nov 2004)

I was watching CPAC late Saturday night (I can't believe I admitted that) and the Senate Committee for Military was interviewing a number of academics regarding the state of military spending.

One fellow from Carlton (sp) said that Canadians are a "peaceful people that fight war exceptionally well." Asked how the government should promote military spending to the "average joe, baker, butcher, farmer" he said "Just say its a matter of self respect." The average person can understand and suport that idea.


----------



## JBP (8 Nov 2004)

> average joe, baker, butcher, farmer" he said "Just say its a matter of self respect." The average person can understand and suport that idea.



 :

Sure, all fine and dandy, they'll understand it and support it. THEN say, "Well if they're exceptionally good at fighting now, they don't need more money and let's have more health care cause I smoke alot and I'm gonna need it when I'm old!'...

 :rage:

That doesn't mean Sh*t in my opinion. The way you educate the masses is NOT with a very simple, plain and boring statement like "Just say it's a matter of self respect".. We'll get lip service, which is what the CF has been getting since... Umm. Geee... Lemme think... 1960, shortly after the Arrow program was cancelled!

Anyway...


----------



## Bograt (8 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> The way you educate the masses is NOT with a very simple, plain....
> 
> Anyway...



I disagree. Simple, plain.. it works. Long diatribes with statitics and graphs are immediately tunned out. Emotional pleas are quickly replaced by the new flavour of month.

One of the reasons why Kerry lost in the recently election was because of his lable of "flip flopper." Short, plain and simple. People can related to short messages. Thats why I'll end this retort now.


----------



## bossi (8 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> The way you educate the masses is NOT with a very simple, plain and boring statement like "Just say it's a matter of self respect".. We'll get lip service, which is what the CF has been getting since... Umm. Geee... Lemme think... 1960, shortly after the Arrow program was cancelled!



"Boring" - No.  Plain, as in "short and sweet" .... Yes.
Recruiting slogans are where it all starts:
1.  "Nobody wants to fight, but somebody needs to know how"
2.  "It's not a job - It's an adventure"
3.  "The Few, The Proud ..."
4.  "Aim High ..."

All are much better than "Join now and you'll receive a free briefcase plus dental benefits and a pension ...".
The Canadian Army motto says it best:  "We Stand On Guard (for thee)".


----------



## JBP (8 Nov 2004)

> "Boring" - No.  Plain, as in "short and sweet" .... Yes.
> Recruiting slogans are where it all starts:
> 1.  "Nobody wants to fight, but somebody needs to know how"
> 2.  "It's not a job - It's an adventure"
> ...



You see, the recruiting motto's are short I agree, but they at least sound somewhat intriguing or fun. It's not a job - It's an adventure! Not... "Blah blah blah.."...

How is "matter of self respect" suppose to motivate people to want to spend money on the military, really... I mean c'mon, our soldiers dying because of garbage equipment and people still don't care. I don't see any public outcry to help our soldiers, do you? Gee, where was it on the news that there were public protests to increase our military spending and the slow/stop the degredation of our forces? Ummm, that's right. There weren't any protests about it. But you can bet your butt there would be protests for just about anything else related to taxes or healthcare... 

Anyway, I do see both your points about slogans, motto's etc. Just don't think any of that will cut it for increased spending since it hasn't for the last 20-30 years realistically. We can talk all we want about what will catch people's attention or not but the facts speak for themselves!

All I know for sure is that when I am sworn in, I will do my best with what I am given and listen to my superior officers and NCM's to the best of my ability. Hopefully if every new guy does this, we'll still keep our exceptional fighting force regardless of what happens over the course of the next 10 yrs or so...

Joe


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Nov 2004)

"I AM CANADIAN!!"


----------



## Acorn (9 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> You see, the recruiting motto's are short I agree, but they at least sound somewhat intriguing or fun. It's not a job - It's an adventure! Not... "Blah blah blah.."...
> 
> How is "matter of self respect" suppose to motivate people to want to spend money on the military, really... I mean c'mon, our soldiers dying because of garbage equipment and people still don't care. I don't see any public outcry to help our soldiers, do you? Gee, where was it on the news that there were public protests to increase our military spending and the slow/stop the degredation of our forces? Ummm, that's right. There weren't any protests about it. But you can bet your butt there would be protests for just about anything else related to taxes or healthcare...
> 
> ...



Point one: soldiers are not "dying because of garbage equipment." That's the media line, and it may serve to our benefit for a while, but it's not true. 
Point two, the one a_majoor made, and you missed: the "people" are best informed by an executive summary and a simple explanation. It works for General Officers, and it works for the common man. Give him a concept that is easy to understand, and show some leadership in achieving it, and he will happily hang his hat on it(or pay his taxes for it). Look at health care - the most propagandized concept in Canadian history, and a complete Potemkin Village. Half the effort that has been put into making health care the definition of being Canadian would have given us a military without peer for our size.

We have been spinning the "peacekeeping" myth for so long it has become second nature for the Canadian people to refer to soldiers as "peacekeepers." Some of us soldiers have even bought that handful of magic beans. I would offer that "Peacekeeping" as we understand it, is a blip in our history. But I digress.

Back to simplicity, I think "a matter of self respect" is simple, to the point and with good leadership, it would resonate with the Canadian people. It's not a recruiting slogan, but one to get the people behind the effort to fund, man and equip the CF to a level commensurate with our size and wealth. We have a choice: we han be a huge Luxembourg, or an enormous Netherlands.

Joe, I detect in your posts to this topic a certain disdain for the "flat-faced civvy." Get over it. The average citizen doens't know much about what you do, but that doesn't mean he deserves your disrespect. Your rants may produce nods of agreement from some of the Army.ca folks, but they'll just produce a "get stuffed" from the politicians and people we are obliged to serve. Note that last bit: WE are OBLIGED to SERVE.

Acorn


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2004)

Acorn, you made mention of the Netherlands as a potential benchmark.  Maybe that could be coupled with "its a matter of self respect" as the theme for a campaign.

A similar strategy worked years ago.  The older members on this board will no doubt remember the 70 year old Swede.

In the 70's the government wanted to get Canadian's more active and launched the Participaction campaign.  The hook was that Canadians weren't as fit as the average 70 year old Swede.  It was an effective campaign and ran for about 10 years if I remember rightly.  My wife is just reminding me that there were also twinning programmes between Canadian and Swedish cities.  

A similar Canadian/Dutch twinning would be a natural.  The Dutch could teach Canadians why the Dutch are so appreciative of what our veterans did for them and why they still feel that a solid military presence is necessary.

Och, now the whisky's talking.

Cheers.


----------



## bossi (9 Nov 2004)

Under the heading of "Wonders Never Cease" ...
The PM's spin doctors have apparently advised him to step up to the plate and say something, as opposed to ignoring it and hoping it will go away ...
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...037&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037

PM accepts some blame for underfunded military
FROM CANADIAN PRESS, Nov. 8, 2004. 07:45 PM 


CFB VALCARTIER, Que. â â€ Prime Minister Paul Martin took some of the blame for the underfunded state of Canada's military today as he visited with troops near Quebec City.

Martin had just finished lunch with a group of soldiers at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier when he promised to invest more money in troops and equipment.

"We have to turn around our dwindling investment which, I admit, I have a certain responsibility for causing," said Martin, who was finance minister in the 1990s when the military's budget was cut and troop levels dropped. 

"Your superiors here are just too polite to say it," he added, causing scattered laughter among the soldiers.

On several occasions this fall, Martin has promised to boost military spending but hasn't offered details. 

Today, Martin repeated old commitments to buy helicopters, supply ships and mobile gun systems and enlist 5,000 new soldiers for the Canadian Forces and 3,000 extra reservists.

During Martin's term as finance minister, the defence budget fell by 23 per cent between 1993 and 1998 followed by small increases through 2001, according to a parliamentary report. 

"It's been 20 years that Canada has not invested enough into our military capacity," Martin said. "It's not a question of political parties, it was the same thing with the two governments that preceded me."

Martin made sweeping promises to fight terrorism and poverty and boost security in trouble spots around the world, saying troops like the soldiers at Valcartier will play a vital role.

The prime minister will head to Haiti on Sunday to remind world leaders of the island nation's need for assistance. The visit comes near the end of a year that has seen Haiti racked by political chaos and natural disaster.

"Canada has an important responsibility, and I want to see what is going on and to meet with Haitian leaders," Martin said.

Five hundred Canadian soldiers were deployed to the island from March until August to help calm unrest after Jean-Bertrand Aristide was deposed as president. Canada now has 100 police in Haiti.

Canada has promised $20 million in humanitarian aid to Haiti and another $180 million over two years for reconstruction and development.

Martin said Canada also has a responsibility to help keep peace and protect refugees in strife-torn countries in Africa. 

Canada has spent $20 million to train and equip African peacekeepers for the Darfur region of Sudan, where civil war has killed 70,000 people since March.

"The Africans have said they want to put together the peacekeeping forces," Martin said. 

"They feel in terms of understanding the culture of Africa, peacekeepers should come from Africa. I have said we understand that, but we feel countries like Canada can make a great contribution like training the trainers."


----------



## armyrules (9 Nov 2004)

I just think that the government uses the military or gives them recognition when it suits them or when it makes them look good in a situation


----------



## Acorn (9 Nov 2004)

I am a 42 year-old canadian in the body of a 70 year-old Swede.

I remember the Participaction adverts.

Acorn


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2004)

I think I'd rather be a 70 year old in the body of a 42 year old Swede...


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2004)

What's her name?


----------

