# Poor and Rustic: Canada's Army vs. the Screaming Eagles



## blackberet17 (5 Aug 2011)

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2000/2000_06_02_Military_Eagles.html

I checked the search engine, and couldn't find if this had been posted prior. It is from 2000, but struck me. I'd like to see the author conduct a review, and see if his/her opinion has changed.

Now, discuss amongst yourselves


----------



## chrisf (5 Aug 2011)

Not really sure what the authors point even was... comparing the entire Canadian army (which was yes, in a bit of a rut in the 90s) to a single US special forces unit... he started on education, rambled about lack of equipment, then went back to education.


----------



## Container (5 Aug 2011)

anecdotal evidence from three privates at the mess is hardly proof of anything except three privates at the mess hall.

Its sour grapes. I worked with enough American units to know they have faults and strengths and the CF has its own sets. He's just sad he didnt get enough rides in helicopters.

The other "articles" contain lots of assumptions as well. Im not concerned with what they think or suggest at all.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Aug 2011)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Not really sure what the authors point even was... comparing the entire Canadian army (which was yes, in a bit of a rut in the 90s) to a single US special forces unit... he started on education, rambled about lack of equipment, then went back to education.


Terminology: A light infantry division, even if currently focused upon air assault operations, does not equal "special forces."


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Aug 2011)

I briefly scanned this and I have a question:

*Who wrote this crap?*

We exercised with the Hundred and Worst in 1996 and they sucked as soldiers. A college degree does not a good soldier make nor a stupid person a genius.

We went to the NTC in 98 and the Staff Sgt had a college diploma but he wanted to "axe" me a question.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Aug 2011)

This :



> For those unfamiliar with the Global Positioning Satellite revolution, it means that you cannot be lost... ever.



 :rofl:



> (with thermal imagers on Apaches and so many weapon platforms, there is no way to hide).



Ya wanna bet ?


----------



## Container (5 Aug 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We went to the NTC in 98 and the Staff Sgt had a college diploma but he wanted to "axe" me a question.



He was dumbing it down for a Canadian "soldier"  :


----------



## chrisf (5 Aug 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Terminology: A light infantry division, even if currently focused upon air assault operations, does not equal "special forces."



My mistake.

He's still comparing a single unit to an entire army, and not basing it in any real facts.


----------



## Danjanou (6 Aug 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I briefly scanned this and I have a question:
> 
> *Who wrote this crap?*



Probably written by John Thompson a former (?)  Captain in the Toronto Scottish he’s basically the McKenzie Institute
http://www.sources.com/listings/Subscribers/L733.htm

http://jewishstudies.uwaterloo.ca/documents/MemorialLecture.pdf

http://blogs.canoe.ca/canoelive/tag/mackenzie-institute/

http://www.isranet.org/conference2010/SpeakerBios_2010.htm


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (6 Aug 2011)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Probably written by John Thompson a former (?)  Captain in the Toronto Scottish he’s basically the McKenzie Institute



Sweet...that dude looks hard as f*ck.
I'd soldier under him in a heartbeat.

BTW...love the bowtie.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2011)

Really?

Are we getting worked up over something someone said 11 years ago?

Go drink some more beer. It's Friday.


----------



## chrisf (6 Aug 2011)

Hammer Sandwich said:
			
		

> BTW...love the bowtie.



Hey now, be sure to forward your issues with bow ties to this man... or anyone of the other men who were this man...


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Aug 2011)

This sort of attitude used to run through the halls of NDHQ, not least of all in the Land Staff. A year and a bit later, a couple of months after 9/11 I met a friend who had served in J3 Ops. When I suggested our troops would soon be off to Afghanistan, he replied that the Canadian army was incapable of deploying a combat capable unit to the theatre. A few years earlier another friend emphatically stated to me that we must never send troops into combat as somebody could get killed.

Both of these gentlemen, one Inf and one MILE, were in key advisory positions in Gulf 1.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Aug 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> A few years earlier another friend emphatically stated to me that we must never send troops into combat as *somebody could get killed.*



:rofl:


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Aug 2011)

I got an honourable mention in the history of Gulf 1 when I noted the that the casualty estimate for thirty days combat in theatre for a four battle group brigade was higher than the actual toll for the Canadian Corps at Passchendale or 2nd Canadian Corps in Normandy.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (6 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Are we getting worked up over something someone said 11 years ago?
> 
> Go drink some more beer. It's Friday.



ACK.
Completed in spades...(BTW, my wife is pissed...I told her I was just following orders)..I gave her your email address....

Now it's Saturday...and I read the article again, (and sober, BTW).
Still poop.
Still don't care for the fella.

Still don't care for his bowtie, either.

I don't judge his service, I just don't like his article.

I fart in his general directon.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (6 Aug 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> :rofl:


Frig that!!!

That's ludicrous.........I thought the boys 'n Girls were out selling Tim's muffins & Coffee....
(that's what I signed up for, anyways)

Damn recruiters......


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Aug 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This sort of attitude used to run through the halls of NDHQ, not least of all in the Land Staff. A year and a bit later, a couple of months after 9/11 I met a friend who had served in J3 Ops. When I suggested our troops would soon be off to Afghanistan, he replied that the Canadian army was incapable of deploying a combat capable unit to the theatre. A few years earlier another friend emphatically stated to me that we must never send troops into combat as somebody could get killed.
> Both of these gentlemen, one Inf and one MILE, were in key advisory positions in Gulf 1.



No kidding.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> No kidding.




Don't forget that Old Sweat and I served during the (several) decades of darkness, under e.g. Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien. The latter one noted that, with regard to the military, Canadians wanted "Boy Scouts" and that's what he was giving them. The big reason successive Canadian governments loved peacekeeping was that it appeared to buy us a "seat at the table" and to fulfill our international security obligations at a very low cost. Parsimony in defence is a long established tradition and Canadian governments were just treading a well worn path. Only once, in our entire history - short though it may be - have we wanted to be an actor on the world stage, rather than a reactor: 1947-1957; one decade out of 14.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Aug 2011)

Would you put 2001-now in that department as well?


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Would you put 2001-now in that department as well?


I might consider 2005-now as being partway there. In the 1947-1957 era Japan, China and much of Europe were in very bad shape, and Canada filled at least part of the void. Our contribution today has been much more modest than that of sixty years ago both as a manifestation of national resources and as part of the international community.

The national will to play with the big kids ain't there.


----------



## john10 (8 Aug 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I might consider 2005-now as being partway there. In the 1947-1957 era Japan, China and much of Europe were in very bad shape, and Canada filled at least part of the void. Our contribution today has been much more modest than that of sixty years ago both as a manifestation of national resources and as part of the international community.
> 
> The national will to play with the big kids ain't there.


 I agree. We have the 10th largest economy in the world in nominal dollars, but we act as though we're a little country. It's not a lack of resources, it's a lack of will.

What kind of foreign and defence policy would you envision for Canada, if you had to put it in three sentences?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Aug 2011)

I'm going to over three sentences, but mostly with others' words.

I want a Liberal, very BIG L, Liberal, foreign policy as expounded by:

1. Louis St Laurent in the (1947) Grey Lecture (at the University of Toronto):

_“*The Basic Principles*

The first general principle upon which I think we are agreed is that our external policies shall not destroy our unity. No policy can be regarded as wise which divides the people whose effort and resources must put it into effect ...
Second among the ideas which shape our external policy I will place the conception of political liberty. This is an inheritance from both our French and English backgrounds, and through these parent states it has come to us from the whole rich culture of western Europe. It is a patrimony which we ourselves have enlarged by working out on our own soil the transition from colony to free community ...
In the third place respect for the rule of law has become an integral part of our external as of our domestic policy. The supremacy of law in our own political system is so familiar that we are in constant danger of taking it for granted ...

No foreign policy is consistent nor coherent over a period of years unless it is based upon some conception of human values. I know that we live in an age when it is fashionable to speak in terms only of hard realism in the conduct of international affairs. I realize also that at best the practice of any policy is a poor approximation of ideals upon which it may be based. I am sure, however, that in our national life we are continually influenced by the conceptions of good and evil which emerged from Hebrew and Greek civilization and which have been transformed and transmitted through the Christian traditions of the Western World ...
There is a fifth basic principle which I should like also to mention before considering the background of our relations with particular countries. That is willingness to accept international responsibilities. I know that there are many in this country who feel that in the past we have played too small a part in the development of international political organizations. The growth in this country of a sense of political responsibility on an international scale has perhaps been less rapid than some of us would like. It has nevertheless been a perceptible growth: and again and again on the major questions of participation in international organization, both in peace and war, we have taken our decision to be present. If there is one conclusion that our common experience has led us to accept, it is that security for this country lies in the development of a firm structure of international organization.”_
Source: http://www.russilwvong.com/future/stlaurent.html 

AND

2. Paul Martin:

_“*MAKING A DIFFERENCE*

...  the world is changing, quickly and radically, and these changes matter to Canada — not in abstract terms, and not only to students of international relations, but tangibly and to everyone. Our security, our prosperity and our quality of life all stand to be influenced and affected by these global transformations and by the challenges they bring — from the spectre of international terrorism to the threats of virulent disease, climate change and disappearing fish stocks. It is through our foreign policy that Canada must and will act to ensure that we as a nation overcome the trials and embrace the opportunities of the 21st century.

Make no mistake: We are in the midst of a major rebalancing of global power. New nations are rising as military and economic forces. Many established powers are striving to maintain their influence through regional integration and new alliances. In a world of traditional and emerging giants, independent countries like Canada—countries with small populations—risk being swept aside, their influence diminished, their ability to compete hampered. That may sound dramatic, but the stakes are that high. We will have to be smart, focused, agile, creative and dogged in the pursuit of our interests ...

The people of our country have long understood that, as a proud citizen of the world, Canada has global responsibilities. We can’t solve every problem, but we will do what we can to protect others, to raise them up, to make them safe.

Such intentions can be frustrating, for the world does not lack for a supply of grinding poverty, murderous conflict and abject despair. There is only so much that we, as one nation, can accomplish. But that fact must not dissuade us. Instead, it must inspire us—inspire us to rally cooperative action to address major concerns; inspire us to focus on countries and conflicts within which we can truly make a difference; inspire us to keep at it and to follow through, to understand that real progress means not only keeping the peace but doing the hard work of building the systems of health, education and justice that will enable people to grow, to succeed, to thrive ...

Remember: There is no contradiction between Canada doing well and Canada doing good. Canada benefits directly when the world is more secure, more prosperous, more healthy, and more protective of the natural environment. If we are to take our responsibilities seriously to ourselves and the Canadian generations to follow, then we must take our responsibilities to the global community seriously as well, not only with noble sentiment and rhetoric—we must also earn and perhaps re-earn our way. This will take effort and it will take dedication ...

The first duty of government is to protect its citizens. That responsibility today has been complicated by the emergence of new threats: rogue states, failed and fragile states, international criminal syndicates, weapons proliferation, and terrorists prepared to act with no concern for the cost in human lives, including their own ...

... we must be active beyond our borders to protect and promote our values and our interests—security in the face of terrorism and the increasing threat of nuclear proliferation, and our trading relationships with the United States, Mexico and throughout the world. We must advance the concerns of people who seek freedom, stability, democracy and above all, a better life. And while we value multilateralism and know the great good that international cooperation can achieve, we must ultimately be committed to playing a lead role in specific initiatives and, on occasion, to resolving to go it alone. We have the means to help, and so we will. We must.

Canadians want us to promote our international interests vigorously. Canadians know we have to make tough choices to safeguard our freedom and security, our prosperity and quality of life. Canada can make a difference through its foreign policy, through its relationships across the globe. Building on our strengths, adapting to a changing world, we will make a difference.”_
Source: http://merln.ndu.edu/whitepapers/Canada_2005.pdf


I don't want something new, I will settle for what others promised and, now and again, albeit rarely, delivered. (I think those are three of *my* sentences and a bunch from St Laurent and Martin.)


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Aug 2011)

A better subject for discussion would be to compare training.Or discussing how the CF made do during a time of very tight budgets.Comparing a US division to the entire Land Force is a waste of time.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Aug 2011)

I'm sure that you could fit the entire CF into the aircraft assigned to the 101st, but I'm also sure that our box lunches would be tastier...


----------



## john10 (9 Aug 2011)

Thanks a lot for sharing Mr Campbell, those are compelling visions. Do you know specifically what kind of budgetary and other decisions you would make to bring them about?


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Aug 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Thanks a lot for sharing Mr Campbell, those are compelling visions. Do you know specifically what kind of budgetary and other decisions you would make to bring them about?




See here with all its links and references. The two big decisions are:

1. A commitment to building and then maintaining a _Triple A+_ military establishment - 

*A*ppropriate for a nation that is, by any fair measure, one of the world's 'top 10;'
*A*vaialable when and where needed - in other words enough up to strength, 'ready to go' naval, land and air units with adequate transport and logistics for a quick response when necessary;
*A*daptable to a constantly evolving strategic environment; and
The plus
*A*ffordable for a country with a $1.5 Trillion GDP.

2. A defence budget that rises, soon, despite the current situation, to 2.2% of GDP (about $35 Billion in a few years, and then 'hovers' at around 2% of GDP years after year and decade after decade.


----------



## john10 (9 Aug 2011)

Thanks for sharing, fascinating stuff.

You place an emphasis on domestic defence -- do you see this area as critically in need of more resources? What kind of threats do you envision?

Also, what kind of expeditionary missions do you think we should and shouldn't get involved in?

For instance, do you believe in missions that are almost uniquely about preventing mass human rights violations (Libya, Kosovo)?


----------



## blackberet17 (16 Aug 2011)

Going back to a couple of posts, and I won't quote all two or three who touched on the image of Canada's foreign policy (or, in my opinion, lack of a strong - note the strong - and communicated to the Canadian ppl foreign policy), anybody read Granatstein's Whose War is it? I read it over the Christmas break.

Although published in 2007, and with the number of Cdn KIA's in Afghanistan to date in his mind at the time of writing (although there is a reference/comparison to the cas #'s from the FWW and SWW, if I remember correctly), Granatstein's statements on the lack of a strong foreign policy in Canadaare frighteningly still relevant today.

Granatstein's further "analysis" of Canadians' (gen pop) image of Canada as a "peacekeeping" nation was equally bang on. If I must explain, Canada is not a nation of peacekeeping. We willingly took up the fight in both World Wars and Korea, and THEN found a role the politicians of the day believed their electorate would be comfortable with.

Dare I bring up the fright some Canadians have of Harper's "militarization" of Canada, just because he had a Cdn soldier - gasp, in uniform! - at a New Canadian ceremony?

Oye vey.


----------

