Author Topic: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy  (Read 75771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,308
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #50 on: October 22, 2015, 11:28:51 »
I agree, if this comes to pass, we, in the navy are euchered.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1318027-rumoured-top-pick-for-defence-minister-could-be-bad-news-for-halifax

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

Wow, just F***ing wow. :facepalm:

Offline Jed

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 42,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 980
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #51 on: October 22, 2015, 11:35:12 »
DND - Canada's catspaw.

A 20 Billion Dollar Slush Fund where the government can hide funds in plain sight and find a spare billion or so any time it feels like it.

Its high profile diverts attention from the rest of the 300 Billion Dollars the government spends. 

It can use you and abuse you.

The money can be diverted to the environment, industrial support, bilingualism and biculturalism, healthcare (what else is SAR but an emergency ambulance service?) and all manner of social programs.  Occasionally it is used to further foreign relations.  And every now and then it is raided directly to fund Other Government Departments whose need is greater than yours.

Burning ammunition is an unnecessary waste of the Government's money.

Buttons and bows for all and saluting anvils to be issued.

 :goodpost:
As the old man used to say: " I used to be a coyote, but I'm alright nooooOOOOWWW!"

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 46,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 540
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2015, 11:36:05 »
So, I'll say it again: does the cost of expeditionary air make it worthwhile?  That is a question only the nation can answer, and the government represents the nation, for better or worse.

The question is are the full and real costs and values being clearly communicated to the people in government making that decision?  If the only cost they are being presented is the price tag on a particular aircraft vs. a very general "capability" (i.e "we need a fighter jet to protect our airspace and drop bombs on bad guys when we need to"), then don't be surprised when the government chooses the cheapest option.

Who is standing up and telling the government decision makers that these are the specific capabilities we need and why they are important?  Even more critically, who is standing up and saying to them WAIT.  Don't make ANY decisions on what planes/ships/trucks/guns to buy until you provide us with a new Defence White Paper (and not just a shopping list like the CFDS...something that provides real expectations of what capabilities the government needs the CF to be able to provide the country). And make it clear to them what the costs and risks potentially result from their decisions.



 

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,779
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #53 on: October 22, 2015, 11:40:50 »
I agree, if this comes to pass, we, in the navy are euchered.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1318027-rumoured-top-pick-for-defence-minister-could-be-bad-news-for-halifax

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

Completely agree with Jollyjacktar, and other critics of the Leslie Transformation report.

The single most important problem with that report IMHO is that Leslie wrote it singly from his narrow Army perspective, without any strategic understanding of the Canadian defence needs.

The national defence strategic perspective is that you build your defences from the inside out. In order of importance for Canada: (1) Defence of the National territory; (2) defence of the North-American Continent; (3) Fulfillment of our defence treaty obligations (Nato); and (4) Any other international commitment that we may see fit to undertake.

Now, wether we like it or not, (1) and (2) are Navy/Air Force dependant because Canada, and North-America, is an "Island" in terms of defence. Other than the Americans, nobody is coming over on foot or driving tanks/APCs. That means we must have a strong Navy and a Strong Air Force*. I am sorry to have to say this guys, but the Permanent Army of Canada is for the purposes of (3) and (4) only, which means it is expeditionary in nature, not a "defence" force primarily, the way continental European armies are, for instance. Leslie's report was trying to concentrate everything on supporting this Army function to the detriment of the other two - which for our own national defence needs would have been a disaster. Not surprisingly, his report was shelved.

* : I know that critics out there often harp on the fact that Canada's forces are "unbalanced" because we have a smaller Army than Air Force. But, in the Canadian context, I submit that this ought to be the case. First of all, only the Air Force can effect the surveillance and defence of our incredibly large and empty territory. Second of all, the most likely threat to this territory is from the air or from the sea. When it comes to the sea, today's navies (including Canada's) cannot operate without the support of the Air Force, again both in surveillance and strike modes. Finally, as our Army is expeditionary in nature, it needs the Air Force's strategic and tactical transport assistance, and in some cases its strike capability.When you add all that, you have a large Air Force, by necessity.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,308
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #54 on: October 22, 2015, 12:01:44 »
Completely agree with Jollyjacktar, and other critics of the Leslie Transformation report.

The single most important problem with that report IMHO is that Leslie wrote it singly from his narrow Army perspective, without any strategic understanding of the Canadian defence needs.

The national defence strategic perspective is that you build your defences from the inside out. In order of importance for Canada: (1) Defence of the National territory; (2) defence of the North-American Continent; (3) Fulfillment of our defence treaty obligations (Nato); and (4) Any other international commitment that we may see fit to undertake.

Now, wether we like it or not, (1) and (2) are Navy/Air Force dependant because Canada, and North-America, is an "Island" in terms of defence. Other than the Americans, nobody is coming over on foot or driving tanks/APCs. That means we must have a strong Navy and a Strong Air Force*. I am sorry to have to say this guys, but the Permanent Army of Canada is for the purposes of (3) and (4) only, which means it is expeditionary in nature, not a "defence" force primarily, the way continental European armies are, for instance. Leslie's report was trying to concentrate everything on supporting this Army function to the detriment of the other two - which for our own national defence needs would have been a disaster. Not surprisingly, his report was shelved.

* : I know that critics out there often harp on the fact that Canada's forces are "unbalanced" because we have a smaller Army than Air Force. But, in the Canadian context, I submit that this ought to be the case. First of all, only the Air Force can effect the surveillance and defence of our incredibly large and empty territory. Second of all, the most likely threat to this territory is from the air or from the sea. When it comes to the sea, today's navies (including Canada's) cannot operate without the support of the Air Force, again both in surveillance and strike modes. Finally, as our Army is expeditionary in nature, it needs the Air Force's strategic and tactical transport assistance, and in some cases its strike capability.When you add all that, you have a large Air Force, by necessity.

 :goodpost:

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 404,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,375
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #55 on: October 22, 2015, 12:06:32 »
.... who is standing up and saying to them WAIT.  Don't make ANY decisions on what planes/ships/trucks/guns to buy until you provide us with a new Defence White Paper (and not just a shopping list like the CFDS...something that provides real expectations of what capabilities the government needs the CF to be able to provide the country). And make it clear to them what the costs and risks potentially result from their decisions.
Short answer:  nobody.

Gotta know what you want your military to do before figuring out how it's going to do it and what it needs to do it.  But that's just me, a fat old civilian fart talking ....
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,831
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #56 on: October 22, 2015, 12:09:00 »
Completely agree with Jollyjacktar, and other critics of the Leslie Transformation report.

The single most important problem with that report IMHO is that Leslie wrote it singly from his narrow Army perspective, without any strategic understanding of the Canadian defence needs.

The national defence strategic perspective is that you build your defences from the inside out. In order of importance for Canada: (1) Defence of the National territory; (2) defence of the North-American Continent; (3) Fulfillment of our defence treaty obligations (Nato); and (4) Any other international commitment that we may see fit to undertake.

Now, wether we like it or not, (1) and (2) are Navy/Air Force dependant because Canada, and North-America, is an "Island" in terms of defence. Other than the Americans, nobody is coming over on foot or driving tanks/APCs. That means we must have a strong Navy and a Strong Air Force*. I am sorry to have to say this guys, but the Permanent Army of Canada is for the purposes of (3) and (4) only, which means it is expeditionary in nature, not a "defence" force primarily, the way continental European armies are, for instance. Leslie's report was trying to concentrate everything on supporting this Army function to the detriment of the other two - which for our own national defence needs would have been a disaster. Not surprisingly, his report was shelved.

* : I know that critics out there often harp on the fact that Canada's forces are "unbalanced" because we have a smaller Army than Air Force. But, in the Canadian context, I submit that this ought to be the case. First of all, only the Air Force can effect the surveillance and defence of our incredibly large and empty territory. Second of all, the most likely threat to this territory is from the air or from the sea. When it comes to the sea, today's navies (including Canada's) cannot operate without the support of the Air Force, again both in surveillance and strike modes. Finally, as our Army is expeditionary in nature, it needs the Air Force's strategic and tactical transport assistance, and in some cases its strike capability.When you add all that, you have a large Air Force, by necessity.

It doesn't happen often OGBD - but I can't agree with you more.  Emphasis added.

Edit - with this note:  The Army as it is constructed.  The Army that meets the requirements of Lines 1 and 2 is Light, Dispersable and Adaptive - and still intimately tied to the Air Force.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2015, 12:13:05 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,205
  • Freespeecher
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #57 on: October 22, 2015, 12:24:59 »
Can Canada stay in the "Network game" with it's Auroras or even a new non-fighter aircraft?

While it is possible to do so in something like an Aurora, due to the amount of room inside, consider why the USAF is so desperate for the F-35: centralized network nodes like the AWACS are extremely vulnerable. A shoot down would be a disaster, but even a simple failure of electronics would cripple the entire system. A "mesh network" of distributed nodes (which is what a squadron of F-35's actually is, the routers are packaged inside supersonic jets) can cover a larger area, has fewer single point of failure nodes and can gracefully degrade as planes are lost, damaged or suffer electronic or mechanical breakdowns.

Having high performance aircraft as the nodes also gives much more flexibility; imagine a USAF strike package in 2025: there will be dozens of UCAV's carrying munitions and countermeasures with some F-35's hidden somewhere in the flock. Even if the enemy were to somehow burn through the layers of UCAV's, there are still full on jet fighters waiting inside capable of fighting and carrying on the mission on their own. A repurposed C-130 or Challenger full of electronics will not have these capabilities (and it is questionable they would have the performance to keep up with the UCAV flock anyway).

Much like the EH 101 debacle of the 1990's, the CF will lose or never gain critical capabilities that will be employed for decades to come in the pursuit of very short term partisan advantage. This analysis also does not include the industrial or political benefits of having a high tech aerospace industry making cutting edge equipment or being able to back words with actions in the international arena.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,114
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,129
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #58 on: October 22, 2015, 13:05:09 »
While it is possible to do so in something like an Aurora, due to the amount of room inside, consider why the USAF is so desperate for the F-35: centralized network nodes like the AWACS are extremely vulnerable. A shoot down would be a disaster, but even a simple failure of electronics would cripple the entire system. A "mesh network" of distributed nodes (which is what a squadron of F-35's actually is, the routers are packaged inside supersonic jets) can cover a larger area, has fewer single point of failure nodes and can gracefully degrade as planes are lost, damaged or suffer electronic or mechanical breakdowns.

Having high performance aircraft as the nodes also gives much more flexibility; imagine a USAF strike package in 2025: there will be dozens of UCAV's carrying munitions and countermeasures with some F-35's hidden somewhere in the flock. Even if the enemy were to somehow burn through the layers of UCAV's, there are still full on jet fighters waiting inside capable of fighting and carrying on the mission on their own. A repurposed C-130 or Challenger full of electronics will not have these capabilities (and it is questionable they would have the performance to keep up with the UCAV flock anyway).

Much like the EH 101 debacle of the 1990's, the CF will lose or never gain critical capabilities that will be employed for decades to come in the pursuit of very short term partisan advantage. This analysis also does not include the industrial or political benefits of having a high tech aerospace industry making cutting edge equipment or being able to back words with actions in the international arena.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, you are in fact very informative and you're doing a great job explaining the complexity of this to this simple green guy.

However,  with the way you are describing the F35 reminds me of how it was selected in the first place. The list of criteria that you seem to be talking about only seem to be contained in one plane.

It seem to me that it's unlikely that there isn't at least one suitable alternative to this aircraft,no? None that come even close to offering what you're talking about in the F35?  I'm no SME, naturally, but to my knowledge Europe is no technological laggard, their jets should have some sort of redeeming factors, no?
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 209,777
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,583
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #59 on: October 22, 2015, 13:20:38 »
Short answer:  nobody.

Gotta know what you want your military to do before figuring out how it's going to do it and what it needs to do it.  But that's just me, a fat old civilian fart talking ....

We've lost our way. No one is giving us direction, and when that happens, people will make up their own direction, whether or not it's good for the country or CAF.

Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,422
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #60 on: October 22, 2015, 13:35:16 »
While it is possible to do so in something like an Aurora, due to the amount of room inside, consider why the USAF is so desperate for the F-35: centralized network nodes like the AWACS are extremely vulnerable. A shoot down would be a disaster, but even a simple failure of electronics would cripple the entire system. A "mesh network" of distributed nodes (which is what a squadron of F-35's actually is, the routers are packaged inside supersonic jets) can cover a larger area, has fewer single point of failure nodes and can gracefully degrade as planes are lost, damaged or suffer electronic or mechanical breakdowns.

Having high performance aircraft as the nodes also gives much more flexibility; imagine a USAF strike package in 2025: there will be dozens of UCAV's carrying munitions and countermeasures with some F-35's hidden somewhere in the flock. Even if the enemy were to somehow burn through the layers of UCAV's, there are still full on jet fighters waiting inside capable of fighting and carrying on the mission on their own. A repurposed C-130 or Challenger full of electronics will not have these capabilities (and it is questionable they would have the performance to keep up with the UCAV flock anyway).

Much like the EH 101 debacle of the 1990's, the CF will lose or never gain critical capabilities that will be employed for decades to come in the pursuit of very short term partisan advantage. This analysis also does not include the industrial or political benefits of having a high tech aerospace industry making cutting edge equipment or being able to back words with actions in the international arena.

 :goodpost:  My  :2c: is a simple addition;  "don't put all your eggs in one basket".
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Online YZT580

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 488
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #61 on: October 22, 2015, 14:00:30 »
Altair, I am not particularly an F35 fan as my posting record will attest.  I personally believe that a mixed fleet, with proper air to air squadrons are what is needed to defend our very large and almost empty country.  But they need guidance and the best aircraft to do that is probably the 35.  Mix a few of them in to direct the others and you have a very potent weapon. 

But we stand to lose a lot if we back out of the consortium.  We will lose business and investment and we will more importantly lose a very vital strategic capability.  Printed below is a statement by Bogdan reference our pending withdrawal.  When you read between the lines it bodes ill for our manufacturing sector and no temporary factory to build Eurofighters will compensate for the cash and no-how that we WILL lose.  Sorry it isn't in one of those posted and attested box things but those skills are outside of my current capabilities.  The article was posted in Defense News this a.m.

On Capitol Hill today, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, JPO chief, said the remaining international partners would see a million-dollar increase in price per plane if Canada pulls out of the program. That country had planned to buy 65 F-35s.

“If any partner, or any service, moves airplanes to the right, takes airplanes out, the price of the airplane for all the other partners and all the other services goes up,” Bogdan told the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces on Wednesday.  “We have estimated the increase in price is 0.7 to 1 percent [or] about a million dollars a copy for everybody else.”

If Canada pulls its F-35 buy, there would be no impact to the development program, which ends in 2017, Bogdan stressed.  However, the international partners would be forced to absorb Canada’s 2.1 percent share in the cost of future sustainment and follow-on modernization, he said.

One unanswered question: If Canada pulls out of the F-35 program, what happens to the Canadian supply base, which has spent millions to help develop technology and components for the plane?

Bogdan said the JPO does not have a “set rule” to deal with this scenario, but said the international and industry partners should have a “discussion” about what to do with the Canadian companies building parts for the F-35.

“We do not have a set rule as to what happens to that industrial participation if a partner reduces airplanes, adds airplanes or leaves the program,” Bogdan said. “But it is my opinion that the remaining partners and our industry partners are going to have a discussion about what to do with all of the industry in Canada that is building parts for the airplane.”

However, Bogdan stressed that the JPO has not received any notification that Canada is prepared to pull out of the program.

Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau does not become prime minister until Nov. 4 and details about how he will proceed with the withdrawal from the F-35 program are still unclear. Asked about the impact on Canadian firms now building components for the F-35, a Liberal spokesman pointed to the party’s election platform that argues such companies could earn more work from an open competition for Canada's fighter jet replacement. That platform noted that under the F-35 program Canadian firms are not guaranteed work but under a Canadian-run competition they would be.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,965
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #62 on: October 22, 2015, 14:51:19 »
It seem to me that it's unlikely that there isn't at least one suitable alternative to this aircraft,no? None that come even close to offering what you're talking about in the F35?  I'm no SME, naturally, but to my knowledge Europe is no technological laggard, their jets should have some sort of redeeming factors, no?

The Gripen NG, Rafale, Typhoon, even Super Hornet etc weren't built to be "servers in supersonic jets", as was mentioned.  They were also all designed in the 80s-90s, when technology and what could be done with a fighter-bomber was much more limited than now.

A simplified analogy would be like calling the F-35 an iPhone (or similar) and the rest early 2000s flip phones.  You can make calls with both, but you can only do Internet Banking (or check Facebook) with one of them.  Now imagine if all of your friends only communicated through Facebook - you'd be left out of the loop.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Rick Goebel

  • Donor
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 21,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 93
    • http://www.ducimus.com
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #63 on: October 22, 2015, 15:23:41 »
The Promoting International Peace and Security section of the Liberal platform document REALCHANGE says:

"We will recommit to supporting international peace operations with the United Nations, and will make our specialized capabilities – from mobile medical teams to engineering support to aircraft that can carry supplies and personnel – available on a case-by-case basis.

To help the UN respond more quickly to emerging and escalating conflicts, we will provide well-trained personnel that can be quickly deployed, including mission commanders, staff officers, and headquarters units."

Looks like an emphasis on support functions with no specific mention of Canadian pointy end contributions.  This would make a degree of sense since the majority of UN Peacekeeping appears to be concentrating in Africa and there seems to be a worldwide sense that Africans should do the bulk of the in contact work to avoid the appearance of colonialism.
Rick Goebel
Calgary

Offline Jed

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 42,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 980
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #64 on: October 22, 2015, 15:42:37 »
The Promoting International Peace and Security section of the Liberal platform document REALCHANGE says:

"We will recommit to supporting international peace operations with the United Nations, and will make our specialized capabilities – from mobile medical teams to engineering support to aircraft that can carry supplies and personnel – available on a case-by-case basis.

To help the UN respond more quickly to emerging and escalating conflicts, we will provide well-trained personnel that can be quickly deployed, including mission commanders, staff officers, and headquarters units."

Looks like an emphasis on support functions with no specific mention of Canadian pointy end contributions.  This would make a degree of sense since the majority of UN Peacekeeping appears to be concentrating in Africa and there seems to be a worldwide sense that Africans should do the bulk of the in contact work to avoid the appearance of colonialism.

That's all well and good but who is going to secure our own Canadian assets when we get deployed to all the world's cesspools? Be prepared for a bunch of Romeo Dallaire or Medak Pocket reruns as the blue helmets go in with target indicators on their back and BS Rules of Engagement or their security forces sourced from 3rd world nations.
As the old man used to say: " I used to be a coyote, but I'm alright nooooOOOOWWW!"

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,965
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #65 on: October 22, 2015, 15:58:31 »
That's all well and good but who is going to secure our own Canadian assets when we get deployed to all the world's cesspools? Be prepared for a bunch of Romeo Dallaire or Medak Pocket reruns as the blue helmets go in with target indicators on their back and BS Rules of Engagement or their security forces sourced from 3rd world nations.

The silver lining (if that term can be applied at all) is that in this age of social media and 24/7 news coverage, something like the Medak Pocket will probably blow up on Twitter if Canadian military members are injured/killed, with the inevitable tough questions on Question Period and the like. 

It's a lot harder to hide/quash things these days.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,415
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #66 on: October 22, 2015, 16:25:04 »
The silver lining (if that term can be applied at all) is that in this age of social media and 24/7 news coverage, something like the Medak Pocket will probably blow up on Twitter if Canadian military members are injured/killed, with the inevitable tough questions on Question Period and the like. 

It's a lot harder to hide/quash things these days.

That won't be much comfort to those actually in theatre, but the point is there, social media will play a big role, not to mention a over zealous media presence would ensure everything is known.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,073
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #67 on: October 22, 2015, 17:07:56 »
The Promoting International Peace and Security section of the Liberal platform document REALCHANGE says:

"We will recommit to supporting international peace operations with the United Nations, and will make our specialized capabilities – from mobile medical teams to engineering support to aircraft that can carry supplies and personnel – available on a case-by-case basis.

To help the UN respond more quickly to emerging and escalating conflicts, we will provide well-trained personnel that can be quickly deployed, including mission commanders, staff officers, and headquarters units."

Looks like an emphasis on support functions with no specific mention of Canadian pointy end contributions.  This would make a degree of sense since the majority of UN Peacekeeping appears to be concentrating in Africa and there seems to be a worldwide sense that Africans should do the bulk of the in contact work to avoid the appearance of colonialism.


This has been alluded to in this and other threads, but a case can be made for the Liberal position:

     First: Canada, like almost every other nation, has a small handful of obvious national security objectives ~

          1. Assert and protect it's own sovereignty,

          2. Promote and protect its vital interests in the world by, inter alia, promoting and protecting international peace and security (preventing but, if that's impossible, helping to resolve conflicts), and

          3. Addressing situations likely to result in conflict before real conflict occurs.

     Second: Canada, like some other nations, has a small but important coterie of firm, traditional allies: America, Australia, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway. These are nations which have stood with us,
     through even some desperate times, which (unlike France) have never tried to drive wedges into our body politic, and which (unlike, say, Poland) have never turned their back on the liberal West. Those allies expect us to do a
     fair share of the heavy lifting in the global security business, but not all of it. Our allies do not expect us to be "on side" with all of them on every single issue, but if we are "off side" with too many of them on too many issues then we
     should re-evaluate our positions.

     Third: the main force we want to use in defending our sovereignty and promoting our vital interests and in securing international peace is diplomacy, but we understand that diplomacy (soft power) only works when
     it is backed by a sufficiency of (but just enough) hard power which we have proved willing and able to use.

The military component for the assertion and protection of our sovereignty is, mainly, a Navy and RCAF task. Promoting and protecting our vital interests might involve power projection, the Navy's quintessential role, but it, and securing international peace and security, might also require Canada to deploy expeditionary land and air forces either unilaterally, for low-intensity operations, or in conjunction with allies, for mid-intensity missions.

One can start to develop a list of military capabilities from the above ...
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,459
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #68 on: October 22, 2015, 20:25:10 »
Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,308
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #69 on: October 22, 2015, 22:06:41 »
Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)

Do not know. I haven't seen Lloyd Axworthy (one of the pushers) on TV to extol its virtues.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,204
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #70 on: October 22, 2015, 22:22:32 »
Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)

Does the Devil wear Prada? I suspect he hasn't been told (as of yet) where he stands on that, unless he somehow thinks it means Really2Pretty.
If Bill Graham somehow ends up to do an advisory turn on the catwalk, yeah on the catwalk, yeah on the catwalk, JT might decide that he's not to sexy for CadPat.
You're right. I Never  Met A Motherfucker Quite Like You, or someone as smart as you.  Never ever will, either.

Offline cavalryman

    Done with the demented bureaucracy.

  • You can't put a pricetag on patriotism
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 32,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #71 on: October 22, 2015, 22:37:20 »
Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)
Search not for enlightenment.  If it is yours to have, it will come.  If it is Justin's to have, he'll not know it passed him by (and that's no muck).   ;D

Offline safetysOff

  • Guest
  • *
  • -1,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #72 on: October 22, 2015, 22:54:58 »
The CF is going to decline with JT as PM unless something big comes up at the international stage, bigger than the middle east stuff going on now.  The CF will become just another portfolio he'll tuck underneath his environment & educational folders/initiatives.  But hey maybe he surprises people


Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,205
  • Freespeecher
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #73 on: October 23, 2015, 00:03:38 »
Is Trudeau a R2P Liberal?  (Genuine question in search of enlightenment, not bitter muck-raking.)

Based on his own words in the years prior to the campaign (one can assume words during the campaign were carefully vetted before being placed in his mouth), his view seems to be essentially the world will be better if we dispense teddy bears and humanitarian aid. Joking about the Russian invasion of Ukraine would indicate a lack of understanding of geopolitics. Thinking that running deficits is a good thing after a year of wall to wall coverage of the Greek debt crisis, or simply viewing the decade long decline of Ontario would indicate not paying attention to events in the real world.

If he is an R2P Liberal, the disconnect between "cause" and "effect" leads me to believe any belief in R2P is more "virtue signalling" than any actual belief in the necessity or effectiveness of R2P in practice. (Anyone who believes that R2P is an actual real world doctrine probably understands the necessity of hard power to secure the ground for any actual protection to take place).
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 209,777
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,583
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy
« Reply #74 on: October 23, 2015, 00:54:15 »
The CF is going to decline with JT as PM unless something big comes up at the international stage, bigger than the middle east stuff going on now.  The CF will become just another portfolio he'll tuck underneath his environment & educational folders/initiatives.  But hey maybe he surprises people

And how would you know this? Inside info?

I'll tell you this, Sunny Jim, the CAF has survived over 100 years with governments like this in charge.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".