Call the troops home – Senate committee

[ninty9]

Call the troops home – Senate committee
Last Updated Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:51:56
OTTAWA - Canada should give the military $4 billion immediately and cancel all overseas duty for two years, a Senate committee said on Tuesday.

The recommendations are contained in a report released by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence called "A View from the Bottom Up."

The committee admits that pulling out of international missions would stretch Canada‘s credibility in the short term.

"However, the Committee is convinced that Canada‘s contribution to these relationships has become so marginal that it is time to take drastic action to replenish our capacity to play a useful role," the report said.

In recommending a withdrawal from overseas duty for two years, it says the military can stave off disintegration.
The entire military structure needs to be overhauled, the report says, and a 24-month break from overseas duty would allow that to happen.


Colin Kenny

Bringing the troops home could over the next six months as the current tours come to an end, Senator Colin Kenny told a news conference in Ottawa.

With no new missions after that, the withdrawal amounts to a 30-month moratorium on overseas missions.

"The idea that we‘re taking a positive step to regroup and refocus, I think would be well received by our allies, provided the funding comes and provided the Armed Forces come out a the end of the 30-month pause in better shape," Kenny said.

The report identifies crises in three areas:

Personnel
too few people, too little training
Operations
not enough money for operations, maintenance, infrastructure
Capital equipment
"Canada‘s antique road show"
A $4-billion injection into the military budget would cost every Canadian $130, the committee said.
"We know the first thing that has to be dealt with is solving the funding problem," said Kenny.

"Canadians clearly spend more to insure their vehicles, to insure their homes," said Kenny. "We see some analogy insuring your country."

Even with that increase, Canada wouldn‘t be considered a big spender in defence terms. Sen. Mike Forrestall noted, "It would bring Canada to the level of Portugal‘s contribution."

After visiting 15 bases across the country, the senators are calling for an increase of military personnel from its current level of 52,000 to 75,000.

A spokesman for Defence Minister John McCallum said a moratorium on overseas missions is not being considered by the department.

McCallum is in Europe preparing for upcoming NATO meetings. A spokesman said the committee recommendations will be useful when the minister goes to cabinet to ask for more money.

Very intriguing.

I‘d like to hear the vets opinions on the situation.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/12/senate_military021112

 

[portcullisguy]

In a very strange way, this makes complete sense.

Instead of allowing the CF to slowly collapse under mismanagement, bad politics, and under-funding, why not cut your losses, inject some cash, and reorganize?

Clearly, the day is not long off when we will be faced with oen of two choices, as a country:

- To have no standing army, and only a mere security force, in place in the event of natural disaster, domestic insecurity, aid to civil power, etc.
- To restore funding and promote the military, attract new people of a wide cross-section of Canada‘s population, and maintain that funding until the CF is able to get back into the thick of things

It would be a shame to throw away our army, it‘s a great resource, and it‘s our last word in sovereignty (although to be honest, I can‘t see us fending off invading forces of any significant size without serious help). The Senate‘s option seems to make sense to me. But this is a relatively naive outsider‘s view, and it‘s possible I am missing the mark.

I‘d like to know what people think too. Would two years off from overseas ops kill our effectiveness? WOuld people leave in droves? Even if we do get refunding, can we possibly save the CF? Does the CF even need to be saved?

 

[Gunner]

Why does it "make sense"? The army is suffering from Bosnia fatigue but it is still capable, and willing, to serve where the country asks it to. The type of reorganization that will fix the problems in the CF will take more than just bringing soldiers home. Moreover, how the *$&$ are you going to reequip the CF over the span of two years? Stupid solutions for a systemic problem.

 

[Harry]

Roger your last, Gunner.

Why not take a situation that is bad and just absolutely capitulate it.

Our age old pendulum is swinging hard these days with no sign of stopping in the middle anytime soon.

 

[sgt.shmedly102]

Saw a report where a Canadian Senator said there‘s no chance Canada could send troops to a war in Iraq for all the reasons that they want to pull the troops home. Here‘s an idea: Canada send soldiers (OPCONed to an American command as in Afghanistan), and we supply and support them. Heck, we can even issue them desert unifroms so they don‘t have to run around the sandbox in green. Given that the main hurdle to Canada sending troops anywhere is her inability to transport/support them, why not let us take care of it?

 

[humint]

To be honest, I think the senator‘s suggestion that Canada pull its forces from overseas duties was merely a political tactic to encourage public support of the military and force the fed gov. to increase defence spending -- the timing of the report, etc., seems to indicate this -- and I am, of course, in full agreement.

I really don‘t think the senator, nor any astute politician in Ottawa, would really consider such a pull-out as either viable or responsible -- certainly not responsible on the political level in both the national and international arenas.

By this I mean that Canada has made a commitment to the UN and other peacekeeping missions, and I can‘t really see us dropping those in order to re-structure and re-organise. We might only offer a so-called token force (at least in the eyes of some Americans), but that force has a real and significant impact on both the ops/missions that we are involved in and the world as a whole. The impact, both real (i.e. security, humanitarian, etc) and political, of Canada‘s contribution should not be underestimated.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I hope you‘re right humint, and I‘m glad someone else feels the same way. What the Senators are proposing can‘t be done - but it damn well needed to be said anyway.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just a gut feel, but I don‘t think you‘ll see us pull out of Bosnia until there‘s another ongoing mission to take it‘s place. The politicos recieve too much press and kudos having us on mission. The state of our military is not their concern, PR on the world stage is. Canada not on peacekeeping? Won‘t happen during this, or likely the next gov‘ts mandate.

 

[Korus]

I personally wouldn‘t mind the $4 billion budget increase they recomended..

 

[portcullisguy]

From what I read, a $4 Billion increase will only put us on the same level as Portugal, in terms of defence spending as a percentage of GDP. Not that we couldn‘t use the money, but it‘s really quite sad to think that it will only bring us up to that level.

This Rememberance Day people wore poppies in droves. But I think there is still the attitude, on the part of the public, that, "well, sure it‘s nice to have a military, but I don‘t wanna join and heck, they shouldn‘t go anyplace dangerous anyway". The whole Liberal "the army are our boy scouts" attitude.

For me, already contibuting through my civilian job guarding the border, wearing a poppy and writing my MP just isnt‘ enough. So I joined the reserves.

As to the two year hiatus: If it will work, great. My original point is that anything that can be done to fix what needs fixing should be done. However, everyone seems to disagree that such a move is necessary, or called for. I‘ve also read about the potential negative impact on morale (can it go any lower anyway, though?). So be it. I value the opinion of most of the others here and recognize that they are more experienced and better versed in this issues than I am. Perhaps a two year hiatus is a death sentence, politically and in reality.

If the Senate is right in that without taking the time off to fix the problems, there will be no military anyway, then perhaps there is some credibility to their view. If taking two years off would reduce morale so much everyone will leave in any event, then the same result occurs and the option is no better.

I guess the real answer is to vote someone into Parliament who will throw money at the CF and get it working again. I am generally of the view that money alone doesn‘t fix problems, but I can see no alternative here.

 

[Harry]

4 Bills,

As Homer Simpson would say, Aaaaahhhhhh.

After chatting with a former boss at the Rideau Palace today this is what it would buy us.

Realistically, it would put us in a position where we could actually enforce sovereignty on our North. Patrol our coasts. Respond to national emergencies and maintain a true QRT Brigade.

It would prevent mothballing needed equipment for the army, keep ships at sea and planes flying (what few are left).

It would allow the completion of certain small capital projects and extensions to others. Nowhere does it include new whirlybirds for the Squids serviced by the zoomies, or Pigeons if I must.

That kind of change would be enough to put us back in the game operationally and keep soldiering with what we have.

Scary huh. How‘s that for an idea of potentially how bad things got on Poppa Doc‘s watch?

 

[Korus]

Quick, everyone knock on wood!