CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[dapaterson]

Canada is actually in the top 25% of NATO spending, if you look at dollars and not percentage of GDP.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Canada is actually in the top 25% of NATO spending, if you look at dollars and not percentage of GDP.

Percent of GDP is a poor indication of actual capability which is why I hate hearing that argument.

We're a rich country, one of the richest i fact.  Our 1% goes a hell of a lot further than others 2%.

How many NATO countries could deploy a mech battlegroup with an ATF across an ocean, indefinitely?

 

[jmt18325]

I'm tired of hearing how little we spend.  We have the 16th largest military budget in the world.

 

[George Wallace]

I'm tired of hearing how little we spend.  We have the 16th largest military budget in the world.

AH!  Statistics.  We all know what "statistics" are.

It really doesn't matter, truthfully, what we spend on our military; but how we spend it.  How much of that budget is not "WASTED" money; money that actually had little or no affect, or benefit to our military?

 

[Journeyman]

AND some leftover for the "bows", as this forum is fond of deriding them. Fortunately, in the context of the military these cost very little.

In financial terms, they cost little; in terms of staff hours, wasted QM time, reinforcing what the ever-changing badges mean to junior soldiers.....are all opportunity costs pissed away.

Canada will also deploy an Air Task Force – which will include up to six CF-18 fighter aircraft

So Canada's going to "whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are."
- Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.  Oct 2, 2014

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm tired of hearing how little we spend.  We have the 16th largest military budget in the world.

Pretty good for one of the seven richest countries, with one of the largest air spaces and coastlines to defend, right?

 

[jmt18325]

Pretty good for one of the seven richest countries, with one of the largest air spaces and coastlines to defend, right?

10th actually.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm tired of hearing how little we spend.  We have the 16th largest military budget in the world.

You have to admit, we could do much better than we do regardless.  There could always be more, whether it comes from more available funds or less wasteful spending.

 

[jmt18325]

You have to admit, we could do much better than we do regardless.  There could always be more, whether it comes from more available funds or less wasteful spending.

Less wasteful spending is the place we should start.

 

[PuckChaser]

10th actually.

Good, we only have to climb 6 spaces on spending instead of 8.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Less wasteful spending is the place we should start.

Correct. Ruthless steps must be asked about some of the ridiculous inefficiencies and mismanagement, with an objective of more feet in the mud, less bums in office chairs, more ATGM tubes and less tubes of lubricant for the reaming the forces have undergone since 2009.

BTW, what does a "robust multinational NATO battlegroup" mean? And does our number strength of 1000 include the ship and the air get? if so, that frees up a lot of troops for other useless missions rather than taking the fight to ISIL. Also, in November 2015, Trudeau promised France a "robust" contribution from Canada to fight ISIL. Then he pulled the fighters. This man is all over the map and doesn't seem to get called out on it strong enough by allies. He reminds me of a lucky racoon that always manages to cross the highway. 

 

[Altair]

Correct. Ruthless steps must be asked about some of the ridiculous inefficiencies and mismanagement, with an objective of more feet in the mud, less bums in office chairs, more ATGM tubes and less tubes of lubricant for the reaming the forces have undergone since 2009.

BTW, what does a "robust multinational NATO battlegroup" mean? And does our number strength of 1000 include the ship and the air get? if so, that frees up a lot of troops for other useless missions rather than taking the fight to ISIL. Also, in November 2015, Trudeau promised France a "robust" contribution from Canada to fight ISIL. Then he pulled the fighters. This man is all over the map and doesn't seem to get called out on it strong enough by allies. He reminds me of a lucky racoon that always manages to cross the highway.

Sounding like he plans to do both.

 

[jollyjacktar]

He reminds me of a lucky racoon that always manages to cross the highway.

Even that Racoon will find a loaded cylinder has come up one day in Road Roulette.

 

[jmt18325]

BTW, what does a "robust multinational NATO battlegroup" mean? And does our number strength of 1000 include the ship and the air get?

There will only be ~450 people on the ground.  The rest of the 1000 will be from other countries.  The air and naval assets are apart from that number.

 

[PuckChaser]

There will only be ~450 people on the ground.  The rest of the 1000 will be from other countries.  The air and naval assets are apart from that number.

So he's basically reannounced OP REASSURANCE, but this time its an open ended commitment?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wonder if the money counted as spent on defense has taken in account monies returned at the end of fiscal or our they taken early budget figures only?

 

[jmt18325]

So he's basically reannounced OP REASSURANCE, but this time its an open ended commitment?

Well, the air detachment was discontinued in the past.  It will not be a constant present though, apparently.

What's different this time is that the CF will be in a leadership position on the ground in Eastern Europe, and will bring armour with them.

 

[Kirkhill]

It seems to me that the rationale for the 2% of GDP on defence is simple:

The Club agreed that the annual dues would be a tithe of 2% of GDP.  From each according to their ability to each according to their need.  A basic flat tax.

On the other hand, that could be seen as being regressive.  A progressive solution would be for those countries in good financial shape to give more than those in poor shape.  In which case Canada would be contributing more to the collective defence than, for example, Poland.

As to efficiency - having done a few studies - I have never seen a flexible organization with overall efficiencies much better than about 70%.  I have seen line efficiencies of 95% when the parameters are tightly defined but I have not seen overall numbers that approach those kinds of levels.

Waste, like the poor, will always be with us.

 

[CBH99]

It seems to be that a country that DOESN'T spend 2% of GDP on defence, but pulls its weight and shows up for operations -- is far more valuable than a country that DOES spend the 2%, but won't allow its forces to deploy.  Or, if they do deploy, are constrained to the point where it is difficult to accomplish their objective.

Canada doesn't spend 2%, we all know that.  BUT...we constantly have ships deployed, aircraft deployed, soldiers deployed, in support of NATO objectives.  Whether it is combating ISIL, supporting the Ukraine military, training the Afghans, or providing naval vessels to standing task forces, or helping out the UK with LRP aircraft in times of need - we, as an organization, pull more than our fair share.

I would actually be okay with us spending less than 2% -- ON THE CONDITION that capital procurement was done in a more streamlined manner that didn't affect the DND budget. 

 

[Kirkhill]

It seems to be that a country that DOESN'T spend 2% of GDP on defence, but pulls its weight and shows up for operations -- is far more valuable than a country that DOES spend the 2%, but won't allow its forces to deploy.  Or, if they do deploy, are constrained to the point where it is difficult to accomplish their objective.

Canada doesn't spend 2%, we all know that.  BUT...we constantly have ships deployed, aircraft deployed, soldiers deployed, in support of NATO objectives.  Whether it is combating ISIL, supporting the Ukraine military, training the Afghans, or providing naval vessels to standing task forces, or helping out the UK with LRP aircraft in times of need - we, as an organization, pull more than our fair share.

I would actually be okay with us spending less than 2% -- ON THE CONDITION that capital procurement was done in a more streamlined manner that didn't affect the DND budget.

That may be .... but the Club rules, agreed by its members, call for 2%.  Some of those members are essentially permanent FOBs and deployment is in their backyard.  Latvia deploying to Afghanistan or the Congo when Russia is knocking at their back door may not be the best use of the Club's resources.