POMCUS Depots.
Yes - much of that gets prepositioned and the continued sustainment you have to plan for. War isn't risk free - just ask the WW2 merchant marine.
There won't be any Dunkirk. Neither will there be a retreat west over the Rhine. Russia couldn't make it to Kiev.
Well . . . that's why we have a professional military that just got a pay raise. Are you saying that they're incapable of planning for the contingencies of a real war with all of the lessons they're learning? One glaringly obvious lesson is that more likely than not one will get involved in a conflict that could drag on and consume resources - that results in a "so what" of we need stockpiles of everything and a way to replenish them. That's staff planning 101.
Well . . . that's why we have a professional military that just got a pay raise. Are you saying that they're incapable of planning for the contingencies of a real war with all of the lessons they're learning? One glaringly obvious lesson is that more likely than not one will get involved in a conflict that could drag on and consume resources - that results in a "so what" of we need stockpiles of everything and a way to replenish them. That's staff planning 101.
I don't ever recall having to do an estimate where one of the courses open was: wholly crap, we should just stay home and continue to draw rations and pay.
Sorry. But it's just obvious that a) there are risks, b) one need to plan to minimize the risks, and c) if its in our national interest to do then one gets on with it.
The big question is: Is it in our national interest? That's highly subjective and almost impossible to calculate the bottom line for. We could argue that for decades without a resolution. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut.
Prior to 2022 I might agree that showing the flag at the border did not imply the need to sustain long term. Post 2022 sustainment, if not an explicit task, must be seen as an implied task or it becomes professional negligence.
As I said - subjective. IMHO, yes. It won't always be weak and the Baltics are a particulalry touchy point for Russia that puts them very high on the hybrid war risk. A strong NATO force is needed there not just to repel an armoured thrust but to steady the populace in the face of continuing threats and malicious acts.
I wasn't. The "you" is used in the impersonal sense. However, the particular cloud that I'm yelling at in this case is the one that I see that relates to risk aversion and insularity.
defence-industry.eu
Up until the 1970s we routinely dealt with training in riot control. The graphic examples of what was going on in the race and anti-Vietnam riots across the border gave impetus to that. Our training manuals, however, were more oriented to the British situation in Aden or Northern Ireland.
Up until the 1970s we routinely dealt with training in riot control. The graphic examples of what was going on in the race and anti-Vietnam riots across the border gave impetus to that. Our training manuals, however, were more oriented to the British situation in Aden or Northern Ireland.
At some point - I can't quite recall the exact year (albeit I remember doing it right up the the 1976 Olympics) - government policy changed and the army was removed from the overt riot control baton and shield type of operations which were placed squarely on police forces of various levels. All police forces of any size then started forming riot control reaction forces while the army ceased training for that role.
I don't believe that government policy has changed and I'm quite sure the military in Canada has no desire to go back to being employed in riot control.
And one that is terrible for civil-military relations. Particularly given what Canadians are seeing from the US and their use of militarized forces at home. What a surefire way to kill all the goodwill and support the CAF is getting these days.
Yes but this was first and foremost a GoC imitative for political reasons.
That's why you need a Gurkha Battalion......
LEO role.
