• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada must divide its military resources along foreign and domestic lines - G&M

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,387
Points
1,260
This may dovetail with the Army Reserve Restructuring thread, but I felt it was different enough to put separately.

CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT
CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED 1 DAY AGO

The deployment of 1,700 regular force and reserve military members for duty in long-term care homes in Ontario and Quebec has been widely applauded by Canadians. At the same time, we seem ambivalent about the decision to scale back or suspend several of the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) international commitments. As far as the public is concerned, the military’s away game is discretionary – a distraction used to keep busy when forces are not needed at home.

The problem is that the country’s stability, prosperity and harmony have long hinged on an expeditionary military force. The CAF asserts the country’s geostrategic interests by bolstering allies and promoting stability abroad. With the globalization of transnational threats, many of Canada’s allies have adopted a similarly expeditionary posture, and our allies have just as much difficulty selling the necessity of these actions to their domestic constituencies as Canada does.

But other countries’ civil-military relations differ from Canada in an important respect: under their social contract, there is a broad consensus to keep the military out of domestic operations. The sentiment they hold is that just because the military can do a job at home does not mean that it should.

These countries want their military to defend their interests; so, in response to a non-security-related emergency, their civil society largely has to cope on its own. That functional logic has informed Canada’s allies and partners in creating organizations that jointly address civil defense and disaster preparedness. Examples include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the United States, State Emergency Service (SES) in Australia, the Technisches Hilfswerk (THW) in Germany, the Sécurité Civile in France and the Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) in Sweden. These organizations provide surge capacity across a broad spectrum of expertise, as well as trained volunteers and equipment to assist with disaster response.

Canada has no equivalent. Provincial emergency measures organizations have no deployable operational capacity. So, the CAF ends up backstopping emergency response. That is the consequence of a peculiarly Canadian anachronism.

[More at link]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-must-divide-its-military-resources-along-foreign-and-domestic/
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,345
Points
1,090
Canadians will not pay for a bigger military. So Canada will need a better-organized military that is actually structured to optimize taxpayers’ return on investment

You would think so, but we all know better that that
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,966
Points
1,040
The article leaves a lot to be desired in that it has various items that aren't factually accurate and show a basic misunderstanding of "mobilization" within the current CAF; the makeup and role of Provincial EMOs. It's hard to believe he's a professor at RMC.  :facepalm:

This article is a particularly surprising in that the he is the co-author of a paper "On the Baltic Watch:The Past, Present and Future of Canada’s Commitment to NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in Latvia" which is a fairly good analysis of the Russian threat to the Baltic States and why Canada should continue to play a role in that deterrence operation. https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/20180327_MLI_LATVIA_WebF.pdf  This makes it doubly hard to understand why he's prepared to write-off 20,000 Canadian soldiers to flood control and firefighting.

Some of the comments are more insightful than the article (others not so much)

The basic proposition to turn the Reserves into an at-home EMO is nothing short of silly. Does Canada need a better organized military - absolutely; what it needs, however, is a Reserve Force that can play a better away game next to its Regular Force counterparts.

:brickwall:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,153
Points
1,060
Funny enough they already tried that with the Reserves doing Civil Defense, that turkey did not fly well. Why do they think it would work better this time around? If doing only domestic emergency ops, I much rather work privately or as part of the Public Service either Provincially or Federal.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,345
Points
1,090
Colin P said:
Funny enough they already tried that with the Reserves doing Civil Defense, that turkey did not fly well. Why do they think it would work better this time around? If doing only domestic emergency ops, I much rather work privately or as part of the Public Service either Provincially or Federal.

Ah yes, that Turkey caused my trade to rewrite courses 3 times since 2010. At the end of the day Reserve force or not the primary role of the CAF is not domestic ops, and us having to be called in is a symptom of other problems. We really need to get back to war fighting not saving people annually for having a home on a flood plain.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
996
Points
1,060
Colin P said:
Funny enough they already tried that with the Reserves doing Civil Defense, that turkey did not fly well. Why do they think it would work better this time around? If doing only domestic emergency ops, I much rather work privately or as part of the Public Service either Provincially or Federal.

It was not so much that doing "National Survival" with the Militia didn't fly well, but that Canada doing "Civil Defence" regardless of the agency didn't generally do it as well as it was done in other countries.  An interesting analysis of it is "Give Me Shelter: The Failure of Canada's Cold War Civil Defence" By Andrew Burtch  https://books.google.ca/books/about/Give_Me_Shelter.html?id=cb4SombaypsC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

My favourite model for civil disaster response is Germany, probably because I was more familiar with them.  A neighbour in the village where I once lived (back in the days when we were stationed over there) was in the Lahr THW unit.  What I saw of their capabilities and ability to respond quickly (locally, as well as regionally, nationally and internationally - they were also in Rwanda when we went there in '94) impressed me.
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
123
Points
580
If the primary job of the CF as an institution is to "Defend Canada", and they cannot assist communities of Canadians from floods. Then it is an organisation that is rolling itself into its own grave.

Canadians don't care about having a well-equipped military force, its well understood on this site and to many defence-minded people. Canadians care about terrible things around the world, but nobody ever cries out for military intervention. Nobody is marching in the streets to send a force to XYZ country because they're terrible. The CF is easy to cut because of its split, and not embracing the HADR job. No provincial gov't is gonna fork up any cash for a fleet of Chinook and LAVs, so that angle is silly IMHO.

If you say the Defence of Canada is the No1 job and that includes HADR, then people won't mind funding that org that flew me away from the fires, or drove me away from the floods. It simple good-will and positive press for the organisation. When the next flood comes and we couldn't get our trucks in there due to age and disrepair, then which delayed 10 year procurement project is gonna get the spotlight in the news next, the mobility one or the RPAS one?

Do Canadians think Russia is a threat to their everyday life or are they more worried about floods and fires? Easier to sell the idea of an expensive armed logistical force.

Build up a basic capability to get Canadians to safety from harm domestically, then by happenstance you may get equipment that'll be for war.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
In the US our National Guard is the domestic resource used for national disasters and they also can be mobilized for use overseas. Canada has the ability to do the same with its reserve forces.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,345
Points
1,090
tomahawk6 said:
In the US our National Guard is the domestic resource used for national disasters and they also can be mobilized for use overseas. Canada has the ability to do the same with its reserve forces.

This drips into other threads, but if thats what we want, then reserve units need to be deployable units, not admin units. I think that would be great but we would need strong leadership at the national level to get the job done. The NDA would probably need some tweaks, job protection in all provinces for reservists would need to be altered. I do not think there is the political will to get it done.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,966
Points
1,040
MilEME09 said:
This drips into other threads, but if thats what we want, then reserve units need to be deployable units, not admin units. I think that would be great but we would need strong leadership at the national level to get the job done. The NDA would probably need some tweaks, job protection in all provinces for reservists would need to be altered. I do not think there is the political will to get it done.

I think even before you get to the question of political will, you have to get politicians to even know that there is an issue and to understand what it's components are. Most of them have no clue (and for some strange reason that I can't fathom, that includes our incumbent minister who, as far as I can see, has done zero to advance Reserve Force capabilities)

The second prerequisite to understanding the issue is to be able to recognize the inevitable counter arguments (Everything's alright, mate! Oh, and we need more money!) that are going to come from within the system to maintain the status quo for what they really are; rice bowl protection.

Then, and only then, will political will need to kick in.

:cheers:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,153
Points
1,060
We could start National Conscription by Lottery, so if your name is chosen at 18, you can request either the military or Civil Defense battalions. Your request is evaluated against your physical/mental state and numbers required and you end up where based on all of the above. (This is roughly what Malaysia does) If you have a criminal record you automatically go to Civil Defense flagged for labour work.

Civil Defense Battalions:
Basic first Aid
Basic search and rescue
Basic fire fighting
Basic flood control
Basic urban rescue

Military
Basic training
Basic infantry training
Basic drivers course
Basic First Aid

After 18 months you go on Supp list till you are 30. At anytime people can apply to the Armed Forces and their courses and performance are brought with them to the professional military.
 
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
253
Points
880
Other than the conscription part, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. I wonder if it be better to have a national force, or a mix of different organizations at the municipal/provincial/federal levels? While I'd assume all units would need a similar baseline of training to start, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have certain teams specialize to an extent.

Obviously cost would be an issue, but a small full-time cadre of permanent/and or contract personnel who coordinate the training and logistics for a larger pool of adequately trained, but part-time members who can surge as required. Pre-positioned stocks of emergency stores, and a fleet of COTS vehicles. It kind of sounds like the reserves, but I doubt the PRes wants this as their actual role. Also, I feel a lot of people won't join the military, but might volunteer for some kind of civilian EMO.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,966
Points
1,040
I disagree completely with any move to have any portion of a military force with a primary role of civil disaster work. I think Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds said it best back in 1972:

“The armed forces should primarily be trained and equipped for the possibility of conflict with a first-class power - the most severe testing they may have to face. It has been proven over and over again, that well trained and well disciplined military forces, trained primarily for major warfare, can easily and effectively adapt to lesser roles of aid to civil power or peacekeeping. The reverse is not the case.”  - . Simonds, Lieutenant-General, G.G. Commentary and Observations, The Canadian Military: A Profile, ed., Hector Massey, Toronto: Copp Clark, 1972. P 267

This was perhaps Gen Simonds last statement on the subject but had in no way been the first as during the fifties and sixties there had been numerous shifts in policy that had given civil defence roles to the Militia off and on.

By the end of 1954, however, Major-General F. F. Worthington, Civil Defence Coordinator under the Department of National Health and Welfare, called for the Militia to be used in national survival search and rescue operations in the event of nuclear attack. Simonds, who worried that such a specialized role would turn the Militia into a safe haven for those who wished to avoid active service, responded that armed forces maintained and trained primarily for combat could always offer assistance to the civil defence authority.
...
In 1958, at the height of the so-called golden age of deterrent thought that accentuated the worth of forces in-being, newly
appointed defence minister George Pearkes announced that the primary role of the Militia would henceforth be to restore order and conduct search and rescue re-entry operations into “target areas” in the event of a nuclear attack on Canada
...
The emphasis accorded national survival only began to subside at the end of 1963, but at this juncture the government slashed authorized Militia strength from around 51,000 to 32,000
...
From 1965 onward the Militia role changed to one of augmentation, that is, providing not formed units, but officers, specialists and soldiers on an individual basis to fill personnel vacancies in the regular force.
...
The NDHQ forces-in-being approach also ignored the reality of a dangerous world in which flash points such as Korea, Iran, and the Taiwan Strait could conceivably blow up into major conflicts. Unforeseen wars in the Falklands, the Gulf, and Afghanistan, have already shown that future conflicts cannot be foretold with any certainty. Current trends further suggest that whether they be conventional or asymmetric in nature, large forces with substantial logistical trains will continue to be required. This points to a potential need for force expansion, especially for a regular army as small as Canada’s

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/95/attachments/original/1413683498/The_Role_of_the_Militia_in_Today_Canadian_Forces.pdf?1413683498

We are met with two significant challenges: limited resources and a more demanding challenge in preparing for "conflict with a first-class power" than ever before. To prepare for such a conflict will need every resource available. The fact that a properly trained military can easily augment civilian authorities that are already equipped for and knowledgeable in civil disaster work means that we do not need to, nor should we, divert any resources, or even much valuable training time from our primary responsibilities from defending the nation and its national interests.

Quite frankly, IMHO, the proposal made in the Leuprecht article is not only short-sighted but dangerous.

:cheers:
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,345
Points
1,090
Colin P said:
We could start National Conscription by Lottery, so if your name is chosen at 18, you can request either the military or Civil Defense battalions. Your request is evaluated against your physical/mental state and numbers required and you end up where based on all of the above. (This is roughly what Malaysia does) If you have a criminal record you automatically go to Civil Defense flagged for labour work.

Civil Defense Battalions:
Basic first Aid
Basic search and rescue
Basic fire fighting
Basic flood control
Basic urban rescue

Military
Basic training
Basic infantry training
Basic drivers course
Basic First Aid

After 18 months you go on Supp list till you are 30. At anytime people can apply to the Armed Forces and their courses and performance are brought with them to the professional military.

We could go more the Swiss route, because some objected to military service, the tweaked it to a national service program. All able body citizens at age 18 must do 2 years, the military is still and option but so are other fields like Nursing aids, and working in Long term care facilities, after completing government run training. We could cover our bases doing this by putting into towards area's such as forest fire fighting, flood response/recovery, health care aids including in LTC's, farm work, Military, and Coast Guard, possibly other areas as well.

This gives them work experience, a possible career, and the national interest is served, a non military required service option would also likely be more popular in Quebec.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,272
Points
1,160
MilEME09 said:
We could go more the Swiss route, because some objected to military service, the tweaked it to a national service program. All able body citizens at age 18 must do 2 years, the military is still and option but so are other fields like Nursing aids, and working in Long term care facilities, after completing government run training. We could cover our bases doing this by putting into towards area's such as forest fire fighting, flood response/recovery, health care aids including in LTC's, farm work, Military, and Coast Guard, possibly other areas as well.

This gives them work experience, a possible career, and the national interest is served, a non military required service option would also likely be more popular in Quebec.

Offer to pay tuition for those doing  a 3 year stint and you’ll have to fight people off with a club.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,543
Points
1,010
>This gives them work experience, a possible career

So does a job, and they aren't giving up an important part of their lives and a loss of opportunities.

>the national interest is served

No thanks.  Before we decide to conscript anyone now, everyone in favour should first pay the government the equivalent of those years of indentured service, with interest, since they didn't have to give up those years of their lives.  See how much enthusiasm remains.
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
253
Points
880
Brad Sallows said:
>This gives them work experience, a possible career

So does a job, and they aren't giving up an important part of their lives and a loss of opportunities.

>the national interest is served

No thanks.  Before we decide to conscript anyone now, everyone in favour should first pay the government the equivalent of those years of indentured service, with interest, since they didn't have to give up those years of their lives.  See how much enthusiasm remains.

Great post, Brad. Let's do a better job of attracting the right talent (that actually wants to serve) and then retaining it. That applies as much to our military/public sector as it does our hospitals and LTC facilities. It's supposed to be a free country, let's let people decide for themselves what they want to be when they grow up.

So here's a hypothetical situation: If CAF/DND was given a choice, focus more on domestic operations, or lose a chunk of the budget so that the task could be performed by another organization, what do you think the response to government would be? I feel like I know how it would go, but I'm curious to hear what others might think.

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,153
Points
1,060
and we can have a Civil Defense Airforce using Canadian made aircraft like France https://www.facebook.com/bryan.bourgois/videos/3045135602192313/
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,272
Points
1,160
reverse_engineer said:
Great post, Brad. Let's do a better job of attracting the right talent (that actually wants to serve) and then retaining it. That applies as much to our military/public sector as it does our hospitals and LTC facilities. It's supposed to be a free country, let's let people decide for themselves what they want to be when they grow up.

So here's a hypothetical situation: If CAF/DND was given a choice, focus more on domestic operations, or lose a chunk of the budget so that the task could be performed by another organization, what do you think the response to government would be? I feel like I know how it would go, but I'm curious to hear what others might think.

The Provincial Wildfire/ Wild Land Fire fighting programs are already well set up to deal with ‘climate emergencies’. Just give them a broader mandate and more money.


 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
945
Points
1,090
>This gives them work experience, a possible career

So does a job, and they aren't giving up an important part of their lives and a loss of opportunities.

>the national interest is served

No thanks.  Before we decide to conscript anyone now, everyone in favour should first pay the government the equivalent of those years of indentured service, with interest, since they didn't have to give up those years of their lives.  See how much enthusiasm remains.




I'm not disagreeing with your post, just throwing in some food for thought from a different perspective

1.  It not only gives them work experience, but it also gives them a respectable form of employment & a decent paycheck.  Not only that, but I'm curious about the positive/negative affects it would have on our society as a whole, since everybody growing up (especially once we all really grow up, out of our early/mid 20's) would have some form of national service.

Perhaps less vandalism?  Less petty/property crime?  A more unified society in some sense, since everybody did some form of service to benefit our society? 


2.  If it is offering folks steady, respectable employment - I don't think people should have to pay the government for those years.

Although there could be exceptions to service, re: someone enrolled in university or some form of post-secondary, employed/learning a trade, etc.

I know a LOT of young people (usually not bad people, but in trouble with the law) who would benefit from some form of national service.  (Not conscription).  It would really help with their social skills & their perhaps skewed view of society and problem solving (low income/rough childhood stuff) - as well as give them something more productive to do, since a lot of the younger folks I've dealt with in the courts tend to have the root of their issues at boredom/lack of opportunities.



Not disagreeing with your post at all Brad.  Just tossing it into the discussion as food for thought.

(I'm married to a girl who served 3 years in the IDF - have a hilarious story for another time where she was snarky to their deputy PM without knowing who it was.  I just suggested the food for thought above after chatting with her about how national service works in Israel...obviously not the same situation as here, but the general concepts were similar)  :2c:
 
Top