lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,972
- Points
- 1,040
In my humble opinion, if the domestic mandate was severed from the CAF, it would do irreparable harm to whatever would be left behind. Truth be told, the military is not on the radar of the typical Canadian taxpayer. Defence matters are relegated to a throwaway line on a platform during an election and never discussed because they know the average voter simply doesn't care. No Canadian politician will stump that the GST has to go up a point to meet the Strong, Secure Engaged goals, or that they can't do pharmacare because warships need to be built.
Sure, there is great outpouring of respect and sympathy during repatriation ceremonies and the like, but it is usually fleeting and, again, my opinion, more towards the victim as opposed to the institution. We don't have a history of revolution or empire, and our geographic integrity hasn't been breached since the Fenian Raids of the 1870s. Many simply think that we made soldiers, sailors and airmen out of farm boys in pretty short order in the past and we could simply do it again if we had to.
How many post-boomers actually know about Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia or any other hot events involving the CAF in the past few decades? How many sit down a read a newspaper or take an hour to watch the evening news? These are some of the places where events are covered in-depth, either reportage, analysis or opinion. Most consume what little news they absorb via social media or 'news' platforms that feed them stuff they have either indicated they are interested in, algorithms have selected for them or, worse, pushed by online advertising.
The vast majority of the Canadian population lives in cities within 100km of the US border. Unless they live in a base town, Ottawa, go to an airshow, perhaps a Remembrance Day ceremony or live near an armoury, many could go their entire lives without seeing a member in uniform or a piece of military equipment. Heck, our daughter works at a small Base in a small city and often hears from locals that they didn't know it was there. "Who's going to invade us?' and/or 'the US will protect us' are not uncommon views held by many.
Does anybody think there is a realistic chance of seeing billions for new equipment, let alone keep whatever funding is left over from the divorce, when it would have absolutely no relevance to the majority of the population? At now, there is sense that the CAF will help when things hit the domestic fan.
Like it or not, a C-130 evacuating a northern community, or members filling sandbags have as much positive marketing impact as the Snowbirds, and public opinion is really the only lobby group the CAF has when it comes to getting a piece of the pie. There has been an incredible positive public response to the revelations the military made about what they found in LTC facilities; speaking truth to power that even the governments own inspectors couldn't do. Professional, objective and non-judgmental. Some of it came from a background in medical knowledge, but a lot of it was simply observations.
I know some feel that anything that detracts from a focus on hard combat is inappropriate, but I feel that narrow view is dangerous to the future of the CAF. You can 'train high' but still 'respond low', but not the other way around.
Sure, there is great outpouring of respect and sympathy during repatriation ceremonies and the like, but it is usually fleeting and, again, my opinion, more towards the victim as opposed to the institution. We don't have a history of revolution or empire, and our geographic integrity hasn't been breached since the Fenian Raids of the 1870s. Many simply think that we made soldiers, sailors and airmen out of farm boys in pretty short order in the past and we could simply do it again if we had to.
How many post-boomers actually know about Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia or any other hot events involving the CAF in the past few decades? How many sit down a read a newspaper or take an hour to watch the evening news? These are some of the places where events are covered in-depth, either reportage, analysis or opinion. Most consume what little news they absorb via social media or 'news' platforms that feed them stuff they have either indicated they are interested in, algorithms have selected for them or, worse, pushed by online advertising.
The vast majority of the Canadian population lives in cities within 100km of the US border. Unless they live in a base town, Ottawa, go to an airshow, perhaps a Remembrance Day ceremony or live near an armoury, many could go their entire lives without seeing a member in uniform or a piece of military equipment. Heck, our daughter works at a small Base in a small city and often hears from locals that they didn't know it was there. "Who's going to invade us?' and/or 'the US will protect us' are not uncommon views held by many.
Does anybody think there is a realistic chance of seeing billions for new equipment, let alone keep whatever funding is left over from the divorce, when it would have absolutely no relevance to the majority of the population? At now, there is sense that the CAF will help when things hit the domestic fan.
Like it or not, a C-130 evacuating a northern community, or members filling sandbags have as much positive marketing impact as the Snowbirds, and public opinion is really the only lobby group the CAF has when it comes to getting a piece of the pie. There has been an incredible positive public response to the revelations the military made about what they found in LTC facilities; speaking truth to power that even the governments own inspectors couldn't do. Professional, objective and non-judgmental. Some of it came from a background in medical knowledge, but a lot of it was simply observations.
I know some feel that anything that detracts from a focus on hard combat is inappropriate, but I feel that narrow view is dangerous to the future of the CAF. You can 'train high' but still 'respond low', but not the other way around.
