Canadian Forces underfunded

[Yard Ape]

Well, this is no surprise to anybody farmiliar with the military. Hopefully people will listen to the warnings this time . . . it never seemed important when tax cuts were available in the past.

Yard Ape

------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian Forces underfunded, lobby group says
By JEFF SALLOT
With a report from Jeff Gray
Globe and Mail Update
Thursday, September 27

Ottawa — A report by a defence lobby group says the cash-starved Canadian Forces cannot meet basic commitments to help protect the United States, even as Defence Minister Art Eggleton offers military assistance to Washington‘s antiterrorist campaign.

The report, released Thursday by the Conference of Defence Associations, says the Canadian Forces‘ major weapons systems face "mass extinction" from rust.

"Our study concludes that, due to insufficient funds in the defence budget, the Canadian Forces cannot fulfill their commitments beyond a marginal level," Lieutenant-General (ret.) Charles Belzile told a news conference in Ottawa on Thursday.

As for Canada‘s basic duty to help defend the United States, the report states that the Canadian Forces "are simply not operationally ready to do so — in terms of manpower, doctrine, training, equipment and logistics."

The Conference of Defence Associations is an umbrella group with a reported membership of 600,000 Canadians with connections to the military. The report was prepared by former military officers.

The report, which was in the works well before the attacks on New York and Washington two weeks ago, does not deal directly with countering terrorist threats. But it argues that Canada cannot carry out its commitment to help defend North America.

The group‘s report will likely fuel the debate, in full force since the Sept. 11 attacks, about the ability of the Canadian military to help in antiterrorist operations.

Mr. Eggleton said Wednesday that Canada is ready to make forces available to the antiterrorist campaign, but he repeated Prime Minister Jean Chrétien‘s caveat that the United States won‘t be handed a "blank cheque."

The Defence Department will need at least an additional $1-billion each year to meet all of its commitments, the report states.

In a telephone interview from Brussels, where he and other NATO ministers were briefed on the antiterrorist campaign by U.S. officials, Mr. Eggleton noted that the government restored some of the defence budget in the last federal budget, and his department may get additional money because of the terrorist attacks.

The report states that cuts to military personnel, from a Cold War level of 85,000 to an effective fighting force of 53,000, have opened a gap between Canada‘s commitments and its abilities.

Six of Canada‘s 12 coastal-defence vessels are not available because of crew shortages, and a destroyer had to be docked earlier this year for the same reason, the report states, adding that Canada can keep only one ship off each coast on short-notice standby.

The air-force fleet of 122 front-line CF-18 fighters has been cut to 80 and there‘s a pilot shortage; a situation that will likely get worse over the next three years, the report says.

The army has only enough modern armoured vehicles to transport 18 of its 27 infantry companies. Shortcomings in radio and other communications equipment in those vehicles raise questions about whether they could operate in tandem with U.S. forces, the report continues.

Looking to the future, the picture only gets worse, the report states. Cuts to capital budgets mean many ships, warplanes and other weapons systems will reach the end of their life cycles in five to 15 years with no replacements in sight.

Anticipating the criticism, Mr. Eggleton said the nature of security threats has changed radically since the Cold War, when countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization needed tanks and large brigades to deter a Soviet attack in Central Europe.

Maybe more emphasis will have to be put on military intelligence and small, highly mobile special forces that can operate covertly to attack terrorist hideouts, Mr. Eggleton said.

He said the United States has not yet asked Canada or any of its other NATO allies for any specific form of military assistance.

 

[enfield]

I looked up NATO defence funding levels on the NATO homepage... interesting.
Canada‘s budget is 1.2% of it‘s GDP. The NATO average is 2.6%, and the highest our budget has EVER been since WW2 is 2.1% (during the late 80‘s), and even than it was significantly lower than the rets of NATO.
So, to meet the standard we should be getting more than $22 billion....

This post edited to correct the numbers. Factsheet is:
www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/table3.pdf

 

[herbie]

It‘s not just money that‘s needed. It‘s support from the top down. So many of our soldiers have been "ROE ‘ d to death " that they believe that if they use force, even in war, that their higher will hang them out to dry. Our soldiers need the kit ( money) but more important they need the war training and esprit that comes from knowing you are on the right side and are doing the right thing with full support of the nation.

 

[Infanteer]

Beauty....could you imagine what this army could do with 22 billion dollars and a little common sense....

 

[Yard Ape]

that 22 billion would be split three ways with the navy and airforce aswell . . . but could you imagine if the CF had been getting that money all along?

Yard Ape

 

[Recce41]

Well
Here we go again, Will we get old new equipment ,or new new. its just like the Leo C2 a quick fix. We always try to fix our junk. Our Forces could have their own Junkyard Wars. With the money will we pay for over priced junk or buy good useable kit. We in the Army need new Tanks, a real Recce veh, more LavIIIs, a new type of MLVW, and Iltis replacement, some new m-548s, etc,etc.
What can 1 bil. buy not much if split 3 ways. We require like most of you said atleast 20 bils. Are we going to stand up a fourth or fifth BGE. Maybe in Gagetown and in Shilo.
Wait no we‘ll buy a commition to say what we can buy, that should take 1 quarter of it, and a test to see what equipment would be good another quater. And a few trips to see other countrys, hey we get lil now. Now we could buy a new some new tyres, a bolt or two. These is what has happened in the pasted will we get equipment time will tell.
A saying for a movie most like. This is the Canadian Army, one of the least equipped Armys in Nato, Able to do more with less. Well Soldier do you feel new equipment. Well do you Soldier.

 

[Soldier of Fortune]

If they had been giving the CF 22 bil. then they probably saving a couple of billion right now instead of having to update everything at once.

 

[King]

I‘ve basically resigned myself to the fact that the Cf will never be properly equiped to defend Canada.

The Liberals will never do it. Even the Alliance, which people generally think would put the most back into the CF wouldn‘t put enough in. $20 billion? Never. There‘s too many other groups that need cash, all of them more important to the Canadian people.

At least we can take comfort in knowing the NDP has as much chance of getting elected as the Alliance. God help the Forces if that ever happens.

 

[Infanteer]

$20 billion? Never. There‘s too many other groups that need cash, all of them more important to the Canadian people.

What is more important to the people than their lives, security, and rights and freedoms. Does this all come free, secured by a piece of paper and a bunch of politicians in Ottawa. Chesty was right, one day a stronger race is going to come, wipe us out, and take our women.

 

[brad_dennis]

This may be information you already know, but it doesn‘t hurt to post it again.

If you are concerned with the lack of spending, send an email message to the PMO‘s office (pm@pm.gc.ca), Art Eggleton‘s office (eggleton.a@parl.gc.ca) and CC your MP‘s office. Tell them. It takes 2 minutes to send a quick email. In the wake of the WTC I know that they are hearing alot about security concerns. It‘s all about issue visability, hot issues get dealt with as the gov‘t wants to be seen to be responding to the people‘s concerns. In 6 months or a year this may not be a hot issue or one that is deemed "vote-worthy"

It can‘t hurt and it‘s your right to be heard.

B.

 

[the patriot]

Okay, that‘s it. Let‘s look at the last 25 years in defence expenditures and see what‘s going on. The Grizzlies, CF-18‘s, and Leopard Tanks were procured by the Liberals in the late 70‘s and early 80‘s. The Conservatives then kill 2 military colleges, gut a few bases and tender out a contract for 12 navy frigates that are now not being used. After the Liberals came back in power, the Griffon helicopter replaced the aging Kiowas and Hueys. Eureka!!! The Liberals are now replacing the Grizzly with the Coyote and LAV III. Partisan politics aside, I think the Liberals like to spend money. I‘m sure that with some hard nudging, they could spend more on defence. And by the way, here‘s a direct link to the Conference of Defence Associations website.

Conference of Defence Associations

-the patriot-

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This site tells you what our government has been spending, partisan politics aside, of course.
www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/table3.pdf

 

[King]

Infanteer,

I don‘t disagree with you. Security should be any nations primary concern. He in Canada it‘s not and that‘s not entirely the governments fault. Most Canadians would like to see more cash to the CF, but when it comes down to it, they vote for other issues. We take for granted that America will always be there to protect us. Most of Europe works the same way.

patriot,

The Conservative‘s planned on buying new tanks and getting some nuclear subs for the Navy (& of course the EH-101‘s). In short they wanted to expand the CF in almost every aspect, including putting a full division in Europe. It was the huge debt that forced them to stop. The Liberals sucked tonnes of cash from the CF to help balance the budget, it‘s just now that they are putting some back. Chretien is a student of Trudeau, and like Trudeau think it doesn‘t matter what Canada does militarily since it dwarfs in comparison to the U.S. I believe Trudeau would gotten rid of the military entirely if not for the Cold War. Jean isn‘t as bad though, he at least sees value in peacekeeping and patrolling our shores. That‘s all the major defence spending in the last few years has been. Frigates and subs and Coyotes and Comorants. It also seems something is in the works to replace the Sea Kings. Don‘t expect anything like tanks or artillery or attack helicopters to come along anytime soon. They don‘t want to waste money on things that can only be used for war. Even after all that‘s happened, you‘ll only see a token increase in defence spending.

 

[Infanteer]

Cretian is a student of Trudeau, and Trudeau was a disaster for this country, both internationally and militarily. I for one, did not morn the loss of him last year. His policy reforms were reckless (and not to mentioned abandoned) and succeeded only in further depleting the power of our military. A loose cannon, Trudeau attempted to pull the Canadians completly out of Europe. When threatened by our allies, he obliged but cut our forces overseas down to a measly brigade stuck in the rear area. Like Enfield stated, is this where a member of the G-7 (8?) belongs?

 

[enfield]

I find that many believe the CF is small because "Canada isn‘t that big of a country" - not like the US, UK, Russia, etc. But, we AREN‘T a small nations - we‘re in the Developed World, we are a member of the G8, and we have a relatively large economy, natural resources, international trade, a decent sized population, one of the largest coastlines in the world, and we have a policy of military intervention- South Africa, WW1, Russia, WW2, Korea, UN+NATO. We are neither neutral nor pacifist. If we were in Asia or South America, we‘d be a major power - only our proximity to the US makes us look small.

We always say that our foreign policy is seperate from the US and UK - but in real terms, foreign policy in many ways boils down to pure economic and ability to project military power, and in the latter we‘re tied to the US. We can‘t do a Non-combatant Evacuation, and we can protect neither our interests nor our citizens against any serious foreign aggression. Instead, in lieu of a defence budget we have a policy of avoiding all and any conflict and generally being really non-offensive - which is a good thing, but but it can only carry us so far. We can be either neutral, or an active member of the world community - and since we‘ve chosen the last one, we should be able to back it up. Without the ability to take an active part in Coalition actions, protect our citizens and interest overseas, we‘re little more than the kid who follows around the big kids.

I venture that the CF doesn‘t, and never had, the ability or the need to protect Canada. There is no plausible enemy - even in the Cold War, the idea of Russian invading Canada was not a serious threat. We have a military so that if we feel like doing something overseas, we can. Nobody can cross the oceans (or arctic) let alone beat the US. Now terrorism has thrown a little wrench into that plan... think the Air Force will still cut the CF18 fleet in half?

Ok, sorry this is so long. One last thing - does any other military put pictures of it‘s soldiers shovelling snow (or other domestic disaster ops) in it‘s recruiting material?

 

[Infanteer]

Enfield,

We were talking about this in a Canadian Foreign Policy class. The exact same issues were brought up. There is no excuse for us to be in the position we are on the world stage; it all boils down to being stuck in a psychological rut which places us as a "Middle Power" (can you think of any other Middle Powers in the world???) that espouses doctrines such as "soft power" (Yeah, whatever Mr. Axworthy...), multilateralism, and peacekeeping.
If you ask me, we are just a Lazy Power, to close and cozy to the U.S. to take on the roles and responsabilities fitting of our country.

 

[Yard Ape]

Originally posted by Infanteer:
[QB]
If you ask me, we are just a Lazy Power, to close and cozy to the U.S. to take on the roles and responsabilities fitting of our country.QB]

Well said.


Yard Ape

 

[King]

We really like to rape America. 87% of our exports go there because no other country wants to trade with us. We have everything from shared defense resources to special monetary agreements (one made by that great anti-American Pierre Trudeau). Academics sit here and bitch about why we can‘t give up our water, which equals about 25% of the worlds supply of fresh water. It‘s like saying we have 25% of the worlds food and we‘re going to keep it for ourselves. It‘s not just us (although we are the worst). The EU which has a philosophy about America akin to some Liberals or the NDP still needs American logistical and intelligence support to conduct any sort of continential security operation. In Kosovo half of the combat troops are British (which says something about the EU‘s dependence on the most anti-EU nation in Europe) and the rest are European or from countries like Canada, but the support remains American (this would be another interesting topic, why so many western countires cannot support their combat arms). Yet when it comes to supporting America elsewhere, even if it‘s token support, Europe backs off, the Brits are the only ones left with planes in Iraq.

At any rate, I agree that Canada could never truely defend herself. We should however be able to meet our committments to NATO and NORAD and be able to at least detect what‘s comming at our borders and send a first strike response. We should also be able to conduct things like non-combatant evacuations. I think that the idea that we‘re an active member of the international community is a sham. We aren‘t, at least not when it counts. We‘re not the humanitarian nation we claim to be. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, even ****ing Luxembourg gives more international aid as a proportion of GDP then Canada. In real dollar figures places like Denmark and the Netherlands give more then us. And we‘re certainly not the leader in peacekeeping anymore. We haven‘t had a policy of military intervention since Korea.

The Canadian Governments contribution to the international world is token soldiers and gifts. It‘s contribution at home is to tell Canadains that only the diversity of our tolerence or the tolerence of our diversity will help us beat terrorism. That as long as we keep fetishizing multiculturalism we can be safe.

I‘d also like to know from all the other students out there how their student federations and goverment responded to the WTC attack. Over here it was a lame anti-racism campaign. A weak response. Oh well, you stick with what you know.

 

[enfield]

Wow, there‘s lots of agreement on this.
Ok, the poll on CBC.ca says that 58% of Canandian ar in favour of increasing the DND budget, (35% say 1.2-3 bill, 45% 3-12 bill, 16% more than 12 bill)

I think King brought up a good point - not only is Canada impotent in this situation, so is a good chunk of Western Europe. But I think the EU realizes their embarassing reliance on American support and is working to fix this.

Eggleton says we are more combat effcetive than we were in 1990 - does that mean we send TWO field hospitals? wait.. we have no doctors. Maybe more frigates? nope, no crews. Maybe our new LAV3‘s and Coyotes? Well, hopefully the Americans feel like carrying them over for us or we can find a Rusian contractor. But I‘m sure they‘ll be of lots of use next time we shovel snow or fill sandbags in Manitoba.

Anyways, the fact is: Due to public ignorance of defense and security issues, which have been staring us in the face for decades, we are left with a depleted military capacity. Ok, so 58% of the public now wants more money in defense - where are they when I‘m out recruiting?

I invite anyone to to do a quick poll of your friends/colleagues - name a Canadian regiment, (or maybe even battle honour). I think this question (and the lack of ability of almost any Canadian to answer it) would underline the ignorance of military matters that the general public has. This needs to be rectified - and Sept 11 was a good slap in the face. Hopefully the coming conflict will further show our situation.

 

[Disturbance]

my closest friends I have ever had still have trouble dealing with the fact that I am in the army. A friend said to me that his grandma said NEVER EVER join the military and I try and bring up something like what if Hitler made it to Canada and the StormTroopers start rolling into the cove and kill your parents and your brothers -youre telling me your still gonna give in with out a fight. He f,ucking told me that the life he would have to live would still be better than dieing. This is from my best f,ucking friend. They think I am crazy cause I like the s,hit I learn. And even when I bring up more intangeable things which they MIGHT even relate to like ...patriotism, duty, honor, pride, respect it just goes right through them.....one of them even wants to be a cop even get into the ERT and he cant even understand why I would want to go on the CRIC and help make a difference (no matter how small). I wouldnt normally care but these are my closest friends and if I am to put my life on the line for my country I would at LEAST hope they could understand why. Any of this make sense? I apologize for any venting which may occured.