Like most others, I did not hear/read Colonel Pat Stogran's remarks, but I don't think his reported comments are overly controversial, much less political; they are, in fact, about the norm for most military officers of his age, education and experience.
When we said joint operations most of my air force colleagues had visions of fighter/bombers swooping down to destroy bridges and rail crossings, with great displays of airmanship, bravery and precision before formations of transports dropped paratroopers who mopped up, securing the great air force victory.
My naval friends saw, in their dreams, destroyers and frigates flushing out ballistic missile submarines, aided, to be sure by carefully targeted long range air patrol sorties and supported, always, by fighters flying CAP, up above. Or they imagined stately amphibious flotillas sailing towards a beach where, after suitable naval preparation troops were put ashore â “ more mopping up.
Most soldiers, like Colonel Stogran, have similarly myopic views: joint usually means something like â ?all the others are there to support me, Me, ME!â ? ... not surprising, really.
For a variety of good and valid reasons we, Canada, do not have to consider the whole range of military power: strategic, operational, tactical. We have only one service with anything like a strategic capability. Our navy, like all blue water navies can project power wherever we can send it, for as long as we can sustain it. The power we project can be enhanced if the naval force has organic (to a joint task force) air and even land forces ... but even a fully joint force is only strategic if it is based on a naval force â “ neither the army nor the air force can project power in the proper sense of that term because neither can stand to on anything like a full time basis without being on the ground, at which time the power is no longer being projected, it has already been applied. The situation is no longer strategic. it has devolved through the operational 'down' to the tactical level.
If we, Canada, want a strategic voice in the world â “ and I have argued that we, Canada, as one of the world's 'top ten' countries, now, and destined to remain in the top 10% throughout the next century, must have a such a strategic presence - then we must have a navy: a real, blue water navy. To argue that the army's temporary problems must be solved by shelving the only service which 'works' right now is militarily irresponsible â “ which means it's about par for the course in Ottawa.
That doesn't mean that the army's problems are not serious, nor does it mean that the army should not be accorded some priority for whatever 'new' funding might materialize; it does mean that we must, at the very least, maintain the navy and prevent further erosion of the air force while we try to rebuild the army.
We need joint forces â “ almost everything above ship, battalion/regiment and squadron can, indeed should be joint â “ which means that all elements must be able to provide their components.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is poor theology, worse economics and unsound military planning. I hope that's not what Colonel Stogran advocated ... if he did then he is wrong.
