Compare this to Canada-Americans Ready To Call-up

[bossi]

Pentagon Ready to Mobilize Reservists

The Associated Press (as appeared in the Washington Post)
Monday, October 28, 2002; 6:08 AM

NEW YORK â “â “ The Pentagon is prepared to call hundreds of thousands of Reservists and National Guard members to duty if President Bush orders an attack on Iraq, The New York Times reported Monday.

About 265,000 Guard and Reserve troops, roughly the same number used during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, would be mobilized in the event of an attack, the Times said.

Aside from military duties, many of the troops would be called upon to protect military bases at home and abroad. They also would be used to help safeguard potential terrorist targets in the United States, including power plants and factories, the newspaper reported.

The call-up schedule would be kept secret, but a Pentagon official told the Times that it "would take more than a week or two" to muster the reserves together. The reserves would need to make sure that they were up to date with their inoculations before being transported to their missions.

Nearly 80,000 members of the Army National Guard and Reserve forces were mobilized after Sept. 11, 2001, and for the war in Afghanistan. Pentagon records show that more than 58,000 were active last week.

There are currently 870,000 members of the Guard and Reserve. They serve a minimum of a weekend a month plus two weeks a year.

The reservists would only be deployed if Bush decides to take military action against Iraq, sources told the Times.

â “â “â “

On the Net:  http://www.ngb.dtic.mil

 

[Sharpey]

Just a week or two to get everyone in order? Wow, I bet that would take Canada a year or two! Can I see Canada putting the Res or even the Regs on the ready? No. Even though our borders may be the only thing really requiring an extra eye on. Mabye the International and possibly border city airports as well.

 

[fortuncookie5084]

I have never understood why Canada never sought to be able to call up, at the batallion (regimental) level, reserve units.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I have never understood why Canada never sought to be able to call up, at the batallion (regimental) level, reserve units.

Because all our battalions and regiments are actually only companies, batteries and squadrons, mostly.

 

[Sharpey]

We are to cheap! Hopefully our new MND can change things, he seems to have the right attitude from the speeches he has been giving.

 

[bossi]

re: new MND

Don‘t get sucked in - after all, he‘s a politician just like the rest of Papa Doc Crouton‘s sychopantic cabinet ...

It‘s possible his speeches are just noise - intended to distract listeners from the real Liberal party agenda ... (i.e. weaken our military to the point that it‘s wholly incapable of going to war)

I was surprised to read the following column in the Toronto Star (a Liberal Party organ), until an astute friend pointed out it‘s probably just "chaff" (i.e. blah, blah, blah ... vote Liberal ... blah, blah, blah ...):

Oct. 28, 01:00 EDT
Canada‘s military deserves a refit

Afghanistan opened John McCallum‘s eyes. Like most Canadians, the new defence minister had never seen the military up close, and in fighting gear. When he did, he was impressed.

Conditions in the war zone were "appalling and dangerous," McCallum told a Bay Street audience on Friday, in his first major speech since taking on the job five months ago. But Canada‘s 800 troops took pride in helping unseat the terror-friendly Taliban regime. And they earned "glowing praise" from American commanders.

McCallum came away with a desire to "do what is right for them." And that includes "spending more than is currently planned." How much more, he didn‘t say. He should.

Canadians are in a mood to listen.

There‘s a healthy new respect, after the 9/11 nightmare, for those who defend Canada‘s citizens and turf, and who put themselves in harm‘s way fighting terror. There‘s a recognition, too, that "sovereignty ... doesn‘t come cheap," as McCallum noted.

Indeed, public support has surged in the past year for an increase in the $12 billion defence budget, which hasn‘t grown since 1993, and has lost 30 per cent of its buying power. We need to step up the fighting ability of our modest 60,000-member military.

Credible analysts want the Canadian Forces budget to grow to between $16.5 billion and $18 billion over the next three years. And while McCallum steered clear of numbers in his Bay Street speech, he is said to be seeking $1 billion more in the next federal budget. He also is seeking to axe "low priority stuff that can be phased out," to shift funds into what the military calls "the pointy end" of its operations.

McCallum intends to name a small, private-sector-savvy task force to propose "administrative efficiencies" in the sprawling and change-resistant, defence department. It remains to be seen whether they can find the $1.5 billion to $3 billion in savings over three years that will be needed if cabinet approves annual $1 billion hikes. But the minister is right to try.

It‘s ambitious, in an organization as resistant to change as the military. It implies a 4 per cent to 8 per cent shift annually in priorities. But private sector organizations have survived similar wrenching refits. And taxpayers expect good use made of their dollars.

Certainly it‘s legitimate, in 2002, to question the need for aging tanks, naval destroyers, self-propelled howitzers and other relics of the Cold War, though this is a subject that merits a vigorous public debate, which Ottawa has yet to hold.

Whatever the end result, it must leave the military better able to deploy and sustain credible naval task forces and squadrons of attack aircraft. And the army must be able to airlift a sustainable armoured battle group of 1,000 troops or so to places like Afghanistan, with follow-on forces and support, for a year or more. In a global crunch it should be prepared to field two such groups.

We must be able as well to deploy "robust" peacekeeping forces with our American and other allies, in dangerous places like the Balkans. And to field lightly equipped troops for less risky, more traditional United Nations peacekeeping.

The demand is already there, and growing. From 1948 until 1989 the military were sent out on 24 missions, McCallum said. Between 1990 and 2002, they were called out 79 times.

The pressure is on, as well, to pull our weight defending North America. Canada and the United States will "reach an agreement very soon" to set up a binational planning group to coordinate defences, he said.

Planning is good. So is bringing hard assets to the table.

 

[Sharpey]

Yeah Bossi you‘re right, but we can always hope right. The one thing that confuses me is they (media / politicians) keep saying there is an increase in public support to boost our budget. What? About 90% of the people (civie) I get into a conversation with about Military spending all have negative things to say, even family and friends. Nobody has really liked the Miitary until we are needed, but that‘s just my observations.

But mabye the public has been watching us closly on the news over the past few years and have seen what we have to do and the crappy equipment to do it with. Mabye they are starting to change face.

 

[NMPeters]

Ahhhhhhh, don‘t let those polls fool you. They are very subjective and can be skewed depending on how and when the questions are asked. The questions that were asked probably went something like this:

Do you have a very favourable, favourable, neither favourable or unfavourable, unfavourable or very unfavourable opinion of the Canadian Forces?

Do you believe the Canadian Forces are sufficiently funded? Yes, No

Do you believe that the CF budget should be increased? A lot, somewhat, remain the same, decreased somewhat, decreased a lot

The answers to these questions could very easily be: very favourable, yes, increased a lot

But nowhere does the question ask, where should funding be cut in order to increase spending on the CF. What do you think the answer will be if the poll asked the question to prioritize government spending between health care and the CF? My guess is healthcare.

In fact, I recently read an article that a public affairs company conducted such a poll. It was not commissioned by the government. The results were that Canadians view the CF very favourably, they do not think we are sufficiently funded, but when asked to prioritize spending, we came near the bottom...agriculture ranked ahead of us. We have the sentimental support of Canadians, not the financial.

 

[bossi]

Yup - it‘s interesting how the fart-catchers in the PMO‘s office manipulate the polls.

Recently I heard an interesting usage of data - an extrapolation was made between several NATO allies and Canadian defence spending.

The one, simple statistic that I wish more Canadians could see/hear and understand is this:
If Canadian defence spending were even "close" to our NATO allies, we‘d have an Army of 140,000 Regulars and 120,000 Reserves ... !!!!!!!!

If Canadians could be made better aware of the disparity between this, and reality, I wonder what they‘d think ...

Oh, well - we‘ll probably just have to wait until Canada is directly attacked, or war is declared - then we can all watch the circus come to town ...

 

[Harry]

Bossi

What I fear is a major terror attack here and the gen pop finding out the hard way we don‘t have a military to respond.

The Australians have warned us, and I pray it is just that a caution. But with the reality of the situation, these folks are looking for soft targets. How much softer than us can you get?

 

[onecat]

Hey Harry,

Your right canada is a soft target, and although its not something I want to have happen here. But if we were attacked, and the canadian public actually saw how the funding cuts have effected the Military maybe we would actually get real increases in funding. Its a sad state that powers that be have no real believe in the CF, and that if we were attacked we would have to ask for help from the US. But sometimes people don‘t see the forest for the trees until they hit face on; and feel the press.

 

[herbie]

Read the MND‘s remarks in the article closer. He‘s not really talking about making a more robust military. He wants to bring in civvie accountants to cut those parts of the military that they ( the civvie accountants ) feel are not required. I.E. the armoured and arty. That is very worriesome. As well, DND wants to be able to deploy " two whole battle groups ( minus the aforementioned )". No where did they talk of the capability of actually useing a brigade. Two " battle groups - " is f*** all in any theatre. Hopefully, some of these groups out there influence the MND to include military pers in any future policy making. At least he‘s seems willing to talk.