Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)

[McG]

This is an acedemic  excercise. The grits have already decided. They're just letting you think you have a say. No doubt the new White Paper is mostly written already.

Maybe or maybe not, but ...

If you choose not to submit your opinions and ideas, then you can only blame yourself if the government does not consider what you never shared.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I vote for this one.  Those Italians are always so fashionable.  :nod:

Better fashionable than metrosexual/borderline Village People  ;D ...

 

[blacktriangle]

Uniforms aside - at least they appear healthy/fit.

 

[Journeyman]

The way some folks on here moan and drip about buttons and bows they would only be happy with this:

Perhaps some of us believe a higher priority should be placed on funding and developing competent troops, effectively trained on serviceable equipment -- with bonus points if they're supported by informed strategic guidance.

If the "moaning and dripping" is sufficiently widespread and consistent, then maybe even the dullards not trusted with troops who tend to gravitate towards things like buttons and bows committees will get the message.  Although to be fair, I seriously doubt that they  would get the message, but perhaps someone in a superior position of authority will say "enough is fucking enough."

Personally, for the Army, I have great faith that the incoming Commander will refocus on what's important, once the current CCA goes off to burden NATO HQ (where I'm sure he can collect all sorts of meaningless Pirates of Penzance badges).


Your priorities may vary.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I thought that was what the election was about? You complete your survey (ballot) and the winners govern according to the results.

I assume there's someone in the Liberal camp that assumes the military will always be better received if they appear to be managed within the context of an appeasing Ochlocracy. Sadly, that didn't seem to turn out too well for the Romans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

 

[FSTO]

Perhaps some of us believe a higher priority should be placed on funding and developing competent troops, effectively trained on serviceable equipment -- with bonus points if they're supported by informed strategic guidance.

If the "moaning and dripping" is sufficiently widespread and consistent, then maybe even the dullards not trusted with troops who tend to gravitate towards things like buttons and bows committees will get the message.  Although to be fair, I seriously doubt that they  would get the message, but perhaps someone in a superior position of authority will say "enough is ******* enough."

Personally, for the Army, I have great faith that the incoming Commander will refocus on what's important, once the current CCA goes off to burden NATO HQ (where I'm sure he can collect all sorts of meaningless Pirates of Penzance badges).


Your priorities may vary.

My priorities are in line with yours. In my world it is enough trained sailors that we don't have to pier-head jump half the coast to send a high-readiness ship on an operation. As for the strategic guidance part? I am not holding my breath on any coherence coming from our political masters any time soon.

That being said, the ceremonial aspect of our job is still an important part of the overall image we present to the general public. Looking sharp and professional weather on the parade ground, at a COMREL event or just walking downtown sends a message to joe/jill public that their military is something to be proud of and willing to spend money on to recruit, train and equip them to do their job.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If I actually believed that Joe/Jill Public actually gave 2 shits about their military, I might care how the think I look in uniform.  As I don't think they do actually care, I'll confine what I care about my uniform to its utility;  pockets for the stuff I need and giving me a chance of staying alive in a fire.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I vote for this one.  Those Italians are always so fashionable.  :nod:

The Bersaglieri are elite infantry in the Italian Army. They earned an enviable combat record in the Western Desert in WW2. I recently served alongside Bersaglieri in Lebanon: they are outstanding soldiers and I was always happy to see those black feathers on the helmet of the soldier in the MG hatch. Those feathers on their helmets are a part of their esprit de corps. I am not saying that we need those, but I can imagine the outcry if somebody took away the black beret from the RCAC. I wouldn't call myself a uniform guy, but I do feel that they play a part in morale and identity.

Speaking of Lebanon and trying to get back on topic, I recently spent a year there wearing a blue beret. I was an unarmed observer and I served first as a patroller and then as Chief of Operations for an observer group. Working in a UN mission is certainly different than in US or NATO mission, but its not all doom and gloom. I felt that I was in a professional organization with excellent military and civilian leadership. Now, while Lebanon was not "safe" and had its own complexities it was certainly not Mali either. I would, however, gladly work in a UN mission again.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The Bersaglieri are elite infantry in the Italian Army. They earned an enviable combat record in the Western Desert in WW2. I recently served alongside Bersaglieri in Lebanon: they are outstanding soldiers and I was always happy to see those black feathers on the helmet of the soldier in the MG hatch. Those feathers on their helmets are a part of their esprit de corps ...

That, and the trademark extra-double-quick march ...

Speaking of Lebanon and trying to get back on topic, I recently spent a year there wearing a blue beret. I was an unarmed observer and I served first as a patroller and then as Chief of Operations for an observer group. Working in a UN mission is certainly different than in US or NATO mission, but its not all doom and gloom. I felt that I was in a professional organization with excellent military and civilian leadership. Now, while Lebanon was not "safe" and had its own complexities it was certainly not Mali either. I would, however, gladly work in a UN mission again.

Thanks for sharing the recent experience.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Whatever we do, we had better get ourselves sorted out before Putin finds a bunch of senior Officers willing to push things as hard as he wants:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/688775/Vladimir-Putin-purges-entire-Baltic-fleet-officer-class-coverup-claims-submarine-collision

 

[McG]

The Royal United Services Institute of Vancouver Island has thrown its ideas into the defence policy review, and followed with an opinion piece in the Times Colonist.  If you have your own ideas, there are only a few more days to submit your ideas.

Comment: We need capable, trained armed forces
Roger Love
Times Colonist
20 July 2016

The seventh defence review in 52 years, now underway, reflects four important issues that Canadians need to address: sovereignty and security, prosperity, global stability, and protection and promotion of Canadian values.

What are the priority roles for Canada's military? Defend the sovereignty and security of Canada, North America and treaty allies (NATO) - in that order. Support continued prosperity through the trade that is vital to our economy, by maintenance of an open land border (remember the disruption in the aftermath of 9/11) and protection of the maritime approaches and - working with allies - of the high seas.

How should Canada's military be structured to meet these priority roles? Canada's military cannot be expected to maintain sovereignty and security over our vast land mass, coastline and maritime approaches unaided.

However, with a credible military force that meets realistic capability expectations, including seamless interoperability with NATO allies, we can expect assistance from those allies.

Assistance is, of course, primarily from the U.S.; NATO wants our troops in Eastern Europe to counter developing Russian threats.

We cannot expect U.S. assistance to defend our homeland if we do not have a sound defence capability to aid it in defending its homeland. Major approaches to the U.S. cross our territorial land mass, maritime zone and air space, so we must maximize our security relationships with the U.S. and ensure seamless interoperability with its air, naval and land forces.

Our defence contributions must be sufficient to overcome any American concerns about the adequacy of our capabilities, including against cyber or terrorist attack - homegrown or other. Without this, we risk a U.S. defence that might take the battle to or over our major populated areas.

We cannot expect help if we don't come to the table with the means to defend ourselves and our allies against both traditional military and terrorism threats and developing threats, such as cyber and space. The global nature of, particularly, increasing terrorist, cyber and space threats requires a global response with all of our allies to maintain prosperity and global stability.

Only a broad-based capability to work seamlessly with allies against such threats, and traditional threats, enables us to work with the U.S. to defend North America.

Without such capability and seamless interoperability of forces, we will almost certainly be left out in the cold in the event of any military or non-military attack.

How should Canada's military be structured to meet other roles? Canada's historical role for 60 years has been, in major part, to pursue global stability through NATO and coalition interventions with allies.

"Peacekeeping" in its original conception is increasingly limited. It is now, as anyone can see from the past 25 years, "peace-enforcing" between warring sides with interest only in military victory (e.g., Balkans, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia), together with roles as trainers and advisers to one side or the other in sectarian conflicts (e.g., currently in Iraq). For these, and UN Chapter 7 deployments (e.g., Mali and Congo), we need larger numbers than for simplistic "peacekeeping" - including the ability to defend ourselves and other UN forces.

Contributions are needed from non-military government departments through efforts related to nation-building work and to pre-empt warfare in troubled zones through early economic, political and bureaucratic aid. Both these approaches can promote Canadian values.

The underlying roles for the military have not changed in the 52 years since the 1964 review: Protect Canadian sovereignty and security first, contribute to global security, be a force to promote Canadian values in the world. The strategies and practices change as the threats evolve. We now have more terrorist and cyber attacks - both organized and independent - and much more serious technological threats.

We cannot know what type of threats we will face in coming years, or decades over the operational life of equipment that we are now buying. So we need to cover, to the best of our ability, the full spectrum of threats that we see now and can reasonably foresee.

Only well-equipped, well-trained and flexible Canadian Armed Forces will protect our country from what is becoming a more hostile world, while we contribute to maintaining an uneasy global peace.

Roger Love is treasurer of the Royal United Services Institute of Vancouver Island and writes on behalf of the institute. The institute's Defence Policy Review submission can be found on the organization's website at rusiviccda.org.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/comment-we-need-capable-trained-armed-forces-1.2305516

 

[Kirkhill]

NATO Spending

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/trumps-isolationism-shows-why-britain-is-right-to-renew-trident/

 

[Journeyman]

NATO Spending

Pffft..... freeloading Luxembourg bastards. 

 

[jmt18325]

It's pretty misleading in that we spend the 6th highest total.

 

[a_majoor]

Way may spend more in dollar terms, but how "effective" is our spending when sending and sustaining a single battlegroup exhausts all of our resources? When Infantry battalions are so undermanned they go to national level training exercises with an unmanned rifle company? When we still don't have trucks, boots, refuelling ships, a replacement fighter, an actual cyberwar unit et. etc.

While the raw spending figures and percentage of GDP is important as the first step, we still need to translate that into actual combat power, which we do incredibly poorly (using our resources to build headquarters and bureaucratic structures instead.)

 

[Journeyman]

It's pretty misleading in that we spend the 6th highest total.

          :not-again:

1.  The title of the graph states quite clearly "....as a share of Gross Domestic Product."

2.  GDP is a common NATO accounting guideline agreed to by Canada.


Given these two obvious attributes, how can this possibly be misleading?    :

 

[Kirkhill]

It's pretty misleading in that we spend the 6th highest total.

And yet, when the community has decided there is a greater need, we appear to be derelict for contributing less than we can.  The US can't assume the burden indefinitely (Trump and Clinton are just making explicit what the voters already know).

In progressive terms Canada is the 1% that benefits but doesn't pay.

PS - Although my sympathies lie with the Army, I would suggest that our best "bang for buck" comes from a large, deployable Air Force and Navy.  They can transition rapidly from war to peace and back to war in a generally peacetime environment with reduced risk of unsightly spectacles along the Highways of Heroes.

 

[QV]

Given our lengthy coastline and huge airspace with no hostile land border, than absolutely Canada should invest heavily in air and sea power with land forces a distant third.

 

[MilEME09]

Given our lengthy coastline and huge airspace with no hostile land border, than absolutely Canada should invest heavily in air and sea power with land forces a distant third.

I agree, our navy and airforce should be doubled, if not tripled given our size

 

[Kirkhill]

The Army, with its current manpower, would make a usefully sized force for an enlarged Navy and Air Force to project.  And all that necessary extra logistics capability can come in handy both at home and abroad.