• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

E.R. Campbell said:
:goodpost:

You got it, Kat. Without a clear commitment to doing something for some good, pressing reason, White Papers (and green ones and the "grey literature" that precede them, too) do nothing except make the authors feel good ~ see e.g. Jennifer Welsh, the author of Paul Martin's White Paper, "A Role of Pride and influence in the World."

The government, and in fairness to them they need to have some "national will" behind them, needs to have a problem that needs addressing. For this Liberal government the only defence problem is the same as the one the Conservatives had: "How do we get some new "toys for the boys" (that's how I think Betts and Telford see it) without both breaking the bank and getting a boat load of bad press because defence procurement in all screwed up?" This government doesn't have a strategic vision and there is no existential threat to Canada's security so any White Paper is most likely going to be an exercise in bureaucratic/academic mutual masturbation.

True, and I'm as skeptical as anyone else here that there will be any true, actionable "vision" in either White Paper.  However, it IS the important first step that many of us here have been asking for in order to become the foundation on which any further discussions on the organization and equipping of the CF must be based.

Maybe we'll be lucky and people with some real input like Mr. Cudmore who have been on these forums will see the real underlying issues facing the CF and also see the real opportunity that  meaningful Foreign Policy and Defence White Papers present in developing long-term and effective change in our military.

...or maybe they'll be the same as every other government in the last half century...

Holding my LottoMax ticket in my crossed fingers.  Neither are likely to work out for me but I can dream can't I?


 
GR66 said:
Holding my LottoMax ticket in my crossed fingers.  Neither are likely to work out for me but I can dream can't I?

Well.  If you don't have a ticket, you can't win.

Does that not apply towards a White Paper or Foreign Policy as well?  We are going nowhere fast with no direction.
 
Since we all are opining, which is an academic word for guessing, it's my turn based on having lived through several going all the way back to Hellyer's 1964 attempt to blaze a brave, new trail.

Given that this one will be crafted by the Liberals, look for statements like "There is no obvious level of defence spending" and declarations that security for Canadians comes from social programmes and a wide, inclusive umbrella. The actual body will be wide and mushy enough that it actually commits to nothing in terms of national resolve while making all sorts of noises about bilateralism through the United Nations. And of course climate change will be worth a paragraph or two, as probably will be terrorism along with an "it's not really Islam's fault" and maybe some pictures of JT greeting refugees.

In short, a commitment to the status quo, whatever that is at the time.

Modify to add: Back to the days of demanding a seat at the table and then going to the washroom when the bill arrives. A tip of the hat to John Manley and Edward who also made the point.
 
Anyone got a copy of this book: "In Retreat: The Canadian Forces in the Trudeau Years" ?

http://www.amazon.ca/In-Retreat-Canadian-Forces-Trudeau/dp/0888790074

by Gerald Porter, 1978.


Publisher: Deneau; First Edition edition (1978)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0888790074
ISBN-13: 978-0888790071


Just wondering what his synopsis was and if he had any proposals as to where to go?
 
Still got my original edition.  I'll see if I can find it.  I can't remember the conclusions.
 
George Wallace said:
Anyone got a copy of this book: "In Retreat: The Canadian Forces in the Trudeau Years" ?

http://www.amazon.ca/In-Retreat-Canadian-Forces-Trudeau/dp/0888790074

by Gerald Porter, 1978.


Publisher: Deneau; First Edition edition (1978)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0888790074
ISBN-13: 978-0888790071


Just wondering what his synopsis was and if he had any proposals as to where to go?
I would be interesting to hear what's there, but let's also remember this isn't 1978 - VERY different environment, both in the CAF and outside threatening the world.
 
MCG said:
There is lots of idea mining that could be done of this site....
...including going back to page 1 of this thread and reading for continuities, a decade + later.
 
I probably need more coffee (it's 0639 here in Arizona) but I see a time-dishonoured Canadian tradition of ignoring threats (the 1950's were an exception) and hoping for the best. Just for fun, consider how dismally we performed against the Fenians. In this case there was plenty of advanced warning that the Fenians were going to invade, but virtually no preparations were made and we suffered humiliating defeats at the (two) Battle(s) of Ridgeway on 2 June 1866.

Did we take heed of the lessons? No!

Frankly we were lucky that we weren't faced with enemies like the Comanches or the Zulus and more than lucky that the Americans chose to seek manifest destiny to the west and south, not north.
 
Old Sweat said:
I probably need more coffee (it's 0639 here in Arizona) but I see a time-dishonoured Canadian tradition of ignoring threats (the 1950's were an exception) and hoping for the best. Just for fun, consider how dismally we performed against the Fenians. In this case there was plenty of advanced warning that the Fenians were going to invade, but virtually no preparations were made and we suffered humiliating defeats at the (two) Battle(s) of Ridgeway on 2 June 1866.

Did we take heed of the lessons? No!

Frankly we were lucky that we weren't faced with enemies like the Comanches or the Zulus and more than lucky that the Americans chose to seek manifest destiny to the west and south, not north.

Some things never change, GAFF for national defence being one of them.  I don't imagine this is going to change anytime soon, unless something very serious happens.
 
George Wallace said:
Anyone got a copy of this book: "In Retreat: The Canadian Forces in the Trudeau Years" ?

http://www.amazon.ca/In-Retreat-Canadian-Forces-Trudeau/dp/0888790074

by Gerald Porter, 1978.


Publisher: Deneau; First Edition edition (1978)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0888790074
ISBN-13: 978-0888790071


Just wondering what his synopsis was and if he had any proposals as to where to go?


"The Trudeau decade has been a difficult one for Canada'a military personnel.  After the shock of unification had worn off, they believed service life would return to its orderly peacetime pace.  But Trudeau made life in the forces more confusing and disruptive as reorganization and counter-reorganization became the rule instead of the exception.  Nobody seemed to know what was going on, least of all Trudeau.  The troops were marching in a fog without map or compass,  the commander in the distance shouting orders and counter-orders, changing direction as often as the wind. By the time the rear guard had caught up, they were out of step again or going in the wrong direction.

"Did Trudeau know where he was going?  After several tiresome years of marching in circles his own generals concluded he did not.  Worse, the troops sensed that their own leader did not much care about them, no matter how hard or how long they worked to get the job done.  Morale in the forces has become a serious problem, one which gets worse with each reorganization or policy shift.

"Trudeau's defence policies have been paradoxical, much like the man himself.  He is an avowed pacifist, yet he did not hesitate to call the Army into the streets during the October Crisis of 1970. His famous "just watch me" reply when asked how far he was prepared to go to maintain law and order under the War Measures Act showed he understood - and was prepared to use - military power to preserve the peace, regardless of his personal convictions. In an attempt to understand why Trudeau has run the forces down to their present emaciated state, it is worth examining where the military fits within his political vision and how that vision has manifested itself in defence policies and government priorities.

"Throughout his tenure in the East Block, Trudeau has shown a strange misunderstanding, some say contempt, for Canada's armed forces.  Few people would suggest that war is ever desirable, yet most realize there comes a time when a nation must defend itself against blind aggression or perish.  Trudeau apparently failed to make such a distinction during the Second World War.  He did not "join up" like many other young men of his age, preferring instead to continue his university education.  During the 1968 leadership campaign that, like many other Quebeckers, he had been taught to "keep away from imperialistic wars".

"It is Trudeau's apparent misunderstanding about the true nature of the Second World War and the Allies life and death struggle against Nazi Germany which leaves his own generals puzzled. They believe that he either does not understand the role of the military in a free society or just does not like them.  In any event, they continue to view each other coolly from a distance."

197 pages later

"Today, after a decade of Trudeau's mismanagement of the armed forces, Canada stands on the brink of the 1980s as a defenceless nation increasingly dependent on the goodwill and protection of better-equipped allies.  As a peace loving country Canada does not desire to have a large and powerful military machine, but it does require a realistic one.  It needs armed forces strong enough to defend the nation and to contribute a fair share to collective defence, particularly in these perilous times.  Unfortunately, it no longer has them.  The Canadian Forces, beaten back by successive volleys of crippling defence policies, are clearly in retreat.

"Only Canadians can decide whether their armed forces will be strong enough to meet the challenges of the future, or if they will continue to decline in military capability.  That decision must be made soon because time is running out."

The end.

My comments:

After this book came out Joe Clark was elected Prime Minister for a few months and the Trudeau was returned to power for another four years.

In fairness it has to be said that Trudeau supplied materiel support to the CF.  He bought Hueys, Kiowas, Chinooks, Auroras, Hornets, Grizzlies, Cougars, Huskies, Leopards and Tribals and laid the ground work for the Halifaxes.

The biggest hit against him is on the personnel and policy side.  He didn't understand soldiers or soldiering.  Just like he didn't understand farmers, ranchers, oilmen, Quebeckers or any other myriads of others he managed to aggravate.

He was a seminarian and a university boy who grew up in a bubble from which he never escaped.


 
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/liberals-should-shrink-defence-spending-analysts-urge/ar-BBowsHv?li=AAggv0m
 
This part here is an easy fix.

“Generals once entrusted to lead soldiers in Afghan combat now need ministerial approval to offer a visiting counterpart a glass of wine. The deputy minister, accountable for $19-billion a year in spending and well over $100-billion in defence investments, must authorize the juice and muffins if his subordinates hold a conference.”

We pay these folks a lot of money to make decisions and then we saddle them with this penny pinching dung?
 
Sheep Dog AT said:
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/liberals-should-shrink-defence-spending-analysts-urge/ar-BBowsHv?li=AAggv0m

This last paragraph in the article :  “Generals once entrusted to lead soldiers in Afghan combat now need ministerial approval to offer a visiting counterpart a glass of wine. The deputy minister, accountable for $19-billion a year in spending and well over $100-billion in defence investments, must authorize the juice and muffins if his subordinates hold a conference.”
 
The headline doesn't match the story, which talks about rebalancing the budget by reducing personnel to free up money for the capital budget. Or did I miss so something?
 
I read it much the same way and am wondering why we would have the "guns" but no one qualified to shoot them?
 
Back
Top