DND will fund Afghan mission out of its own budget next year
- Thread starter McG
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,324
- Points
- 1,260
Until we can get by the $20 Billion barrier which appears to be ingrained in many politicians and senior officials then things can only go slowly, steadily but surely downhill.
Sen. Kenny is, in my opinion, lowballing the real requirement when he says $25 Billion. We can all argue how much is enough but, I think that if we cannot break the $20 Billion barrier by 2010, and then keep growing the budget, then things will get very bad, very quickly. The choices will all be wrong - and we will, Murphy's Law being what it is, make the worst one.
Sen. Kenny is, in my opinion, lowballing the real requirement when he says $25 Billion. We can all argue how much is enough but, I think that if we cannot break the $20 Billion barrier by 2010, and then keep growing the budget, then things will get very bad, very quickly. The choices will all be wrong - and we will, Murphy's Law being what it is, make the worst one.
A
aesop081
Guest
Well, i find this rather troubling. The money will have to come from somewhere. I guess forces back in Canada will have to take a hit to make the difference. We can go back to sending the troops home early on fridays so that the lights can be turned off.....
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
I just finished reading the latest book by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang on Afghanistan.
In that context this part in the article caught my eye "It's part of an increasingly determined effort by the Harper government to assert more civilian control over the military, which has been perceived as having too much leeway in both the conduct of the war and with the public purse, said the official."
Civilian control OK, but how about having a clue on what and where you want to take the mission?
I get the feeling Harper wants to cool it on Afghanistan and the Manley advisory panel is one way to go about lowering his political risk.
I think Harper knows that he wants the mission to scale back to being "training" and PRT work but it is smarter politically to use Manley, a Liberal, to come forward with that option.
In that context this part in the article caught my eye "It's part of an increasingly determined effort by the Harper government to assert more civilian control over the military, which has been perceived as having too much leeway in both the conduct of the war and with the public purse, said the official."
Civilian control OK, but how about having a clue on what and where you want to take the mission?
I get the feeling Harper wants to cool it on Afghanistan and the Manley advisory panel is one way to go about lowering his political risk.
I think Harper knows that he wants the mission to scale back to being "training" and PRT work but it is smarter politically to use Manley, a Liberal, to come forward with that option.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
Funding Afghanistan ops out of our own budget???
WTF is that supposed to mean?
The Fed Gov't has decided to grow the force over the next XX years
We have to pay for, equip and house these troops with waht $$$ ?
We have to pay for all those political junkets to KAF out of the same budget?
Our masters are certainly not delivering a clear and unquivocal message... IMHO!
WTF is that supposed to mean?
The Fed Gov't has decided to grow the force over the next XX years
We have to pay for, equip and house these troops with waht $$$ ?
We have to pay for all those political junkets to KAF out of the same budget?
Our masters are certainly not delivering a clear and unquivocal message... IMHO!
- Reaction score
- 7,739
- Points
- 1,360
geo said:
One definition: what you have is what you have, and don't expect requests for mo' $ to be taken kindly (if at all) -- happy to be proven wrong, though.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
well... if the Fed want the troops out of Afghanistan, they should say so
If they want the troops to stay IN Afghanistan, they should expect a certain price tag....
Else... Conservatives AND Liberals are politicians cut from the same cloth....
If they want the troops to stay IN Afghanistan, they should expect a certain price tag....
Else... Conservatives AND Liberals are politicians cut from the same cloth....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
This isn't that big of an issue. The war has been funded out of our budget all along. They're just saying "don't come back asking for anymore", which in reality is just a slap on the wrist. If DND runs over its budget then it will get the money it needs, but the government won't be happy about it.
We're running $6-billion suprluses.. so when we give an extra $200 mil to a department that mismanaged its finances, it's not a real big issue.
We're running $6-billion suprluses.. so when we give an extra $200 mil to a department that mismanaged its finances, it's not a real big issue.
- Reaction score
- 6,324
- Points
- 1,260
Some (I'm not sure how much) of the money has come from DFAIT - above and beyond DIDA's share.
There is another issue here, an inside the greenbelt story: Kevin Lynch, Clerk of the Privy Council is rumoured to be, still, mightily unimpressed with DND's management. The rumour mill says that he thinks DND cries wolf, over and over again, and then, when it gets some relief, spends some of its money foolishly.
We used to complain, when I was still serving, about being required to fund every fad that came down the (political) road. I learned, later in life, that other government departments (presumably with management teams with balls) didn't bother with all the politically and bureaucraticall mandated nonsense - they spent their money on their core programmes and then said, "Sorry, Minister; we're outta money again this year. Bad luck unless you can find a late year cash infusion."
I have heard (rumour, again) than Lynch thinks as much as 15% of DND's military budget is misapplied on other than real military priorities. In other words he is rumoured to think that some admirals and generals are spending money on plans, projects, training and whatever which are not high enough on the CDS' priority list, and he thinks the CDS is unwilling or unable to control them.
This mistrust (of DND's management by the centre (PCO, Finance, Treasuty Board)) is nothing new. It existed, I can say with near absolute certainty, in (at least) the '80s and '90s, too.
Edit: typo (spacing)
There is another issue here, an inside the greenbelt story: Kevin Lynch, Clerk of the Privy Council is rumoured to be, still, mightily unimpressed with DND's management. The rumour mill says that he thinks DND cries wolf, over and over again, and then, when it gets some relief, spends some of its money foolishly.
We used to complain, when I was still serving, about being required to fund every fad that came down the (political) road. I learned, later in life, that other government departments (presumably with management teams with balls) didn't bother with all the politically and bureaucraticall mandated nonsense - they spent their money on their core programmes and then said, "Sorry, Minister; we're outta money again this year. Bad luck unless you can find a late year cash infusion."
I have heard (rumour, again) than Lynch thinks as much as 15% of DND's military budget is misapplied on other than real military priorities. In other words he is rumoured to think that some admirals and generals are spending money on plans, projects, training and whatever which are not high enough on the CDS' priority list, and he thinks the CDS is unwilling or unable to control them.
This mistrust (of DND's management by the centre (PCO, Finance, Treasuty Board)) is nothing new. It existed, I can say with near absolute certainty, in (at least) the '80s and '90s, too.
Edit: typo (spacing)
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Do you propose an audit of the CF?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well I must say Mr. Lynch and the privy council naysayers, maybe if we had received better equipment all along, DND wouldn't have to spend, spend and spend to get us up to speed. This is just another example of a bureaucrat entity, trying to justify their existence. Were was he when the Libs were throwing hundreds of millions of dollars away, I didn't hear "boo" from Mr. Lynch then, not one syllable! And he wants to talk about mismanagement. At least everything the military purchases has a purpose and there is a need for it and just doesn't line someones pocket.
All I hear is how smart Lynch is, well if he's so smart I'm sure he can do the math, 30 years of neglect equates to spending alot of the money to reequip and army who's fighting a war and then funding that war, that our government leaders placed us in.
I think it's time someone told Mr Lynch to "STFU" and start paying attention to what's important, instead of causing more unnecessary bureaucratic mayham. Better yet, why doesn't he go over to Afghanistan and see for himself, why we need the money. Everyone else has.
Bureaucratic BS. And then they wonder why nothing gets done. Well when they have a few tons of bureaucratic red tape wrapped around everything its so wonder.
Mr. Lynch get your head out of your ass and have a good look around you. You may find that the world doesn't revolve around the privy council and would go right on without it.
- Reaction score
- 6,324
- Points
- 1,260
The real problem can be seen in the chart at http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/WorkingPapers/wp031.pdf - Chart IV on p. 9. This chart came from a 2003 Project Plowshares paper coauthored by Bill Robinson, then on Plowshares staff, and Dr. Peter Ibbott, then an Assistant Professor of Economics and a member of the Connections Project at King’s College in London, Ontario. Plowshares is a well informed but trusted peace group – no great friend of the military but, generally, careful with facts.
As David ******** points out in a CANWEST article, defence spending when Trudeau came to power was still around 2% of GDP.
The data are clear. The precipitous decline in Canadian defence spending began just as the Korean War ended. The decline was only occasionally arrested – circa 1966 (Pearson), 1970-1972 (Trudeau), 1980-1988 (Trudeau and Mulroney), 1990-1993 (Mulroney) and 2000 to (not shown) 2006 (Chrétien, Martin and Harper).
The problem, as I see it, is that we need to move back towards a reasonable and responsible level of spending which I guesstimate as being just above 2% of GDP. Since Canada’s GDP is about $1.5 Trillion and, according to many economists* is, conservatively, projected to continue to grow at 2.5+%. That means that just ten years from now (2018) our GDP will be, near as damn is to swearing, $2 Trillion. By my guesstimate our defence budget, circa 2018 should be around $40 Billion. In other words the defence budget must more than double in the next decade, even as the GDP (and, presumably, the government’s ”take”) grows by about ⅓; spending must exceed income by a ratio of about 3:1. That’s not going to be popular with Canadians!
If the reputed $20 Billion political ceiling, to which I alluded earlier in this topic, remains in place for too long that means we are set firmly on a course of disarmament by stealth.
The issue, for me, is clear: if, big IF prime Minister Harper is, in any way, serious about leading Canada to play a leading role in the world then he must screw up his courage and start growing the defence budget – fast and hard – right now. But, I suspect that he has taken counsel of his fears – fears based (mainly, but not exclusively) on Québec voters’ traditional antipathy towards defence spending.
----------
* Just Google Canada GDP projections
As David ******** points out in a CANWEST article, defence spending when Trudeau came to power was still around 2% of GDP.
The data are clear. The precipitous decline in Canadian defence spending began just as the Korean War ended. The decline was only occasionally arrested – circa 1966 (Pearson), 1970-1972 (Trudeau), 1980-1988 (Trudeau and Mulroney), 1990-1993 (Mulroney) and 2000 to (not shown) 2006 (Chrétien, Martin and Harper).
The problem, as I see it, is that we need to move back towards a reasonable and responsible level of spending which I guesstimate as being just above 2% of GDP. Since Canada’s GDP is about $1.5 Trillion and, according to many economists* is, conservatively, projected to continue to grow at 2.5+%. That means that just ten years from now (2018) our GDP will be, near as damn is to swearing, $2 Trillion. By my guesstimate our defence budget, circa 2018 should be around $40 Billion. In other words the defence budget must more than double in the next decade, even as the GDP (and, presumably, the government’s ”take”) grows by about ⅓; spending must exceed income by a ratio of about 3:1. That’s not going to be popular with Canadians!
If the reputed $20 Billion political ceiling, to which I alluded earlier in this topic, remains in place for too long that means we are set firmly on a course of disarmament by stealth.
The issue, for me, is clear: if, big IF prime Minister Harper is, in any way, serious about leading Canada to play a leading role in the world then he must screw up his courage and start growing the defence budget – fast and hard – right now. But, I suspect that he has taken counsel of his fears – fears based (mainly, but not exclusively) on Québec voters’ traditional antipathy towards defence spending.
----------
* Just Google Canada GDP projections
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
E.R. Campbell said:
Brings to mind a comment you made a while ago that Harper doesn't present an appearance of truly believing in the Afghanistan mission but is rather playing it for it's strategic political value.
- Reaction score
- 6,324
- Points
- 1,260
I'm a card carrying, dues paying Conservative so take what I say with the applicable grain of salt.
I understand that Harper's goal, his sole, political aim in life, is to win the next election – not just win, but win with a majority government so that he can implement a (big ‘C’) Conservative (small ‘l’ liberal) agenda which should include, inter alia, restoring Canada's place in the world.*
In a five party system it will be difficult for any party to achieve a majority. The keys are, as they must be, Ontario and Québec. My guesstimate is that Harper needs to get 30 additional seats in the next election and more than ⅔ of them must come from Ontario and Québec. That's a steep, uphill battle and I'm not surprised (disappointed, perhaps, but not surprised) that everything else takes third place.
Harper's perceived (according to the polls) strengths are:
• Ability – he appears to be regarded as the most competent leader/prime minister; and
• Integrity – provided he can avoid the Mulroney/Ouellet/Schreiber tar-brush, he also appears to be seen as being squeaky clean.
His weaknesses are:
• Trust – for better or worse the Liberals hidden agenda campaign works. Canadians do not trust Harper or, at least the Harper led Conservatives, to not bring in a Refoooooorm platform; and
• Attitude – Harper is not an easy man to like, I guess, and Canadians do not (cannot?) warm to him.
Somehow Afghanistan appears, for now, anyway, to reinforce his weaknesses. The opposition (official and media) have managed to move it from the plus to the minus column. Early in 2006 Harper was well regarded for his handling of Afghanistan but, by various means, he managed to make it his war, rather than Canada's war – he had help: thank you media.
So, I'm not surprised that he's trying to avoid paying too much attention to Afghanistan and, consequently, the military.
Disappointed: YES; Surprised: NO.
----------
* It ought, also, to include, lowering taxes until the feds ‘take’ just enough to pay for properly national programmes and services and manage the fiscal situation. That means extracting the feds from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction while, simultaneously, transferring tax room to the provinces.
Edit: spelling - Mulroney/OuletteOuellet/Schreiber tar-brush ...
I understand that Harper's goal, his sole, political aim in life, is to win the next election – not just win, but win with a majority government so that he can implement a (big ‘C’) Conservative (small ‘l’ liberal) agenda which should include, inter alia, restoring Canada's place in the world.*
In a five party system it will be difficult for any party to achieve a majority. The keys are, as they must be, Ontario and Québec. My guesstimate is that Harper needs to get 30 additional seats in the next election and more than ⅔ of them must come from Ontario and Québec. That's a steep, uphill battle and I'm not surprised (disappointed, perhaps, but not surprised) that everything else takes third place.
Harper's perceived (according to the polls) strengths are:
• Ability – he appears to be regarded as the most competent leader/prime minister; and
• Integrity – provided he can avoid the Mulroney/Ouellet/Schreiber tar-brush, he also appears to be seen as being squeaky clean.
His weaknesses are:
• Trust – for better or worse the Liberals hidden agenda campaign works. Canadians do not trust Harper or, at least the Harper led Conservatives, to not bring in a Refoooooorm platform; and
• Attitude – Harper is not an easy man to like, I guess, and Canadians do not (cannot?) warm to him.
Somehow Afghanistan appears, for now, anyway, to reinforce his weaknesses. The opposition (official and media) have managed to move it from the plus to the minus column. Early in 2006 Harper was well regarded for his handling of Afghanistan but, by various means, he managed to make it his war, rather than Canada's war – he had help: thank you media.
So, I'm not surprised that he's trying to avoid paying too much attention to Afghanistan and, consequently, the military.
Disappointed: YES; Surprised: NO.
----------
* It ought, also, to include, lowering taxes until the feds ‘take’ just enough to pay for properly national programmes and services and manage the fiscal situation. That means extracting the feds from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction while, simultaneously, transferring tax room to the provinces.
Edit: spelling - Mulroney/
Question: If the DND budget gets extraordinary $ for supplementing the Afghanistan conflict for x years, and once Afghanistan conflict is stabilized/over/etc. and the $$ stays in the DND budget, is that not result in an increase by default? People are already used to the DND having this many billions, and it just never changes, in fact they ask for normal COLA increases to maintain spending levels.
Similar threads
