DND will fund Afghan mission out of its own budget next year

[Edward Campbell]

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.

Forgive me for sounding like Bill Clinton, but I guess it all depends on what the definition of increase is.

I'm happy to be corrected, but it's not clear to me that the extraordinary increases are even sufficient to keep place with military capital inflation. I contend, based on old experience I hasten to add, that inflation for military hardware, especially, but also for some O&M activities, is greatly in excess of the established, general inflation rates.

 

[McG]

Well, i find this rather troubling. The money will have to come from somewhere. 

That's the problem.  Through the '90s there were several important infrastructure & capitol projects which were left to wallow while funding was used to conduct operations in the FRY or domestically.  This encouraged the force to atrophy in order to fund operations.  Foreign & domestic operations should be funded with their own money given by the government (and not raked out of DND funds).

 

[cameron]

The part of the article that upsets me the most is the line about political staff complaining that the money Harper has spent on the military has been rewarded with little 'political sizzle.  How stupid can one get, the military is not a vote winning machine it is a war winning machine.  How do these political staffers expect terrorists to be fought, with slingslots, how do they propose we patrol Arctic waters being coveted by Russia, with rowboats?  Leopard II's, C17's, Chinooks, modernized frigates and arctic patrol ships are not extravagances.  If anything they are just a small start to repairing the neglect that prior idiots with their mentality inflicted on the CF.  The purpose of new equipment is to allow our fighting men and women to do the best job possible and to give them a fighting chance of getting in and out of harms way victoriously and alive, not to provide sizzle for some retard in Ottawa.  If you want sizzle go buy a steak.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The part of the article that upsets me the most is the line about political staff complaining that the money Harper has spent on the military has been rewarded with little 'political sizzle.  How stupid can one get, the military is not a vote winning machine it is a war winning machine  ....  If you want sizzle go buy a steak.

As ERC put it so well:  "Harper's goal, his sole, political aim in life, is to win the next election – not just win, but win with a majority".  The prime imperative of Political support staff is to get their Minister the best possible profile so s/he:
1) will continue to be in the good books of follow the strategy laid out by the PM (with appropriate nudging by PMO and PCO); and
2) will get relected.

One of the phrases I've heard to describe this staff is "politically oriented, but operationally aware" - getting/keeping power first and foremost, knowing the rules/policies way, way, way down the list.

- edit to add emphasis from ERC quote -

 

[Edward Campbell]

The part of the article that upsets me the most is the line about political staff complaining that the money Harper has spent on the military has been rewarded with little 'political sizzle.  How stupid can one get, the military is not a vote winning machine it is a war winning machine.  How do these political staffers expect terrorists to be fought, with slingslots, how do they propose we patrol Arctic waters being coveted by Russia, with rowboats?  Leopard II's, C17's, Chinooks, modernized frigates and arctic patrol ships are not extravagances.  If anything they are just a small start to repairing the neglect that prior idiots with their mentality inflicted on the CF.  The purpose of new equipment is to allow our fighting men and women to do the best job possible and to give them a fighting chance of getting in and out of harms way victoriously and alive, not to provide sizzle for some retard in Ottawa.  If you want sizzle go buy a steak.

See Ruxted's Shame on ... Unnamed Official; there's the problem.

It's not unique to the Conservatives; it's not even worse, today, than it was. Do you remember when Gen. Baril, then the CDS, slagged his own people in order to protect Jean Chrétien in his lie that he was unable to attend the funeral of King Hussein (Jordan) because the Air Force couldn't make the flights work? That was crap and Baril lied – said his own people were at fault when he knew full well they were not – to serve the partisan political interests of the government of the day.

What's somewhat different is that the PMO is flexing its muscle in public.

 

[cameron]

Unfortunately it seems that the old attitude in Canada that the military is nothing more than an irrelevant afterthought is still alive and well, despite the heroic actions of our men and women at home and abroad.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

Unfortunately it seems that the old attitude in Canada that the military is nothing more than an irrelevant afterthought is still alive and well, despite the heroic actions of our men and women at home and abroad.

Yes and guess who's leading the charge. Lynch and his cronies from the privy council. I can just picture them now, smirking as they tightened another screw in DND.

They don't give a rats behind about our people in Afghanistan, they've shown this time and again. If it was left upto Lynch, we would be throwing rocks at the taliban. Lynch is about as anti military as you can get and with this new stance on the budget, he just proved it beyond a doubt. If Lynch has his way after we pull out of Afghanistan in either 2009 or 2011, I think military spending will be cut back so much that it will make the "decade of darkness" look like a walk in the park.

 

[blacktriangle]

On that note, how long until the military falls out of favour again? I'm worried it will happen far too soon for me.

I guess theres always CBSA and the RCMP to serve Canada through.  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes and guess who's leading the charge. Lynch and his cronies from the privy council. I can just picture them now, smirking as they tightened another screw in DND.

They don't give a rats behind about our people in Afghanistan, they've shown this time and again. If it was left upto Lynch, we would be throwing rocks at the taliban. Lynch is about as anti military as you can get and with this new stance on the budget, he just proved it beyond a doubt. If Lynch has his way after we pull out of Afghanistan in either 2009 or 2011, I think military spending will be cut back so much that it will make the "decade of darkness" look like a walk in the park.

I think you're being a bit unfair.

I doubt Kevin Lynch is anti-military, per se. Rather, I suspect he holds an old, traditional view that the military is expensive, but, rather like a fire department or an insurance policy, a necessary expense which must be there but which, equally, must do its job at the least possible cost.

Lynch is well known and equally well regarded for a firm focus on good management. He is, also, just the latest in a series of PCO Clerks, DMs of Finance and Secretaries of the Treasury Board who have expressed frustration at DND’s internal management.

According to what I've heard (a nice way of saying rumours, again) the unease with DND’s management is not purely or even mainly financial. Rather it is that the money allocated is hardly ever spent on what DBD itself says are its core priorities.

In fairness to DND, the thing is huge and diverse and the priority list goes on and on and on ... There is, also, a bugger's muddle at the top – thanks to Donald Macdonald (MND (Trudeau) in the early ‘70s) who oversaw the reorganization which left strategic management adrift. (See: http://www.cda-cdai.ca/library/bland.htm )

So, DND is, thanks to its own, internal misorganization, appears (maybe is) unable to plan in a good management manner, and the centre (PCO, Finance, TB) grows increasingly frustrated.

 

[observor 69]

Right so let's review, DND is poorly managed ? and much of Ottawa believes this. My understanding is Harper believes in Canada "regaining" it's international reputation as a responsible active world player. Hillier wants our military to be small and smart, able to respond to international crisis with a properly equipped professional force. Why isn't the man at the top [Harper] making it happen ?
Plus ca change, plus le meme. 

 

[George Wallace]

....... Hillier wants our military to be small and smart, able to respond to international crisis with a properly equipped professional force.

A couple of problems here.  A small, smart and High Tech CF is fine, as long as you DO NOT have to respond to any kind of International Crisis.  Once you commit troops overseas in large numbers as we see today, the Training System is neutered.  You don't have the Instructors to train new people.  'Small and Smart' will lead to 'Stagnation and Decay'.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Right so let's review, DND is poorly managed ? and much of Ottawa believes this. My understanding is Harper believes in Canada "regaining" it's international reputation as a responsible active world player. Hillier wants our military to be small and smart, able to respond to international crisis with a properly equipped professional force. Why isn't the man at the top [Harper] making it happen ?
Plus ca change, plus le meme. 

I’m not sure I know why Harper fails to do what he seems to say he wants to do, but ...

In my opinion:

1. We need a small, smart military, but small ≥ 85,000 full time people with several tens of billions of dollars worth of new equipment;

2. The defence budget must rise to ≈2% of GDP, in other words to about $40 Billion, by about 2020; and

3. The HQ – civil and military components – must be reorganized, yet again, to more clearly delineate the proper duties, responsibilities and powers of the DM/civil service and the CDS/military. This means, inter alia, that the MND must work for a living – helping to resolve the inevitable divisions which should, must occur when the two parts are properly separate and competing.

Further, in my opinion, anything less will lead to the slow, inevitable disarmament of Canada and our weight in world affairs will fall to, even past, irrelevant.

Why doesn’t Harper follow my excellent advice? Because, I repeat, he needs (just as Dion, Duceppe and Layton need) to win elections. Winning elections depends, mostly, on getting the people behind you or, more properly, figuring out where the people are headed, on their own, and then rushing to the front to lead them there. The people of Canada, most of them, anyway, do not want the military I believe we must have. Most Canadians care little and think less about Canada in the world. They want their pogey, etc, and they object to governments spending wasting their money on the cruel and lascivious soldiery.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

A couple of problems here.  A small, smart and High Tech CF is fine, as long as you DO NOT have to respond to any kind of International Crisis.  Once you commit troops overseas in large numbers as we see today, the Training System is neutered.  You don't have the Instructors to train new people.  'Small and Smart' will lead to 'Stagnation and Decay'.

Unless the small comes from streamlined bureaucracy, slimmed-down HQs, fast-track procurement policies, reduced training tempo (just in time vice just because training), and a toolbox of incentives to stay in.  Then you can manage with a small smart force without mortgaging the training establishments - or our ability to respond domestically and internationally.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What exactly are the "top-ups" at fault, in what amount, and for what purposes?

Is there any significant amount of money at issue here?  Is the Department guilty of bloated procurement of bullets, beans, and benzene?  What are the past overruns?

If the government (or, as the case may be, the unelected bootlicking political weathervanes whose jobs depend on the elected party gravy train) is going to make some political hay for itself by cracking down on DND/CF at a time when some people feel DND/CF has gotten a little big for its britches, I'd like to see government (or the political operatives) state some specific factual points instead of smearing the windshield and walking away.

 

[geo]

Heh... more of a case where you are considered guilty... unless you can prove that you are innocent.

 

[Edward Campbell]

What exactly are the "top-ups" at fault, in what amount, and for what purposes?

Is there any significant amount of money at issue here?  Is the Department guilty of bloated procurement of bullets, beans, and benzene?  What are the past overruns?

If the government (or, as the case may be, the unelected bootlicking political weathervanes whose jobs depend on the elected party gravy train) is going to make some political hay for itself by cracking down on DND/CF at a time when some people feel DND/CF has gotten a little big for its britches, I'd like to see government (or the political operatives) state some specific factual points instead of smearing the windshield and walking away.

Dunno, but, as I understand them, the main complaints are:

1. DND cries wolf and cries poor and then, whenever it suits them, they magically come up with enough troops, kit and money to conduct whatever (desirable, to DND) operation the government wants. This proves that, either: DND doesn't know what/how much it has or DND is playing fast and loose with the truth;

2. DND fails to apply its (limited) resources to its own, established, priorities; or: DND's priority list is so big and so broad as to be meaningless. Either is a sign of poor management; and

3. DND talks out of too many sides of too many mouths. Who is in charge?

 

[McG]

This proves that, either: DND doesn't know what/how much it has or DND is playing fast and loose with the truth;

.. or the CF is regularly being exposed to unnecessary risks toward its soldiers lives while consistently managing to achieve barely in reach objectives.

... or, drawing on its military ethic, the CF (out of necessity) sacrifices from simply sustaining its future in order to achieve the government's objectives of the day.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

DND has a habit of not saying no at the cost of everything else.

 

[Kirkhill]

Dunno, but, as I understand them, the main complaints are:

1. DND cries wolf and cries poor and then, whenever it suits them, they magically come up with enough troops, kit and money to conduct whatever (desirable, to DND) operation the government wants. This proves that, either: DND doesn't know what/how much it has or DND is playing fast and loose with the truth;

2. DND fails to apply its (limited) resources to its own, established, priorities; or: DND's priority list is so big and so broad as to be meaningless. Either is a sign of poor management; and

3. DND talks out of too many sides of too many mouths. Who is in charge?

1. Or it proves that politicians, bureaucrats and soldiery don't talk to each other enough except even in times of crises.  

Left to their own devices the soldiery posits the "worst case scenario" and plans accordingly.  This ultimately results in visions of Corps 2000 and Air Armadas.

The politicians on the other hand work from the principle of "what is the minimum I can get away with?" in all circumstances.  Ultimately their yardsticks are established by what they have to do to get good headlines at home.  So any effort is a satisfactory effort.  An extraordinary effort is better. After all the news cycle is driven by the extraordinary, not the ordinary. Arguably a small CF has to exert extraordinary efforts more often than a large CF therefore a small CF generates favourable headlines for less dollars more often than a large CF.

As to the bureaucrats' guiding principle?  "Whatever. When do I qualify for my pension?"

2.  The issue is NOT the DND's priority list.  The issue is that the Politicians, Bureaucrats and Soldiery don't share the SAME priority list.

3.  As to too many people speaking?  It is an institution of people.  People speak.  To argue that people speaking is indicative of a lack of control is in the same league as arguing that people who survive in a controlled communist economy by barter don't understand capitalism and trade.  Communication, trade and barter:  It is who we are and what we do.  You can't change human nature.  You just have to work with it.

And routinely, for politicians, that means finding the head of the parade stampede and then directing the flow from the edges.  Standing in the way of the flow? Well if you want to practice for that career you can start by standing in front of an oncoming Leo2.

Unfortunately we don't live in a society that responds well to directives from on high. Or is that fortunately?  

Hard to know.

Edit:  Just looking at this and the use of the "Worst Case Scenario" as a planning tool.  Is that any more justifiable than the "Precautionary Principle" cited by the eco-nuts as a planning device to stop development and impose regulation?  Both seem to me to run toward the reductio ad absurdum end of the spectrum of debate - useful for defining what ISN'T necessary or possible.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

2.  The issue is NOT the DND's priority list.  The issue is that the Politicians, Bureaucrats and Soldiery don't share the SAME priority list.

...

But, Kirkhill, I suggest that is exactly the problem: DND is, simultaneously:

1. A political portfolio - with a seat at the cabinet table;

2. A large, big spending department of government; and

3. The Canadian Forces.

That being said, it is not, must not be, I suggest, unreasonable to expect that DND will have one, single, relatively short and clear priority list (for each of policies and expenditures) which reflects, in some sensible order, political, bureaucratic and military priorities. It is equally reasonable, in my universe, to expect DND to put most of its efforts (time and money) into most of the items at/near the top of its list.