Military Spending question

[Bo]

I have a question regarding Canada's military spending (this subject has been beaten to death, I know).

According to the CIA, Canada is ranked 15th in the world (170 countries listed) in terms of absolute spending on the military. Their site shows that in 2003, Canada spent $9,801,700,000 on defense.

In terms of military spending as a percent of GDP, Canada is ranked 131st. Only 1.1% of GDP goes toward military spending. The world average is 2.0%

Now, all that I ever hear about our military is that it is under-funded. The planes, helicopters, subs, etc, all need to be upgraded and/or replaced and there is simply not enough money to address all these issues.

Given the above information, does this mean that all the countries ranked below Canada (in absolute spending) are worse off? It should be noted that we spend more on military than the following countries:

Israel (though they do get help from US)
Greece
North Korea
Sweden
Iran
Norway
Pakistan
South Africa
Switzerland
Egypt

I'm just curious to know how 10 billion dollars per year is not enough when all these countries seem to get by on less. Are they more efficient with their spending? Geographically, they are much smaller...could that be a factor?

 

[scotty884]

I think its more of the way we spend the money.  IE:  purchasing those stupit subs, wasting money on things as excessive use of paper ( I went through 3 packages the other day for just checklists like MY GOD) ect... my 2 cents

 

[pbi]

Israel (though they do get help from US)
Greece
North Korea
Sweden
Iran
Norway
Pakistan
South Africa
Switzerland
Egypt

I don't pretend to be an economist (I have to take off my boots to count past ten...) but here are few suggestions:

1)Almost all of these countries (with the exception of Pakistan and the possible exception of South Africa) rely on conscription or some other form of compulsory national service. The full time component of their Armies (typically the largest consumer of people) probably consists of a small proportion of professionals (usually officers, WOs and the more senior NCOs) while the junior NCOs and troops are serving only a short period of time. This works for these countries because in almost all cases their military is oriented on a fairly straightforward "homeland defense" concept with perhaps very limited regional deployments. This is an OK job for conscript armies. To be expeditionary requires a much more professional, high-readiness Army that brings with it a much greater personnel cost envelope. Canada falls into the latter category;

2) on a related note to 1) above, in Canada, the US, the UK, etc if you want good people in the military in peacetime, you pay for them. None of the countries I just named rely on a draft to man their expeditionary-oriented forces, for domestic political reasons: they pay (and pay well on the world scale). Many of the countries on the list do not have this concern. Even Pakistan, which has an all-volunteer professional force doesn't have to offer all that much to its recruits;

3) we are required by the Govt to spend  money in a manner that furthers its domestic political aims rather than merely meeting a concrete military need(which of course we would much prefer). While all countries have this to a degree, our policies (due to the need to counterbalance regionalism) are particularly noticeable;

4) we tend to buy expensive items. The Upholder subs aside, we normally buy or build  brand new, but in uneconomically small numbers. This gives us some of the best equipment in the world, but at a huge per-unit cost that means we get less bang for the buck. A number of these countries equip their mlitaries with very old equipment, frequently cast-off or bargain basement rubbish, When you actually see them, and see their soldiers, you see how crap they are in that sense;

5) While we also subsidize industry, we do not have a large arms-producing sector the way several of these countries do(Israel, Sweden, South Africa,)  Normally these sectors are heavily subsidized and protected;

6) For a small Army, our climate and geographic dispersion mean that we have HUGE infrastructural costs. We have more invested in infratructure than some armies several times our size. Now, this means that we have some of the finest and most modern military infrastructure in the world ("some", I said....) and it means that our troops are not quartered in WWII-style 200 man H-Huts, but t also means that we pay big bucks, all the time. Just an increase in heating fuel costs can seriously affect the budget of a Land Force Area, for example;

7) North Korea is a bad example, being a communist state. Under that type of highly militarized society, it is often a practice that costs we would assign to DND are borne by other sectors of the government. For example, basic military training may be funded and delivered through the school or the employer, fuel and food costs absorbed elsewhere in the economy, etc. As well, I would tend to be extremely suspicious of ANY data coming out of North Korea; and

8 )as you correctly pointed out, a number of these countries are recipients of loans, grants or re-equipment programs funded by the US. We generally prefer not to go this route (for political reasons) although as a soldier I must say it is tempting.

Just my take.

Cheers

 

[Bo]

Wow! Great answer pbi. Very informative, thanks.

 

[Pencil Tech]

PBI, that's a pretty comprehensive analysis. You mentioned Sweden having a small largely conscript military and a big (very big, in fact) arms industry, which is very interesting. I think one of the problems here is that the government paradoxically is squeamish about spending money on military procurement,  yet still seems to want to have an arms industry in this country. Every time they actually do buy a piece of kit, it's, like you say, a big ticket item, but there always have to be all kinds of economic spin-offs, jobs, etc. There is very often a controversial tendering process (Sea King replacement, CF-18 maintenance contract, Halifax Class frigate construction) and everything from a LAV III (GM London) to an LSVW (Bombardier) or a C-7 (Diemaco) has to be made here. So the government uses military procurement as a regional development (and yes, patronage) tool, and the costs are sky-high, and it takes forever. I think our government has to decide whether it wants armed forces or an arms industry. I believe our military spending needs to be much higher, still I wonder how well kit out we might be if we bought everything off the shelf with the same budget.

 

[pbi]

still I wonder how well kit out we might be if we bought everything off the shelf with the same budget.

Excellent question, and one I've often considered. In the short term, we'd probably get better kit at a lower price, fast. In the longer term, we would have to be careful who we were becoming beholden to and dependent upon.

Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

still I wonder how well kit out we might be if we bought everything off the shelf with the same budget.

Excellent question, and one I've often considered. In the short term, we'd probably get better kit at a lower price, fast. In the longer term, we would have to be careful who we were becoming beholden to and dependent upon.

I believe the same.  But maybe short term and long term goals don't have to be mutually exclusive.  In our current situation it might make sense to take our lumps so to speak and bypass the Canadian Content requirement and buy the kit.  Then we can take another look at long term industrial strategies.

Also with respect to the amount of money spent, a budget is a very elastic thing.  In some countries the Defence Budget just covers capital, manpower, maintenance and training. Operational deployments come out of General Revenues and are in addition to the Defence Budget.  In our case we also have to cover pensions and a variety of grants and environmental programmes that tend to make our expenditure look greater than it is in comparison to other countries that may parcel those costs out to various other government departments.

Some authors, Colonel Bland and Jack Granatstein for two IIRC and I believe Col Marsh, have all suggested that our politicians inflate the budget with social programmes to make the number look good to the public (and perhaps to some of our less witted allies) without having to actually buy kit and soldiers.  At the same time there is also a suggestion that much of the kit we buy ends up being, as pbi suggests, priced something over the market, in the interests of Canadians.

I have believed for a while, that Paul Martin can have his cake and eat it too, IF HE WANTS TOO.  By changing purchasing rules, by transferring out costs (such as the social costs as well as operational costs) to other departments then he could significantly increase the buying power of the CF.  Add a few more dollars to the kitty and announce some new bodies and new kit and Bob's Your Uncle, Paul's a financial genius again and the Conservatives and all those Ex-Generals are proven to have been wrong again.

I am really fascinated to see what comes out of this review and budget.  The Fact that DART is about to become a multi-departmental affair suggests that operating costs will be dispersed and thus could come out of General Revenues, or Foreign Affairs or CIDA or International Assistance.....  Imagination is a wonderful thing. 

 

[CBH99]

I too am anxious to see what comes from this foreign policy and defense policy review.  I've never been a fan of the liberals, but so far - in my humble opinion - Mr. Martin is on the right track.  Its refreshing to finally have a leader who seems to actually care about the true Canada, and has a passion for returning this country to a respected international standing.  And ordering a review of all government spending and policies is a great, strong start to running an efficient governmental machine.  Hopefully the foreign and defense review will be everything we want it to be, and it will provide clear direction for the military - which translates into a lot less money wasted.

 

[pbi]

I too am anxious to see what comes from this foreign policy and defense policy review.   I've never been a fan of the liberals, but so far - in my humble opinion - Mr. Martin is on the right track.   Its refreshing to finally have a leader who seems to actually care about the true Canada, and has a passion for returning this country to a respected international standing.   And ordering a review of all government spending and policies is a great, strong start to running an efficient governmental machine.   Hopefully the foreign and defense review will be everything we want it to be, and it will provide clear direction for the military - which translates into a lot less money wasted.

While I have learned over the years to be highly suspicious of any Canadian's party's "stance" on defence issues, I tend to agree with you and I am willing to see what he will do. He seems to realize that the military is one of the instruments of national influence, which the Chretien lot never really grasped beyond flinging us about as a worn-out, moth-eaten "flag" to say "we're here".

Cheers

 

[a_majoor]

Making budgets muti-dimentional is probably a bad thing, in my opinion, since the accountability becomes even more blurered than the situation we have today. Take the fiscal year end, for a simple example. If the money is not spent, it is clawed back and usually the next years allotments reflect the lower spending amounts from the previous year; department managers are punished for saving money!

Now DART (for example) will have two sets of hands on two separate budgets. If DART is not deployed, Will DND or DFAIT be responsible for turning in the "extra" money, or will the DART suddenly be showered with hundreds of CORCAN ergonomic office chairs? More ominously, what happens if one partner opposes the other (Deploy Dart to Lower Volta and we are seen as supporting Vladimir X. No way!). Do we want to see deployments delayed not by weeks but by months as the various factions fight it out in the PMO?

Purchasing can be straight forward (sure, we want 250 FH-77 howitzers, please have them on the Halifax dock by March 31), and the regional benifits/political pork games can come with the maintainence and upgrading later in the life cycle. This still adds costs to systems we should not really have to pay, but at least we will be getting up to date kit in quantities that are reasonable, rather than accepting we are (for example) going to buy 1000 fewer LAV III varients than the Army requires due to excessive costs...

 

[Kirkhill]

I understand what you are saying a_majoor and I agree with you on the accountability issue.  In the long term it is a recipe for abuse.

However in the short term, a bit of incomprehensible smoke and mirrors for the electorate would allow the PM to conduct a tactical withdrawal on the political front while at the same time advancing his agenda on the Foreign Relations front and simultaneously undercutting the Tories.  Not a bad day's work as far as the PMO would be concerned.

In a few years, after the lump of Capital investment has been digested then the Government, if it chooses, can slowly ramp up investment, divest or retrench some of those outsourced costs to repad the budget.

Politics.  The art of the possible.

 

[DaveK]

I too am anxious to see what comes from this foreign policy and defense policy review.   I've never been a fan of the liberals, but so far - in my humble opinion - Mr. Martin is on the right track.   Its refreshing to finally have a leader who seems to actually care about the true Canada, and has a passion for returning this country to a respected international standing.   And ordering a review of all government spending and policies is a great, strong start to running an efficient governmental machine.   Hopefully the foreign and defense review will be everything we want it to be, and it will provide clear direction for the military - which translates into a lot less money wasted.

I think Martin tracks polls and the advice that eminates from the PMO.  Just for laughs read this article:

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=522

You may have to register, if not I can send a cut copy in a PM.

 

[Agamemnon]

It's quite simple...we arent a warrior nation....yes we faught our fair share of wars...but if you look at the greeks having the constant fear of the turcs...the egyptians...had isreal to worry about...etc..


If ever we had an actual dangerous enemy...it would be spent diffrently...

 

[Kirkhill]

It's quite simple...we arent a warrior nation

Ok first off Quebecois ARE diffrent face it we have diffrent cultures.

Not quite sure which "we" you are referring to.  Nor am I sure I understand your ability to speak on behalf of either or both Nations (no matter how you define it).

Personally I find it difficult to be sure I am speaking on my own behalf much of the time.  I certainly don't feel qualified to speak on behalf of anyone else.

In point of fact I do agree with your opinion that Quebecois are a different and a distinct culture, as opposed to Maritimers, Torontonians, Calgarians, Vancouverites, Newfoundlanders or Inuit, I can't agree with your assertion about a warrior nation.  No matter how you slice it.

All of the "nations" that constitute the "nation" (or state) of Canada have all conducted wars and have warriors within their culture and their body-politic.  Collectively Canadians have waged war. Individually Canadians have waged war.  Collectively and individually Quebecois have waged war and conducted violent acts in support of their society, Canada and Quebec.

We may not have a Warrior Government but as to whether Canadians, Quebecois or any of the other component nations are supportive of warriors is an open question.

Cheers.

Please write when you make it back from Troy.

 

[Agamemnon]

i loved the troy part of your post lol...but i took agamemnon not for the historicle figure but in a science fiction charactor


The canadian people are the first to walk in the streets and demand peace...

Because the goverment reflects the people...if we had a warrior type population the goverment would invest more in defence...and the liberals wouldint have their present budget...

 

[FredDaHead]

I'd be inclined to agree with Agamemnon, BUT, I think it's more of a question of Canadians wanting to "pick the right fight." From what I gather, the Armed Forces were backed by the people during the World Wars, and most people didn't really oppose going to Afghanistan, and in between we went to a bunch of places where people were "happy" about.

The problem comes when we have an irresponsible government *coughliberalscough* who doesn't know where to go, and the people are afraid of using our soldiers wrongly.

My friends and the people I hang out with are almost all anti-war and many were at the anti-Iraq-war demonstrations, yet almost all of them support my decision to join the Navy. This is just from my perspective, but I think Canadians (if my surroundings can represent at least a sizeable chunk of the population) don't really dislike the Armed Forces, they just don't like them being used for "bad" reasons. (ie, "blood for oil" in Iraq)

Another proof we're not that anti-war as a nation is that soldiers aren't disrespected, made fun of, spat on, etc (at least, not that I know, and not in great numbers as in other countries). If we really hated warriors that badly, wouldn't the general populace make life hell for them?

Just my two cents...

 

[Ma Rung]

First hi all,

Am new to this forum and this is my first post...have been "lurking" for a few weeks and i've thoroughly enjoyed reading some of the posts. I hope to involve myself more in future discussions/debates.

Topic of military spending both as an absolute amount AND as a % of GNP/GDP is one that has been debated fairly extensively in Australia as well. Particularly relevent is that fact that most people on this forum seem to equate that both Australia and Canada share many similaritys however Australia tends to "get more bang for it's buck" to borrow a phrase from another post on this forum.

In looking at the original list that was published in the first post of this topic, how many countries on that list have such extensive social welfare systems as Canada does??

One must understand that there is a finite amount of funding, to increase either the dollar value OR % value of spending on defence, it must come from another source either through cost cutting or effeciency. Since the words "government" and "efficiency" dont go hand in hand, one must assume that is must come from Cost Cutting. I dont think ANY government would consider reducing budget of say..something like National Health, or Tertiary education to fund Defence, it would be political suicide. The flip side is that while there are many on this forum (and in Australia too) who are all for an increase in defence budget, how many are prepared to have this increase if that means a cut back in health care and waiting lines at the hospitals? or in the social welfare network and cancel social welfare for those without jobs? or in education so fees increase? or in any of the multitude of services that are readily available to us.

South Africa? Pakistan? greece? Egypt? look at the quality of life and what sort of social services their government provide the citizens?

Basic services that you and i would take for granted are non existent. A defence spending of 10% of GNP HAS to come at a social cost.

Sweden/Norway and the other Scandinavian countries? A slightly different scenario. These countries have some of hte most extensive social welfare systems in teh world, first class health facilities, free education right through to tertiary/university etc, but look at their income tax rates. Sweden, Denmark, Norway - Personal income tax rate is almost 70% on the highest tax bracket. I dont think i want 70% of my salary going to the tax man!!

Sweden with it's arms industry - again slightly different scenarios in terms of the development of their armaments industry. They were officially NEUTRAL nations and HAD to be self sufficient. South Africa and Israel were international Pariahs and HAD to be self sufficient, but again development of such a vast arms industry comes at a social cost, compare their welfare and health, medical and education systems to Canada/Australia/UK and they are SEVERLY lacking.

I think in this day/age one must come to accept that for the MAJORITY of the people, spending on defence simply isnt a priority. What the average punter wants is to be able to go to work, go home, pay his/her mortgage with relatively low interest, be able to have access to doctor when he's sick, be able to get into hospital when he needs it, be able to send his kids to school without paying an arm and a leg, and know in the back of his head that if he ever loses his job etc atleast he can apply for some sort of financial assistance. After all "out of sight is out of mind" as far as Defence is concerned.

Just my two cents worth, sorry if it's chequered, i was writing while finishing off other work too

regards
Jeelan