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

Reconstitution

You’re very French, you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket - Sez the French Ambassador

I have a new hero....

Peut-etre?


Naval (Sic)-gazing Canada has neglected its military, new French ambassador says​

The problem, in part, is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, Michel Miraillet said

Author of the article:
Tom Blackwell
Publishing date:
Oct 14, 2022 • 38 minutes ago • 4 minute read • 16 Comments

Canadian peacekeepers in Haiti in 1997. In military terms, this country is less present than it was 10 or 15 years ago, France's ambassador said of Canada.'s ambassador said of Canada.
Canadian peacekeepers in Haiti in 1997. "In military terms, this country is less present than it was 10 or 15 years ago," France's ambassador said of Canada. PHOTO BY DANIEL MOREL/AP, FILE

Caught up in naval (sic)-gazing and living under the protective shield of the United States, Canada has allowed its military presence worldwide to wither over the last decade or so, France’s new ambassador to Ottawa suggested Friday.

In blunt comments that he said reflected his own personal opinions, Michel Miraillet argued Canada needs to boost its defence capabilities as threats increase from the likes of China, Russia and North Korea.

The problem, in part, is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, he said.

“It’s always difficult for a country that by its nature is highly protected, with a big guy below who is a big pain in the neck but at the end of the day, well, it works,” said Miraillet. “You’re very French, you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket…. If you want to remain in the first-class seat, you need to train and expand and to go somewhere.”

“This country in some ways may be too comfortable, too comfortable.”

The ambassador’s remarks were by no means the first time someone from outside this country has criticized Ottawa’s recent defence spending record. U.S. presidents have long urged Canada and other lagging members of NATO to meet the alliance’s recommended goal of allocating two per cent of GDP to the military.

But it’s unusual to hear a similar complaint from another of Canada’s allies, albeit one whose arms industry might profit from increased equipment buying from Ottawa.



RECOMMENDED FROM EDITORIAL​

  1. Canadian troops of NATO enhanced Forward Presence battle group attend meeting with Canadian Defence Minister Anita Anand in Adazi, Latvia February 3, 2022.

    Canada slips further away from NATO's 2% defence spending benchmark​

  2. U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Cohen:

    U.S. Ambassador says Canada didn't live up to its own hype on defence spending​

According to NATO figures, France is 11th among the group’s 29 nations, spending just under the two-per-cent target — 1.90 per cent of GDP. Canada is 24th, budgeting just 1.27 per cent of gross domestic product for defence.

Miraillet, a former director general for global affairs, acknowledged Canada’s recent contributions to international defence, including its involvement in Afghanistan, soldiers sent to Baltic countries and training of Ukrainian troops.

He also said that this country has a “fantastic” reputation in France as a sympathetic nation with similar values.

But the ambassador said he recalls a day when, for instance, Canada was a major contributor to United Nations peacekeeping, a contrast to today’s situation.

After reaching a high point in 1993, when over 3,300 Canadians were deployed on peacekeeping missions, the number dwindled to just 54 this year, figures compiled by Royal Military College Prof. Walter Dorn indicate.

“At the end of the day, I have the feeling that in military terms, this country is less present than it was 10 or 15 years ago,” said Miraillet. “Canada was far more present in the past in Africa than it is now…. There is a need to have more Canada on the ground, not only in Africa but also in Asia.”

He suggested as well that threats in this country’s backyard are growing, with China sending icebreakers into the Arctic, possibly heralding the arrival of Peoples Liberation Army submarines. Meanwhile, Russia has deployed more attack submarines than ever, said the ambassador.






But he said Canada has a “huge problem” with its own submarine fleet, calling them “very old” ships. In fact, the second-hand vessels bought from the U.K. have been plagued with mechanical problems, triggering high-cost repairs. Miraillet also called into question the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the joint U.S.-Canada continental defence program.

“You are now confronted with a situation where NORAD looks like an old Volvo 240. I mean it’s strong, but you have to beef it up.”

Instead of looking beyond its borders at security threats and humanitarian needs worldwide, Canada seems consumed by internal political discussions, especially over “gender” issues, said Miraillet.

“Now I have this sentiment — this is very personal — but the country is really belly-button focused, more than ever.”

His remarks — delivered with self-deprecating humour — may not have been completely altruistic. France has a major arms industry and recently was stung by Australia’s decision to scrap a deal to buy 12 French-made diesel-electric submarines. They are to be replaced by eight nuclear subs it will buy from the U.S. instead. The Royal Canadian Navy has said it is looking at purchasing a new submarine fleet.

The ambassador cited an incident in the early 90s when the Canadian navy approached France about buying attack submarines from it, only for the U.S. to scuttle the discussions. But he suggested Canada needs a bigger military to respond to international security risks, regardless of where it buys its equipment.

“I’m not telling you that you need to buy French frigates — though that would be a sign of good taste,” he said with a smile. “But on the other hand, what I want to see is just to have enough capacities to be ready … just for deterrence.”

Angry Batman Returns GIF by HBO Max
 
Likely because the RegF staffing is the biggest problem right now... You prioritize what needs fixing now, vs. what can wait a bit longer.

Regardless of esteemed forum member's opinions, the RegF is still the primary arm of the GoC, so it is the primary focus. Once the crisis is abated in the RegF, serious efforts at fixing the ResF are needed.

I may be one of the overpaid, useless, waste of rations RegF members, but I also recognize that Canada needs a strong, ResF with a useful raison d'être. ;)
Perhaps not surprisingly the two members who defended Sam Hughes in a previous thread have similar views on us “bar room layabouts” to quote his opinion of the permanent force.
 
Perhaps not surprisingly the two members who defended Sam Hughes in a previous thread have similar views on us “bar room layabouts” to quote his opinion of the permanent force.
Just got home from the pub, I'm sure I have personally destroyed at least 4-25 ResF Battalions with my filthy RegF ways.
 
Last edited:
Just got home from the pub, I'm sure I have personally destroyed at least 4-25 ResF Battalions with my filthy RegF ways.

If my time, so far with the Army Reserve, has taught me anything it's that its a completely broken organization.

And it's it's more their fault than anything else. The dirty secret is they like it this way.
 
I think ‘they’ is unfair as a whole. More like like most WO and higher and most MAJ and higher.
I would tend to agree, however, I dealt with many confused Cpl/Ptes who were signed on to FTSE and were extremely confused to find themselves in Wainwright supporting CMTC rather than hanging out in the CQ at their local armoury.

It's a cultural thing bred at all rank levels.
 
I think ‘they’ is unfair as a whole. More like like most WO and higher and most MAJ and higher.
I agree with that in general.

I'm obviously going back a few years in my experience but I always found the young ORs and junior officers very enthusiastic about the field work and training in general. It's as they climbed the ranks and reached roughly major and WO that the mess and the annual ball and the band fund and the regimental museum started taking precedent.

It's a culture that perpetuates itself which is why I'm one hundred percent behind a radical shakeup to hybrid units and changing the leadership at that level to RegF. My biggest fear with hybrid units is that if things aren't set up properly, those positions may become ones where the RegF dumps its marginal leaders. "Bar Room Layabouts" exist in all organizations and if allowed to proliferate or congregate can spoil the whole barrel. The real crime, however, is to allow a system to stay dysfunctional for decades on end without doing anything about it.

🍻
 
The real crime, however, is to allow a system to stay dysfunctional for decades on end without doing anything about it.
That....

And local command by locally raised Captains has made a lot of sense for a long, long time.

If you wear a crown you should be a full time employee of His Majesty.
 
If my time, so far with the Army Reserve, has taught me anything it's that its a completely broken organization.

And it's it's more their fault than anything else. The dirty secret is they like it this way.
I don’t disagree in the slightest.

Why do you (or anybody) feel like the leadership in the Army Reserve likes it this way?
 
The Cadet Organization which is designed to prepare youth with limited military skills and to effectively indoctrinate them to participate in future military service.
It would be very interesting to see what percentage of our recruits (not including CIC), actually have Cadet experience.

It would also be interesting to see what percentage of Cadets actually join the CAF (not including CIC).
 
It would be very interesting to see what percentage of our recruits (not including CIC), actually have Cadet experience.

It would also be interesting to see what percentage of Cadets actually join the CAF (not including CIC).
I'd also like to break down what percentage join as NCM or Officer.

I ask because the main draw for many Air Cadets is flying, so I'd guess many of them apply as a Pilot. How many actually get that, or another trade, etc would be what I'd like to know.
 
I don’t disagree in the slightest.

Why do you (or anybody) feel like the leadership in the Army Reserve likes it this way?
That's a good question. I'm obviously not speaking on behalf of @Halifax Tar but in my own experience there are certainly a number of reserve senior leaders at both the OR and officer level that are "comfortable" with the system as it is at their level. IMHO Reserves 2000 is a group that supports the structure while calling for more people , equipment, budget etc., and speaks for many senior reservists.

Prestige and networking does still matter in some circles although money not so much. Many could probably make more money if they used the time spent on reserve matters on their own business or other civilian jobs. (just as an example, the ResF LegOs daily rate of military pay is roughly the hourly rate they can bill as civilian lawyers.)

What's important , though, is that there are a large number of dedicated reserve force leaders who throw themselves into the job to make a contribution to both the country and the troops they lead.

🍻
 
The entire concept of the reserves is strange. What other organization in the country would decide that they want to hire a bunch of part time and temp full time workers... and put them all together to run themselves, mostly separate from the main body of the organization?

There's nothing wrong with the concept of having reservists, but the fact that they're mostly off doing their own thing is just bound to lead to dysfunctionality.
 
The entire concept of the reserves is strange. What other organization in the country would decide that they want to hire a bunch of part time and temp full time workers... and put them all together to run themselves, mostly separate from the main body of the organization?.
Volunteer fire fighters jump to mind
 
Volunteer fire fighters jump to mind

So what is the difference between the Volunteer Fire Fighter and the Primary Reservist?

At risk of starting another bruising -

The Volunteer Fire Fighter has a day to day responsibility in support of his or her community. They understand the need for their services and their community welcomes and support that service.

The Reservist - toils (perhaps too strong a word) in obscurity. The community seldom even knows they are there. And the Reservist, more often than not, is focused on doing things that appeal to the Reservist but has little application to the community. For some it is a shortcut to the rifle range - bypassing the aggravation of a full time career.

The Volunteer Fire Fighter is focused on a real life task. And the community helps to maintain that focus.
 
Back
Top