D
Drez
Guest
December 4, 2002
'Every nation," said Winston Churchill, "must have an army, either its own or somebody else's." His words bear on the fundamental question of Canadian security policy today: Because of Canadian military weakness, the upper half of the North American continent is increasingly going to be secured not by Canadians and Americans working together, but by Americans alone, acting under American commanders and on behalf of American interests.
Canadians have lost a lot of sovereignty because of military weakness; we are about to lose a lot more. Historically, Canadians took care of domestic security well enough, and relied on the British army and the Royal Navy for external defense. But, from the summer of 1940, when Britain appeared to be on the verge of defeat by Germany, to the present, Canada has relied on the United States for help to guard the approaches to the country and to the continent.
Until the past generation or so, Canada has been capable not of defending itself, but of not being a burden to the United States. Today, however, Canada has provided Washington with an unnecessary problem: how to deal with a friendly country that is rapidly running out of defense capability and doesn't see its weakness as a problem.
Canada's current defense posture is not encouraging. Consider first the country's best-equipped and most battle-ready service, the navy. Ottawa's long-standing naval strategy is built around the concept of a flexible task group that can operate in combination with other navies - or, rather, with the only one that counts for Canada, the U.S. Navy. Canada has three 30-year-old destroyers and a fourth tied up in British Columbia because there are not enough sailors to put her to sea. In addition, four surplus submarines have been purchased from the Royal Navy, but there have been problems making them serviceable. Canada also owns two old and rusty support ships.
About the only blue-water vessels that are approximately equal to their American equivalents are a dozen Halifax-class frigates. They are still relatively up-to-date - except that they carry Sea King helicopters. At 40-plus years of age, these dangerous helicopters are considerably senior to the pilots who fly them.
Worst of all, half of Canada's surface fleet and trained sailors are committed to Operation Apollo, Canada's military contribution to the international campaign against terrorism. But the current levels of commitment are simply not sustainable. There are no plans to replace the old ships. There is no slack to take the frigates out of service to upgrade them. By conservative estimates, within five years, Canada will be unable to mount any task group deployments.
Matters are even worse in the other two services. The number of operational CF-18 jet fighters has declined from 122 some 20 years ago to about 80. One reason so many Air Canada pilots are so young is because they took early retirement from the air force.
Worst of all is the army. It needs 24 new fire control support technicians a year to operate certain wheeled armored vehicles. Over the past four years, a total of four technicians have been recruited. Canada has no first-class tanks.
The reason for the sorry state of the Canadian Forces is obvious: Successive Canadian governments spent the "peace dividend" long before there was a hint of peace. Currently, defense expenditures constitute 1.1 percent of the gross domestic product, which places us just ahead of Luxembourg. The United States spends Canada's defense budget in less than a week.
Moreover, the Americans have noticed. For U.S. defense planners, the Canadian Forces are past the point of no return: Canada may as well not have an army, the air force is minute and the navy will soon enough be rust.
In short, Americans today can no longer neglect Canada and trust Canadians to do their duty. It is one reason why the animosity between official Washington and official Ottawa is nearing an all-time high. For the United States, Canadians have become weak freeloaders with a bad attitude.
Machiavelli explained what all this means for Canada-U.S. relations: "Among the evils of being unarmed," he said, "it causes you to be despised." Canadians are going to have to get used to being despised.
This comes directly from a US board of inquiry on international defense...
'Every nation," said Winston Churchill, "must have an army, either its own or somebody else's." His words bear on the fundamental question of Canadian security policy today: Because of Canadian military weakness, the upper half of the North American continent is increasingly going to be secured not by Canadians and Americans working together, but by Americans alone, acting under American commanders and on behalf of American interests.
Canadians have lost a lot of sovereignty because of military weakness; we are about to lose a lot more. Historically, Canadians took care of domestic security well enough, and relied on the British army and the Royal Navy for external defense. But, from the summer of 1940, when Britain appeared to be on the verge of defeat by Germany, to the present, Canada has relied on the United States for help to guard the approaches to the country and to the continent.
Until the past generation or so, Canada has been capable not of defending itself, but of not being a burden to the United States. Today, however, Canada has provided Washington with an unnecessary problem: how to deal with a friendly country that is rapidly running out of defense capability and doesn't see its weakness as a problem.
Canada's current defense posture is not encouraging. Consider first the country's best-equipped and most battle-ready service, the navy. Ottawa's long-standing naval strategy is built around the concept of a flexible task group that can operate in combination with other navies - or, rather, with the only one that counts for Canada, the U.S. Navy. Canada has three 30-year-old destroyers and a fourth tied up in British Columbia because there are not enough sailors to put her to sea. In addition, four surplus submarines have been purchased from the Royal Navy, but there have been problems making them serviceable. Canada also owns two old and rusty support ships.
About the only blue-water vessels that are approximately equal to their American equivalents are a dozen Halifax-class frigates. They are still relatively up-to-date - except that they carry Sea King helicopters. At 40-plus years of age, these dangerous helicopters are considerably senior to the pilots who fly them.
Worst of all, half of Canada's surface fleet and trained sailors are committed to Operation Apollo, Canada's military contribution to the international campaign against terrorism. But the current levels of commitment are simply not sustainable. There are no plans to replace the old ships. There is no slack to take the frigates out of service to upgrade them. By conservative estimates, within five years, Canada will be unable to mount any task group deployments.
Matters are even worse in the other two services. The number of operational CF-18 jet fighters has declined from 122 some 20 years ago to about 80. One reason so many Air Canada pilots are so young is because they took early retirement from the air force.
Worst of all is the army. It needs 24 new fire control support technicians a year to operate certain wheeled armored vehicles. Over the past four years, a total of four technicians have been recruited. Canada has no first-class tanks.
The reason for the sorry state of the Canadian Forces is obvious: Successive Canadian governments spent the "peace dividend" long before there was a hint of peace. Currently, defense expenditures constitute 1.1 percent of the gross domestic product, which places us just ahead of Luxembourg. The United States spends Canada's defense budget in less than a week.
Moreover, the Americans have noticed. For U.S. defense planners, the Canadian Forces are past the point of no return: Canada may as well not have an army, the air force is minute and the navy will soon enough be rust.
In short, Americans today can no longer neglect Canada and trust Canadians to do their duty. It is one reason why the animosity between official Washington and official Ottawa is nearing an all-time high. For the United States, Canadians have become weak freeloaders with a bad attitude.
Machiavelli explained what all this means for Canada-U.S. relations: "Among the evils of being unarmed," he said, "it causes you to be despised." Canadians are going to have to get used to being despised.
This comes directly from a US board of inquiry on international defense...
