The CAF Post Trump

[Cloud Cover]

She was on Global News tonight explaining how the Canadian Army, with no arctic warfare equipment, is going to defeat the Chinese and Russians using Power Point slides asserting our sovereignty and affirming commitment to the rules based international order and our Allies.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It comes across that you would view US annexation of Canada as more of a changing of landlords than a loss of independence and sovereignty - with the added benefit of throwing off the shackles of useless socialist policies. Others may take a very different view.

It doesn't help to confuse the issue. A change would mean swapping Canadian independence and sovereignty for US independence and sovereignty. Would that independence and sovereignty be weaker, stronger, or about the same?

 

[daftandbarmy]

moved

 

[OldSolduer]

She was on Global News tonight explaining how the Canadian Army, with no arctic warfare equipment, is going to defeat the Chinese and Russians using Power Point slides asserting our sovereignty and affirming commitment to the rules based international order and our Allies.

The Arctic version of the Militia Myth

 

[Kirkhill]

Against what (whom)?

What kinds of wars, and where?

We already have that (control, which is different from defence).

Devil's Advocate: to resist whom, and given that, what would be the point of resistance movements - what would an occupier change that merits loss of life and sabotage (which presumably would include sabotage of our own infrastructure)?

I ask these questions because unless we're about to abandon NATO and become isolationist ourselves, we already are pointed in the direction we should continue moving with our commitments and capabilities. And I don't see much point fighting a war to restore anything that falls under the heading "nostalgic attachments", or for particular social programs or wealth transfer schemes.

Trump's juvenile verbal provocations (51st state, Governor Trudeau, etc) don't move me. They might move others, but don't constitute reasons to throw out the baby.

We have no baby.

As to the question of who....

The whole point of a defence force is its value as an insurance policy against an unknown future. By limiting ourseves to consideration of today's threat we end up with our boom and bust cycle when today's threat disappears. No threat. No need. New threat. Oh shit!

The force needs to be configured to grow to match any threat as it develops. And it needs to be part of the nation at large. They have to believe they have something worth defending and that they are worthy of what they are trying to defend.