The Dark Years before the Years of Darkness - Are we facing worse times?

[Ostrozac]

We don't need to cover our whole land mass, the US will never let Canada be threatened or attacked. The US has been protecting Canada with the assistance of the CF since 1945.

You may not like that statement, but it's the truth.

Never is a strong word. Actually, I can certainly envision an isolationist inward looking potential future USA that wouldn't be bothered with mutual defense treaties. But in that case, Canada would be protected by the three biggest water barriers in the world (the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans), and by our extensive geography -- an invasion force from any of those three directions would land 1000's of kilometers from our population centers, and Canada could trade space for time in defence. And our climate is none too hospitable either.

Just as the British Army was never intended as a tool to defend the British Isles (that was first the job of the Royal Navy, then the job of NATO), the Canadian Forces has been, since the Boer War, primarily an expeditionary tool for use worldwide. A CF that was actually intended primarily for defence would look very different from what we have now.

 

[Old Sweat]

Sorry, but short of a complete economic collapse I can't imagine a scenario in which the United States would not react to a hostile invasion of Canadian territory. They might stand by in the case of a fisheries dispute such as the one which almost led to an armed confrontation with Spain, but I suspect they would muscle a cease fire very quickly. The Pearl Harbor and 9/11 syndrome is ingrained too deeply in their national consciousness to accept a threat on their border, and the Monroe Doctrine is lurking in the wings.

Your second paragraph captures the gist of the issue, and we don't necessarily need a large standing force if we plan to participate in multinational expeditionary operations, whatever the intensity. Could and should we beef up our forces? Sure, but this opinion is not widely held by the tax payers in the street or the senior officials in the government.

Many, many years ago - 1970 to be exact - the CF was faced with a budget frozen for three years and close to a 25% cut in numbers along with dropping some major bits of kit. This was after several years of a gradual erosion in strength and capability, and was touted at the time as the start in a planned run down of the forces. It was the worst reduction, but not the only, reduction I experienced and we made do somehow and will do so again. At least you will make do again, as all I have to do is check my pulse in the morning and then log on to army.ca.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I don't really believe in this whole decade of darkness nonsense, it seems any time the government re-allocates or cuts budgets we cry wolf!  We are just drawing down from a 10 year war so of course the government is going to slash our budget, it only makes sense.  We are an all-volunteer military and it isn't like anyone is forcing our hand to stay if we don't like the way things are headed. 

It has already been noted that our military has primarily been used for expeditionary purposes since the end of the Second World War and I see no reason why this will change any time soon.  I do feel that given that we are a trading nation we should tailor our military to suit this reality.  I tend to agree with Rick Hillier that we could do with a smaller but "more highly trained" and "more professional" military.  I also think the army holds too much primacy in the halls of NDHQ and would like to see more resources allocated to the Navy and Air Force (Let all army officers forever crucify me but I firmly believe that the army holds too much power).

I think we need a stronger Navy to help maintain our status as a leading trading nation/protect our economic interests and I think our new center of gravity in the next century will be the Pacific Ocean (whether we like it or not)

I also hold the view that we need a stronger Air Force to move our army around quickly and have the ability to sustain/support our army on operations.

The army itself would shrink in size but would be more technologically advanced, better trained and would be tailored towards meeting the goals outlined in Land Operations 2021.

Edit:

I'll throw in this article from Time Magazine, which talks about building a smarter, smaller military.  While it is about the US Armed Forces I believe the options outlined in the article are also relevant for the Canadian Armed Forces.

http://nation.time.com/2012/12/06/building-a-smarter-smaller-military/ 

 

[vonGarvin]

[tangent]

Our commitment to NATO was vital in the 1950s and '60s ... it declined, towards the point of meaninglessness, by the 1980s. But, so did the need ... by the 1980s we were in Europe because it was the going price for a seat at the table, not because anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers thought the Russians were coming.

I disagree.  It wasn't until Gorbachev took over ~1985 that the threat subsided.  The closest we came to The Big Show was in the autumn of 1983.


[/tangent]

 

[Edward Campbell]

[tangent]I disagree.  It wasn't until Gorbachev took over ~1985 that the threat subsided.  The closest we came to The Big Show was in the autumn of 1983.


[/tangent]

Further ff topic:


We'll have to agree to disagree ... there were a couple of crises in the 1960s, Czechoslovakia in '68 comes to mind, that did have the potential to boil over, but after, say, 1970, I would argue that we and the Russians knew that they lacked both the capacity and will to successfully invade Germany. They still had HUGE strategic power, but MAD, nihilistic as it was, worked; but their tactical power, on the other hand, was inadequate.

 

[my72jeep]

[tangent]I disagree.  It wasn't until Gorbachev took over ~1985 that the threat subsided.  The closest we came to The Big Show was in the autumn of 1983.


[/tangent]

KAL Flight 007, I was in 4 CER then and we though we were going to war.

 

[GR66]

[tangent]I disagree.  It wasn't until Gorbachev took over ~1985 that the threat subsided.  The closest we came to The Big Show was in the autumn of 1983.


[/tangent]

While the potential for nuclear confrontation certainly remained, I suspect that what ERC was suggesting is that nobody was seriously expecting Soviet armoured columns to attempt to roll through the Fulda Gap in an attempt to defeat NATO in a conventional war.  I don't think anyone was naïve enough to think that actual invasion was an option because the obvious reaction to any successful attack would be massive nuclear retaliation.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

It has already been noted that our military has primarily been used for expeditionary purposes since the end of the Second World War and I see no reason why this will change any time soon.  I do feel that given that we are a trading nation we should tailor our military to suit this reality.  I tend to agree with Rick Hillier that we could do with a smaller but "more highly trained" and "more professional" military.  I also think the army holds too much primacy in the halls of NDHQ and would like to see more resources allocated to the Navy and Air Force (Let all army officers forever crucify me but I firmly believe that the army holds too much power).

I think we need a stronger Navy to help maintain our status as a leading trading nation/protect our economic interests and I think our new center of gravity in the next century will be the Pacific Ocean (whether we like it or not)

I also hold the view that we need a stronger Air Force to move our army around quickly and have the ability to sustain/support our army on operations.

The army itself would shrink in size but would be more technologically advanced, better trained and would be tailored towards meeting the goals outlined in Land Operations 2021.

http://nation.time.com/2012/12/06/building-a-smarter-smaller-military/

I think the reality of it though is that the politicians in Canada see our forces as an arm to help bring them into office. And cutting a bunch of troops would probably not sit well with the public. As where I come from if you join the military it's because you're not capable of anything else. Or you join for the education. (Completely incorrect). So all the public wants to hear where I from is how good is the food, is the bed comfortable, are they mistreating you, etc. So cutting troops would be seen as the same as cutting welfare from people who need it.

In the Canadian first defence strategy it mentions bringing our reg force up to 70000 to improve our military effectiveness. So if we wanted to cut our military down to size to fit our  mandate. The government would have to give us a new direction. And I think going more towards Naval  capability during a time of increasing globalization would be wise. To make it more professional our recruiting process should be more rigorous. Fitness testing to be included again (probably save millions, lol). And I also think different fitness standards for different jobs. I know fitness isn't everything but realistically how much money does our military spend on trying to make our forces fit, how much do we spend on injured soldiers, sick days or people that just can't do their jobs. There's a reason we have different educational standards, because the job requires different attributes. So do jobs physically. Sorry about the tangent.

Perhaps buying some of those support ships the Australians are acquiring... I believe China is also buying ships with similar capabilities.

Edit: I also think that if Canada wants to be taken seriously by NATO we should try and get as close as possible to the required 2% of GDP dedicated to the Military.

 

[blacktriangle]

I don't really believe in this whole decade of darkness nonsense, it seems any time the government re-allocates or cuts budgets we cry wolf!  We are just drawing down from a 10 year war so of course the government is going to slash our budget, it only makes sense.  We are an all-volunteer military and it isn't like anyone is forcing our hand to stay if we don't like the way things are headed. 

It has already been noted that our military has primarily been used for expeditionary purposes since the end of the Second World War and I see no reason why this will change any time soon.  I do feel that given that we are a trading nation we should tailor our military to suit this reality.  I tend to agree with Rick Hillier that we could do with a smaller but "more highly trained" and "more professional" military.  I also think the army holds too much primacy in the halls of NDHQ and would like to see more resources allocated to the Navy and Air Force (Let all army officers forever crucify me but I firmly believe that the army holds too much power).

I think we need a stronger Navy to help maintain our status as a leading trading nation/protect our economic interests and I think our new center of gravity in the next century will be the Pacific Ocean (whether we like it or not)

I also hold the view that we need a stronger Air Force to move our army around quickly and have the ability to sustain/support our army on operations.

The army itself would shrink in size but would be more technologically advanced, better trained and would be tailored towards meeting the goals outlined in Land Operations 2021.

Edit:

I'll throw in this article from Time Magazine, which talks about building a smarter, smaller military.  While it is about the US Armed Forces I believe the options outlined in the article are also relevant for the Canadian Armed Forces.

http://nation.time.com/2012/12/06/building-a-smarter-smaller-military/

I would actually like to buy you a beer in Kingston for this post. I think this is exactly what we need as well. Glad to see there are Officers that agree.


I was thinking that our land forces should include a maintained CANSOFCOM, as well as fewer, but more capable "Regular" units that are fully manned and given the various enablers/support functions they need. Able to deploy on shorter notice and as whole, without calling across the street to rob a Coy and some vehicles from another battalion.

I will leave it to those with the experience and knowledge to figure out how that could be done...but I do think the Navy and Air Force should have the lead in the defence of Canada. Our ground forces should be small, superbly trained, and should act as a surgical tool that we can deploy on short notice in support of our own interests, or in niche contributions to our allies.

We simply do not have the public support or political will in Canada to maintain a large, long standing military. That is the most important thing I have learned from nearly a decade of reading Army.ca. We need to accept this and organize ourselves to give the most possible BANG for the taxpayer's buck.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

:goodpost: I hope we go that direction.

 

[George Wallace]

While the potential for nuclear confrontation certainly remained, I suspect that what ERC was suggesting is that nobody was seriously expecting Soviet armoured columns to attempt to roll through the Fulda Gap in an attempt to defeat NATO in a conventional war.  I don't think anyone was naïve enough to think that actual invasion was an option because the obvious reaction to any successful attack would be massive nuclear retaliation.

Actually, we did take the threat of the East Germans, Czech, and Russians racing through the Fulda Gap, the North German Plains and another high speed route up the  Danube River valley, as well as dropping Spetsnaz into France to secure the French nuclear sites quite seriously.  It wasn't until the "Wall" came down that we got to know the true state the Warsaw Pact armies were in. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Further ff topic:


We'll have to agree to disagree ... there were a couple of crises in the 1960s, Czechoslovakia in '68 comes to mind, that did have the potential to boil over, but after, say, 1970, I would argue that we and the Russians knew that they lacked both the capacity and will to successfully invade Germany. They still had HUGE strategic power, but MAD, nihilistic as it was, worked; but their tactical power, on the other hand, was inadequate.

I agree with you re: capabilities.  My point being that irrespective of the actual capabilities, politicians on both sides could very well have blundered into a general conflagration,  hence my example of 1983, vice Czechoslovakia,  Hungary,  Cuba, etc.


It's the accidental war, vice the planned war, that presented us with the most danger.

 

[Journeyman]

In the Canadian first defence strategy it mentions bringing our reg force up to 70000 to improve our military effectiveness.

Canada First Defence Strategy has been.....amended....and is about to be re-issued.


I don't know if it will be re-titled "Canada First Defence Strategy 2.0" or "Canada's Second First Defence Strategy"

 

[The Bread Guy]

We simply do not have the public support or political will in Canada to maintain a large, long standing military. That is the most important thing I have learned from nearly a decade of reading Army.ca. We need to accept this and organize ourselves to give the most possible BANG for the taxpayer's buck.

As others way smarter than me have said before, support's a mile wide and an inch deep.

 

[Sailorwest]

On the surface, I find most Canadians are publically (and I think, genuinely) supportive of the military and particularly the members. What they really want though, is a small, relatively inexpensive force that can go away on benign peacekeeping operations, disaster recovery and the like, without causing any negative media attention. When you ask the average person where the government should put it's priorities, supporting the military comes pretty far down that list. 

 

[MeanJean]

You know... "A Canadian soldier could be in a worse position than being dropped unprepared into the middle of a Norwegian winter... He could be in the Navy."

 

[kratz]

You know... "A Canadian soldier could be in a worse position than being dropped unprepared into the middle of a Norwegian winter... He could be in the Navy."

Hey!! I resemble that remark.  ;D

 

[YZT580]

On the surface, I find most Canadians are publically (and I think, genuinely) supportive of the military and particularly the members. What they really want though, is a small, relatively inexpensive force that can go away on benign peacekeeping operations, disaster recovery and the like, without causing any negative media attention. When you ask the average person where the government should put it's priorities, supporting the military comes pretty far down that list.

First sentence is right on.  Second sentence I question.  Canadians, as do most global citizens, parrot the press.  For some reason, people seem to feel that since politicians lie, and the press reveals their lies, therefore the press must always tell the truth.  Most reporters would like to see a small relatively inexpensive force that wear blue berets and drive white GMCs.  Since they don't like people who carry guns, the military is always I mean always in their sights.  The only exception is when the snow birds are doing a flybye and even then they criticize the fuel consumption.  If somehow the truth and purpose and needs of the armed forces could be printed in a way that people would read, I think that their would be considerably less opposition and considerably more support.

 

[GR66]

If the CF can't get the money to do everything it would like (or even need) to do as a fully self-sufficient, multi-role military perhaps we need to take a closer look at how we can provide the most bang for our buck with our allies.  When do we deploy on our own?  The rest of the world is going through the same cutbacks that we are so will we just end up with a whole bunch of smaller, less capable allied militaries that can each work less effectively alongside the Americans? 

Maybe if we look at the gaps that exist in the effective deployment of our probable coalition partners (our typical deployment scenario) we could identify some capabilities which we could develop/expand in order to magnify the strengths of our partners.  If our partners have forces to deploy but can't get them there then maybe we could expand our air transport fleet.  More air-to-air refueling or AORs to support allied air/naval deployments.  Specialist units like electronic warfare, counter-battery, CRBN, etc.  I'm not saying that these are the specific capabilities we could/should focus on...just giving some possible examples.

There would of course then have to be a trade-off by decreasing, or possibly even eliminating, other existing capabilities (this is fundamentally about the money after all).  For example, what if we dropped out of the armoured business and relied on our more capable allies to provide that support when required (like some of our allies relied on our tank support in Afghanistan when they didn't have the capability in theatre)?  Where could we put that money in other capabilities that would provide an even larger positive impact on coalition military operations than our relatively small armoured force?  Again...I'm not making that recommendation, just using it as a possible example.

A possible side benefit could also be that some of these capabilities might be more politically sellable to the Canadian public than more traditional military capabilities.  Procuring and deploying support units/equipment is much more politically safe than nasty, warlike thinks like tanks, submarines and stealth fighters. 

Such a policy certainly wouldn't be without risks either.  The world is a very uncertain place and what happens if a situation should arise where we really NEED a particular military capability and don't have it available anymore?  Canadian blood and treasure could certainly be on the line.  There is also the political risk that we wouldn't get credit from our allies for the things we do in the same way as putting "boots on the ground" in a more traditional way.  If we're not seen as useful and helpful then we could lose much of our say at a lot of important tables around the world.  I think such a policy would certainly require a VERY close relationship, cooperation, coordination and interoperability with our closest allies.  We'd need to work hand-in-hand with them so that they're intimately aware of how important OUR role is in their successful fulfillment of THEIR roles. 

Regardless of what we do money for the CF will likely be quite tight for a number of years to come.  Any course of action (or inaction) is going to have impacts on the capabilities of the CF.  The military might wither across the board, waiting for a return of money and a chance to renew in the same basic structure, or it might make some very specific and targeted changes which could see the CF with very different capabilities and structures than it has currently.  Either way I think it's important to have these very basic level discussions so that the government and the CF can be proactive in facing the budget constraints rather than just reacting to them.