Troop Swapping?

[John Nayduk]

Troop swapping?
By DANIEL LEBLANC
From Wednesday‘s Globe and Mail
Wednesday, August 28 – Online Edition, Posted at 4:48 AM EST
Ottawa — Washington and Ottawa are close to a deal allowing U.S. soldiers to cross the border and operate on Canadian soil in the event of a terrorist attack.

The proposal, revealed by Defence Minister John McCallum yesterday, would likewise let Canadian troops take part in antiterror operations south of the border.

The plan, which is in the final stages of negotiation, would for the first time allow U.S. and Canadians ground troops to serve under the other forces‘ command in North America -- but only under strict guidelines on a case-by-case basis.

There has been widespread speculation over the possible integration of some Canadian troops under U.S. command to protect the North American perimeter. But this plan, Mr. McCallum said, contains essential elements to protect Canada‘s sovereignty.

"What we are proposing is a planning group that would set up protocols whereby we could have, conceivably, U.S. troops moving across the border or Canadian troops moving across their border, but only on a case-by-case basis with the approval of each government," he said.

"In no way does this reduce Canadian sovereignty, because this is a planning group that will have no control over troops."

Mr. McCallum said any deal is likely to build on current collaboration between the Canadian and U.S. air forces, and will include land and sea troops.

Since Sept. 11, the issue has prompted a heated debate over sovereignty.

The Americans responded to the terrorist attacks by creating Northcom, a body overseeing the U.S. military response to security threats against North America. At one point, the U.S. ambassador to Ottawa encouraged Canadians to join Northcom to gain "a louder voice in the defence of North America."

However, Mr. McCallum said yesterday that joining Northcom would be impossible because the structure involves only the deployment of American troops.

"Our bottom line is that we are a sovereign nation, and we are going to stay a sovereign nation. We don‘t want to integrate, we don‘t want our soldiers to be under [permanent] command of the Americans."

Mr. McCallum said the Canadian government instead favours the creation of a planning group that would co-ordinate efforts to prevent terrorism in North America, and react in the event of a strike.

The planning group will look at scenarios such as a bacterial attack or the use of a ship to bring explosives into places like Montreal and Vancouver, and determine the appropriate Canadian and American responses.

Mr. McCallum said it is the Canadian government‘s responsibility to save lives, and that he had no problems persuading the federal cabinet to agree to the negotiations. He said that once a final agreement is reached, it will be returned to cabinet for approval.

"I don‘t know what the odds of such a [terrorist] attack are, but I know it‘s greater than zero. So if we do have [the planning group] and something happens, we will save lives. If we didn‘t do it and something happened, can you imagine the anger of Canadian citizens?"

An agreement might take the form of an amendment to NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defence Command), involving 50 to 100 people working at the air force base in Colorado.

"It would be lodged in NORAD, but it would not be the same as the aerospace agreement, in the sense that it would not have troops under its command," Mr. McCallum said yesterday.

He has adopted a more nationalistic stand than his predecessor, Art Eggleton, in his relationship with the Americans.

He has clearly opposed Canadian involvement in possible U.S. attacks against Iraq. However, he said that should not have an impact on future co-operation with U.S. forces.

"If we disagree with the U.S. over, for example, softwood lumber or Iraq, just to take two examples, that does not mean that either side does not want to plan together. . . . The fact that we disagree on point X doesn‘t deter us from agreeing on point Y when it‘s for the good of both," Mr. McCallum said.

The federal government is in the middle of consultations with industry groups to update its defence policy. Mr. McCallum admitted that he would need more money to achieve his goals as Defence Minister.

"I, too, think we need more resources, but I have no guarantee that I will get more resources. I will make a case to cabinet for more resources quite soon, and we‘ll see what happens in the budget."

 

[silverhorse86]

under cerian curcomstances this could be an excellent decision

 

[toms3]

Yes...I have been in contact with my US counterparts in the DoD...yes yes yes...that‘s right. It appears that for ever one Canadian soldier crossing the border, 500 US soldiers come over here.....gotta keep with the persentages.

Just Joking

:dontpanic:

 

[the patriot]

It would make more sense to activate various elements of the Primary Reserve to respond to such needs. In event of a terrorist attack, there are already counter measures in place such as JTF-2. Quite frankly, this idea does raise concerns regarding sovereignity and our ability to protect ourselves.

-the patriot-

 

[bossi]

It‘s also an expedient "workaround" the American problem of "posse comitatus" (sorry if spelling is incorrect), whereby U.S. federal forces are forbidden from operating participating in certain activities within U.S. borders - Canadian forces would not be under these same liimitations.

Talking to our counterparts (CIMIC/Civil Affairs), we‘d be able to help them, and similarly they‘d be able to help us in the event of "civil emergencies/disasters" - a downright neighbourly arrangement.

The sovereighnty issue? That‘s another story (we can thank quislings like Marcel Masse and Jean Chretien for their destruction of the Canadian Army)..

 

[bossi]

Plan joint troop action in detail, experts warn

By DANIEL LEBLANC
Thursday, August 29, 2002 – Globe and Mail

OTTAWA -- The Canadian government was warned by opposition MPs and academics yesterday to carefully guard its sovereignty as it gears up for increased military co-operation with the United States.

Overall, military analysts were pleased with the news that Canada is close to a deal with Washington on troop deployments across the border in the case of an emergency.

However, some experts warned that Canada has to negotiate a watertight agreement to prevent the U.S. military from abusing its might. In addition, there were also calls for public consultation before any deal is signed.

"It would be a foolish Canadian government that went into any kind of closer military cooperation without specifying out in exhausting detail the legal protections of Canada‘s interest," said Michael Byers, a Canadian who teaches international law at Duke University in North Carolina.

New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer said the federal government has to impose strict conditions on any potential U.S. presence in Canada.

"The Americans are extremely aggressive and when they want something, they‘re going to get it. They‘re not going to politely ask us to do something, they‘ll tell us to do something," Mr. Stoffer said.

In yesterday‘s Globe and Mail, Defence Minister John McCallum revealed that he is working on a deal to allow Canadian and American troops to cross each country‘s border in the event of a terrorist attack.

"What we are proposing is a planning group that would set up protocols whereby we could have, conceivably, U.S. troops moving across the border or Canadian troops moving across their border, but only on a case-by-case basis with the approval of each government," he said.

Mr. McCallum said any deal is likely to build on current collaboration between the Canadian and U.S. air forces under the umbrella of the North American Aerospace Defence Command, and will include land and sea troops.

Joel Sokolsky, dean of arts at the Royal Military College in Kingston, said that Canadians must be aware that by signing on to such a deal, the Americans will expect immediate cooperation in the event of a crisis.

"The time to question those arrangements is not when the crisis comes," he said. "Something like this raises expectations in the United States that in the event of an emergency that threatens the United States, Canada would agree that if it couldn‘t handle it, American troops would be requested to assist."

Colin Kenny, who chairs the Senate committee on national security and defence, said that Canada must sign on to the deal to maintain a role in continental security.

"There‘s a far greater likelihood of the Americans coming in when we don‘t want them if we chose not to plan together," he said. "Somebody is going to be planning for the defence of North America. It‘s either going to be the Americans by themselves . . . or it‘s going to be them and us. And I think the best way to protect Canada‘s sovereignty is by participating in these plans."

Canadian Alliance MP Leon Benoit said the deal seems to be a "good thing," but he will ask for further details at a meeting with Mr. McCallum today.

Mr. Byers said that the agreement will have to be greatly detailed to ensure that Canadian interests don‘t get trampled in a crisis.

"My worry is that the structure might look absolutely fine in normal circumstances, but that in an emergency the United States might rush to action without considering the requirements of consultation with Canada," he said.

 

[rolandstrong]

I have mentioned this in other posts, but I really believe our sovereignty is under significant threat from the U.S., who doubts (and understandably) our ability to defend the northern border (in other words, our own territories) of North America. If the U.S. doubts our politicaly, they will just show up...somehow.

 

[toms3]

Funny....in my post - "Ok...call me crazy...a world power??", I stated that if the US became interested in the lands to the north of its border, there is basically nothing of a Canadian deterant to prevent it.

This ties into a quote from the aritcal posted by Bossi-- as follows
Quote - "There‘s a far greater likelihood of the Americans coming in when we don‘t want them if we chose not to plan together," he said. "Somebody is going to be planning for the defence of North America. It‘s either going to be the Americans by themselves . . . or it‘s going to be them and us. And I think the best way to protect Canada‘s sovereignty is by participating in these plans." End quote.

I think that if Canada had more punch this topic would not even be discussed. The years and years of neglect and cutting are starting to show there effects. We can‘t maintain our commentment overseas with out taxing the system, we can‘t protect our own boarders from big brother and now we are considered by the US as a week link in the security of north america....whats next!!!

I don‘t think Canada needs to have a huge Forces, but think of it like we are a Badger. We need to be large enough and have sharp enough teeth that would make forien forces think twice before getting into a scrap with that Badger (small...but don‘t try and corner us).

Sorry...just venting :rage:

 

[rolandstrong]

Ya...i think we are on the same page here digger...

 

[sgt.shmedly102]

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!
HAHAHA! Just kidding!

Seriously, sovereignty concerns are always valid, but I think some of you overestimate America‘s desire to absorb Canada. We kind of got the whole forcible annexation thing out of our system with Hiwaii. (Hey, it was Hawaii, wouldn‘t you take it over?)

And don‘t start with that whole cultural subversion thing. Everytime I turn around there‘s a Canadian reading the news, a Canadian show on TV (usually on the Sci-Fi channel. What‘s up with all the crappy Canadian sci-fi?) or Canadian band on the radio. Who‘s subverting who?

Bossi made an interesting point by bringing up posse cumitatus. True, it bars Federal military from engaging in internal law enforcement roles (that‘s why we have the National Guard); but I‘m not sure how it would work with foriegn troops. We‘v got soveriegnty too, and having foriegn soldiers doing LE on your own soil is a little weird. Then again, I think if any two countries can trust each other enough to deploy troops to each others territory, it‘s the US and Canada.

"The Americans are extremely aggressive and when they want something, they‘re going to get it. "

Are we now? I thought that was kind of funny.
:mg:

 

[toms3]

Hi sgt.shmedly102 ...good to get your imput.

I realize that the US invading Canada is a far fetched thought. However, I was just trying to make the point that we could do nothing about it if they did. For the size of country we are, with the amount of boarder we have...we could do alot more in securing it ourselves. I think over the years the Canadian Gov has become complaciant with the thought that the US would take care of us if someone attacked us. Also, I think the isolation factor of North America has added to that feeling. However, Sept 11 has proved that your enemies can reach out and touch you from anywhere.

Read Exxoneration by Richard Romer....if you can find it...its old.

 

[Coniar]

If you dont mind me saying so the govermont could frankly care less about national security. Our current premier (I wish not to speak his name) is just woried about his own oversized pension and occasionaly buying some private jets to play with. The only people in the govermont who really care it seems are the back benchers who havent been coruppted by the scandals and power frenzy yet, unfortunatley they dont have much of a say.
As for the US invading us, I dont see it happening anytime soon, the US has to much at stake in Canada with all the trading we do that would disapear if they took us over. They could certainly take us over if they wanted to, probably in about 24 hours if they wanted to but thats beside the point there not so we dont have to woory about it. The real problem is the fact that where one of the most wealthy and also one of the largest (sq. km) countrys in the world and our military is pitifully small considering both of those. We do not have sufficent military strengthe to repel and moderate sized aattack from most of the countrys in the world, we can barley handle the peackeeping missions where given by the UN and I hate to think what would happen if we ever get involved in a war in the middle east, Iraqu or otherwise. We just dont have sufficent manpower to deal with whats put before us on the world stage. The biggest thing is that the govermont is making absolutley no concious effort to fix it as far as I know, and if it isnt fixed soon we could all be in big trouble...

Coniar

 

[Linc]

Well, I don‘t think there is really too much to get worried about. There‘s absolutlely nothing to indicate that Canada is giving the US military carte blanche to enter the country whenever it feels like it.

Rather, it seems like the agreement will only allow a cross-border deployment with the full consent of both nations, and even then, the host country will gain command of the other nation‘s troops. In other words, if US troops enter Canada, it will only be with Canadian permission and they will be under Canadian command, and vice versa.

Now I know that many ppl are saying "ya, but the US military is so big, they will never need us down there, but we might need them up here" meaning that the deal is essentially an one-way street for American troops to come north. However, since the likelyhood of Iraqi paratroopers raining down on North American cities is extremely small, and the likelyhood of some terrorist cell out-gunning the Canadian Forces on our own turf is also minute, I don‘t think these concerns are applicable. The US military may be large, but it is deployed world-wide, and in the event of a sudden attack, Canadian elements like JTF-2 or DART (which was standing by for deployment to NYC during 9/11) may be the most readily available asset to respond, or vice-versa.