Wait for it!!! ............ No new white paper....Suprised?

[Kirkhill]

http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotlight/2004/07/29/pellerin0040730.html

   
   

Defence White Paper Vital
By Colonel Alain Pellerin (Ret'd)

Re: Graham says he'll forgo defence white paper, The Ottawa Citizen, July 24.

It is disappointing that the new minister of national defence, Bill Graham, says that he'll forgo a defence white paper and that public input into the policy is not needed. Earlier this year, the then-minister, David Pratt, announced that a white paper would be tabled later this year. Why this reversal in policy? Furthermore, an internal program review done behind closed doors does a disservice to Canada and to the men and women in uniform who proudly serve this country.

The 1994 white paper is dated. That the Canadian Forces' capabilities have been underfunded and over-committed for years brings into question its relevance. A defence policy developed more than 10 years ago is not sound in 2004.

Our major allies have seen the requirement, before and since Sept. 11, 2001, to revisit and rewrite their defence policies. Why not Canada?

Canada and the government are entering a period where there will be few credible resources to ensure Canada's national defence or pursue a credible and independent foreign policy. This is a matter that requires the urgent attention of the prime minister, for only he can redirect the resources to begin the long recovery of the Canadian Forces.

The Conference of Defence Associations encourages the prime minister to commit his government to a new defence white paper and to a long-term financial commitment to revitalize the Forces. As well, Parliament and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs should be more actively involved in defence issues to ensure ongoing oversight of defence policy under this minority government.

Colonel Pellerin is the Executive Director of the Conference of Defence Associations. This letter appeared in the 30 July 2004 issue of The Ottawa Citizen.
 
   
 

:rage: :crybaby: ??? :'( :blotto:

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

situation no change

 

[ringo_mountbatten]

as much as defence needs a new white paper, writing one before a new foreign affairs white paper comes out is kind of a waste of time.  the two policies need to be intertwined as the cf main purpose is to enforce the canadian foreign policy.  simply having a defence white paper come for the sake of the other one being outdated might seem beneficial now, but really the defence department does not know what direction it will have to take.  i really don't think that any white paper that comes out before one is tabled by foreign affairs could in the end be all that much help and would at best contain blanket statements about direction and policy.  graham is a smart man he knows this more than most, especially after spending a couple years as the minister of foreign affairs, he also knows that minority govt lasts at best two years and that commissioning and tabling a white paper could take longer than the govt mandate.  also knowing that just about any white paper would call for increased spending at around the time an election would have to be held, as always increased spending is hard to sell at election time in a lot of areas when the provinces are sure to make healthcare a priority and call those federal officials who don't see it there way to task about why defence gets more money and health gets only a little.  it is then we can hope that there is a majority govt so things can get back to normal and that the govt can get some work done instead of trying to placate the separatist and the socialists to be able to get anything done.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Put that way it does make sense.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If defence policy comes after foreign policy, then it's not really defence policy - it's expeditionary policy.

Either:

1) We should have a defence policy and CF structured primarily for the defence of Canada and North America and used secondarily to pursue foreign policy - whether it be legitimate national interests or aesthetic political fluff which strokes the ego of government and/or Canadians - whensoever it may be suitable,

or:

2) We should have a foreign policy and set about paying for a CF with a self-deploying, self-sustaining expeditionary capability.

[If we choose (1), waiting for a foreign policy review is unnecessary.]

 

[rdschultz]

as much as defence needs a new white paper, writing one before a new foreign affairs white paper comes out is kind of a waste of time.  the two policies need to be intertwined as the cf main purpose is to enforce the canadian foreign policy.  simply having a defence white paper come for the sake of the other one being outdated might seem beneficial now, but really the defence department does not know what direction it will have to take.  i really don't think that any white paper that comes out before one is tabled by foreign affairs could in the end be all that much help and would at best contain blanket statements about direction and policy.  graham is a smart man he knows this more than most, especially after spending a couple years as the minister of foreign affairs, he also knows that minority govt lasts at best two years and that commissioning and tabling a white paper could take longer than the govt mandate.  also knowing that just about any white paper would call for increased spending at around the time an election would have to be held, as always increased spending is hard to sell at election time in a lot of areas when the provinces are sure to make healthcare a priority and call those federal officials who don't see it there way to task about why defence gets more money and health gets only a little.  it is then we can hope that there is a majority govt so things can get back to normal and that the govt can get some work done instead of trying to placate the separatist and the socialists to be able to get anything done.

Interesting points, and I hadn't thought of it that way, but I notice one problem.  You say increased spending is hard to sell at election time, but I remember both the Liberals and the Conservatives playing the increased military spending card just over a month ago at the last federal election. 

While I think what you say might be entirely true (the last half of your post), I don't like the idea of it.  Its just another example of the playing of politics interfering with what the country needs. 

The thing that really irks me is remembering what happened when Mr. Goodale announced the budget.  I distinctly remember hearing that more money for the military would wait until the White Paper was released.  Now he doesn't have to worry about that.

 

[ags281]

The thing that really irks me is remembering what happened when Mr. Goodale announced the budget.   I distinctly remember hearing that more money for the military would wait until the White Paper was released.   Now he doesn't have to worry about that.

Strange, I was thinking the exact same thing when I read it. I'm now also thinking that I should practice the good old letter writing skills by asking some ministers what the deal is here.

 

[rdschultz]

Well, perhaps I was a little quick to judge.  I just decided to peruse the budget plan on the Department of Finance website, and I found this little tidbit:  "Final decisions will await the results of the International Policy Review".  Somewhere in my mind I had it figured that it was the White Paper we were waiting on.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to plead ignorance on this one though. Are the international policy review and the foreign affairs white paper one and the same?  Or does the IPR include both the defence and foreign affairs white papers?  If not, shouldn't it?  I guess what I'm getting at is, what exactly is the international policy review?

 

[Kirkhill]

David Pratt's Defence Review and Bill Graham's Foreign Policy Reviews were concurrent activities.  Bill has already had his "public" discussions and was supposed to be preparing the foreign policy review on which Pratt could finalize the Defence Review that was underway.  As I recall it was Pratt that was calling for both the Foreign and Defence reviews and Uncle Bill was entirely luke-warm to the idea.  Now Davie's gone and with him the pressure.  Uncle Bill has just iced the puck.

You're stuffed. :rage:

 

[ringo_mountbatten]

If defence policy comes after foreign policy, then it's not really defence policy - it's expeditionary policy.

Either:

1) We should have a defence policy and CF structured primarily for the defence of Canada and North America and used secondarily to pursue foreign policy - whether it be legitimate national interests or aesthetic political fluff which strokes the ego of government and/or Canadians - whensoever it may be suitable,

or:

2) We should have a foreign policy and set about paying for a CF with a self-deploying, self-sustaining expeditionary capability.

[If we choose (1), waiting for a foreign policy review is unnecessary.]

if canada were to choose your option 1 it basically downgrade the armed forces to something more or lass than a constabulary force, such as that seen in ireland.  it is vital that the military is first and foremost used as an instrument as foreign policy and secondly as a domestic defence force.  canada already has a domestic force in the rcmp and other agencies that help protect the homeland.  as for protecting north america, our geographical location pretty much guarantees our safety not only on distance, but in the fact that the us will defend us to protect their sovereignty.  to simply call option 2 an expeditionary policy is simplifying it a bit, just for the simple fact that the defence white paper would have to take into account many more factors into account than just foreign policy's concern; ie the entirety of the sovereignty question such as the north and fisheries.  the foreign policy white paper would just defence its starting point on what policy initiatives it would need to build on while keeping in mind that supporting foreign policy is the #1 objective. 

as for addressing the funding issue.  if you look at where the liberals will need to make the most headway in terms of seats to regain a majority, it is quebec.  the french certainly do a certain priority on where federal spending goes and defence in not one of them.  now that the seakings are being replaced, the general public thinks our military is for the most part fully modern again and able to confront any task given.  incremental increases are not such a big deal, but any capital purchases could very well be costly for the liberals in their bid for reelection.  the average canadian does not want to hear about $10 billion going to buy whatever while they have to pay hundreds of dollars in health premiums.(ontarians at least)

 

[Spr.Earl]

Like I have stated before,I have seen so many white paper's since I joined in 76 I can't deficate that much too use all the paper!

Those of us who have been in as long as I have (Reg. and Militia) no longer have faith with our elected,we have been given so many promise's and have seen them all broken,I longer give a rat's arse for our Politicians,I serve for my fellow members and my Country,no more and no less!!

 

[rdschultz]

if Canada were to choose your option 1 it basically downgrade the armed forces to something more or lass than a constabulary force, such as that seen in ireland.  it is vital that the military is first and foremost used as an instrument as foreign policy and secondly as a domestic defence force.  Canada already has a domestic force in the rcmp and other agencies that help protect the homeland.  as for protecting north America, our geographical location pretty much guarantees our safety not only on distance, but in the fact that the us will defend us to protect their sovereignty.  to simply call option 2 an expeditionary policy is simplifying it a bit, just for the simple fact that the defence white paper would have to take into account many more factors into account than just foreign policy's concern; ie the entirety of the sovereignty question such as the north and fisheries.  the foreign policy white paper would just defence its starting point on what policy initiatives it would need to build on while keeping in mind that supporting foreign policy is the #1 objective. 

Fair enough, you have a valid point.  I think homeland defence is a much different landscape than it was during the Cold War years.  I don't think its unfair to say that the most realistic threat we face, right now, on our soil comes from extreme Islam (or similar terrorist groups), and defending against that threat is outside the CF's domain. 

Your point about the US protecting our homeland does worry me.  While your viewpoint may be very different (and I do understand your point, forgive me for going on this tangent), thats the attitude far too many Canadians have this day and age, and it seems to dominate their idea of what our defence policy should be.  Canada needs to rely on itself first and foremost for any sort defence concerns, whatever they may be, to maintain any level of sovereignty.  Certain groups take that idea to an extreme and suggest we should have no military at all, or perhaps a force capable of peacekeeping only.  While we do rely on the United States for a great deal, I don't think its healthy to suggest that we should avoid our own responsibilities because of that reliance. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

When does it become "If you want us you keep defending your borders, Canada, then send your troops where we tell you".

That whole line of thinking reminds me of the mob shows you see on TV. a Mob gives a store owner "protection" for a little price. Price just keeps getting steeper and steeper.

 

[ringo_mountbatten]

i am not advocating relying on the us for our protection, i was just stating that no matter what course of action the govt chooses it is very inconsequential to the us who will do what is in their best interests to protect their sovereignty.  i think we all know the u.s. already does this to a certain extent.  what i find ironic is that the left wing tools use this point as a reason to get rid of the armed forces while at the same time admonish the americans for infringing upon canada's sovereignty.  i believe that it would be an embarrassment for canada to choose any path that denigrates the armed forces and their capabilities any further.  as for white papers not being worth a damn i completely agree they have never charted a new course or even really been followed, but hope springs eternal and in the end hope is all there is to inspire change.

 

[Demophobia]

In the absence of a defense White Paper we seem willing to remove capabilities from the military (ie. getting rid of tanks for LAV's), but not to aquire new ones. Removing  tanks is a big change in policy and we have gone into it without any concrete reason why. It seems that the only time that attention is given to updating the defense policy is when people start advocating more spending for the military. Now it's looking like we won't get a new White Paper for at least another two years. Without clear direction for the army our combat capabilities will begin to degrade.

 

[ags281]

Without clear direction for the army our combat capabilities will begin to degrade.

"begin" ??? I'd say "continue"