Canada's Armed Forces

Canada's Armed Forces used to be a force that was respected throughout the world. However today; it is often looked at as a joke, mostly by Canadians themselves. What has happened? What can be done to fix it or does it not need to be fixed?

What kind of military do we want/need? Would you accept a government decision to defer more tax dollars to it, even at the expense of a tax cut? Does anyone care or is everyone content with the US being there to defend us if anything happened.

During the previous era, men and women were lying about age and health, basically finding any way to get into the military, because they felt they had a duty. However today I would say it is the opposite, with folks finding any reason not to serve. Why?

I spent 29 years in the Military and seen the decline from about 130,000 personnel in 1972 to the 56,000 today. A lot of the equipment is older than the people who operate it.

The decline in personnel and funding has hurt the Military and it will take years to repair it. It seems that when a country is read to throw something away, Canada wants it or we wait until someone is injured or killed before replacing something. We have a lot of skilled businesses and people to develop and build right here in Canada...so stop going to the lowest bidder. We are constantly depending on other countries or private contractors for their airlift capabilities or sea transport to move Canadian Military personnel/equipment overseas in times of crisis. We can not really support more than 1 UN mission outside of Canada. We had about 1800 people in Bosnia - now that is not much but current rules do not allow personnel to take another tour until they have spent at least one year within country (this is after a 6 month tour). So to support Bosnia, you would need 5400 troops.
With recent pay raises, the troops of today are fairly well paid (I made $98.00 clear every half month when I joined) but they are burning out because of the danger areas we are now sending our personnel and home life is going also going down hill because of the extra pressures of the job. I realize that one knows what they are getting into when they join up, but things could be a lot better (if this was a civilian job, the union would have stepped in long ago or everyone would have quit by now).

The Federal Government (not just the Liberals) does not seem to be checking with the Military prior to committing its forces to somewhere in the world. The Military decline started back in the 70's with the Trudeau government cutting funds and its been in a stead decline since then. The Military is doing the best job it can.....

The Canadian Military also seems to be its own worst enemy when it comes to publisizing the job its people do. There are a lot of good people out there doing a lot of good work but we only seem to hear the bad things that go on. I went on three separate 6 month tours (Golan, Haiti and Kosovo) and have to say that the Canadian Military is one of the most sought after for other countries to work for or with. I would never change anything over the past years, it was a great job and I would not hesitate to recommend it as a career to anyone.

Well written Hock I just wish our military would dump those useless subs and get are men and women some useful equipment like maybe some dessert fatigues .Who the hell is running the show?

It's not just the funding. It's also the fact that Canada prefer to buy used or not proven system (for more money than they are worth) from our "allies" instead of building it locally. They killed the small military industry we had in the 80's.

We also buy or build stuff that we don't really need to please our neighbour. We didn't really needed the type of frigate we built (they are more of an escort type than a real attack frigate). The f-18 while being a good plane isn't really suited for our need and country (we don't have that many air base as the US). This country would have been better served with a VTOL type of plane. And irronically we bought the carrier based version of the plane (they came with the landing hook still attach).

The left is.

Who running the military in Canada? The military is about politics and jobs, porkbarreling from either party.

Plus, everyone who is in the military has a father or grandfather in it. It is something of an inbred group.

Most Canadians dislike war, like me, and with the cold war over, they simply have less to do strategically.

"Most Canadians dislike war, like me, and with the cold war over, they simply have less to do strategically."
Well no one likes war, but the strategic demands on our military have actualy increased since the end of the cold war (Bosnia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, and now Sudan). We need to stop depending on our allies for equipment and logistics, and start manufacturing our own military equipment. Why buy rusty old submarines from Britain when we could do it ourselves? Our manufacturing sector could use those kind of high tech contracts; and that way we could also insure our soldiers get quality equipment, instead of making them risk their lives in outdated equipment.

It's more likely it would be cheaper to buy them than manufacture them.

Why wouldnt 56,000 personnel be enough for peacekeeping? What portion of that is actually trained for combat?

"Why wouldnt 56,000 personnel be enough for peacekeeping? What portion of that is actually trained for combat?"

Not much. It's been pointed out to me by various military types that our current set-up is extremely top heavy.

Wolf

Would you know of any links for that info?

No, but more than one military official has said that this is the case.

Wolf

You bet your a$$ I would - and DO. But dont you mean the expense of a tax increase.... or did you mean a foregone tax cut?

--

I have never run across anywhere that has the exact number of troops within the Military. The above link will take you to the site showing all the current operations our troops are involved in. One has to remember that we are very limited in our actual fighting troops. The majority of personnel on a tour are there in support of the fighting troops (Medical, Cooks, Drivers, Administrative, etc....) Although everyone has basic Military training (weapons, mines, etc...) everyone is not trained to the level of the actual fighting troop.

As to who controls the Armed Forces of Canada - only my opinion - that once you become a commissionioned officer above the rank of LT Colonel, generals included, you become a politican and kind of move away from the Military side of things to keep Ottawa happy. And yes, the Military is kind of top heavy......

Maybe we could build some extras and sell them.

That would seem natural if the military has experienced funding cuts in the last few decades. The smoothest way to react to funding cuts would be to reduce recruitment, which would naturally mean a smaller recruiting to retirement ratio, which would naturally cause the average age and rank to increase. The opposite would occur during an expansion phase and, should funding stabilize over an extended period of time, then we would gradually see a more balanced administration.

I would too, having a strong military is important. I don't need Canada to become a military power, but the best offense is a strong defense. I think we are ill equipped to defend this country. In terms of equipment, I think money would be better spent on new things built here in Canada. Funding is definitely a key issue, but so is getting people into the military.

I think the prestige and honour of serving one's country has been diminished. Also the sense of country and doing what's best for the whole rather than the individual is gone. We are a selfish society, we think about ourselves and our immediate area. What causes this? Well we have become a society consumed by greed and the accumulation of money. Good educated successful people are not likely to join the military. That is why you see US recruiters preying on disillusioned kids who lack education and or have a sense of failure.

Our diversity is another issue; there is no real sense of Canada in some parts. People identify themselves by their old countries; even children who are born here and have never been to the old country will identify themselves as Greek, Indian, Polish, Italian, Chinese, African and so on without any mention of Canada. This creates a question of loyalty. Just look at the number of non Israelis Jews who go and serve in the Israeli army as a sense of duty. That doesn't exist here.

As for expanding the force, improving training and equipment, I could see a few options.

Let's suppose that the goal was to maintain a force of 100,000 well trained and equipped troops, I could see the following options:

1. Canada itself increases military spending to make this possible.

2. Canada considers sharing a military force with another country or countries which share a common military philophy.

3. A combination of 1 and 2 above, whereby Canada shares with only a few countries, and increases spending to meet the goal.

Some problems I could see with option 1 above, is politics. Are Canadians willing to foot the bill? From what I can see, the phylosophy of most Canadians is that high military spending is a waste of money which could be put to better use in education or elsewhere. So if we were to keep our own independant military and bring it up to a decent size, then we'd have to find a way to change the current belief system about the military which is currently prevalent in Canada.

And as for the disadvantage for number 2, I could see a certain level of nationalism kicking in.

And of course option 3 would face the same problems as those for 1 and 2, just both to lesser degrees.


As for my preferred option? I'd probably go with option 1 above. So what countries would share a compatible military philosophy with ours? I don't know, but maybe we could put the idea out and see who responds. If no one seems interested, then go to option 1 above. I doubt the US would be interested in the least, sinse such a force would be restricted by international law. Some European countries might be interested though, and we might consider other stable countries in Africa, Asia and South America also, not to mention Oceania. But again, if no one is intersted, then let's just increse spending and do it ourselves. Bur sharing a force would have the advantage of killing two birds with one stone in that it could allow us to expand the size of the military, and the quality of training and equipment, without increasing spending.

"Why buy rusty old submarines from Britain when we could do it ourselves?"

The Upholders are pretty well brand new as far as submarines go. AFAIK, only two countries in the world have newer subs (Australia and Germany?). The British built them and din't use them that's all. They were a sweet deal, and a hell of a lot better than the Oberons.

It is hard for a country to maintain it is a sovereign country when it does not have the ability to defend itself. I would support increased spending on the military, providing it was spent responsibly for the troops and not on making the generals offices look nicer. The troops need the equipment and supplies, so before we get more troops, lets make sure we can adequately provide them with the equipment they need. Getting more troops without equipment makes no sense.

Due to the continued downgrading of the military over the years, particularly by the Liberals, it will take many years to get our military back to a respectable level. The question is are we as a country prepared to do this? As with so many issues, I suspect the East will say no for the most part, while the West will say yes for the most part. So, here we go again?!?!?

Suspect all you want, Blue. The fact, according to polls, is that Canadians overwhelmingly want a stronger military. The division is that Alberta (and only Alberta, but not by much) would sacrifice healthcare and education for it and still demand tax cuts. The rest of the country are (by a large amount) willing to give up tax cuts but want universal healthcare and access to education.

The same polls show that we want a military that is geared towards peacekeeping and enforcing our sovereignty, but do not want it used as an adjunct to US forces.

Those are important things to keep in mind when rebuilding our military.

Polls do not construe facts, they merely indicate opinions; the question is whether your interpretations of these opinion polls are accurate? I doubt it!
Personally doubt that the division is clear only in Alberta. If it is, prove it?

One fact, flavoured with a little opinion, is that, in order to pander to the namby-pamby whining of left leaning wingnuts, the Canadian Military has been emasculated and neglected since Trudeau got his hands on it - he engineered the initial rot that got us to this point.

As a result of this long neglect, any meaningful rehabilitation of the Canadian Military will require massive investment. One opinion is that such an investment will entail some sacrifice of other government programs, especially those that pander to namby-pamby, whining, left leaning wingnuts.Like I said, "Polls do not construe facts, they merely indicate opinions", in this instance the opinion may be suspect because:

- Canada has only been able to neglect its military obligations because other democracies, in particular the US, have picked up the slack in defending the democratic rights of the oppressed.

- Canadians have been conveniently allowed to forget what Benjamin Franklin said about ploughshares.

If you really understood your own prejudices, when it comes to the US, you would know that the only way to effectively keep them at bay is to embrace them. Such a strategy requires a strong and effective military.Piffle!

The army KIND of Top-heavy? You know that the forces are hurting when they send RCMP officers to Bosnia on peacekeeping missions. As for manufactuing materials for the army... Here on the Island, the old Slemon Park base has turned into a phenomenal indsustrial park that boasts large production for the Aerospace industry...I don't think it would be that much of a stretch to start producing for our own military, and yes extra to sell to other countries. Think of the bonus to the economy, which could then help with funding for the Canadian military (among other needy areas)

It's really simple. Show the world that Canada is a serious peacekeeping country. Build your military, patrol your shores, especially the North, before the Dutch grab your island , and send your troops around the world to stop wars and maintain peace.

I guess we need mores tuff for peacekeeping missions but otherwise our security is someone else's insecurity just encouraging them to get better secured. We don't have nukes for precisely this reason. For this same reason we don't allow people to carry handguns.

I'm a currently serving member of the Armed forces, with 25 years experiance, however i'm new to this forum thing so please go easy on me. I thought i could contribute to your conversation.


Our armed forces is still very much respected through out the world, as a dependable,professional military force that always gets the job done. No matter what the job, or it's difficulty.

Yes it is the subject of many jokes from Canadians, mostly by those that do not know the first thing about thier own military. nor do they know of the sacrafice that todays soldiers and especially yester years soldiers have made in the name of Canada.

It is because of this that Canadians have forgotten about the military and have decided that to fix the problem will take to much time and money. They shelve thier plans hoping that the problem will go away or the military will simply disappear. this includes the tax payer as well.



[quote][/What kind of military do we want/need? Would you accept a government decision to defer more tax dollars to it, even at the expense of a tax cut? Does anyone care or is everyone content with the US being there to defend us if anything happened.[quote]

Canada does not need a huge military, that is not what Canadians want nor do we need. However a figure around 100,000 troops would not be unrealistic.
Canadians will endure alot of things as long as it does not interfer with health care or education. Rebuilding the military will take as long as it took to destroy it...10 to 15 years...with investments in billions of dollars of equipment..i would guess at well over 60 bil would put us on track.

The recruiting lines are full, what DND lacks is the resources to train them.

Someone asked for a numbers break down for DND. Below is taken off JANES military web site and is alittle old.

Army

Strength: 18,600 (active, including 1,600 women); 114 × MBT; 393 × reconnaissance vehicles; 2,370 × APCs; 58 × SP artillery guns.

Navy

Strength: 8,950 (active); 1 × submarines; 4 × destroyers; 12 × frigates.

Air Force

Strength: 13,500 (active); 130 × combat aircraft; 144 × helicopters.

Defence Budget

During December 2001, the Canadian government has ignored the recommendations of the Parliamentary defence committee, various lobby groups and the US, and increased defence spending by only C$1.2 billion (US$760 million) over five years. The defence budget for 2002-03 will be C$11.5 billion. Not only is this considerably less than various informed groups and agencies have been urging, but also includes money for security that will not necessarily go to the Department of National Defence (DND).

The DND will receive C$300 million to spend on new equipment by the beginning of the 2002 fiscal year. However, as Norbert Cyr of the Canadian Defence Industries Association pointed out: "That money has to be spent by 31 March 2002, which means the orders have to be placed over the next two to three weeks." Given that "not a lot of defence companies have goods on the shelves waiting for somebody to buy them", it is not clear what the DND expects to be able to spend the money on, or if it will be spent at all. If the DND is unable to spend it in time, it will have to be handed back to the treasury at the end of the fiscal year.

The DND will also receive C$210 million to cover the costs of Operation 'Apollo', the Canadian contribution to US-led operations in Afghanistan, to be spent by 31 March 2003. The Canadian Forces (CF) are also being given C$119 million over five years to double the size of the counter-terrorism unit, the secretive Joint Task Force 2, from about 250 to 500 personnel. However, given that the bulk of these soldiers are highly trained, non-commissioned members, and are the same personnel who are in short supply in the rest of the armed forces due to previous cuts, it is unclear how the DND can achieve the expansion. The remaining C$571 million nominally allocated as defence spending will be shared with other agencies and departments over five years for emergency readiness and expanded capacity to deal with nuclear, biological and chemical threats.

During 2001, six independent reports called for a major increase in defence spending to stabilise the CF, which are having significant problems balancing resources and commitments. In July, US Ambassador Paul Cellucci voiced US concerns that Canadian defence budgets "were cut drastically because of the end of the Cold War, and the need to put the federal budget back in balance, it has now reached the point where without significant increases the Canadian Forces could lose much of their effectiveness".

During November 2001, federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted that decline in her annual report to Parliament. She said the DND ``has frequently said that the Canadian Forces have never been more capable. But until steps are taken to manage equipment readiness more adequately, these claims should be taken with a grain of salt''. She pointed out that "departmental plans indicate a budget shortage of C$1.3 billion for 2001-02" over the C$11.4 billion originally allocated.

Opposition New Democratic Party leader, Alexa McDonough, called the extra funding "peanuts", stating that "anything less than C$2 billion just doesn't do what needs to be done".

Among G-7 nations, Canada's defence spending amounts to only 1.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, compared with the average of 2 per cent.

Canada's Army?

What Army?

Oliver' Army are on their way....Oliver's Army are here to stay....and I would rather be anywhere else than here today.........