Afghan costs leaves Canadian navy up the creek

[Blackleaf]

This is what someone said in reply to this story on another discussion forum....


"Canada's navy is out of money for operations as the military diverts resources to the fight in Afghanistan.

Canada, just like France, is constantly out of money; so much of their $$ goes to national healthcare, they have very small budgets with which to fund the military.

Canada...You put up chump change for your military, your troops in Afghanistan are top notch...no thanks to you. They do it out of sheer pride, warrior spirit, and comraderie. They do credit to you in SPITE of your candy-ass attitude as a country. The Canadian government would have had money to spend on the navy if they had not spent over 1 billion dollars on a failed gun registry program."
--------------------------------------------------------------


Afghan costs leave navy up the creek
GLORIA GALLOWAY
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

The Royal Canadian Navy earlier today.



OTTAWA — Canada's navy is out of money for operations as the military diverts resources to the fight in Afghanistan.

Naval commanders have cancelled discretionary spending to make up for a $25-million shortfall before April 1, the start of the next fiscal year.

Until last night, that included a 35-day fisheries patrol for HMCS Halifax, which costs more than $25,000 a day. But when the news spread yesterday, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said his department will come up with the money for the mission, which had been scheduled to leave Monday.

"I was given an estimate today that the navy would need $3-million to $5-million for fuel, essentially to meet these fishery patrols and a few other issues," Mr. O'Connor told CBC Halifax. "And I've told our officials, make sure they get the $3-million to $5-million."

Even so, it is a sign of how much pressure the Afghan mission is putting on other military operations.

"Afghanistan is eating money like you wouldn't believe," said Peter Haydon, a retired naval officer now with the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies in Halifax. "The demand for money is being transferred through the whole military system. Afghanistan is a huge financial drain."

The navy had planned for activities that would cost roughly $315-million this fiscal year, but were given $290-million, Lieutenant Marie-Claude Gagné, a Maritime Command spokeswoman on the East Coast, said yesterday.

She said Maritime Forces Atlantic always "overprograms" on the assumption it will have extra money at year's end because of projects that were cancelled, delayed or less costly than anticipated. The gamble did not pay off this year.

Other fisheries patrols, which are aimed at preventing foreign ships from fishing illegally in Canadian waters, may be cancelled if no more money is found before April 1.

Professional-development activities and overtime have been put on hold, training exercises could be delayed until April and the navy may be asking personnel to use their vehicles less frequently.

Lt. Gagné said Canadians should not worry that marine security will be compromised.

"We will always have a ship ready to respond to any contingencies, whether it be domestically or internationally. So that's not something we can cut into either," she said.

Nor will navy staff bear the brunt. The cuts are designed to have "as little impact as possible on our personnel. That's not something we can cut into and we wouldn't want to anyway," she said.

However, Rear Admiral Dean McFadden, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, has asked all of his commanding officers to "exercise prudence within their funding allocations and make sure that funds are allocated toward essential activities to make sure that funds go wherever they are most needed," Lt. Gagné said.

When asked why the anticipated funds did not turn up this year, she said: "I don't know. I believe it is because other priorities have taken precedence."

Defence experts says those priorities are in Afghanistan.

"I think the big picture here, if I have to make one, is that Afghanistan has become so all-absorbing of time, energy and resources for everyone that there's nothing left over," said Dan Middlemiss, a political science professor who teaches defence policy at Dalhousie University in Halifax.

"They haven't been able to budget adequately for Afghanistan, as much as they are trying, because needs keep evolving and new requirements emerge on the spot and they have to deal with them quickly. So it's exhausting everybody in the process."

The Conservative government has directed a major chunk of spending toward the military since it took office a year ago. Billions have been spent on planes, trucks, ships and helicopters, and Mr. O'Connor makes major new procurement announcements as part of his Canada First program. However, "the Canada First aspect is somewhat ironic, because here we are, we can't take care of our own backyard," Dr. Middlemiss said.

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said the minister must assure Canadians that money that is needed here at home is not being diverted to Afghanistan.

"If fishery patrols are being cancelled, and they are telling us that, what does that mean about environmental patrols, what does that mean about drug interception, what does that mean about border security?" Ms. Black asked.

"I think there are a lot of questions here that the Minister of National Defence has got to make clear to Canadians. I think it raises huge concerns."

theglobeandmail.com
*****************************************

MILITARY EXPENDITURES 2006 (US $)

United States - 522,000,000,000 (half a trillion)
Britain - 60,388,574,400
France - 45,000,000,000 (also includes spending on the Gendarmerie)
Japan - 44,310,000,000
Germany - 34,100,000,000
Italy - 28,182,800,000
------------------------------------
Canada - 9,801,700,000

wikipedia.org

 

[#juan]

Those number are out to lunch.

CHALLENGES 2006-2007:
From Stockholm to Kandahar
Am Johal

VANCOUVER, Dec 20 (IPS) - As Canada's military looks to expand the size of its force, upgrade its equipment and increase its budget in the coming years, critics of the Canadian Armed Forces are worried that such moves would compromise the nation's traditional role as a peacekeeper and erode Ottawa's international stature as a middle power interested in promoting peace.

Canada's links to peacekeeping evolved following World War Two, and intensified when then Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson won the Stockholm-based Nobel Peace Prize in the 1950s for his role in mediating the Suez Crisis. Canada continued to develop its role as a peacekeeper under later internationalist leaders like Pierre Trudeau.

It is a mission that the public here appears to strongly support. A poll taken last year by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada found that 69 percent of Canadians consider peacekeeping to be "a defining characteristic of Canada".

However, since the attacks on the New York and Washington of Sep. 11, 2001, Canada has been asked to play a more aggressive role in support of United States foreign policy and has had to upgrade its military in the intervening years.

This year, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper allocated 1.1 billion dollars to the military over two years, as part of a 5.3-billion-dollar budget package over the next five years. It is also seeking to recruit 13,000 additional regular forces and 10,000 additional reserve forces personnel.

Steven Staples, director of the Canadian anti-war organisation Ceasefire.ca and an associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, told IPS, "There are misconceptions with Canada's military. It has the seventh highest expenditure on defence of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries on a dollar by dollar basis."

A recent report by Ceasefire.ca points out that in 1991, Canada had 1,149 military personnel deployed in U.N. peacekeeping operations worldwide. As of Aug. 31, 2006, that figure had fallen to 56 -- even though the total number of U.N. peacekeepers of all nationalities grew more than six-fold during that same period.

"The real question is not its resources, but the broader question of what role we want our military to play on the world stage," he said. "Contracts are being let out for new equipment, forces are being expanded, yet there has been no real public discussion on the direction of our military and what we want it to be."

Staples argues that as Canada's military expands, it increases its capacity to engage in public relations efforts which support the transformation agenda and cater to the defence lobby made up of military contractors and other hawks who have a more aggressive agenda for the forces in the future.

"The expansion of the Defence Forces budget comes at a great cost to programmes like medicare, childcare and social housing, which have traditionally been reflective of Canadian values," Staples said. "This is what is really going on and we need to confront this in a meaningful way."

New Democratic Party Member of Parliament and Defence Ministry critic Dawn Black told IPS, "There will be an increase in the size of military personnel by about 13,000 and a buying spree for new equipment. The Canadian military seems to be becoming more and more in synch with the United States and moving towards deeper integration in this regard."

 

[Mogz]

In the 21st Century, Peacekeeping, doesn't work. In fact it failed numerous times throughout the late 20th Century as well; Somalia, Rwanda, Croatia, The Sudan. Peacekeeping only works in both waring factions want peace. Couple that with the fact that U.N. Peacekeeping mandates often leave soldiers unable to step in to stop chaos, and you have the basis for WHY Peacekeeping doesn't work. In Rwanda, Canadian peacekeepers watched Hutus slaughter innocent women and children, but couldn't engage due to the restrictions placed on them by the U.N. The sad truth is that Peacekeeping was a nice idea, just like the U.N. itself. It works in theory, and it gives everyone a feel good attitude about their Nation, but what people often overlook is the institutes shortcomings (i.e. botched missions and huge body counts). These people are the very same who think Canada should only be peacekeeping in Afghanistan, but to them I pose the question; how do you peacekeeping when there isn't a peace to keep? Peacekeeping has become a catchphrase of Canadian society. People throw it out, demand we do it, but have no concept of what it actually is. A few facts about Canadian Peacekeeping Missions:

• In Croatia in 1992, the 2nd Battalion PPCLI, whilst on a Peacekeeping Mission, was forced to engage (in self defence) a Croatia Mechanized Brigade at Medak. Although outnumbered 5:1, 2 PPCLI managed to fold off the Croatians (even though lacking heavy weapons as banned by U.N. mandate) for 2 days until help arrived. The battle was a slaughter, leaving over 200 Croatians dead, and 4 Canadians wounded.
• In Somalia in 1993, Warlords were keeping shipments of grain from the people, millions were starving. The U.N. tried to deliver food to the people, however the Warlords and their "Militias" made it impossible. The U.S. Marine Corps sent a MEU of 20,000 Marines to Somalia and enforced the delivery of aid (these Marines were NOT there to peacekeep, and engaged in numerous acts of combat). When the Marines left a few months later, chaos returned. The Warlords retook food shipments and the nation was no better off. In mid-1993, the Canadian Army pulled out it's peacekeeping forces and deployed the Canadian Airborne to the region to enforce the delivery of food to the populace of Belet Huen and the surrounding area. Only then did the people in the Canadian's AOR begin to receive food.
• In Rwanda in 1994, Canadian soldiers of the 3rd Battlaion of the Royal 22nd Regiment (The VanDoos) sat at checkpoints and watched Hutus drag women and children up to them and butcher them with machetes. Knowing full well that the Peacekeepers weren't allowed to engage (except in self defence), the Hutus slaughtered over 800,000 Tutsi's in less than four months, with the international community doing nothing.
• From 2003-Present, in Darfur The Sudan, over 400,000 black africans have been slaughtered by muslim africans. The U.N., on August 31, 2006, drafted and approved Resolution 1706, whiched called for a 17,000 member U.N. Peacekeeping Force to enter Darfur. However the Sudanese Government denounced the force and declared they would be seen as invaders. Therefore the Force was never sent, and here we are in 2007, with no Peacekeepers on the ground.

A small taste of why Peacekeeping doesn't work unless a lengthy list of conditions are met. Lets face it folks, Peacekeeping was a wonderful idea, that I will admit worked a few times (i.e. Cyprus, but that took over 30 years), however it has no place in the 21st Century. For Peacekeeping to work, you need the acceptance of the waring Governments. In this day and age, the forces at war are seldom Government organizations, therefore Peacekeeping cannot deploy, in essence, hung up by it's own beureacratic red tape.

 

[darkbeaver]

In the 21st Century, Peacekeeping, doesn't work. In fact it failed numerous times throughout the late 20th Century as well; Somalia, Rwanda, Croatia, The Sudan. Peacekeeping only works in both waring factions want peace. Couple that with the fact that U.N. Peacekeeping mandates often leave soldiers unable to step in to stop chaos, and you have the basis for WHY Peacekeeping doesn't work. In Rwanda, Canadian peacekeepers watched Hutus slaughter innocent women and children, but couldn't engage due to the restrictions placed on them by the U.N. The sad truth is that Peacekeeping was a nice idea, just like the U.N. itself. It works in theory, and it gives everyone a feel good attitude about their Nation, but what people often overlook is the institutes shortcomings (i.e. botched missions and huge body counts). These people are the very same who think Canada should only be peacekeeping in Afghanistan, but to them I pose the question; how do you peacekeeping when there isn't a peace to keep? Peacekeeping has become a catchphrase of Canadian society. People throw it out, demand we do it, but have no concept of what it actually is. A few facts about Canadian Peacekeeping Missions:

• In Croatia in 1992, the 2nd Battalion PPCLI, whilst on a Peacekeeping Mission, was forced to engage (in self defence) a Croatia Mechanized Brigade at Medak. Although outnumbered 5:1, 2 PPCLI managed to fold off the Croatians (even though lacking heavy weapons as banned by U.N. mandate) for 2 days until help arrived. The battle was a slaughter, leaving over 200 Croatians dead, and 4 Canadians wounded.
• In Somalia in 1993, Warlords were keeping shipments of grain from the people, millions were starving. The U.N. tried to deliver food to the people, however the Warlords and their "Militias" made it impossible. The U.S. Marine Corps sent a MEU of 20,000 Marines to Somalia and enforced the delivery of aid (these Marines were NOT there to peacekeep, and engaged in numerous acts of combat). When the Marines left a few months later, chaos returned. The Warlords retook food shipments and the nation was no better off. In mid-1993, the Canadian Army pulled out it's peacekeeping forces and deployed the Canadian Airborne to the region to enforce the delivery of food to the populace of Belet Huen and the surrounding area. Only then did the people in the Canadian's AOR begin to receive food.
• In Rwanda in 1994, Canadian soldiers of the 3rd Battlaion of the Royal 22nd Regiment (The VanDoos) sat at checkpoints and watched Hutus drag women and children up to them and butcher them with machetes. Knowing full well that the Peacekeepers weren't allowed to engage (except in self defence), the Hutus slaughtered over 800,000 Tutsi's in less than four months, with the international community doing nothing.
• From 2003-Present, in Darfur The Sudan, over 400,000 black africans have been slaughtered by muslim africans. The U.N., on August 31, 2006, drafted and approved Resolution 1706, whiched called for a 17,000 member U.N. Peacekeeping Force to enter Darfur. However the Sudanese Government denounced the force and declared they would be seen as invaders. Therefore the Force was never sent, and here we are in 2007, with no Peacekeepers on the ground.

A small taste of why Peacekeeping doesn't work unless a lengthy list of conditions are met. Lets face it folks, Peacekeeping was a wonderful idea, that I will admit worked a few times (i.e. Cyprus, but that took over 30 years), however it has no place in the 21st Century. For Peacekeeping to work, you need the acceptance of the waring Governments. In this day and age, the forces at war are seldom Government organizations, therefore Peacekeeping cannot deploy, in essence, hung up by it's own beureacratic red tape.

You have always maintained that there is no place for peacekeeping in todays world, this is a direct neocon ideology. "In this day and age, the forces at war are seldom Government organizations," who do you think your talking to? a bunch of raw recruits? would you have us believe that the uniformed combatants in combat theaters all over the planet are irregulars (terrorists).Are the American forces in the zones not Government sponsered? Is the IDF not covernment are our own troops in Afghanistan not official Government of Canada property? Only the brainwashed would belive that irregular terrorists are delivering millions of tons of bombs and bullets. If the forces at war are not Government organizations then what are they?

Peacekeeping has been dumped on to promote the neocon ideal of perpetual war.
You give us no choice Mogz ,it's war or nothing or maybe you think the forces of evil will be defeated in a final battle, the war to end all wars, the war industrialists aren't going to agree with that, not when they have a constantly reborn supply of combatants to deliver the products they produce.:wave: