Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)

[Bird_Gunner45]

While it probably is not as simplified a graphic as you hope for, you will find some tables here that show a breakdown by category as a percentage of each NATO country's defence spending.

The categories are:

1.  Personnel - Personnel expenditures include military and civilian expenditures and pensions.
2.  Equipment - Equipment expenditures include major equipment expenditures and R&D devoted to major equipment.
3.  Infrastructure
4.  Other - Other expenditures include operations and maintenance expenditures, other R&D expenditures and expenditures not allocated among above-mentioned categories.

Great graphics. It was legitimately eye opening to see what some of those other NATO nations spend for personnel... up to 70%! Makes their militaries more of a welfare society and makes you wonder if the 2% threshold is applicable

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The thing is that you need some sort of standard that can be easily measured and that's what the GDP figure does. If Canada wisely spent 2% of GDP on defense, we would have one of the top military's in the world, with proper fleets of ships, fully equipped infantry battalions, well rounded Air force, decently equipped reserves and a proper system to sustain and support the above.

 

[jmt18325]

The thing is that you need some sort of standard that can be easily measured and that's what the GDP figure does.

That standard really tells you nothing.  It says nothing about where the money is going, or what you're contributing.  Our defence budget should be able to fund what we have planned as of right now, based on our defence needs.  As of right now, we aren't properly funding our own plans. 

 

[George Wallace]

That standard really tells you nothing.  It says nothing about where the money is going, or what you're contributing.  Our defence budget should be able to fund what we have planned as of right now, based on our defence needs.  As of right now, we aren't properly funding our own plans.

First you have to have a plan.  It has been decades since the Canadian Government has seriously put any thought into what it expects of the Canadian Armed Forces.  Spur of the moment jumping on a UN or NATO bandwagon to send "Peacekeepers" or "Peacemakers" is not a desirable position to be in, nor is it a credible plan.  The last White Paper on Defence has been so long ago, most of us who knew what it was have forgotten, and those who never knew what it was......well, they never knew and never will know.

 

[Journeyman]

I refuse to accept that DND can't at least figure out how to spend the money that they do get in a timely manner.

I'm not sure how many different people you need here pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, but the least -- the absolute very least -- you could do (for this thread at any rate), is to read up on how defence procurement works.

DND is not remotely  a stand-alone entity when it comes to spending; there are several other Departments, direct government intervention, a labyrinth of regulations (few of which were enacted specifically for the military, but which we're obligated to address regardless).....


Opinions vs. informed  opinions......

 

[Edward Campbell]

All you measure with a % of GDP is national will or commitment. It is possible, just, to spend 1.5% of GDP wisely and effectively (which is not, as Old Sweat points out, at superfluous staff officers in bloated HQs) and make a high quality contribution to the common defence tasks; it is, equally, possible to spend 3% of GDP and still have a second rate, poorly lead, semi-skilled military ~ it may be large and well equipped but neither equals "good." But the country that commits 2% or 3% of GDP is serious about doing something, even if it is not doing it very well, while the smart, efficient and effective military from the 1.25% or 1.5% country still says that it is lacking in the will to share the burden of the common defence of the West, even when Putin is telling us that we need to be concerned.

In my opinion Canada is spending far too little, given the strategic situation, and it is spending it poorly ... we are, in other words, as a nation, neither smart nor committed.

 

[Kirkhill]

All you measure with a % of GDP is national will or commitment. It is possible, just, to spend 1.5% of GDP wisely and effectively (which is not, as Old Sweat points out, at superfluous staff officers in bloated HQs) and make a high quality contribution to the common defence tasks; it is, equally, possible to spend 3% of GDP and still have a second rate, poorly lead, semi-skilled military ~ it may be large and well equipped but neither equals "good." But the country that commits 2% or 3% of GDP is serious about doing something, even if it is not doing it very well, while the smart, efficient and effective military from the 1.25% or 1.5% country still says that it is lacking in the will to share the burden of the common defence of the West, even when Putin is telling us that we need to be concerned.

In my opinion Canada is spending far too little, given the strategic situation, and it is spending it poorly ... we are, in other words, as a nation, neither smart nor committed.

Thumbs up on that one.

I was asked what capabilities NATO is missing that our money might pay for.  Well, how about Carrier Groups.  The US used to fund 13 Carrier Groups, with escorts.  The Brits used to fund 30 or 40 escorts.  Those ships "policed the commons" of the high seas and created crisis response capabilities.  They are reduced and diminished now.  Does that make the commons safer?  I don't believe so.  That is but one example of an area where our missing 18 BUSD could be used to our, and NATO's and the international community's at large, benefit.  We don't have to fund carriers and air wings but we can fund escorts and subs and AORs and transports that would allow the Americans to spend more on other stuff.

 

[George Wallace]

All you measure with a % of GDP is national will or commitment. It is possible, just, to spend 1.5% of GDP wisely and effectively (which is not, as Old Sweat points out, at superfluous staff officers in bloated HQs) and make a high quality contribution to the common defence tasks; it is, equally, possible to spend 3% of GDP and still have a second rate, poorly lead, semi-skilled military ~ it may be large and well equipped but neither equals "good." But the country that commits 2% or 3% of GDP is serious about doing something, even if it is not doing it very well, while the smart, efficient and effective military from the 1.25% or 1.5% country still says that it is lacking in the will to share the burden of the common defence of the West, even when Putin is telling us that we need to be concerned.

In my opinion Canada is spending far too little, given the strategic situation, and it is spending it poorly ... we are, in other words, as a nation, neither smart nor committed.

It will be interesting to see where we go if Trump is elected President.  He has stated in his acceptance speech that he will be demanding that other nations pick up their socks and tow their line and that the US is no longer going to be funding the majority of NATO and other security operations, while other nations skimp out on their obligations.  Will he "lay down the law" on Trudeau and force him to commit more to NATO, NORAD, and other joint security ventures?  That would be a form of 'deja vu' from Trudeau version 1.0.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It will be interesting to see where we go if Trump is elected President.  He has stated in his acceptance speech that he will be demanding that other nations pick up their socks and tow their line and that the US is no longer going to be funding the majority of NATO and other security operations, while other nations skimp out on their obligations.  Will he "lay down the law" on Trudeau and force him to commit more to NATO, NORAD, and other joint security ventures?  That would be a form of 'deja vu' from Trudeau version 1.0.

If that's the case, will Trudeau counter with, for example, "sure, as long as Canadian wood can be sold in the U.S. without any tariffs" - yeah, I know, dare to dream ...

 

[jmt18325]

First you have to have a plan.  It has been decades since the Canadian Government has seriously put any thought into what it expects of the Canadian Armed Forces.  Spur of the moment jumping on a UN or NATO bandwagon to send "Peacekeepers" or "Peacemakers" is not a desirable position to be in, nor is it a credible plan.  The last White Paper on Defence has been so long ago, most of us who knew what it was have forgotten, and those who never knew what it was......well, they never knew and never will know.

That's why I await the defence review.  It will give us the plan and vision that Canadians have created through their government.

 

[jmt18325]

I'm not sure how many different people you need here pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, but the least -- the absolute very least -- you could do (for this thread at any rate), is to read up on how defence procurement works.

DND is not remotely  a stand-alone entity when it comes to spending; there are several other Departments, direct government intervention, a labyrinth of regulations (few of which were enacted specifically for the military, but which we're obligated to address regardless).....


Opinions vs. informed  opinions......

I don't really care why the problem exists - it exists.  That's the problem.

 

[jmt18325]

All you measure with a % of GDP is national will or commitment. It is possible, just, to spend 1.5% of GDP wisely and effectively (which is not, as Old Sweat points out, at superfluous staff officers in bloated HQs) and make a high quality contribution to the common defence tasks; it is, equally, possible to spend 3% of GDP and still have a second rate, poorly lead, semi-skilled military ~ it may be large and well equipped but neither equals "good." But the country that commits 2% or 3% of GDP is serious about doing something, even if it is not doing it very well, while the smart, efficient and effective military from the 1.25% or 1.5% country still says that it is lacking in the will to share the burden of the common defence of the West, even when Putin is telling us that we need to be concerned.

In my opinion Canada is spending far too little, given the strategic situation, and it is spending it poorly ... we are, in other words, as a nation, neither smart nor committed.

In reality, there isn't much threat to Canada.  I would agree some expansion could be justified for the common defence, but not $18B

 

[George Wallace]

In reality, there isn't much threat to Canada.  I would agree some expansion could be justified for the common defence, but not $18B

I'm actually curious as to how you come to that conclusion.

 

[jmt18325]

I'm actually curious as to how you come to that conclusion.

With a slightly strong air force on our end, and the logistics required to project force to Canada from our end (this applies to anyone that isn't the US) there really isn't much of a conventional military threat that we couldn't take on.  I would say some money could be spent on under ice capable subs as well, and at least as many ships as we have now.

 

[George Wallace]

With a slightly strong air force on our end, and the logistics required to project force to Canada from our end (this applies to anyone that isn't the US) there really isn't much of a conventional military threat that we couldn't take on.  I would say some money could be spent on under ice capable subs as well, and at least as many ships as we have now.

HUH?  ???

 

[QV]

With a slightly strong air force on our end, and the logistics required to project force to Canada from our end (this applies to anyone that isn't the US) there really isn't much of a conventional military threat that we couldn't take on.  I would say some money could be spent on under ice capable subs as well, and at least as many ships as we have now.

:facepalm:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That's why I await the defence review.  It will give us the plan and vision that Canadians have created through their government.

Are you actually serious? Have you actually been to any of the Defence Policy Consultations? I have.

I can assure you that the "fix is in". The Consultative process is about 98% smoke and mirrors. Whatever Defence Policy we do get has probably already been largely decided and will have little or nothing to do with what has been said/heard while "consulting with Canadians"- which is probably a good thing, given that the comments on Defence matters that I have heard from the average Canadian are generally uneducated and naive at best (which sounds elitist, but many of us have been immersed in Defence Policy for years, if not decades. It is like expecting the average lay Canadian to have an intelligent and well informed opinion on quantum mechanics).

 

[jmt18325]

HUH?  ???

Given geography, Canada is a difficult country to invade.  If we want to focus on our defence needs, the navy and air force are where we need to concentrate our resources.  You could lob missiles at it from afar with relative ease though, but the chances of that are pretty small.

Most investments that we make are more to contribute to the common defence needs of NATO, and not so much the self defence needs of Canada.

 

[jmt18325]

Are you actually serious? Have you actually been to any of the Defence Policy Consultations? I have.

I don't mean through the public input so much as through the overall vision that the government has in mind.  The government that Canadians selected.

 

[PuckChaser]

I don't mean through the public input so much as through the overall vision that the government has in mind.  The government that Canadians selected.

Maybe if we delinked politics, from defense, we wouldn't be screwed every 4-8 years. You're apparently unable to do that, and were quite content to see your favourite Liberals renege on planned increases to DND's budget, and actually "defer" (cut) capital procurement budgets so we wouldn't be $32 or $33B in the red.