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

[Retired AF Guy]

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.

What about an internal threat?

 

[jmt18325]

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.

I don't fault the Liberals for that move, just as I don't fault the Conservatives for the same move in 2012 and 2014.  They all did it for the same reasons relating to the same projects - the Canadian Surface Combatant, the JSS, and the fighter replacement.  We were supposed to be buying those things at this point, but we're not ready to because of failure after failure by government after government.

 

[jmt18325]

What about an internal threat?

There aren't really many internal threats that can be foreseen that will require a large combat force.  Not larger than we have right now anyway.  I'd propose cutting the size of the army somewhat, and equipping the smaller force better, with all the aspects that they are currently missing, such as air defense and self propelled artillery.

 

[PuckChaser]

There aren't really many internal threats that can be foreseen that will require a large combat force.  Not larger than we have right now anyway.  I'd propose cutting the size of the army somewhat, and equipping the smaller force better, with all the aspects that they are currently missing, such as air defense and self propelled artillery.

How about we equip the Army we have properly, without making any further cuts? Of course that would cost money. Money that was just "deferred".

You can't say we have a huge landmass that needs to be protected, and then in the next sentence want to cut a large portion of it. We absolutely need a larger RCAF and RCN to cover all that area, and in that same sense, having anything less in terms of troop counts for the Army makes giant holes in the defense of the nation.

You can't hold ground with ships and airplanes. That's what boots on the ground are for.

 

[Jarnhamar]

There aren't really many internal threats that can be foreseen that will require a large combat force.  Not larger than we have right now anyway.  I'd propose cutting the size of the army somewhat, and equipping the smaller force better, with all the aspects that they are currently missing, such as air defense and self propelled artillery.

I don't think you're familiar with how hurting our army is for deployable people. Unless you mean cutting HQ types, then I agree.

 

[jmt18325]

How about we equip the Army we have properly, without making any further cuts? Of course that would cost money. Money that was just "deferred".

That's not the same money.  The deferred money is already allocated to ships and planes.

You can't say we have a huge landmass that needs to be protected, and then in the next sentence want to cut a large portion of it. We absolutely need a larger RCAF and RCN to cover all that area, and in that same sense, having anything less in terms of troop counts for the Army makes giant holes in the defense of the nation.

For the vast majority of foreseeable circumstances, protecting Canada will need to involve stopping any enemy before they get here.

You can't hold ground with ships and airplanes. That's what boots on the ground are for.

And we both agree we need better boots - we just don't agree on the number.

 

[jmt18325]

I don't think you're familiar with how hurting our army is for deployable people. Unless you mean cutting HQ types, then I agree.

I'm aware that we can deploy about 3000 people abroad, as we're about to do apparently and have done recently.  I'm not sure we need to do that.  I believe our major contribution to NATO should be air and sea power.

 

[PuckChaser]

That's not the same money.  The deferred money is already allocated to ships and planes.

Its absolutely the same money. Capital procurement for ships is the same money for tanks, for SPGs, for GBAD. One giant pot, subdivided down for projects. When that pot is cut, projects get cut completely, or you get less things in each project.

For the vast majority of foreseeable circumstances, protecting Canada will need to involve stopping any enemy before they get here.

What happens after they get through the RCN and RCAF? Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye? What about a catastrophic earthquake or flood? Gonna get all those pilots out to fill sandbags? The Army is a work pool for all those tasks that gets us good press. You also can't peacekeep without an Army.

And we both agree we need better boots - we just don't agree on the number.

Right now we have no boots. Literally no boots to issue out. I'm sure they could get a project going again, but that capital spending is deferred.

 

[jmt18325]

Its absolutely the same money. Capital procurement for ships is the same money for tanks, for SPGs, for GBAD. One giant pot, subdivided down for projects. When that pot is cut, projects get cut completely, or you get less things in each project.

The money that was moved forward is the same money that was moved two times before.  It's already allocated.

Right now we have no boots. Literally no boots to issue out. I'm sure they could get a project going again, but that capital spending is deferred.

Actually, that kind of capital spending gets increased by almost $1.5B this year, as per the NATO charts.  As per the budget documents, large project spending (ships and such) actually increases to more than $1B this year, from less than $1B last year.

 

[Cloud Cover]

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.

Well said. And I can't really see that changing, ever.

and this, right here, from 2004, is what needed to occur, did not occur and will not ever occur:

What I mean is that I am not for or against any specific solution - I am against the problem, which is that we do not have a defensible Defence Policy.  I refuse to situate the estimate.  We need to do a First Priciples review that recognises no shibboleths, no rice bowls, no political considerations, no Granatsteins or Bercussons.  Do an estimate, select a course of action, develop a plan, and execute it.

- mod edit to fix formatting/coding -

 

[YZT580]

and we need to get all party agreement to place politics on the backburner in the same manner as the Aussies have done so that there is no change in procurement every 4 years.  How we utilize those resources would remain in the political spectrum but the actual nuts and bolts procurement requirements need to be set in stone.

 

[Good2Golf]

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.

ummmm....that's not a consultation, then...

 

[jmt18325]

ummmm....that's not a consultation, then...

I know - that's why I didn't use the word.  I'm sure the consultation will play some small part, but, not much of one. 

 

[dimsum]

and we need to get all party agreement to place politics on the backburner in the same manner as the Aussies have done so that there is no change in procurement every 4 years. 

The reason why the Aus Defence Force enjoys political support from all sides is due to history and geography.  Until we stop becoming neighbours with the US and/or have an actual attack on our soil that slips through NORAD, etc. the same won't happen in Canada.

 

[Old Sweat]

The reason why the Aus Defence Force enjoys political support from all sides is due to history and geography.  Until we stop becoming neighbours with the US and/or have an actual attack on our soil that slips through NORAD, etc. the same won't happen in Canada.

Indeed. They found the hard way in the early months of the Pacific War that the world views from 10 Downing Street and Canberra are very, very different.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Defence of Canada" is a misleading way to express the domestic role.  The country is too large and the population too small relative to either of our most significant neighbours.  A more useful way to phrase the domestic role is "Exercise/Demonstration of Sovereignty".  Canada's real military interest in a "Defence of Canada" capability lies with NATO.

If you accepted those two premises, you'd probably design, create, and sustain a much different force than the one federal governments have slowly been creeping toward.

A defence review is an estimate, situated to spend as little as the government believes it can politically endure.  To move expenditures from 1% to 2% of GDP implies a doubling; the current budget is somewhere in the low $20 billions; even if the government were willing to deficit finance that amount it has already done so to support other programs which indicates clearly where priorities lie.

To redress the spending problem, you'd first have to undo all the spending which created the new deficit and then find about the same amount in cuts elsewhere if you wanted to achieve a doubling and balance the budget.  Essentially, the magnitude of the NATO financing target problem has doubled with the change of government.

 

[jmt18325]

It's almost as if the last government didn't run a deficit.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It certainly did- at the threat of non-confidence in 2008 (remember that?).

It took until 2014 to dig out from that. For one year.

You are welcome.

To drag this back onto Defence- owe you a bit of an apology, JMT. It seems that I misread an earlier post of yours and misconstrued that you thought that Defence policy should be set by the masses. You said nothing of the sort.

 

[jmt18325]

It certainly did- at the threat of non-confidence in 2008 (remember that?).

Of course I remember, but it still happened.  The digging out is actually why we're at ~1% of GDP and not ~1.2% of GDP right now.  I think we need either a new plan that conforms with current spending levels, or more spending to conform with the current plan.  I don't hold out much hope for the latter, outside of intense international pressure.

Just think of it - to reach our defence and foreign aid targets (the ones we promised to meet), we'd have to spend somewhere in the range of $27B more a year.

 

[jmt18325]

I'm only aware of one country that meets both of those targets.  That's the UK.  We could meet the targets.  We may have to tax a bit more though, just as they do.  We could also run larger deficits in the short term. 

There was a CIBC graph this year that showed what would happen if Canada were to run even $100B deficits every year forever.  At the end of it, our federal debt to GDP would still be better than almost any other country.  I don't advocate that - I'm just saying we have room to do things in the short to medium term if we wish, without a lot of risk.  Our deficit will (almost certainly) fall every year anyway, even under this government.

I would be in favour of spending more money if we could first sort out our procurement mess (again, I don't care of the cause, only the reality that it exists) and then decide what we actually need the money for.