C
capt j
Guest
Well Well Well...............
Does Canada need a Military. I find that question unreal. Why is it one needs to question the vocation that provides the very blanket of freedom that allows one to pose such a question. While I am the first to admit the CF's warfighting ability has been eroded greatly. Yet time and time again the people via our Government has called upon the men and women of the CF to put their lives and family on hold and yes regretably pay the ultimate price. What for you may ask, as a nation Canada is a middle power who can go where others the US, UK, France etc cannot. We go to places to help make this little place we call earth a better place for mankind. In addition while we have a Military we are still a sovereign nation who can stand on it's own and make its own policy.
Does Canada need a Military. I find that question unreal. Why is it one needs to question the vocation that provides the very blanket of freedom that allows one to pose such a question. While I am the first to admit the CF's warfighting ability has been eroded greatly. Yet time and time again the people via our Government has called upon the men and women of the CF to put their lives and family on hold and yes regretably pay the ultimate price. What for you may ask, as a nation Canada is a middle power who can go where others the US, UK, France etc cannot. We go to places to help make this little place we call earth a better place for mankind. In addition while we have a Military we are still a sovereign nation who can stand on it's own and make its own policy.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
George Wallace said:
George Wallace said:
Interestingly enough, you kind of support, and missed the point of what I was getting at, mostly because my point is rather murky.
You're right, I'm advocating a fantasy.
Your point about our industrial ability to build weapons etc... is well taken. I'm kind of bypassing that {rather valid} point, with the idea that relations with the US won't implode tomorrow, and the Tenth Mountain rolls over the border. Such a scenario would take years, festering, before hostilities break out. Otherwise, you're right we are royally screwed in regards to building weapons.
Now let me articulate my point in a clearer manner than I have been before, and adresses the raison d'etre of this forum.
As I see it, Canada needs a military to defend our sovereignty. Okay, fair enough.
Therefore stop fantasizing about the next evil empire, and their plan to invade Canada. Only the US could successfully invade Canada, if they were inclined to do so, and we would still have military recourse i.e. my song and dance about nuclear weapons, with some assumptions thrown in the mix in that regard.
When I mention evil empire, I mean China. China is not going to invade Canada. They are not inclined to do so, or capable of doing so.
So therefore, we should stop trying to formulate a military capable of fighting the next evil empire. It's a non-starter. For Canada to do so, we would have to jump straight to nuclear weapons, which is non-starter in itself.
So when it comes to Canada needing a military, we need a military that can go places. We haven't fought a war on Canadian soil, in almost 2 hundred years, and nothing about the worlds geo-political makeup, makes that a likelier possibility in future. So again, we need a military that can go places, be it Africa, Afghanistan, or the high Arctic.
When it comes to a military, we need one that goes places, not wait around for the non-existent invasion. To bring up the future evil empire up again, if we end up fighting China, it's going to be over there, rather than over here, so we need a military that can get there.
Otherwise though, we don't need a military that's preparing for a hostile nation to roll over the border, or hit the beaches. We need the opposite. A military capable of rolling over a border, and hitting a hostile beach. Unlike a lot of other nations in the world, Canada, because of our pretty decent geography and international relations, we get to pick the time and places we want to use our mlilitary. What seems to be limiting Canada, is that while we can pick the time and place, whether we can get there is bigger problem.
What would be more useful for Canada, is a DART, that can actually do it's thing within 48 hrs. Or the ability to do the same for a Brigade Group. Stuff like that.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
George Wallace said:
George Wallace said:
Interestingly enough, you kind of support, and missed the point of what I was getting at, mostly because I don't think I have actually written it down.
You're right, I'm advocating a fantasy.
Your point about our industrial ability to build weapons etc... is well taken. I'm kind of bypassing that {rather valid} point, with the idea that relations with the US won't implode tomorrow, and the Tenth Mountain rolls over the border. Such a scenario would take years, festering, before hostilities break out. Otherwise, you're right we are royally screwed in regards to building weapons.
Now let me articulate my real point in a clearer manner than I have been before, and addresses the raison d'etre of this forum.
As I see it, Canada needs a military to defend our sovereignty. Okay, fair enough.
Therefore we should stop fantasizing about the next evil empire, and their plan to invade Canada. Only the US could successfully invade Canada, if they were inclined to do so, and we would still have military recourse {i.e. my song and dance about nuclear weapons}, with some assumptions thrown in the mix in that regard.
When I mention evil empire, I mean China. China is not going to invade Canada. They are not inclined to do so, or capable of doing so.
So therefore, we should stop trying to formulate a military capable of fighting the next evil empire. It's a non-starter. For Canada to do so, we would have to jump straight to nuclear weapons, which is non-starter in itself. I say this because the next great power conflict would probably go nuclear pretty quick. There is some leeway there, for example I doubt the US will be using nuclear weapons in the defence of Taiwan, but when two nuclear armed nations go to war, there ability for the situation to become catastrophic, is enormous.
So when it comes to Canada needing a military, we need a military that can go places. We haven't fought a war on Canadian soil, in almost 2 hundred years, and nothing about the worlds geo-political makeup, makes that a likelier possibility in future. So again, we need a military that can go places, be it Africa, Afghanistan, or the high Arctic.
When it comes to a military, we need one that goes places, not wait around for the non-existent invasion. To bring up the future evil empire up again, if we end up fighting China, it's going to be over there, rather than over here, so we need a military that can get there.
Otherwise though, we don't need a military that's preparing for a hostile nation to roll over the border, or hit the beaches. We need the opposite. A military capable of rolling over a border, and hitting a hostile beach. Unlike a lot of other nations in the world, Canada, because of our pretty decent geography and international relationships, we get to pick the time and places we want to use our military. What seems to be limiting Canada, is that while we can pick the time and place, we still need to get there.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thats true... And just to mix things up a little who do you all think will be our next great foe, war is being spoken about alot these days and eventually we will face a conflict so ladies and gens who is it gonna be ??? and depending on whoit is do you all think that we are ready?
UBIQUE!!!!
UBIQUE!!!!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Yes, it is obvious that Canada needs a military. Unfortunately, the CF has had its strength eroded and now the Government has woken up to find that it is a new day and the time has come to beef up the CF.
A number of things needs to happend in order to increase the CF size. The first thing is to stop thinking in terms of old when trying to achieve the new. In other words, think outside the box. Here are some suggestions:
1. Man all Reg Force units to the full capacity of their establishments. That will increase our operational readiness and not have to rely on reserve augmentation.
2. Increase all P Res budgets and create a cadre of full-time stand-by soldiers. This should represent 15 per cent of each unit. In other words, 15 per cent of each P Res unit should have class B-A soldiers ready to deploy at any given time in support of any operation. This would be how we would augment the Reg Force. i.e.- an artillery battery should have at least one gun det and a FOO party employed full-time and ready to go if need be.
3. Introduce job protection legislation for serving reservists. This is used in the US and with great success. How can we mobilize reservists to full-time duty when they need to leave their jobs without any guarantees that they will still have a job when they return home from deployment. Again, it's a change in attitude.
Canada does not have a large enough population to have a military as large as the US. Therefore, we must look at other means to boost our military when we need it. We also have to look at what we have at our disposal.
4. Get new equipment.
5. Introduce mandatory reserve service legislation.
A. This could be used to recruit college students. If you are receiving a student loan then you should at least serve in the reserve as a way to pay it back. Allow a percentage of the student loan to be subtracted from the full amount based on years of reserve time service. For example, if you serve three out of your four years at university while receiving a goverment student loan, then you should only have to pay back 75 per cent of your loan amount for three of the years. Not only do you get a rebate on your student loan, you also get a good part-time job while in college. Of course only those eligible for military service would qualify.
B. If you are 18 and a high school graduate and are not employed or in reciept of Employment Insurance benefits, you would be required to serve in the reserves until you get a full-time job at which point continued service would become voluntary.
This could solve the manpower problems and some of the economic problems that certain regions face. Although it may sound drastic and a total departure from the "all volunteer force". We need to recognize that the world is changing and we need to change with it. This policy would also shed more light on the military in terms of the public. Every Canadian would know of or have a member of their family in a military component of some sort...the winning of hearts and minds.
Yours for comments...enjoy.
D-Dog
A number of things needs to happend in order to increase the CF size. The first thing is to stop thinking in terms of old when trying to achieve the new. In other words, think outside the box. Here are some suggestions:
1. Man all Reg Force units to the full capacity of their establishments. That will increase our operational readiness and not have to rely on reserve augmentation.
2. Increase all P Res budgets and create a cadre of full-time stand-by soldiers. This should represent 15 per cent of each unit. In other words, 15 per cent of each P Res unit should have class B-A soldiers ready to deploy at any given time in support of any operation. This would be how we would augment the Reg Force. i.e.- an artillery battery should have at least one gun det and a FOO party employed full-time and ready to go if need be.
3. Introduce job protection legislation for serving reservists. This is used in the US and with great success. How can we mobilize reservists to full-time duty when they need to leave their jobs without any guarantees that they will still have a job when they return home from deployment. Again, it's a change in attitude.
Canada does not have a large enough population to have a military as large as the US. Therefore, we must look at other means to boost our military when we need it. We also have to look at what we have at our disposal.
4. Get new equipment.
5. Introduce mandatory reserve service legislation.
A. This could be used to recruit college students. If you are receiving a student loan then you should at least serve in the reserve as a way to pay it back. Allow a percentage of the student loan to be subtracted from the full amount based on years of reserve time service. For example, if you serve three out of your four years at university while receiving a goverment student loan, then you should only have to pay back 75 per cent of your loan amount for three of the years. Not only do you get a rebate on your student loan, you also get a good part-time job while in college. Of course only those eligible for military service would qualify.
B. If you are 18 and a high school graduate and are not employed or in reciept of Employment Insurance benefits, you would be required to serve in the reserves until you get a full-time job at which point continued service would become voluntary.
This could solve the manpower problems and some of the economic problems that certain regions face. Although it may sound drastic and a total departure from the "all volunteer force". We need to recognize that the world is changing and we need to change with it. This policy would also shed more light on the military in terms of the public. Every Canadian would know of or have a member of their family in a military component of some sort...the winning of hearts and minds.
Yours for comments...enjoy.
D-Dog
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Conscription is a bad idea period.
Conscription does not get the kind of soldiers the military wants. When the US military had the draft, the average intelligence of the military was below the national average. Makes sense too, when you think about it. When you don't need the entire male population that comes of military age every year, you need to narrow down the recruits. So they implemented a lottery system, which, if you had the money, influence, or education, you could easily bypass even if your number comes up. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, are two big examples of this in effect. I believe it is money, education, and influence followed by money, education and influence, respectively for those two.
When the US draft went away, the US got a better army. I remember a few years ago, reading a Time magazine article, that made no bones about the fact that the US army was on average, more intelligent than the national average. I believe they were able to accomplish this by raising the standards, and when undesirable personals enlistments come up, they are not asked to be renewed.
For Canada, conscription in any form could rip apart the nation. It has almost done so twice in the last century. The last two times Conscription was implemented in Canada, countries around the world were engaged in the most titanic death matches the world has ever seen{World War I less so than World War II}. Nothing less would be an acceptable reason to implement conscription in any form.
Point remains though that, Yes Canada needs a military. However conscription has too much historical memory, the fact it isn't necessary, and the possibility it could be a detriment to the CF means it is too loaded an issue to perpetrate on Canada.
Otherwise, D-Dog, Points 1, 3, and 4 make sense. Point 2 seems to make a little sense, but I don't quite understand "P-res budget". Present Reserve Budget? The reserves would have more in the way of budget to support regular troops? Do I have the right idea or have I botched your point?
Additionally isn't point 5 A, kind of already in place? The CF will pay for your education, you serve 5 years etc...
Conscription does not get the kind of soldiers the military wants. When the US military had the draft, the average intelligence of the military was below the national average. Makes sense too, when you think about it. When you don't need the entire male population that comes of military age every year, you need to narrow down the recruits. So they implemented a lottery system, which, if you had the money, influence, or education, you could easily bypass even if your number comes up. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, are two big examples of this in effect. I believe it is money, education, and influence followed by money, education and influence, respectively for those two.
When the US draft went away, the US got a better army. I remember a few years ago, reading a Time magazine article, that made no bones about the fact that the US army was on average, more intelligent than the national average. I believe they were able to accomplish this by raising the standards, and when undesirable personals enlistments come up, they are not asked to be renewed.
For Canada, conscription in any form could rip apart the nation. It has almost done so twice in the last century. The last two times Conscription was implemented in Canada, countries around the world were engaged in the most titanic death matches the world has ever seen{World War I less so than World War II}. Nothing less would be an acceptable reason to implement conscription in any form.
Point remains though that, Yes Canada needs a military. However conscription has too much historical memory, the fact it isn't necessary, and the possibility it could be a detriment to the CF means it is too loaded an issue to perpetrate on Canada.
Otherwise, D-Dog, Points 1, 3, and 4 make sense. Point 2 seems to make a little sense, but I don't quite understand "P-res budget". Present Reserve Budget? The reserves would have more in the way of budget to support regular troops? Do I have the right idea or have I botched your point?
Additionally isn't point 5 A, kind of already in place? The CF will pay for your education, you serve 5 years etc...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
PJ D-Dog said:
Protection for reservist jobs will attract and retain more and better reservists. Too many are forced to choose between reserve service, and gainful employment. Give us the chance to do both, and you will retain more of us, and that means retaining the trained ones.
Mandatory service gives us crap soldiers. Student loan programs linked to reserve service, like the old GI bill are a good way to attract the cream of young Canadians into the service. Young, talented, ambitious, given a chance to trade service to the state for an education, its a win-win situation. Defaulters on reserve comitments are then faced with Student loan repayment (if your heart doesn't belong to the Armed Forces, then your ass belongs to Revenue Canada).
Make the reserves attractive to young students and working people, and you will attract and retain them. Make them more closely linked with their Reg Force parent units, and you will get a better trained, better motivated reserve, and one the Reg Force brigades can make better use of.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
This was definitely not the case in the beginning. The post-Vietnam VOLAR (the VOLunteer ARmy) was initially plagued by very substandard recruits, including numbers who were barely literate, as well as serious crime problems. I remember spending a summer MILCON at Fort Drum as a Reservist in the 80's: we were given strict warnings by the US post about the crime rate, and especially about violence against females. During the time I was there, a number of violent crimes occurred including arson. The response by the military police to a fight call at the JRs' showed what they were used to dealing with: several jeeploads of armed MPs with dogs. The problem was that the military was extremely unpopular in the States, and the middle class stayed away from it in droves, leaving only the poor and minorities as the main recruiting base for enlisted.
The US Army has come a long way since then, to the highly professional and capable force that it is today, but even recently it was still having serious difficulties recruiting and retaining skilled soldiers, especially Senior NCOs.
Although I am not a fan of conscription in Canada, I have to admit that there may be, in the US at least, a case for it. During my time in Afghanistan, I became friends with a US SF officer who had very extensive service. He was in favour of conscription for the Army. He felt that in peacetime, the US Army attracted a lower quality class of enlisted person who embraced the Army as a "job"-he referred to it as a "lazy man's job" since not much was asked of the average enlisted man (at least in peacetime). Conscription, he felt, brought in a much wider cross section of society, including a higher percentage of intelligent, educated soldiers who were not afraid to think for themselves and to question the various silly aspects of the Army. Now, admittedly, this was an SF point of view: IMHO they are a bit different from the mainstream Army. Anyway, it made me think.
I am not convinced, at all, about conscription in Canada: our Army, both Regular and Reserve, is overwhelmingly made up of middle class people whose education levels range IMHO from good to excellent (the latter being more common in the Res but not exclusively so). Therefore, the demographic problem that conscription might address for the US Army does not really exist for us. Second, the purpose of conscription is to produce and sustain a large force of short-service soldiers. I am not sure we can demonstrate either the requirement for, or the ability to sustain, such a large force, as opposed to a smaller more professional force of long service soldiers. Finally, if we think Quebec is traditionally not supportive of the military now, just try introducing conscription. To me it is a dragon that we really don't need to fight right now.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 5,966
- Points
- 1,260
I want to back up what pbi says. The US Army, in particular, endured a pretty dreadful 35 years â “ from about 1950, onwards, during which a whole series of social engineering experiments â “ including, in the '60s, the compulsory conscription of 100,000 visible minority personnel who had failed their first level conscription 'tests' (known as Johnson's 100,000 after Pres. LB Johnson) because, it was thought, the Army provided a necessary leg-up for blacks. And that was just one of many, many experiments inflicted upon a proud fighting force in misguided efforts to make the military do a whole range of (maybe important and even valuable) social tasks.
By the 1970s drug abuse and racial tensions were rampant. The commanding general of one major US base showed me (in '78 or '79, if memory serves) his command directive (or something like that); the first two and half pages listed a huge range of social tasks â “ ranging from fostering job skills amongst minority soldiers through improving community race relations with the local towns to achieving certain racial and sexual quotas in a variety of areas. I think the first time I saw words like training, readiness, etc was on page 3! He was, in part, apologizing for a small unit exchange which went very, very wrong â “ the Canadian soldiers returned with a bad taste in their mouths and a total lack of respect for the US Army. We, in Canada, knew that the US Army, especially, had real problems but we also knew that tremendous strides were being made to correct them; we were being asked, regularly, by our US friends, to visit, talk, and share or experiences, etc re: discipline and training. The Americans sunk, in my personal opinion, about as low as one could go by the early '70s â “ then they grabbed themselves by the arse and hauled themselves up, way up. But it was a long, hard pull; as late as the mid '80s we (NATO senior staff) were still be warned about traveling about in some sections of a major US Army base in Germany (Baumholder, I think) at night because of racial tensions and violence. The important point is: they made it. They reformed themselves. I think the US Army is a skilled, professional force.
We must remember, also, that the US embraced the Napoleonic nation in arms principle from a very early date â “ the 1860s, when voluntary enlistments began to fail. There was never, in 1940, any thought given to soliciting for volunteers â “ the DRAFT was applied from day one and young Americans were warned to wait for their call up, or, if they were just too keen to fight, enlist in the USMC.
I believe that conscripted troops can be trained to an adequate level â “ we, too, did that in WWII, but, even in peacetime, there has to be some understandable (to the troops) rationale for learning to do this or that. The Brits discovered, in the '50s, that training short-service conscripts for the types of soldiering required to fight in e.g. Malaya and then withdraw, in the '60s, from East of Suez was too hard; a better paid professional army was a better model, even for the defence of Europe.
It is important in modern, professional armies, I believe, to weed out the job-seekers â “ and we need to start by not using tech skill training as a recruiting tool â “ and make sure that we recruit young men and women who want to be fighters and, maybe, technicians, too, in their copious free time. Then we need to maintain the idea of the supremacy of operations and combat â “ infantry soldiers are not 'better' than, say, air force radar technicians but they are the 'heart and soul' of the Canadian Forces and they need to be respected for their skills and knowledge and professionalism as much as the most highly skilled technical tradesman, and then some. I recognize the market driven need to pay avionics technicians more than tank gunners â “ they may be more 'valuable' but they aren't more 'important' â “ we must stress that we are all members of a team which is led from the front by the combat arms and the crews of our warships and the aircrew.
(Of course we always must realize that there are important distinctions in the Canadian Forces: e.g. RCR officers are, generally, smarter and more handsome than the others, etc ...)
By the 1970s drug abuse and racial tensions were rampant. The commanding general of one major US base showed me (in '78 or '79, if memory serves) his command directive (or something like that); the first two and half pages listed a huge range of social tasks â “ ranging from fostering job skills amongst minority soldiers through improving community race relations with the local towns to achieving certain racial and sexual quotas in a variety of areas. I think the first time I saw words like training, readiness, etc was on page 3! He was, in part, apologizing for a small unit exchange which went very, very wrong â “ the Canadian soldiers returned with a bad taste in their mouths and a total lack of respect for the US Army. We, in Canada, knew that the US Army, especially, had real problems but we also knew that tremendous strides were being made to correct them; we were being asked, regularly, by our US friends, to visit, talk, and share or experiences, etc re: discipline and training. The Americans sunk, in my personal opinion, about as low as one could go by the early '70s â “ then they grabbed themselves by the arse and hauled themselves up, way up. But it was a long, hard pull; as late as the mid '80s we (NATO senior staff) were still be warned about traveling about in some sections of a major US Army base in Germany (Baumholder, I think) at night because of racial tensions and violence. The important point is: they made it. They reformed themselves. I think the US Army is a skilled, professional force.
We must remember, also, that the US embraced the Napoleonic nation in arms principle from a very early date â “ the 1860s, when voluntary enlistments began to fail. There was never, in 1940, any thought given to soliciting for volunteers â “ the DRAFT was applied from day one and young Americans were warned to wait for their call up, or, if they were just too keen to fight, enlist in the USMC.
I believe that conscripted troops can be trained to an adequate level â “ we, too, did that in WWII, but, even in peacetime, there has to be some understandable (to the troops) rationale for learning to do this or that. The Brits discovered, in the '50s, that training short-service conscripts for the types of soldiering required to fight in e.g. Malaya and then withdraw, in the '60s, from East of Suez was too hard; a better paid professional army was a better model, even for the defence of Europe.
It is important in modern, professional armies, I believe, to weed out the job-seekers â “ and we need to start by not using tech skill training as a recruiting tool â “ and make sure that we recruit young men and women who want to be fighters and, maybe, technicians, too, in their copious free time. Then we need to maintain the idea of the supremacy of operations and combat â “ infantry soldiers are not 'better' than, say, air force radar technicians but they are the 'heart and soul' of the Canadian Forces and they need to be respected for their skills and knowledge and professionalism as much as the most highly skilled technical tradesman, and then some. I recognize the market driven need to pay avionics technicians more than tank gunners â “ they may be more 'valuable' but they aren't more 'important' â “ we must stress that we are all members of a team which is led from the front by the combat arms and the crews of our warships and the aircrew.
(Of course we always must realize that there are important distinctions in the Canadian Forces: e.g. RCR officers are, generally, smarter and more handsome than the others, etc ...)
- Reaction score
- 8,281
- Points
- 1,160
There is one model of "Conscription" that I have occasionally thought might be workable in a Canadian context and that is a variant of the German notion not of conscripted military service but rather of conscripted National Service.
Youngsters are expected to put some "sweat equity" into society in lieu of taxes, and conceivably get a "free" post-secondary education out of it in return. Military service would be just one form of National Service. Maintaining parks, fighting forest fires, emergency response, meals on wheels, hospital volunteers....imagination time. All these could be forms of National Service.
Military service could require volunteers from the conscript pool.
Foreign military service could still be a full-time regular force augmented by individual conscripted military volunteers that have volunteered again for foreign service. Guarantees given that there would be no repeat of the WW2 crisis where Home Service conscripts were "volunteered" against their will to join the overseas forces.
I suppose we could even have volunteers for the Conscript pool for international humanitarian assistance.
It would answer some questions on the Health and Education files as well. Lack of young blood in the medical system, high price of maintaining parks or reforesting hillsides, high debt loads when the kids come out of University/College.
Sweat in lieu of Taxes.
Youngsters are expected to put some "sweat equity" into society in lieu of taxes, and conceivably get a "free" post-secondary education out of it in return. Military service would be just one form of National Service. Maintaining parks, fighting forest fires, emergency response, meals on wheels, hospital volunteers....imagination time. All these could be forms of National Service.
Military service could require volunteers from the conscript pool.
Foreign military service could still be a full-time regular force augmented by individual conscripted military volunteers that have volunteered again for foreign service. Guarantees given that there would be no repeat of the WW2 crisis where Home Service conscripts were "volunteered" against their will to join the overseas forces.
I suppose we could even have volunteers for the Conscript pool for international humanitarian assistance.
It would answer some questions on the Health and Education files as well. Lack of young blood in the medical system, high price of maintaining parks or reforesting hillsides, high debt loads when the kids come out of University/College.
Sweat in lieu of Taxes.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Kirkhill that was a real intersting post on your last one inreagrds to conscription . It would probably help out a lot of kids that would love to go to post secondary education but cant afford it . It would also help the military out . But in todays current government thinking do you think something like this would work ??
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
National service would be a fine thing to get the nintendo generation up and at it. Ontario has its 40 hours of compulsory community service as a requirement for high school graduation - but remembering some of the shit storm that blew aound that one, my cynical self (which is in command on Mondays) can't see Canadians, let alone those who would lead us by following poll results (politicians) taking such a drastic step. Somewhere along the line, Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" spirit was lost - if Canada ever even had it. Maybe I'm selling my compatriots short, but the rights without responsibilities mentality seems to militate against any form of compulsory service - be it military or civilian.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
compulsory service would be a good idea, but I don't think the Liberals would go for it. They have been tring for at least 30 years to degrade the CF, so I don't see them adding anything that would put a stop to their plan. Non-military service might work. It would be a good way to reduce the cost university and give something back in areas that get left out in budgets. Like parks, road service etc...
- Reaction score
- 8,281
- Points
- 1,160
You are both probably right Horse_Soldier and karl28.
But thinking a bit further about this I wonder what would happen if it wasn't pitched as a Conscription issue but as a Free Education. As I suggested Sweat in lieu of Taxes.
Something along these lines:
"Free" services such as "Free Education" cost the Government money. The Government gets its money through taxes from your parents. This means your parents are paying for your education in any case but don't have choice over how to spend their money and don't have it available to spend on you.
Are you willing to invest some of your own sweat so as to secure a "free" education?
Perhaps some sort of Tax Credit system could be worked out that would reward Hours of National Service with Tax Credits that would be more broadly applicable than just to youngsters?
I dunno.
Just rambling.
Cheers.
Sorry radiohead, didn't see your response. You posted while I was posting.
But thinking a bit further about this I wonder what would happen if it wasn't pitched as a Conscription issue but as a Free Education. As I suggested Sweat in lieu of Taxes.
Something along these lines:
"Free" services such as "Free Education" cost the Government money. The Government gets its money through taxes from your parents. This means your parents are paying for your education in any case but don't have choice over how to spend their money and don't have it available to spend on you.
Are you willing to invest some of your own sweat so as to secure a "free" education?
Perhaps some sort of Tax Credit system could be worked out that would reward Hours of National Service with Tax Credits that would be more broadly applicable than just to youngsters?
I dunno.
Just rambling.
Cheers.
Sorry radiohead, didn't see your response. You posted while I was posting.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Kirkhill - that approach would likely have a better chance of succeeding than the traditional one. Appealing to self-interest will always trump appeals to patriotism or community spirit or the like ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
While still remaining skeptical about the applicability of conscription to the CF, I could see supporting a National Service system because those choosing military service would, in effect, be "volunteers" because they could choose between the military option and several others. As well, this system would be unlikely to flood us with thousands of unwilling recruits that we cannot really manage properly while doing all our other business in the world.
Given the amount of time required to produce a good quality trained soldier, and then get some mileage out of him, how long should these people engage for? (My thought is one BE-three years) Would they be mixed into existing units (my preference) or serve in conscript units?
Cheers.
Given the amount of time required to produce a good quality trained soldier, and then get some mileage out of him, how long should these people engage for? (My thought is one BE-three years) Would they be mixed into existing units (my preference) or serve in conscript units?
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 8,281
- Points
- 1,160
I think it would still be up to the Forces to "offer" employment to these folks. A mutual agreement that they were good enough for the job and wanted to do the job. I agree with using them with mixing them into existing units.
One area that could benefit would be the Militia as opposed to the Reserves. Another bug-bear of mine. We have compressed and confused the two roles in my view. The Militia is traditionally a Home Defence Army, like the European Home Guards. Reserves are usually ex-Forces types that are subject to recall and available to bulk up the Regular Forces.
It would be nice to have the luxury to make that distinction.
One area that could benefit would be the Militia as opposed to the Reserves. Another bug-bear of mine. We have compressed and confused the two roles in my view. The Militia is traditionally a Home Defence Army, like the European Home Guards. Reserves are usually ex-Forces types that are subject to recall and available to bulk up the Regular Forces.
It would be nice to have the luxury to make that distinction.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Any Nation obviously needs a military. I don't think we need to worry about being invaded or attacked. It's not like you can move a force large enough to attack a country without anyone noticing (unless the USA attacks us which is the dumbest thing I can think of). But long story short we do need an army even if its just for aiding our allies or other people.
Similar threads
