• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Martin government is poised to enshrine the army as Canada's pre-eminent militar

Hi everybody!

I would believe that in a perfect world, the CDS would fair to all elements of the Canadian Forces. The CDS is the head of all the Canadian Forces, and not just the element that he or she comes from (and makes the rest suffer).

Let's hope that the future General Hillier will be fair to all the different commands, branches, elements, etc of the Canadian Forces.

Good day!
 
I would hope that a soon as someone gets put in the position of CDS, VCDS or DCDS that they no longer would consider themselves Navy, Army or Air Force but tri-service.

It won't take long for that to become noticed.

 
Navalsnpr said:
I would hope that a soon as someone gets put in the position of CDS, VCDS or DCDS that they no longer would consider themselves Navy, Army or Air Force but tri-service.

That's a really good point, never thought of it that way..
 
It seems to me the CDS is supposed to represent the best interest in the defence of Canada and not simply tailor the entire apparatus to support army oversea's operations.
As for the article, most of the proposals are so lucicrous they must surely be chucked in the gash straight away! 
 
"always aware of the key elements in the 'battlespace', tactically nimble, and able to fight in any environment."

I think that the upper CF is banking on this (thus a MGS system with shitty survivability).


"IN LATE DECEMBER, DEFENCE Minister Bill Graham accompanied Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier to 24 Sussex Drive for a chat with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Mr. Martin must have liked what he heard, because soon after he announced that Lt.-Gen. Hillier was to be the next Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). This appointment is significant."

Damn he's mastered the art of the politician.  Yeah for us. :rolleyes:

 
The elevation of the Army to a "position of seniority" really reflects the situation of the past decade. When the government chooses to answer the Global 911 line, they preferentially dispatch an Army battlegroup. OP Apollo in the Persian Gulf and the air war over Kosovo were historical anomalies.

Since the government has decided this is the "best" way to carry out the military leg of foreign policy, the CDS, his staff and all of us fall into line and "make it happen". Our opinions on the relative proportions of Arms of Service are quite irrelevant at this point, although we can hope the CDS is also educating the government on the need for a certain amount of balance (even if just to get this idea off the ground).

As a contrafactual, I will suggest if the Navy had scored a spectacular coup in OP Apollo (hey, that guy in the rowboat is Osama Bin Laden!), or the Air Force had done something equally spectacular in Kosovo, the people in office would have siezed on that to build their plans, no matter how "out to lunch" they may have been in the real world security environment.

This is more a reflection of the Army's relative success in carrying out the missions of the 1990's and 2000's, and could well be a springboard to enhancing the rest of the force as well (We in the Army do need ships and planes to help us do our job).
 
Feral said:
That's a really good point, never thought of it that way..

I strongly believe that if you are in a position where to oversea tri-service personnel, you don't have the luxury to say that you have allegiance to one element. Besides the CDS/VCDS/DCDS, this would include Base/Station/ASU CWO/CPO1's as well because we all know that they have tri-service personnel under their command and thus have to look after the best interests of those personnel regardless of element.

The next few months and years should be an interesting wave to ride based on some of the comments made in this thread and the  
Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier to be new CDS thread in the Current Affairs & News section of this site.
 
As a contrafactual, I will suggest if the Navy had scored a spectacular coup in OP Apollo (hey, that guy in the rowboat is Osama Bin Laden!), or the Air Force had done something equally spectacular in Kosovo, the people in office would have siezed on that to build their plans, no matter how "out to lunch" they may have been in the real world security environment.

You seem to be implying we did SFA...60% of the total Coalition boardings with one of the smallest naval contigent is nothing to skoff at.   >:(

We did our job during Op Apollo and I feel went above and beyond as did our air dets.

Then again I have noticed how some of the guys in green positively gloat when the air force or navy face cuts so I should not be surprised here anymore.  ::)
 
Don't jump on me with your daggers just yet...BUT...

Doesn't it make sense to invest a little more in the army, given our current foreign policy objectives.  I know the official foreign policy and defense review haven't been finished yet, but it doesn't take much imagination to figure out the kinds of rolls our defense and foreign policies are going to play in Mr. Martin's "Responsibility to Protect" standpoint on foreign affairs.  I for one personally am thankful that we finally have a leader who realizes that we have a moral obligation to do whats right, even if there is no national interest at stake.  (Thats the only pro-liberal thing I've said in a very, VERY long time - but credit must be given where it is due).

I certainly don't wish the navy or the air-force any hardships - we need all 3 services to be effective.  Replacements for the 280's, new JSS (Personally, I think high speed catamarans would be more efficient and economical), Herc replacements, etc. are all very important to the effectiveness of our forces.  However, if the government is serious about deploying military forces to a certain hotspot, they typically do so in the form of an army battlegroup.  Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan, East Timor, etc, etc.  If we are to adopt a more aggressive foreign policy, and enforce our credo of "Responsibility to Protect" - perhaps investing a little more in the army for the time being isn't such a bad idea.  Enhanced lethality on the battlefield, enhanced deployability and enhanced capabilities are only going to serve to make us much more efficient at what we do; the navy and the air force - although foreseeably in support roles for the most part - still need to be taken care of for everything to work the way it should.            :threat:
 
Well apparently we waste too much money on kit! Lastnight I was issued my kit for the first time and brought it all home, (about 5 boxes) and my girlfriend was shocked. First thing she said was, "My god, that's a waste of taxpayer money!"...  ::) She then asked WHY a reservist needed to bring home+have all that equipment. my response....

"Sure hun, we could sure cutback on the equipment we give troops, then when we have to go to war and we loose more men and have more injuries because we don't have what we need or haven't been trained on it, the taxpayers won't mind loosing thier family members!"... I explained we needed the equipment to work efficiently in the field and become proficient with it all. Etc etc. I explained it the most logical+best way I could as a new proud recruit. Most of my kit was new, BRAND new. A couple things (like 1/4) were used already about 2-4 times... Can't complain at all to be honest...

So maybe someone should tell the new CDS the Army doesn't need new equipment or updated equipment...  ::)  ::)  ::)

We don't need a reduced role in any of our forces, just an increase in defense spending. It won't happen, especially with views like my woman's entering the fray... I'll fix that!  ;)
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
You seem to be implying we did SFA...60% of the total Coalition boardings with one of the smallest naval contigent is nothing to skoff at.   >:(

We did our job during Op Apollo and I feel went above and beyond as did our air dets.

Then again I have noticed how some of the guys in green positively gloat when the air force or navy face cuts so I should not be surprised here anymore. ::)

I am not gloating, but just pointing out that the people who actually cut the cheques are so clueless as to what the military does that their decision making is based more on the latest headline than any real analysis of the roles, missions etc. If there was a recent headline stating "HMCS Halifax captures Osama Bin Laden and henchmen at sea", then the obvious conclusion by the politicians is that only sea power is needed to fight WW IV. Halifax class frigates would start rolling off the slipways, St Jean would be stuffed with Naval recruits, Paul Martin would make glowing speaches at the new Naval support centre in Trois Riviers (the only logical place to build it on a no bid contract, of course...), and Gen Hillier would have to suck it up.

Lets try to see the positive aspects of this. A modest enhancement to the Army can only go so far; in order to carry out a new slate of missions will require the ability to project power overseas, which does mean the requirements for enhancing the Navy and Air Force will be sharply highlighted. Your biggest fans will be the soldiers on the ground who are looking for Naval and air support.

 
I think Paul Koring, in today's Globe and mail, has it about right: no money, reduced combat effectiveness; happy Canadians.   See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050128/MILITANALY28/TPNational/TopStories

Emphasis added

Military cost-saving doesn't cut it in the big, bad world

By PAUL KORING
Friday, January 28, 2005 - Page A4

Making the army paramount and ordering the navy and air force to play supporting roles seems like a tidy solution to the government's messy military problems, especially if the army itself is reduced to a peacekeeping role.

Most usefully, such a policy would eliminate the need to spend massive amounts -- as much as twice the current level of about 1 per cent of GDP -- to restore the Canadian military's grossly degraded combat capability after decades of neglect.

The government has already decided against new tanks for the army, meaning it will lack the crucial sharp edge of the spear needed for the fighting of wars. If the already limited combat capabilities of the air force and the navy are to be sacrificed in favour of supporting roles to ground forces that are not intended for, or capable of, full-scale combat, then the entire Canadian military will be hobbled.

Meanwhile, casting the army as a handy, friendly force ready for quasi-military roles such as peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance around the globe should end the embarrassing headlines about missed charter flights, worn-out transport aircraft and dickering over leased ferries that have marred Canadian deployments.

Turning the air force into FedEx for Canadian peacekeepers and the navy into a fisheries protection force with a couple of nice new grey-painted roll-on, roll-off ships capable of delivering a 600-soldier battalion of peacekeepers and their thinly armoured jeeps anywhere on earth within a month or two, would save many, many billions.

"From a capital-L Liberal point of view, it makes perfect sense, it plays well to the humanitarian alphabet impulse and it's cheap," says Douglas Ross, a defence analyst and professor of political science at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.

Underplaying -- almost hiding -- the fact that the military's primary role is war-fighting, not orphanage-building or training new police forces in far-off places, has been an ongoing and successful Canadian political ruse.

Many in uniform still wince at the recruiting poster showing a brave soldier holding a terrified child clutching a teddy bear, but it aptly reflects the image many Canadians want their military to project.


Unspoken is a much nastier reality.

Wreaking havoc, destroying things and killing people are what military forces are supposed to do.

The capability to do it swiftly, effectively and efficiently while suffering minimal casualties requires sophisticated equipment that also has many secondary and useful capabilities, from search and rescue to rapid reaction for humanitarian assistance.

Stopping the next Rwandan genocide, shooting down a hijacked airliner bearing down on Place Ville Marie or leading a flotilla of allied warships all require serious and expensive weapons systems and an attitude toward defence far different from former prime minister Jean Chrétien's famous quip about "Boy Scouts with guns."


That quip may soon be true if the air force gets new transport planes but no replacements for its dwindling and aging supply of CF-18 fighter-bombers and if Canada's four elderly command-and-control destroyers are scrapped without replacement.

Such a move would perpetuate the myth that Canada's armed forces should only be peacekeepers, says Alain Pellerin, executive director of the pro-military Conference of Defence Associations. "Peacekeepers don't need tanks and submarines and fighter aircraft," he said, scornfully dismissing the notion.

For decades, while piling on the tasks but steadily cutting funds, successive governments have fed a military Chimera that Canada has a credible combat capability on land, sea and in the air.

Legions of generals and admirals have saluted the toothless monster, unwilling to sacrifice careers by pointing out that an officer-heavy, tradition-rich but shrunken service with insufficient and inadequate equipment didn't really pack much punch.

Adding a few thousand soldiers to the army isn't very expensive.

It will mean that Canada can keep 1,000, maybe even 2,000, soldiers scattered around the world in Kabul or Port-au-Prince or Bosnia as long as there is no fighting to be done and plenty of time to get them there. (And, most importantly, if some other country will save them if real fighting flares.) But it will also mean that anyone working in a skyscraper in Canada better hope there's a U.S. air national guard unit that can scramble quickly. Meanwhile, Canada's frigates won't be able to venture overseas unless protected by the U.S. Navy.

It may be long overdue to scrap the notion that Canada is willing to maintain a credible combat capacity in all three environments.

But replacing it with a policy that makes the army paramount -- and still unfit for war -- saves money without adding credibility.

 
a_majoor said:
Your biggest fans will be the soldiers on the ground who are looking for Naval and air support.

Good to hear those types of comments here.

All elements have their unique roles and their main reason for existing. But we all have to be there to lend support to each other in order to co-exist in the areas of the world we operate in these days.

I'd definitely like to see more tri-service exercises ongoing.
 
What is that saying about how something abhors a vacuum? Well from my position out here on the coast, thats how things work in Ottawa. Due to a lack of direction from our political masters, the 3 services (Despite Unification, the CF if far from being unified) each try to grab as much of a diminishing pie of money as they can. As a result we have a Navy that focused on ASW on the East Coast and integrated with the US Carrier Battle Groups on the west, an Air Force that decided to pool most of its resources into NORAD (while sucking the life out of the Sea King community) and an Army that had to focus on Peacekeeping.
As a result, when the odd time that there is a minister that has a clue about the military asks the service chiefs what they need, he gets 3 very different and diverse answers.
If this government gets its act together and comes up with a policy and a focus then maybe the service chiefs can come up with an agreed upon shopping list of requirements. If that means that Army is paramount and the Navy and AirForce are support then so be it, but lets get a focus.

Oh, a_majoor just a couple of things to chew on:

When the VanDoos went to Timor, who got them ashore? The Royal Australian Navy
When the PPCLI went to Afghanistan who got them there? United States Air Force
In addition, who made it safe for the USAF to land in the first place? United States Navy and their Marines

There is a quote from one of Prime Ministers of the UK at the turn of the 20th century, "The Army is a bullet fired from a gun onboard a ship from the Royal Navy"
 
Horse_Soldier said:
But they are fooling a lot of people - they get re-elected.   I wonder what that says about the collective IQ of the citizenry of our great nation.

1 above needing life support.

"The electorate gets the governmentit deserves" - Unknown Source
 
Pte Joe
Well , if you don't require kit. You could just turn it back in. You'll learn why you need it all in time. You just tell your girl friend to rethink it. And what the F@#$ did she think you would get. A tshirt, with I'm a soldier on it. So what is the waste of money? If you don't need mucks, you can wear you slippers. If you don't need your parka, can just turn it in. And when it's -50c and you sitting in your trench. You can just say, I'm not cold, My parka and boots were just a waste of money.
Yes I'm a prick. For statements like that will cut our budget, not help it.
 
FSTO said:
Oh, a_majoor just a couple of things to chew on:

When the VanDoos went to Timor, who got them ashore? The Royal Australian Navy
When the PPCLI went to Afghanistan who got them there? United States Air Force
In addition, who made it safe for the USAF to land in the first place? United States Navy and their Marines

Which is why we would be your biggest cheering section so the RCN and RCAF (old names, true, but still have that ring to them) could do the job for us instead.
 
Back
Top