• 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

"In a memo to Gen. Ray Henault, Canada's chief of defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier argues against equipping the navy and air force for many of the overseas operations they now perform, The Ottawa Citizen reported Saturday.
Lt.-Gen. Hillier suggested that in any future war, a U.S.-led coalition would handle air and naval activities and quickly gain the upper hand in those areas.
"The reality of the emerging security environment suggests that it is unlikely that the CF (Canadian Forces) will be called upon to fight in 'blue skies or blue waters' and the overall value to our country of equipping to do so would be minimal compared to the impact of providing precision land effects," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote.

So why do we need an army?  The americans will presumably do all the land fighting too.  So maybe instead of having combat arms we should focus on what the Americans REALLY need, cooks and lots of them.  Oh wait, they probably have those too.

Please tell me you can sense the sarcasm?
 
So if the Americans invite us to play, and we ask "what do you need", and they say "either two frigates and two squadrons of pilots familiar with the F-18 and willing to learn carrier operations to augment two CVBGs, or a mech brigade with at least one battalion of proper tanks and the knowhow to fight as a brigade", which way does our current readiness dictate we should lean?
 
Checkmate.

It's well known that the Army needs work, but lets not cut off the right hand with a knife in order to teach the left hand how to wield one.
 
Fellas
The Americans are not end all be all. I have been to Hodd, Knox, Bragg, and Campbell. Not all their tanks are runners. Or are they whole tanks. Last month they removed 4 guns from the Rocky Snow Patrol. Where did they go. IRAQ. They are worse off as we are. Soldiers are getting out faster than they can recuit.
 
We do have to remember that CDS is not a post for life, and like the politicians they "serve", the faces change, as do the current needs and circumstances. Wait five years and see if any of these dire predictions come true. I think that the spotlight may be put on the Army's needs, (after all, an Army CDS would tend to slant their thinking towards a land strategy, its hard to change thought processes when you have been indoctrinated to it throughout your career) and it certainly deserves to be highlighted, as long as Hillier does not intend to let the Air Force and Navy rot in the meantime. Despite being Navy, I think the Air Force needs a bigger kick right now, but for personnel needs, the Army certainly warrants it. I can wait a few years for new toys...right now we don't even have the crew strength for new ships, and a lot of brand new Ordinary Seamen to fill the majority of the racks.
    Let themselves spin into a frenzy, and just notice how little of our life actually changes because of it.
 
Hey DeckMonkey there are no "toys" , they are basic necessities for a half decent Navy. That being said, I totally agree with the last sentence of your post.  "evolutions".
 
Navy, air force will still play major roles, Martin insists
PM won't reveal details of leaked review making army primary branch of military

By CAMPBELL CLARK
From Friday's Globe and Mail  
28 Jan 05


FREDERICTON â ” Prime Minister Paul Martin sought yesterday to deliver reassurance that Canada's navy and air force will retain a major role in national defence despite leaked plans to make the army the primary branch of the military.

While Mr. Martin would not comment in detail until the foreign-policy review is published in coming weeks, ministers publicly confirmed the broad lines of reforms outlined in a report in The Globe and Mail yesterday.

The leaked policy paper calls for the army to be given the primary role within the military, with the navy and air force given support functions; for foreign aid to be focused on a far smaller list of countries; and for more foreign-service officers to be posted abroad rather than in Ottawa.

Mr. Martin insisted yesterday that the navy and air force will still be important, but declined to address specifics.

"Obviously, the detailed answer to your question will wait until the documents come out," he said. "But let me tell you -- and this has certainly been confirmed with [incoming Chief of Defence Staff] General [Rick] Hillier -- and that is that all of the various services are going to play a very important role in the defence of Canada and the enhancement of our role in the world."

Defence Minister Bill Graham refused to take questions, however, on the early leak of a policy that will undoubtedly cause grumbling within Canada's military.

The Prime Minister said the foreign policy paper is intended to ensure that Canada plays a major part "in terms of both the defence of North America and our role in the world," and that the aim was to ensure Canada picks its spots in foreign affairs.

"We intend to focus, whether we're talking about our activities in North America or whether we're talking about our activities in Africa or in terms of the emerging economies," Mr. Martin said.

International Co-operation Minister Aileen Carroll said Canada does want to focus its aid on fewer countries -- not reducing overall foreign-aid spending, but placing bigger sums in fewer countries and working in conjunction with other aid donors such as Britain, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

"Obviously, if you're going to work with fewer than 157 countries and get it down to considerably less, there will be countries that we will gradually move off. We have done so very successfully with Thailand and other countries, and we definitely will be doing so, not in an abrupt manner, but certainly in a definitive manner, at the outcome of this," she said.

That does not mean all aid will be stopped to countries that are relatively affluent in global terms, such as Russia or China, because Canada will continue to stress the building of institutions as part of its agenda to promote good governance, Ms. Carroll said.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew declined to indicate the scope of the redeployment of foreign-service officers that is planned under the review, saying only that he wants a "substantial increase" in the number posted in embassies and consulates abroad, rather than at the Foreign Affairs Department. "Right now we only have 25 per cent of our diplomats who are in international missions. And 75 per cent are at the headquarters. This is the lowest proportion of all G8 countries," Mr. Pettigrew said. "I want to increase it."

NDP parliamentary leader and defence critic Bill Blaikie said, "It's important to have more boots on the ground so we can be a meaningful resource to the international community for genocide prevention and humanitarian assistance.'' But he warned that the shift in government priorities might cripple the navy and the air force. We "can't let the other two services go into decline in order to do this," he said in a telephone interview from Manitoba.

And Mr. Blaikie cautioned that there would be no NDP support for more money unless it generated a military more capable of operating independently.

"Whatever increase in defence spending the NDP might countenance . . . it's not to make us a better inter-operable army for American foreign and defence policy."

At the same time, Mr. Martin indicated that officials from Canada, Mexico and the United States are working on nailing down a date for a summit with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox.

...   (Full Article)
 
Although I love the idea of the Army getting more troopies and funding I think its a crying shame for us to dial back the Navy and Airforce. We always seem to forget that these two services play a CRUCIAL role in the layered defense of Canada and greatly aid deployments overseas!

WhaT happens when out troops are suck in some third world sh*thole one day and need to be quickly evacuated under extreme circumstances. We'll be crying for the Navy and Airforce then!

Slim
 
Don't you know Slim.  We won't go anywhere without being intertwined with our allies.  I'm sure they'd be more then happy to save us.
 
WhaT happens when out troops are suck in some third world sh*thole one day and need to be quickly evacuated under extreme circumstances. We'll be crying for the Navy and Airforce then!

The problem is, Slim, that while it seems that many Air Force and Navy types would love to be able to help the Army types "get there" and "get out of there"  they have got precious little useable kit available to do the job.

:(
 
The government would be making a huge error if they promote the army above all else....

So, I have to ask...is this a cunning plan to refocus the attention of the public on fixing some of the more blatant shortfalls in the army while funding it by shorting the RCAF and RCN...

Lessee

In order to properly support the army, The RCN and RCAF must INCREASE:  !!

To witt....

RCN

Roll-on Roll of Transport / Support vessels (with helo capability).....To transport the Army's kit for deployments
(What price HMCS Bonaventure now?)

More corvettes to guard the coasts and free our Frigates to escort the Ro-Ro's

RCAF

Heavy Transport Aircraft to move the army's heavy kit........not to mention air drop our Airborne troops.....

Improved, "NATO Inter-operable" fighters to escort same....


Decent (read: Blackhawks) Tac Hel to allow the army to air assault...NOT the "Milverado" solution of the Griffon....


TAC AIr support in some form of Hel Gunship or CL85 Tiltwing.......to protect our ground forces  (and make up for the lack of panzers to some degree)

To have a strong Army, we require a strong Airforce and Navy as well.......


 
Steel Badger said:
The government would be making a huge error if they promote the army above all else....
I don't think so.   It only will be a mistake if they promote the Army at the expense of everything else.
 
MCG said:
I don't think so.   It only will be a mistake if they promote the Army at the expense of everything else.

Well I think that what we're all reading into this and what we're all deathly afraid of! I don't know why the Liberals are detroying our CF one element at a time, but its a crime to do so and too late we're all going to wake up realizing that this mistake may be irreversible!

God help this country if we need those services and they aren't there!

Slim
 
BTW STell Badger there is no RCN and RCAF any longer...haven't been since Unification. I suggest for clarity sake you don't refer to these entities as such.
 
Hi all , Geeez I dont know where you guys have been all this time , but it seems pretty obvious to me  ( a civvy ) that this countrys focus has been on the Army for some time now . Nobody has mentioned yet that mabey the reason why the Army is coming to the forefront (officiially ) is that when you see a storey about the CF its always the Army ! Nobody knows what the Navy or the Air Force has been doing for some time now . What is it that you all expect the MPs ( members of parliment , not Meatheads ) and the Gov to concentrate on ? After all these people are trying to get relected .............(pension). Of course they are going to try and make it look like they are putting the money where it needs to go.I know Im going to get the $#@! kicked out of me for this .........but oh well .
 
Well Marty, let's put it this way......I am sure that all those Navy and Air Force types out there just love to be called "Soldiers".  I am sure the widow of that Naval Officer who died in the Sub is glad that CBC mentioned the death of a Canadian Soldier in reference to that incident.  I am sure all our Air Crews are glad that they are considered "Soldiers" too.  It really makes me glad to hear a Civie talk about tanks, when there are none within thousands of miles.......it seems that to them anything that is big and painted green is a "tank", even if it has wheels and no turret.  Sure the Army is in the News.......because our media and civilian population can't tell the difference between apples and oranges.

GW
 
This is going to sound like heresy coming from a mud marcher like myself, but making the army the preeminent service is a load of hooey.  The jet jockies haven't got the firepower to keep the skies above a brigade front clean, nor the transport to deploy and support the troops we have without begging the Yanks or Brits for help (or renting cast off Soviet equipment).  Our navy can't defend the coast we have, let alone give us support and security for a sealift and landing.  If we are the pre-eminent arm, our tendons are already half cut, and putting a splint on us at the expense of chopping off both our legs doesn't seem like much help.  The 5000 troops we are promised, will that about balance the cuts we had to make from each line company in exchange for getting the LAV and TOW upgrades?  I may puke.  Our army is the preeminent arm now, kept strong by first world training on third world gear (sure we have some cutting edge toys, but they really stand out don't they).  My father was bitter when he got out in the fifties because we couldn't even field two divisions any more.  Myself, I never participated in one division level exercise or deployment in my entire carrrer.  I got out when they started telling us we had to cancel training rotations to provide funding for current deployment levels.  Sounds like not a whole lot has changed eh?
 
mainerjohnthomas

It doesn't sound like heresy to me.......more along the lines of a little common dog fu     sense.  

Gw
 
And thus the great debate on unification continues!!
Time to put your lids on! :warstory:
 
There is an interesting piece in today's Globe and Mail* which highlights, I think, the dilemma facing Paul Martin and the Liberals.

End freeloading image, defence analyst says

American urges Canada to join U.S. efforts in coastal defences under NORAD pact

By BETH GORHAM
Canadian Press
Monday, January 31, 2005 - Page A8

WASHINGTON -- Canadians do not need to break the bank to help dispel the perception among some Americans that Canada is freeloading when it comes to defence, a top U.S. military analyst says.

Informal talks are under way to expand the North American Aerospace Defence agreement to include land and sea defences.

Dwight Mason, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Canada should consider pledging to join forces with the United States in coastal defence.

"Canadians have an opportunity here to change the way the United States thinks about things," Mr. Mason said in an interview. "Canada can do lots of things without spending money that would change the views of a lot of people down here."

Deciding whether to join the U.S. missile-defence program is the biggest issue on the table, but participating in coastal defences under NORAD would be a major sign of Canada's commitment to protecting North America, he said.

"It's not free," Mr. Mason continued. "But it doesn't cost much more if you're devoting more resources to coastal defence and less elsewhere."

A sweeping review of Canada's foreign policy is due soon. "Canada will obviously make its own decision on missile defence," Mr. Mason said. "And if [Americans] just say 'Spend more,' we aren't really helping. It's not very helpful to express vague concerns."

Yet the decline in Canada's military capabilities is increasingly apparent to U.S. officials, Mr. Mason said. Canada is running budget surpluses and investing much more heavily in health care and other domestic programs than in its military. "It's just more visible now. The mist has dispersed a bit."

There may not be any unrealistic expectations that Canada would spend lavishly on a general upgrading of all its military capabilities, but U.S. officials probably are looking for faster movement on replacing the air force's CF-18 jet fighters and the navy's frigates that are critical to safeguarding North America from terrorists, he said.

The U.S. view of Canada's defence policy was brought into sharp focus recently, amid reports that when U.S. President George W. Bush visited Canada in December, he linked co-operation with his missile-defence plan to protection under the U.S. defence umbrella. "What you generally hear is Canada is freeloading," Mr. Mason said. "I think Bush has just put it another way."

It is not helping that Canada is taking such a long time to decide whether to participate in the U.S. project to defend North America against missile attacks from rogue countries and terrorists, he said.

"The longer this drags on, the worse it gets. They've already said half-yes. The time to do this would have been right away. It just makes Canada appear indecisive and vulnerable. And it's unnecessary."

Paul Cellucci, departing U.S. ambassador to Canada, said last week that it is important to have military co-operation through NORAD, which will survive no matter what Canada decides on the U.S. missile-defence plan.

What Ms. Gorham cites is nothing more than the conventional wisdom in Ottawa:   the Government of Canada needs (and wants) to improve relations with Washington; Washington is preoccupied with security; we can (and should) improve (quantitatively and qualitatively) our share of the continental/regional security contribution ... simple, right?

Not simple at all.   A substantial, well connected, politically active minority opposes any concessions to the United States on most matters, especially security ... they have influence out of proportion to their numbers and they likely 'lead' the opinions of a majority of Canadians ... thus, what the Government of Canada both wants and needs to do may spell its short term political doom.  

* http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050131/MISSILE31/TPNational/?query=beth+gorham

 
Back
Top