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

[Scoobie Newbie]

"A sweeping review of Canada's foreign policy is due soon."
This will be interesting.

Which active minority are you refering to because I know the PC's would love to spend more and do more.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think ROJ is referring to the Lloyd Axworthy wing of the Liberal intelligentsia which is supported by the NDP and a substantial chunk of the "chatterers" in the Media, as opposed to the Conservatives.

You are right on them.  They are saying all the right words.

The Bloc?  Who knows what their real position is beyond being Anti-Ottawa and probably reluctant to support anything that might result in the Government having the capabilities to repeat Trudeau's October 1970 intervention.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think ROJ is referring to the Lloyd Axworthy wing of the Liberal intelligentsia which is supported by the NDP and a substantial chunk of the "chatterers" in the Media, as opposed to the Conservatives.

You are right on them.   They are saying all the right words.

The Bloc?   Who knows what their real position is beyond being Anti-Ottawa and probably reluctant to support anything that might result in the Government having the capabilities to repeat Trudeau's October 1970 intervention.

Right, Kirkhill, but while I think that many Conservatives say the right thing ... saying and doing are different.

The problem, for the Conservative Party is that the Canadian people are, broadly and shallowly, supportive of the Canadian Forces ... they want 'good' armed forces which go around the world and do 'good' things ... they are reluctant, however, to pay for it ... they don't want to pay money because they are opposed to new taxes and do not want to redirect wasted money from health care, gun registries, education, EI, fisheries, corporate welfare, etc, etc, and they do not want to send Canadians into harm's way, either.

Those are, broadly, the attitudes of the people in Ontario ... the ones who elect 1/3 of the House of Commons.   Québec, which elects ¼ of the House is easier: less defence and less foreign involvement.   So, more than half of Canadians, electing more than half of all MPs are ambivalent, at best, regarding defence ... the Conservatives' aim is to form a new government, one which might last more than two terms and one which will be returned more than once in each generation, plus.

 

[GonzoScribe]

Oh yeah, I remember when work dress became unified.  Even my Dad, an old flyboy from the 50's cringed at the sight.
Canada's military needs assessments are always surprising but, IMHO I don't think there's a taxpayer in our fine country who would object to increased spending if they saw the need.  This has never been effectively displayed in the media, with only the occasional nod to the problems - usually followed by some statement about our heritage being able to make honey out of dog sh*t.  We have always been able to make things work because we have become extremely innovative when it comes to survival.  But I wish ppl would realize relying on this heritage does nothing to protect us from current threats, perceived or real.

The closest the public came to outrage was when we sent our forces to Afghanistan without desert camo.

IMHO again, I think part of the reason we Canadians don't adequately fund our military is because we don't piss anyone off.  At least not up to Paul Martin's election victory.  The cosying up with the US may soon bring the threats home though.

GonzoScribe

 

[GGboy]

I would respectfully disagree.
Look at the public uproar when the DART couldn't deploy to Sri Lanka for 2 weeks after the tsunami because ...
a) we don't have the airlift capability to get them there in a timely fashion
b) our politicians couldn't make up their minds whether or not they should go; or
c) both of the above.
Or for another eg. when it came out that the BG in Kabul was driving 20-year-old Iltises that broke down constantly. Stories in the press resulted in an accelerated acquisition of the G-Wagons for Roto 1 ... if it hadn't been for the public uproar they'd probably STILL have Iltises over there.
The Canadian public may not like the idea of paying for a decent military, but they generally hold the CF in pretty high esteem. IMHO ...

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed on all points ROJ.  Saying and doing ARE two very different things.

GGBoy, while the public did get up in arms about the Iltis and the DART those rather play to ROJ's points.  The broad public agrees with "Boy Scout" activities and can understand the need for protected jeeps and transport.  And they do hold the soldiery in high regard, by and large, but they have not come to terms with the primary job of the Forces - applying lethal force in a lethal environment in the furtherance of the State's interests.  Or put another way - killing and dying.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think in the near future we will just be dying.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think in the near future we will just be dying.

You, CFL, have touched on my great fear.

I have this deep seated dread that our governments' (any of them) desires for cheap 'glory' coupled with an equal desire to spend money on anything but defence will see you, serving folks (which includes my son, in the Navy), deployed somewhere where (thanks to parsimony which means that even our friends lock us out of some of the intelligence) we do not have adequate intelligence.  You, whatever ships or units are involved, will get sucked or dragged deeper and deeper into a crisis until you are overwhelmed: stuck, outnumbered, outgunned, unable to be relieved or reinforced or extracted ... then defeated in detail, with heavy casualties.

Then there will be a great hue and cry and then there will be even more public inquiries and much finger pointing and even mea culpa from a politician, here and there ... even some money, probably spent quickly and foolishly and with a cynical eye to political gain, too.

It is, almost, too painful to contemplate but it does keep me awake some nights.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I have quietly said that it will take the destruction of a battle group to get any reaction out of the public and or the gov't.  That reaction being that we withdraw from the world and lick our wounds or the current gov't is deposed and a new gov't gets in and throws money around blindly.  I prey that I am wrong and hope to God it doesn't happen.  Those MGS' are death traps and will get a lot of armoured and infantry killed.  Not to mention adequate tpt to get in or out at any level really.  But I digress.

 

[Kirkhill]

But I digress.

No you don't.  You are right on point.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Thanks but all the Cpl's in the CF could say what I say and it still won't make a difference.

 

[Good2Golf]

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

George, I don't have any particular grief in what Marty stated, in fact it backs up what a fair number of others (ROJ, et al) have been saying about level of understanding of the CF, etc...   People understand based on information that is generally available to them.   The public has heard a lot about the Army...and their "tanks" from the press and, let's be honest, if DGPA and his folks don't send out requests for editorial corrections that Newspaper X or Y should have said "AFV" instead of "tank", then how is the general public to know the differences that stick out like a sore thumb to you and I?

I think the Navy and the Air Force are not nearly as visible as the Army is in the general press.   That's not scientific or statistical, but just my "gut feel" when I look beyond the DND Newsclips on the DIN or read about the CF in the Maple Leaf.   Why is that?   I don't know, but it seems to work out that way.   In fact, even when the Air Force is involved in particular, the credit often goes else where...I have lost count of how many yellow "Coast Guard" search and rescue helicopters have saved lives on the East and West coasts...etc...

As for use of the word "soldier"...well...lower-case "s"...aren't we all?   I understand your point about the term specifically, but would it be upsetting if folks in the Air Force or Navy considered themselves "soldiers first, aviator/sailor second"?   I can tell you I think of myself as more soldier than "air force guy".   I'm an Aviator who lives and breathes CADPAT -- albeit behind a way-too-small CORCAN special, at the moment.   I even mentioned in another post that I would happily stay "Army" rank over "RCAF" rank...but of course this is my opinion/belief and I am "but one PY in CC3."   ;D     Whether it is acceptable, understandable or even excusable, the fact is the press quite often defaults to the term "soldier" when talking about a CF member of any environment.

My last point is about your comment questioning how Gwen (Chris Saunders' wife) would feel about Chris being called a "soldier" versus a "sailor"...I know you were only using it as an example, however I will respond by saying that I think such a thought would be about the farthest thing from her mind as she tries to raise her two little boys without their dad.

Mein 2 ¢,
Duey

 

[Steel Badger]

"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."


Ex-Dragoon.......I am aware of unification....and clarity is the last thing we got from it...



That doesnt excuse the enormity of the crime.......Unification i mean

Many folk still refer to Eme as RCEME and the armoured branch as the RCAC

Forgive me father,,, for i grew up in the company of old soldiers / sailors and airmen/women.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Just trying to make sure accurate information is past and not an outdated and unused term.

 

[Steel Badger]

Curiously enough, the Commander of Air Command was very liberal with his use of the term RCAF when speaking with a group of us at Runnymeade Cemetary in England in 94, AND he was referring to the current Air Command

As well the CDN Forces Chief at the time also used the term RCN as well..............and he was regulary Navy.


I do realize that integration happened, and that the terms were changed then,,,,  but who says gone forever?
So too were the Distinctive uniforms of each element and every thing else....

The wheel turns......

No disrespect intended...only respect for traditions and titles EARNED by Canadians.....

 

[Andyboy]

Just to interject for a second, could someone please tell me how they gauge "public uproar" vs. "media uproar"? Are we assuming the media represents public sentiment? Just wondering, I'm just not sure anymore.

P.S. I don't trust the Liberals ( I don't trust politicians in general but they have been in power for so long the others havn't gotten their fiar chance to lose my respect) or the press so I generally try to read between the lines on stories like this. My take is that it means the CF18 will go away with no replacement (except US a/c) our Hercs will receive minimum sustainment or will be scrapped but we'ill get a c17 or two and our Navy will be scaled back (less ships on OPs) but will receive new support ships.(100% speculation on my part) Like someone already said. Robbing peter to pay paul.

Leaders lead, not react. For all of you saying that the gov't is just reacting to what the public wants I say BS. Take alisten to what Martin says every time a microphone is in his face: "Canadians want health care."  I wonder what he bases that on, if anything. I'm sick of hte whole sordid mess, you can all keep it.

 

[Cloud Cover]

 You, whatever ships or units are involved, will get sucked or dragged deeper and deeper into a crisis until you are overwhelmed: stuck, outnumbered, outgunned, unable to be relieved or reinforced or extracted ... then defeated in detail, with heavy casualties.

Then there will be a great hue and cry and then there will be even more public inquiries and much finger pointing and even mea culpa from a politician, here and there ... even some money, probably spent quickly and foolishly and with a cynical eye to political gain, too.

You just described Dieppe, and it seems to me the lesson should have been learned right then and there, but for the most part it wasn't, even in war time and especially in the early post war years. By the late 60's, the lessons were apparently all but fogotten by the government. Cheers.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Curiously enough, the Commander of Air Command was very liberal with his use of the term RCAF when speaking with a group of us at Runnymeade Cemetary in England in 94, AND he was referring to the current Air Command

As well the CDN Forces Chief at the time also used the term RCN as well..............and he was regulary Navy.

Maybe but it is still erroneous. I have nothing on my uniform or any of my kit that says RCN and while we wish things never changed Unification happened and using these terms when they no longer apply is kind of redundant and confuses people that don't know any better.