Scavenging our Armed Forces

[soldiers301]

Scavenging our Armed Forces

By Bob MacDonald

Paul Martin's Liberal government is on the verge of taking Canada's Armed Forces into the biggest crisis since the unification battle of the 1960s.

That's right. The news has been seeping out of Ottawa that new Defence Minister Bill Graham is to present the cabinet with a secretly prepared plan to create a new brigade of 5,000 peacekeeping soldiers.

Military observers have estimated the cost to be $2.5 billion with up to $500 million per year to maintain.

Creation of the brigade would fulfil a surprise promise made by Prime Minister Martin during the recent federal election campaign. It was made at a time when Stephen Harper and his Conservatives were climbing in the polls.

No one seemed to know where the brigade proposal came from and why such a new special force was necessary.

To some, it might have seemed harmless -- so why bother to act after the Martinites were re-elected?

Well, the word was this past week that senior Defence planners have presented Graham with a plan on how to pay for it: By grounding 20 of the air force's 80 CF-18 fighter jets and mothballing the navy's three active destroyers.

That's right: The government apparently has no intentions of increasing the forces' $13-billion annual budget, which has already been cut to the bone. In fact, the forces now have to run a $1-billion annual deficit just to operate.

Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic and a former army brigadier-general, was quoted yesterday as saying it was "outrageous" for the Liberals to make such an election promise without first looking at the cost.

He added: "They're talking about scavenging the navy and the air force to keep their promises. It's just smoke and mirrors ... They make the promises, but don't want to pay for them."

And York University defence analyst Martin Shadwick contended the government should hold full public consultations before acting.

He said: "To do it quietly in the night while you're just trying to scrounge money for the 5,000 peacekeepers, I'm not totally sure that's a candid approach to take with the public."

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the Liberals under PMs Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau forced a costly, demoralizing unification scheme on the Armed Forces. All were put into the same rumpled, sickly green outfits until a Conservative government returned the navy, army and air force to their own distinctive, morale-boosting uniforms. Worse, regiments with great fighting records were eliminated -- and troop strengths repeatedly chopped. Some top naval officers resigned in protest.

Well, if this new proposal goes ahead -- a "cockamamie idea" according to one long-serving officer -- don't be surprised if more senior officers resign in protest.

For instance, grounding a quarter of the air force's

CF-18 fighter jets obviously will irritate the United States because it will cut into Canada's commitment to the North American air defence scheme (NORAD). As it is, only about 40 of those planes are operational at any one time and many are undergoing much-needed upgrades.

"We've been criticized justifiably for some time by the Americans and other allies for not pulling our weight -- especially since the increased need for surveillance after the 9/11 terrorist attacks," commented one military insider.

And mothballing the three active destroyers will mean Canada could never again command a multi-national naval force as it did in the recent Persian Gulf patrol actions.

So, what's behind such a cheap, destructive political action by Martin, Graham and gang?

Well, the Liberals have always had it in for the Armed Forces, letting their equipment become dangerously obsolete while still committing them to endless UN peacekeeping actions.

A clue to this major move is that Martin is scheduled to address the UN General Assembly in October. He and Graham -- backed by the many Liberal anti-U.S., anti-NATO MPs -- would look good to left-leaning UN members if Canada made a big splash with their new 5,000-strong peacekeeping brigade. Ready, aye ready, to follow UN commands.

And since they obviously believe Canadian voters really don't care about their Armed Forces, they think they can do it without consulting them in open, public hearings. It sounds more like the actions of a secretive dictatorship than a free, open democracy.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Bob_MacDonald/2004/08/22/pf-596245.html

 

[soldiers301]

I know that this topic should be in the News section , but i cant enter in there section .... if its my computer or anyone else have the same problem !?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This is too ludicrous for mere words to express.

 

[Jarnhamar]

How would this peacekeeping brigade work?

Are they going to raise some new regiments? Would currently soldiers and units slide into this peacekeeping brigade for a certain period and then rotate out?

 

[canuck101]

Canada's Military May Remove Ships From Service, Paper Reports

Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Canada's military may remove its destroyer ships and one-fourth of its fighter jets from service to pay for a campaign pledge by the ruling Liberal Party to form a 5,000-person ``peacekeeping brigade,'' the National Post reported, citing unidentified defense officials.

A senior military official told the Post that the plan may lead to the ``effective demise'' of the navy and air force. Prime Minister Paul Martin wants to have the brigade ready when he visits the United Nations later this year, the Post said.

Adding a brigade would cost at least C$2 billion (US$1.54 billion), the paper said, citing analysts. Canada's annual defense budget is C$1.3 billion. Defense Minister Bill Graham will present options on the proposed brigade to Martin's cabinet at the end of the month, the paper said.

(National Post, 8-21, A1)

Paul Martin can want and wish for a peacekeeping brigade but it will never happen.  He can stand in front of the Assembly and say he is going to create one.  If there is no troops to put fill it, so it will stay a pipe dream.  He will kill the military trying to make it happen. As it was said in past posts about a 1/3 of the members in the forces are getting near retirement in the next five to six years, so it will never happen. 

The sad news is if the  Conservative party gains power it would take at least two terms to just get the forces turned in the right direction;that is not to say that they would do everything that the military would need.  Well one day in the not to distant future the Canadian public is in for a rude awaking.  I don't wish that on anyone but i think that is the only way Canadian will see what they did to a once proud armed forces.  The government is making promises around the world that we can not fill but they don't care because Canadian don't care or don't seem to.

The Canadian people have had good times since the end of the Second World War.  The government has relied on our past victories and have not produced new one.  You can do that for only so long before it comes back to bite you in the a**.  The liberal governments of the past fifty years have successfully drilled into their minds that peacekeeping is our role and and have slowly pushed the military towards that end without a easy option in the reverse direction.  If you have a military the first things it is trained to do is fight a secondary option is peace making not the other way around.  Of course i am speaking to faithful and it will fall on the deaf ears of the people in charge of purse strings in Ottawa.  I guess it will take the Americans travelling the north west passage and Denmark occupying a few islands in the north before they do anything o right they have done that and nothing happened. Well i guess i have taken up enough time for today and i feel drained at the though of the future of the armed forces under such a poor government. :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat:

 

[casing]

I'm friggin stunned.  This boggles my mind and I just cannot comprehend Martin's thinking processes...  :rage:

 

[patt]

From cbc.ca


OTTAWA - Canada's chief of the defence staff called a news conference Monday to refute reports that keeping a Liberal election promise to add 5,000 more peacekeepers would mean cuts to the navy and air force.

Gen. Ray Henault complained that some members of the armed forces, protected by anonymity, have suggested the cost of fulfilling the pledge will require four destroyers to be taken out of service and 20 jet fighters to be grounded.

 
Gen. Ray Henault (File photo) 
"We are not doing anything at this point in time to reduce either the navy or the air force in favour of the army," Henault said. "Reports that the expansion of the Canadian Forces would result in cuts to other parts of the defence program are simply false."

The general, who called reporters to a hastily arranged news conference in the foyer of defence headquarters, said the people feeding the media with anonymous comments were betraying military professionalism and discipline.

Insiders said Henault was prodded to take the action by the prime minister's office.

Henault said rearrangements in the forces are being debated, but no decisions have been made. He said while there may be changes in the navy or air force, they aren't connected to the addition of 5,000 peacekeepers.

Defence analysts say adding another 5,000 recruits will increase pressure on an already strained training system.

Henault said he expects the government will come up with more money for the forces, since Defence Minister Bill Graham has promised more support.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

""We are not doing anything at this point in time to reduce either the navy or the air force in favour of the army,"
"He said while there may be changes in the navy or air force, they aren't connected to the addition of 5,000 peacekeepers."

Interesting statements...a lot of behind the scenes action going on.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ex-Dragoon

I just posted a fuller version of the CP report on the Troop Strength thread.  There it makes specific reference to increasing authorized levels to 65,000 and a promise of new money.

I wonder if somebody's trial balloon just got shot down?

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.... :-\ ???

Cheers.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Interesting statements...a lot of behind the scenes action going on.

I bet there is some head hunting going on also.

 

[homerjsimpson]

Scavenging our Armed Forces
Well, if this new proposal goes ahead -- a "cockamamie idea" according to one long-serving officer -- don't be surprised if more senior officers resign in protest.

Well at least some good will come of it...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I just pasted my post from another thread here in responce to this post, I think it fits here too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one thing I would like to add here, it gets a little old expecting "the brass" to fall on their sword.
They do have mortgages and family to feed just like everyone else, the days past where they could "resign" and then go back to whatever money bought them their commission in the first place are long gone.
There are many decisions in my trade that drive me up the wall, but, the bottom line is, first and foremost, I work for money and if I have to swallow  a little, so be it.
Just think, if all the top brass with honour decide to resign over something, just exactly who does that leave running the ship?

BRUCE

 

[soldiers301]

I hope that they would add at least 2 Billion $ for create the new brigade ... and add 500 million to maintain the unit operational

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed Bruce.

Besides for some in the government it wouldn't be seen as a bad thing if ALL the brass quit.  It would make it that much easier to fold up the tent.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well at least some good will come of it...

I would not hold my breath waiting for any resignations as they are career people like we are.

 

[LaRo]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/23/henault_040823.html

Good news but should we trust that?

 

[Bartok5]

No, you should not trust that.  It is an abject lie.  If PY's (Person Years) need to be generated to man the ill-fated "new brigade" or merely bring the existing formations up to strength, then the system will simply feed off of itself.  Much the same way that the infantry ate its own legs to man the various area and national training establishments with permanent staff (to reduce cyclical augmentation, dont'cha know), and then gave up its remaining extremities to shift PYs to the gold-plated Combat Manoeuvre Training Centre.  No integral Infantry Battalion Mortars?  No problem - the Artillery will provide if they're not busy (and chronically undermanned) elsewhere.  No Pioneers?  No problem - the Engineers will provide if they're not busy (and chronically undermanned) elsewhere.  The latest and greatest is of course, the demise of the infantry battalion Anti-Armour Platoons.  No problem - the abjectly ludicrous "Direct Fire Support Squadron" (all 1 of them) will compensate (Army-wide!) for the lack of integral anti-armour capability within each of the 9 deployable infantry battalions.  Presumably, that very same single "DFS Squadron" will compensate for the loss of the MBT fleet.  Wow - talk about an "all singing, all dancing" solution to our anti-armour direct-fire capability needs .  The only bummer is that the DFS Squadron doesn't exist.  Worse is the fact that it simply won't work.  I was part of Army Experiment 8A, simulating the DFS concept.  We lost, even against a "dumbed down" enemy.  Repeatedly and resoundingly....

We are fast approaching irrelevance as a "fighting force".  Given the current nature of "peace-support" (read Peace-Enforcement") operations, our burgeoning institutional limitations are equally significant.  It is not a question of "keeping the peace" - we haven't done that since the late 1980's.  if we wish to be the "Dudley Do-Rights" of the new millenium, then we as Canadians will have to wade in and create "peace" (eg.  a cessation of hostilities") by military force.  Are we as a nation prepared to go down that road?  Are we as a military prepared to fulfill that particular role?  My "gut" having spent the past 25 years in uniform as an infantry soldier and (now) officer is a resounding "no".  We have neither the political will nor the resultant military means to do so.  As so Canada shall sit on the sidelines of history - full of well-meaning platitudes, but achieving nothing of substance.  This is your future as a self-indulgent Canadian tax-payer - embrace it.

 

[logau]

I emailed the Toronto Sun on this as follows:

Keep after them. Running down the armed forces like this gets us closer and closer to American style health care - delivered by Americans.

But maybe not? My theory is USA could care less if we had one soldier or one hundred thousand. We are a protected overseas market for them and as long as that continues unabated - then DND will do much less with less.

Have a look at a paper I wrote recently for a course in War Studies from Royal Military College. Here is the link http://www.donlowconcrete.com/USA/. I said above that DND will do much less with less. Look who gets the gravy and where DND is at in the list of government expenditures

Health 16,7%
Social Assistance 15,4%
Debt Charges 14,8%
Education 14,8%
Other Social Services 10,4%
Other Expenditures 8,3%
Protection of Persons and Property 7,8% ---- Includes DND

All referenced in the paper I refer to.

Maybe the media are in league with the bean counters by wailing over DND. If that was fair coverage - I would expect to see - at least - some comment on the 25% of government expenditures that just get shovelled out to those who don't earn the tax dollars to pay for them - but I don't.

Steven Harper seems right when he said during the election the government is growing at a greater rate than the economy.

As Ronald Reagan said looking at a pile of horse manure one day ... Somewhere in that pile of crap is a pony!

************ Any one getting that scratchy feelieng on their butt as in Paul Martin picking DND's pockets to   fund all many of boondoggles for his buddies?

Maybe we should just Arm all his ships - see www.csl.ca ?

Now - in another spot - http://www.ericmargolis.com/

Eric Margolis - whom you see on CTV a lots has this to say. Note how many US troops are over seas - Doe we really matter in the schme of things? If any young sprogs out there want to be GENERAL RANK OFFICERS its a good guess you'd do better working for any ferderal welfare or health Dept

August 23, 2004

THE SUN WILL NEVER SET ON THE AMERICAN EMPIRE

PARIS - It may not have been as dramatic as the recall of Hadrian's Roman legions from borders of the Empire, but last week's announcement that 70,000 US troops would be withdrawn from Germany and South Korea in coming years is an event of major geopolitical importance.

However, far from reducing the 257,000 US troops overseas in over 100 foreign bases, the Bush Administration intends to intensify global military operations even though the undermanned, over-committed US armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. How this will be done remains unclear.

The largest withdrawals will be from Germany. Two heavy divisions, the 1st Armored and 1st Mechanized with 100,000 staff and civilians, will be repatriated to the US. The sharp decline of Russia's armed forces has removed any rational for maintaining the armor-heavy US divisions stationed in Germany since 1945.

This move makes military sense and is long overdue. The heavy divisions will be replace by a mobile, 3,500-man brigade and some new air units. One suspects, however, that the Ist Armored and 1st Mechanized may find themselves â “ or at least some of their brigades â “ in Iraq and Afghanistan.

America's smartest, most outspoken foreign policy thinker, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezezinski, bluntly describes the US-Europe postwar relationship as a `hegemon and its vassals,' with NATO as the principal instrument through which the US controls Western Europe. The US exercises similar control of Japan, `an American protectorate,' in Dr Zbig's words, through the US-Japanese Security Treaty.

American military power underpins both vital strategic relationships. Removal of US forces from Germany, with the inevitable reduction of power, and even the raison d'etre, of NATO, will mean declining US political influence over Europe.

This, in turn, will allow a united Europe to develop into a full-scale partner, or even eventual rival, of the United States - a healthy geopolitical development in our unipolar, geopolitically unbalanced world. One wonders if the Bush Administration's limited thinkers understand this vitally important point.

The planned withdrawal of 12,500 of the 37,500 US troops in South Korea( 3,500 will go to Iraq), is also logical, though the announcement's timing is poor. The reduction of 20,000 Marine in Okinawa, a major irritant to Japanese public opinion, is also a wise move.

South Korea's powerful armed forces are well able to hold off North Korea's larger but obsolescent military. The US 2nd Division's deployment in static defenses along the Demilitarizes Zone makes it - as this writer has seen first hand - vulnerable and hostage to N Korea's massive artillery. Pulling the 2nd back south of Seoul is good military sense, as does thinning US troops in the south. But not when the US and its allies are locked in vitally important nuclear negotiations with hostile North Korea.

US troops withdrawals from North Asia must be conducted with extreme delicacy. These forces, acting as a surrogate for America's total military power, have been the lynchpin that has kept the region in a sort of military stasis since the 1950's. Japan shelters under the US Security Treaty, avoiding offensive weapons systems that would antagonize China. The US also protects Japan from North Korea. Too many US troop withdrawals from Japan and failure to implement a workable anti-missile system to cover the home islands would ignite calls in Japan for development of robust military forces, including nuclear weapons, commensurate with Japan's economic power. This would put Japan and China on a collision course.


The 150,000 US troops currently stuck in the stalemated Iraq and Afghanistan wars â “ half of all US maneuver ground forces - appear fated to remain indefinitely. This massive commitment will deplete Pentagon budgets, wear out expensive equipment, and inevitably undermine the morale of US garrison forces fighting popular wars of liberation.

Meanwhile, the US will open new bases in Bulgaria and Romania as part of America's new `Imperial Lifeline. ' These Balkan bases will link to new US airbases being built across Central Asia, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Gulf designed to cement Washington's hold on the Muslim world and its natural resources.

As a result, the entire US armed forces are being restructured for `expeditionary warfare,'( the British used to call it, `the imperial mission.') This process began a decade ago, but accelerated under the Bush Administration, which has relentlessly militarized foreign policy.

Army heavy tanks and artillery are being replaced by light, Canadian-made wheeled armored vehicles. Troops are being trained in counter-insurgency operations and urban warfare. A `lilly-pad' concept of austere, rapidly created mini-bases will allow US forces to leapfrog around the globe.

The Navy is developing `littoral warfare' ships for coastal operations that can project fire and troops deep inland. Fleets of prepositioned supply ships deployed around the globe will keep entire brigades in the field for months.

The US Air Force - the modern version of Britain's invincible Grand Fleet - has developed `bare base' operations allowing it to deploy `strike packages' of attack, bomber and recon aircraft across the globe on short notice that can deliver devastating firepower. New cargo transports are abuilding. Constellations of spy satellites, listening devices, and swarms of drones give Washington's eyes and ears everywhere.

These dramatic new deployments signal further expansion of military operations around the globe as America comes ever closer to resembling its forbearer, the British Empire. Most Americans, however, remain unaware of both their government's new imperial plans to rule oil and the Muslim World, or of the unexpected conflicts that lie in wait for America's increasingly far-flung expeditionary forces.

********** anyone get the feeling the Canucks are headed for a glorious retirement patrolling the   Northern Lights? Klingon Patrol - Ten HUt!

One Polar bear, two polar bears, my what big teeth he has!  

 

[Kirkhill]

"There's generally a consensus among women that pacifist options should be pursued at all levels," she said.

Add that comment from one of the Women's Caucus of Paul Martin's Liberal Party and the future of the CF looks less and less bright.

Anti-DND vote - the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberal Women's Caucus and at a guess half of the Male Liberal's. :'(

Here's the rest of the article - in the context of Missile Defence but the attitudes are enlightening.

Liberal women present vocal opposition to U.S. missile plan

OTTAWA (CP) - If he signs on to the U.S. missile-defence plan Prime Minister Paul Martin may trigger the ire of a vocal and ardent contingent of critics within his own party: Liberal women.
Several women attending the government's annual caucus retreat painted a portrait of near-unanimity among female Liberal MPs against the U.S. military project. The head of the Liberal women's caucus was coy when asked whether any members of her group supported the missile plan. "If so, nobody's said so," Winnipeg MP Anita Neville replied Tuesday before the group met with the prime minister.

"But many feel very strongly about it -that we did the right thing in Iraq and that (abstaining from missile defence) is the right thing to do here."

The missile-defence issue heated up this summer, with the clock winding down before the U.S.'s fall deadline for inaugurating the first phase of the plan -a pair of launch sites in Alaska and California.

A top Ontario MP said the federal government should immediately turn its back on the project and that Liberal women should help lobby to make it happen.

"Do I believe that's something that women should unite about . . . ? Yes," said Sarmite Bulte, head of the federal Liberals' Ontario caucus.

"Personally I think that you'll find a lot of consensus among women my age, who are mothers and parliamentarians, that we're not interested in missile defence.


"All this weaponization of space, the reality is Mr. Bush has not said he's going to rule it out. . . . I think we should be proactive, the same way we were in Iraq."

Ottawa has already agreed to expand the Canada-U.S. Norad program to oversee the new missile system, seen as an initial step towards Canadian backing of the project.

The federal government insists no decision has been made yet even through top officials defend the project and insist Canadian participation would amount to little more than a political endorsement.

Supporters of the project say the U.S. has not requested any financial contribution or use of Canadian soil, and add that the multibillion-dollar project could be an economic bonanza for this country's engineering and military-industrial firms.

And they point out that no technology currently exists that would place weapons in space, a scenario that has been a constant complaint of critics of the plan.

But several Liberal women interviewed in recent days -like MPs Carolyn Parrish and Francoise Boivin -remain unconvinced.

They spoke out vigorously against the plan, and were joined Tuesday by other Liberal MPs who attended the women's caucus meeting.

"I voted against it, I'm against it, and I continue to be," said former cabinet minister Maria Minna, a Toronto MP.

"It will only encourage rogue states to build and proliferate instead of minimize nuclear weapons. And really we should be dealing with the real threat -and that's terrorism.

"Terrorism isn't going to come in through missiles from rogue states. It's coming in every day, anyway. Look what happened on Sept. 11."

Quebec MPs Eleni Bakopanos and Raymonde Folco also said they're against the plan. Folco said she believes women were no more hostile to the project than men.

But Bakopanos said female opposition runs deeper.

"There's generally a consensus among women that pacifist options should be pursued at all levels," she said.

A spokesman for the prime minister said Martin doesn't mind a candid debate about the issue.

"The prime minister has never been one to insist everyone has to come to the table with the same perspective," said Martin spokesman Scott Reid.

"But at the end of the day, based on what makes good sense and what's in Canada's interest, a decision will have to be made and defended inside and outside of caucus.

"That's the job of governing and making choices."

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

They should rename it to be the "Neville Chamberlain Liberal Women's Caucus".

Nothing is more frustrating than people that go out of their way to ignore the lessons of history.




Matthew.