The Defence Budget [superthread]

[stevenstaples]

I'm surprised no one has taken up our criticism of useless spending programs taking up valuable resources. Ever wonder why all the defence experts we always see on the news go silent when something goes wrong with the subs?  How many other uses could $150 million U.S. go to instead of the F-35 (isn't this another corporate subsidy consuming limited defence dollars)? Seems to me we could have replaced those Hercs a long time ago if they had been made a priority by the leadership on Colonel By.

- Steve

 

[Slim]

Welocome to the forum Mr Staples.

It will be interesting having you here.

Cheers

Slim

 

[Infanteer]

Welcome to Army.ca Mr. Staples.  We're happy to see you've joined up and offered your thoughts.

Believe me, many of us here tend to be critical of many programs that we perceive to be useless, both inside and outside of Defence.  Considering that the F-35 is an investment for an airpower frame that has a variety of uses, I don't think it could be classified as a "useless" program.

You mention criticism here to specific programs; much of the disagreement here tends to be aimed towards the Polaris Institute's entire outlook on defence, which seems to want to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Slim]

Ever wonder why all the defence experts we always see on the news go silent when something goes wrong with the subs?

They know, as do you and I, that buying submarines that have been sitting for an extended period of time, is going to be costly and rather wasteful. It has also turned out to be rather dangerous, as seen by the fire aboard Chicoutami while on her way back from England. That 'lesson' unfortunately cost us a very talented young officer and almost cost us several more serving members as well.

What Canada should have done was to buy ( ot build) a number of new submarines in order to meet the sub-surface requirement for our navy. It would have been cheaper in the long run and a whole lot less dangerous to the crews who man them.

Unfortunately the navy had to move within the fiscal sphere that they were given, and so coud not go the route that they should have been able to in the first place.

Perhaps in future this argument will be rethought out and a more realistic conclusion come to in terms of serious large item procurment.

 

How many other uses could $150 million U.S. go to instead of the F-35 (isn't this another corporate subsidy consuming limited defence dollars)? Seems to me we could have replaced those Hercs a long time ago if they had been made a priority by the leadership on Colonel By.

- Steve

Steve

Sadly a national defense is a requirement of the modern independent nation-state. An old saying goes somethig like "Your country will always have a standing army, yours or someone elses." Even though non of us ever hope to fight a war we should always be prepared to defend ourself and, to a certain degree, be able to project our nation's power to other countries that require our assistance in terms of defense or, in the case of A'stan, to remove a sick and despotic regime.

I awaite your comments on my thoughts Sir.

Cheers

Slim

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I'm surprised no one has taken up our criticism of useless spending programs taking up valuable resources.

Define "useless".  $100 million for a couple of new passenger jets?  Millions of dollars in operational expenditures for domestic operations which should (in theory) be repaid by the requesting agencies (ie. provincial governments) back to the federal government?  Hundreds of milllions of dollars lining the pockets of corrupt and incompetent native leaders practicing the politics of cronyism and nepotism with federal monies?  You want to sweat over corporate subsidies - how much have Bombardier and the various factions of the auto manufacturing industry in Canada collected in the past few decades?  How much more have we spent on defence acquisitions to place a "Made In Canada" sticker over the "Engineered in Europe/USA" one?

Anyone serious about tackling waste in government spending would go after all government spending, particularly since defence is - relatively speaking - small potatoes.  A fixation on defence spending tends to be dismissable, rightly, as mere ideological posturing.  If you're serious about coming up with 0.7% of GDP - 0.35% for aid, and 0.35% in graft to get the aid past the thugs who make the aid necessary and ensure the situation continues so that noble members of NGOs can ride white Toyota pickups to the rescue and preen indefinitely - then go after the big money in federal spending.

As for the issue of what our armed forces should be doing, I don't need to prop up my self-worth by leeching and trading on the sacrifices and risks taken by our service people, past or present.  I don't need to be able to puff up my chest and say to any foreigner who crosses my path, "I'm Canadian.  Did you know our soldiers are peacekeepers?"  I don't need to vicariously claim our soldiers' achievements as my own.  But more importantly, I realize that while the Greeks and Turks and the Israelis and their neighbours can be mostly trusted not to shoot at people wearing blue baseball caps and not much more armour than a cotton shirt, the thirteen-year old with an AK-47 in Central Africa and the Balkan thugs nursing grudges predating Vlad's tiff with the Turks, can not.  We have to be able to deliver our soldiers and the equipment they need to be more than hostages-in-waiting; we must be able to sustain them without necessarily having the goodwill of someone who owns a nearby port and airfield, and we need to be able to extract them when the locals tire of the interference in their timeless domestic disputes.  That means airlift, sealift, and the requisite air and sea power to face down rogue air defences, fighters, ships, and submarines - because a C-130 full of body bags is a hell of a price to pay for the self-anointed post-modern intellectual elites of Canada to assuage their guilt for being born here and to feel good about themselves.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What Canada should have done was to buy ( ot build) a number of new submarines

Maybe we should have bought the Upholders before they went into long-term storage.  It's not like we don't know how old a particular class or fleet of equipment is, or when it would be prudent to replace it.  The scandal isn't what we spend, it's the amount of time it takes us to figure out exactly what to buy.

 

[Britney Spears]

I'm surprised no one has taken up our criticism of useless spending programs taking up valuable resources.

Do a search. Try the keywords "KevinB", "C7A2", and "ill-conceived waste of time and money" for starters.

 

[mjohnston39]

Some rambling thoughts.

All Western countries have decreased their UN peacekeeping contributions   http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/

All Western countries are increasing their defense spending, and Canada's will be on par with countries with similar populations economies (Spain, Australia...)

All Western countries are modernizing their militaries to be interoperable with the US, they are the most advanced and powerful and get to set the bar. Everyone else is stepping up, we need to or we'll get left behind not only our only neighbour and our closest alley but everyone else.

Government spending in general has increased over the last budget cycles, why should defense be any different

Directly comparing military spending in absolute terms is somewhat misleading. Dollars in Canada don't go as far, do think a service man in say Turkey makes as much as one in Canada? Same goes for equipment, buying and building in Canada is expensive due to mandated industrial/regional benefits, high wages etc.

150M for the F35, well can Canadian companies have received over 1.5B$ in contracts, seems like a prudent investment to me... http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/10/12/Pratt_Whitney041012.html

Large capital expenditures are need because most of the equipment the CF is old and wearing out. Even if Canada was to totally dedicate itself to UN peacekeeping missions it would still need new trucks, airlift, helicopters, sea-lift, just about everything laid out in the recent defense review. The need would even be more acute as most of our allies who posses these assets, which we thumb a ride with, are no longer involving themselves in UN peacekeeping missions. If Canada was to truly dedicate solely to UN peacekeeping missions it would truly be going it alone and need a much larger military defense budget than it has now...

Tradational peakeeping worked, for the most part, because it was always backed up with a credable use of force either from the peacekeeping country or their allies. If Canada goes alone, even for UN peacekeeping, it better be prepared to carry an even larger stick...

There have been many discussions here about waste and spending more efficiently...

Mike

 

[mjohnston39]

Also the article is somewhat misleading as it fails to mention that, IIRC, the NATO mission in the former Yugoslavia were deployed under the authority of the UN security council and I believe this is the case for Afghanistan as well...http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/evolution.htm

It is these operations that are now responsible for the continuing high operational tempo of the Canadian Forces. "With a few exceptions," the Defence Policy Statement notes, "most of the Canadian Forces' major operations [of recent years] have borne no resemblance to the traditional peacekeeping model of lightly armed observers supervising a negotiated ceasefire."

The world has changed, like it or not and there are no longer defined groups to negotiate a ceasefire with in the first place....

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm surprised no one has taken up our criticism of useless spending programs taking up valuable resources. Ever wonder why all the defence experts we always see on the news go silent when something goes wrong with the subs?   How many other uses could $150 million U.S. go to instead of the F-35 (isn't this another corporate subsidy consuming limited defence dollars)? Seems to me we could have replaced those Hercs a long time ago if they had been made a priority by the leadership on Colonel By.

- Steve

Before we proceed to much further Mr Staples, I have both watched and read your criticism for a couple of years now, but have never heard your opinion as to how you believe a military should be used? 

Specifically, do you believe in active intervention in places like Rwanda and Darfur or not?

Thank you for your time and consideration.



Matthew 

 

[stevenstaples]

The recommendation from our report this week called for the creation of a new Defence White Paper through public participation (and I don't mean expert hearings in Ottawa), and until that time a freeze on defence spending. Get the policy right first, then set the budget.

When asked, we suggest the CF focus on two objectives: (1) defence of Canadian territory to ensure sovereignty (e.g. improved capability in the North, use of new technology such as High-Frequency Surface Wave Radar), and (2) participation in UN-led peacekeeping missions (i.e. "Blue Helmets"). We expand on this a bit in Breaking Rank, the 2002 report that is also available on our web site at www.polarisinstitute.org.

- Steve

 

[Infanteer]

(2) participation in UN-led peacekeeping missions (i.e. "Blue Helmets").

Are you sure this is a prudent proposal?  Most soldiers I've spoke to who've put on a blue hat say they wouldn't do it again - maybe in the '80s it was a nice thing, but experience since then has taught us otherwise.

 

[48Highlander]

The recommendation from our report this week called for the creation of a new Defence White Paper through public participation (and I don't mean expert hearings in Ottawa), and until that time a freeze on defence spending.

;D

In other words, death by committee for the CF.  That sentence reminds me of the scene in Robo Cop 2, when they gather a civilian pannel to decide what changes to make to his programming.

"He's too mean, why can't he be nicer to people?"
"That gun of his is way too big.  It's to scary."
"It'd be nice if he'd stop and talk things out once in a while."

Following which, he ends up trying to lecture a mob of kids robbing a store, and then shoots a guy for smoking.

Face it, 99% of civs don't know squat about the military, government spending, or foreign policy.  That's why we have politicians, soldiers, intelligence agencies, and "experts".  You cannot make policy by popular opinion; it would be a particularily idiotic form of national suicide.  Whatever decisions your "public participation" might come up with - while well intentioned and seemingly logical under a cursory examination - would spell disaster for the military.

 

[GO!!!]

The problem Mr. Staples, is that the Polaris Institute is a most apt demonstration of an "opposition" movement, guaranteeing its income by making wild and press worthy accusations and suggestions, in order to secure further funding and attention, then fading into obscurity for a period of time, until its masters feel the need for more attention and funding.

In regards to your uses for the DND.

1) "The defence of Canadian territory" Bad news, radar only tells you the bad guys are coming. Since you oppose the F35 project, and the CF 18s are obsolete, just how do you intend to protect our sovereignty. Which weapon system usable north of 60 have you supported the acquisition of?

2) "Participation in UN - led peacekeeping missions" More bad news, there has never, in history, by the UN's own definition, been a successful peacekeeping mission, with the exception of the Suez crisis. Why do we want to participate in this culture of abject failure? Why should we sacrifice any more men?

Finally, given the schizophrenic and time consuming character of any type of Federal Policy Review (remember Trudeau's Foreign Policy review?) would we not be better served by a multi - task capable military, able to perform any mission anyhwere in the meantime, than a freeze on spending to push us even further back in terms of capabilities?

 

[mjohnston39]

participation in UN-led peacekeeping missions (i.e. "Blue Helmets").

With whom do you suggest we work with on these blue-helmet missions as most of our western allies have abandoned these traditional UN mssions???

Mike

 

[paracowboy]

With whom do you suggest we work with on these blue-helmet missions as most of our western allies have abandoned these traditional UN mssions?

nobody, 'cause they don't work!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Mr Staples,

We (the Canadian Forces) have already endured a "funding freeze" that has lasted since 1993.  By advocating a funding freeze, again, while we endure a long, painful, ill-intentioned, uninformed, national policy consultation process on defence, you are basically guaranteeing the final nail in coffin of the Canadian Forces.  Nothing on our current equipment order book (that I can think of) would be inconsistent with almost any task we would be assigned anyway after a defence policy review.  Believe it or not, the CF is in a VERY fragile state right now.

Why is it, Mr Staples, that your organization has such a difficult time accepting the professional opinion of serving soldiers, sailors and airmen, who actually have operational experience in many of the world's less desireable places that what we need right now is a more, not less, aggressive and well armed military?  We are not uneducated and thoughtless people, you know. We are not just making this stuff up because we like "cool toys".  Most of us have done the government's bidding in lots of uncomfortable parts of the world, trying to implement our nation's foreign policy and generally keep any number of factions in Africa, Asia and Europe from kicking the crap out of each other, and us in the process.

Mr Staples, I highly advise you, if you have not done so yet, approach DND about getting yourself to Kandahar so that you can spend a week or so with the guys on patrol.  Or out at sea on frigate.  Or better yet, join your nearest reserve unit and find out first-hand what it is like to carry the can for Canada, on a continual, chronic, underfunded basis.

Mr Staples, I respect that you are doing what you are doing in good faith.  Please understand, however, that most soldiers, sailors and airmen are by necessity pragmatists and will accept any new funding that comes our way right now, so that we can get on with our job of protecting Canada and carrying out our foreign policy.  I, for one, remain to be convinced that you accurately understand the true situation with respect to defence in this country.

Good night.

 

[Kirkhill]

Mr. Staples,

In the interest of full disclosure:

Who do you represent?
Who supplies your funding?
Who sits on your board of directors?
Where does your board meet?
How often do they meet?
To whom are you responsible?
Where is your Institute registered?
What are your personal qualifications to comment on these matters?
What experience do you have?
With whom do you consult when you derive your position papers?

Your site seems to be silent on those matters.   I find links to many labour and "direct action" groups.   You have an "about us" page that does the mission thing very nicely but I am unable to find the answers to my questions there.   Is there a link you can direct me to that will supply those answers?

Christopher Pook

 

[Brad Sallows]

A properly done review, as opposed to a stalling and posturing exercise, should only take a few months.  There's no need to freeze anything.

Limiting our spheres of activity to UN operations basically ensures that any region that doesn't pass muster with the veto members of the UNSC is SOL.  Welding our foreign policy to the UN is shorthand for welding it to the subset of overlapping (ie. mutually agreeable) foreign policy objectives at the UN of the US, UK, Russia, PRC, and France.  That is a small set.  I'm not sure being the willing lapdog of the aforementioned nations is much of a demonstration of sovereignty.  Of course, if we want to rule out intervening in situations such as those presented in Rwanda and Darfur, it makes sense to tether ourselves to the UN.  Perhaps I misunderstand what the real objective is.  To look as if we're doing something, without really doing anything useful or costly...hmmm...sounds attractive.

Certainly we should be able to exercise our sovereignty, and protect our naval forces and shipping abroad.  If we really wanted that, we'd get on with replacing the diesel boats with nuclear-powered ones.

 

[GO!!!]

A point I missed in my earlier post as well.

Given that the UN is comprised of despotic dictatorships, human rights abusers etc, all of whom have the same voting weight as a law abiding, well intentioned, democratic nation, why is the collective of despots assumed to be correct in the application of force, while the singular despot is a creature to be reviled?

Furthermore, why should we risk so much blood and treasure in carrying out the agenda of a mob of despots and dictators?