The End of the Canadian Military?

[xarir]

The Defence Management Studies Program (DMSP) at Queen's University has published a paper discussing the possibility that Canada will be without Armed Forces within a few years. The crux of this argument is that years of government neglect will result in Canada becoming the first major power to disarm itself.

http://www.queensu.ca/sps/DMSP/claxton4.html

CBC is carrying the story here: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/03/forces031203

My initial thoughts (I've only read the first bit of the paper) is that there is a hint of conflict of interest here. The DMSP was set up at Queen's with the help of the Department of Defence. It is possible then that this paper is one-sided and self-serving.

On the other hand, the declining state of the Canadian Armed Forces is well documented and common knowledge amongst Canadians. (Helicopters anyone?) What I find interesting is the author's perspective that the next government will inevitably face a crisis that simply cannot be avoided. This crisis will leave Canada unable to fulfil any commitments on the international front and may very well see Canada without a military that can handle even domestic affairs.

Comments? (No flames please.)

 

[bar+leby88]

Canada would be divvied up b/w the UK and US if we ever lost our army..........the US is especially pissed that Canada doesn't spend more $$ on it's army

 

[Alucard]

big bro to the south will be there to protect us. not really much need for much of an armed forces. need to keep a few around for operation shovel snow in case toronto gets dumped on again

 

[the_big_E]

we have an army? hehe

 

[MuffinMuncher]

we have an army?

Or more appropriate....

"You call that an army?"

 

[Toad]

big bro to the south will be there to protect us. not really much need for much of an armed forces. need to keep a few around for operation shovel snow in case toronto gets dumped on again

If we expect the US to come to our aide we should contribute to thier defence budget too. Our share would include paying for all their operations too.. something to think about.

I would think it would be better to pay Canadian who need jobs to defend us than rely on another country. No one ever missed the army until they need it most.

 

[TheNiteHwk]

<"(Helicopters anyone?)">

We have helicopters? I thought those were submarines.

 

[marvin]

CAF will not get an upgrade

Thanks for the links.

I would agree that the Canadian forces are presently inadequate for international military operations or even deployment. The suggestion in the paper that the CAF will cease to exist, materially, is a bit much. There are many ways to stretch out the service life of equipment. However, capabilities inevitably degrade. Canada passed the point of meaningful international military engagement a few years ago.

What this report fails to acknowledge is that many of the NATO countries have done likewise. Even Germany is maintaining a severely reduced military force right now. The Low Countries have virtually no armed forces at all. A few of the peripheral countries still have low grade deployment capabilities but almost every European country (outside the UK and France) expect someone else to provide the transportation web necessary to deploy outside their homeland. Insofar as the US is willing to pay this price to have an allied force deploy, at least some are still willing to do so. Probably half, however, are not even willing to go on "stability campaigns" with American aid.

The report also touches on internal security and sovereignty. I was suprised to read the note that the CAF is not prepared for internal security issues. With the passing of Quebec seperatism into history, there is no real internal security issue to deal with. As for sovereignty, the strengthening of border control may be partially a military requirement but the material assets needed for the mission are far different from those needed for "stability campaigns." Arrays of unmanned sensors and some means of interception and/or monitoring is all that is required.

The purpose of this exercise seems to be to have the next government produce a white paper on defense. The military is in effect asking the government to redefine its mission in such a way as to make it possible to at least converse reasonably about CAF missions and how to achieve them.

I do not believe the next government (or the one after that...) will accept "stability capaigns" as a CAF mission -- regardless of the CAF's desire to be so engaged. If anything, I would expect the government to downgrade mission capabilities further while still maintaining a political commitment to alliances (NATO, NORAD) and pushing border control.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Many in the military don't want to see it go along the road it is traveling down: that of peacekeeping. That's our "niche" and where we should focus our efforts - NOT on submarines, tanks, heavy artillery, and all the other big expense items that militaries around the world salivate over. Any report that was partially written or funded by the military needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

And to all the naysayers about the quality of Canadian armed forces, shame on you! Canada has among the best trained and most professional soldiers in the world. We simply don't have a lot of them. When you mock the Canadian military and joke "we have an army?" it's an insult to all those serving in uniform in foreign lands who risk their lives while you play armchair commentary.

 

[onthebottom]

This is a shame

was on the TV while I was in YYZ this week. Pretty pathetic that a G8 nation can't supply forces for peace keeping. There has been much panning on this board of US unilateral action but if the US is the only country that can TAKE action then why should it ask a bunch of impotent countries for thier opinions?

There was an artical about a year ago in the National Review about how Canada has moved from being a military power to a "moral power". The title of the magazine was "Wimps". Not your proudest moment. http://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/fullsize11-25-02.html

Quote from related artical:

"The Canadians have for a while now taken it upon themselves to be a "moral superpower," not a military superpower. The problem with this — as is so often the case with groups, institutions, and even nations seeking to be the conscience of the world — is that it leads to knee-jerk and cost-free preachiness rather than any attempt at real sacrifices. Canada was once willing to back up its moral ambitions with force of arms; today it's ranked 37th on the list of peacekeepers. Its military, which used to punch well above its weight, is quite literally rusting through, and there are no plans to remedy that. In short, Canada has willfully forgotten that a nation which wants to be a moral superpower doesn't just say nice things, it does right things even at great cost — as when Great Britain put an end to the slave trade by force of arms, not force of words.

Unfortunately, Jean Chrétien's Canada believes that any problem can be talked away and that "Canadian resolve" is defined as "standing up" to the United States while apologizing for Iraq and the poor, downtrodden peoples who enjoy blowing people up. Moreover, Canada has internalized the interests of the United Nations as its own. This means that Canada is increasingly opposed to whatever action the United States takes as a matter of reflex, rather than consideration or contemplation. If the United States didn't jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, there's every reason to think Canada would. "



OTB

 

[Keebler Elf]

FYI, that article is from an organization that caters to Conservatives. Not exactly an unbiased source (just like studies done by the DOD). Frankly, I could wipe my arse with it.

 

[Stumpy]

The US or Britain would take us over if we didn't have an army????

Um, does the name "Custer" mean anything to you?

The US could have made us their 51st state a long, long time ago if it's only been our army that has been preventing them from doing so.

Personally, I think they DID make a foray, figured all there was here was hockey and snow, said 'screw it' and turned their eyes towards warmer climes.

 

[onthebottom]

Is there such a thing

FYI, that article is from an organization that caters to Conservatives. Not exactly an unbiased source (just like studies done by the DOD). Frankly, I could wipe my arse with it.

as an unbiased source? You can't discount everything written in the New York Times just because it's a Liberal paper - although you could "wipe your arse with it" but careful of the newsprint.

OTB

 

[james t kirk]

I think that this article has made some very valid points.

I maintain that the soldiers are very well trained, and consumate professionals, but their profession has been treated like the ugly child by the federal government long enough.

I like Paul Martin, I like the fact that he is making a balanced budget his priority, but we need to improve the military.

I would suggest that we contribute at least the NATO average to our military.

To calculate the average, throw out the USA since their military budget is obscenely bloated and out of proportion, throw out the lowest, and use the remaining countries military expenditure in terms of a percent of GDP.

Canada then should aim to contribute the same amount as a percentage of our GDP.

We can not count on the US to protect us, nor should we. Truth be told, they are already running submarines through the high arctic passage and there is nothing we can do about it.

The US military budget is currently 400 billion dollars. If we were to base our military on that of the USA's, Our military budget would be 40 billion US dollars.

http://www.cdi.org/program/index.cfm?programid=15

However, given that the US can not afford this kind of military expenditure (Their annual federal deficit is tipping the scales at 500 billion US dollars!!!) we would be fool hardy to follow the americans in our spending.

Currently our military budget is about $13 billion Canadian dollars per year, or about $10 billion US roughly.

For Canada to be on par with the military madness of the United States, we would need to quadruple our military spending, and i don't think anyone would want that.

The globe and mail reported today that Paul Martin will enjoy an even larger federal budget surplus than previously estimated. Perhaps he could earmark a big chunk of that for the military.

Here's an interesting read i found.......

http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/WORKING PAPERS/wp031.pdf

One of the most interesting graphs in there shows that in terms of percentages of GDP, our military expenditures have been continually falling year after year.

 

[james t kirk]

Re: This is a shame

"The Canadians have for a while now taken it upon themselves to be a "moral superpower," not a military superpower. The problem with this — as is so often the case with groups, institutions, and even nations seeking to be the conscience of the world — is that it leads to knee-jerk and cost-free preachiness rather than any attempt at real sacrifices. Canada was once willing to back up its moral ambitions with force of arms; today it's ranked 37th on the list of peacekeepers. Its military, which used to punch well above its weight, is quite literally rusting through, and there are no plans to remedy that. In short, Canada has willfully forgotten that a nation which wants to be a moral superpower doesn't just say nice things, it does right things even at great cost — as when Great Britain put an end to the slave trade by force of arms, not force of words.

Unfortunately, Jean Chrétien's Canada believes that any problem can be talked away and that "Canadian resolve" is defined as "standing up" to the United States while apologizing for Iraq and the poor, downtrodden peoples who enjoy blowing people up. Moreover, Canada has internalized the interests of the United Nations as its own. This means that Canada is increasingly opposed to whatever action the United States takes as a matter of reflex, rather than consideration or contemplation. If the United States didn't jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, there's every reason to think Canada would. "
OTB

You know, usually i find you a fairly bright guy, but in this case, I have to ask, "are you on crack or what?"

If Chretien was thinking purely objectively, he would have backed the US in its quest to conquor Iraq. But he didn't and I think he made the right move.

Iraq never blew up anyone. There is no link whatsoever between Iraq and 911. Now, the Saudis, that's a different story, or the Egyptians. Does shrub do anything about them? No.

Why is that?

For that matter, where are all these supposed weapons of mass destruction? You know, the ones Bush doesn't even speak about any more.

Where the fuck are they. If you had of found some, even one, I might have said you have an arguement.

But you haven't. The US has interviewed something like 2,000 Iraqi scientists and engineers. Surely one of them would have blown the whistle by now. According to cnbc, not one has said there were biological or nuclear weapons programme. Not one.

You have been duped and lied to buy a moron who is the political puppet of big oil. He is in the process of driving your long term economy into the ground through massive spending programs and tax cuts to the rich. Total short term economics designed to win the next election.

 

[jwmorrice]

If more money is to be earmarked for the military, I would rather it be spent on coast guard duties and showing the flag in the far north. I see no reason for spending on jet fighters, tanks, and submarines. Let it go for long range monitoring aircraft, destroyers, helicopters and ice breakers. Come to think of it, do we really need an air force?

Sure, throwing away money and lives on overseas operations might please Uncle Sam but I doubt it would gain us any influence in Washington. I don't believe doing so has gained much of anything for Tony Blair. The americans will ultimately do what is in their own best interests or at least what plays well to the domestic audience so why play that game?

jwm

 

[onthebottom]

I would suggest that we contribute at least the NATO average to our military.

To calculate the average, throw out the USA since their military budget is obscenely bloated and out of proportion, throw out the lowest, and use the remaining countries military expenditure in terms of a percent of GDP.

Canada then should aim to contribute the same amount as a percentage of our GDP.

Not a bad place to start although I think another poster correctly pointed out that NATO countries under invest as well. A better approach might be to assume you will have two substantial (Afghanistan) peach keeping missions at the same time (similar to our two war policy) and have to get yourself to the theater, manage the logistics and protect yourself and your charges. I think this would be bottoms up budgeting vs the top down assumption you are making. Pick the mission and then fund it.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: This is a shame

You know, usually i find you a fairly bright guy, but in this case, I have to ask, "are you on crack or what?"

If Chretien was thinking purely objectively, he would have backed the US in its quest to conquor Iraq. But he didn't and I think he made the right move.

Iraq never blew up anyone. There is no link whatsoever between Iraq and 911. Now, the Saudis, that's a different story, or the Egyptians. Does shrub do anything about them? No.

Why is that?

For that matter, where are all these supposed weapons of mass destruction? You know, the ones Bush doesn't even speak about any more.

Where the fuck are they. If you had of found some, even one, I might have said you have an arguement.

But you haven't. The US has interviewed something like 2,000 Iraqi scientists and engineers. Surely one of them would have blown the whistle by now. According to cnbc, not one has said there were biological or nuclear weapons programme. Not one.

You have been duped and lied to buy a moron who is the political puppet of big oil. He is in the process of driving your long term economy into the ground through massive spending programs and tax cuts to the rich. Total short term economics designed to win the next election.

Nice clichéd anti war rant - all the same topics. I think the "blowing up" comment was probably PLO based (not Iraq) as the article was written over a year ago.

The economy and the budget are another issue. The economy is blazing right now (tax cuts and low interest rates helped) and has a very good outlook for Q4 03 and CY 04. As the economy grows so will tax revenues (social program costs will decline) although I would agree that Bush has been on a spending spree. 9/11 was very expensive and will continue to be for another 5 years or so (expanded domestic security and military spending, which you call obcene I think).

I don't really want to debate the Liberal Class Warfare mantra of "Tax cuts for the rich" I didn't get one (you'd think I was rich) but someone must have because consumer spending is on a tear.

I wouldn't spend too much of your time worrying about our deficit issues here; we're in hoc about 50% of GDP as are you and most developed nations. Great Economist article this month about explicit deficit (above mentioned government bonds) and implied deficit (Canada had the highest implied deficit by far - all those generous social programs are going to break you eventually) which are the costs of social programs forecasted out 25 years.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I don't think

If more money is to be earmarked for the military, I would rather it be spent on coast guard duties and showing the flag in the far north. I see no reason for spending on jet fighters, tanks, and submarines. Let it go for long range monitoring aircraft, destroyers, helicopters and ice breakers. Come to think of it, do we really need an air force?

Sure, throwing away money and lives on overseas operations might please Uncle Sam but I doubt it would gain us any influence in Washington. I don't believe doing so has gained much of anything for Tony Blair. The americans will ultimately do what is in their own best interests or at least what plays well to the domestic audience so why play that game?

jwm

the idea is for you to spend more on self-defense - you're pretty secure. The idea is that as a rich nation you should share in the costs / obligations of rich nations - one of those is peace keeping.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

An Economist Article from Nov. 13th on this topic:

On the cheap

Nov 13th 2003
From The Economist print edition


The armed forces suffer from government indifference

LAST month two Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan when they drove over a land mine. An inevitable accident of war, you might think, except that their vehicle was 20 years old and lacked armour—a death trap, rather than a lifesaver. Their fate is symptomatic of the woeful state of Canada's armed forces. During the 1990s, the defence budget was cut by about 30% in real terms, while deployments continued apace. Such is the resulting accumulated strain that unless the government invests billions of dollars in new equipment, the armed forces face “extinction” as a capable fighting force within 15 years, according to Brian Macdonald of the Royal Canadian Military Institute, a defence think-tank in Toronto.

Canada has a proud tradition of taking part in peacekeeping operations. More than 3,500 of its soldiers are abroad, in places such as Afghanistan and Bosnia. A report on defence in 1994 promised that up to 10,000 troops would be available for service abroad. But lack of equipment makes that impossible.

Defence spending has sunk to just 1.1% of GDP, its lowest level since before the second world war. That compares with an average among NATO members, excluding the United States, of 1.9% of GDP. Manpower in the services has fallen by roughly 30% over the past decade to fewer than 60,000. The shortfall is now critical: training of recruits has been disrupted because instructors have had to be sent abroad.

Jane's Defence Weekly came out with a scathing report (critcised in an article in the Canadian American Strategic Review) on the state of Canada's military. See also the 1994 White Paper on Defence and the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

Equipment is in an even worse state than manpower. Capital spending takes up 18.5% of the defence budget. That is enough to equip only one of the three services properly, says Mr Macdonald. The navy has some modern ships, but is short of spare parts. Worst hit is the air force, with just 350 aircraft, down from 725 in 1991. It is flying 40-year old transport aircraft and has had to cut maritime patrol flights. Its elderly fleet of Sea King helicopters (known as “flying coffins”) require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. And they are unavailable for operations 40% of the time, according to David Rudd, of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, another Toronto think-tank. Its Hercules transport aircraft, dating from the 1960s, are in even worse repair. The result is that Canada must depend on American planes to take its troops abroad.

This penury reflects the low priority given by voters to the armed forces. Many Canadians would rather that scarce government money was directed to health and education. That is what has happened. Facing a huge budget deficit, Jean Chrétien's government took an axe to defence spending in the mid-1990s. Recently, improved public finances have allowed it modestly to increase the defence budget again, by C$1 billion ($1.3 billion) in 2003-04, for example.

Paul Martin, who as finance minister implemented the cuts, is due to be elected as the new Liberal leader, and thus prime minister, at a party convention this weekend. He has promised to spend more on the armed forces. But economic growth, and thus tax revenues, have slowed. Overstretched cities and provinces are clamouring for more funds, too.

Despite the difficulties, Canadian troops have peformed well as peacekeepers, in the Balkans and Afghanistan. What is needed is an overall review of defence and foreign policy. But it may take more deaths before that happens.