Canadian Forces make the cover of Jane's Defence Weekly

Originally posted by valkeryie
Just heard on Global News that Canada "may" have bought the subs to make the USNavy happy. War games with diesel electric subs [on one of which a naval officer was killed as a result of a fire, while of the coast off the UK] would be useful as all the enemies of the US use dielsel electric subs. So Canada pays nearly $1Billion of its very limited defense budget to play games with the US. I pray for the sailor's family. This should not have happened.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are an awful lot of statements like this on ATS from Canadians who can find nothing good to say about their neighbor to the south. This has to be one of the absolute worst--blaming the US for the death of this sailor and for the waste of precious defense money "playing games" with our military. Of course, most educated people know that when the military plays games, it really is only a game in the sense that it is not real combat. Training exercises is a more accurate and descriptive term.

But, what if the US told Canada that we are taking our ball and going home? Could the nation of Canada sustain itself without substantial assistance from the US? Does the US need Canada for its own defense? To the last question, I would answer that an alliance benefits both of us though the reciprocity is less than equitable, if it can be said that the relationship is reciprocal, at all.

Consider the following:

Canadian Forces make the cover of Jane's Defence Weekly:
Worst-Managed Forces in the Western World?

It was the second anniversary of the 11 September attacks and Jane's Defence Weekly featured, as its cover story, the sad state of the Canadian military. Canada, it implied, has the most under-funded, worst-managed armed forces in the Western world.

For readers who have never seen this periodical, Jane's Defence Weekly is a small part of a very large and lucrative publishing empire based in the United Kingdom. Carefully-researched and well-documented techno-political tidbits are eagerly consumed by procurement officers and policy wonks alike.

Jane's Defence Weekly tracks who is buying what from whom, with all the news and gossip from the latest arms shows. The latter is served up mainly for the delectation of the dark lords who control the morally flexible, globe-spanning defence industry.

So, let's keep in mind the kinds of people who are fingering the pages of this posh little magazine. As one measure of its street value, consider that a year's subscription to JDW costs US$1,100. Few who are not profiting from the arms trade can afford such luxuries. (Fortunately, if one is clever, the contents of the cover story are available online without a subscription.)
www.sfu.ca...

www.sfu.ca...

Canadian Navy Faces Procurement Shortfalls

Recent documentation and press coverage continues to reveal that the Canadian Navy (CN) is desperately short of funds, raising the possibility that it will be unable to fulfill its global responsibilities. Current planning calls for funds to be diverted away from important procurement and modernization plans for all the services to fund current operations, which are continuing to increase. The CN also is faced with increased ship deployments at a time when overall defense funding is in decline

In late 2002, the Prime Minister, Chief of Defense Staff, leading Parliamentarians, and Canadian defense experts, made it clear to the Canadian public that action would be needed in the near future, resulting in a larger increase for the 2003 defense budget and beyond. In 2003, the Canadian Armed Forces will enjoy its largest single defense budget increase in a decade.

Funding for 2003 provides the Department of National Defense (DND) with $1.6 billion in new funding in each of the next two fiscal years, and with a sustained annual level of $800 million thereafter. In addition, the Canadian government has renewed its commitment to reassess the future needs of defense following a review of Canada's foreign and defense policy.

Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum Mulls Future Role of Forces

CANADA PREPARES FOR MAJOR DEFENSE REVIEW WITH TRANSFORMATION IN MIND

Canada is preparing for the first comprehensive review of its military in almost a decade, with plans to examine how to transform its forces in ways that make them more interoperable with allies, Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum told Inside the Pentagon in a recent interview.

Canada's Department of National Defence last undertook such a review in 1994. But much has changed since then, McCallum said, citing a security environment drastically altered by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. For Canada, the attacks resulted in increased deployments and calls for operational readiness against the backdrop of an aging military infrastructure.

"The government has committed to having another defense review probably within the next year," McCallum said. The work could take a year to complete.

www.forces.gc.ca...

Defence

Canada�s current defence policy objectives were established in the Defence White Paper published in 1994. In the late 1990s, however, it became apparent that sustaining this defence policy would require additional resources.

The Government increased defence resources in Budget 2000, Budget 2001 and Budget 2003. In particular, the $800-million annual funding increase introduced in 2003, as well as efficiency measures introduced by the department, have enabled the Department of National Defence to move towards operational sustainability in the short term.

As Canada conducts its International Policy Review and develops a new national security policy, long-term financial resource requirements will be considered as part of the review of defence strategy and associated Canadian Forces� capacity. Rebuilding Canada�s military on old models will not suffice. Canada�s defence objectives and capabilities must match our foreign policy goals, as well as our defence and security obligations and objectives. It will also be important to recognize the need for much closer cooperation among the many agencies and departments of government that are engaged in fighting global terrorism.
www.fin.gc.ca...

www.ploughshares.ca...

Canada�s Place in the World

Canada�s current global conundrum is tied to its identity crisis. Formerly
an important player on the world stage, its influence is now greatly diminished.
Critics are quick to point out that Canada spends little on its
military, less than $265 per capita, making it last among major North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) members.3 On a Gross National Product (GNP)
basis, Canada spends just 1.1 percent on defense, putting it on par with Liechtenstein.
4 One senior Canadian officer described his country�s challenge to
overcome its geostrategic handicap as, �We are a regional power without a region.�
5 Ottawa still possesses a measure of global clout through its dynamic
economy. Choices it makes early in the 21st century will have a major impact
on its ability to halt this decline, especially in defense, and to rebuild its
strength and stature within the international system. It is fair to say that Canada
is reassessing its future defense direction, scaling back on traditional
peacekeeping commitments, increasing its role in peace enforcement operations,
and taking a new look at its security relationship with the United States.
Canadians see themselves as global peacekeepers, and this is reinforced
in the Canadian press, vividly displayed on their currency, and echoed
in conversations on the street. But the reality is different from the perception.
76 Parameters

Using United Nations peacekeeping operations statistics, the Canadian contribution
to UN missions is now rather small. Of 92 countries furnishing forces,
Canada ranks 34th, placing it in the middle third. With just 239 service members
deployed, Canada pales in comparison to, say, Pakistan with 5,252 on UN missions.
Even within the Americas, Canada is not the largest contributor. Uruguay,
Argentina, and the United States provide more peacekeeping personnel.6
Over the last 15 years, Ottawa has developed a greater hemispheric
orientation, a huge departure from its traditional Euro-centric focus. This
change began after World War II, as Canada moved from the British sphere
to a North American commitment.7 A key challenge for Canada is deciding
between two roles�continuing to support a multitude of UN missions or asserting
greater interest in a regional approach to peacekeeping and other operations
through hemispheric cooperation.8 Part of the soul-searching is due to
demonstrated difficulties in mustering adequate forces with proper equipment,
not to mention deployment and sustainment. Experts such as Joseph Jockel argue
that the country faces hard choices because Canada�s peacekeeping orientation
has led to a significant degradation of its combat capability, particularly
its ability to sustain military operations at brigade level.9 This UN peacekeeping
orientation began long ago with Canada�s involvement in the Suez Crisis.
In his book, Canada�s Army: Waging the War and Keeping the Peace, author
J. L. Granatstein explains the change in military focus:
carlisle-www.army.mil...

What say ye?











[edit on 04/10/9 by GradyPhilpott]

What's your point

Sorry couldn't help it,

Certainly, I could not have expected a more intelligent or germane response. Here are some more links, just in case there is actually a Canadian who cares about national defense.

www.google.com...

[edit on 04/10/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by valkeryie
Just heard on Global News that Canada "may" have bought the subs to make the USNavy happy.

There are an awful lot of statements like this on ATS from Canadians who can find nothing good to say about their neighbor to the south. This has to be one of the absolute worst--blaming the US for the death of this sailor and for the waste of precious defense money "playing games" with our military. ..

There may be an awful lot of those, just like there is an awful lot of nonsense spouted by Americans. Sentiments such as these should be taken with a grain of salt and considered as coming from an unworldy mind. The fact is, the subs were purchased under the auspices of a prime minister who cared not one wit for U.S hegemony, and for that matter during the time of a U.S president more in tune with the world.

But, what if the US told Canada that we are taking our ball and going home? Could the nation of Canada sustain itself without substantial assistance from the US? Does the US need Canada for its own defense?

The question is not that, but this: Are Canadains more concerned with being a military might, an aggressive nation or a peacekeeping nation? I will answer that for you. The goals north and south of the 49th are not the same. Canadians do not see a need to police the world, or to be the biggest military power, for with the latter we forfeit being renowned as a peacekeeper and a peaceful nation. It is as we like it, in spite of the fact that, that may change much to our chagrin. What the current US government wants of Canada is to dictate to us what it thinks we should be. We have no need of a defence system such that your current White House occupant is building, since no cummunist country threatens to run our parliament out of Ottawa.

To the last question, I would answer that an alliance benefits both of us though the reciprocity is less than equitable, if it can be said that the relationship is reciprocal, at all.

Yes it does, but against whom, your enemies or ours or both of ours if we were to arm ourselves like you?

If only we could have another man like Pierre Elliot Trudeau at the helm.


[edit on 10/9/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

To the last question, I would answer that an alliance benefits both of us though the reciprocity is less than equitable, if it can be said that the relationship is reciprocal, at all.

Yes it does, but against whom, your enemies or ours or both of ours if we were to arm ourselves like you?

If this is the word from the "worldly" Canadians, I wouldn't call Canada an ally at all.

Grady, you really stepped in it here. I read that the Canadian gov't wanted this death-trap thing as an improvement on what we have existing, so we could "play" with the States. Do we have the poorest millitary in the world, NO. The most under-funded, YES. It is a disgrace to the people of Canada. But to spin it like WE were blaming the States for this is unconscionalbe.

Originally posted by intrepid
YES. It is a disgrace to the people of Canada. But to spin it like WE were blaming the States for this is unconscionalbe.

I implore you to re-read my post. I said that the most egregious statement from a US bashing Canadian that I have read so far was the one I quoted, in which that individual more than implies that the US coercing Canada to buy those subs lead to the needless death of that naval officer. That statement from that individual taken in concert with all the other posts I have read here and based on what I have seen in the media lead me to believe that Canada is no ally.

And I have stepped in nothing.

[edit on 04/10/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Well Grady, I reread it 3 times and I still don't see where this person was blaming the States for anything. Your paranoia is getting the better of you. I still consider the States an ally, I have yet to determine what I would consider an entity that would come between allies. Grab a shovel Grady, you're waist deep. And to think that you gave your condolences to the family of the sailor that died in another thread, then do this.

Originally posted by intrepid
Do we have the poorest millitary in the world, NO. The most under-funded, YES. It is a disgrace to the people of Canada. But to spin it like WE were blaming the States for this is unconscionalbe.

So True

I rest my case

Sorry couldn't help it,

TUT

You're on a roll tonight, tut. I can see that no one cares to address the heart of the matter. Could our dysthymic friends to the north survive as a nation if they didn't have the most powerful and influential nation in the world next door, standing ever loyal with the same commitment to freedom we have projected around the world for over 228 years? How many Americans have died for the freedom of those they have never met? And all anyone can do is just whine and heckle the man who has the weight of the world on his shoulders. I can't even think of an appropriate term or analogy.

I have an analogy. I think of the savior of mankind walking the earth and finding hostility at every corner and ultimately crucified. I know in my heart that if God Himself were incarnate as the President in these times, the same individuals would be screaming, "Crucify him, crucify him!"

[edit on 04/10/10 by GradyPhilpott]

You are probably correct my friend, most would scream 'crucify him' However Christ is in no way shape or form here. Bush in my opinion is no religious man, never has been and never will be. On the other hand I believe the possibility that he is mean and evil is more likely. But what do I know.
As far as Canada is concerned, I lived in Montreal long enough in the 60's to have developed a passion for the Nation and it's people, especially the Crazy French on Rue Berri in OLD MONTREAL. Luk Boy!
There GNP is far below ours, they take much better care of their urban area's than we do, they have a much kinder and gentler medical system than we do, they even have better Wild Well Control Companies than we do. And I have never met a Canadian that spoke ill of America.
And I can tell you this if Mexico were 1/50 as concerned as Canada is about securing our border we would not be under the apparent threat we are. Actually I may think the Canadian Government cares more about America than our own administration does. That goes for Germany and France also.
We are our worst enemy if we blindly back this administration and allow them to pervert our Patriotic Pride for the sake of enriching the elite as they lay waste to our infrastructure.

Your friend,

TUT


p.s. edit-

Canada's Fight Against Terror
Combating Terrorism at Home and Abroad

Canada's 9/11 Response
From the Government to the Military, Canada's Swift Response to the War on Terror

Canadian Security
Ensuring the Safety of Every Canadian on the Ground and in the Air

History
A Look at the Past, Present and Future of Canada's Role in the War on Terror

www.canadianally.com...

[edit on 10-10-2004 by tututkamen]

I see having a small, but highly trained defence force for australia extremely important in our region and having the US as our principal ally is also important. The majority Australians prize this relationship highly, though we don't always show it (who's going to save our a$$ but the US right?). However I do see this important for canada as well, but not as important. The Canadians need to contribute to their alliance to the US or the US people will view them as slackers who are mooching off the US for their protection. Australia is always needing to work hard at our alliance because the terms of our treaty state that we will help the US in any conflict as an ally, but the US will consider helping us in a conflict against a nation. We have to show our worth and loyalty so that we will get protection in return.

But also Canada has an advantage by being next to the US as it takes advantage by being in its sphere of influence.

thanks,
drfunk

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

If this is the word from the "worldly" Canadians, I wouldn't call Canada an ally at all.

Launching into insult and contempt only shows the weakness of your hand. To do so immediately tells me that you fold. What you are subliminally saying to me is that my answer is not the want you are looking for because it is not the stance you want to see Canada take. In other words, an answer plucked from the vacuum of an empty mind and the fear of the bogeymen in the closet is all you will accept.


It stands. Canada has no need to arm itself to suit a bombastic and warring mentality of American leaders.

In my mind, the problem is that the CFs can't decide what they want to be. Most of their work involves peacekeeping and relief, not dun s'ploding thangs. However, with global turmoil growing and internal pressure to beef up the forces on a shoestring budget, the Canadian Forces are tearing at the seams. We have no capital ships to support our troops, yet we have rusted-tin-bucket subs. We have more mine-clearing apparati than tanks.

It seems clear on a few points:

1. Canada has no need for a massive defence force. We are a nation of peacekeepers, not warmongers.

2. Canada should decide on what kind of forces it wants before running off and buying things.

3. The Canadian forces are in desperate need of money.

4. Canada and America are allies, but that doesn't mean we should do everything they say. Remember the Arrow, and all those NORAD stations in our country?

5. Until our country grows, our contributions to mutual defence will be limited,- that is, unless you want rock-throwing civillians on every border to help against the red threat!


Another thing to remember is that Canada isn't under constant, emminent threat from outside forces. Our needs don't neccesarily mirror those of the US. I still wish the CFs were properly equiped, though. They need more money, fast.

DE

It has been sad to watch the decline of Canada as an influential entity in the global community. Somewhere along the way (during the Viet Nam conflict I think) the Canadian Government focused on structuring a socialist paradise and eschewed the implements of a world power. The warm fuzzy feeling generated by accepting American Draft Dodgers, and the influx of immigrants from the Middle East, Caribbean, and Asia contributed to a passivist mindset. The U.S. is not without blame on this matter, for it is we who were ever anxious to provide whatever defense spending, development, and deployment when it came to the security of North America. The only items we required of the Canadians we required was the land for installations, and a token detachment of Canadian forces to validate the base. The Canadian Government took these easing of responsibility to heart and relegated funding for defense spending to social programs (after all, that's what counts comes election time). The degradation has continued and the once proud Canadian Military is a mere shadow of its former self, under funded, underappreciated (by the citizens of Canada at large), and ineffectual. It is time to call for a change, a reinvigoration of Canada's Military, and of their standing as a World power.

I harken back to the childhood memories of Canadian imagery, the rough and tough outdoorsman of the Great White North, Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, The ever vigilant Dudley Doright, the RCMP, the hockey player that would play through any injury... All gone save the hockey player, the last bastion of the Canadian Alpha Male.

What? The NHL has canceled the season? Dooh! Time to get cracking my friends to the North.



I loved Dudley Doright as a kid.

High Line Monkeys, not just for American-Canadian relations anymore...


[edit on 10/10/2004 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

But, what if the US told Canada that we are taking our ball and going home? Could the nation of Canada sustain itself without substantial assistance from the US? Does the US need Canada for its own defense? To the last question, I would answer that an alliance benefits both of us though the reciprocity is less than equitable, if it can be said that the relationship is reciprocal, at all.

[edit on 04/10/9 by GradyPhilpott]

america needs canada for it's fresh water. if america takes its' ball and goes home, it will die of thirst. beautiful, crisp and clean canada. land of the peaceful. a canadian only needs a backpack with a maple leaf on it for defence.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

If this is the word from the "worldly" Canadians, I wouldn't call Canada an ally at all.

Launching into insult and contempt only shows the weakness of your hand. To do so immediately tells me that you fold.

[...]

It stands. Canada has no need to arm itself to suit a bombastic and warring mentality of American leaders.

There is no insult there. I only a statement of fact and I hold no hand. I was only seeking answers. If Canada feels it has no obligation to arm itself to provide for its own defense, then so be it, but I am of the opinion that if Canadians despise the US, then we should allow you to go it on your own. We really don't need you to conduct war games.

[edit on 04/10/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You're on a roll tonight, tut. I can see that no one cares to address the heart of the matter. Could our dysthymic friends to the north survive as a nation if they didn't have the most powerful and influential nation in the world next door, standing ever loyal with the same commitment to freedom we have projected around the world for over 228 years? How many Americans have died for the freedom of those they have never met? And all anyone can do is just whine and heckle the man who has the weight of the world on his shoulders. I can't even think of an appropriate term or analogy.
[edit on 04/10/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Grady, of course we Canadians know that being part of the American defence grid is a bonus. And of course we know that as a nation of 31 million inhabitants living on the second largest landmass in the world, we can never hope to defend it all with our military. The economics of it aren't possible.

But we do remain a sovereign nation, and as such we are not required by treaty or otherwise to align ourselves with every American policy. And I think it would be unfair to say to the Canadian posters on this board that as they live under the American defense shield, they have no right to criticize American policy. If that's what is being conveyed, we might as well leave the board.

And by the way, Canadians were at the forefront in a lot of battles in World War I and World War II.

Mirthful Me - Canada didn't adopt a passivist mindset because of its social-democratic programs and influx of immigrants. It was a deliberate decision that was set forth by the Trudeau government, in part to better deal with Qu�bec's increasing separatist movement, and also to deal with the insatisfaction of the Maritimes (they were in economic decay at that point and wondered what the hell the federal government was doing for them). Trudeau tried to envision a country where the Qu�b�cois (30 percent of the population back then) would feel welcome - with an official policy of bilingualism, an openness to the world, and a compassionate society that prides itself on its social net and dedication to give everyone and every province an equal chance.

Ask any Canadian what he thinks of having the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a comprehensive social net. A good number will say they wouldn't abandon that even if it gave them the best military force in the world.

Hehehe... I just thought of something... it must make a good number of American conservatives (including Rush Limbaugh) cringe that the Liberal Party is in power in Canada, and has been for 11 years...