New Canadian defense Strategy

[Ironcomatose]

Originally Posted by Saobh

What interests ? Can't say you have any unruly neighbors (because yes they did forgive you for burning the Whit House. Well more like forgotten )
And I have yet to read in the news about Canadian interests in the world needing anything more then the local police

Does no one here know that Canada is in Afghanistan?? I know you could say well thats an American problem that the Canadians are just helping with therefore, not Canadian interests. But i would say that given that, American and Canadian interest are one in the same(they fought in all major world wars too).

The only reason why people dont really see Canada as having any interest to protect is because when they do protect "them", the Americans are there too so no one notices Canada(which brings me back to my point of American and Canadian interests being the same). The reason being that the American military presence is much more robust.

But now with this new military spending push, the world will take more notice in Canadian military action(which was always present if you look).

[[R-PUB]Viper5]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]CAS_117

Said the country with the largest airforce in the world.

Yes, but the largest air force complements an Army and Marine Corps with hundreds of transport and attack helos. F35 is rather expensive. The US has a massive defense budget. Canada does not. My point was that the F35's role could be performed, while albeit perhaps not as well, by less expensive aircraft that are still plenty capable, such as the F18. Personally, I think its more important to get off the need to borrow lifts from US and GB helos than to buy F35s.

[[R-MOD]Saobh]

Originally Posted by ironcomatose

Does no one here know that Canada is in Afghanistan?? I know you could say well thats an American problem that the Canadians are just helping with therefore, not Canadian interests. But i would say that given that, American and Canadian interest are one in the same(they fought in all major world wars too).

The only reason why people dont really see Canada as having any interest to protect is because when they do protect "them", the Americans are there too so no one notices Canada(which brings me back to my point of American and Canadian interests being the same). The reason being that the American military presence is much more robust.

But now with this new military spending push, the world will take more notice in Canadian military action(which was always present if you look).

When countries talk about their interests it usually have to do with energy or resources access etc
So ...

They've finally admitted it !! Afghan poppy is the Canadian "Interest" in the world. And then we wonder why they call their currency the loony


But more seriously, yes I do know Canada is present over there (so I learned about it on the PR forums rather then on the news ) But do you have any examples of operations where the Canadian interests where involved ? Because I would be curious to read a bit more about them.

Cheers

[Canadian4206]

Originally Posted by Saobh

What interests ? Can't say you have any unruly neighbors (because yes they did forgive you for burning the Whit House. Well more like forgotten )
And I have yet to read in the news about Canadian interests in the world needing anything more then the local police

Well for one there is our Artic Soviernty, we have land that is ours in the Artic that countries like Russia want, very badly as its filled with massive natural resources. To keep this soviernty, we have to be-able to defend it and show a military presence there. Otherwise, Canada will be played out as a country that can't defend it, and we lose it along with all the natural resources that go along with it. Canada has a lot of interests.

Canada does a lot of UN Peace Keeping missions, which would go a long a lot smoother if Canada has top notch transport choppers, and a more modernized military force which includes a increase troop size. Before Afghanistan, you had Canadian Troops practicly all across the world spread out into places that needed them. All war torn countries like Africa, or countries that needed supplies, medical care, food and water. Etc.

All which can be much more efficient work with a modern army, more transport choppers and better ones, and a increase in military size.

Also Canada is in Afghanistan, despite our lack of commitment in wars. We do go into them when it is our obligation to do so, or if its something we must do like the World Wars. When we do get involved, it's better to have a more better equiped military, and moderenized military to get the job done rather then just sending them in what the cheapest peaces of crap the military can find, that will most likely break down very fast. You know how much of the CF's Aircraft, and vehicles are so outdated and ready to breakdown any second?

It's a shame that the Government doesn't really care about the troops enough to update them with things that will not break now, and will not get them killed. It's also a shame that so many people don't like the budget increase, and think its a waste. The Canadian Forces need the budget, you ask anybody whos serving, expecially in the Airforce and they would tell you.

[Canadian4206]

Originally Posted by Saobh

When countries talk about their interests it usually have to do with energy or resources access etc
So ...

They've finally admitted it !! Afghan poppy is the Canadian "Interest" in the world. And then we wonder why they call their currency the loony


But more seriously, yes I do know Canada is present over there (so I learned about it on the PR forums rather then on the news ) But do you have any examples of operations where the Canadian interests where involved ? Because I would be curious to read a bit more about them.

Cheers

Our Interests in the Afghanistan war is to build up the ANA and AP, and to help the citizens of Afghanistan and fight the Insurgents. Which we have done a great job in doing, there was a article that I read about the Canadian Forces a long time ago that in 2004 or earlier the Canadian Forces killed over 100 Insurgents in one operation. This was before they adopted there fire, and run tactics. They stood there ground, faught the Canadian Forces and made a mistake in doing so.

Despite all the bullshit you read on the news, about the war being some big joke and not doing a thing. Which would most likely be reported from a reliable news source. Right after there Britney Spears announcment, and whos the next prego celeb. There is a lot that the Canadian Forces, and NATO are doing in Afghanistan. A lot of good things that nobody ever reports about, they only report all the negativity of the war. We are building schools, hospitals, we are giving villages free medical treatment, we are repairing and putting in water filters, building Irrigation things so they can farm and produce more food for the Citizens of Afghanistan.

So much that we are doing over there, that nobody gives the soldiers credit for. Everybody is always focused on the negative of the war. A soldier was killed, a insurgent was killed, friendly fire incident, some terrorist blew up a shop and killed civilians because a APC was parked outside. That's war.

The Canadian Interest is to develope the country, there police and army so they can run it and stabalize it. Keep the Insurgents from running it, and terrorizing the population, and keep the terrorists from continously using the countries as a base of operations.

To do this job better then what we are doing now, you first increase the military budget and allow the soldiers who are doing the fighting to recieve better equipment and vehicles to do there jobs, and have a better chance of surviving.

No more, articles reporting of a APC flipping over and injuring and sometimes killing Canadian Forces because the APC tries to go up a little hill and was too much of a piece of crap to get up it.

[Ghostrider]

Originally Posted by Hotrod525

Like our prime minister says "To be taken seriously, we must have the capacity to act", just look at United States, they can lunch Airstrike wherever, whenever for any reason, why we let our army to deteriorate further?

In my opinion, having the capacity to act is not enough. The will to act is more important. The will to finish something, once started.

Without the will, there's no definitive course of action. You'll quit as soon as something "goes wrong" or not "as expected".

The USA seems to be an example of this atm. When the WTC terror attack was carried out, people had the will to fight back; those who did, mostly (re)enlisted.. those who didnt stayed back and now there's a political campaign where quitting from a task they have the responsibility to finish seems to be the end goal..

The reason I say that they have the "responsibility to finish" is because, for example, it would be irresponsible from their part to leave Iraq, after the invasion, before it being at least as stable (or close). If they do, then its like the prime minister said, because Iraq won't even have the capacity to propertly defend itself from neighbors, like Iran. If they have the will, they'll find a way...which applies to any of the sides.


~xghost();

[Canadian4206]

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

In my opinion, having the capacity to act is not enough. The will to act is more important. The will to finish something, once started.

Without the will, there's no definitive course of action. You'll quit as soon as something "goes wrong" or not "as expected".

The USA seems to be an example of this atm. When the WTC terror attack was carried out, people had the will to fight back; those who did, mostly (re)enlisted.. those who didnt stayed back and now there's a political campaign where quitting from a task they have the responsibility to finish seems to be the end goal..

The reason I say that they have the "responsibility to finish" is because, for example, it would be irresponsible from their part to leave Iraq, after the invasion, before it being at least as stable (or close). If they do, then its like the prime minister said, because Iraq won't even have the capacity to propertly defend itself from neighbors, like Iran. If they have the will, they'll find a way...which applies to any of the sides.


~xghost();

Good point, Canada has finished everything we got ourselves involved in. There was a incident where we threatened to leave if NATO diddn't send in a additional 1, 000 troops and transport choppers to Kandahar. However, the government stated that was more of a test for NATO to see if they can get there jobs then, then a request of help. NATO failed that, it took forever for anybody to answer that call. A lot of countries was deeply thinking about it, some almost answered the call. Like France, but I think the U.S. eventually had to send the additional troops and choppers to avoide the pull out of Canada.

[Canadian4206]

Call it the anti-White Paper. The "Canada First" vision for our nation's Armed Forces articulated -- sort of -- by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Halifax on Monday is the polar opposite of the county's last major military blueprint, the 1994 White Paper, whose call for deep cuts in our military was so lustily welcomed by the then-Liberal government. While Mr. Harper's plan may be missing an overall strategic outline for defence policy in the next two decades, its tone is a welcome change from the antimilitary attitude the Liberals demonstrated during their 12 years in office.

While the Chretien-era vision of our military recognized that "Canada faces an unpredictable and fragmented world," his government's White Paper also claimed -- falsely, as it turned out -- that the globe was entering a period of "peace, democracy and relative prosperity."

Who needed an army, navy or air force any more? The document called on the federal government to cut defence spending by 10%, ground a quarter of our air force, slash national headquarters' capability by half and hold the navy in limbo. Only the army, which was to get 3,500 new peacekeepers, but no new equipment, was to be shored up.

The Liberals went one better. Having already frivolously cancelled the Forces' helicopter replacement program (at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $5-billion), they slashed defence spending by a quarter, let the air force and navy rust and cut the army to its lowest levels since the end of the Second World War. The number of Canadians in uniform fell to under 58,000, on a per-capita basis among the smallest armies in NATO.

The result: Our Forces are still paying the price for Liberal hostility toward our military needs and traditions. Canadian troops deployed to the Balkans, Afghanistan and Haiti often have had to deal with constrained manpower and ageing equipment. Airlift, in particular, has been a major problem. In several embarrassing episodes, we had to rely on borrowed or leased planes to ferry our army overseas.

While Monday's announcement by Mr. Harper is largely stitched together from the military spending increases announced by his government since it came to office nearly two-and-a-half years ago, it serves to highlight the different approach on national defence that the Prime Minister has brought to Ottawa. His vision fails to articulate where and how all the new gadgets and gewgaws his government is buying will be used. But since the world is no less "unpredictable and fragmented" than it was in 1994, perhaps a little flexible vagueness isn't such a bad thing.

Over the next 20 years, the Tories want to commit Ottawa to spending $30-billion more on the military. Mr. Harper foresees an expansion of our Forces to 100,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen. Troop strength will include 70,000 regular forces, up from 65,000 today, while the reserves will expand from 24,000 to 30,000. Ageing warships will be replaced, and new transport aircraft and armoured vehicles will be purchased. New medium-lift helicopters will be bought immediately to ferry our troops over and around roadside bombs and snipers in Afghanistan.

Yet perhaps the most significant change is in semantics. Where the Liberals spoke of multilateralism, the "responsibility to protect" victims of humanitarian crises and "soft power," Mr. Harper has rightly defended this military buildup as the only realistic way to keep our commitments to both peacekeeping and international security.

"Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player," the Prime Minister declared on Monday. "You are the one chattering on the sidelines that everyone smiles at but nobody listens to." No doubt, the people of Kandahar province, who are being protected from the Taliban by Canadian troops, would agree.

For far too long, Canada has been one of the hectoring bystanders in world affairs. Under Mr. Harper and the Tories, we are once again showing we have the mettle and determination to be a player.

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by Canadian4206

Call it the anti-White Paper. The "Canada First" vision for our nation's Armed Forces articulated -- sort of -- by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Halifax on Monday is the polar opposite of the county's last major military blueprint, the 1994 White Paper, whose call for deep cuts in our military was so lustily welcomed by the then-Liberal government. While Mr. Harper's plan may be missing an overall strategic outline for defence policy in the next two decades, its tone is a welcome change from the antimilitary attitude the Liberals demonstrated during their 12 years in office.

While the Chretien-era vision of our military recognized that "Canada faces an unpredictable and fragmented world," his government's White Paper also claimed -- falsely, as it turned out -- that the globe was entering a period of "peace, democracy and relative prosperity."

Who needed an army, navy or air force any more? The document called on the federal government to cut defence spending by 10%, ground a quarter of our air force, slash national headquarters' capability by half and hold the navy in limbo. Only the army, which was to get 3,500 new peacekeepers, but no new equipment, was to be shored up.

The Liberals went one better. Having already frivolously cancelled the Forces' helicopter replacement program (at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $5-billion), they slashed defence spending by a quarter, let the air force and navy rust and cut the army to its lowest levels since the end of the Second World War. The number of Canadians in uniform fell to under 58,000, on a per-capita basis among the smallest armies in NATO.

The result: Our Forces are still paying the price for Liberal hostility toward our military needs and traditions. Canadian troops deployed to the Balkans, Afghanistan and Haiti often have had to deal with constrained manpower and ageing equipment. Airlift, in particular, has been a major problem. In several embarrassing episodes, we had to rely on borrowed or leased planes to ferry our army overseas.

While Monday's announcement by Mr. Harper is largely stitched together from the military spending increases announced by his government since it came to office nearly two-and-a-half years ago, it serves to highlight the different approach on national defence that the Prime Minister has brought to Ottawa. His vision fails to articulate where and how all the new gadgets and gewgaws his government is buying will be used. But since the world is no less "unpredictable and fragmented" than it was in 1994, perhaps a little flexible vagueness isn't such a bad thing.

Over the next 20 years, the Tories want to commit Ottawa to spending $30-billion more on the military. Mr. Harper foresees an expansion of our Forces to 100,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen. Troop strength will include 70,000 regular forces, up from 65,000 today, while the reserves will expand from 24,000 to 30,000. Ageing warships will be replaced, and new transport aircraft and armoured vehicles will be purchased. New medium-lift helicopters will be bought immediately to ferry our troops over and around roadside bombs and snipers in Afghanistan.

Yet perhaps the most significant change is in semantics. Where the Liberals spoke of multilateralism, the "responsibility to protect" victims of humanitarian crises and "soft power," Mr. Harper has rightly defended this military buildup as the only realistic way to keep our commitments to both peacekeeping and international security.

"Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player," the Prime Minister declared on Monday. "You are the one chattering on the sidelines that everyone smiles at but nobody listens to." No doubt, the people of Kandahar province, who are being protected from the Taliban by Canadian troops, would agree.

For far too long, Canada has been one of the hectoring bystanders in world affairs. Under Mr. Harper and the Tories, we are once again showing we have the mettle and determination to be a player.

God Bless you

[Canadian4206]

Originally Posted by Rob@Home284

I laughing to myself about the plans to increase the size of the military to 100,000. Good luck with that. Right now our military is losing more people than they can recruit, and they refuse to believe that we have a retention problem. People keep bringing up the idea of signing bonuses, (like offered in many other militaries around the world) but they won't even consider it. Unless its for officers of course; Pilots and Doctors. I think this announcement was just an excuse for the PM to waste some of the taxpayers money to fly to Halifax and watch a Hockey game.

The Canadian Forces don't consist of just Army, it's everything. Airforce, Navy, Army, Special Forces groups, etc. Considering that the 100, 000 has to be spread out between all of them. 100, 000 is nothing. U.S. has over a million in just Army which includes the USMC.

Also a fairly large portion of the Canadian Forces will be sent to the artic borders to patrol it and defend it.

We are still active in UN Peacekeeping, so troops would be balanced out in the UN as well. For a small force, we are really stretching our numbers out and really could use the troop boost. I think I read a couple articles that ever since harper announced about our artic soviernty, and plans to build military bases there and station troops there and navy. I read that recruitment numbers have been rising. I am sure it will be hard to gain the numbers, due to the lack of support of the war and the casualties we are recieving because of it but not entirely impossible. Some bonus's like were mentioned before would be a nice help. Somebody should mention that to the Canadian Government, or Military.

My idea would be that it would be the same thing as employing a doctor, or dentist. Except not as high of a payment bonus. Depending on what they enlist for, Army being lowest bonus, navy being slightly higher and Airforce being higher then both. No where near the payment of a doctor or dentist though and the bonus is only recieved if they pass basic training.