Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

July 30th, 2005

Tags

Comments

8 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Parrish and the Canadian Military

There has been lots of reaction to Carolyn PARRISH’s comments in regards to statements made by CDS Gen. Rick HILLIER in military circles and letters to the editors, particularly Her nonsensical view that Canada has a 100 year long reputation of peacekeeping, and:

“We’re sending in armed troops to kill people (in Afghanistan). This is a drastic change in direction. I don’t think anybody has consulted with the Canadian public. The first time Canadian soldiers come back in body bags, you just wait for the outcry.”

Ummm… we already have been on the receiving end of a number of bodybags from Afghanistan… and does she not know what a military is for? Granted the CF have been wound down over the past couple of decades, but our primary mission is not peacekeeping. The CBC gives us a comparison between present-day Forces levels and WWI/II:

Military expenditure

  • Canada’s defence budget for 2004: $13 billion.
  • Promised budget boost: $12.8 billion over the next five years.

Armed Forces

  • Today: 62,000 military personnel including 9,500 sailors, 19,500 soldiers, 14,500 air force personnel and 20,000 administrative and support personnel. There are also about 22,000 reservists.
  • Second World War: 60,000 men and women enlisted in Canada’s armed forces in one month (September 1939) after the declaration of war.
  • First World War: More than 600,000 Canadians enlisted to fight in the First World War from 1914-1918.

Navy

  • Today: There are 30 surface ships, four submarines and 9,500 sailors in Canada’s navy.
  • Second World War: At the end of the war, Canada had the third-largest fleet in the world, after the U.S. and the U.K. 23 Canadian ships were sunk by German U-Boats in the Battle of St. Lawrence alone.
  • First World War: During the course of the First World War, Canada’s naval service grew to a force of 9,000 men and 100 ships.

Canadians on the front lines

  • Today: More than 1,200 members of the Armed Forces are deployed overseas.
  • Second World War: More than one million served and approximately 45,000 died.
  • First World War: Almost 620,000 Canadians served in First World War and 66,000 died.
  • Canada in NATO: Of NATO’s 19 member countries, Canada is…First in land area (9,093,507 sq. km), and sixth in total military spending ($13 billion)

This letter to Ms. Parrish from Edward Campbell argues a more realistic view of the Canadian military with some great historical references:

We will soon be celebrating the 200th anniversary of battles like Lundy’s Lane and the capture of Detroit. The first Canadian VC (our top medal, awarded only to the bravest of the brave in battle) was won by Lieutenant Robert Dunn, of Toronto, at Balaclava, at the Charge of the Light Brigade, over 160 years ago – one of the very first VCs ever won. Canadians served at the relief of Khartoum in 1884, and it was Canadians who defeated Cronje’s Boers, at Paardeberg, in 1900. I’m sure you know about our record in 1914-18. Perhaps you think our part in the intervention in Russia in 1918/19 was our initial foray into peacekeeping ““ I think most historians would disagree. Of course you know that Canadians ““ some of your constituents amongst them, fought around the world in 1939-45, in Korea in the early “Ëœ50s and, in too little known battles, in the Balkans in the “Ëœ90s.

Parrish is angry about this “new role” for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, a role that includes killing, which is not the traditional job of peacekeeping. I think Roko said it best:

Phew. At least peacekeeping isn’t the traditional job of soldiers.

Comments to this entry

IJ
July 30, 2005
7:17 pm
For comparison, NATO brings together the military expenditure of its 26 members. The international alliance regularly complains that members don't spend enough now.

The public expenditures are listed "here":http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p050609.pdf. The highest in 2004 (estimate) is the United States at $482bn; second is France at $52bn; third is the UK at $49bn. Last is Iceland at nil - it has no armed forces. As a percentage of GDP, the rankings become the US first at 3.9%; Turkey second at 3.5%; Greece third at 2.9%. Leaving aside Iceland, last is Luxembourg at 0.8%. The table shows Canada spending $12bn, representing 1.2% of GDP.

The table also shows huge differences between the proportion of money spent on hardware and manpower - which is yet another matter for debate.
Younghusband
July 31, 2005
6:43 am
Very interesting document IJ. Some of the information is hard to interpret (eg. constant prices vs. current prices etc.), I wish I had taken a statistics analysis course in uni for this kind of thing. I found this interesting little nugget though (pp.6):


    *Defence expenditures annual variation (%) (based on constant prices)*
    Canada / �š�°�½�°�´�°

    1980-84: 6.2

    1985-89: 2.0

    1990-94: -3.2

    1995-99: -4.4

    2000: -4.3

    2001: 5.9

    2002: 0.4

    2003: 2.5

    2004: 3.0


No wonder our helos are falling out of the sky and we have no armour!
IJ
July 31, 2005
10:23 am
The future of NATO? Canada has been more active than most in looking for a solution.

To continue a theme in "Canada Update":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/07/08/canada-update/:
"The big differences in defence expenditure by NATO members represent a huge divide in this multilateral organisation. The members appear to question the direction of the organisation. And Canada is a prime mover here."

Canada responded to the UN Secretary-General's desperate call to the international community in 2000 for a consensus on when to intervene militarily. The result is a well researched "report":http://www.iciss.ca/report2-en.asp that is a basis for moving forward.

But progress has been disappointing. The chief foreign policy adviser to a former PM of Canada gives "reasons":http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-magazine/01-title-en.asp why Africa, Latin America, parts of Asia, the US, and Arabs all oppose the report.
IJ
July 31, 2005
3:05 pm
More on the future of NATO. Will it break up because members want to pursue their own "energy goals":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_Storm_Rising#NATO
? Much of Europe, Canada, and other countries will be disappointed.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
August 1, 2005
1:29 am
Interesting snippet about Canada's four submarines, from the CBC -

Four Victoria-class submarines are in the Canadian fleet, each named after port cities (their former names in the Royal Navy appear as well):

* HMCS Victoria (HMS Unseen)
* HMCS Windsor (HMS Unicorn)
* HMCS Corner Brook (HMS Ursula)
* HMCS Chicoutimi (HMS Upholder)


The Canadian Forces bought the subs in 1998 for $750 million. Victoria operates in the Pacific Ocean out of Esquimalt, B.C. The rest are based in Halifax.
Built by the U.K., the subs were mothballed in favour of an all-nuclear fleet.

Nearly identical to nuclear subs in design, except for their diesel-electric engines.
-------

and don't forget the one in the Edmonton Mall.....
Younghusband
August 1, 2005
1:42 am
Dr. Wallace, the yellow submarine in the West Edmonton Mall is the butt of many a joke regarding our military. I'm glad you picked up on that!
IJ
August 1, 2005
3:03 pm
Should Canada have a separate military? The scope for merging "navies":http://www.naval.ca/article/haydon/Why_do_we_need_a_navy.html, for example, seems worthy of investigation on grounds of effectiveness - let alone cost saving. A worthy exercise for NATO?
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Canada Command
August 19, 2005
6:07 pm
[...] I have written about the Canadian military before but I would just like to point out a brilliant comment by The Economist regarding the recent changes in the attitude of the military (see the CDS’s comments here): The rise to senior commands of three generals with experience of irregular warfare in Afghanistan and the Middle East has set in motion a revolution in Canadian military thinking. General Rick Hillier, the new chief of defence staff, once headed the multinational ISAF force in Kabul; his chief of strategic planning, Andrew Leslie also served there; while Major-General Walter Natynczyk, who is implementing the reforms, is fresh from a year with American troops in Iraq. He and General Hillier have also both served as deputy commander of the US Third Armoured Corps in Texas. [...]