Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

August 19th, 2005

Tags

,

Comments

14 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Canada Command

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.

With the reformation of command structure (Canada Command) there will be “a unified and integrated chain of command at the national and regional levels will have the immediate authority to deploy maritime, land and air assets in support of domestic operations.”

While the average Jéan Canuck may not appreciate this tougher military, I sure do and I am sure the US does as well. I am glad to see the CF doing their part, too bad Mr. Dithers and his cronies don’t step up to the plate politically.

Comments to this entry

Dan tdaxp
August 19, 2005
8:14 pm
"domestic"? Is this going to be another Northern Command, with the Canadian military preparing for a near-useless and dubiously-moral possee comitatus role?

(Sorry for the tone -- quite busy at UNL, and busy tdaxp == sarcastic tdaxp ;) )
Kenneth
August 19, 2005
10:12 pm
The structural reforms are simply the first of what should be many steps. Others include tactical modification for effective 4GW and a major @$$ budget increase. Seriously. My father knows a few military personnel and according to them many soldiers have to buy their own weapons. That's a pretty good sign that you should increase military funding. We should cut into the bloated budgets of our too-numerous social programs to achieve this end. Still, good to see some progress being made.
lirelou
August 20, 2005
12:41 am
Perhaps its time for a CANUS arrangement similar to the ANZAC agreement between New Zealand and Australia whereby certain positions within certain American units are reserved for Canadian officers and smaller level units. Having served in two American tank battalions under III Corps (1st Armored DIvision) which both had British "executive officers" (2ICs), during a period of exchange programs whereby an infantry battalion received a company of Welsh Guards (later RIR), and a tank company a platoon of Irish Hussars (later QDG), I have seen such temporary arrangements work well. The Canadian mlitary will necessarily remain small, however such an arrangement would allow a portion of the military to be exposed to a higher level of war planning and training than is otherwise available in a nation with a small military. Fortunately, size does not equate to quality, but it does hamper middle and senior level officers and NCOs from obtaining first-hand Division and Corps level experience. The Canadian and U.S. militaries do train well together, but a more permanent arrangement might be more beneficial. After all, NORAD worked very well, as did the 1st Special Service Force of WWII.
IJ
August 20, 2005
7:49 am
What direction should NATO be heading in? Canada is questioning this with its low defence spending.

Some "comments":http://www.eureferendum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30 are here.

It's only fair that taxpayers in other NATO countries should know what NATO is for. At present, too many countries are going their own way in this international organisation.
maskull
August 20, 2005
8:18 pm
Viet Nam was conceived as a SEATO action. John Foster Dulles, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (1954). Australia, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States. Lack of unanimity led to disbandment.

There were Republic of Korea (ROK) combatants in Viet Nam. Not sure why they were included, but they were highly feared.
lirelou
August 21, 2005
1:03 pm
The ROKs provided two complete infantry divisions (the Capital and 9th "White Horse"), a ROK Marine brigade ("Blue Dragons"), and an Air Force advisory unit, as well as a supervisory general staff. The ROKs were in Vietnam for two reasons. First, they perceived it as a second front against Communism. In 1968 alone there were 11 armed incursions into the ROK from North Korea, one of which numbered over a hundred men, and the most famous of which consisted of 31 North Vietnamese commandos who managed to infiltrate down through the DMZ and actually get onto the presidential palace grounds before stumbling into a firefight. Their mission had been to assassinate the Korean president. The second reason was that service in Vietnam was viewed as a quid pro quo to the Americans for their help some sixteen years earlier. Modern Koreans are brainwashed into viewing this effort as a slavish pandering to the United States in a war that Korea had no place in. The veterans of these units have a different view, and point out that the Pueblo Incident, the Blue House Incident (above), and the Tet Offensive all occurred within days of each other. The North Koreans also provided small contingents of troops to the Vietnam war effort, and a NORK SOF unit was credited with blowing up a bridge along Highway 1 between Dien Khanh and Nha Trang in January 1968. North Korea has never confirmed that any of its troops operated in Vietnam.
Gabriel Mihalache
August 26, 2005
9:09 pm
Now, while I can appreciate prancing around in a tank and blowing shit up as much as the next guy I really don't see the point in putting your citizens in harm's way, in a situation like Canada's.

If you're blessed with a neighboor like the US, you might at least take advantage of it. Canada should protect its borders and that's it... there are fine things in life, and a vast majority of Canadians wouldn't include fighting a demoralizing guerilla war against a religious fundamentalist insurgency on that list.

You say Canadians should do "their part"... their part in what? In their country's territorial integrity, safe passage for citizens in countries with which Canada has diplomatic relationships? That's seems OK, but that's not what you had in mind, I guess.

As for the "they hate us/our way of life" arguments, so do many Cryto-communist Democrats in New York. Are you going to kill them to? And where does it stop?

If the US is more than willing to take care of many defense matters for Canada and other western nations, why, pragmatically, shouldn't they get a "free ride"?
IJ
August 27, 2005
7:54 am
On defence, why shouldn't Canada's taxpayers get a free ride from US taxpayers?

Canada planned to spend 1.2% of its GDP on the military in 2004; the US planned to spend 3.9%. The NATO average was 1.8%.
Moreover, Canada allocated 41.9% for military personnel; the US allocated 34.8%. The NATO average was 52%.

So many different policies within the one military alliance.

The French "suggest":http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=1794 that the future of international politics is a common attitude to defence. Maybe they are right.
IJ
August 27, 2005
3:14 pm
More on the different political attitudes to defence. The Chinese press published last month a "table":http://en.ce.cn/Insight/200507/12/t20050712_4169341.shtml of the world's top 15 spenders on the military.

The United States was the biggest spender in 2004 with $455 billion (47% of world's total); China fifth with $35 billion (4%); Russia eighth with $19 billion (2%); and Canada 13th with $11 billion (1%).
brian
November 30, 2005
7:28 pm
get a free ride one writer said. how typically canadian and dare i guess quebecois?

were are a nation of scabs.

we don't defend ourselves or anyone else, without some sort of freebie mentality.

freedom costs cash and blood at times.

but, as no one gives a rats ass about our freedom, our legal system, our electoral system,

im going back to watch hockey........!
Younghusband
December 1, 2005
4:29 am
By the way, I recently met the "General Leslie":http://www.forces.gc.ca/dsa/app_bio/engraph/FSeniorOfficerBiographyView_e.asp?SectChoice=1&mAction=View&mBiographyID=62 mentioned in the above article. A _very_ sharp individual.
IJ
December 1, 2005
9:42 am
This "article":http://en.ce.cn/Insight/200507/12/t20050712_4169341.shtml indicates the different levels of risk that individual governments think their people should insure against.

The example here is China. "China has neither intention nor capacity to dramatically increase expenses on armaments. As the increase of China's military expenditure is made possible by the country's economic growth and growing government revenue, the functions of military expenditures have decided that such an increase is necessary and justified."

We've seen that national politics is transient - one day unilateralism, the next day multilateralism is the aim. National expediency is the rule. Governments are expected to react immediately if their people feel threatened, therefore policy can change very quickly. Any government's international guarantees in such an uncertain environment are almost worthless, without rule-sets and effective international enforcement.
IJ
December 1, 2005
1:05 pm
The level of risk is "hotly disputed":http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-11-29a.239.2 in many nations. Getting agreement internationally - eg, at NATO - will be even more difficult.

In the continuing absence of international agreement (and perhaps funding), "here":http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1034&id=833962004 is the UK version of the US quadrennial review - announcing reductions in the army, airforce and navy.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Kaplan on Christmas Eve
December 26, 2005
3:43 am
[...] This strikes home to me in particular because we see this already happening in Canada with our new military leadership. Three of our top generals, including Commander of Defense Staff General Rick Hillier, have on-the-ground experience in Afghanistan, and are proceeding to make all kinds of waves by transforming our military. I believe Kaplan thinks of these troops in Iraq as becoming leaders in a wider political sense than just the military; in a place like the US war experience goes a long way in the polls. Look at how many senators have military experience, and think of their age. Kaplan seems to believe that the John McCains are destined to bow out to the John Turners in America’s future politics, and I think he makes a fair observation. [...]