Comments on: Canada Command

By: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Kaplan on Christmas Eve

ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Kaplan on Christmas Eve — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 03:43:32 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: IJ

IJ — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:05:48 +0000

The level of risk is hotly disputed 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 is the UK version of the US quadrennial review – announcing reductions in the army, airforce and navy.

By: IJ

IJ — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:42:09 +0000

This article 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.

By: Younghusband

Younghusband — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:29:28 +0000

By the way, I recently met the General Leslie mentioned in the above article. A very sharp individual.

By: brian

brian — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:28:33 +0000

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……..!

By: IJ

IJ — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:14:17 +0000

More on the different political attitudes to defence. The Chinese press published last month a table 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%).

By: IJ

IJ — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:54:07 +0000

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 that the future of international politics is a common attitude to defence. Maybe they are right.

By: Gabriel Mihalache

Gabriel Mihalache — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:09:01 +0000

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”?

By: lirelou

lirelou — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:03:08 +0000

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.

By: maskull

maskull — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:18:46 +0000

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.

By: IJ

IJ — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:49:36 +0000

What direction should NATO be heading in? Canada is questioning this with its low defence spending.

Some comments 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.

By: lirelou

lirelou — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 00:41:35 +0000

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.

By: Kenneth

Kenneth — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:12:19 +0000

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.

By: Dan tdaxp

Dan tdaxp — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:14:59 +0000

“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 ;) )