Defence Policy in the 2006 General Election

[Infanteer]

His shopping list will do just fine.

...and there is the kicker; the shopping list.  I'm with Enfield in saying that we need to be realistic about the shopping list.  I have a big shopping list for Canada as well, but as was pointed out - we need to sort out priorities and the tip of the spear needs priorities.  The high arctic is not where the tip needs to go.  To me, there is no immanent threat in the North - I'm more interested in seeing crucial defence dollars go to ensuring our guys have a better chance of surviving contact and killing Mujihadeen (these guys will fly planes into Toronto, not Alert) than knowing how many seals some Dane grabbed off our island.

Do I believe in strong Northern sovereignty measures?  Yes.  I'd like to see it as part of a comprehensive Homeland Defence plan.  But I ain't going to chicken-little the issue (not accusing anyone here of doing so) at the expense of more pressing issues because our guys won't be fighting and dying on Hans Island....

 

[Kirkhill]

The "Tip of the Spear" needs to be able to go any place it is needed.  One place it might be needed is the Arctic.  The Arctic is of considerably more interest to Canucks than Afghanistan, Darfur, Rwanda or Bosnia.  There is a developing need in the Arctic.  The international need is no more nor less than it ever was.  A Canadian Battalion is not going to secure global peace and prosperity.  Its not even going to secure regional peace and prosperity.  On the other hand that same battalion available domestically can secure our northern Borders for a fair ways into the future.

If the spear can be fashioned to work in our own backyard, it will be useable anyplace else and be welcome.  This will give the "spear" exercise so that it can be effectively wielded in defence of our domestic interests.

2,3,4 Sub Units, Units, Formations - I don't know, you lot are the professionals - capable of operating in the arctic, with one on stand-by or exercise and the rest in training or on an "international exercise" seems to me should be a primary focus of the CF.

International operations are always discretionary.  Domestic operations, no matter how improbable, are only discretionary in so far as you are williing to concede the battle before you fight it.

 

[Infanteer]

The Arctic is of considerably more interest to Canucks than Afghanistan, Darfur, Rwanda or Bosnia.

I'd argue that it isn't - we fight over ground, not for it.  It's all about people and a fishing trawler in the high arctic isn't a grave threat to our people.  Threats to international stability, proliferating WMD and metastasizing insurgent/terrorist organizations that are willing to kill us whenever the chance arises are the real threat.  Once Al Qa'ida starts setting up in Iqaluit, I'll be convinced that Northern Sovereignty is an immediate security concern.

2,3,4 Sub Units, Units, Formations - I don't know, you lot are the professionals - capable of operating in the arctic, with one on stand-by or exercise and the rest in training or on an "international exercise" seems to me should be a primary focus of the CF.

We already have this capability.  SKT's list was for primarily naval, air and sensory assets.  My only argument is that we have to be careful not to set up a boogyman that specializes CANADACOM over CEFCOM.  If we can do both, great - but my priority lies at the wall with the above mentioned threats, not the backyard.  As Enfield stated earlier, I have a bigger issue with the fact that we rely on others to medevac our troops overseas then I do with an errant US sub doing the grand tour of the Arctic....

International operations are always discretionary.

Was Afghanistan really discretionary after 9/11?  International operations have the potential to be just as decisive as domestic operations.

 

[Old Sweat]

Infanteer, for whatever it is worth, I agree with you completely. Much of the fixation on the north over the past two or three decades was to find something to justify what we used to call Defence of Canada operations and the Canus Operations Plan. A lot of effort was spent worrying about the non-existent threat of lodgements and that may have been the only means that allowed us to retain any robust airborne capability at all.

Showing the flag, surveillance and reconnaissance is a different matter and must of that can be done with various sensor sytems and the use of the Rangers, who after all have a real stake in proctecting their homeland. The last thing we want to do is to tie up troops exercising effective national control over everything in snowmobile range of a few settlements.

 

[ChopperHead]

Well I do agree that we need to prioratise what we need to spend what little defense budgt there is but IMO I think there is more chance of getting equipment and whatever else as part of the protection of the Arctic because when It comes right down to it the average Canadian is not really concerned with whats going on in Afganistan or Rwanada or Bosnia or wherever else. But when it comes to our own lands more people tend to care and want something done about it. For simple soverienty issuses or for future economic gain from that region. Canadians are more likely to speak up about something like that then in Afganistan and the Government will listen because they want votes and if thats what Canadians wwnt then they will get it because then that party can say look what we did. If that same party said we bought Tanks or something anyone outside the military really doesnt care much.

 

[DG-41]

The more I see Conservative defence plans, the more it becomes obvious they have a General from the 1970's in charge.

I'd go farther than that - they've got somebody whose personal ox was gored by the Grits, and whose agenda is to reverse some (all?) of the military decisions made by the Grits in the last decade-plus.

I don't know if it is all this general, or a behind the scenes advisor, or a combination, or what - but it is pretty clear to me that the real defence agenda coming out of the Alliance (they ain't the Tories folks, no matter how much rebranding they do) is purely a reversal of all things Liberal.

Well, like it or not, the Grits have been doing well by us lately. That's almost certainly Hillier at work, not Liberal benevolance and wisdom... but whatever. What matters is that there have been distinct moves in the last year or two to reverse the damage done to the CF over the last two decades.

I keep having "Challenge and Commitment" flashbacks... and having lived through that, I can tell you that the first thing that'll happen in an Alliance government is that every single Liberal-initiated programme will be cancelled - no matter the worth or necessity of it - and every single person in a senior leadership role will be punted out in favour of Alliance cronies.

...just like what happened when the real Tories were punted out in the early 90s. It's how Canadian politics is done.

Well I for one like the direction we've been moving in lately. I like the missions we've been getting. I like the support we've been getting. And I REALLY like that we have leadership that doesn't just hop whenever Washington whispers "frog".

As far as I'm concerned, this really boils down to a choice between General Hillier and General  O'Connor. Who do you want to see running the CF?

DG

 

[Kirkhill]

And here was me thinking that the military served the government.

General Hillier seems to be a good leader, from this outsider's vantage point. He has done a lot of good stuff.  I hope he continues to do so.

General (ret'd) O'Connor has been reported as saying things I disagree with vehemently.  Apparently he is at odds with some of the reports himself.  I don't know the truth of the matter.

Regardless, I haven't heard anything from the Conservatives (And no they are not just the Alliance DG) that is mutually exclusive with either Hillier's or the Liberal's position.  Even Martin is reduced to accusing them of just playing catch up.  If there was a difference wouldn't we be hearing about it?  Wasn't it the Conservatives that promised strategic sealift in the last campaign only to be ridiculed by the Liberals and then ultimately to have them agree that it was needed?  Didn't Martin last time round say the solution was strategic airlift?  Harper has incorporated it into his defence budget proposal.  Martin hasn't got around to it yet.  Like much of what Martin talks about.

I do know that it is going to take a lot more than what has been offered to convince me to do anything other than vote the Liberals out.

 

[RL206]

By KEVIN WARD

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 Posted at 6:37 PM EST

Canadian Press

Courtenay, B.C. — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says major cities across the country should be given a regular army presence by creating territorial defence units to help deal with emergencies in urban areas.

At a campaign stop Tuesday on Vancouver Island, Mr. Harper said such units would be composed of 100 regular troops and 400 or more reservists if the Tories win the Jan. 23 federal election.

“A large number of our cities have no military presence,” he said after announcing plans to beef up the military's capabilities in the West.

Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, the Toronto area and other major metropolitan areas would be in line for territorial defence units whose troops would be available to help with emergencies and deal with conflict overseas, Mr. Harper said.

“This is a full military presence,” he added. “Obviously we would anticipate that its domestic need would be in case of disaster ... but obviously they would be military forces that could be forward deployed in the event of more serious military conflict elsewhere.”

The announcement was part of a promise to restore the military's presence in B.C. and across Western Canada. Since CFB Chilliwack was closed in the mid-1990s, Mr. Harper noted that B.C. hasn't had any army units on its soil.

“British Columbia is now the only region of the country without a regular army presence,” he said, promising a rapid reaction battalion of 650 troops to be stationed at nearby CFB Comox.

Mr. Harper tied the boost in military spending in the West to protecting Canada's sovereignty, as he recently did in promising icebreakers to help surveillance of Arctic waters.

“Canada's West Coast is vital to our national sovereignty,” he said. “ British Columbia is our window on Asia and the Pacific. Our Pacific waters are home to vital trade routes, fishing grounds and resource wealth.”

In addition to stationing a battalion at Comox, Mr. Harper said the Conservatives would:

— Increase Pacific navy personnel by about 500 regulars.

— Buy a new transport ship.

— Upgrade existing frigates and submarines.

— Embark on a program to replace Canada's destroyers and frigates.

— Boost the air force's surveillance capability by purchasing unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as upgrading existing Aurora surveillance aircraft.

Mr. Harper has promised to increase defence spending by $5.3-billion more than is currently planned to be spent from 2006-2011

 

[buzgo]

Another 650 troops? On top of the new 'Airborne' unit he's promising for Trenton, and the CSOR that is being stood up now? Where in the hell are all of the troops going to come from? All the promised budget increases will get spent on new housing and pay for all the new troops!

 

[Armymedic]

I like the idea of posting a Bn to Comox...I'd go there.

His concept is sound, its in the details that his troubles are going to come.

We'll need many more the 5000 recruits in the next couple yrs to fill out all we have now, let alone what he's promising.

 

[PPCLI MCpl]

I would recommend posting a battalion of Patricia's to Winnipeg.

 

[Infanteer]

I would recommend posting a battalion of Patricia's to Winnipeg.

That would be a great idea....

As for Comox, I think it would be an excellent spot for a LIB.  Mountainous terrain, temperate rainforest, littoral environments all nearby; two major urban centers less than 100 klicks away (Vancouver/Victoria); access to Ft Lewis, WA (training opportunities with 2/75 and 1SFG) and our Pacific Fleet (can you say SCTF?); and, as a bonus, my family is 30 minutes up the road and the fishing is great!

I'd go in a heartbeat.

 

[Gunner]

Pure pork barrell politics placing a Bn in Comox. Same as the 100 man Territorial Defence Units spread across the country.  If you want to do something worthwhile, use these PYs to organize a 600 man Heavy Urban Search and Rescue unit capable of domestic and international employment.

 

[George Wallace]

How about a SBS in Summerside PEI?

 

[Kirkhill]

Gunner:

Is it pork barrel politics?  Or is it supplying regular PYs to make the existing militia forces more viable in domestic operations?

Don't I remember hearing that the Conservatives whnted to increase end strength to 75,000 regs in the last election?

I'm still waiting to see what the final picture looks like.  Not just on defence but on platform complete. 

I am hoping I will be pleasantly surprised.  But disapointment isn't new.

 

[Gunner]

Is it pork barrel politics?  Or is it supplying regular PYs to make the existing militia forces more viable in domestic operations?

Comox and Goose Bay are pork barrel politics.  PYs are one thing, I am more concerned about the infrastructure costs to create these new bases. We suffered (some would say we still suffer) from a huge amount of infrastructure that sucks up a huge amount of money every year (PILT, heating, etc).  I would much prefer to see 100's of millions of dollars sunk into higher priority items rather than making sure every province has a small amount of soldiers to do ... something.  The something isn't articulated.  As far as making the existing militia force more viable for domestic operations, I am not convinced that it would be worthwhile (nor do I believe reserves want to be relegated to a national survival role). Emergency management is a provincial responsibilty and "domestic operations" are very difficult to plan for other than have a fairly generic plan to respond to potential provincial requirements.  Reservists have a role to play in domestic operations but it will continue to be on an "as available" basis vice as a "first response" capability.  I could support a highly trained HUSAR unit capable of mountain ops, search and rescue, etc as a national resource.  I think they should be in a centralized location vice scattered across the country in areas with a limited domestic operations future (ie Regina, Winnipeg, Calgary etc).

 

[Infanteer]

As much as I think a Pacific Coast army presence is important for Canada, I'm inclined to agree with Gunner's argument of unneeded pork.  I'll put new Army bases down low on the list with a nice new undress uniform that we harp about here.

The Ruxted Editorial challenged the Conservatives to put some intellectual horsepower into an alternative policy for Canadian Defence - I see that piece of advice went unheeded and we get this dogshit....

 

[ArmyRick]

With all the ideas Mr Harper wants to implement (I am pro conservative by the way) will not be feasible. IMO By the time his ideas get started we will be at another election.

 

[buzgo]

IMHO his 'ideas' started back in the 1970's

:-\

 

[Gunner]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051227/harper_veterans_051228/20051228?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

Tories would give vets their due, Harper vows
Updated Wed. Dec. 28 2005 2:53 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Back on the campaign trail, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his party would enact a veterans' Bill of Rights if voted into government.

Such a bill would reverse the historical neglect of Canada's veterans, he said at a campaign stop in Victoria, B.C. on Wednesday.

"All too often we hear stories of veterans who are ignored or disrespected by government," Harper told the crowd Royal Canadian Legion members.

"What a shameful way to treat men and women who risked their lives to defend Canada. This shame will end with the election of a new government."

To underscore his party's attitude, Harper said a Conservative government would also appoint an independent "Veterans' Ombudsman" dedicated to enforcing the bill.

Other prongs of the Conservative six-point plan include:

a raft of new appointments to the Veterans' Review and Appeal Board
a complete review of veterans' health care services
implementation of a House of Commons motion recognizing the historic inequality of treatment and compensation for Aboriginal veterans.
a commitment to ensuring veterans have the financial resources to retire comfortably.
Harper did not, however, specify how much compensation he thought they might be entitled to.

In the case of disputes under the bill of rights, he said, a settlement would be arrived at quickly -- and to the benefit of veterans whenever doubt arises.

"There is no better way to honour the legacy left by our veterans than to give the men and women in today's army, navy, and air force the recognition and support they deserve," Harper said.

"We owe them nothing less than a Veterans Affairs department that responds to their needs and a federal government that treats them with dignity and respect."