Is it time to disband the Canadian Armed Forces?

[skyhigh10]

Along with the pacifists, we also have people who think we shouldn't have police forces or prisons.

I sadly use to know one of these creatures.

Of course there are exemptions to their borderline insane utopia. If a pedophile lives next door to them or one of their family members is a victim , said person should of course be imprisoned; sorry, "rehabilitated".

The same people who volunteer their neighbourhoods to house violent offenders who were recently paroled;  not .

 

[Danjanou]

Unless you are Costa Rica or Iceland.

Costa Rica disbanded it's army in 1948. The President who did it had just come to power after leading a military coup and didn't want to lose his new job the same way he gained it. These days their large heavily armed National Police force complete with naval and air wings is an armed force in all but name.

 

[57Chevy]

...and although Iceland has no standing army;

Military of Iceland

 

[The_Falcon]

...and although Iceland has no standing army;

Military of Iceland

I am aware, a few of the ICRU people work in the same location I do. 

 

[a_majoor]

for Whiskey 601: While I agree in principle with most of your prescriptions, eliminating the CAF essentially means eliminating the Canadian State. While the current rendition of the CAF is ineffective and even rather ineffectual, the purpose of the State is to defend the rights and property of the citizens, so an armed force of some sort is essential (in practice, the West has developed the concept of the State having two armed forces, one for confronting external threats [the Military] and a second one for confronting criminal activity [the Police]. In the current world, the two functions are blending as international criminal activity and terrorism straddle these divides).

What is really needed is the political will to rebuild the Armed Forces to a point where they can effectively manage their resources and provide the ability to protect Canadians against external threats, something sadly that none of the 19 registered federal parities in Canada seem inclined to do.

for Thehare: The assumption that the sub prim mortgage crash was a function of unregulated capitalism is entirely false. The subprime crash was and is a marvellous example of regulatory failure, where State intervention in markets distorted information and incentives, leading to the crash (the explanation can be considered like the game where you remove pieces from a stack until it topples, the first piece to be removed was the need for proper credit checks when the "Community Reinvestment Act" was passed by the Carter Administration. the problem accelerated when the Clinton administration began enforcing the act, promising to levy huge fines on banks which insisted on only giving loans to creditworthy applicants, while incentivizing bad behaviour by using "Fannie Mae" and "Freddy Mac" and their implied backing by Federal funds to buy sub prime mortgages and mortgage instruments from banks. If you were a banker, the choice was to face fines and financial ruin if you applied proper credit practices, while gaining revenue and bonus payments by flouting good practice. People follow incentives).

As a checksum to this argument, consider that in the age of "Free Banking", when banks could print and issue their own money and their credit base was only as wide as their performing loan portfolio; depressions and recessions were very short and over very quickly: banks which failed their fiduciary duties failed and other ones rose to take their place, and there was no p[ossibility of any bank of financial institution becoming "too big to fail". When the "Fed" was instituted in 1913, this pattern ended, and the Great Depression lasted a decade because the "New Dealers" refused to let the market clear. The continuing global turmoil (essentially a recession that no one will admit to) is a result of a "gentleman's agreement" between virtually all of the OECD to inflate the money supply and prevent the market(s) from clearing.

 

[Cloud Cover]

for Whiskey 601: While I agree in principle with most of your prescriptions, eliminating the CAF essentially means eliminating the Canadian State. While the current rendition of the CAF is ineffective and even rather ineffectual, the purpose of the State is to defend the rights and property of the citizens, so an armed force of some sort is essential (in practice, the West has developed the concept of the State having two armed forces, one for confronting external threats [the Military] and a second one for confronting criminal activity [the Police]. In the current world, the two functions are blending as international criminal activity and terrorism straddle these divides).

I disagree with your conclusion that the state will be eliminated, they still have a monopoly on the legal use of violence to compel compliance by the citizenry. The CAF simply cannot be rehabilitated without a complete reset, and again, for 20+ billion, we can get better for our money spent elsewhere or better yet, not spent at all. Unless the government has a plan to build a force capable of taking on and forcing out the interests of the current dominant third party and/or any other party which can militarily overwhelm us, the issue cannot be solved because our culture will not allow it. There's no point in having a military force of 60,000 where only a few thousand are actually capable of fighting and surely dying trying to protect the place. Forget it, the matter is long past recovery. Prove me wrong on that. We have more majors and colonels than infantrymen, more commands than battalions, and numerically just about as many generals/flag rank dudes as we do actual combat ships and aircraft, and the average age of all is about the same. Ridiculous clown show writ large.   

As for the role of the State,  behold the RCMP, a paramilitary force in its own right with a well documented history of using as much force as they deem necessary in any situation (or airport), to which an extra 2 billion can do the trick nicely, thank you very much.  An even better prescription for internal security is increased enforced deportation of migrants with malicious intentions, stripping of passports to Canadians participating in terrorism overseas, [ie make these people stateless with no right of repatriation], and writing ex post facto cheques to private third parties to kill off specific foreign individuals who threaten the country enough to alarm the government, who can then blanket such cheques under the thirty year rule for secrecy.

Cheers.

edit: Mods- maybe this part of the discussion needs to be split off and added to "Is it time to disband the Canadian Armed Forces"      https://army.ca/forums/threads/109428.25.html

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's an interesting prospect. There is a tiny handful of countries without armed forces. They rely upon a paramilitary police force and the good will of neighbours. (It helps if you'r a remote island, too.) I fully agree with whiskey601 that the 21st century CF looks like a bad, cruel joke ... but, then, so do the armed forces of rather a lot of countries, some of which consider themselves to be global powers.

I think there is a choice for real Conservatives: rethink the need for armed forces (but spend on a bigger, better RCMP) or spend enough to make the CF a credible, effective force ~ 2% of GDP as a WAG.

 

[Cloud Cover]

to be clear, I think little of those islands. I am suggesting we get a reality check or carry on and do something useful and effective; none of this  "neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation" type of thing. As I sated above, we can write a small cheque and have anyone that needs to be killed, killed. It's a free country, after all.... 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

As I sated above, we can write a small cheque and have anyone that needs to be killed, killed. It's a free country, after all....

Funny you should say that, using a bag full of money to get what we want has traditionally been the Canadian way of doing business  ;D

My Dutch ancestors would all be very proud  :nod:

 

[Edward Campbell]

The notion of doing without government owned military forces was the norm in late medieval and renaissance Europe, well into  the 18th century, in fact. Even when the state (monarch) 'owned' armed forces (as English kings and queens 'owned' a navy) they were not above renting it out to serve under civilian contractors.

Drake, Raleigh and Gilbert were all, as often as not, "private military contractors" in today;'s terms who led flotillas and armed bands in various enterprises that were supported and even funded by the state.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:highjack:

Imagine, just for a moment, please that a future prime minister said, "OK, that's it; we cannot afford the sort of military machine we might need and the one we can afford is inefficient and ineffective, a waste of good money. Thus, effective in a few weeks we will disband the Canadian Armed Forces, regular and reserve, and the Department of National Defence. We will have a new Department of National Security which will incorporate, amongst other agencies, the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."

Now, the "new" RCMP would be much larger and would have one new division, something akin to the French Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (CRS) and the Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN), plus much expanded air and marine divisions.

The new RCMP air division will b e interesting. In the immediate aftermath of the Prime Minister's shocking announcement about disbanding the CF the US Ambassador would have come to call. "We respect your right to do as you think best, Prime Minister, in pursuing your national strategy for effective and efficient government but we must remind you that you have an obligation to help us protect our strategic deterrent; that's the main reason NORAD is here. If you're not going to have an air force then we must insist that we have a couple of sovereign bases in Canada ~ say at Cold Lake and Goose Bay and the absolute right to overfly Canada whenever we need to do so." But the PM will be ready for him; "No need, Mr Ambassador," he will say, we will still buy F-35s, the RCMP will fly them out of our current bases at Cold Lake and Bagotville, and we will replace out LRPA fleet, too to continue to provide integrated, continental support there, too. Our RCMP marine divisions will have new, fast corvettes to participate in regional anti-smuggling operations, including in the Caribbean, and it will have a flotilla of armed Polar 8 icebreakers, too. We'll meet our continental responsibilities." "What about NATO?" the US Ambassador will ask. "We will stay in, in a similar mode to Iceland."

There are issues, of course, like: who helps out in floods, etc, and what happens when we, as a nation, need to take some action in some remote, dark, dirty place, far, far from Canada? Shall we hire foreign 'contractor' to do our dirty work? Shall we allow 'private military contractors' to exist in Canada, to have 'bases' here?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

:highjack:

Imagine, just for a moment, please that a future prime minister said, "OK, that's it; we cannot afford the sort of military machine we might need and the one we can afford is inefficient and ineffective, a waste of good money. Thus, effective in a few weeks we will disband the Canadian Armed Forces, regular and reserve, and the Department of National Defence. We will have a new Department of National Security which will incorporate, amongst other agencies, the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."

Now, the "new" RCMP would be much larger and would have one new division, something akin to the French Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (CRS) and the Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN), plus much expanded air and marine divisions.

The new RCMP air division will b e interesting. In the immediate aftermath of the Prime Minister's shocking announcement about disbanding the CF the US Ambassador would have come to call. "We respect your right to do as you think best, Prime Minister, in pursuing your national strategy for effective and efficient government but we must remind you that you have an obligation to help us protect our strategic deterrent; that's the main reason NORAD is here. If you're not going to have an air force then we must insist that we have a couple of sovereign bases in Canada ~ say at Cold Lake and Goose Bay and the absolute right to overfly Canada whenever we need to do so." But the PM will be ready for him; "No need, Mr Ambassador," he will say, we will still buy F-35s, the RCMP will fly them out of our current bases at Cold Lake and Bagotville, and we will replace out LRPA fleet, too to continue to provide integrated, continental support there, too. Our RCMP marine divisions will have new, fast corvettes to participate in regional anti-smuggling operations, including in the Caribbean, and it will have a flotilla of armed Polar 8 icebreakers, too. We'll meet our continental responsibilities." "What about NATO?" the US Ambassador will ask. "We will stay in, in a similar mode to Iceland."

There are issues, of course, like: who helps out in floods, etc, and what happens when we, as a nation, need to take some action in some remote, dark, dirty place, far, far from Canada? Shall we hire foreign 'contractor' to do our dirty work? Shall we allow 'private military contractors' to exist in Canada, to have 'bases' here?

It's actually a really interesting proposition and I think it's one that a surprising number of Canadians would opt for if they were given the choice.

I get the feeling that many Canadians actually have a very isolationist viewpoint and would be happy if we just locked the borders up and stayed at home.  A common theme I am seeing is "what's going on over there is terrible and someone needs to put a stop to it but that someone is definitely not going to be me".

In my mind, it's the equivalent of being witness to a case of domestic violence and then choosing to do absolutely nothing about it, all the while abdicating ourselves of any real responsibility by saying "not my business!"

We're a country full of sheep.  We have a few sheep dogs but not enough to make any real difference.  Luckily there's a mountain pass that's covered by a glacier between us and the wolves, how long before that glacier melts though?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Brought over the conversation from another similar thread and merged it here.
Bruce

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... "What about NATO?" the US Ambassador will ask. "We will stay in, in a similar mode to Iceland." .... what happens when we, as a nation, need to take some action in some remote, dark, dirty place, far, far from Canada? Shall we hire foreign 'contractor' to do our dirty work? Shall we allow 'private military contractors' to exist in Canada, to have 'bases' here?

If we're going to adopt an Icelandic military footprint (i.e., having someone ELSE do at least some of the work), I'm guessing that would have to be preceded by an Icelandic foreign policy/engagement footprint - if the government thinks we need less "bang", or a very different kind of "bang", it stands to reason it would have to either 1)  reduce it's international ambitions re: where "bang" can be applied, or 2)  offer help outside the "bang" envelope.

Still, interesting concept "gendarme-erizing" the CF to make it a hyper-police force.  Hate to have to sort out uniforms, buttons and bows, though  >

 

[Haggis]

Still, interesting concept "gendarme-erizing" the CF to make it a hyper-police force.  Hate to have to sort out uniforms, buttons and bows, though  >

The RCMP and CBSA already have a pips like rank structure for their officers/managers. The RCMP have an NCO rank structure (CBSA doesn't).  Merging the heraldry of the organizations (as was done with the creation of the CBSA) would be a nightmare.

 

[mad dog 2020]

Didn't get through all the pages, but it appears that some will build an empire for personal advancement and sometimes at the expense of another organization.
We can be like the States with multiple organizations that overlap and compete for funding at a cost of isolation for survival and no co-operation for a common goal?
HQs for all units can be very expensive.
Maybe absorb the Coast Guard into the Navy and reduce coasts of Adm and training. CG wants guns and be armed?
CBSA absorbed by RCMP. Good place to post people who need a break from the road?
Be like the California Sheriffs Dept absorb Corrections Canada into the RCMP as a spinoff.
Stop EMPIRE BUILDING!!!!!

 

[eliminator]

Maybe absorb the Coast Guard into the Navy and reduce coasts of Adm and training. CG wants guns and be armed?
CBSA absorbed by RCMP. Good place to post people who need a break from the road?
Be like the California Sheriffs Dept absorb Corrections Canada into the RCMP as a spinoff.

There's a bit on that issue here if anyone wants to read...

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Canadian%20Navy%20and%20Coast%20Guard.pdf

 

[Edward Campbell]

mad dog 2020: I started this tangent with a challenge to look at a long, agonizing list of federal government departments and agencies. I posited that on could cut, say, ⅓ of them and things would actually work better. whiskey601 took up by tongue in cheek challenge and produced a wonderful list (which has disappeared!) that cut more than ¾ of them, I think, including DND and the CF.

That got me thinking about the evolution of the modern nation state. Today we take it more or less for granted that one of the first duties of the state is to defend itself. That wsn't always the case, in fact, until the 17th century, the state consisted, generally, of the sovereign who, normally, did have a small, private military force to defend him/herself and his/her property and several notables, magnates, nobles, some richer than the sovereign, who also had private armies that could be loaned to the monarch to defend the geographic expression of the state when the monarch and the notables agreed it needed defending. Most warships and companies of soldiers were in private hands from the fall of the Roman Empire until midway through the 17th century, including in China. The modern state's monopoly on armed force is a very recent notion.

Now, the important thing is RoyalDrew's comment, above, in which he says that, "It's actually a really interesting proposition and I think it's one that a surprising number of Canadians would opt for if they were given the choice." I agree with him ... and it's not just Canadians, either. Many, many (likely most) Europeans would happily disband their armed forces.

The nature of recent wars shows that "non-state actors" are major participants ... it makes me wonder if the modern state's monopoly on armed forces is real, after all.

It seems to me that some states can disarm, if they are willing to 'upgun' their police and accept a reduced capability to act outside of their borders OR hire private contractors to act one their behalf.

http://www.aegisworld.com/
http://www.controlrisks.com/
https://www.academi.com/
etc, etc, etc

 

[Ostrozac]

Just to tackle this one piece at a time, personally, I'd love to see formed police units, on the French model, as a standing part of the RCMP. These would be the lead on flood relief, Ground SAR, G20 security and the next Oka crisis, rather than our current model of taking an infantry battalion, stripping it of its heavy weapons and vehicles, and assigning it domestic security tasks, hoping for the best. These units wouldn't necessarily be a full career path, just something that RCMP members transition in and out of.

They would also be available for CivPol duties, which will probably be growing, as the RCMP now seem to be the Canadian lead for UN peacekeeping (there are 34 Canadian military on UN peacekeeping duty this month, and 84 Canadian police).

Taking away the IRU, TBG and ARCG tasks from the Canadian Forces would be at least a statement that the Canadian Army is strictly an expeditionary warfare tool. The next question would follow, what kind of expeditionary wars?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Something along this vein was looked into by Treasury Board in the early to mid 90's.  It was called the FLEUR or Federal Law Enforcement Under Review.  They (TB) correctly identified that there were numerous instances of duplication of LE at the Federal level (RCMP, Federal Fisheries, Customs-Immigration (now CBSA), Corrections Canada, Military Police) to name a few.  Many of these entities could easily have been brought under one umbrella (RCMP was the thought) and delivery of services could be streamlined with the expected results of cost savings and greater efficiency at the end of the day.  Why it didn't go further than it did, I cannot say.  But those of us whom I worked with at the time were all for it and did hope for it's implementation.

While I expect there would be a chorus today of left leaning voices (and maybe some right) whom would hail such a thought of say changing the CF to a RCMP delivery system. I expect, however, their happiness would swiftly evaporate at seeing the CF go bye-bye and a more militaristic police force come into being, especially after such recent events as Ferguson.  The left doesn't like the thought of police with cadpat uniforms and rifles etc if the howls of conspiracy and indignation from that quarter are to be interpreted correctly.