The Defence Minister's viewpoint on the Military Budget

[Jed]

Military Budget: Minister Graham

The Defence Minister has commented on Sen Kenny's report on the Military budget inadequacies and his view point is expressed below:

Coverage stated that Defence Minister Bill Graham rejected a Senate report which called for more than doubling the Canadian Forces' annual budget and for increasing the number of troops to 90,000 from 60,000. According to the coverage, Mr. Graham disputed the report by Liberal Senator Colin Kenny and his defence committee which claims the Canadian military is at the "break point" and needs $30 billion a year to function properly. He reportedly said the Canadian Forces were already benefiting from an increased budget and were well equipped for overseas missions. It was noted that Mr. Graham said doubling military spending in the short term is impossible. He reportedly added that "the generals, the admirals, and all the experts" tell him the military "can only absorb so much money at one time." Coverage reported that Mr. Graham said troops are happy with recent deployments. It was noted that Mr. Graham also defended the deployment of troops to Afghanistan. Mr. Graham is quoted: "Some have described this as a peacekeeping mission, while others have characterized it as a radical departure from Canada's traditional role as peacekeepers. ... It blends many elements, including peacekeeping and combat" (Daniel Leblanc - G&M A9; Stephanie Rubec - TSun 44, OSun 14).

My comment is how long can the governments of the day continue to put the blinders on and refuse to see the obvious ? Absolutely everyone in the military will continue to do what we are trained to do and support our chain of command, with the politicians at the top, put a happy face on and keep doing the tough jobs despite the major funding problems we face everyday.

The message has to get through to the Defence Minister and the PM that we are a shell of a military that does not have the capability to do what is being asked of us due to a lack of resources.  Also, what is all this nonsense about not being able to spend the cash quickly enough even if it was given to us ? Before WWII or Korea, Canadians and the military were quite capable of ramping up quickly to accomplish their aim. I believe the only thing preventing us from doing so again is a bloated civilian bureaucracy tying the soldier's hands with red tape.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
He reportedly added that "the generals, the admirals, and all the experts" tell him the military "can only absorb so much money at one time

I'm sure the Lts., Sgts., and MCpls. could easily help them "absorb" that money with some more basic live fire training.....

 

[George Wallace]

Quote,
He reportedly added that "the generals, the admirals, and all the experts" tell him the military "can only absorb so much money at one time

I'm sure the Lts., Sgts., and MCpls. could easily help them "absorb" that money with some more basic live fire training.....

Which brings into play the fact that so many decisions are being made by those who are not in the 'know', have never had/gained the experience, or have long been 'out of touch' or ignorant of what goes on at the lower levels; or even worse - all of the above.

 

[Blue Max]

Unfortunately it seems that General Hillier has not made his point strongly enough yet. Or is the govt refusing to listen? :-\

 

[Gunnar]

A lot of things need changing, but you can't simply throw money at the problem and make it go away.  Our forces desperately need newer equipment, facilities, etc., etc....but I have yet to see any problem you could buy your way out of...Troops will also need time for training on this new equipment, and a way to integrate it into existing tactics and doctrine.

It seems to me that every time a shortcoming (due to years of woeful ignorance on the part of the Canadian public) is discovered, the press' knee-jerk reaction is "well, give them more money".  Yes, you can do that...and up to a certain point, more money will be absorbed by the areas that need it...however, what is likely to happen with a massive cash infusion is confusion due to rapidity of change, an influx of more bureaucratic government workers who will waste most of the infusion in their sad attempts to quantify where all the money is going, and a general inability to accomplish anything because something to do with the money will be in committee, on a project, etc., etc.

In a way, it's like saying the solution to all of our problems is more ammunition, then giving everyone the equivalent of 100 crates of ammo per man.  Sure, Arty would love you long time...but the infantry would be really ticked off....you have to store all this crap, build security facilities to guard it, post guards, refresh ammuntion handling training, etc., etc....Then you have to deal with waste:  Ammo would be wasted wholesale because, like any free good, it's marginal utility would be equal to zero...(Economics major, not my fault).  What that says is, there's so much of it around, it's practically worthless, so who cares what we do with it...

Dropping a "nuclear bomb" of money on the forces would be a mistake.  Planning for a huge cash influx a few years down the road, followed by the cash influx would probably make better use of the money, minimize bureaucratic waste, and reduce the number of useless bureaucrats foisted on DND to "account for the money"...so that the money actually makes it to the military, and not the apparat of the useless politicians.

(Note:  this is what would occur because it is a peacetime operation...in a wartime situation, less bureaucrats are needed, because leadership, a talent which is inculcated by the military, tends to dominate the supply chain for materiel...because there's a war on...and if form nnnX8-43/4 isn't filled out, but the ammo gets to the soldier in the front line, and the battle is won, command is happy.  Without having a battle to win, form nnnX8-43/4 (in triplicate) must be filed with the Department of Useless Expense Tracking, Sub-department on Requisition Forms and the Committee for the Study of the Use of Expense Tracking Forms in Triplicate, or command looks inefficient to the politicians, who realizing there isn't a war on, can pontificate about "management efficiency" and crap that isn't relevant to the military.  So yes, I agree that pointless red tape is the cause of this, but during peacetime, pointless red tape will invade wholesale.  Giving a huge wad of cash to a bureacracy is like putting a pile of sugar in an infected wound...the sugar won't get into the bloodstream and give the patient energy, all it will do is feed the infection and make the patient worse.)

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
Planning for a huge cash influx a few years down the road,

I have sucked at the Govt. teat since I was 17 and one is just wasting time if one does this. One bad newspaper article, one bad public opinion poll, one better photo-op or election and those plans are gone.
Wonder if the air force "planned" on the money for those helo's......when was that?

 

[Gunnar]

One bad newspaper article, one bad public opinion poll, one better photo-op or election and those plans are gone.

Maybe the problem is larger than money issues then.  Because if there is no committment to the military by the public, nor by the political crew, and we have to keep our military alive "on the sly", by grabbing money and equipment when we can with no idea of whether it will be there tomorrow....then who are we fighting, and what are we fighting for...?  And if we opportunistically grab money for ourselves with no plan for the future, how does that make us different than the politicians?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Quote,
He reportedly added that "the generals, the admirals, and all the experts" tell him the military "can only absorb so much money at one time

I'm sure the Lts., Sgts., and MCpls. could easily help them "absorb" that money with some more basic live fire training.....

One of Senator Kenny's points, this week, has been that the Ottawa staff is parroting the (Liberal) party line while he heard a distinctly different story in the fleet and the field.

I think the good Senator is dreaming in technicolour when he seeks a 100% increase but I do favour a rapid, but steady growth in budget to somewhat more than 2.1% of GDP (which is about $1 Trillion, right now) - maybe going as higher than $25 Billion by 2015.  I believe the defence budget can absorb an initial infusion of $2 Billion new dollars per year for three years (which would mean $20 Billion/year by 2010 if the money started in FY 2006/07) followed by an addition $1 Billion per year, year after year until 2015, followed by slight increases of defence inflation (which is higher than the general, national inflation rate) plus 1% real growth ($250 Million+/- real, new dollars) year-after-year and decade-after-decade.

I also think (contrary to the opinions of some well qualified and well respected members of army.ca) that we can and should grow, in the same 10 year period to about 90,000 full time/permanent force personnel and 45,000 part time/volunteer reserve force personnel.

I am too long retired to make any sensible comments on force structure or equipment, but:

I think we need strategic, tactical and 'base' forces.  I think our tactical forces need to include:

"¢ Globally capable joint naval/air task forces - several combatant ships and submarines plus auxiliary ships/oilers;

"¢ Joint naval/air coastal patrol forces - for all three coasts;

"¢ Joint naval/land/air amphibious forces which can deploy, in about light infantry+ battle group + VSTOL fighter/bombar six pack strength, on short notice (days and weeks, not weeks and months) anywhere in the world - two of them I think;

"¢ Joint land/air task forces - more than one light infantry+ battle group + VSTOL fighter squadron + tactical air transport + e.g. airborne engineers and air mobile logistic units;

"¢ Joint land/air brigade sized task forces - some in reserve (but on full time service) to backstop the 'expeditionary' forces;

"¢ Fighter-interceptor wing(s) for continental air defence; and

"¢ So and so forth - the list is long.

I think my long list equals a requirement for 90,000 people after we have continued to contract out base type services.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from Gunnar,
and we have to keep our military alive "on the sly", by grabbing money and equipment when we can with no idea of whether it will be there tomorrow

That is how just about all Govt agencys run, well at least all the ones that aren't "Liberal sacred".

 

[teddy49]

The problem we have now, is that so much of the money is wasted.  We could have a vastly better military with the money we have now, if we didn't waste it on useless crap.  Like the recruiting system.  How much cheaper would that run if all that was required, was a high school transcript, a clean cpic check (which should be done at the recruiting center even if you have to employ an RCMP member full time at each center, which you don't) and a clean physical and psyche exam, and physical.  Security clearances can done after the member is enrolled and prior to sending him on tccs.  The LAV program?  How many Leo 2 or 3s could we buy for the money we're spending on the MGS.  I know you can't move a Leo in a Herc, but isn't that what Antonovs are for?  And any one who's spent any time in Iraq will tell you, the quietest spots in the country are anywhere within 2000m of an Abrams.  Occasionally a suicide bomber will smear himself on the side of one, but then all you have to do is get out the hose and a rag.  Can't say the same for the MGS.  How much do we spend on diversity training every year?  Why are we sending TRAINED soldiers to Gagetown for a year, for workup training prior to going to Afganistan with the RCR roto.  That's insane.  If we could speed up the recruiting system, then we might as well just train all new soldiers for that gig cause it would take less time.  I don't want to start the French/English debate, but 1 language would save us a not insignificant amount of money.  Postings that lasted 5 years instead of 2.  How much would that save?  I would guess it to be significant.  What about getting rid of DCIEM or the entire Defence Research Establishment.  Most of their research is done by our allies anyway.  And that's just off the top of my head.  If a few rational people with a real idea of what our REAL defence needs are, sat down with the annual budget for 2 months.  I bet we could free up a quarter to maybe a third of the existing money for useful stuff.  The Aussies, for all their problems were able to deploy a battle group to East Timor in if I recall correctly 2-3 weeks.  I believe it took us 12 to get there.  If you convert the Aussie budget to Canadian dollars, theirs was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billlion a year less than us. It's all well and good to have all kinds of money.  But there are serious systemic issues with how we spend what we have now.  I may be a member of the CF but I'm also a tax payer and I don't like the way DND spends my money.

 

[Jungle]

The Aussies, for all their problems were able to deploy a battle group to East Timor in if I recall correctly 2-3 weeks.   I believe it took us 12 to get there.   If you convert the Aussie budget to Canadian dollars, theirs was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billlion a year less than us.

The Aussies deployed a Brigade to East Timor. We (a CDN Coy-group) were on the ground 5 weeks after receiving the WO... not bad considering the obstacles we had to surmount.
As far as the Defence budget, it is difficult to compare Australia's with ours: most of their buildings are not insulated (or nowhere near our standards), and they don't have to heat those buildings during the brutal winters we get... All the money we spend on winter clothing and eqpt could be used for other purposes if we could get rid of that season.
I do agree some of our money is mispent though.

 

[career_radio-checker]

I can think of a few things that the military could imediately spend money on without going through the circus of building facilities, training personel, acquiring parts etc.
Foremost is the TCCCS radios. We could use a lot more of those and batteries. Just came back from an ex where the entire recce regiment was still using 77 sets and 524 sets.
another thing they could buy is some more vehicles

 

[Jed]

Every bureaucracy has its inefficiencies and wastes a certain amount of money. The idea should not be to make financial SOPs to eliminate waste but to minimize waste. Whereas I don't think the taxpayer wants the government just to dump a bag of cash on the military with no spending limitations, a major of influx of cash is needed now to overcome the inertia caused by 20 years of chopping the CF capabilities. If our key politicians maintain a hold the the party line attitude wrt what the CF can actually accomplish given their equipment and manpower resources, the CF will not get across the Line of Departure in the effort to transform itself into a relevent, meaningful, cost effective force for the Canadian people.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>in a wartime situation, less bureaucrats are needed, because leadership, a talent which is inculcated by the military, tends to dominate the supply chain for materiel

I had a good laugh.  Read a bit about the adventures of one JCH Lee in northwest Europe in 1944.  Also, Bill Mauldin observed based on his Italian campaign experience that it was a good thing for the war effort that ammo had no particular black market value.

 

[teddy49]

The Aussies deployed a Brigade to East Timor. We (a CDN Coy-group) were on the ground 5 weeks after receiving the WO... not bad considering the obstacles we had to surmount.
.

This makes us look better how? :

 

[Jungle]

This makes us look better how? :

I'm not saying it makes us look better. But their deployment was over a distance of 500 km, while ours was over 20 000 km. We could deploy, if needed, a Brigade to Haiti if it was a National effort. That's what the Aussies did, they made the deployment of INTERFET a national effort; the whole Army contributed to stand a single Bde for the deployment. Armoured and Artillery units were used as Logistics to assist the depl, as they were not needed in theater except for the 2nd Cav Regt that deployed with ASLAV 25s.
We deployed at the same time as the last elements of the Kiwi and Thai Batts, and before the Coy from Fidji. All these contingents were deploying from closer than us and were more familiar with the climate and terrain.

 

[KevinB]

In all reality we could deploy 1 Cdn Div to Iraq as well how long it would take us or how long we could remain operational at that level is another story.

 

[teddy49]

I'm not saying it makes us look better. But their deployment was over a distance of 500 km, while ours was over 20 000 km. We could deploy, if needed, a Brigade to Haiti if it was a National effort. That's what the Aussies did, they made the deployment of INTERFET a national effort; the whole Army contributed to stand a single Bde for the deployment. Armoured and Artillery units were used as Logistics to assist the depl, as they were not needed in theater except for the 2nd Cav Regt that deployed with ASLAV 25s.
We deployed at the same time as the last elements of the Kiwi and Thai Batts, and before the Coy from Fidji. All these contingents were deploying from closer than us and were more familiar with the climate and terrain.

All right Jungle, I'll give you that one.  I talked to an ex-Aussie SF guy, who was in E.Timor well before the rest of their gang showed up.  And he said that the only reason they managed to make it look good was because the distance was so short.  I guess from inside, it was more screwed up than a soup sandwich.

But I guess my question is, where is the flexibility that everyone talks about.  To me that means to be able to adapt to situations quickly.  As in Rapid Reaction Force Quickly.  Not 6 months down the road.  I know that we don't and will probably never have the resources to put a Brigade or Battle Group anywhere in the world in 24 hours, al la 82nd Airborne.  Or conduct an amphibious assault on any given stretch of shorline within 7 days of the order like the Marines can cause they have a Battalion floating in every major body of water on the planet.  But I would really like to see the  readiness level of at least one deployable unit in the regular force exceed that of the Alabama National Guard.  I don't think that's to much to ask for 12 billion a year.  I don't mean to hijack the thread, with a RRF rant, but for the money DND gets every year, couldn't we expect to put a battlion on the ground in 30 days, from Warning Order?  Is that too much to ask?  I know that it is given the current structure, manning, logistical resources and spending habits.  But I don't think that is how it should be.  And I think that taxpayers deserve better for their money.

 

[KevinB]

teddy49,

Problem is with the current training schedule we "train to need"  The 3rd Bn's have a rotating capability to launch - however unless it is a matter of national interest to launch IMMEDIATELY - we will not launch anyone without some sort of additional training for Theatre Specific issues...

All reg force units DAG annually - and could be deployed.  The question is why would we want to launch a unit that is not as up to speed for that area as we could?
  I think we should have the capability to put boots on the ground in Bn size in 24hrs if need be - and IN THEORY we can.  However it would be nice to put theory into practice.

 

 

[Jungle]

All right Jungle, I'll give you that one.   I talked to an ex-Aussie SF guy, who was in E.Timor well before the rest of their gang showed up.   And he said that the only reason they managed to make it look good was because the distance was so short.   I guess from inside, it was more screwed up than a soup sandwich.

It always is... what counts is the end state. How you get there is irrelevant. We will have (operational) surprises in the future, and will be challenged with unplanned deployments. It is difficult to plan for the unplanned, so there will always be a certain amount of improvisation. This is not only a Canadian problem...
As Soldiers, we need to accept that. What counts at the end of the day is that the mission gets done.