Experts call for an overhaul of Canada's national security
bootlegga @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:22 am
Experts call for an overhaul of Canada's national security policy to cope with an 'angry' world
$1:
Rarely has the world intruded so viscerally — and with so little apparent effect — upon the great national conversation that we call a federal election.
Launched just as two decades of nation-building efforts in Afghanistan were collapsing, the election (which produced a Parliament strangely similar to the one dissolved in August) also saw what some observers have described as a strategic snub by Canada's closest allies: the establishment of a new U.S.-U.K.-Australia alliance to contain China.
And yet, questions about Canada's current place in the shifting sands of the global order barely rated a mention on the campaign trail.
That could change quickly as the new (old) Liberal government faces a bevy of pressing international commitments and crises, ranging from the benign but significant gathering of world leaders at the United Nations to the slow-rolling humanitarian disaster afflicting Afghan refugees.
The newly re-elected minority government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will have to hit the ground running. On Tuesday, U.S. President Joe Biden mapped out a strategy for confronting authoritarian states without triggering a new Cold War.
He did so a week after surprising the world with a new security alliance — AUKUS — involving two of Canada's closest Commonwealth allies, the United Kingdom and Australia.
Events in the world beyond our borders did come up during the 36-day campaign. More often than not, however, they were used by campaigning leaders as a cudgel with which to beat down their opponents.
Some would say that's what election campaigns are all about. Seasoned pols will tell you there are no votes to be won in Weyburn, Saskatchewan with talk about freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
But many experts say the reluctance of Canada's campaigning leaders to address the changing geopolitical landscape and the threats it may produce is myopic and dangerous — especially now, with the country slowly recovering from a foreign-spawned global pandemic that brought life as we knew it to a standstill.
Launched just as two decades of nation-building efforts in Afghanistan were collapsing, the election (which produced a Parliament strangely similar to the one dissolved in August) also saw what some observers have described as a strategic snub by Canada's closest allies: the establishment of a new U.S.-U.K.-Australia alliance to contain China.
And yet, questions about Canada's current place in the shifting sands of the global order barely rated a mention on the campaign trail.
That could change quickly as the new (old) Liberal government faces a bevy of pressing international commitments and crises, ranging from the benign but significant gathering of world leaders at the United Nations to the slow-rolling humanitarian disaster afflicting Afghan refugees.
The newly re-elected minority government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will have to hit the ground running. On Tuesday, U.S. President Joe Biden mapped out a strategy for confronting authoritarian states without triggering a new Cold War.
He did so a week after surprising the world with a new security alliance — AUKUS — involving two of Canada's closest Commonwealth allies, the United Kingdom and Australia.
Events in the world beyond our borders did come up during the 36-day campaign. More often than not, however, they were used by campaigning leaders as a cudgel with which to beat down their opponents.
Some would say that's what election campaigns are all about. Seasoned pols will tell you there are no votes to be won in Weyburn, Saskatchewan with talk about freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
But many experts say the reluctance of Canada's campaigning leaders to address the changing geopolitical landscape and the threats it may produce is myopic and dangerous — especially now, with the country slowly recovering from a foreign-spawned global pandemic that brought life as we knew it to a standstill.
Continued at:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nation ... -1.6183998
This would have been great to discuss at one of the debates...
Zipperfish @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:45 am
Military never came up at all. Still not a word on the CBC News about the AUKUS deal.
llama66 @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:21 pm
We're going to have to make a decision or one will be made for us.
Personally, I think it's time to pump some money in to the military, get new subs, get some Mistral class LHD's or similar, expand our navy to include actual Destroyers, not just Frigates. But most importantly, scrap the current trainwreck of a procurement process we have.
Zipperfish @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:26 pm
llama66 llama66:
We're going to have to make a decision or one will be made for us.
Personally, I think it's time to pump some money in to the military, get new subs, get some Mistral class LHD's or similar, expand our navy to include actual Destroyers, not just Frigates. But most importantly, scrap the current trainwreck of a procurement process we have.
Personally, I think it's time to pump some money in to the military, get new subs, get some Mistral class LHD's or similar, expand our navy to include actual Destroyers, not just Frigates. But most importantly, scrap the current trainwreck of a procurement process we have.
Bingo on all counts there!
DrCaleb @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:40 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Still not a word on the CBC News about the AUKUS deal.
Australia to get U.S. nuclear submarine technology as part of new security pact
France recalls ambassadors to U.S., Australia over submarine deal
bootlegga @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:28 pm
llama66 llama66:
We're going to have to make a decision or one will be made for us.
Personally, I think it's time to pump some money in to the military, get new subs, get some Mistral class LHD's or similar, expand our navy to include actual Destroyers, not just Frigates. But most importantly, scrap the current trainwreck of a procurement process we have.
Personally, I think it's time to pump some money in to the military, get new subs, get some Mistral class LHD's or similar, expand our navy to include actual Destroyers, not just Frigates. But most importantly, scrap the current trainwreck of a procurement process we have.
I agree we need a bigger, stronger navy, but our new frigates are going to almost the same size as Arleigh Burke destroyers (Block I and II) and will pack a ton of firepower, so if the government actually follows through on the plan, we'll have 15 destroyers, 3 AA/Command vessels and 12 ASW destroyers. I think 20 total ships (4-5 AAW, 15-16 ASW) at least would be better, but I doubt any government is going to commit even more money towards what is already going to be the largest military contract in Canadian history.
I'm also not sure we need helicopter carriers, but it is interesting to see middle powers like South Korea, Egypt and the Netherlands building them. I suppose they might have a use to fly drones off of or something.
We definitely need a ton of subs, and should be looking at buying 8 to 12 of them, preferably AIP subs that can also patrol the Arctic. South Korea's 214 AIP sub (an export version of the 212 used by NATO countries) can fire cruise missiles and ballistic missiles as well.
I'd argue the best way to do that would be to build all our ships overseas - South Korea recently built an AOR for New Zealand that is pretty similar to our planned AORs for half the price we're paying to build them in Canada. Sadly I doubt that will ever happen because the political pork is too valuable in buying votes.
Scape @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:52 pm
Thanos @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:12 pm
(1) we're becoming quasi-isolationist
(2) that isn't a bad thing
(3) we need to be a lot more like Germany, Japan, and Scandinavia, and a lot less like the US & UK
(4) we don't have the strength to get involved in direct conflicts, as shown by our military being degraded so badly by our assignments in Afghanistan
(5) we don't have the money to build the kind of military that can get involved in direct conflicts
(6) it's long overdue for us to withdraw from participation in things where our involvement is either wasted or ineffective
(7) double-down on the soft-power type of things like humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in some of the less media-photogenic hellholes across this miserable planet, the ones where what we can do will actually help make things better
(8) I'm really fucking sick and tired of the cheap nationalism that only sees rushing off to conflict with all our flags a-waving as the sole valuable contribution; not participating in the new US/UK/Australian alliance isn't a slap across the face or an embarrassment, it's a reflection of reality because we don't have (and never will have either) the kind of strength to participate to any valuable degree
Enough is enough with the urges to engage in conflict. Didn't anyone learn anything at all over the last twenty fucking years? Quit thinking it's like some World War Two propaganda film with the "brave boys and their magnificent equipment" rushing off to glory. And don't be so quick to want to see Canadian personnel shoved into another overseas meat grinder, especially if none of us are going to do to some murderous shithole ourselves.
Bury the myths and the "we gotta do something!" panic-mongering. This crap is at least three decades overdue to finally go away and not come back. 
Scape @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:20 pm
There is a difference between being a soft touch and absent.
Canada is in the shadow of the US and our policy is that of a bobblehead. If we want to sit internationally at the kiddy table and be a floormat the we are on the right path. China/US/Russia can take the northwest passage from us like candy from a baby. Don't expect anyone to stick their neck out for us because we can not be relied upon.
Not a nation. In order to be a nation sovereignty needs to mean something.
Thanos @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:36 pm
That's a false canard. The US isn't going to abandon the concept of total continental security for North America and dissolve NORAD just because they're allegedly pissed off at Canada for not being able to participate in something on the other side of the planet. It was false when Bart kept saying the same things and it remains false today.
Any rebuilding of our military, should such a thing happen, should concentrate ONLY on continental security. That means better fighter jets, better long range patrol aircraft for the arctic regions, more icebreakers, new submarines, and the adoption of drone surveillance aircraft. No new tanks, no helicopters that are meant for "air cavalry" purposes, no cargo planes with global range, no more artillery, and infantry trained for domestic defense (and disaster relief) only. This delusion of being able to cast Canadian power across the breadth of the planet has to be dropped altogether. It costs far too much and we can't contribute to it to any significant degree to make it worthwhile.
CDN_PATRIOT @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:41 pm
Scape Scape:
There is a difference between being a soft touch and absent.
Canada is in the shadow of the US and our policy is that of a bobblehead. If we want to sit internationally at the kiddy table and be a floormat the we are on the right path. China/US/Russia can take the northwest passage from us like candy from a baby. Don't expect anyone to stick their neck out for us because we can not be relied upon.
Not a nation. In order to be a nation sovereignty needs to mean something.
Canada is in the shadow of the US and our policy is that of a bobblehead. If we want to sit internationally at the kiddy table and be a floormat the we are on the right path. China/US/Russia can take the northwest passage from us like candy from a baby. Don't expect anyone to stick their neck out for us because we can not be relied upon.
Not a nation. In order to be a nation sovereignty needs to mean something.
Damn straight!
-J.
Scape @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:45 pm
Canada's relationship with the US has been and will always be the mouse that sleeps in terror beside the elephant. When times get tough don't think for a second they will see Canada as just a supermarket for their own needs. Unless and until we can demonstrate that what we have we will defend we are nothing but a sock puppet.
Being isolationist isn't a bad thing but when that is done to atrophy our ability to stand on our own two feet we become nothing but a laughing stock. If we want NATO to mean anything WE HAVE TO BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE. It's rude going to a party without at least bringing a bottle of wine it's obscene being in a military alliance where we are wards of other states.
Thanos @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:03 pm
You have to acknowledge the costs of all this though. I'm hardly a proponent of austerity but the price of most modern military equipment is beyond our resources, even moreso when we have a clique inside of DOD Procurement that goes out of their way to triple the cost of the most basic items in order to have it meet the specifications of "Canadian kit". We're the country where multiple PM's in a row have promised new ships at a set price only to find later on that the cost will be anywhere from quintuple to quadruple what they said it would be. And that the capabilities of the vessels will be about half of what was promised because the grossly overestimated their range or the armaments they were designed for either became obsolete or the US supplier made them prohibitively expensive. Or that the ships were so crappily built that we get an embarrassment of having them with a permanent list to one side because the engineers screwed up so badly and didn't bother to ensure that both sides of the ships were more-or-less evenly balanced in weight.
What's been done to the military over the last fifty years is so endemic and built into the bones of the command structure that it would almost be preferable to collapse the forces altogether and just send the Americans $20 or $30 billion per year to take over the entire defense system for us. Putting more public dollars into an entity that is entirely resistant to oversight or reform is insanity when the restructuring needed to put a permanent stop to the endless boondoggles will never occur.
Scape @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:10 pm
That's what a review is all about. Assess our needs in conjunction to our ability.
The neglect is apparent to all but if it is not made a priority we need to pack it in. Our procurement methods probably should be scrapped and we start from scratch but the only way that is going to happen is if there is political will. That will isn't going to happen in a vacuum and pseudo-isolationism is only giving cover to political lethargy.
Thanos @ Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:46 pm
When the shit really erupts at home from climate change-caused extreme weather events we won't have either the time or resources to go galavanting & white-knighting overseas on the behalf of others. Or, should I much more accurately say, on behalf of the American media and Wall Street as the best salesmen in the history of the world happily gin up another "apocalyptic" crisis with their incessant Helen Lovejoy panic-tactics. Isolating ourselves from that kind of disgusting emotional & political manipulation won't be just the patriotic thing to do by then, it'll be existentially essential. If another Canadian city like Fort McMurray burns down during a heat wave, or as the COVID waves keep continuing, or Vancouver floods from rising sea levels, will it in the best interest of Canadians that the military won't be here to help because they're off making sure the Straits of Molucca remain open for international trade and the devious yellow Sinoese peril remains at bay?
I can't tell you how seriously tired I am, down to my bones, of this endless lying shit being used against us over and over and over again. 