Don’t be too quick to condemn
Scape @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:31 pm
$1:
IN RECENT MONTHS, the standard mantra of Canadian defence analysts has been that NATO is not "stepping up to the plate" in southern Afghanistan. As most European countries are unfamiliar with the rules of North American baseball, this phrase has undoubtedly left our maligned allies somewhat confused.
What would leave our NATO partners even more perplexed would be Canada’s claim that as a nation, we are "punching above our weight" in the international defence ring. This assessment has been so oft espoused by retired generals and tub-thumping historians that even the esteemed former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley has begun to believe this mantra.
Included in Manley’s independent report on extending Canada’s commitment to Afghanistan was the caveat that NATO needed to furnish another 1,000 combat troops to reinforce our contingent in Kandahar. While most other NATO countries have declined Manley’s request as though Canada were offering them the Ebola virus, France has hinted that it may provide an additional 700 soldiers.
Although this reinforcement has yet to be officially announced, the minute the rumour began circulating that the French troops would be heading into the less volatile eastern provinces and not Kandahar, the tub-thumpers hastily renewed their "bash France" chorus. "Shirkers!" shouted the chest-beating Colonel Blimps, while other commentators pointed at the massive manpower of France’s armed forces as further proof that they should be doing more to help us.
One enraged reader wrote to me recently to opine that after more than 100,000 Canadians lost their lives in two world wars fighting for France, "we shouldn’t have to beg them for support."
As this whole issue has obviously touched a nerve within our defence community, perhaps it is time to take a little of the emotion out of the debate and replace it with rational argument.
First of all, for comparison purposes, I think it is necessary to establish some common groundwork. France has a population of roughly 64 million people, while there are just over 33 million residents in Canada. Although not exactly scientific, if collective defence is to be borne by nations’ citizens on an equal basis, France would be required to roughly double Canada’s contribution to international security.
So let’s have a look at how we actually stack up against those "shirking Frenchies." First of all, France maintains a standing regular force of 348,000. To match that output, Canada should field 174,000 full-time troops instead of the paltry 62,000 we have enrolled.
In 2007, France spent US$59.6 billion on their defence budget. Half of that would be $28.8 billion, but Canada only spent 50 per cent of that total (roughly $15 billion) on our military last year.
France spends 2.4 per cent of its GDP on its military. Canada has a faster growing economy and one-third of France’s international public debt, yet we spend just 1.2 per cent of our GDP on national defence.
Based on these numbers, as a nation, we are, in fact, punching well below our weight.
So let’s narrow the focus down to our admittedly much under-sized military. Given the fact that we have 2,900 troops deployed overseas on international missions, this must put those "shirking Frenchies" to shame. With all those retired Canadian officers pointing the finger of guilt at France, surely our troops can take pride in the fact that they are shouldering a bigger burden of responsibility than their French counterparts.
Once again, we need to examine the numbers. Given their former colonial responsibilities in the Caribbean, Africa and Middle East, France has more than 33,000 troops deployed abroad at all times. While the tub-thumpers will be quick to point out that some of France’s missions are not currently considered "hot," at least 11,000 of those troops are in fact engaged in stabilization missions. France also maintains a surge capability to manage unforeseen crises such as the one that erupted in Lebanon in 2006.
By contrast, Canada has all of its deployable military eggs in one basket labelled Afghanistan.
As Defence Minister Peter MacKay heads to the NATO summit next month, he needs to remember that the self-inflating propaganda and rhetoric that plays out so well at home is not substantiated by fact.
Canada has been a lightweight within the NATO alliance for decades. That, coupled with the fact that we didn’t just ask for Kandahar but demanded it, makes us look even more foolish now that we’re in over our heads and demanding support.
What would leave our NATO partners even more perplexed would be Canada’s claim that as a nation, we are "punching above our weight" in the international defence ring. This assessment has been so oft espoused by retired generals and tub-thumping historians that even the esteemed former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley has begun to believe this mantra.
Included in Manley’s independent report on extending Canada’s commitment to Afghanistan was the caveat that NATO needed to furnish another 1,000 combat troops to reinforce our contingent in Kandahar. While most other NATO countries have declined Manley’s request as though Canada were offering them the Ebola virus, France has hinted that it may provide an additional 700 soldiers.
Although this reinforcement has yet to be officially announced, the minute the rumour began circulating that the French troops would be heading into the less volatile eastern provinces and not Kandahar, the tub-thumpers hastily renewed their "bash France" chorus. "Shirkers!" shouted the chest-beating Colonel Blimps, while other commentators pointed at the massive manpower of France’s armed forces as further proof that they should be doing more to help us.
One enraged reader wrote to me recently to opine that after more than 100,000 Canadians lost their lives in two world wars fighting for France, "we shouldn’t have to beg them for support."
As this whole issue has obviously touched a nerve within our defence community, perhaps it is time to take a little of the emotion out of the debate and replace it with rational argument.
First of all, for comparison purposes, I think it is necessary to establish some common groundwork. France has a population of roughly 64 million people, while there are just over 33 million residents in Canada. Although not exactly scientific, if collective defence is to be borne by nations’ citizens on an equal basis, France would be required to roughly double Canada’s contribution to international security.
So let’s have a look at how we actually stack up against those "shirking Frenchies." First of all, France maintains a standing regular force of 348,000. To match that output, Canada should field 174,000 full-time troops instead of the paltry 62,000 we have enrolled.
In 2007, France spent US$59.6 billion on their defence budget. Half of that would be $28.8 billion, but Canada only spent 50 per cent of that total (roughly $15 billion) on our military last year.
France spends 2.4 per cent of its GDP on its military. Canada has a faster growing economy and one-third of France’s international public debt, yet we spend just 1.2 per cent of our GDP on national defence.
Based on these numbers, as a nation, we are, in fact, punching well below our weight.
So let’s narrow the focus down to our admittedly much under-sized military. Given the fact that we have 2,900 troops deployed overseas on international missions, this must put those "shirking Frenchies" to shame. With all those retired Canadian officers pointing the finger of guilt at France, surely our troops can take pride in the fact that they are shouldering a bigger burden of responsibility than their French counterparts.
Once again, we need to examine the numbers. Given their former colonial responsibilities in the Caribbean, Africa and Middle East, France has more than 33,000 troops deployed abroad at all times. While the tub-thumpers will be quick to point out that some of France’s missions are not currently considered "hot," at least 11,000 of those troops are in fact engaged in stabilization missions. France also maintains a surge capability to manage unforeseen crises such as the one that erupted in Lebanon in 2006.
By contrast, Canada has all of its deployable military eggs in one basket labelled Afghanistan.
As Defence Minister Peter MacKay heads to the NATO summit next month, he needs to remember that the self-inflating propaganda and rhetoric that plays out so well at home is not substantiated by fact.
Canada has been a lightweight within the NATO alliance for decades. That, coupled with the fact that we didn’t just ask for Kandahar but demanded it, makes us look even more foolish now that we’re in over our heads and demanding support.
grainfedprairieboy @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:46 pm
We could still kick their asses.
mapleleafsnation @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:03 pm
However, proportionally in Afghanistan I believe we are doing more than our share. I have to find this article in which NATO asks us not to send more soldiers because we do more than enough in Afghanistan.
Another note, proportionally, our military is equivalent to the US military (enlisted citizens/population ratio). So could we say that the US are punching under their weight?
France are deployed in many places, but they are because they set themselves to be there, those are not international missions I believe. Stacking this is the equivalent of stacking your housework on top of your community work hours.
The conclusion of the article still holds truth though, we don't have to be too cocky but I still think our demands are legit. We're in the hottest spot in Afghanistan, doing much of the fighting after all.
Historically I feel Canada has always been a workhorse, doing the less glamorous but required work. For example in WWII we were the ones liberating the ports in the Netherlands, those ports allowed to take some weight off the shoulders of the stretching supply line (that was still going through Normandy beaches) and actually allowed the Allies to survive the Ardennes. Meanwhile US and UK troops where rushing for Berlin to be seen as liberators.
In WWI, most of the battles where the French and British failed, Canada succeeded, or at least didn't fail as bad. Vimy is the hot example right now. It was the turn of the Western front.
And finally a last example of Canada punching above its weight, at the end of WWII we were the 4th world power with a military of 4 million men (out of a population of roughly 15 million (7.5 million if only men are counted). If that isn't punching above your weight...
If we want to go even further, well here comes the 1812 war. The Battle of Chateauguay lead by Charles d'Irumberry de Salaberry opposed the Voltigeur (a militia unit consisting of 700 men) versus, depending on the accounts, 6000 to 12000 U.S. army regulars and one artillery piece. The Americans lost.
Scape @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:38 pm
Everything you mention of a high note is pre-Dief the chief. Since that point it's been down hill, be it con or lib the military has taken cuts. Only recently has it been seen as politically 'in' to invest in the CAF and even then the tempo hasn't been as fierce as the PR relations for the various defense ministers would have you think. We have a long way to go and a short time to get there as a lot more are on the way out than on the way in. Not to put too fine a point on it unless we are faced with WWIII we won't see numbers like we had post WWII. Getting the CF up to strength is not something we can throw cash at either, it will take time as you can only train so many so fast. So for a colony, yes we are punching above our weight. For a sovereign country we are sorely lacking.
Streaker @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:10 am
mapleleafsnation mapleleafsnation:
Another note, proportionally, our military is equivalent to the US military (enlisted citizens/population ratio).
Whoa... I find this hard to believe.
Joe_Stalin @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:29 am
As of April 2007, about 1,426,700 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,500 people in the seven reserve components.[citation needed][4] As it is currently a volunteer military, there is no conscription
Thats in a population of 300 million.
Canada has 60,000 in 31 million pop.
sandorski @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:36 am
The GDP argument and the Manpower ratio argument are Red Herrings. When asked to actually do something that puts our Forces at risk we go above and beyond any of them, with possible exceptions of the US and Britain.
mapleleafsnation @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:01 am
You're right, I was off in my mathematic... I'm a social scientist, not a mathematician, sorry 
.
We're proportionally roughly half of what the U.S. is