Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

According to Jack L. Granatstein, Leos were deployed to Bosnia in the mid-90s as part of our peacekeeping force. Of course the politicians want to replace the leos, as with everything else that is outdated in the CF. Are you driving a 30 year old vehicle? Is Air Canada operating 40+ year old aircraft to take you down south? Hillier wanted to do away with tanks and get the MGS, but now he has realized that he was wrong. 100 tanks isn't even a lot to begin with, and having them makes sure that we have the capability as well as qualified tank instructors.

   

It is also important to point out that we are on an offensive role currently and armor is naturally suited for that role to take the fight to the enemy. We are not patrolling the Golan heights or Cyprus here, we are not keeping two heated adversaries apart, we are aggressively hunting for the enemy. We have become complacent from so many non-aggressive missions it has mutated our policy on the military but the very nature of the military requires to advance to contact with the enemy. It's time for the CAF to have punch otherwise it is just a police force.

   

I personally think attack Helio's like the apache's are even more of a dead end than tanks because of the availability of manpads. Without a secure front line to hide in, their forced to fly above 3000 feet or fly only at night. Not much better than the AC130 gunships but with much less range/time on station and much higher costs.

   

The traditional peacekeeping missions as we knew them are dead. What peace is there to keep in Afghanistan? What we see in Afghanistan is the Taliban/Al Qaeda versus NATO. There aren't two factions with blue berets in the middle trying to create a buffer. True the Afghan mission has UN support, but it never was a peacekeeping mission. We went in to kill an enemy, plain and simple. Now we have the opportunity to help a nation with the support of the Afghan's themselves and the international community. Obviously it is in our interest to make Afghanistan a country which cannot be used by the enemy, but we also have a responsibility as a developed nation to help others who want the same ideals and values that we care about and support.

Unfortunately we don't have the ability to be in Darfur when we should be. Even when the size of our forces had decreased during the Cold War, we would've had the personnel to deal with Darfur had the Chrétien government not let our forces decrease even further. Literally CF personnel were given money to retire. It's easy to let personnel go, but harder to get them back. If we stay in a period of minimal buildup, we won't be at 90,000 where we were at in the early 90s, but we'll be able to do more.

You think we need ground forces to conduct peacekeeping missions? Is that what an army is for? It's a common myth that Canadian soldiers are peacekeepers. Did we contribute to the "concept" of peacekeeping? Of course we did. Have we been apart of many peacekeeping operations? You bet. Are we a peacekeeping nation? NO! And we never have been. I've talked with MGen Lewis Mackenzie, and read some of Granatstein's books. I consider myself to have a decent knowledge of the history of the CF, as others on this forum surely do. Mackenzie said that at any one time, the maximum amount of CF personnel deployed on peacekeeping operations during the Cold War was 10%. 90% were devoted to taking on the Soviet Union with fighter squadrons and a tank brigade (leos) based at our CF bases in France and Germany. Politician's like to pander to the public by feeding the myth of Canada the peacekeeper as if it were unique to our country. Politicians know to well that this myth will help with their election hopes. All too quickly people are willing to forget our "war history."

   

The apache shines when it is in the tank busting role and it's even better than the A-10 warthog in that regard as it can sneak behind hills and fire with remote guidance. When it comes to close support the AC-130 spectre gunship is the best platform for close air. It is able to bring hours of fun and hit from so high up you can't hear or see it and it has the endurance to get the job done without worries about BINGO fuel levels and besides it can refuel in air. The main point of the spectre is it can rain lead on target with accuracy and minimal risk to crew with sensors to guide the strike and ECM to keep unseen till that happens. Fully loaded, AC-130 Spectre gunship is like an airborne tank

   

Be careful of partisan rhetoric. Rick Hillier made a statement about this that got him into trouble. Never forget the financial trouble this country was in. In 1984 Brian Mulroney's Conservatives were elected on a platform of eliminating the deficit, reducing the debt, and reducing taxes. After 2 full terms of office they increased the deficit, doubled the debt, and increased taxes. That included creating the GST and Surtax. Many people forget about the Surtax because finance minister Paul Martin eliminated it. The Conservatives proved to be incapable of making the hard decisions, the Liberals delivered. In the process all departments got cut; all of them, including the military. Whine all you want but our country had been considered an honorary third world nation by 1993, we had to fix that.

Farmers complained when the Crow Rate was phased out, provinces complained when transfer payments for healthcare were reduced, and less vocal departments whimpered as well. In fact, once the deficit was gone, debt reduced and the surtax abolished, health care funding was restored. The first announcement of "restoration" only restored a portion, but the second restoration did in fact restore full federal funding. Provinces noted this issue got voter support so they continued who whine even after full restoration. The third "restoration" actually increased federal healthcare funding to a level higher than ever in Canadian history. The provinces continued to whine, they reduced provincial funding to healthcare as a means to direct federal money to other things like roads. When asked if they intend to continue to redirect federal healthcare money this way, they admitted they did and claimed it wasn't wrong. Ah huh! The Romano report was supposed intended to ensure federal healthcare money got to the healthcare system, but the Conservatives got in before it could be implemented. Well, at least the 3rd "restoration", the one that increased funding to an all-time high, is still here.

So now Rick Hillier complained about reduced funding to his department. Reminds me of all the whining from other departments. Look, Chrétien and Martin made the hard decisions, and I know you don't like them but the bills had to be paid. A deficit is when the government spends more money than it's got. Past politicians remind me of a teenager who got hold of his parent's credit card; but we the taxpayers are the parents who have to pay the bill. Stopping overspending, paying off the debt, and reducing taxes was absolutely necessary. In fact I feel politicians of all parties aren't doing enough to control spending. We have to get the debt gone, and we have to get taxes down! So General Hillier: act like a man and suck it up!

   

Another mistake, and a major one. The Taliban are not Al Qaeda, and the Taliban are not our enemy. George W. invaded Afghanistan rather than providing Taliban evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt. Are the Taliban pissed-off at being killed during an invasion, and kicked out of power by military force? You bet! But there's no reason for any quarrel with them. Canada attempted to be peacekeepers in Afghanistan and rebuild, but US troops are still running around hunting the Taliban. That stirred up trouble, got the Taliban to attack us. Now we're involved in a conflict that Canada should never have been involved with.

We didn't just "contribute" to the concept of peacekeeping, we invented it. A Canadian Prime Minister first proposed a peacekeeping force to stop the fighting between two of our allies over the island of Cyprus. Both Greece and Turkey were NATO members, and still are.

The mission of the Canadian military is:
• Protect Canada
• Protect North America
• Contribute to International Peace and Security

Invading and occupying a country and dictating how it runs its internal operations is not "International Peace and Security". The military isn't there to set-up governments in other countries that operate the way we want. Al Qaeda attacked targets outside Afghanistan, that was a thread to international peace and security, they're the enemy. Taliban restricted themselves within their borders; that has to be rewarded by leaving them alone. They let Al Qaeda operate so had to either get rid of them or let other nations' military come in and take out Al Qaeda. They didn't get the chance to make that decision because the US invaded.

So you see the public is quite correct when they expect Canada to be a nation of peacekeepers. Peace means no fighting. Peace is achieved through peace, not war.

   

We can only hope that we'll never have to, but are you willing to take that chance?



As for these nations selling or lending us their tanks for cheap, their militaries probably haven't been in danger of collapsing on themselves, and hey, what are allies for?

   

Both PC and Grit are responsible for the state of the army today and the missions it must conduct. Now that they are there under fire and taking losses they get priority. Getting as many of our troops back in one piece trumps getting out of debt, suck THAT up.

   

Partisan rhetoric? I said that through the Cold War the strength of the military was reduced, meaning that both the conservatives and liberals were responsible. I understand the state that Canada was in under Mulroney, and Canadians responded by leaving them with something like 4 seats in the HofC. I said that at this particular time, we would have been able to have committed personnel to at least Afghanistan and Darfur. Regardless of the financial situation, the forces could've still been in better shape. Think about the canceled helicopter deal that resulted in a loss of money. Or the fact that the government sold off our chinook helo's only to turn around and buy 100 griffons in 1995. Chretien cut spending and made poor decisions. Under pressure he was forced to buy new SAR and navy helo's because of crashes. And the SAR helo's were the same one's that he canceled during his first term. How many years there was it that the grits had a surplus and didn't help the military?

   

Where did I say the Taliban and Al Qaeda are the same? That slash means both as in two different groups. The President has to provide proof to the Taliban? As if they didn't know. They knew and chose not to cooperate. Attempted to be peacekeepers? When? We sent a battalion of PPCLI in 2002 for combat purposes. The following deployment focused on security in Kabul. PRTs rebuild but are protected by soldiers and have come under attack.

"Invented peacekeeping" - This is what I am talking about. Foreign Affairs minister Pearson goes it alone and invents peacekeeping. I've heard this since birth it seems. First it was not Cyprus but the Suez Crisis that Pearson helped diffuse. Second, I'm not going to say that he invented it outright. I will say that he drafted the plans for a UN force to be used in the Suez, and that afterwards this plan was used as a model for other UN operations. But I don't think the idea was only his.

We are in Afghanistan legitimately because the government the Afghans voted in asked for international help. In the beginning as I said the Taliban chose not to cooperate. They were given a chance even back in 1998 when Clinton tried to take out Osama Bin Laden with air attacks on Afghanistan.

"Peace is achieved through peace, not war." Really? So what about WWI, WWII, Korea...? You believe that if we didn't partake there'd of been peace? Do you think that peacekeeping means no fighting? Do you remember Medak Pocket in Croatia where Canadian soldiers engaged in combat with rebel forces? I've talked with recruiters that have been on peacekeeping missions and they tell me that they got shot at all the time. Over 100 Canadians have died on peacekeeping operations and I wonder if it ever made the news headlines.

   

When I was younger I waffled regarding which party to support. When I saw the performance of finance minister Paul Martin, that made my decision clear. I have joined the Liberal party, and submitted a couple policy resolutions. Whether they listen to me is another matter, but I'm trying. Last year the Liberal party held a leadership convention, and last June I talked to the candidates to determine which one I would support. I was one of 4 members who got to talk to Stéphane Dion for 2 hours; we all intended to be convention delegates. I'm afraid I monopolized his time for half of that. When I brought up the issue of Conservative promises regarding military spending, he challenged me. He asked pointed what should be our military policy. I didn't have a good answer, but have been researching it ever since. I want to be able to answer his question.

I also think we need more military. However, you have to be careful. Don't waste money on something that's useless or won't be used. For example, we aren't in military conflict in the arctic so don't need dedicated, full-time navy ships up there. The Conservatives promised to build 3 armed heavy icebreakers. One thing I pointed out in a blog during the election is that our coast guard already has 2 heavy icebreakers and 4 medium ones. One of those medium icebreakers was deemed surplus by the coast guard and parked for years. A group of scientists convinced the government to let them use the ship, but that demonstrates we have enough. Well, we could use a class 8 icebreaker to open Hudson's Bay to Churchill but an icebreaker that strong requires a nuclear reactor. So far the government has not been willing to build a nuclear powered ship. But as for defence, just install frigate systems on two coast guard icebreakers: radar, communications, weapon control systems, and mounting points for weapons. You don't want navy weapons on a coast guard ship. A Skycrane helicopter can carry the weapons from a Canadian Forces Base in the arctic to a ship at sea. Do this for the CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent (our largest icebreaker), and the CCGS Amundsen (the one the coast guard considers surplus). The CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent is our only class 5 icebreaker, the other heavy icebreaker is the Terry Fox, class 4. Establish procedures that when navy weaponry is installed a navy commander will assume command, and when it's removed command will be returned to the coast guard captain. You could even change the ship name prefix with the change in command: CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent becoming HMCS Louis S. St. Laurent. This is a lot less expensive and the ship can actually do useful work while there isn't a military conflict.

The Conservatives want a deep water navy port in the arctic. We actually need a deep water commercial shipping port in the "north west passage", not just a navy station. The navy could use it as well, but once commercial shipping starts there we need some place that big ocean ships can port and load/unload cargo as well take on fuel, supplies, and repairs. I would suggest the west side of Baffin Island with a road to Iqualuit. That would be within the "north west passage".

The Conservatives want a ship to transport army heavy equipment. It wouldn't be in continuous use, but we do need something. I propose a ship contracted as merchant marine. That means a commercial ship contracted with the military. The military has priority, commercial shipments would get bumped whenever the military said they need the ship. Commercial customers would get a discount due to the fact they could get bumped, but it would defray the cost of the ship.

The Conservatives want to scrap our 2 Auxiliary Oil Replenishment ships, which supply food and munitions as well as fuel, and have a full hospital onboard. They said they want to build new ones, but we would be without anything for 10 years. I think our current ships are doing the job; sure the engine is an old model but it still works. If they really want to do something, build a single new one in addition to our current ships. That would leave us with 3 ships, not just 2.

The Conservatives want to decommission half our Aurora patrol aircraft and replace them with UAVs, specifically Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAVs. Sounds good, after all when have our aircraft dropped a torpedo on a submarine? It's better to have reconnaissance UAVs to identify targets and a smaller number of aircraft available for attack when needed. But they want to remove the aircraft first and get the UAVs several years later. I want to decommission the aircraft only once we receive delivery of the UAVs.

The Conservatives want to scrap all of our destroyers and frigates. Navy ships are build to last something like 50 years. The frigates were built in the 1990s, less than 15 years old. When they were built they were the best ships of their size in the world. The Americans had to build new frigates to match ours, but they modeled their engine room on what we did. Of course being American they had to make their frigates bigger just so they could install more weapons. That defeats the point of Canadian frigates: strength to displacement ratio. We just have to be proud they had to copy what we did. So why would we destroy those ships now? We have 4 destroyers (1 of which is in storage) and 12 frigates; 16 total. The Conservatives want to destroy them all for 14 new ships of unspecified design, but indications are they intend to build Province class destroyers. Why would we want to reduce the number of ships we have? If there's money to build ships, let's keep what we have and build new ships with capabilities we don't have now.

   

As for tanks, I keep saying we need armoured personnel carriers and soldiers with body armour. We need soldiers who can engage the locals and keep the peace, not start a war. We also need to take out Al Qaeda; that should have been completed in a matter of months, it's more than 5 years now.

Perhaps I should tell you my philosophy. It can be described by an incident that really occurred to me. I went to a bar with a friend who is a security guard. A bar fight broke out so I kept my head down, made sure I was well away from the fight, and didn't make eye contact with the combatants. However, people in the bar made a circle around those fighting. I understand this is very rare inside a bar. My friend joined the circle. After the fight one of the fighters was thrown out and my friend returned to our table. However, the other fighter followed to our table. The fight was over a girl and my friend knew the girl. The fighter tried to goad my friend, to pick a fight. He tried to be calm and talk him out of it. In the end he said this is his bar, he doesn't want to be thrown out, he won't fight; and turned his head away. The fighter stood up and punched my friend hard in the back of the head. My friend reacted so fast it was just a blur; I had to piece together what happened afterward. My friend stood up, grabbed him by the jacket, pushed him onto his back on an empty bar table, and beat the guy's face into a pulp. Although my friend was a security guard at the time, he had served briefly as a Canadian soldier: airborne regiment. Part of the lesson is that it's really stupid to pick a bar fight with a Canadian soldier, but there's a larger policy here. Even though my friend was ex-airborne, he didn't let the guy goad him into a fight. But once that guy landed a blow, he pounded the guy into a pulp. I see this as a metaphor for Canadian foreign policy: be polite, courteous, kind, considerate, respectful, meek and humble, in every international boy scouts. If someone gets insulting, "poo poo" their actions. If someone tries to goad us into a fight, get condescending. However, if someone lands a blow hit him fast, hit him hard, and keep hitting 'til he don't get up. Once he's taken out go back to being polite courteous, respectful boy scouts. If you want the world to think of Canada as Dudley Do Right then you have to ensure we are respectful, humble boy scouts most of the time. When military action is necessary, get it over with quick. Don't mess around, use whatever force is necessary to resolve the issue quickly.

You see, it isn't that I think Canada shouldn't get involved, it's how we're involved. We should have taken out Al Qaeda long ago. We should have gone in strong, resolved the issue, then change to peace keeping and help rebuild. The invasion of Afghanistan shouldn't have happened as it did, but it did. Still, we should have focussed on Al Qaeda then shift to helping them rebuild. Unfortunately Stephen Harper announced we are targeting the Taliban. It was Stephen Harper who made that change, now I'm glad I joined the Liberal Party.

So do we need tanks? No, they're only needed for an offensive against the Taliban. But that's a conflict we aren't supposed to be in. Once you accept that the mission is supposed to be peacekeeping then you realize we need APCs like LAV III and don't need tanks.

   

I would like to hear your plan on making this happen in Afghanistan? It sounds great in theory.

How do you plan to get around the Taliban? Compromise with them? Do they need to go or stay? What do you know about them or what they do?

When I was there we were very polite and helpful when we could. When ... Because everytime we tried to help or do something the Taliban attacked us. At some point you have to realize that they aren't going away and they will NOT bend in anyway to accommodate you.

Just leave then? I don't subscribe to that point of view. So what then? The Taliban want to be in power again and want all Westerners gone. They also control the poppy production. So what is the plan?

As to the tanks. If you're involved in conflict in Afghanistan they will be very useful. In my opinion, if you stay in Afghanistan you are going to be in conflict so therefore you need the tanks. I think this mission is also proof that a tank can be useful in more ways than was thought before.

I think (for me atleast) to fully understand your position on the tanks i'd need to understand what you think we should be doing in Afghanistan and how you think we should be doing it. If we should be at all.

   

Where oh where to begin...

Your are aware of the budget for the coast guard is divided into 5 regions and as such they can not operate the ship? That is more of an argument for unifying the coast guard. When the next ship or sub pops up in the Northwest passage unchallenged that is a conflict. Our claim to the north is feeble at best and you want to water it down further? Islands such as Hans are important for the mining rights but it will also become a viable trade route as the North becomes more accessible. That's money in our pockets and we have a clear claim to it, all we have to do is take it. Would you rather we just let the Dutch/Russian/US have it?




It's not good enough to 'just' do the job. Maintenance on any aging vessel costs more than a new one but also the expected lifespan of these vessels are almost up as well so we need replacements. It's not a question of if, its when. The budget we scrap now toward keeping the antiques floating we could be putting toward brand new and far more cost effective ships. True, there will be a period where we will not be able to have ships up and that is a concern but for that period we are still not without some capability. We might as well get some use out of the Upholders we got and get our money's worth out of them while we can and they will be operational by then.



Again, scraping the budget for the planes would allow the purchase of new and far more cost effective equipment. There will be down time but at this point is not something that can be avoided without going in the red.



To early to comment on that until more details are made public. I would be interested on more details if you have it.



Are we going to invaded Pakistan and Iran now? That's what it will take to keep them out of Afghanistan. It's not that the enemy is strong it is that the country has had the shit kicked out of it for the last 30 years and everything has to be built up from scratch. You can't build without security and you can't have security until you take the fight to the insurgents and you can't do that without going on the offensive. We can't fight the enemy with harsh words when they have been taught since they were children to fight for their various warlords. The only way to reason with that generation is with the sword and mounting their heads on pikes rince and repeat as many times as required. Your not going to sit at a table with the foot soldiers of fanatics unless you want an axe to the head. They need to be put down like the dogs of war that they are before any rebuilding can be done.



If that's what liberal thinking is today you can have my liberal flag then, I will have nothing to do with it. The army is not a toy to be presented at parades and special occasions to be put away for the rest of the year. It is a tool of state and its strength defines the nation. My vision of the CAF looks like shit on the parade square but kicks the shit out of the enemy in the field. This means being trained to kill without fear, remorse or hesitation. Canada has many fine qualities that dwarf the aspects of the need to kill but makes that need all the more important to defend, violently as required. There is no need to play up the need to kill and become as savage as those we need to put down but we should never forget or neglect it either. It is better to be feared than loved.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next