I'm curious about some statistics and some practical field effectiveness regarding our Canadian military.

As a civilian, all I see of our military is either government statements or media coverage. As such, I'm curious as to our effectiveness not as a military machine (that's for another debate) but as a unit carrying out our global duties in areas such as task forces and peace keeping.

Every time our military is mentioned in the media, I read report after report of friendly fire casualties, deaths fighting small battles, peacekeepers killed, etc, etc. I guess I'm seeking enlightenment regarding the overall effectiveness of our campaigns.

I support far more funding for our military (more than the current administration is even willing to commit), an overhaul of our military hardware, and increased recruitment and expansion of global operations. I'm just curious how effective we are in the current global operations. Seems like we take a lot of casualties and sacrifice a lot of our soldiers for not a lot of result. Part of reforming and strengthening our military requires not just increased funding and rebuilding a badly underfunded force, but also a re-examining of our current military policies and whether we are truely putting our military to it's best possible use. It's okay to be humanitarian, but for a military as small and underfunded as ours, I have to question the effectiveness of operations and if they are truely the best use of our current resources.

So, can anyone enlighten a curious citizen?

   

Where to start?

First off, the word casuality is thrown around a lot and unknown to most civvies and reporters (especially), a casualty is anyone who is killed or wounded. So that means someone who gets a gash from a piece of shrapnel is considered the same as the poor chap next to him who had his head taken off by that same piece of shrapnel. In reality, we haven't suffered all that many combat deaths in Afghanistan compared to the US. I think the total deaths is sitting somewhere around 18-20 right now, which considering we've rotated probably 9-10,000 men through there over five years, I'd say it's pretty low. If you're a bloodthirsty chap, I'm sure our troops have killed at least 5 times as many Taliban than we've lost (5:1 kill ratio). Our snipers alone took out several dozen in 2001/02...

UN peacekeepers have very strict rules of engagement (ROE) and usually have to sit on their hands while watching each side go at it. The few times Canadians took matters into their own hands (Nicosia Airport - Cyprus and Medak Pocket - Croatia), we kicked ass and took names. But most of the time, UN troops are forced to sit by (like in Sebrenica, Bosnia or Rwanda) while the Security Council debates BS ad nausem.

Still say what you want about peacekepping, it worked in several places we deployed to. Cyprus didn't start killing each other after we left and the former Yugoslavia isn't nearly the mess it was in the early 90s. Peacekeeping really only works where both sides are willing to talk things over. In places like the Middle East, where both sides appear to want to wipe each other out (depending on your viewpoint), peacekeeping essentially turns into a ceasefire until one side thinks it can kick the others ass.

Afghanistan is definitely NOT peacekeeping. It is a NATO mission (not UN) to stabilize the government and prevent the Taliban from taking over and exporting terrorism again. It is a peacebuilding mission and that will entail combat.

As to the effectiveness of our troops, I think Grainfedprairieboy put it best, "The best soldier is a Canadian with American equipment led by German officers". Canadian soldiers/sailors/airmen are among the best in the world period and are recognized by our allies as such. The US wanted us in Iraq for more than just moral support...and most analysts would rank the average Canadian fighting man/woman in the top five (if not the top three) if we had the best equipment, like the US does.

The problem is that their equipment has not always been the best. That is definitely changing. Our Halifax frigates are fantastic and near state of the art. Our CF-18s are undergoing a refit which will make them rough equivalents of the F-18C/D, and our soldiers have excellent equipment, from the Coyote to the C7A2 and so on. The CF is in need of replacements for the Iroquios DDHs and new fighters, but need personnel more than anything.

Right now, at $15 billion, Canada is about 16th in defence spending (6th in NATO) in the world, not bad for the world's 36th most populous nation I'd say. The $17 billion or so (in new equipment ) the Cons offered up last month is a good start. Defence spending will be at about $16 billion this year, up from only $10 billion in 1999/2000, so we are making headway. Even the Libs had promised to get defence spending to $18 by 2010, and the Cons value the military more than the Libs do, so I think it's reasonable to expect $20 billion in the next 4-5 years if the Cons stay in power.

Really, the big problem now (IMHO) is that the government needs a new White Paper on Defence (the last one came out in 1994) and has to decide where we are going and then fund from there. Just buying equipment willy-nilly without any idea of how and when we'll use it is pointless. Are we going to remain a blue water navy with some limited power projection capabilities? Do we want to go back to being the world's peacekeeper? Do we want expeditionary force capability?

   

So basically we're looking at a high effectiveness, but we're in need of more recruitment and better equipment. This has been in line with some of what I've researched, but I think the majority of the media I've looked at has a lot of opinion in it. No surprise, but it can sometimes make things difficult to analyze.

I suppose I'll give the previous liberals credit for taking the initiative to increase funding and I'm glad to see the conservatives taking the situation even more seriously. I think Canada needs to take a more active role internationally and I too would like to see some policy papers for our military. It would help to give form to the increasing military budget and give the nation a purpose towards which can spend the money.

   

We had better be beating a 5:1 ratio. If we've only gotted a hundred or so Taliban recently on top of a few dozen back in the early days, I'm afraid we're falling far short of effecting change. Unless it was a mere cohort that bogged the Soviet Union down, we need to ramp up our efforts.