Perhaps the terrorists will think the CN Tower is a symbol of American gluttony – the tallest free-standing Big Mac on a stick.
Psssst! Don’t tell the terrorists. Would you believe the CN Tower shoots killer laser beams out of the top? Would you believe it shoots hockey sticks? Pucks?
On a serious note, the threat to Canada is not as great. We don’t have colour coded terror warnings as you do. But we have tightened security and extended rather frightening powers to our law enforcement as a result of the attacks on North American soil. The Navy is wise to make such an announcement with an election expected in the spring. No doubt defence against terrorism will be a campaign issue.
I could be totally off here. I just had a thought cross my mind while reading the thread.
Is it possible that the difference in opinion of what Canadians should do with their military, is directly related to our very basic difference in opinion about “The Right To Bear Arms”?
A lot of Americans (if not most) see it as a primordial right. Most Canadians don’t even really think twice about it ~ never did, don’t really need to in order to live happy lives. 'Could where the line is originally drawn, on a very basic level.
I call bullshit on terrorists not caring to differentiate between Canada and the Great Satan. Terrorism is based on making a point, and the point is that the US is the enemy, GB is the enemy, those who practise warmongering in the Middle East are the enemy. Terrorists may be crazy, but they’re smart enough to make the point they want to make.
I can picture the CN tower being blasted in the middle, teetering ever so slowly, and plunging passionately into SkyDome in a very picture of civic love.
A lot of the points that came rattling around my head as I read this ended up getting fielded with style by RickJay, to whom I tip my hat. Full disclosure: I am Canadian, with no military in my background but living in a military community and able to see first hand some of what is and isn’t happening here in terms of investment. I believe generally that our military investment does need increasing, but I also agree with the point made earlier that our procurement processes are so utterly politicized and high-handed that the investment-decision-making processes need some serious re-jigging before we cough up much dough.
Now, Mr. Doors appears to have taken his football and gone home, which is too bad. I don’t know how he could think that his initial stance could come off as anything other than hostile and arrogant to a non-American citizen, although that may not have been his intention. I also wish he had shared his thoughts on when and where exactly my country explicitly stated that we were now depending on the US for defense as a matter of official policy. Our funding decisions may be poor ones, and our deployment decisions may be overstretching our resources, but (so-called) bad choices do not automatically equate to an overt expectation of someone else picking up the ball for us, and any assumption otherwise is simply projection, IMHO.
One issue which I don’t think was raised much in and amongst this whole mess (and I don’t have the facts at hand to make this a formal thesis, so let’s just agree that these are my impressions): it is my understanding that the US deficit is larger now than at any time in history and a lot of this has to do with military spending. I have read, in the Economist, the NYT, the Globe, and various blogs on both sides of the spectrum, that there are potentially serious global economic implications if the US does not get its financial house in order. So, on the one hand, Canada is being basted for failing to meet it’s obligations as a major power by underfunding it’s military…is it unreasonable to suggest that the United States is failing to meet it’s obligations by not spending within its means and potentially seriously destabilizing global markets? Certainly, Canada could make similar spending decisions for its military through serious deficit financing, and shoulder future generations with a crippling debt, but (for the time being) we have chosen not to do so.
Just food for thought. Note to the excessively literally minded: I am not suggesting for even the briefest instant that Canada is a model of financial prudence and integrity; right off the bat the gun registry and the sponsorship program nonsense put that notion to rest. We are just as capable of terrible financial decision making as the next sovereign nation.
Well it seems to me that the only Canadians who have taken offense to what Doors has said are those Canadians who have never served in the military who would least know what the actual situation is. Or, maybe those of us who have served in the military aren’t as thin skinned. I dunno.
Uzi: I served in the Canadian Forces and know the situation quite well. So eat me. What Airman Doors said did not just give offense; it was a lie. His claim that Canada is mooching off the USA is obviously and indisputably false, as he later admitted.
Sam, would you mind telling me who in the thread “doesn’t care”? Nobody here “Doesn’t care,” except ElvisL1ves, who’s apparently vamoosed. Spare me the Canublican smears.
You’re a day late, ten dollars short, one straw man in excess, and one topic removed from the subject at hand. The issue raised in the OP was not “the Canadian military is underfunded.” It seems to me most people outside the NDP agree with that. Others have also added it’s badly managed. The OP’s claim was not merely that the Forces is underfunded; it was that Canada is mooching something off the United States. With all due respect, that was quite clearly the point in dispute. Your adding a rant about the forces needing more money is approximately 230 posts too late and essentially nothing more than “What they said!”
As you have pointed out, a country can theoretically fail to meet international commitments if it underfunds its military. But I’ll ask you the same question I keep asking; how, exactly, is Canada mooching off the USA? Please provide specific cites and examples.
If the answer is “uh, I guess we’re not” (and that is indeed the correct answer) then I guess the point’s made.
Cite?
With all due respect to our men and women - and I used to be one of them - what the hell are you talking about? You’re telling us the military is underfunded and now you’re saying it’s of unsurpassed quality? That’s quite fascinating; at what point was the military of unsurpassed quality if it’s underfunded? I do not ever recall a time when the military was funded at the level it claimed to need; this issue has been a burning one for pretty much my entire life and, indeed, since about 1946. Wouldn’t underfunding, well, reduce the quality? Wonky 40-year-old helicopters and Leopard I tanks are not quality military platforms. Until 1987-1989, our soldiers didn’t even carry modern assault rifles with full auto settings, for Christ’s sake. (Uzi, I know this because I was in the military.) We’ve ALWAYS struggled with this issue.
I loved being a soldier and I think we had a good army and good soldiers, but let’s dispense with the “We have the best soldiers in the world!” malarkey; it’s trash talk and nothing more.
matt, the NDP is seriously fuzzy on the issue, and I really do not believe the defense budget would go up under an NDP administration. The fact that one of their two primary defense policy planks is dedicating more money to “salaries, benefits and living conditions” demonstrates an amazing ignorance of the situation. As I have explained, Canadian soldiers are fairly paid and get very good benefits; the notion that they are underpaid is a myth. Look up the pay rates if you don’t believe me.
As to “spending more money on peacekeeping,” I’d like to know what that actually means. This is a non-statement, like previous claims in this thread that Canada is “good at peacekeeping” and the USA is not “good at peacekeeping.”
“Peacekeeping” is not an independent and monolithic mission or set of tasks, and Canadian troops don’t really train for “peacekeeping” and never have. “Peacekeeping” is a political term for a large number of military missions that have in fact been very, very different in terms of the military skills and assets used. “Peacekeeping” activities could be anything from delivering food to refugees to engaging in combat with genocidal maniacs - or, in the case of Bosnia, both in the same mission. Or it could mean sending engineers to defuse mines, or patrolling the high seas in missile destroyers, or sending officers to broker ceasefires between rival gangs, or sending armored troops to create a presence in a neutral zone, or any number of things.
If you want Canada to do more peacekeeping, explain how the NDP is going to improve the military. The only specific plan in the NDP policy document is that you’ll spend more on pay, benefits and housing. All the government-built houses can’t keep the peace in Afghanistan. Explain how the NDP will reorganize the military and what specific military capabilities you’ll pay for and how they will be paid for and THEN I’ll be impressed. What will the army’s order of battle be? How many brigades? What’s your plan for replacing the CF-18? What will our heavy transport capability be? Are we looking for an intercontinental quick reaction force or a force dedicated purely to national defence? What mix of regulars and reserves would you suggest we employ?
In a weird sort of way, the NDP and Sam Stone are in the same boat here, the difference being that the NDP wants “more money for peacekeeping” and Sam just wants “more money.” Sam suggests we can afford a “$20 billion military.” Well, that is absolutely true. We could, in theory, afford a $30 billion military. With a Constitutional amendment to stop equalization payments we could easily afford a $40 billion military. We could also afford a $10 billion military, or a $50 billion military if we stretched for it. But why $20, $30, or $40 billion? It’s Republican thinking; the priorities of a conservative with the spending habits of a socialist. People are throwing around numbers and not actually asking the critical questions, which are:
What military capacity do we want to have?
What will it cost?
I mean, I THINK we need to spend more money on the military, but bear in mind we are talking about an armed forces that spent hundreds of millions of dollars on helicopters that cannot perform one of their primary missions, trucks with squeaky brakes that are useless in a tactical situation, and, God help us all, Garrison Dress. We have 75 generals and admirals for an armed force that needs - and I am being very generous here - 30 at most, and would probably get away with 20. Maybe we need to reorganize the Forces before we pour more money into it. If your car’s broken, you fix it before you worry about gassing it up.
A discussion of Canada’s military needs doesn’t begin with a dollar figure, it ends with one.
If that’s the way you’re reading it, it would indeed have been a waste of time to try to engage in a discussion of facts and responsibilities with someone who can put up such strong emotional defenses against them. Those of you who have been limiting your discussions to border defense only, not even dismissing but simply ignoring the broader responsibilities that your position in the world entails, certainly can be accused of “not caring” about anything else. But, blithe, self-indulgent, thumbsucking obliviousness could also explain it. Which one is it for you?
Now stop the sneers and address the broader subject, please. The handwringing over where the money would come from and what force structure would be maintained is secondary - those are “hows”, not “whethers”. Acceptance of your responsibility is the primary issue, and you’ve been strenuously avoiding it. The autodenial mode you’ve been using throughout this thread only adds to the feeling that I’ve got you pretty much understood.
On this topic, **Sam ** is right. Credit where due.
As for the “mooching” accusation, I don’t see where **Airman ** retracted anything about the substance of it, merely his tone. I most certainly don’t see any way in which you’ve refuted it at all. There aren’t many other ways to describe carrying a lesser share of the load than everyone else, are there, unless you’re claiming that the load doesn’t need to be carried at all. *Are * you a smug isolationist?
OK, so I think Airman is going out on a limb here. I agree that if Canada does get into some sort of squable that the US and our big bad military will go to help because it will be to our benefit to do so, but I don’t agree that Canada will be mooching off of us or that they are depending on us or our forces. If they were doing so don’t you think that the American public would be talking about it already, other then this rant.
With that said I’m not totally siding with the Candians either. I think they have to realize that maybe it wasn’t the brightest idea to “downsize” their military but thats their choice. Canada isn’t, however, defenseless. Just like we would go up in arms against invaders as civilians and citizens I am sure that Candaians would do that same.
So both sides have good and bad things and honestly I try and stay out of the military side of things, I have to deal with enough of those debates with Airman and my parents when I’m home from school. But I think I had to put my two cents in on this because things will happen as they happen.
I said, “Those of you who don’t care”. Not “You don’t care”. It is self-identifying. If you don’t care about the size of our military, that’s who I was addressing my comments to.
Okay… Is Canada mooching off the United States? That’s a complex case to make, and it depends on whether you think Canada owes the U.S. anything for the serious benefits we get from the U.S. military. You can make the case that since the benefits we get are secondary and not asked for, we owe them nothing. However, I think it would be nice if we at least showed a little gratitude once in a while. We spend 1/4 on the military as a percentage of GDP as the U.S. does. We don’t have their commitments, of course. But to suggest that we get no benefit from the existence of a massive U.S. military is simplly wrong, IMO.
Or let me phrase it this way: If the U.S. tomorrow decided to cut its defense spending by 75%, do you think we’d have to increase ours to compensate? I think we would. That means to some extent we are a free rider on U.S. military spending.
Do you believe the situation has gotten better since 1999? The forces just announced that they may be forced to close five major bases. The Sea King contract was cancelled. A whole bunch of F-18’s were mothballed in order to upgrade a few of them.
Under article 5 of NATO, an attack on any member is to be considered an attack on all. Article 5 was enacted after 9/11, and Canada was asked to send combat troops to Afghanistan. Well, we managed to send 860 soldiers, and we could only maintain them there for six months, because we did not have enough soldiers available to replace them after a 6 month TDY. I believe that alone violates our NATO commitments, because we are required to provide a full brigade when called upon to do so. In addition, budget cuts had eliminated desert camo uniforms, so our soldiers were sent with jungle camo - and had to borrow uniforms from the brits.
When Canada flew airstrikes in Yugoslavia, it had to borrow munitions from the U.S., because we still hadn’t replaced the ordnance dropped in Gulf I, some 7 years earlier.
The NATO average for defense spending is 2.4% of GDP. Canada spends 1.2%. The only two countries that spend less than us are Portugal and Luxembourg.
The British military has been vocally complaining about our lack of upgrades causing problems in joint training due to equipment incompatibility. And in fact, one of the friendly fire accidents that killed Canadians in Afghanistan was the result of a lack of IFF gear compatible with the American targeting hardware.
The 1994 Defense White Paper said:
The white paper also said,
The situation has not improved since then. In fact, it has gotten worse.
As for NORAD, the U.S. is already complaining that Canada is not meeting its NORAD capability, and there has been talk of dismantling our bilateral relationship.
Finally, our U.N. commitments. Canada had a proud tradition of peacekeeping in the world - often providing more peacekeepers than any other country. But today, Prime Minister Martin had to admit that we would not be able to make our promised commitment to sending peacekeepers to Haiti - a promise of a mere 120 soldiers.
Quality != quantity. Canada’s soldiers are simply excellent. Canada routinely cleans up in international wargames. The European tank games used to be nicknamed “The Canada Cup” because of our habit of winning it. The last ‘Top Gun’ competition in the U.S. had 11 competition categories, of which Canada won four or five and placed second or third in all others. We sent one team against 10 others from around the world and four of the U.S.'s best.
In Afghanistan, even with our poor equipment Canadian soldiers maintained the highest kill ratio of any combatants. A Canadian sniper in Afghanistan now holds the record for longest confirmed sniper kill - 2430 meters. 30 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan received bronze stars from the U.S. military.
This is in spite our our reduced funding. We have a tremendous military culture that breeds high quality soldiers. Our level of training is extremely high. This is in spite of our government doing everything in its power to destroy that proud tradition - from Trudeau’s force integration and common uniforms to Chretien’s disbanding of our airborne regiment after the Somalia incident.
Different soldiers have different capabilities. It’s a mug’s game to try to compare them all and rate one as the ‘best’. Are our JTF-2 guys as good as SAS? I would imagine it depends on the mission and the fit for the specific training they get. Nonetheless, results matter, and Canadian soldiers, despite shoddy equipment and chronic underfunding, have been achieving spectacular results throughout the 20th century.
Wrong question, at least if you’re trying to decide if we’re “mooching.” Mooching implies that the US is incurring costs because of our low spending. The correct question would be: If Canada increased its military funding to your preferred level, would the US be able to spend less of their money on things military? Do you really think the Americans would decrease military funding just because we updated the avionics in our F-18s?
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Wrong question, at least if you’re trying to decide if we’re “mooching.” Mooching implies that the US is incurring costs because of our low spending.QUOTE]
As we are members of a treaty (NATO) that provides for the common defense of its members, then it is expected that we provide a certain level of preparedness to that eventuality. It doesn’t matter whether the US spends more than we do as that is their business. But, if it is expected that we provide a certain level and as we don’t then someone else would potentially have to take up that slack. As the historical trend has been for us to spend less than other NATO members have and if you consider the average to be where our spending should be, then someone certainly is kicking in our share. More than likely the US as they spend the most.
I think the argument should be: What is the level that Canada should spend on its military to address its treaty obligations and the roles it wants to fulfill on the International stage?
How wonderful. The “broader issue” is bullshit. The issue is “Canada costs the US money to defend”. I‘m breathlessly awaiting evidence of the assertion. Airman has slunk away unable to prove shit. The best he did was “Look! At some point you may not fulfill your obligation”. Classy.
Being the nice guy I am I pulled the UNDP top 30 Human Development Index countries and then pulled their GDP, % GDP MIL, and Populations from the CIA World Factbook. I punted the US, Israel, Iceland and 2 or 3 others leaving 22 Nations. See below
Note that Canada is below both the average and mean which backs what most of the Canadians here have said. I’ll repeat it just in case you missed it “Canada should increase its military funding”. Note also that the information seems to imply that Japan, Germany, Italy and Spain all “mooch” more that Canada when you look at their GDP/Canadian GDP ratios (A) and Mil per Capita to Canadian Mil per Capita (B) ratios. I expect Airman to begin a new rant. Especially the Japanese. Sheesh. Massive GDP, little military funding, located next to hostile countries (N. Korea, China) and yet providing relatively less than secure, middle power Canada. Oh, and they have aspirations to a UNSC permanent seat.
Also note that if Canada is mooching, checks will be sent to Australia and Greece I hope. They seem to be pulling more than Canada, and “you’ve” been implying that we cost you something. I mean paying them would only be fair right?
Now from the NATOweb page here’s the breakdown of expenditures within each countries military spending
So here we see that Canada, as a % of military expenditures, falls within the std from the mean of all categories except other. I have no idea what other entails.
Note though that there is hardly a shocking disparity between Canada and the rest of NATO.
If you look at the current figures then no there isn’t a disparity. But that is because everyone else has dropped to Canada’s level. If you look at the historic figures then you will see that Canada has always been near the bottom. I think you will find the figures I posted somewhere in the first couple of pages in this thread from the 80’s onwards.
So we’re not actually arguing about Canada in 2003? Give me a moment to hop in my way back machine. Again, data taken from the NATO site.
Country "Average
1995 - 1999" 2003 % Delta
% devoted to personnel expenditures
Belgium 69.3 71.5 3.2%
Canada 44.2 45.1 2.0%
Denmark 59.8 52.0 -13.1%
Germany 61.5 59.4 -3.4%
Greece 61.7 67.6 9.6%
Italy 71.8 74.0 3.1%
Luxembourg 79.1 66.7 -15.6%
Netherlands 54.6 51.2 -6.3%
Norway 38.0 37.9 -0.2%
Portugal 80.8 84.1 4.0%
Turkey 48.2 45.8 -4.9%
UK 39.4 40.0 1.4%
United States 39.0 36.1 -7.3%
Average 2.1%
Median 0.2%
std 6.9%
% devoted to equipment expenditures
Belgium 5.8 7.1 21.6%
Canada 12.7 13.9 9.2%
Denmark 12.8 13.5 5.8%
Germany 11.8 14.1 19.6%
Greece 20.1 13.1 -34.7%
Italy 12.9 12.4 -3.7%
Luxembourg 4.1 19.7 385.1%
Netherlands 16.4 15.9 -3.1%
Norway 24.5 23.7 -3.4%
Portugal 5.5 4.1 -24.9%
Turkey 26.5 31.5 18.9%
UK 24.8 23.6 -4.7%
United States 26.2 27.4 4.6%
Average 30.0%
Median 4.6%
std 103.7%
% devoted to infrastructure expenditures
Belgium 3.9 2.7 -30.1%
Canada 3.9 3.7 -5.2%
Denmark 2.2 3.6 5.8%
Germany 4.8 4.4 -9.1%
Greece 1.9 1.3 -32.8%
Italy 0.8 0.8 -3.0%
Luxembourg 4.2 2.7 -36.0%
Netherlands 3.8 3.7 -3.6%
Norway 6.3 5.9 -6.1%
Portugal 1.0 0.8 -16.4%
Turkey 4.4 6.4 18.9%
UK 5.2 0.9 -82.7%
United States 2.3 1.4 -37.9%
Average -18.3%
Median -9.1%
std 24.8%
% devoted to other expenditures
Belgium 21.0 18.8 -10.3%
Canada 38.1 37.2 -2.4%
Denmark 25.2 30.8 22.3%
Germany 21.9 22.1 1.1%
Greece 16.2 18.1 11.4%
Italy 14.3 12.8 -10.2%
Luxembourg 12.0 11.0 -8.1%
Netherlands 24.7 29.2 18.4%
Norway 31.1 32.5 4.5%
Portugal 12.3 11.0 -10.8%
Turkey 20.0 16.2 -19.1%
UK 30.5 35.6 16.8%
United States 32.5 35.1 7.9%
Average 1.6%
Median 1.1%
std 12.6%
Sorry about the length.
So did I go far enough back for you? I mean we are talking about mooching now not 1999, but what the hell.
In short Canada’s % breakdown is average for personnel, far about average for equipment (discount Luxemburg), above average for infrastructure and below average for Other. I still fail to see where Canada is falling markedly behind the rest of NATO. Now if a couple of UNSC permanent members are shocked we might not spend as much on the military as they do (US, UK, France) tough luck.
Until you can actually come up with a responsibility Canada is failing to meet, you’re still spewing nonsense. NATO obligations? I’m waiting for cites as to which obligations we aren’t meeting. No, there is no requirement that we “provide a brigade.”
Quoting Airman:
So he did admit nothing is being mooched, and transferred to his standing “But, uhh, you might mooch something in the future” argument.
It has, in fact, been quite effectively refuted, by my frequent references to actual facts, as opposed to your frequent use of lies.
Here are some absolute facts that don’t change no matter how many dishonest allegations you throw around:
The United States is incurring zero marginal costs to defend Canada.
Canada has incurred very substantial marginal costs to defend the United States.
I’d just like you to explain this away; the USA is paying nothingh to defend Canada. Zero, nada, zip. Canada is paying big bucks, relatively speaking, to defend you. What’s being mooched? Please provide specific references to marginal costs the United States has incurred to make up for Canada’s alleged mooching. How many times do I have to ask this simple, straightforward question before you provide an answer?
