This is my first time posting outside of the Pit or MPSIMS so be gentle.
I am a serving member of the Canadian Forces, but I am not politically astute. I know for a fact that there are many Canadians on this board that are and with that in mind I’d like to ask: Why do you think that Jean Chretien is allowing our military to die out? The simple fact, folks, is that Canada’s military is no longer an effective combat capable force. We are undermanned, waaaaaaay underfunded, underequipped and we lack any kind of actual support from our government whatsoever. Or at least that’s how it seems to me. We are renting submarines from the brits, our aircraft are so far behind the americans level of technology that it’s not even funny. Worse is that some of the really good bits of technology were originally designed by canadians. (Discussion of the AVro Arrow anyone?) Our maritime helicopters need to be replaced NOW. Not in 5 years, not even in 1 year, immediately. People, our Sea King helicopters literally have Duct tape all over them. (Discussion of Red Green theory of aircraft maintenance anyone? ) We still have members of our military that need to work one and sometimes even two extra jobs to keep off welfare. Why is this situation not being dealt with? Is Jean Chretien content to allow Americans to defend our country? No offense to our southern buddies but as a member of the military I sure as hell am NOT. So someone please explain, are the liberals opposed to the military as a rule, or is the leader of our country merely THAT incompetent. I know he IS incompetent, it’s merely a question of how much.
You’re asking for Great Debates with this one, I think.
A factual GQ might be more like, what is Canada’s policy/plan for the military, especially in regards to its budget? Then people could dig up factual cites showing how the budget has changed over the years, what the current policy towards maintaining/replacing/building/developing/leasing/etc. vehicles and hardware is, what the official justification for such policy/budgeting is, what role/share of responisibility Canada expects its own forces and its allies (esp. the USA) to take in defense of Canada, etc.
If the Mods agree then please move this thread to great debates. I’m not sure I’m prepared to actually debate my position on the state of our military with some of the barracudas inhabiting those waters but I’ll give it a shot.
(that was intended as a compliment to the debating skills of the posters in that forum, just so we’re clear.)
Thanks Ringo, but my question was not about the budget so much as it was about liberal policy towards the military. Why are we being allowed to fester and die?
Buliwyf, I am not able to address your question. The above links are some background and they are from various points on the political spectrum, some arguing that the budget can get smaller and others decrying the underfunded state of Canada’s military.
The situation goes back a long way. I remember when the navy in British Columbia complained about never leaving port. Trudeau told them “If you want to see the world, buy a plane ticket”.
Very simply, because the Canadian people don’t think it’s an important issue.
Like it or not, Canadians don’t WANT more money spent on the military. People will say they do in casual conversation, but by and large Canadians will always choose to have the government spend their money on social programs and Medicare.
Consequently, the government has no political reason to spend more money on the armed forces. Military spending is extremely expensive; even with an underfunded military, Canada coughs up $12.5 to $13 billion a year for the Forces. A quarter of all tax dollars goes to service the debt, so the government is left with about $120 billion a year to spend on programs: therefore, a hair more than 10% of all federal program spending is military. To substantially increase that amount means you’d have to take money from another spending item or raise taxes. The government has no political reason to do that.
I challenge you to find, say, $3 billion in the budget that WOULDN’T infuriate someone to take it away for military spending.
Because they’ve surrounded on two sides by big oceans, to the north by frozen wasteland, and to the south by the most powerful country in the world that wouldn’t let The Bad Guys get a foothold in Canada in the first place (for many reasons, much less that whole NATO thing).
The popular opinion of people serving in the military is that they’re a bunch of gun-happy goofballs (Airborne hazing, anyone). Veterans are respected, but those currently in the armed forces are not.
It may be a lack of understanding about how much people in the military earn compared to other public emergency servants (firefighters, police, etc…).
Or maybe we just think Toronto should pay for its own damn snow removal, instead of calling in the boys in green.
We’re not a military culture, and we don’t demand that our leaders serve in the armed forces, unlike our neighbours to the south. So, the armed forces get neglected.
The reason that the Liberal Party (who have been in power most of the last 35 years) has allowed the military to run down is simply that they see more votes to be gained by spending the money elsewhere. That is the bottom line, sadly (and the other parties would likely be much the same, were they in power).
Nearly all government departments have been allowed to “rust-out” since the early 1990s. This has left the military undermanned (sorry, underpersoned), and with a great lack of operational equipment. True the Navy got some new ships (now there’s no fuel for them, apparently), the Air Element got CF-18s (a while back, many now grounded), but the infantry…they don’t even have enough helmets and flak jackets to go around on peacekeeping missions. Poor leadership at the top levels of the armed forces, coupled with the above planned obsolescence has wreaked havoc with morale.
The Canadian military has always been plagued with political expediency driving command decisions, even before WWI. I don’t know how this could be addressed. No Canadian politician would allow him or herself to be seen as letting the military get on with its own business, least of all an ego monster like Chretien.
Canadians have little knowledge of their own history; we scrape along in peacetime, allowing the military to stagnate and shrink: in 1937, the Permanent Force of the Canadian Army (now known as the Regular Force) was down to 5000, all ranks, with WWI uniforms and equipment. We had to scramble like hell to organize a proper fighting force in 1914, again in 1939, and even in 1950. The military has always been scorned in peacetime, and only properly respected in times of crisis. As Kipling wrote in the 19th century,
I don’t believe that to be completely accurate. I hate to do it on my first thread but I’m going to have to ask for a cite. In doing so, allow me to offer the following for my opposing view: this, and this, and this
realizing of course that the above links all say that canadians want more money spent on the military but not at the expense as you said of other government programs.
Anyway, the simple fact here folks is that we are a top heavy military. want to find 3 billion dollars that noone will complain about? Fire about 20 or 30 general ranks. Especially since traditionally sizewise, Canada’s entire forces only rate a full colonel at best.
If you don’t mind a yankee making a comment, I read something a few weeks ago which said that the US and Canada have signed some kind of reciprocity agreement with regards to sharing military forces.
Which seems to indicate that Chretien’s defense strategy is to come crying to the US if any trouble pops up :mad:
You might recognize this quote; it’s from your OP.
Look, anyone can pay lip service to the value of the military. However, your values have nothing to do with what you SAY they are. Your values are where you spend your resources. And Canadians, time and time again, have refused to support in any substantial way a major upgrade in military spending. They continue to vote, for the most part, for political parties that don’t plan on big spending increases to the military. They exert virtually NO pressure on the government to increase military spending. Those are facts, B; Canadians don’t vote for pro-military candidates and they spend very little effort lobbying for more defense dollars. That demonstrates where their values really are.
Or here is a cite from a link YOU PROVIDED:
I mean, this is an article you found, and it’s practically repeating my words; Canadians pay lip service, but when the rubber meets the road they don’t actually want to pay for it, because it would mean cutting spending elsewhere.
realizing of course that the above links all say that canadians want more money spent on the military but not at the expense as you said of other government programs.
Anyway, the simple fact here folks is that we are a top heavy military. want to find 3 billion dollars that noone will complain about? Fire about 20 or 30 general ranks. Especially since traditionally sizewise, Canada’s entire forces only rate a full colonel at best.
If I were you, I’d rely on the US and laugh alll the way to the bank.Consider U.S. military spending: $375,000,000,000 per year.
(that’s in billions)
This doesn’t include loans we’ve taken in the past to cover military expenses. We’re paying $338 billion a year in interest on our debt. This includes all government deficits, but still…
If you’d like the prestige of financing your own military, be my guest. Personally, I’m tired of underwriting American chauvinism; perhaps Canada can help me.
Not all that many US leaders actually served in the military. Many more were lawyers. Military service is a boost in campaigning and such, true, but hardly mandatory.
Well, military service often seems to be an issue with US politicians. Up here, it would never come up. I can’t name a single politico who actually served in the armed forces.
Well the norm for the longest time was to Spend big and raise many men for your troops in times of war and during peace time spend next to nothing. It made sense before, We spent pretty big during the Cold war until the 70s and that was during a period of Detente. The slide was sped up in the 90s when there was no longer a great threat to us.
The Average Canadian pre Sept 11 2001 would have scoffed at anyone complaining about the state of our armed forces. That was a time when cutting the deficit and lowering taxes were the priority. Remember the killing of the Helicopter deal. Many of the cuts were to Military spending. A popular kicking boy during peace time.
I’m for Military spending myself, but there is the cost that we all must take to do this. The first is to go back to deficit Budgets and next will be higher taxes. Our population is too small to avoid that. Mind you this country has shown that in time of war time mobilization it is capable of anything. I’m not sure that the circumstances that exist will warrant that kind of effort or enthusiasm with the public or the politicians
) We still have members of our military that need to work one and sometimes even two extra jobs to keep off welfare. Why is this situation not being dealt with? Is Jean Chretien content to allow Americans to defend our country? No offense to our southern buddies but as a member of the military I sure as hell am NOT. So someone please explain, are the liberals opposed to the military as a rule, or is the leader of our country merely THAT incompetent. I know he IS incompetent, it’s merely a question of how much.