Author Topic: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)  (Read 95649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 167,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,202
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #400 on: August 17, 2016, 18:20:06 »
You have double plus words there, Chris.

You have to use the latest Newspeak dictionary.

For instance it's peace is non peace, or if in Africa: double plus non peace.

So says Minitruth.

 [:D
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 50,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,307
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #401 on: September 29, 2016, 16:48:48 »
Good piece by Prof. Steve Saideman of Carleton U. on defence policy review:

Reviewing the summer of the defence review
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/97/attachments/original/1475163657/Dispatch_-_Fall_2016.pdf?1475163657#page=20

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 370,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,388
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #402 on: January 11, 2017, 06:52:15 »
Bumped with the latest - a pretty detailed listing from the CF Ombudsman on what needs to be done as part of his submission to the Defence Policy Review sausage machine.  Here's his conclusion (highlights mine):
Quote
The Ombudsman Office is a resource for those who find themselves frustrated by failures in the system. When we point out those shortcomings, and they are addressed, the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Armed Forces become better and more effective employers for it. However, as I have noted throughout this submission, the systemic failures are too often not corrected.

With that in mind I want to emphasize that everything in this submission is based on calls, complaints and expressions of frustration and anger that pour into our office on a regular basis.

I am not suggesting there are malicious, uncaring people in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces – the contrary is true. I am stating there is an absolute need for modern innovative thinking that flips the paradigm from the rules and regulations controlling the people to the people controlling the rules and regulations. It is always easy to find a rule or regulation that allows for inaction. It is always easier to review or study than take action and right a wrong.

In this submission, I have deliberately avoided recommending studies or reviews and the myriad of others words and phrases that have become euphemisms for lets-announce-a-study-and-hope-it-goes-away when the heat is on from the public, politicians and journalists who have glommed on to some injustice.

Yes, the media, politicians and public will inevitably move on to other matters and the lack of public scrutiny might bring temporary comfort to a few people; but under the rug the problems live on and continue to gather dust.

    Mentally ill members unable to get help will continue to take drastic steps and bring a lifetime of sorrow to their families.
    Indigenous Youth in need of role models will continue to miss the opportunity.
    Our Reservists will continue to wait for parity with Regular Force members and the compensation, care and respect parity represents.
    Those attempting to negotiate the bureaucratic end-of-career maze will not be helped by another study when they know that the phrase “seamless transition” is in stark contrast to reality.
    Many military spouses and children will not be placated by claims of ‘caring for our families’ when they know from experience that whether meaningless or well meaning, it’s an empty slogan.


None of the issues addressed in this submission need another prolonged study or review and none require the expenditure of vast amounts of money.  What we need now is leadership with the will to right the wrongs before the credibility and image of this treasured institution is further eroded. No matter what position or stance we take at home or abroad, a well-supported military force will be the factor in determining success.

So let me end as I began: This is about the future. It is about our national security and our ability to attract future generations of great army, navy and air force members. It is about getting back to a place where the Canadian military regularly had pools of highly motivated, talented people knocking on the recruiting office door. Today, far too many of those talented Canadians are walking past that door with neither a second thought nor a backward glance.
Well put, Mr. Walbourne!

More from the CF 'Budman here.
“Most great military blunders stem from the good intentions of some high-ranking buffoon ...” – George MacDonald Fraser, "The Sheik and the Dustbin"

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 370,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,388
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #403 on: February 07, 2017, 06:21:13 »
Two takes of Monday's (6 Feb 2017) meeting between DefMin Sajjan & SecDef Mattis: the U.S. Info-machine's ...
Quote
Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis provided the following readout:

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis hosted the Canadian Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan at the Pentagon today, his first time hosting a defense counterpart as secretary of defense.

Secretary Mattis and Minister Sajjan reaffirmed the U.S.-Canada defense relationship, emphasizing their commitments to NORAD and continental defense, and agreeing to deepen cooperation to protect North America, noting that 2018 will be the 60th anniversary of NORAD. Secretary Mattis addressed enhancing North American defense relations and the North American Defense Ministerial, which he offered to host this spring in Washington, D.C.

The secretary and minister discussed international priorities and operations, as well as the upcoming NATO Defense Ministerial. The secretary and minister discussed U.S. and Canadian leadership as Framework Nations for Enhanced Forward Presence, members of the international counter-ISIL coalition, and support for United Nations peacekeeping. Secretary Mattis thanked Canada for its commitments to NATO and the counter-ISIL campaign, and agreed to continued discussions with Canada and other coalition members on the progress of the U.S. counter-ISIL strategy review.

The secretary and minister also discussed the importance of defense investments and modernization to ensure continued cooperation.

The secretary commended the minister for his consistent leadership, noting the need for both the U.S. and Canada to continue to represent our shared values and advance security, prosperity, and freedom. The two leaders noted the long relationship between the U.S. military and Canadian armed forces and stated they looked forward to deepening the U.S.-Canada relationship and continuing to work closely together.
...vs. the Canadian info-machine:
Quote
Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan today issued the following readout after his first meeting with new U.S. Secretary of Defense, James Mattis:

    "Today I had the pleasure of meeting with U.S. Secretary of Defence James Mattis. The warm, cordial tone of the discussion reflects the long-standing, close partnership between Canada and the United States, particularly when it comes to defence and security. "The close defence relationship between our two nations provides both countries with greater security in North America and contributes to peace and stability in the world in increasingly complex and uncertain times.

    "With 2018 marking the 60th anniversary of NORAD, I was pleased to highlight the importance of this unique partnership and its success in protecting North America, and we looked forward to working together on its modernization. Secretary Mattis and I also discussed multilateral issues, including our pledges to lead battle groups in support of NATO's enhanced forward presence in Eastern Europe, our commitments to the United Nations and the Summit of Defence Ministers that Canada will host later this year. We discussed our training missions in both Ukraine and Iraq and the work being done by the Global Coalition to degrade and defeat Daesh. I also took the opportunity to discuss Canada's Defence Policy Review.

    "We discussed Canada’s decision to launch an open and transparent competition to replace our legacy fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft, and to explore the immediate acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet fighter aircraft as an interim capability. I expressed my appreciation to the secretary for the support and cooperation of the US Government in these processes.

    "Secretary Mattis and I pledged to work closely together and look forward to our next meeting at the upcoming NATO defence ministerial later this month. "I want to thank Secretary Mattis and Pentagon officials for the warm welcome in Washington and look forward to hosting Secretary Mattis in Canada."
More from the Pentagon here.
“Most great military blunders stem from the good intentions of some high-ranking buffoon ...” – George MacDonald Fraser, "The Sheik and the Dustbin"

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 50,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,307
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #404 on: February 07, 2017, 15:08:26 »
Telling what the Canadian statement does not mention:

Quote
The secretary and minister also discussed the importance of defense investments and modernization to ensure continued cooperation [emphasis added--rather a message, eh?].

Hmm.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #405 on: February 07, 2017, 15:11:06 »
What that seems to say to me - the Trump administration feels the 2% target is less meaningful than then 20% equipment investment.  Canada could get to that number with an extra $1-2B per year.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 167,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,202
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #406 on: February 07, 2017, 16:29:07 »
Nudder possible play....

Finance Operations out of the 0.7% of GDP pledged to Foreign Aid (nominally).
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #407 on: February 07, 2017, 19:54:48 »
What that seems to say to me - the Trump administration feels the 2% target is less meaningful than then 20% equipment investment.  Canada could get to that number with an extra $1-2B per year.

So just buy a couple extra Super Hornets and park them,eh!? [lol: