- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Forces ‘fudging‘ reserve numbers
Size overestimated: Homeland security at risk, former watchdog says
Chris Wattie
National Post
Thursday, March 25, 2004
The Canadian Forces is overestimating the size and strength of its army reserves and dragging its feet on plans to boost the numbers of part-time soldiers, warns the former chairman of a Defence department review committee.
And that could have a potentially disastrous impact on the army‘s ability to respond to natural disasters or terrorist attacks, said John Fraser, the former Conservative Cabinet minister and head of the Minister‘s Monitoring Committee.
"You may get away with fudging numbers and flights of theoretical fancy about the revolution in military affairs when it‘s just weekly parades or weekend training," Mr. Fraser is to say in a speech today to a conference on defence. "But if something terrible happens here at home and we don‘t have the troops -- after pretending that we do -- then look out!"
An advance copy of his speech was obtained by the National Post.
Mr. Fraser‘s five-member independent committee, struck by former defence minister Art Eggleton in 1997, was to monitor the implementation of various programs within the Department of National Defence. In 2000, it focused on plans to revitalize the militia.
Under the Land Force Reserve Restructuring plan, the long-neglected army reserve was to be stabilized at 15,500 troops by early 2003, then increased to a total of 18,500 soldiers by 2006. The militia was also to be given a beefed-up role in "homeland defence," becoming the first military units to respond to terrorist attacks or natural disasters.
However Mr. Fraser said some senior department and military officials at National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ) have done everything possible to stall, divert or bypass the program.
"This has never been accepted by NDHQ," he says in his speech, to be delivered this morning to the Homeland Defence conference in Calgary. "Even with some new money, NDHQ resisted and only at the [Defence] Minister‘s insistence did they grudgingly fund the next two years [of the militia expansion]."
He says since the program‘s inception, some officials have been "finding every way to avoid facing a policy decision to have 18,500 [army reservists] by March 2006."
"The challenge is to achieve those numbers, not to find every excuse imaginable to avoid even admitting the objective or the date," Mr. Fraser says.
Canadian Forces officials said yesterday that as of March 1, there were 15,450 army reservists in 130 regiments across the country. In February, that figure was 14,200.
The military had no explanation for the one-month increase in reserve numbers, but Mr. Fraser suggests in his speech officials at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa are playing games with those numbers.
He said defence bureaucrats insist on counting the hundreds of reserve soldiers serving full time with the regular army, including hundreds of reservists now deployed on missions to Bosnia and Afghanistan, toward the target of 18,500 troops in the army reserve.
Mr. Fraser also said that when pressed on reserve numbers, defence officials insist advances in military technology mean the military can do more with fewer soldiers, a notion he rejects.
"I suspect that homeland defence [against] asymmetric attack or natural disaster will require more, rather than less personnel."
Without sufficient numbers of troops available to call out in the event of a national emergency, Mr. Fraser says the army reserve‘s proposed role in homeland defence will be compromised.
"Homeland defence can include a number of activities for reserve army personnel. But surely one of the first requisites is the ability of units to immediately deploy significant numbers of soldiers," he says in his speech. "And this applies whether to emergency in an asymmetric [terrorist] attack or a fire, flood or earthquake.... You may have the comfortable notion that 18,500 are available but, in fact, it‘s much less than that."
Mr. Fraser says the reserves currently operate on the assumption they will have up to three months to prepare for missions either in Canada or in support of the regular army overseas, and must be reorganized to allow them to react more quickly, particularly to emergencies at home. "In a national domestic attack or natural disaster, no one is going to have the luxury of three months extra training."
Mr. Fraser says his committee was disbanded last November before it finished its work, at the behest of the same defence officials who are resisting the plan to revitalize the reserves.
"The need for monitoring is not over. We said so as a committee," he asserts. "There is a lot of work to do -- and those responsible for actually implementing ... reserve restructuring are dealing with a corporate centre that, faced with serious resource inadequacies, is not fully committed to [the plan‘s] objectives. From the beginning, they have resisted accepting it."
He says the rebuilding of the army reserves still faces obstacles in an overly centralized and time-consuming recruiting process and in the failure of the government to pass legislation protecting the jobs of reservists called up during national emergencies.
Size overestimated: Homeland security at risk, former watchdog says
Chris Wattie
National Post
Thursday, March 25, 2004
The Canadian Forces is overestimating the size and strength of its army reserves and dragging its feet on plans to boost the numbers of part-time soldiers, warns the former chairman of a Defence department review committee.
And that could have a potentially disastrous impact on the army‘s ability to respond to natural disasters or terrorist attacks, said John Fraser, the former Conservative Cabinet minister and head of the Minister‘s Monitoring Committee.
"You may get away with fudging numbers and flights of theoretical fancy about the revolution in military affairs when it‘s just weekly parades or weekend training," Mr. Fraser is to say in a speech today to a conference on defence. "But if something terrible happens here at home and we don‘t have the troops -- after pretending that we do -- then look out!"
An advance copy of his speech was obtained by the National Post.
Mr. Fraser‘s five-member independent committee, struck by former defence minister Art Eggleton in 1997, was to monitor the implementation of various programs within the Department of National Defence. In 2000, it focused on plans to revitalize the militia.
Under the Land Force Reserve Restructuring plan, the long-neglected army reserve was to be stabilized at 15,500 troops by early 2003, then increased to a total of 18,500 soldiers by 2006. The militia was also to be given a beefed-up role in "homeland defence," becoming the first military units to respond to terrorist attacks or natural disasters.
However Mr. Fraser said some senior department and military officials at National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ) have done everything possible to stall, divert or bypass the program.
"This has never been accepted by NDHQ," he says in his speech, to be delivered this morning to the Homeland Defence conference in Calgary. "Even with some new money, NDHQ resisted and only at the [Defence] Minister‘s insistence did they grudgingly fund the next two years [of the militia expansion]."
He says since the program‘s inception, some officials have been "finding every way to avoid facing a policy decision to have 18,500 [army reservists] by March 2006."
"The challenge is to achieve those numbers, not to find every excuse imaginable to avoid even admitting the objective or the date," Mr. Fraser says.
Canadian Forces officials said yesterday that as of March 1, there were 15,450 army reservists in 130 regiments across the country. In February, that figure was 14,200.
The military had no explanation for the one-month increase in reserve numbers, but Mr. Fraser suggests in his speech officials at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa are playing games with those numbers.
He said defence bureaucrats insist on counting the hundreds of reserve soldiers serving full time with the regular army, including hundreds of reservists now deployed on missions to Bosnia and Afghanistan, toward the target of 18,500 troops in the army reserve.
Mr. Fraser also said that when pressed on reserve numbers, defence officials insist advances in military technology mean the military can do more with fewer soldiers, a notion he rejects.
"I suspect that homeland defence [against] asymmetric attack or natural disaster will require more, rather than less personnel."
Without sufficient numbers of troops available to call out in the event of a national emergency, Mr. Fraser says the army reserve‘s proposed role in homeland defence will be compromised.
"Homeland defence can include a number of activities for reserve army personnel. But surely one of the first requisites is the ability of units to immediately deploy significant numbers of soldiers," he says in his speech. "And this applies whether to emergency in an asymmetric [terrorist] attack or a fire, flood or earthquake.... You may have the comfortable notion that 18,500 are available but, in fact, it‘s much less than that."
Mr. Fraser says the reserves currently operate on the assumption they will have up to three months to prepare for missions either in Canada or in support of the regular army overseas, and must be reorganized to allow them to react more quickly, particularly to emergencies at home. "In a national domestic attack or natural disaster, no one is going to have the luxury of three months extra training."
Mr. Fraser says his committee was disbanded last November before it finished its work, at the behest of the same defence officials who are resisting the plan to revitalize the reserves.
"The need for monitoring is not over. We said so as a committee," he asserts. "There is a lot of work to do -- and those responsible for actually implementing ... reserve restructuring are dealing with a corporate centre that, faced with serious resource inadequacies, is not fully committed to [the plan‘s] objectives. From the beginning, they have resisted accepting it."
He says the rebuilding of the army reserves still faces obstacles in an overly centralized and time-consuming recruiting process and in the failure of the government to pass legislation protecting the jobs of reservists called up during national emergencies.
