Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[FJAG]

My problem with prepositioned kit is that we can't afford to build enough staging areas to provide timely response to everywhere.

What @KevinB said.

Don't do everywhere. Pick the one logical place that we've already committed to as a country and where NATO wants us and where our map symbol would finally be big enough to show up on everyone's PowerPoint briefings (including Soviet Russian ones). I keep saying, you can combine EFP Latvia with CMTC and one of our many Div HQs to create a forward deployed fly on brigade at a zero additional PYs (maybe even some PY savings)

Make it a reserve heavy one so that it is cheap, fulfills political objectives with lower recurring annual costs. Give them the older equipment like Leo 2s and LAV 6's and M777s already in service - they'll be gratefull to get it. Put all those expensive RegF guys on the politically favoured ad hoc mission (like filling cubicles in Ottawa - I jest - but only a little).

You can get a lot of political mileage out of this if you play your cards right.

 

[KevinB]

Looking at a post Russian Invasion of Ukraine world.
Russia will either:

1) Splinter - requiring a lot of Peace Support Operations.

2) Rebuild- which will require Prepositioning forces in the Baltics and/or Ukraine.

Either of those will require the CAF to have a European forward position, most likely larger that it currently does.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd argue that you only really need a Heavy Force in Europe.
Light Forces are the only realistic Global Response Canada has inside 30 days.
Medium Forces can come later.

Arriving and showing the Flag with a Light Bde is 100x more practical than not arriving with a Heavy or Medium Force until well after it was needed...

I think we generally agree. My only real point of contention there is whether or not we "need a Heavy Force in Europe". Do we need to be there or do we want to be there? Is it a useful effort? Is worth the treasure and the risk of blood? In my opinion, as noted elsewhere Canada's Army is a discretionary force. It gets used where and when the government decides it is valuable.

That is why I agree with you on the Light-Medium force. We can emplace Medium Forces over time with the kit we have available. We can rush a light force, and light reinforcements, in a crisis.

If we were to emplace a Heavy force in a theatre over time and man it with a skeleton crew of nightwatchmen then we could rush the Light element (the bodies) into place given enough notice before the bombs start falling. It is all doable if cash. But does anyone want to spend the cash?

 

[KevinB]

Unfortunately to be viewed as a credible NATO Ally, one needs to put a Heavy Force into Europe.

The problem with that is Canada doesn’t realistically have a Heavy Force.

In the ideal world Canada would, and could reform 4CMBG in Latvia or Poland etc.

Failing all of this, I think going to @FJAG ’s suggestion of parking a Bde’s worth of equipment in Latvia and having a “30/70” 4 CMBG there in conjunction with a CMTC sort of endeavor, that encompasses the Bde Hq and personnel from the current eFP and Bde HQ.

Ideally supported by a Squadron of RCAF Fighters (eventually the F-35).

That can leave 2 Light Bde’s and a Medium Bde for Domestic needs and overseas deployment as needed by the GoC.

 

[Kirkhill]

Unfortunately to be viewed as a credible NATO Ally, one needs to put a Heavy Force into Europe.

OK You are advancing a rationale for deploying a Heavy Force into Europe.
If the Army exists solely to generate political and diplomatic benefit for Canadians what advantage does NATO membership confer?

NORAD expenditures make sense.
Do NATO expenditures make sense?

The problem with that is Canada doesn’t realistically have a Heavy Force.

In the ideal world Canada would, and could reform 4CMBG in Latvia or Poland etc.

Failing all of this, I think going to @FJAG ’s suggestion of parking a Bde’s worth of equipment in Latvia and having a “30/70” 4 CMBG there in conjunction with a CMTC sort of endeavor, that encompasses the Bde Hq and personnel from the current eFP and Bde HQ.

Ideally supported by a Squadron of RCAF Fighters (eventually the F-35).

That can leave 2 Light Bde’s and a Medium Bde for Domestic needs and overseas deployment as needed by the GoC.

 

[KevinB]

OK You are advancing a rationale for deploying a Heavy Force into Europe.
If the Army exists solely to generate political and diplomatic benefit for Canadians what advantage does NATO membership confer?

NORAD expenditures make sense.
Do NATO expenditures make sense?

Canada is a member state. It has been since the inception. Canada’s various (credible) political parties have never shown any degree of interest in leaving NATO either.
I would argue that Canada does benefit from NATO, but I no longer vote in Canada so my opinion is fairly irrelevant.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada is a member state. It has been since the inception. Canada’s various (credible) political parties have never shown any degree of interest in leaving NATO either.
I would argue that Canada does benefit from NATO, but I no longer vote in Canada so my opinion is fairly irrelevant.

There in lies a major problem I think. To the Canadians of 1949, having faced down Germany and Japan and bumping up against the Russians at the Elbe and the Chinese on the Imjin that engagement made sense. To present day Canadians, large numbers of whom have no connection to 1945 or Europe, there is nobody offering them a rationale for their involvement. To put it crudely nobody is putting in the effort to sell them on a business case. It isn't good enough just to tell them that over a lifetime ago people who they didn't know decided that it was worth committing the effort to the NATO cause. The pitch is especially difficult when many of the people being asked to contribute have absolutely no connection at any level to either side of the North Atlantic.

To be honest I am connected to both sides and to the 1945 generation and I find it hard to define what Canada's interests in NATO are.

 

[daftandbarmy]

To be honest I am connected to both sides and to the 1945 generation and I find it hard to define what Canada's interests in NATO are.

Jack Granatstein wrote this about that...

Is NATO Still Necessary for Canada?​

In other words, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization does very little or nothing to protect us at home and has proven its limited effectiveness on operations. The United States, by contrast does protect us in its own interest and is effective, still far and away the possessor of the most effective military force on earth. Instead of pledging fealty to the increasingly hollow shell of NATO forever, perhaps it is time for Canadians after 64 years in the alliance to begin a fundamental reassessment of their place in the world and at last to produce a hard-eyed, hard-edged national security strategy for Canada. What we need is an analysis of Canada’s defence and foreign policy requirements, a sweeping review of where our interests lie today and where they will need to be protected in the next twenty or fifty years. Any such review will surely continue to give primacy to Canada’s alliance with the United States. But one question that must be asked and answered is if NATO any longer serves our political and military needs.

If such an analysis says strongly that we still need NATO to protect our national interests, I will be content. But Canadians and their government must ask the question for the first time since Prime Minister Trudeau raised it at the end of the 1960s. Then, the answer was that NATO remained necessary – but not so much so that the Canadian commitment could not be cut by half. Today, the answer might be that NATO has served its purpose well in the past but is now no longer needed as we head into a new world with its very different challenges. It is time to raise the question for consideration.

Policy Papers - Canadian Global Affairs Institute

 

[FJAG]

There in lies a major problem I think. To the Canadians of 1949, having faced down Germany and Japan and bumping up against the Russians at the Elbe and the Chinese on the Imjin that engagement made sense. To present day Canadians, large numbers of whom have no connection to 1945 or Europe, there is nobody offering them a rationale for their involvement. To put it crudely nobody is putting in the effort to sell them on a business case. It isn't good enough just to tell them that over a lifetime ago people who they didn't know decided that it was worth committing the effort to the NATO cause. The pitch is especially difficult when many of the people being asked to contribute have absolutely no connection at any level to either side of the North Atlantic.

To be honest I am connected to both sides and to the 1945 generation and I find it hard to define what Canada's interests in NATO are.

Well - every little school kid knows you need friends and allies or the bullies just keep coming around and taking your lunch money.

We could conceivably go into a North American defence pact with the other 46 countries that make us up (although I'm not so sure how much Saba brings to the table) or maybe just with us two norther Northerners, the US and us (where I'm not sure how much we bring to the table) and leave NATO behind. But I've gotten to like the Polish cheese and ham that I get and would like to keep that line open.

Do we need a business case - you betcha. But I'm pretty sure that the policy monkeys in Ottawa are having a hard time selling their "the carbon tax will fix climate change" propaganda right now and probably have no brain power left to devote to trivial things like national security.

Back to my Polish ham and cheese and garden-grown tomato salad.

 

[FJAG]

Instead of pledging fealty to the increasingly hollow shell of NATO forever, perhaps it is time for Canadians after 64 years in the alliance to begin a fundamental reassessment of their place in the world and at last to produce a hard-eyed, hard-edged national security strategy for Canada. What we need is an analysis of Canada’s defence and foreign policy requirements, a sweeping review of where our interests lie today and where they will need to be protected in the next twenty or fifty years. Any such review will surely continue to give primacy to Canada’s alliance with the United States.

That ultimately leads to statehood and half of the US doesn't want to add another 20 odd Democrat senators to the House.

But one question that must be asked and answered is if NATO any longer serves our political and military needs.

Did I mention Polish ham and cheese?

Seriously - you don't want my opinion after I've been researching and writing about NATO in Afghanistan in 2006 for the last year.

 

[Good2Golf]

perhaps it is time for Canadians after 64 years in the alliance to begin a fundamental reassessment of their place in the world and at last to produce a hard-eyed, hard-edged national security strategy for Canada.

…99.999325% of Canadians don’t GAF…

 

[Kirkhill]

That ultimately leads to statehood and half of the US doesn't want to add another 20 odd Democrat senators to the House.


Did I mention Polish ham and cheese?

Seriously - you don't want my opinion after I've been researching and writing about NATO in Afghanistan in 2006 for the last year.

Britain used to be rock. The US is a rock. NATO is a pile of gravel. Which makes the more effective anchor?

 

[GR66]

To my mind anything that helps tie together the generally liberal-minded, democratic, rules-based peoples of the World against a rising tide of illiberal authoritarianism is in the interest of Canada. NATO is one of those things.

 

[FJAG]

Britain used to be rock. The US is a rock. NATO is a pile of gravel. Which makes the more effective anchor?

Doesn't that depend on whether you are trying to hold a boat steady or have a mob hit swim with the fishes?

 

[Kirkhill]

Doesn't that depend on whether you are trying to hold a boat steady or have a mob hit swim with the fishes?

Or trying to stop yourself falling off a cliff?

 

[KevinB]

Britain used to be rock. The US is a rock. NATO is a pile of gravel. Which makes the more effective anchor?

Yes, but Canada is ridiculously anti-American in some ways as far as Military issues go.
If you joined an American Defense Pact, (see we put Canada in there at the end of Ameri ) you’d end up needing to cough up more than 2%.
NATO allows Canada a voice, with us alone you’d be like a rowboat being towed by the USS Ford…

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, but Canada is ridiculously anti-American in some ways as far as Military issues go.
If you joined an American Defense Pact, (see we put Canada in there at the end of Ameri ) you’d end up needing to cough up more than 2%.
NATO allows Canada a voice, with us alone you’d be like a rowboat being towed by the USS Ford…

In NATO Canada is one of 31 voices trying to be heard and 3% of the vote. With you alone we are one of two voices at the table and make our own decisions.

Your argument is the same that was used to try and keep the UK in the EU. Outside of the EU the UK has demonstrated more freedom of movement and more flexibility.

Why on earth would we be towed? Our choice to cut the line and row.

 

[GK .Dundas]

The unspoken truth of Canadian defence spending is that if we spend enough the Americans have to go through at least the motion of asking as opposed to just doing.
You would think that at very least the above would at least be obvious to most Canadian governments.

 

[KevinB]

In NATO Canada is one of 31 voices trying to be heard and 3% of the vote. With you alone we are one of two voices at the table and make our own decisions.

Your argument is the same that was used to try and keep the UK in the EU. Outside of the EU the UK has demonstrated more freedom of movement and more flexibility.

Why on earth would we be towed? Our choice to cut the line and row.

You really aren’t that naive are you?
You would be 1/100th of a vote.
We would simply tell you what to do, and you would do it, or get kicked out of the party. The Canadian economy can be leveraged very easily that a small ripple from us can be a tidal wave.

Frankly I don’t see a need for a Canada US Defense pact from an American perspective, as frankly you freeload most of the time, so if Canada was out of NATO, we’d make it easier on ourselves to just ignore you.

 

[Kirkhill]

You really aren’t that naive are you?
You would be 1/100th of a vote.
We would simply tell you what to do, and you would do it, or get kicked out of the party. The Canadian economy can be leveraged very easily that a small ripple from us can be a tidal wave.

Frankly I don’t see a need for a Canada US Defense pact from an American perspective, as frankly you freeload most of the time, so if Canada was out of NATO, we’d make it easier on ourselves to just ignore you.

I was under the impression there were quite a few bilateral agreements between Canada and the US and even one or two defence related ones.

You seem to be awfully concerned about the friends we keep.