Integrated forces for North America

[John Nayduk]

Sorry for the long post, what do you think?
Contenential Defence
By PAUL KORING and DANIEL LEBLANC
From Tuesday‘s Globe and Mail
Ottawa‘s top military brass are pushing to put Canadian troops and warships on the front lines under a U.S. plan for an integrated, continental defence structure in the war against terrorism.
A Pentagon proposal for an "Americas Command" could lead to a single, integrated command, putting some Canadian troops and warships in a continental-defence structure, taking orders from a joint command deep in Colorado‘s Cheyenne Mountain.
"We declared ourselves ready to consider an arrangement that could extend to land and sea," Canadian Vice-Chief of Defence Staff George Macdonald said Monday. General Macdonald was part of a top-level Canadian delegation that last week in Washington discussed a continental-defence command.
Sources close to the Canadian-U.S. talks said that they are at a very early stage and that Washington is "acutely sensitive" to Ottawa‘s concern about such a command‘s "area of operation," which could be seen as infringing on Canadian sovereignty.
But the sources said that an initial plan for a command covering the 50 states has evolved, at least in concept, to a continental-defence structure.
Gen. Macdonald said the expanded collaboration by the two countries‘ armies and navies could be modelled on the North American Aerospace Defence Command, where a single, binational command directs warplanes from both countries in the mutual defence of North America.
"It‘s in our mutual interest to look at the threats to North America together. That‘s what we‘ve done in NORAD for 44 years. I think it‘s important that the possible threats that may involve land and sea resources also be considered," Gen. Macdonald said.
He added that Canada could be marginalized unless it becomes involved in the defence structure.
U.S. officials also envision a command that extends beyond U.S. borders.
"It‘s not going to be just a homeland-defence command," a senior U.S. official said. "It‘s going to be a command that has responsibility beyond homeland defence."
Sources in Washington close to the talks confirmed that the command might be continental and said the term "Americas Command" has been used, although its geographical scope remains undefined. One source suggested that senior Mexican officials also have been involved.
High-level Canadian officials have engaged in preliminary and exploratory talks with senior U.S. political and military officials about the scope and operational structure of an integrated command, the sources said.
The Pentagon initiative is part of a sweeping review of U.S. defence set off since Sept. 11, which exposed the hodgepodge of U.S. military units — none reporting to a single headquarters — responsible for the defence of North America. Although the United States had major regional commands responsible for Europe, the Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East/South Asia, no similar structure exists for the United States or Canada.
Several options are under consideration.
One would graft land and sea forces into an integrated command led by the same U.S. four-star general who heads NORAD, which is responsible for air defence of Canadian and U.S. airspace. (Since 1958, when the treaty creating NORAD was signed, a Canadian air-force general has been deputy commander.)
Another option would be the creation of a regional commander-in-chief, with responsibility for U.S. defence. It would not need Canadian participation, although senior officials said Ottawa is interested in exploring an expanded version to include joint defence against common threats on land and at sea.
Since the end of the Cold War, and especially since Ottawa pulled its forces out of Europe, the Canadian military has increasingly sought seamless operational integration with the U.S. military. Canadian warships routinely travel as escorts with U.S. carrier battle groups, Canadian troops train with U.S. divisions and Canada‘s combat fighters play war games with their U.S. counterparts. In the air war over Kosovo and in the ground operations in Afghanistan, senior Canadian and U.S. officials have extolled the interoperability of the two militaries.
But operational integration falls far short of joint command structures. To date, NORAD is the only instance where a treaty devolves political authority — down to and including the order to shoot — to a military command structure.
According to published reports, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will seek White House approval for a homeland-defence command to be headed, like all the other regional commands, by a four-star general. That would give it the same clout as the other regional commands — and NORAD.
If the command is grafted to the NORAD structure, the commanding officer would be "double-hatted;" he would run continental air defence and, separately, the land and sea components. (For NORAD to be formally expanded to serve as a air-sea-land command, the Canada-U.S. treaty would need to be renegotiated.)
A single, integrated command would mean that U.S. troops, combat jets circling U.S. cities and warships guarding U.S. coasts would report to a single headquarters. If that homeland-defence command is expanded to a binational command with Canada, a single, integrated headquarters would control similar deployments on both sides of the border.
However, there are no plans to include civilian agencies — such as customs, immigration or police — despite their critical roles in U.S. President George W. Bush‘s war against terrorism.

 

[byuill]

Looks like the Americans have recognized the potential for future terrorist attacks and have taken a new approach. We can only hope our government cooperates (more like they‘re gets dragged kicking and screaming into cooperating by the threat that the border will be closed down, paralyzing trade) especially as they‘re not keen to admit the shameful inadequacies in our own security and immigration services, not to mention defence spending. I‘ve no faith that they will, though. If Chretien and the rest weren‘t moved into action by footage on the news from Sept. 11th, then what will?

 

[the patriot]

I agree for the need to be more proactive with military expansion to protect our interests, but we need to be careful about the slippery slope we‘re already sliding down. Canada and the U.S. already have economic integration with NAFTA. Now we‘re looking at quasi-military integration..... What‘s left?! Political and monetary integration. Sounds like the 51st state to me!!!

-the patriot-

 

[JRMACDONALD]

51st State? - doesn‘t sound bad to me. at least, we would have a constitution that guarantees our rights. ( to say nothing of a dollar thats worth something!)

 

[Jungle]

It would be no worse than the European union. The EU is still composed of independent countries, however that may change in the long run. But those changes are inevitable. The idea of forming a North American "formation" would make sense. After all, we had the 1st SSF 60 years ago and it worked... **** , historians called the Force "the greatest fighting force ever put together". I can see a North American Brigade being set-up as a test, much like the Eurocorps.

 

[Bill Green]

With all due respect to the leadership cadre in NDHQ, I think the discussion of military contenental forces must be discussed first at the political level, after all we are a democracy and our first allegiance should be to the Crown (elected and governing legislators).

I am very concerned when a nation state like Canada relies on another nation(s) for its defence and sovereignty. Seems to me I remember other historical alliances where one country or empire gave up its own defence and was soon a vassal of a foreign power.

But the kit would be exciting as would the integration of part-time and full-time soldiers which we are only beginning to move toward and ever so slowly.

 

[rceme_rat]

What rights do you feel are better protected under the US Constitution than under the Canadian Constitution?

Certainly not freedom of speech, e.g., since our method is to say that the restriction of some speech is not unreasonable, while the US approach is to declare similar speech as unworthy of the protection of the First Amendment.

As for the Second Amendment (notwithstanding the rather strained interpretation it is given to support the proliferation of personal weapons) it is hardly a declaration of a fundamental right, but is rather a chosen (and highly disputed) value. It hardly goes to the integrity and dignity of the individual.

As for being the 51st state, it‘s more likely that each province would become a separate state - so let‘s say 51st -to 60th states. The territories can be brought in as protectorates.

If you are ready to be dollarized today, consider that your Canadian investments will be exchanged at the worst possible rate we have seen in my memory. Consider that Canada was recently, for the thir time, chosen as the best country in which to invest. While your taxes will go down, most of us supporting the military are decidely middle class -- we won‘t get the biggest benefit out of it. Consider that with your hard-earned dollars, you will have to purchase health care, and there‘s plenty to suggest it isn‘t working in the states.

Are you ready to adopt their hodge-podge of criminal law - different from state to state and between the federal and state levels. At least we got that one right - it‘s nice knowing when you travel from province to province that what you take for granted in Ontario won‘t get you thrown in jail in Alberta. And along with that confusion, let‘s throw in the intensified crime rates, particularly violent crimes, the greater numbers of homeless, working poor, uneducated, etc.

Not to say we can‘t do it better than we are, but don‘t be so quick to jump into bed with the US. And also not to say that we can‘t work more closely with them on a lot of key issues - defence being one of them. There are benefits to adopting their equipment, etc., but we have our own history traditions, values that determine differences in approach.

In short - if I wanted to be an American, I could have left years ago.

 

[Spr Earl]

**** EM, like i want to be cannon fodder for Dubya :evil: and his gang!

I‘ll die first!!!!! :fifty:

NO WAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jmy]

Originally posted by Jungle:
[qb]It would be no worse than the European union. The EU is still composed of independent countries...[/qb]

The difference, of course, is the the EU is an organization of many, largely equal, states. Any similar grouping in North America would not be. Canada and/or Mexico with the U.S. is an American hegemony no matter which way you slice the pie.

 

[jmy]

Originally posted by rceme_rat:
[qb]What rights do you feel are better protected under the US Constitution than under the Canadian Constitution?
[/qb]

My question too. There are differences, but I‘ve heard few argue that the Charter wasn‘t strong enough except in very limited circumstances (there has been debate about adding an explicit constitutional right to privacy - beyond that already conferred by s. 8).

Originally posted by receme_rat:
[qb]Certainly not freedom of speech, e.g., since our method is to say that the restriction of some speech is not unreasonable, while the US approach is to declare similar speech as unworthy of the protection of the First Amendment.[/qb]

I would disagree with you on this point. The American right to free speech is generally recognized by pointy-headed legal experts as stronger than the Canadian right to freedom of speech, which is tempered by other Charter considerations. But I, for one, don‘t think that‘s a bad thing. No right is paramount; all must be balanced with other rights. A person‘s right to free speech should, wherever possible, be crafted such that it minimally impinges on other individuals‘ equally important personal freedoms: in the U.S., it frequently does (i.e. the conduct engaged in by some groups in the U.S. - pro-life, KKK, PETA, etc. - would not be tolerated in Canada).

 

[Jungle]

JMY
I am not sure you can call germany (80 million population) and Belgium (10 million) or Ireland (5 million) equal partners. We are halfway to a North American union anyway with NAFTA. It would make sense to cooperate in the defence of the North-American continent. As we have seen, an attack on the US will invariably affect Canada.

 

[Black6]

Finally, an idea that makes sense! I hope our Govt takes ‘em up on it!

 

[cagomez]

To think that at the beginning of the 20th century one of Canadas biggest fears was a US invasion, oh how far we have come. No sarcasm "intended". Sounds like an alright plan but still seems to have alot of gaps. Sovreignty being the biggest issueaside, joining the all the civilian services (both countries) might take some doing. Would the US, given our current state of readiness, actuall trust us to provide an actual reliable security force. Hoping the best, this plan would at least give our leaders a real reason to make some improvements to our forces.