Military chief warns China and Russia are 'at war with the West' and Canada is not ready

[KevinB]

Maybe, just maybe, that's the problem. They should be heard, and listened to.

It really needs to be a delicate balance.
Yes I agree that GOFO’s need to be seen and heard, but within the framework of their position.
The Military in a Democracy cannot be politicized, so while one needs to be clear about the state of the Forces and the needed resources (personnel and material) to accomplish the Government’s mandate to the Forces, it needs to be done in a way that isn’t seen as a political tool for or against any specific party.

 

[WLSC]

Should the CDS be an institution? Named by Parliament?

That is a very interesting idea. I would say recommend by parliamentary committee, named by the CG. Minimum PM involvement. That could be interesting.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That is a very interesting idea. I would say recommend by parliamentary committee, named by the CG. Minimum PM involvement. That could be interesting.

Elected by serving members, like a union Prez ?

 

[GR66]

It really needs to be a delicate balance.
Yes I agree that GOFO’s need to be seen and heard, but within the framework of their position.
The Military in a Democracy cannot be politicized, so while one needs to be clear about the state of the Forces and the needed resources (personnel and material) to accomplish the Government’s mandate to the Forces, it needs to be done in a way that isn’t seen as a political tool for or against any specific party.

Seen and heard in private when advising the Government...in public the military should be completely non-political.

 

[Eaglelord17]

It really needs to be a delicate balance.
Yes I agree that GOFO’s need to be seen and heard, but within the framework of their position.
The Military in a Democracy cannot be politicized, so while one needs to be clear about the state of the Forces and the needed resources (personnel and material) to accomplish the Government’s mandate to the Forces, it needs to be done in a way that isn’t seen as a political tool for or against any specific party.

Its a good thing we all serve the King then and not some politicians. Our loyalty is clearly laid out when you swear your oath, the politicians also swear a oath to serve the same master.

 

[WLSC]

Elected by serving members, like a union Prez ?

That would be…a lot of fun

 

[Halifax Tar]

That would be…a lot of fun

Lol could you imagine? Hahaha

 

[ueo]

Elected by serving members, like a union Prez ?

Oh Sh^t!

 

[WLSC]

Lol could you imagine? Hahaha

Oh yes, I ca.n

 

[lenaitch]

Canada has long lost the 'peace keeper" label that brought us both national and international respect.. maybe it's time to focus on that again.

Were that true, where do you think UN Chapter 5 peacekeeping would be applicable in the past couple of decades? Where could we have sent our people that was with the agreement and consent of both sides, they could be lightly armed and defensive only and completely impartial? Chapter 5 might have worked okay when the disputing sides were legitimate nations with actual governments, but we don't see that anymore.

Successive governments have milked the 'peacekeeper' label as a justification to do military on the cheap and garner statesman accolades for themselves.

Besides, with everything run by 9-5 bureaucrats in New York and how well we've seen that work in the past, I'm not sure we should wish that on serving members.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Were that true, where do you think UN Chapter 5 peacekeeping would be applicable in the past couple of decades? Where could we have sent our people that was with the agreement and consent of both sides, they could be lightly armed and defensive only and completely impartial? Chapter 5 might have worked okay when the disputing sides were legitimate nations with actual governments, but we don't see that anymore.

Successive governments have milked the 'peacekeeper' label as a justification to do military on the cheap and garner statesman accolades for themselves.

Besides, with everything run by 9-5 bureaucrats in New York and how well we've seen that work in the past, I'm not sure we should wish that on serving members.

This.

"Peacekeepers" don't need expensive things like:

GBAD
ATGM
 Tanks
Artillery
LAVs
6th Gen Fighters
ASW
Attack Helicopters
Destroyers
Submarines
Ammunition
And so on...

We are cheap and try to rest on the laurels of those who went before us. It's shameful really.

 

[KevinB]

Its a good thing we all serve the King then and not some politicians. Our loyalty is clearly laid out when you swear your oath, the politicians also swear an oath to serve the same master.

Theoretically yes, but the Monarchy is a simple figurehead in Canada, and the as such the need to remain apolitical is paramount.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Theoretically yes, but the Monarchy is a simple figurehead in Canada, and the as such the need to remain apolitical is paramount.

They remain a figurehead, but they play a very important role constitutionally; even if they haven't exercised it.

I am an ardent Monarchist, however, it's always something that the Republicans tend to gloss over when it comes to this debate. What comes next? Uncertainty in all honesty. I cannot imagine a Canadian PM and President who are both elected get along swimmingly. The PMO would definitely be getting a swift dressing down in size and power, so can you imagine how Ms. Telford and her ilk would view that exercise.

I watch some of the former colonial "Republics" like Barbados and Jamaica to see how well their political stability survives. And when you look there, you find far more meddling from China and Russia than anything else.

Sri Lanka has been picked clean far worse by the Chinese in the past 20 years than the British ever did; and it was all done with a smile and a handshake.

 

[RangerRay]

This.

"Peacekeepers" don't need expensive things like:

GBAD
ATGM
 Tanks
Artillery
LAVs
6th Gen Fighters
ASW
Attack Helicopters
Destroyers
Submarines
Ammunition
And so on...

We are cheap and try to rest on the laurels of those who went before us. It's shameful really.

I think what really held the peace in those early peacekeeping missions were the Superpowers telling their clients to cut that shit and behave or they’ll lose their funding. The Superpowers were essentially a backstop to the blue berets. Once the Cold War was over, the Superpowers no longer had leverage on genocidal groups.

 

[RangerRay]

They remain a figurehead, but they play a very important roll constitutionally; even if they haven't exercised it.

I am an ardent Monarchist, however, it's always something that the Republicans tend to gloss over when it comes to this debate. What comes next? Uncertainty in all honesty. I cannot imagine a Canadian PM and President who are both elected get along swimmingly. The PMO would definitely be getting a swift dressing down in size and power, so can you imagine how Ms. Telford and her ilk would view that exercise.

I watch some of the former colonial "Republics" like Barbados and Jamaica to see how well their political stability survives. And when you look there, you find far more meddling from China and Russia than anything else.

Sri Lanka has been picked clean far worse by the Chinese in the past 20 years than the British ever did; and it was all done with a smile and a handshake.

There are a lot of politicians and elites in this country that are irked that the Act of Succession doesn’t allow them to be at the apex of Canadian constitutional order.

 

[Kirkhill]

Theoretically yes, but the Monarchy is a simple figurehead in Canada, and the as such the need to remain apolitical is paramount.

And that, as Martha would say, is a good thing.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Were that true, where do you think UN Chapter 5 peacekeeping

Say what now? NATO Article 5 and UN Ch 6 or 7 are not the same thing....

Might be worth it to read "UN Ch 5"....

Getting the basics right help build ones case. Just saying.

 

[lenaitch]

Say what now? NATO Article 5 and UN Ch 6 or 7 are not the same thing....

Might be worth it to read "UN Ch 5"....

Getting the basics right help build ones case. Just saying.

Yes, I may have mis-referenced. I was thinking the traditional blue-helmet, white vehicle missions that Canadians fondly think of. UN Chapter VI as authorized by the Security Council?

Not trying to make a case; I was just countering another post that said we should get back into it, and I was curious where and when that would be applicable in past couple of decades.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Theoretically yes, but the Monarchy is a simple figurehead in Canada, and the as such the need to remain apolitical is paramount.

Honestly if the Monarchy wanted they could apply a ton of power in Canada. They choose to remain hands off.

The PM doesn’t appoint senators, the GG does. Same with Judges, etc. The GG is appointed by the King. The final stage in any law is also being signed by the GG, who could hypothetically refuse much like how your President can refuse to sign laws into being, only difference being there is no override option if they refuse.

At this point seeing where our politicians are leading us, I think the monarchy being more directly involved wouldn’t be a bad thing. Can’t really be much worse than the short sighted politicians we currently have. At least their guiding hand could help develop some long term plans/policies.

 

[btrudy]

They remain a figurehead, but they play a very important role constitutionally; even if they haven't exercised it.

I am an ardent Monarchist, however, it's always something that the Republicans tend to gloss over when it comes to this debate. What comes next? Uncertainty in all honesty. I cannot imagine a Canadian PM and President who are both elected get along swimmingly. The PMO would definitely be getting a swift dressing down in size and power, so can you imagine how Ms. Telford and her ilk would view that exercise.

I watch some of the former colonial "Republics" like Barbados and Jamaica to see how well their political stability survives. And when you look there, you find far more meddling from China and Russia than anything else.

Sri Lanka has been picked clean far worse by the Chinese in the past 20 years than the British ever did; and it was all done with a smile and a handshake.

They play an important role constitutionally, only because they haven't attempted to exercise it.

Because if they ever attempted to do so, well, things would go wonky as we attempted to navigate exactly how to go about completely ignoring the demands of some puffed up jackanape who seems to think that they can actually tell us what to do based upon nothing more than being descended from William the Conqueror.

Because, make no mistake, Canada would not in any way shape or form allow itself to actually start listening to a monarch that starts attempting to exert their "power". It would be pure political chaos of course, and I have no idea how our system of government would end up looking like in the end, but there's no way in hell that we would be a monarchy even on paper within a decade of that happening.