The Canadian Army Journal, Vol.7, Number 1

[Andyboy]

I understand and agree, I'm not making a statement about the Reg/Reserve thing, I'm just disillusioned and skeptical. Plus I'm beginning to think our armed Forces are going the way of the Dodo bird.

 

[Infanteer]

Plus I'm beginning to think our armed Forces are going the way of the Dodo bird.

As much as I'd hate to start this argument again, if the military has went through 100 years of being in the back seat, why would things start to crumble now?  We're doing just fine.

 

[ArmyRick]

For those of us who are worried about peoples reaction, try posting your ideas here. See what the reaction will be and then maybe go forth with submitting your article.
PBI, where does one submit an article for publication by the Canadian Army Journal?

 

[Michael OLeary]

From this summer's edition:

All contributions and correspondence should be sent to the Managing Editor, as follows:

The Managing Editor
The Canadian Army Journal
Land Force Doctrine and Training System
PO Box 17000, Station Forces
Kingston, ON, K7K 7B4

Fax: (613) 541-5903

(The e-mail address provided was to an officer who is no longer with LFDTS. I will seek an updated point of contact.)

 

[pbi]

My advice: Just Do It.

If the editors don't like it, they won't publish it without sending it back for re-work. If they do like it (and it seems to me that they are a pretty open-minded bunch.....) they will publish it. If you don't have the time or the resources to do a fully-researched article, letters are also welcomed. And, I am equally sure that any half-decent piece by a WO/NCO would make it, if only because they are so rare. If you've got something to say, say it. Cheers.

 

[Andyboy]

Infanteer,

I didn't mean to suggest we were going to crumble, I meant to suggest that sometime in the not to distant future the people of Canada are going to have to decide if the want an armed forces at all. I would suggest that many if not most do not.

"We're doing just fine." Do you really believe that?

 

[Infanteer]

"We're doing just fine." Do you really believe that?

Find me a peacetime Army (although it would be hard to define the last 15 years as "peaceful")...okay, find me an unmobilized Army that has everything in running order.   Hell, even American soldiers complain about equipment and manning levels.

I'm by no means a starry-eyed optimist - I come here and complain for a reason - but I refuse to believe the "Nostradamus's" who like to predict imminent doom for the Canadian Military (Which they've been doing throughout the 20th century).   Like Nostradamus's adherents, they're constantly reinterpreting things and moving the date for destruction ahead.

War and conflict are, like human nature, fickle and constantly shifting phenomenon.   As such, a military always seems to be playing catch-up.

 

[pbi]

I would suggest that many if not most do not.

I wonder what you base this on. All that I have seen over the last year or so (in the media, in the public, and in the many informative posts on this site) suggest to me that this is not correct. Cheers.

 

[Andyboy]

I guess this thread has been officially hijacked! Sorry everyone, sorry.

I do not believe that the army is going to crumble, I believe it already has. I guess it depends on you definition. Our gov't says they are committed to fighting and winning the war on terror and yet what have we contributed? I don't for a second doubt the skill and honor that our soldiers sailor and airmen have brought but in reality we have not contributed to the war in a meaningful way, in my opinion. Consider for a moment our contribution to the Second World War or Korea and compare it to our efforts today. Now consider what the spending priorities are for the federal gov't. Our country is slipping into insignifigance and our military already has. This is my opinion.

In short why do we have a military? Is our military capable of doing what it is supposed to do?

The reason why I think Canadians don't care about the military one way or the other is that I have yet to see any evidence that they do. Occasional public displays of interest are one thing but a societal interest in the defence of the values we supposedly hold dear is another.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The reason why I think Canadians don't care about the military one way or the other is that I have yet to see any evidence that they do. Occasional public displays of interest are one thing but a societal interest in the defence of the values we supposedly hold dear is another.

How does such an interest get displayed - outside of torchlight rallies in Nuremburg, I mean?  I think that intersest is there in many people, there is just no outlet to display it away from Rememberance Day.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't think it is a question of not caring.   Rather, it is a question of not caring enough about national defence relative to other issues like health care, debt repayment, child care, equalization, education, EI, tax relief, etc, etc, etc ...

As I understand the polling which has been done by all the major parties increases in defence spending are welcomed if big, Big IF they do not take anything away from any other higher priority programme â “ and all social programmes have a higher priority amongst Canadians â “ or require a tax increase.

This is the dilemma â “ Canadians do not want the military to be seriously under-funded but they are unwilling to move defence spending up the priority list from the bottom section which it shares with ballet companies and symphony orchestras.

I have, recently, had occasion to read/listen/watch the news in a couple of 'markets' where there is a big military audience and where military matters are 'current' â “ deployments and equipment issues.   The papers and newscasts are full of:

1. Child care â “ there is a major offensive underway, led by the child care 'industry' which is seeking about the same amount as we now spend on national defence;

2. Equalization formulas â “ more billions; and

3. Relations with the US.

Yes, the national commentariat is drumming up support for the military but I am not convinced that the very broad, very general support which does exist is getting any 'deeper' â “ especially when it means going deeper into taxpayers' pockets.

I am glad to see the Army Journal name return and I am impressed with the quality of contributions.   I hope that the Army Journal will serve a secondary role of informing the opinion makers in Canada and, as a tertiary benefit remind those opinion makers that soldiers are a thoughtful, literate bunch.

 

[Andyboy]

How about voting as a way to show support for the military? How about calls to the gov't to increase spending? I have yet to see any of that, combined with what seems like a growing pacifist sentiment in Canada i dont' see much support for, or interest in our military. I live in toronto mind you so maybe it exists and I just don't see it.

I think ROJ nailed it fairly well. I don't believe Canadians see the value of a strong military, and they might ne right. Of course maybe they don't make the connection between sovereignity and the military either. I dont' have anything concrete to back this up, it's just a general feeling I get.

 

[Infanteer]

I do not believe that the army is going to crumble, I believe it already has. I guess it depends on you definition. Our gov't says they are committed to fighting and winning the war on terror and yet what have we contributed? I don't for a second doubt the skill and honor that our soldiers sailor and airmen have brought but in reality we have not contributed to the war in a meaningful way, in my opinion. Consider for a moment our contribution to the Second World War or Korea and compare it to our efforts today. Now consider what the spending priorities are for the federal gov't. Our country is slipping into insignifigance and our military already has. This is my opinion.

Just crumbled now?  How about at the beginning of WWII in which MacKenzie King tried to stay out of the war and merely supply pilots and material?  It took sometime to get the Canadians fully behind the effort to stop Hitler.  What about in the 1950's when we were dragged tooth-and-nail into the Korean War, the politicians looked for every available out they could (the quip about "three tokens" comes to mind)?  What about the 1970's and 1980's when we were relegated to a rear-area role in the defence of Europe?  What about the 1990's when we couldn't significantly contribute to the Gulf War and when Soft Power combined with budget roll-backs had has stretched to the limit?  It's the War on Terror that has suddenly brought along the demise of our military?

There has always been a discord between defence policy and a general perception of national interests.  It seems to be something that we Canadians excel at, but it's never really "destroyed" the ability of the professional military to do its job and do it admirably well.

I am not sure that we soldiers will ever be happy with what direction the government lays out for us, but I don't think that this fact is going to lead us to shrivel up and die.  We've been able to march to that tune for 100 years now, and I think we are more then capable of continuing to do that.

 

[Andyboy]

Yes just now. 1 hour ago to be exact. Don't be so silly, you can do better than that. Of course we have gone through this in the past and no doubt will again in the future that doesn't make it OK. I said the army had crumbled already, I didn't say it couldn't be rebuilt. I just don't believe we are "doing just fine" and I don't think you do either.

You didn't answer the questions I posed, What is our military meant to do and can they do it? Just be cause our mili

 

[Infanteer]

I don't know what your judging "crumbled" by.

The fact that we can't properly equip and deploy a formation on our own?

We've never been able to do that.

 

[Acorn]

Never? OK, not since Korea, but last time I checked a bde was a formation.

Of course, you may mean "on our own" to mean completely so. That's true, but we could still deploy a formation. We cannot do so anymore, can we?

Acorn

 

[Infanteer]

Yes, I mean "On our own".

Are Army has always deployed as part of a larger effort, usually transported by,supplied by, and commanded by our Allies.  This seems to be one of our big problems now; it's nothing new.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Infanteer is right, we have never in history fielded an independent brigade without utilizing transport assets of either Britain or the United States.  That is nothing new in history, so why the bandwagon military-supporters now suddenly feel it is "shameful" is beyond me. 

And is another reason not to be pissing the Americans off with thoughtless comments ala Ms. Parrish, who I put in the same league as Lady Astor as far as insensitivity and desire to tell her to STFU goes.

EDIT - this just in - didn't notice before  - the Right Honourable Ms.  Parrish was booted from caucus.  Hallelujah.

 

[Storm]

I don't know what your judging "crumbled" by.

The fact that we can't properly equip and deploy a formation on our own?

We've never been able to do that.

This begs an interesting question: can something crumble down that was never really built up in the first place? Outside of (and at times during) serious all out global war, our forces have always been underfunded/manned/appreciated as far as I can tell. Ok, so maybe the second story had a date with a wrecking ball, but the foundation is still intact. We just need to use our few bricks to reinforce the first floor rather than trying to build flimsy second and third story additions. (ok, enough of the structural analogy)

There is no doubt in my mind that we will, regrettably, be a very small force relative to our population and economy - not to mention landmass - well into the forseeable future. The question is not how much more we can get, but how we can gain the best quality out of what we actually have, since quantity just ain't in the cards. In some places we're on the right track, while in others we're deep in the woods and someone lost the compass.

In my admittedly relatively inexperienced opinion, a big problem is expecting big army capabilities at a small army price; demanding more than what we're realistically geared to do. We need to toss the aspirations, define our roles based on reality, and then stick to them (the biggest problem is getting politicians and Canadians in general - some of those in uniform even - to grasp and accept the reality of the situation).

And yes, I am aware that this is big talk for me seeing how much I like to daydream of new bases and such that just won't happen   ;D


Re Astor and Parrish: one says people are out of touch with the world; the other says people are idiots and should be hated. Amazing how well they describe themselves. Who votes for these twits?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Just because it has been that way in the past doesn't mean we have to accept it so willingly in the here and now.

"Mr. Right Honourable Infanteer why is our military so dependent on its allies?"

"Well Miss Reporter we've always been that way and I see no problem with the status quo."