US versus NATO

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Altair]
Do you expect 2 percent of GDP and countries to have worked out all kinks from chronic underspending overnight?
[/quote]

Strawman argument.

 

[PuckChaser]

So you are saying Greece is useful spending 2.4 percent of GDP on defense?

No, I'm saying we're equally useless with less than half the expenditure. 2% of GDP is just an easy button figure, the politicians that came up with it because they have no idea about what it would actually take to defend Europe/North Atlantic.

Greece's 2.4% of GDP is because their economy is in the tank.

Also since you trotted out that our spending as a percentage of GDP is set to grow, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-parliamentary-budget-office-1.4411356 (article is 5 months after Strong, Secure, Engaged was released) says that our current defense plan is funded to set us up as 0.69% of GDP by 2035. There's those glass houses and peace dividends again.

 

[Altair]

No, I'm saying we're equally useless with less than half the expenditure. 2% of GDP is just an easy button figure, the politicians that came up with it because they have no idea about what it would actually take to defend Europe/North Atlantic.

Greece's 2.4% of GDP is because their economy is in the tank.

Also since you trotted out that our spending as a percentage of GDP is set to grow, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-parliamentary-budget-office-1.4411356 (article is 5 months after Strong, Secure, Engaged was released) says that our current defense plan is funded to set us up as 0.69% of GDP by 2035. There's those glass houses and peace dividends again.

bingo.

 

[FJAG]

we should count it the French way.

The  germanderie is part of the armed forces,  so anything spent on what amounts to the national police force counts as defense spending.

We should just count the RCMP. That's what,  an extra 3.5 billion or so?

And the Coast Guard. Bolt some 20mms to their decks and then you can add another 4,500 people and $286 million.

:cheers:

 

[Altair]

And the Coast Guard. Bolt some 20mms to their decks and then you can add another 4,500 people and $286 million.

:cheers:

CBSA?

1.8 billion?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Like Greece somehow being useful by spending 2.4 percent of GDP on defense.

Sure.  Here are its current deployments:

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edcountries/countrygreece.htm

NATO (ISAF) Afghanistan  150

NATO (KFOR) Kosovo  550

EUFOR Bosnia  45

UNIFIL Lebanon 50

Cyprus 1,100 (includes army detachment and personnel seconded to the Greek Cypriot National Guard)

So with 160,000 uniformed personnel, if you subtract the Cyprus piece which is of course about Turkey, it has 700 pers deployed.....and none in harm's way.

Tell me again why it is such a good thing to hit that 2% target?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Pulling our weight at doing what?  Defending North America?  Meeting some arbitrary number from Belgium?  Supporting U.S. operations in Asia and Africa?

Those decisions are way above my paygrade and SME area.  I guess this stuff though?  https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html#activities  and whatever else NATO et al decide is worth doing?  I live and breath at the tactical level, I hope/assume the people who *run* NATO are within their paygrade and SME areas deciding what NATO should be doing.  I do think that part of the NATO, overall, is to act as a deterrent, and to do that you have to have operational capability.  To have a 'team' operational capability, each individual (country, in this case) has to provide some operational capability to the team.  I think we, Canada, could do better at providing our individual op caps to NATO overall; however, I realize I am only really familiar with the Maritime side (MAG stuff, specifically) on the subj.  We could very well be well suited on the Army side, that's well outside my lanes these days.

I'm all for improving our military's capability and capacity, but only if its based on some real calculation of requirement, and only if we clean up our own DND house first (are we getting the most out of the money the government already gives us?).  The 2% cudgel gets a bit tiresome, as it seems to indicate if we just spend that much, everything will be solved.

Agree and I mentioned a little earlier our procurement system is, IMO, historically a failure that right now can't give good boots to the army, or flight suits and aircrew knives to aircrew.  NCDs were a shortage a little over a year ago for the Navy (not sure about now...) but those are basic operational kit items.  And, yet, they are not available.  We need to spend the money we receive effectively, timely and, IMO, the CAF needs more of it.  We talk a lot about what we need, and then go thru painful programs to get the kit.  Cyclone is the first example that comes to mind.  What I've seen lately are stalled programs like fighter replacement, lack in basic operational and ALSE kit (sleeping bags, rucksacks, flying suits...) while we've managed to bring back forge caps and other DEU fashion items.  rly:

 

[Infanteer]

https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/07/07/bait-and-switch/

Our own Edward Campbell as made a compelling case as to why we need to increase our capability and capacity (and thus our budget) in the future.  If we accept these reasons as valid, then we need to figure out what the military needs to be able to do within what Edward as termed a AAA+ context (search it).

This is what we should be talking about, rather than simply bleating "2%!"

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Both very good reads, thanks for directing me there.  This is where people like me, who live/breath at the unit/sub-unit level can see our thoughts, beliefs and opinions given life thru the words of those...more articulate than we are, such as Mr. Campbell is.  I'm thankful for that, as I certainly don't have the talent, education or vocabulary for the task. 

The "+" part is becoming more and more challenging as the item costs for...well everything, goes up as technology grows. 

I do note though, towards the end of The Defence of the Realm, he states "My guess ~ and I cannot overemphasize that word ~ is that we will need to ramp up defence spending to 2% of GDP (the NATO estimate) over, say, a ten year period, to give us what we want and need".

I know many of us say the same thing, but he explains, and IMO justifies the number before giving it to the reader.

 

[FJAG]

https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/07/07/bait-and-switch/

Our own Edward Campbell as made a compelling case as to why we need to increase our capability and capacity (and thus our budget) in the future.  If we accept these reasons as valid, then we need to figure out what the military needs to be able to do within what Edward as termed a AAA+ context (search it).

This is what we should be talking about, rather than simply bleating "2%!"

Agree fully that this is what we should be talking about. I don't see politicians coming up with defence solutions on their own; all they can produce is budgets and (on rare occasions) a policy paper.

What has been missing for a long time is a structure that can make use of the entire force and not just little battlegroups that need the better part of a year to be put together. The last sixty years have lulled us into the belief that we will never have to deploy a major force again and have structured ourselves accordingly. Our allies (much less our adversaries) aren't fooled for a moment that we actually have four divisions.

As a starting point I want to compare us to three other force structures. (I'll keep myself concentrating on the army as I have no expertise respecting the Navy and the Air Force [with the exception of a superficial knowledge about aviation])

The US basic building block is the Brigade Combat team (which comes in several varieties, infantry, Stryker and armored) It is a self sustained deployable organization with integral logistics, engineer and artillery battalions over and above its reconnaissance, infantry and (in the case of the armored BCT) combined tank and infantry battalions. Generally three BCTs belong to one of 1 armored division, 1 cavalry division, 15 infantry and 2 airborne divisions. Each division also has a divisional artillery headquarters battery, an aviation brigade and a sustainment brigade. Additional resources such as air defence, additional artillery, logistics and engineers, military police, medical units, etc etc are kept outside of the divisional structure and assigned as required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_formations_of_the_United_States_Army

Let's look a some other forces that are a bit more at our scale (both larger and smaller). Specifically lets look at the UK and Australia. We compare as follows (all numbers appx):

UK: population 65 million; budget CAD81 billion; Reg F Army 81k; Res F Army 27k
Canada: population 35 million; budget CAD19 billion; Reg F Army 23k; Res F Army 18k
Australia: population 24 million; budget CAD 35 billion; Reg F Army 31k; Res F Army 15k

The UK has chosen to reorganize under Army 2020 into two divisions which hold the infantry and armored brigades and units and a divisional level Force Troops Command which holds brigades and units of artillery, engineers, air defence, medical, MP, etc etc. In addition there is an airmobile bde and aviation resources.

1 (UK) Div is termed an "adaptable Force" and has six infantry bdes and a logistics bde
3 (UK) Div is termed a "Reaction Force" and has four armored/mech infantry bdes and a logistics bde
Force Troop Command has some 10 assorted brigades holding dozens and dozens of assorted battalion level units

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_structure_of_the_field_forces_of_the_British_Army

Australia has two divisions.

1 Div is a deployable divisional headquarters with no permanently assigned units. All units fall under Forces Command which consists of 2 Div (an administrative and home defence headquarters that has 6 Res F bdes and some additional units assigned) In addition there are three deployable Reg F infantry brigades (each with its own signals, arty, engineer and logistics battalions) as well as an aviation bde, CS bde and CSS bde.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Army#Current_organisation

I have left out of the mix that each of these countries also has various special operations forces.

Generally speaking, the US structure is the most versatile as there is little distinction between regular and reserve elements. Army National Guard and Army Reserve formations and units (regardless of whether combat arms or support) are generally manned and equipped similarly to their Reg F counterparts (albeit standards of training and readiness) necessarily vary. Nonetheless ARNG and USAR formations and their units have deployed as complete formations and units to both Iraq and Afghanistan and not merely as individual augmentees.

Despite the number of bdes and units, the UK is structured to project only two divisional size forces while Australia is limited to one division for deployment (the other for home defence service).

The general condition of the reserves in the UK and Australia is not dissimilar to ours. Reserve units are undermanned and ill equipped. Funding and training is limited and turnover is high. In short while both, like us, provided individual augmentees to round out Reg F units in recent operations, Res F units are not capable of deploying as units and do not constitute a strategic reserve.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28394/futurereserves_2020.pdf
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jfadt/army/armych7.htm (somewhat dated)

The question that I keep coming back to is why can the US have reserve units and formations that are capable of deployment when Britain, Canada and Australia don't? I sometimes think this is a function of reserve units fighting tooth and nail to keep their regimental affiliations and thereby tolerating having many small, under-strength units rather than fewer fully manned ones. This leads to (or, at least, is coupled to) a general disdain amongst the Reg F leadership respecting the value of reserve units and formations and a commensurate lack of funding for reserve equipment and training.

US units on the other hand are frequently deactivated, reactivated or re-rolled to meet the requirements of the field force. While they have history and tradition, unit identities are not inviolate. They are generally more fully manned and equipped. Just as importantly there are different standards of employment legislation, basic training standards, ability to serve out Active Duty enlistment contracts in the reserves and command acceptance of risk on deployment.

Looking simply at the numbers (and leaving aside the special operations forces) Canada should have no more than two divisions and six BCT equivalents (three Reg F and three Res F). In addition there should to be an additional administrative "Force Troops Command" (of modest divisional size) to hold various deployable add-on combat enabler brigades and battalions: artillery, AD, medical, engineer, logistics etc. This organization should be largely Res F and would require an increase to the Res F establishment over our current levels.

The potential threat in NATO is that, at worst, we may need to face a modern mechanized enemy. Since that threat is at the extreme end of the scale, it is logical (if distasteful to the Reg F leadership) that our heaviest forces be reserves and that our Reg F be the more agile rapid deployable forces. In short, there should be a Reg F division with LAV based brigade groups and a Res F division of heavy mechanized equipment (and let me go out on a further limb and suggest that if we really want to suck up to the Americans then equip it with Abrams, Bradleys and Palladins, as well as HIMARS and Avengers (these are all weapon systems used by ARNG units - for that matter there are ARNG aviation units flying all types of helicopters) I bet that if we were to go to Trump today and commit a mechanized division to be forward based in Europe the US would provide the equipment and infrastructure at cut rate prices if not for free out of their surplus holdings)

Let's be real. At this point many of you (if not most) are saying this is mostly pie-in-the-sky bullfeathers. The problem though is that we (like the Australians and even the Brits) are accepting a status quo which makes much of our force incapable of fighting a modern war. If we have a force structure that is not usable in a major campaign then we are depriving our leadership of viable options and blowing lots of good money on very little capability. While we can be justifiably proud of many of our individual soldiers, it's about time that we expressed some outrage at just how low our capability as an organization actually is.

I've said this many times before; we can't fine tune the current CF structure anymore. It's already broken beyond repair and needs to be radically reworked from square one with all sacred cows that don't produce a capable force being killed off. Is there a cost? Off course there is. Is it 2% of GDP. Who knows? Unless we sit down with a sharp pencil and look at some of the options we'll never know. We need to look at overarching legislation, terms of service, streamlining regulations and administration, capital acquisition, developing defence industries (such as ammunition and equipment) and a whole host of other things before we even start to cost equipment and O&M. (Along the way let's fire 80% of Res Force LCols and CWOs and redeploy a battalion or two of Reg F NDHQ cubicle warmers).

The one thing we definitely shouldn't do is just up our spending for the sake of upping it. Strong, Secure, Engaged states we'll have expenditures of $32.7 billion (cash basis) by 2026-27. The vision for the Army is:

The Canadian Army (CA) will undergo a recapitalization of much of its land combat capabilities and its aging vehicle fleets, while modernizing its command and control systems. Additionally, it will expand its light forces capability which will allow it to be more agile and effective in complex operational theatres, such as peace operations.

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/docs/summary.pdf

That folks is fine tuning and sounds more like capability down-sizing. Our military leadership needs to do better in explaining our very real shortcomings to the political leadership and selling a much better vision for a more capable CF. They need to do much better.  :2c:

[cheers]

 

[daftandbarmy]

The question that I keep coming back to is why can the US have reserve units and formations that are capable of deployment when Britain, Canada and Australia don't?

They have a foreign policy with the economic rationale, political will (and budgets) to support it properly.

The Royal Navy was the most powerful Navy in the world at one time because Britain had a similar set of drivers.

 

[GR66]

The potential threat in NATO is that, at worst, we may need to face a modern mechanized enemy. Since that threat is at the extreme end of the scale, it is logical (if distasteful to the Reg F leadership) that our heaviest forces be reserves and that our Reg F be the more agile rapid deployable forces. In short, there should be a Reg F division with LAV based brigade groups and a Res F division of heavy mechanized equipment

Excellent post and I can't find much to argue against.  About the highlighted portion however, I would argue that Russia has neither the capability or desire to overrun NATO and that the real threat from them is quick and decisive campaigns against vulnerable, bite-sized targets (i.e. the Baltic states and sub-national regions with either ethnic Russian or pro-Russian Slavic populations, or smaller strategic objectives).  Since China's potential targets (with the possible exception of intervention in Korea) are likely to be expeditionary in nature I think the same factors are likely to be in play.

That being said, how "agile" and "rapid deployable" are/would be our LAV-based Reg Force be?  Presumably the Russian/Chinese objective would be to attack with minimal notice and to complete their objective before a meaningful defence by NATO/the West can be mounted.  I can see no upside for Russia/China in engaging in an extended war with a numerically and technologically superior NATO/Western alliance. 

To my mind, that leaves us with three possible options for either deterring or countering an attack:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Identify threatened areas and deploy deterrent forces like we are currently doing in Latvia
[*]Greatly expand our ability to quickly deliver our medium-weight LAV-based forces to theater to counter an attack before the enemy gains their objective
[*]Have lighter forces that can be more rapidly deployed than a LAV-based force in order to enable quick enough reaction to a sudden attack
[/list]

Each of these options has potential drawbacks.  Do we have (can we afford) a large enough military to deploy to every potential hot spot?  Do we have the political will to maintain forces deployed overseas for extended periods of time? 

How much airlift/rapid sealift can we afford to counter these potential attacks without taking too many resources away from the more regular needs of the CF? However, increased mobility assets for the CF could have many other potential positive uses outside rapid deployment.  We could contribute to many other international operations (both military and disaster relief) with the kind of non-lethal kind of aid that Canadian governments/the public seem to like.

While light forces might be the quickest possible response to a sudden attack, by their nature they would be less capable against a heavily-equipped peer enemy.  As a result I imagine you'd have to focus on capabilities designed to slow an enemy attack enough to allow heavier follow-on forces to arrive.  Possibly things like Anti-Armour teams, Mortars and Pioneers/Combat Engineers to slow the attack.  Recce and FOO teams to track the enemy advances and allow allied Air Forces and artillery to blunt the attack, etc.  These light forces might be able to be effective (and be more affordable), but what kind of casualties would they take?  Would the Canadian government/public have the stomach for that?

Overall I strongly agree with what FJAG is suggesting, but any major re-organization comes with some very fundamental questions about what we expect the CF to be able to do and how we expect to do it.

:2c:

 

[tomahawk6]

From Merkel's visit to the US Secretary Mattis praised German efforts to increase their defense budget. :

" Mattis praised Germany's plan to increase defense spending to 1.5 percent of GDP by 2025, a mark still well below the alliance's 2 percent goal."

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/trump-s-combative-words-on-nato-put-mattis-in-an-increasingly-tough-spot-1.536729

 

[Altair]

From Merkel's visit to the US Secretary Mattis praised German efforts to increase their defense budget. :

" Mattis praised Germany's plan to increase defense spending to 1.5 percent of GDP by 2025, a mark still well below the alliance's 2 percent goal."

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/trump-s-combative-words-on-nato-put-mattis-in-an-increasingly-tough-spot-1.536729

I'm happy so see that there are still some adults in the room, at least until there are not.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mattis-out-loop-trump-doesn-t-listen-him-say-officials-n885796

Defense Secretary James Mattis learned in May from a colleague that President Donald Trump had made the decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, and scrambled to get his boss on the phone before a formal announcement was made. It wouldn't be the last time he was caught off guard by a presidential announcement.

A month later, Mattis was informed that Trump had ordered a pause in U.S. military exercises with South Korea only after the president had already promised the concession to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Last week, Trump again blindsided and overruled his defense secretary by publicly directing the Pentagon to create a sixth military branch overseeing operations in space.

The way these recent presidential decisions on major national security issues have played out, as detailed by current and former White House and defense officials, underscores a significant change in Mattis's role in recent months. The president is relying less and less on the advice of one of the longest-serving members of his cabinet, the officials said.

"They don't really see eye to eye," said a former senior White House official who has closely observed the relationship.

Out on an island by himself saying all of the sane things, but nobody who matters listening to him.

I'll miss him when he's gone.

 

[Altair]

Just read something, almost blew my mind

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-jens-stoltenberg-donald-trump-8-countries-to-hit-defense-spending-target/

According to NATO’s most recent estimate, released in June 2017, six EU countries hit the 2 percent target: the United States, Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Romania and Poland. The latter two countries scraped across the line at 2.02 percent and 2.01 percent respectively.

While France is the next closest to the target, with defense spending at 1.79 percent of GDP, a NATO spokesperson said that Lithuania and Latvia would beat Paris to hitting 2 percent, and are expected to do so in 2018.

Whether the news will please Trump for long is another matter: Even with eight NATO allies hitting the target, that leaves 21 falling short.

Still, Stoltenberg urged calm. “We didn’t promise that all allies should spend 2 percent within a year or next year,” he said, pointing out that NATO allies gave themselves a decade to hit the pledge back in 2014.

So all the ranting, and raving, and blowing up on allies, over a target that has to be met 5 1/2 years from now?

Are you kidding me?

 

[PuckChaser]

Just read something, almost blew my mind

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-jens-stoltenberg-donald-trump-8-countries-to-hit-defense-spending-target/

So all the ranting, and raving, and blowing up on allies, over a target that has to be met 5 1/2 years from now?

Are you kidding me?

Considering we're going to hit 0.69% of GDP in 2035 according to the PBO, should Trump have waited until we failed to say something? Or look at everyone's plans now and know they're not even close to adequate when there's time to affect change?

 

[Altair]

Considering we're going to hit 0.69% of GDP in 2035 according to the PBO, should Trump have waited until we failed to say something? Or look at everyone's plans now and know they're not even close to adequate when there's time to affect change?

The American President isn't mad at just Canada, he's mad at NATO, which happens to include Canada.

Now looking at NATO as a whole, defense spending is moving towards the 2 percent goal, and nations are investing in their forces, and with 8 nations reaching the 2 percent mark in 2018, how many more are going to reach it in 2024?

But to listen to the American President, one would never guess that NATO is making strives to reach that goal.

 

[PuckChaser]

By strides, do you mean that only about half of NATO nations are projected/will reach the 2% goal by 2024? And in those 15 nations, key partners like Germany, Spain, Belgium, Italy and Canada have already said they aren't going to be even close. What happens when the fixed dollar amount increases to military budgets (like Canada's) get outpaced by world economic growth?

 

[daftandbarmy]

The American President isn't mad at just Canada, he's mad at NATO, which happens to include Canada.

Now looking at NATO as a whole, defense spending is moving towards the 2 percent goal, and nations are investing in their forces, and with 8 nations reaching the 2 percent mark in 2018, how many more are going to reach it in 2024?

But to listen to the American President, one would never guess that NATO is making strives to reach that goal.

Having served with NATO on some big exercises, it's embarrassing how little the Europeans seem to contribute to their own Defence compared with the US.

At times, it's like going to a pot luck and the Americans bring steak while the rest show up, late, with left overs.

 

[Altair]

By strides, do you mean that only about half of NATO nations are projected/will reach the 2% goal by 2024? And in those 15 nations, key partners like Germany, Spain, Belgium, Italy and Canada have already said they aren't going to be even close. What happens when the fixed dollar amount increases to military budgets (like Canada's) get outpaced by world economic growth?

If it makes you feel any better, key economic indicators point toward a global recession kicking in around 2020, so be may just back into our defense spending goals. :nod: