quote:

---

December 6, 2003
Canadian Forces at risk of disappearing
By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
A thoughtful and well-researched new study of Canada's military predicts the imminent collapse of two-thirds of the Armed Forces and offers a stinging indictment of decades of government neglect.

OK, we've heard similar predictions and indictments in recent years, but none so well documented and devastatingly credible as this missile from researchers at Queen's University. Titled Canada Without Armed Forces?, it suggests the air force and either the army or navy will probably cease to exist around the end of this decade - unless Ottawa has a serious change of heart.

"The next government will be caught up in a cascading policy entanglement initiated by the rapid collapse of Canadian Forces' core assets and core capabilities," says the study. "This problem will inevitably disarm foreign policy as Canada repeatedly backs away from international commitments because it lacks adequate military forces." If Ottawa doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, "then the air force will likely disappear through the 2008-2013 time frame, and either the army or navy will disappear in the same time frame."

Since Canadians have for decades allowed successive federal governments to get away with substituting empty political rhetoric for foreign policy, while at the same time starving an increasingly bureaucratic military of personnel and equipment, you have to think that this scenario won't bother most people. What do we need a military for? We don't threaten anyone and we don't have any enemies.

Yet even if you don't support our involvement in any type of military action - and poll after poll suggests most Canadians don't - there are still the small matters of sovereignty and political independence. The same polls say most of us want to remain a sovereign nation and want Canada to have an independent voice in the world - particularly when it comes to relations with our powerful neighbour to the south.

But the contradiction, obviously, is that if you can't mount even a token demonstration of sovereignty, and you can't operate independent peacekeeping forces or contribute to international alliances - your sovereignty exists only on paper and you have no voice in the world. You are a bystander, and a vulnerable one at that - particularly sitting on an enormous chunk of global real estate and increasingly scarce natural resources.

"The real cost to Canadians," says the Queen's study, if we carry on as we are, "will be not simply a loss of international respect, but most likely the loss of control over most of Canada's territory and, ultimately, the forfeiting of national sovereignty... Canadians, it would appear, had best prepare themselves for these ominous apprehensions."

The other major point made by the study, and one which ought to bother all taxpayers, is that we get a dismal bang for our defence buck. "Even though the Canadian Forces has been reduced by 50% over the last 40 years," says the study, bureaucracy "(measured as the increase in supervisory groups) has increased in the same time frame by 300%."

The Canadian military is overburdened with generals and senior staff officers and a structure that is 30 years out of date. Yet despite all the senior brass and "supervisory groups," a co-author of the study estimates that inefficiency and political interference wastes "perhaps 40% to 50%" of the $13-billion annual defence budget.

On the simple grounds of eliminating waste, Canadians might be expected to demand improvements. But what might those improvements look like? Well, perhaps we could aspire to a defence policy that actually supports Canada's territorial integrity and political independence, and gives us some influence in world affairs. Then we could figure out how to spend $13 billion annually to create an efficient and effective military.

Or perhaps we'd rather be neutral, pacifist Sweden? With a population of 8.8 million, Sweden spends about $7 billion a year on a well-equipped defence force geared towards peacekeeping and maintaining sovereignty. All young men are subject to conscription and all Swedes aged between 16 and 70, if required, must serve in the equivalent of Canada's military reserve. There is a full-time military establishment of 20,000, and about 16,000 young conscripts go through military service each year. By golly, we would be better off if we were Sweden!

---

quote:

---

The facts you have revealed in your editorial "Disarmed" (Dec. 4) should leave every Canadian with somewhat of a guilt complex. The Defence Association, The Council for Canadian Security and the Senate defence committee plus other defence related studies have been forecasting disaster for the past 10 years. Who has been listening or even cared?

Chretien has delayed the purchase of helicopters for 10 years strictly for political reasons, while our servicemen and women risk their lives every time they leave the ground. Has there been an outcry from the average Canadian voter? No!

As you have pointed out, the entire structure of the three services is so badly depleted that it will take years to restore the infrastructure necessary for training recruits even at the basic level, let alone the higher qualifications required for a modern military force.

One could write a book on the dreadful state of equipment in all three services. If one has the money, equipment can be purchased, however the lead time in procurement can be several years, depending on the item.

The lead time in producing a qualified, fully trained soldier, sailor or airman is quite a different matter. There is little or no incentive for young people to come into the Forces today knowing the dreadful state of things and the prospects for the future are no better.

The Canadian Forces are over-committed based on present manpower levels. This results in far too many back-to-back tours outside Canada. Families can only take so much and the retention rate drops badly.

This entire picture should be extremely demoralizing for all Canadians. It is beyond comprehension for someone like myself who is retired from the Land Force, (Armoured) after 32 years of service for this great country.

The present serviceman or woman at the regimental and unit level is still the dedicated individual determined to serve Canada in whatever capacity is required. I cannot say the same for the senior leadership of the Forces. Our generals (we have far too many) have become civilianized and far more concerned with their careers and future promotion than caring for the state of the men and women in the Forces.

This is a very sad scenario.

Robert Sear

---

1. Look Before You Turn
2. Turn Right to Avoid Collisions
3. Lower Jumper has the Right of Way
   
   

quote:

---

PC- what do you see as the fallout, Navy Coast Guard merge?

---

quote:

---

Food for thought: NORAD still exists, so part of the U.S. Air Defense mission is flown by Canada, their unwillingness to improve the AF puts additional pressure on our forces.

---