Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[OldSolduer]

Harold Macmillan was once asked what the most troubling problem of his Prime Ministership was. ‘Events, my dear boy, events,’ was his reply.

The determination of PP as a leader will be his ability to divert from dogma and policy to react to events. Trudeau has failed miserably in this regard.

On the Defence file... it will take a rather significant event to see any Canadian government divert funding from election promises to CAF funding.

It all depends on what each leader defines as "significant"

History doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes.

 

[Rifleman62]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-policy-canadian-forces-trudeau-nato-1.7172835

Shooting blanks: Why so many Canadian defence policies fail to launch​

Defence policies tend to warn of a world in chaos — this time, the warning was particularly stark - Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Apr 13, 2024​

With absolutely no exceptions, every defence policy presented by the Canadian government over the past five decades has presented a vision of the world beyond our borders going to hell in a handbasket.

The wars may be different, the adversaries might change, threats might have evolved — but the language almost always stays the same.

And almost without exception, none of those defence policies ever lived up to their hype, or to the expectations and political spin that accompanied them.

The ink wasn't even dry on some defence policies before they were being dismissed by people in government as unaffordable or overtaken by world events. Others died a quiet, curious death of benign neglect.

But the differences between the security and defence snapshot presented on Monday and those that came before it could not be more stark.

There's a shooting war in Europe — allies are openly talking about being in a "prewar" period. Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic is at, or exceeding, Cold War levels. Canada's own top military commander is calling for the defence industry to be put on a "war footing." And many of the nuclear treaties that underpinned security during the standoff with the former Soviet Union have been dropped in the shredder.

When you look back at the past five decades, if ever there was a time to convince Canadians that the world is a nasty place and is likely to get worse, it's now.

Gen. Wayne Eyre, chief of the defence staff, acknowledged the world and Canada are "in a fundamentally different situation now" than they were when previous policy reviews were released.

For that reason, he's arguing for a sense of urgency.

"What keeps me up at night — with the state of the world and what we need to do — is something I've been calling harmful bureaucracy," Eyre said in an interview late Friday with CBC News.

"Because that will inhibit our ability to implement this policy. It will slow us down. It'll be the molasses that does not allow us to proceed apace."

The new policy does contain the expected warnings about how Russia's war in Ukraine represents a threat to the stability of the post-Second World War international order. China was called out for having an eye on the Canadian Arctic, but in language that's more attuned to the tightrope Canada has tried to walk following the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. The strategy promises to manage the relationship with Beijing through "frank, open and respectful dialogue."

The policy document also refers to how technology is reshaping conflict in both stark and subtle ways.

But the policy is also a political document, and its unstated intention may have been to prop up the Liberal government in the face of anxious allies and an increasingly uneasy electorate.

It also presents climate change as an important driver of future security threats through threats like natural disasters and forced migration.

Steve Saideman, a political scientist who holds the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University, said he believes the emphasis on climate change and the Arctic is meant to sell the defence strategy to a skeptical public and a Parliament that may be reluctant to appropriate billions of dollars.

It also has the side benefit of undercutting a Conservative opposition which, in a previous iteration, made Arctic security an article of faith.

Such a focus does somewhat placate allies who recognize Canada's limited ambitions and even more limited capabilities, and want the country to pick something it can do and do it well.

To see how limited those ambitions are, all you have to do is look back at some of the commitments in previous defence policies.

The 'decade of darkness'​

Even as western nations began cashing their so-called "peace dividends" at the end of the Cold War, a previous Liberal government's 1994 defence white paper (one of the few without a snappy title) issued a blunt warning:

"The world is neither more peaceful nor more stable than in the past. Canada's defence policy must reflect the world as it is rather than the world as we would like it to be."

The irony is that, in spite of the document's ominous tone, the government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien went on to cut more than $2 billion from the defence budget between 1994 and 1998 (taking it from $12 billion annually to $10 billion). The era was infamously dubbed "the decade of darkness" by a former chief of the defence staff, retired general Rick Hillier.

Still, that defence policy committed to keeping two warships, one battle group of soldiers, an additional infantry battalion group, a squadron of fighter aircraft, a flight of tactical transport aircraft and a headquarters contingent ready to deploy on multinational operations, either United Nations or NATO.

That would have been a commitment three decades ago of 4,000 military members.

Today, Canada is struggling to bulk up to a brigade of 2,200 soldiers as part of the NATO mission in Latvia. It periodically deploys frigates and minesweepers but has taken a step back from fighter jets.

All of that speaks to the need to replace decades-old jets and warships, including submarines.

The new policy talks about exploring options to acquire replacements for the second-hand Victoria-class submarines. Despite already having a proposal from the navy for eight to 12 conventional boats, the matter requires further study, Eyre said.

At the media availability that announced the policy, both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Defence Minister Bill Blair made the submarine program sound like a certainty. They also suggested the government would consider acquiring a nuclear-powered boat — a nod to Canada's exclusion from the AUKUS security arrangement involving the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.

A previous defence policy — Challenge and Commitment, released by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney — proposed the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines to patrol under the ice of Canada's Arctic.
In words that wouldn't be out of place in the latest defence policy, the 1987 policy review "confirmed that [Canada is] not able to meet [military] commitments fully and effectively. After decades of neglect, there is indeed a significant commitment-capability."

A little more than three years later, the Cold War was over and Mulroney's government was in deficit-cutting mode. The nuclear submarine proposal was the first thing to go.

Promise now, pay later​

The fact that much of the funding in the new defence policy is backloaded to future years continues, in some respects, a tradition of previous Canadian governments.

In 1994, the federal Liberals promised to begin the process of replacing the navy's supply ships (a project still underway today). The Conservatives of 2008 said the Armed Forces would reach its assigned strength in 2028.
If there is a constant feature of five decades of these defence policies, it's their ad hoc, political nature.

"In a Canadian context, this is like a potentially generationally significant commitment of funding towards the military, if it can actually get out the door and spent," said Dave Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, who noted the last Liberal defence policy had a number of pretty promising initiatives.
"But those didn't seem to have a huge impact so far. So I think [there are] a lot of good ideas here [but] the real crux will be what can actually be implemented and done with them."

​

 

[lenaitch]

We did the 'three monkeys' thing before WWII. To be fair, a lot of countries did but, even after it started, we still did our best to simultaneously look the other way and appear intensely interested at the same time.

How many houses have fire extinguishers? How many would have smoke detectors if they weren't mandated. We're a funny bunch.

 

[dimsum]

We did the 'three monkeys' thing before WWII. To be fair, a lot of countries did but, even after it started, we still did our best to simultaneously look the other way and appear intensely interested at the same time.

How many houses have fire extinguishers? How many would have smoke detectors if they weren't mandated. We're a funny bunch.

Good point.

Probably an unpopular opinion but even in the (slightly glorified) days of WWI and WWII, we were still 2nd/3rd fiddle to the Brits and later the Americans. Our entire Naval narrative in WWII was “the little train that could” and a huge part of the RCAF is the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. If you read some of the memoirs, etc of WWII Corvette crews, they were rushed in and somehow did the job, almost in spite of circumstances.

We had a huge Navy and Air Force, but having X hulls or Y aircraft doesn’t mean X “combat capable ships” or Y “combat capable aircraft”. Not to mention what the maintenance rates would be…

 

[RangerRay]

Good point.

Probably an unpopular opinion but even in the (slightly glorified) days of WWI and WWII, we were still 2nd/3rd fiddle to the Brits and later the Americans.

But now, we wouldn’t be second fiddle. We’d be hard pressed to be a groupie in the nosebleeds.

 

[GK .Dundas]

But now, we wouldn’t be second fiddle. We’d be hard pressed to be a groupie in the nosebleeds.

There's a theory that was floating around that if we'd been able to manage an Army Group we might have gotten a seat on the Security Council.
I don't buy it myself.

 

[dimsum]

But now, we wouldn’t be second fiddle. We’d be hard pressed to be a groupie in the nosebleeds.

We know the state of our equipment (stated and unstated) better than most, but I would hazard a guess that we don’t know the same on our allies and so on - and we rely on their news.

I would really want to have an actual breakdown of the NATO countries including their supposed serviceability rates and personnel issues. I have harped on this before but part of the reason why we think we’re worse off than [insert allied country] is because we don’t have inside info on how good/bad their forces are in comparison, and some of their media don’t talk about it.

They, in turn, don’t know anything beyond what our media shows - if they read it at all.

 

[OldSolduer]

We did the 'three monkeys' thing before WWII. To be fair, a lot of countries did but, even after it started, we still did our best to simultaneously look the other way and appear intensely interested at the same time.

How many houses have fire extinguishers? How many would have smoke detectors if they weren't mandated. We're a funny bunch.

And Mackenzie King did not want to deploy troops. His thought was that the BCATP would suffice......That worked out so well.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I seem to recall reading that first we weren't even going to deploy ground troops. Then it was a Brigade and then a Division .
The Government of the day was apparently blindsided by the depth of public support for the war. In some cases they actually seemed baffled by it .

 

[rmc_wannabe]

And Mackenzie King did not want to deploy troops. His thought was that the BCATP would suffice......That worked out so well.

You'd think his dead mother would have told him as such...

 

[OldSolduer]

You'd think hisndead mother would have told him as such...

And his dog - or was that Son of Sam?

 

[OldSolduer]

I seem to recall reading that first we weren't even going to deploy ground troops. Then it was a Brigade and then a Division .
The Government of the day was apparently blindsided by the depth of public support for the war. In some cases they actually seemed baffled by it .

Much like this government is baffled by a lot of things.

 

[WestIsle]

There's a theory that was floating around that if we'd been able to manage an Army Group we might have gotten a seat on the Security Council.
I don't buy it myself.

Might have been close to being possible as only about 50% of Canadian military personnel deployed vs 75% in our allied countries. If we had deployed the same numbers as the Americans and Australians we likely could have seen 7/8 divisions and an additional armored brigade. By the end of the war you might have maybe 2 armies but the Canadian push into the Cinderella Campaign would lead to high casualties that would likely lead to a removal of a division to beef up the numbers.

 

[OldSolduer]

Might have been close to being possible as only about 50% of Canadian military personnel deployed vs 75% in our allied countries. If we had deployed the same numbers as the Americans and Australians we likely could have seen 7/8 divisions and an additional armored brigade. By the end of the war you might have maybe 2 armies but the Canadian push into the Cinderella Campaign would lead to high casualties that would likely lead to a removal of a division to beef up the numbers.

Or the removal of a Liberal Party government. Conscription if necessary, not necessarily conscription.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The companies, other govts, etc all have a say as well.

We don’t buy enough of anything to get ahead in line, unlike say the US.

Forget getting in line, in some cases they don't even want to spend money on putting in a bid because we are such a dodgy customer.

On the parts side OEMs just refuse to even put in bids for small orders because the profits don't cover the bid paperwork (which is fun now that our NICP has been cut and now down to just HPRs.... no one is going to bid on a 1000 dollar RFP for 2 parts).

 

[Maxman1]

You'd think his dead mother would have told him as such...

And his dog - or was that Son of Sam?

Or maybe his good friend and idol, Adolf Hitler, asked him not to.

 

[Kirkhill]

The importance of Trump....

Per Richard Kemp, Col (ret'd) Royal Anglians

Donald Trump has saved Nato – and the West

Alliance members are increasing defence spending precisely because they fear he will pull out

www.telegraph.co.uk

It may sound counter-intuitive, but Donald Trump has probably done more to strengthen Nato than any other political leader in recent years. While he was president, he berated European members of the alliance for failing to pay what he called their “dues”, accusing them of freeloading on the US.

Earlier this year, he seemed to go even further by suggesting at an election rally, not only that he would not bring America to the defence of “delinquent” Nato members, but would encourage Russia to attack them. Cue a predictable international outcry, led by Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, who accused him of undermining “all of our security”. Joe Biden, of course, waded in, saying Trump’s remarks were “appalling and dangerous” and would give Putin “a green light for more war and violence”.

Both of them were wrong. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of Trump’s negotiating techniques knows that he is unlikely to have meant what he said literally; it was a rhetorical device to emphasise his entirely valid point about recalcitrant Nato members. As for a green light, it was Biden who flashed that at Putin with his disastrous retreat from Kabul in 2021, which can only have contributed to Moscow’s calculations on invading Ukraine the following year.

 

[FJAG]

The importance of Trump....

Per Richard Kemp, Col (ret'd) Royal Anglians

Donald Trump has saved Nato – and the West

Alliance members are increasing defence spending precisely because they fear he will pull out

www.telegraph.co.uk

I'm not so sure that giving Trump "credit" is the right word here. That would require some act on his part that has a positive or influential result. I don't think that he is what has put the wind up Europe but I think he has made them look more closely at both America as a whole and themselves.

I think its a combination of two things. First there is the dawning realization that Russia is a threat again coupled with the concurrent realization that North America can no longer be counted on to bail Europe out. Yup - to a small extent that includes a major western economy like Canada that doesn't comprehend hard power and has screwed up its soft power approach and is now an insignificant factor in world power and coalition defence.

Trump is certainly an extreme example of mindless uncertainty, but there is something much more here which is that the US is a country that is more and more turning inward and while looking at the threat to its economy from the west. The country, and not just Trump, is saying Europe has the wherewithal to look after itself and should do so. The US, as a whole, saw how unreliable many European nations were in Afghanistan and Iraq and wonder to what extent they should spend treasure in Europe. When I look around my own household I see very little here that is sourced from Europe. If Europe went under tomorrow what would North America lose? Maybe some smaller exports but not enough to worry about.

Trump doesn't lead - smart people can see that. Trump is a follower lead by the mob that he found already existing. What he does well is read that mob and then reinforces their existing biases back at them. I'll give him credit for that. He's a master at demagoguery. But, if Trump dropped dead tomorrow, there would in short order, be someone who would take his place now that many Republicans see the undercurrent that is out there. Europeans do not fear Trump's threats. They fear the threat of the unreliability of the American people.

 

[YZT580]

I'm not so sure that giving Trump "credit" is the right word here. That would require some act on his part that has a positive or influential result. I don't think that he is what has put the wind up Europe but I think he has made them look more closely at both America as a whole and themselves.

They fear the threat of the unreliability of the American people.

That last statement says it all. Biden has doled out weapons to Ukraine slowly and timidly: only when there was little choice. He has demonstrated his fear of Putin, as have several European states as well by not providing the systems needed when they were needed Afghanistan proved the reluctance to stand firm. I suspect that the Chinese are refactoring their thoughts on Taiwan as a result

 

[dimsum]

That last statement says it all. Biden has doled out weapons to Ukraine slowly and timidly: only when there was little choice. He has demonstrated his fear of Putin, as have several European states as well by not providing the systems needed when they were needed Afghanistan proved the reluctance to stand firm. I suspect that the Chinese are refactoring their thoughts on Taiwan as a result

Except that Biden can’t just force the House and Senate to approve things. The US-style “checks and balances” form of govt works until it doesn’t, and one person (like Tuberville) can bring everything to a grinding halt.