|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 20:16:53
I am going to get flak on this, but how the heck do we spend $12 Billion a year and our only options are non-military resources available for Iraq such as the RCMP and 200 DART people.
Some military people out East even laugh and say, “You must be kidding, we have over 1500 troops out now and another 1500 in the summer, that’s over 3000 people!! How much more can the Canadian military do?”
I say,” Is this supposed to be funny?” I know of businesses with more people that do better. We have a country of 33 million, a $12 Billion yearly budget plus extras and we are tapped at 4000 deployed people?? What are the other 16,000 ground troops doing besides scratching their back sides?
Something is wrong here, maybe when Rumsfield has some time we should invite him to Canada for a heart to heart on how to deal with the inertia of changing our military, the status quo of the cold war days are not helpful anymore.
O.K. let the flames fly; I’ll get my flame shield and a bucket of water now.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 20:40:44
Since that rant wasn't terribly helpful.
What if we called up the hospitals in Iraq, talked to the staff there on what they need. I.e. Security, Equipment, electricity. Then using the funds we have already allocated to Iraq, drop ship medical supplies from nearby countries.
Then commercially fly in what ever military people need who can stabiles the hospitals, stage all of this from Kuwait or Turkey. Turkey probably has more airport and transport resources available.
Perhaps there is the possibility that the Americans can accommodate Baghdad airport for a handful of commercial flights or military cargo flights from an allied country with medical supplies.
Just an off the cuff thought...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 21:00:10
Just to add, if we can get at least one of the hospitals online with security, some supplies & water with some electricity. Then Canada can say,” Look a functional hospital in Baghdad, we are calling the Iraqi doctors back to work here today".
Something to be proud of; something clearly Canadian...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 07:05:50
Under who's autohrity? The US? The British? The only current way, without being considered an invader, is to go through the UN or the Red Cross, so i currently don't see any role for the military maybe except sending supplies and delivering them at Irai airports, but with all the problems with out planes, i doubt thats possible...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-22 07:53:08
I believe the UN and red cross are doing that but it is slow going because they have to set up secured warehouses.
I think power and clean water are needed first to get things rolling .
Don't forget Afghanistan still needs much help and that Canada has peacekeeping troops there. Afghanistan seemingly doesn't have the resources (oil) to pay for rebuilding in that country. There are still many Taliban causing problems there.
The Coalition should quit trying to play the hero now and beg the UN to come in and assist with rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq.
The UN says the Iraqi doctors are doing an amazing job under the circumstances; if their hospital is unworkable they travel to other hospitals and pitch in; even though travel is still very difficult.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 07:34:28
Ok, i will 'flame' you as you said, about two years ago i knew absolutely nothing about Canada's military forces, but since I'm much more interested in the military (i'd be interested working there), I know several interesting facts.
Do you know how many 'real' soldiers we have? We have three brigades in the country which are full time regulars (Western, Quebec, Center) - Each of those brigades contains 3 battalions, and this is where our soldiers are, according to some definitions i found, a battalion consists of about 600-1000 soldiers, so in total we have about 5400-9000 soldiers, all other personnel of these brigades are support groups (engineering, artillery, police, etc)!!!
These people are normal people like us and need to see thier family, and according to deployment rules, there is about a 1:3 (or is it 1:2) time ratio for deployment, and between deployments, the soldiers must be at home with their families at least 12 months (or is it 18 months?)...
So if there is currently involvement in Afghanistan, it will be for at least a 12 month mission. Now its assumed that an entire brigade will be sent to Afganistan (~4000 people), either the Western or Quebec's brigade... With two rotations !! That means at least 2 out 3 brigades of Canada will be busy, and that means there is only one brigade left to defend Canada (probably the Center brigade will be kept in Canada - since it protects our Capital).
Now let us not forget that we have over 1000+ soldiers in Bosnia also, but i read somewhere they are mostly reservists, but once again, reservists also have the 1:3 or 1:2 rule, and reservist service abroad in non-emergencry situations is on a voluntary basis! We have i think also about 9 reservist brigades in Canada - but the chance of a full brigade of people who have jobs and family volunteering all of a sudden to go to Afghanistan is very very slim!! And you can't mix people of different brigades (its like a new job) just like that, it needs training etc...
So tell me from where we can get significant resources to deploy?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-22 11:23:23
You make some great point’s codc01. I've had this conversation with friends in the forces. There is room for plenty of adjustments; some are difficult decisions such as looking at what is useful and what is not. There are also the political concerns.
I am not proficient to give that sort of advice on this topic. Hence my Rumsfield suggestion. As for me, I don't have the time in the day to attempt to understand all the nuances of our military needs.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-29 00:36:37
Your Rumsfield suggestion was the one that bothered me; We do not need or want any foreign interference in our military. Any Canadian military troops ; if they are available; can only enter Iraq if Iraq is under UN control.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-28 17:50:20
From Cyberpresse:
"Le Canada sera le pays ayant «le plus gros engagement envers l'Afghanistan avec des troupes de 1500 à 2000 hommes pour une période de six mois à partir d'août et le même nombre pour les six mois suivants», a "
Thats what i expected, i think about two brigades will be sent, each with a 6 month rotation calendar...
Our soldiers will be quite busy!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 08:30:50
Regarding the budget expenditures, do you know that when military personnel are deployed in other countries, they must be paid with special bonuses and logistic and transport costs much money! Last year our deployments cost us more than 400 million $...
Here is a summary of the amount for
different tasks (2001-2002 numbers):
Operations and Maintenance : 31%
Personnel spending: 39%
New Equipment : 19%
Grants : 11%
As you might see, salaries are the main spending block on the defence budget.
For example, did you know that our F-18 fighter planes don't even have guided missiles? You know why? Because they cost too much, we used our last guided missiles in 1995 while in Yugoslavia!!
Don't you think there is a problem somewhere?? I also heard that reservists (as a joke - but some part of it must be true), have only five bullets per year for target practice! I think there was also much less aeral patrols in Northern Canada in the last few years (one instead of 3 per year, can someone confirm?), because it cost too much!
To make sure that not too many personnel leave the military, since they face stiff competition from the private sector, they must adjust personal salaries in par with the private sector, and that also costs much money... (Being an engineer, i think you understand this, well military are also looking for engineers and even worst, for doctors)
Our military equipment is very very old, and the older it is, the more maintenance it costs, and this is expensive since it is equipment which might no longer be available, or the spare parts must be military grade (which is much more expensive than regular parts). Its less expensive than replacing the equipment all together though.
When these problems will be solved, and our dying equipment is replaced (our Seak King helicopters, our transport planes, and our two supply ships) then i will say, ok stop increasing the defence budget; they will have enough to buy new equipment without straining the rest of the defence department, but not before.
Our defence budget should be in 13.5-15 billion $ field with a yearly small increase based on inflation rates and by adjusting it, so we always have the same % ratio GNP, maybe 1.4%-1.6%).
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-22 12:33:01
..."Last year our deployments cost us more than 400 million $...
I would like to investigate that a bit further, is that extra money for the state of deployment? Or is that money that would have been spent even if the troops were in Canada? How much of that cost is for simply moving stuff from Canada to the trouble spot and back again? (How much of that cost is transportation, logistics, fuel, manpower, Transport Aircraft maintenace, etc)
First off my thoughts below are off the cuff and probably off base, but I thought it is worth asking. So here we go...
The other questions I have, if sending equipment to the other side of the world costs so much and our transport aircraft are in such disrepair. Wouldn’t it be useful to have an East European NATO equipment depot that could quickly deploy equipment via rail, cargo, or ship to the nearest safe zone near the trouble spot? Then commercially fly our fellows in to that safe zone for deployment to the trouble spot? The British seem to be able to deploy this way rather quickly, no?
(I say East European such as Poland because it would be cheaper and appreciated, Poland is a member of NATO, and probably closer to any trouble spots, I can't see war around France, Spain, or Germany that Canada would have to respond to anymore now that the Cold war is over)
As far as the depot, if we need to do major updates or repairs, instead of flying equipment back to Canada, just ship it back cargo? Yes there are security concerns here, and others I probably haven’t thought off, but the U.S. does it, why can’t we fully incorporate this?
It is not like we are going to have to react to the RED army dismantling Europe. If a problem gets that bad in Europe then the Europeans today are more then capable to deal first with it.
I realize that we may need self contained rapid reaction forces for Canada, JTF2, DART, etc, but that would be a different category, not peacekeeping/making and I can't see them needing 40 transport aircraft, battle tanks and artillery, deployment of those resources have never been rapid.
Again, I am probably far off on this as we would need more transparency as to track and understand the current processes and which ones are still relevant and which should be removed or adjusted. I have been hearing this resounding from the fellows I talk with, "that a lot of waste is still in ‘Procedures for countering the Soviet Union’ mentality."
Anyhow, have a good day fellows.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 13:47:51
Regarding the 400 Million dollars, I don't know, the reports (available on the DND site - called plans and priorities), indicates that this is the total expenses including bonuses transports and everything...
Regarding transport of our equipment and troops, well, from reading newspapers (the Ottawa Citizen is very well informed about all this), it seems that the Air Force Brass wants to buy some C-17 planes - which has worldwide range, I disagree with this, its much too expensive (180 million US$ each!). It seems that Mr. McCallum has also the same point of view as me.
On the other hand our CC-130 aircraft, which can fly at most up to Western Europe without refuelling should be replaced (they are getting old - 40 years), for domestic use at least, lets say there is an emergency and we must distribute goods to western Canada VERY rapidly, you need to have military transport planes... Same is true when we need to evacuate Canadians stuck someowhere in another country, you must do this rapidly, and leasing a charter plane in thoses cases can be very complex.
Thats why I simply don't understand why Canada was not involved in the European partnership for purchasing A400M transport planes, they cost much less than C-17's (80 million euros each), and have greater range and capacity than our CC-130... Like it or not our CC-130 planes will need replacement one day or another - and we need these for domestic use at least.
We are already shipping some equipment via private cargo, no? Well, the minister of Defence is currently discussing about creating a pool of C-17's which would be available to all NATO members on short notice. Thats a good step, and that is good, but we still need shorter range transport planes for ourselves. And for greater deployments, i agree that lease is a good idea (for example, leasing planes and cargos for transporting our regular troops to Afghanistan is the good way imo)
"a lot of waste is still in ‘Procedures for countering the Soviet Union’ mentality."
Thats probably true in some branches of the military, but i really suggest you read these documents :
http://www.army.forces.ca/strategy/English/tomorrowcapabilities.asp
And you will surprised that land forces in Canada seem to agree with your statement!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 1701
Date: 2003-04-29 19:21:05
Well, something is wrong, but not as badly as you think. First, within the Army itself, there are only 15,000 active troops split between 3 brigades. The rest are in headquarters planning the operations, running training or recruiting. Second, a commitment of force actually requires three times that size, ie to sustain 1,500 soldiers somewhere chews up 4,500 at any given time - 1,500 getting ready, 1,500 deploying, 1,500 coming home. So, between missions in Bosnia (where we're moving into 7 years with the Stabilization Force, plus IFOR and UNPROFOR before that) and Afghanistan, you're actually looking at a larger number of committed troops than first meets the eye. Plus, something should be left behind as a reserve in the case of sudden contingencies. You can push harder for short periods of time, but in the long run that really jacks up the divorce, substance abuse and suicide rates among soldiers, resulting in a high number of non-deployable soldiers.
The problem I see is in the bureaucracy, but that's my own personal ax to grind and doesn't belong in this forum.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
