I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,445
- Points
- 1,160
That kind of depends on what game you are playing, doesn't it?
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,536
- Points
- 1,160
If it had been a win there wouldn't have been an Iraq War (GW2?).
Winning a war includes winning the aftermath.
- Reaction score
- 18,742
- Points
- 1,360
If that’s the case, then we haven’t seen the end-state of WWII yet…If it had been a win there wouldn't have been an Iraq War (GW2?).
Winning a war includes winning the aftermath.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,536
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 18,742
- Points
- 1,360
Don’t limit a war’s outcome to your enemies…Is Canada back at war with Germany? I do drink their beer and eat their knackwurst.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,683
- Points
- 1,140
I like Germans. I work with a former East German and a former West German, although the East German claims the West German isn't a real German. And I used to work with a Swiss guy who was fluent in German.Is Canada back at war with Germany? I do drink their beer and eat their knackwurst.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,930
- Points
- 1,160
Well, technically the fourth although the French did the invading (but Bismarck wanted them to etc etc)
Franco-Prussian War - Wikipedia
- Reaction score
- 1,288
- Points
- 1,140
So was WW1 a win for the Allies or not based on your comments?If it had been a win there wouldn't have been an Iraq War (GW2?).
Winning a war includes winning the aftermath.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,536
- Points
- 1,160
Not. The armistice merely paused matters and set the conditions that allowed a Hitler to rise to power and restart the conflict.
I take a look at it from the point of view as to how long a peace is established and if the prior conflict's end sets the conditions for the next one.
Waterloo halted the French domination over European states and even though France started the Franco Prussian War in an attempt to reassert its dominance on the continent, there had been over 50 years of peace. So I'd place Waterloo in the "win" category while the Battle of Paris in 1814 clearly was not as Napoleon returned to power 100 days later and restarted the campaign.
I consider that the Union "won" the American Civil War and Canada "won" the War of 1812-14 for the reasons that each set conditions for a lasting peace for over 150 and 200 years respectively.
I prefer to consider battles and campaigns as militarily decisive when they accomplish the aim of neutralizing their immediate foe. I'll go so far as saying a particular side was victorious when it brings its foe to being unable to realistically continue its military efforts.
I tend to look at the deeper definition of win as one that "achieves a result" beyond the immediate military result.
When you take it from Clausewitz that "We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means" then the cessation of hostilities is "the return of political intercourse carried on by other means." One looks at wars not as a mere isolated event but as part of a continuum of political relations between nations and if that continuation leads to a further armed conflict in a short period of time (basically long enough for the militarily defeated party to rebuild its military power) then can you really say that there was a "win?"
- Reaction score
- 7,445
- Points
- 1,160
Not. The armistice merely paused matters and set the conditions that allowed a Hitler to rise to power and restart the conflict.
I take a look at it from the point of view as to how long a peace is established and if the prior conflict's end sets the conditions for the next one.
Waterloo halted the French domination over European states and even though France started the Franco Prussian War in an attempt to reassert its dominance on the continent, there had been over 50 years of peace. So I'd place Waterloo in the "win" category while the Battle of Paris in 1814 clearly was not as Napoleon returned to power 100 days later and restarted the campaign.
I consider that the Union "won" the American Civil War and Canada "won" the War of 1812-14 for the reasons that each set conditions for a lasting peace for over 150 and 200 years respectively.
I prefer to consider battles and campaigns as militarily decisive when they accomplish the aim of neutralizing their immediate foe. I'll go so far as saying a particular side was victorious when it brings its foe to being unable to realistically continue its military efforts.
I tend to look at the deeper definition of win as one that "achieves a result" beyond the immediate military result.
When you take it from Clausewitz that "We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means" then the cessation of hostilities is "the return of political intercourse carried on by other means." One looks at wars not as a mere isolated event but as part of a continuum of political relations between nations and if that continuation leads to a further armed conflict in a short period of time (basically long enough for the militarily defeated party to rebuild its military power) then can you really say that there was a "win?"
I'll raise you a Robert the Strong of Paris (830-866) and Fulk the Red of Anjou (870-942) or,
....
I have become ever more cynical and more inclined towards following the money. Houses (families and hangers on) have ties across the generations. Power across the generations ensures money. Every now and then the Houses resort to fisticuffs.
As in Seattle ca 1998 - Chuck Bundrant's Trident Seafoods lads squared off against Kjell Inge Rokke's American Seafoods lads in a parking lot over fishing quota. Bundrant and Rokke, Montagu and Capulets, Robertians and Angevins.
Philosophy and principle has got damall to do with it.
Not. The armistice merely paused matters and set the conditions that allowed a Hitler to rise to power and restart the conflict.
I take a look at it from the point of view as to how long a peace is established and if the prior conflict's end sets the conditions for the next one.
Waterloo halted the French domination over European states and even though France started the Franco Prussian War in an attempt to reassert its dominance on the continent, there had been over 50 years of peace. So I'd place Waterloo in the "win" category while the Battle of Paris in 1814 clearly was not as Napoleon returned to power 100 days later and restarted the campaign.
I consider that the Union "won" the American Civil War and Canada "won" the War of 1812-14 for the reasons that each set conditions for a lasting peace for over 150 and 200 years respectively.
I prefer to consider battles and campaigns as militarily decisive when they accomplish the aim of neutralizing their immediate foe. I'll go so far as saying a particular side was victorious when it brings its foe to being unable to realistically continue its military efforts.
I tend to look at the deeper definition of win as one that "achieves a result" beyond the immediate military result.
When you take it from Clausewitz that "We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means" then the cessation of hostilities is "the return of political intercourse carried on by other means." One looks at wars not as a mere isolated event but as part of a continuum of political relations between nations and if that continuation leads to a further armed conflict in a short period of time (basically long enough for the militarily defeated party to rebuild its military power) then can you really say that there was a "win?"
The Allies clearly won WW1. Austria-Hungary ceased to exist, Germany lost territory and its overseas colonies and was economically crippled for years afterwards, and the Kaiser spent the rest of his life tending a garden. Hitler didn't restart the conflict - he had an entirely different set of objectives in mind which were only partially linked to the outcome of the first war.
Clausewitz also said that wars are fought to secure a political objective; once seized, there is little point in continuing to fight. Going too far can just make the war longer and harder than necessary: "The law of the extreme, the view to disarm the adversary, to overthrow him, has hitherto to a certain extent usurped the place of this end or object. Just as this law loses its force, the political object must again come forward. If the whole consideration is a calculation of probability based on definite persons and relations, then the political object, being the original motive, must be an essential factor in the product. The smaller the sacrifice we demand from our opponent, the smaller, it may be expected, will be the means of resistance which he will employ; but the smaller his preparation, the smaller will ours require to be. Further, the smaller our political object, the less value shall we set upon it, and the more easily shall we be induced to give it up altogether."
Winning a war doesn't mean that the results are permanent. In fact, "even the final decision of a whole War is not always to be regarded as absolute. The conquered State often sees in it only a passing evil, which may be repaired in after times by means of political combinations. How much this must modify the degree of tension, and the vigour of the efforts made, is evident in itself."
Whether it is 1918, 1945, 1865 or 1815, strategic planners can't know how the next twenty years of history will unfold; all they can do is fight the war and compel the enemy to accept your terms for peace.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,536
- Points
- 1,160
That's kind of my point. You can be victorious in your military operations, but you haven't won the war until you properly shape the peace that follows into the political results that you desire.
The strategic/political planners have to foresee the next twenty years that they wish to achieve and then shape circumstances to make that vision come to pass. If that is done successfully, then and only then have you truly "won" the war. I think that's, in part, what Clausewitz meant by "securing the political objective" and by "the final decision of a whole War is not always to be regarded as absolute."
I can't see 1918 and 1919 as anything but an abject failure to secure the military victory attained into a lasting peace. The 75 million who died during WW2 (including the Pacific theatre) would find little solace in knowing that the Kaiser tended his garden or that Hitler and Tojo had other objectives beyond restarting WW1. Versailles and the League of Nations not only fueled the resentment in Germany that led to WW2 in Europe but its rejection of the racial equality clause in the League covenant did much to turn post WW1 Japan (one of the allies) to expansion in the east.
- Reaction score
- 22,527
- Points
- 1,090
The CAF refuses to let folks remain in institutional positions to see initiatives through to key milestones, preferring postings to achieving institutional objectives.
So a non zero amount of institutional friction is self- inflicted by the CAF.
So a non zero amount of institutional friction is self- inflicted by the CAF.
That's kind of my point. You can be victorious in your military operations, but you haven't won the war until you properly shape the peace that follows into the political results that you desire.
The strategic/political planners have to foresee the next twenty years that they wish to achieve and then shape circumstances to make that vision come to pass. If that is done successfully, then and only then have you truly "won" the war. I think that's, in part, what Clausewitz meant by "securing the political objective" and by "the final decision of a whole War is not always to be regarded as absolute."
I can't see 1918 and 1919 as anything but an abject failure to secure the military victory attained into a lasting peace. The 75 million who died during WW2 (including the Pacific theatre) would find little solace in knowing that the Kaiser tended his garden or that Hitler and Tojo had other objectives beyond restarting WW1. Versailles and the League of Nations not only fueled the resentment in Germany that led to WW2 in Europe but its rejection of the racial equality clause in the League covenant did much to turn post WW1 Japan (one of the allies) to expansion in the east.
Clausewitz' view was that military action exists as a subset of the larger field of political activity. A war is only undertaken to secure certain objectives. The war is won when you are able to exit the war having achieved your objectives for going to war in the first place. His point about the results of war not being final relates to the fact that a war can always be resumed at a later date, and peace is only ever temporary: "If two parties have armed themselves for strife, then a feeling of animosity must have moved them to it; as long now as they continue armed, that is, do not come to terms of peace, this feeling must exist; and it can only be brought to a standstill by either side by one single motive alone, which is, that he waits for a more favourable moment for action."
What you are calling "shaping the peace" is something that happens partly as the result of the war, but also ongoing diplomacy and changes of circumstances after the war. In 1919, the people sitting at the table at Versailles were confident that they were establishing the grounds for a stable peace in Europe. They had every reason to believe that they were permanently crippling Germany while also minimizing the risk of wars of national unification/liberation.
It didn't entirely work out that way for a variety of reasons - partly because Germany could always "wait for a more favourable moment for action," but also because the diplomats at the table weren't able to even see a year into the future, never mind 20. Wilson thought he could get the Senate to ratify the League of Nations; the British and the French honestly thought the Germans could pay their reparations bill; everyone believed that Germany couldn't rebuild a military capable of fighting a major war.
It is hard to see what could have been done differently in the closing stages of the war. Should the Allies have been more lenient with Germany, understanding that their own populations wanted a pound of flesh, and that leniency might have allowed Germany to resume hostilities a few years down the road? Or should the Allies have continued pushing into Germany through 1918 and 1919 until they had achieved total victory? If they had, what would have been the cost in lives or to British and French society? It's easy to forget how war-weary these countries were by 1918. Would there have been additional socialist revolutions, possibly in the Allied countries? Would the Soviets have started wars with the weakened capitalist states, like they tried to do with Poland? Or was WW2 inevitable? Structural realists would argue that the multipolar power structure of Europe was inherently unstable, Japan was going to expand into China regardless of anything that happened in 1919, the problem of a large and ideologically unfriendly Russia was nothing new, and even a weakened German state was going to be economically powerful enough to pose a threat to its neighbours.
We have the benefit of hindsight but we can't answer those questions.
What the Treaty of Versailles did do was end the war in Europe with the Allies having achieved all of their objectives. This is a victory by any standard.
- Reaction score
- 1,012
- Points
- 1,160
Procurement
McKinsey and Company, has come under scrutiny.
- Reaction score
- 985
- Points
- 1,060
Bill Blair about why Canada won’t spend 2% on defence:
www.ctvnews.ca
Also, there is no point throwing money into a department of the government that is designed to be systemically disfunctional.
Blair says he couldn't sell cabinet on meeting 'magical threshold' of NATO target
Defence Minister Bill Blair says he couldn't convince the Liberal cabinet that Canada's government needed to meet NATO's spending target in its recent defence policy update.
Also, there is no point throwing money into a department of the government that is designed to be systemically disfunctional.
- Reaction score
- 17,242
- Points
- 1,260
I’d kind of enjoy watching Canada get kicked out of NATO.Bill Blair about why Canada won’t spend 2% on defence:
Blair says he couldn't sell cabinet on meeting 'magical threshold' of NATO target
Defence Minister Bill Blair says he couldn't convince the Liberal cabinet that Canada's government needed to meet NATO's spending target in its recent defence policy update.
So all of the GoC…
- Reaction score
- 6,468
- Points
- 1,310
I honestly feel like this was why Anita Anand was punted to TBS.Bill Blair about why Canada won’t spend 2% on defence:
Blair says he couldn't sell cabinet on meeting 'magical threshold' of NATO target
Defence Minister Bill Blair says he couldn't convince the Liberal cabinet that Canada's government needed to meet NATO's spending target in its recent defence policy update.
Also, there is no point throwing money into a department of the government that is designed to be systemically disfunctional.
She was said to have been far more persuasive (adamant) about meeting the 2% marker than Blair was, mainly because she has a future in politics, maybe even as Leader of the LPC.
Blair is headed to pasture soon, so he was the easier mark for bad policy.
Similar threads
- Article
