Does Canada need a Military?

[pbi]

I would hate to think that a company has put a freeze on relations with it's branch in Manitoba based solely on the Chretien Government decision to avoid military involvement in Iraq.

Well, as hard as it may be to believe this, that is the way it has been explained to me by a very trustworthy individual. Unfortunaetly, I am not about to identify either the firm (it is quite large and well known...) nor the individual, so I guess we're at a draw on this one.

With respect to your enumeration of our various committments under the UN, etc, I understand that these are nominally part of the GWOT. Unfortunately, IMHO (but backed up by some recent experience...) these committments are not even on the screen of most people in the US military(less those who actually work with us...)or their government and are probably utterly invisble to the US public. The only way, IMHO, that we could gain visibiilty for ourselves as a "player" would be to take a role in Iraq (a political non-starter now, and anyway sadly after the fact...) or to assume, quickly, a much bigger role in OEF as opposed to ISAF.(We are finally taking steps in that direction, but again IMHO quite late to need.)

The US, IMHO, appreciate and respect those who stand beside them and share the same risks they face. Unless we do that, we will remain in the shadows as far as the US is concerned. I can only imagine the impact that this recent ill-considered flip-floppery over BMD will have on this matter: probably not a very good one. Perhaps our govt will one day learn that continental defence policy is too important to make based on opinion polls of an ill-informed pubilc that has not benefitted from any meaningful education or debate on the issue, but instead expresses its opinion based, I suggest, to a great extent on misinformed, knee-jerk anti-Americanism. How many of our electorate actually have the faintest idea about BMD? Why was no meaningful attempt ever made to educate the public about it, as an issue for national debate. Once again, we raise questions in US minds about our reliability and relevance: not a good course of action, and one that I very much doubt is offset by the committments you listed.

Cheers

 

[Cloud Cover]

Why was no meaningful attempt ever made to educate the public about it, as an issue for national debate.

Name one time in recent memory that Canadians have an opportunity to be "educated" by the government on any issue in National Defence. I don't believe there is a succesful precedent for such a procedure - one would have to resort to analogies such as the 1988 FTA election or the Charlottetown Accord for examples of the government making an effort to educate and consult. Neither one of those examples is a good precedent if you're a liberal or attempting to sell Canadians on the importance of appeasing liberal interests situate in Quebec by further disemboweling the Canadian Armed Forces.

Frankly, I think it's high time the US put it's foot down with Canada and enforced the "with us or against us" doctrine. In a flash, a critical mass of sensible Canadians would waste little time in deciding that special interest appeasement is clearly not the proper basis upon which to base foreign and defence policy. And BTW, the day when the US throws down the glove is probably closer now than at any time since Confederation. Cheers.

 

[Stirling N6123]

pbi,

I will not disagree with any of that. And I am sure there are those who would argue that we are contributing allot, and then there are those who say we can do more. And at what cost? While I do not think the loss of a companies ability to sell staples to a US company will lead to our economic demise, It could have implications for those it does hurt, based on a government decision not to send in troops to a hotspot.

But as the original question asks, Do we need a military? Yes. We can all agree on that. But take the question a step further. What do we need that military for? That is the question that can lead to on-going debates that I am sure, will outlive this website.

If our military is to be used as an instrument of self defense, should we care whether or not the Americans ask for our assistance overseas in a place such as Iraq? And in turn have complete disregard for the billions of dollars of trade we conduct with the US on a yearly basis? We as a nation have practically shouted, election after election that we can do with a small, less equipped military. We have put our social programs, health care and other social issues on the front burner while military, and defence spending has taken to the backburner, for more years than I would like to admit. Only in the last election has the government addressed the need for better maritime choppers, and now, in the last budget, an increase in defence spending and troop increase. Does this mean that now, we are starting to feel the economic pinch of US companies reducing trade with it's Canadian partners?

Now, if our military is to be used as an instrument to project Canadian foreign policy abroad, do we run the risk of loosing our peacekeeping identity? If I am correct, I think we have only done that twice since WWII. The Gulf War, and Afghanistan. Everything else has been under the UN. Would the economic spinoffs from sending troops to Iraq outweigh our own identity as a nation of Peacekeepers? If we send troops somewhere, it should be in our own best interest, decided upon by our elected government and appointed generals. Not because we are requested by the US government, knowing full well there are hidden strings attached. Congressmen know that American companies doing business with Canadian companies are run my middleaged businessmen who served in Vietnam and currently have their sons and daughters serving in Iraq, so I would agree that yes, it can have implications for our trade and economic health should we decide to not send troops.

But, I cannot speak for the average Canadian solider. I have only ever been a reservist. But my feeling would be, that if I was sent to a hell hole like Iraq, just so we can keep our cross boarder trade going with the USA, I would be a little ticked off.

 

[pbi]

Now, if our military is to be used as an instrument to project Canadian foreign policy abroad, do we run the risk of loosing our peacekeeping identity?

I am not sure what you mean by "peacekeeping identity".

If I am correct, I think we have only done that twice since WWII. The Gulf War, and Afghanistan. Everything else has been under the UN.

Well, it depends again on what you are referring to by "peacekeeping": Korea and Kosovo were both under the auspices of the UN, but both involved Canadians in combat operations: in Korea, conducted primarily by the Army, and in Kosovo mainly by the Air Force. Would you call those "peacekeeping" operations?

If we send troops somewhere, it should be in our own best interest, decided upon by our elected government and appointed generals

I agree, but I suspect that you and I might not define "best interests" in the same way.

Not because we are requested by the US government, knowing full well there are hidden strings attached.

And why not because we are requested by the US? Does the UN represent some morally superior entity? I wonder that it does, given some of its disgracefully inept and failed missions,as well as its egregiously corrupt administrators. I wonder if there is any proof that classic UN Chapter Six peacekeeping has ever been shown to actually have prevented or resolved a conflict, or if it was really just window dressing for other more powerful factors at work.

But my feeling would be, that if I was sent to a hell hole like Iraq, just so we can keep our cross boarder trade going with the USA, I would be a little ticked off.

Actually there was a much higher level of enthusiasm for the idea in the military than one might think. However, setting that aside, I would not be quite so cheap and narrow-minded as to suggest that we should be sent off to die to ensure good trade relations with the US. I do not think that at this point in my life I hold my fellow soldiers in such low regard that I would offer them (and perhaps myself...) up for sacrifice on that narrow basis. However, economic security IS a time-honoured reason for going to war: let's not forget that. As well, we must remain fully alert to the fact that we can only twist the US tail so far before we will inevitably feel some consequences: any decision to be a less than reliable friend and ally must be taken in full view of that fact, instead of in a smug, ostrich stance in which we shove our collective hands in our pockets and shrug: "it's their problem".

Cheers.

 

[canadianblue]

...then again didn't wargames experts figure out that it would take the US a mere thirty-six hours if it used all available forces to completely rout any armed response and occupy the whole country?  Highly unlikely that it would ever happen that way, though.

I would have a whole lot more hope that Canada would be able to hold out longer then that. In our nations history we have always been the underdogs, in the revolutionary war the American's had a superior fighting force, yet we still beat them. The same thing happened in the war of 1812. Remember Vietnam, that war lasted for what 10 years while America was over their. If people are fighting for their lives, and motivated enough, then a country can hold out really long. Especially if Guerilla warfare is used.

Don't want to start an argument, but just because a country has a superior force, doesn't necessarily mean absolute victory.

 

[buzgo]

Just look at Iraq...

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! ?!??!?!

 

[George Wallace]

I would have a whole lot more hope that Canada would be able to hold out longer then that. In our nations history we have always been the underdogs, in the revolutionary war the American's had a superior fighting force, yet we still beat them. The same thing happened in the war of 1812. Remember Vietnam, that war lasted for what 10 years while America was over their. If people are fighting for their lives, and motivated enough, then a country can hold out really long. Especially if Guerilla warfare is used.

Don't want to start an argument, but just because a country has a superior force, doesn't necessarily mean absolute victory.

I suppose if one were to believe in Conspiracy Theories, one could look at the Gun Registry as an American plot to 'disarm' Canadians and thus avert the opportunity of guerrilla cells rising up to defend Canada in that event.   Canada's population is even more dispersed today and less likely to bear arms in their defence.   The majority of Canadians are to apathetic and anti-military to offer up much in a way of a capable, or even ineffective, guerrilla force.

Canadians must realize that the Military is an organization like the Police, Fire, Ambulance, Medical, and other Rescue Services that keep this nation from slipping into chaos and 3rd World Status.   These organizations must all train for worse case scenarios and constantly upgrade their equipment and training.   It is a complete package and no one service can be sacrificed without having an affect on the country.   Not to be Racist, but I look at some of our problem of the populace's dislike or apathy towards the military as being a result of the immigrants and refugees who have come to this country in the last twenty to thirty years, from countries with less than stellar militaries or dictatorships.   They naturally associate all militaries in the same light.   They have come here to escape tyranny and maintain their dislikes of anything resembling in any way what they have fled from.   The Liberal Government gave them refuge, and so they further reward that Government, leading further to our problems.  
[Edit 1 Mar 05 1730 hrs:   Coupled with the Liberal Left populations in our major metropolitan areas the problem is doubled.]

GW

 

[48Highlander]

Just look at Iraq...

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! ?!??!?!

Ugh.  Stick to sigs and leave tactics to the infantry, ok?

 

[pipesnake]

For those of you that still think our lack of participation in military matters does not affect trade, diplomacy, international relations, etc.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109684680365_15?hub=topstories

 

[canadianblue]

I agree with you GW on the point about how the populace views the military. It seems to me that alot of people are ignorant when it comes to the military. However I still think if their were to be an invasion Canada would be able to fight it off. Their are still a large segment of the population that would have the will, and would find some way to find arms in order to resist any invasion. The invasion of Finland in 1940 comes to mind, the USSR suffered terrible losses due to the resistance put up in that country. As well as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, the people were able to use the enemy's weapons to help fight the enemy.

 

[George Wallace]

Futuretrooper

I am not so sure on that.  The socio and economic face of Canada has changed a lot since those days.  I am pessimistic as to whether or not Canadians would truly rally around the flag, especially seeing as many don't rally around it today.  Yes, I do believe we still would have 'Die Hard Canadians' that may fight a guerrilla war, but their numbers would be too few to effectively prevent capitulation.  They would probably be sought out and captured by Police Forces, rather than Armed Forces.  It may even be a "Bloodless Annexation".

GW

 

[Wizard of OZ]

I hate to say it but GW might be right.  We are so inundated with the American Culture that i think most people would think what took them so long.  I know some cultures the Natives and French Canadians may offer up more then token resistance but i don't think it would last long.  This is not Iraq or an area with a lot of weapons just lying around in caches around the country.  They know our weakness and or strenghts i don't think it would take more then a month or two at most for 80-90 percent of the country to be pacified.  I cannot believe i just said that but i had to be honest.  We A value life way more then other cultures.  And B our ways of life are not that different then America.

Hey maybe this way TO could get an NFL team.

 

[Kirkhill]

economic security IS a time-honoured reason for going to war

The above from pbi.

Some people argue, at base, that all wars are the result of competing interests trying to achieve economic security.  Whether it be food in your mouth or a squabble over the rum trade.

 

[pbi]

Thanks, Kirkhill. Before we righteously trash "economic security" as being an unsuitable reason for going to war, think about the average Canadian (or US...) city in February with no oil, no food, and no jobs. The outcome of economic collapse can be political upheaval, so I do not think that we should automatically say that "fighting for oil"(as an example)  is wrong from the get-go.

Cheers

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Futuretrooper

I am not so sure on that.   The socio and economic face of Canada has changed a lot since those days.   I am pessimistic as to whether or not Canadians would truly rally around the flag, especially seeing as many don't rally around it today.   Yes, I do believe we still would have 'Die Hard Canadians' that may fight a guerrilla war, but their numbers would be too few to effectively prevent capitulation.   They would probably be sought out and captured by Police Forces, rather than Armed Forces.   It may even be a "Bloodless Annexation".

GW
[/quote
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but my family is still armed, and would not bother playing fair against an enemy with all the material advantages.  I know the ground, the people, and I have trained with the most probable invader, and am familiar with their tactics.  As they respond to the provaprovocationshe trained few, the heavy handed tactics of an occupying army, as viewed by our too sheltered populace will drum up all the future resistance forces needed.  Holland and France showed the problems of organized normal citizens who chose to make the invaders pay for every night, for every lone soldier, for every unwatched vehicle or intersection.  The US thinks improvised explosive devices are a problem in Iraq, what do they think a population containing trained soldiers, chemists, structural and electrical engineers, construction and demolition contractors, and medics can do, that was a list of the professionals that are my imediate neighbors.  We have the ability to form a working cell in every city block.  The US could force politicians to give it away, but they would bleed if they tried to take it.

 

[Zipper]

Sheesh...

There are just way to many scary people around these days.

Someone has been thinking about "survival" a wee bit to long me thinks.

 

[canadianblue]

Unfortunately it is true that most Canadian's would'nt fight for this country. I believe on poll showed that only 35% of Canadian's would fight for this countries survival, compared to 89% for the United States.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

It is a sad day for those of us who do fight for our country (if those stats are true).

 

[PeterLT]

We are so inundated with the American Culture that i think most people would think what took them so long.

Here's another slant on things. Now bear in mind that I am by no means unique in this respect. My sister is an American as she was born there when my Dad worked in the US. My brother is a Canadian married to an American and his kids are all Americans, one of which is in pilot training with the USAF. I have several relatives serving with the US Navy. I went to elementary school and junior high in Syracuse, NY, did a career in the Canadian Army and my son is in the midst of applying for the Canadian Forces. There are many Canadian families that are deeply intertwined with American families. That has been an inescapable fact of life when we have (had) the longest undefended border in the world. Any invasion of Canada would be perilous from that point of view, bringing up questions of fidelity on both sides. Besides, as I've tried to illustrate, we are in very many cases, connected by blood which makes for the best type of ally.

It's not an easy question from any aspect but to drive wedges between the two countries is at best stupid. Just my two bits....


Peter

 

[buzgo]

This is nothing new either:

During the war of 1812, the northern states continued trading with Canada and Britain, and were against the war.  There were also recent immigrants from the US in Canada that felt much the same, however Issac Brock was able to rally them to the cause in the end.

Now look at the recent presidential election, most of the New England states voted democrat, and many of their citizens have stated that they feel that they have more in common with Canada than with the rest of the USA. I have friends in New York that are pretty much indistinguishable from Canadians (they are well educated, maybe this makes a diff?) and could easily fit in with our culture (which is different!)

Like PeterLT says, things are far too complex to make suppositions about what would happen.