Is it time to disband the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Ostrozac]

Here is my $0.02.

We need an armed force as a nation to maintain credibility internationally and to claim sovereignty over our territory. 

Iceland doesn't have armed forces. Same thing with Costa Rica, Haiti and Panama. All are internationally acknowledged sovereign states. Iceland is even a member of NATO.

So it is possible.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Having worked a lot with police forces who were supposed to be the 'front line' against terrorism, I am all for more military involvement in this game.

At least the friggin' cordon won't go home at the end of shift due to union rules. You can also trust a 24 year old NCO to properly secure a prisoner vs. a 58 year old donut slayer.  :

Yes this would be a problem but it's why we would also need to change the way we view policing.  If we were to go this route, I would envision the RCMP morphing into something more along the lines of the French Gendarmerie or Italian Carabinieri.  The challenge with this would be the inevitable infringement on civil rights that would probably occur as a result.  If we don't want to pay the bill for a military, then we need to find some other way to secure the State.  That would mean police forces with a wider mandate and increased power.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes this would be a problem but it's why we would also need to change the way we view policing.  If we were to go this route, I would envision the RCMP morphing into something more along the lines of the French Gendarmerie or Italian Carabinieri.  The challenge with this would be the inevitable infringement on civil rights that would probably occur as a result.  If we don't want to pay the bill for a military, then we need to find some other way to secure the State.  That would mean police forces with a wider mandate and increased power.

Right now we spend about 1% of GDP on our national defence insurance policy.* My guesstimate of what an efficient and effective national defence costs is about 2% of GDP,** sustained at that level for generations. That may be ~ certainly is circa 2015 ~ more than Canadians are willing to pay. They do not see a near term military threat to their peace and prosperity so they are, understandably, unwilling to spend more to counter something that they do not believe exists.

RoyalDrew made the point. yesterday, that some (many?) Canadians would actually support disarming the country. I suspect more Canadians favour disbanding the military than support doubling the defence budget.

That's the dilemma. As whiskey601 has said, in 'pure' economic/management terms the CF, indeed all of DND, is a waste of time and money. We, at the national level, could do a bare minimum to protect ouyrselves in our homeland for a lot less money. We can debate the merits of contracting for defence services, including 'paying' for defence by sacrificing some sovereignty to e.g. the USA, or being less cost effective but more independent by doing more for ourselves, even at the risk of sacrificing economic 'purity,' but the fact is that we do not get 'value for money' from the current defence system.

The problem is not with the men and women in the CF, not with 95% of them anyway, they have shown, in battle, that they are the equal to the very best in the world. Our ships, units and squadrons can all say, "Nulli Secundus." The same can be said for most of the bureaucrats in DND, be they defence scientists, clerks, intelligence analysts or drivers. The problem lies elsewhere: with governments who do not want to talk about the real threats that the world in the 21st century poses to Canada; with voters who, lacking real information, put their national defence at the bottom of their spending priority list (right alongside symphony orchestras and the National Ballet); and with a lazy media that, through its own ignorance, doesn't challenge the government on strategic issues because there is no advertising to be sold by holding the government to account.

_____
*  We spend a lot more than that for other kinds of insurance. Consider, just for example, our "free" provincial health insurance ... it costs the 'average' Canadian $3,500 to $5,000+ for 'free' provincial health insurance which, unless you make about $400,000 per years is a damned site more than 1% of your, personal, gross domstic product. Look at your annual auto insurance rates, Ontarians, who pay the highest rates, pay an average of $1,500+ per year which, unless you make $150,000 per year (i.e. you are a Colonel or above in the CF or an officer above Superintendent rank in the RCMP) is also more than 1% of your own, personal, GDP.

** Which is a lot less that e.g. the USA or Singapore pay and measurably less than what Britain, France and South Korea spend. I would want to see us spend, and I am certain we can afford, as a % of GDP, something between what Poland and Taiwan pay.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Right now we spend about 1% of GDP on our national defence insurance policy.* My guesstimate of what an efficient and effective national defence costs is about 2% of GDP,** sustained at that level for generations.

I would suggest that before there is even a single extra dime invested, all the inefficiencies, (bloated HQ's, ridiculous procurement processes, screwed up training system etc.) need to be dealt with. And because pragmatically speaking we all know they never will be dealt with in a serious manner, the final breaking point seems to be at hand and nobody in government wants to admit it. There is currently only a perverted fiscal management culture and some sort of circus like defence expenditure program in place. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I would suggest that before there is even a single extra dime invested, all the inefficiencies, (bloated HQ's, ridiculous procurement processes, screwed up training system etc.) need to be dealt with. And because pragmatically speaking we all know they never will be dealt with in a serious manner, the final breaking point seems to be at hand and nobody in government wants to admit it. There is currently only a perverted fiscal management culture and some sort of circus like defence expenditure program in place.

 

[GR66]

Right now we spend about 1% of GDP on our national defence insurance policy.* My guesstimate of what an efficient and effective national defence costs is about 2% of GDP,** sustained at that level for generations. That may be ~ certainly is circa 2015 ~ more than Canadians are willing to pay. They do not see a near term military threat to their peace and prosperity so they are, understandably, unwilling to spend more to counter something that they do not believe exists.

...

Has the definition of what is "defence" spending changed in the nuclear age?  Does it still mean having large enough conventional armies to defend or at least deter attack on our sovereign territory by the conventional forces of other nation states?  As long as the "collective West" maintains a credible nuclear deterrent is there really a existential military threat to the US or any of its core allies posed by any other nation state? No matter how overmatched we may be by the conventional forces of any other nation state does our nuclear "big stick" ultimately trump whatever advantage they may have so long as we are willing to use those weapons to prevent conventional military defeat and loss of our own territory?

Certainly non-state actors in possession of WMD's pose a real threat to our countries because the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction does not work when the enemy has no State of their own that risks retaliatory destruction.  However traditional conventional armies may not be the right/best response to these groups anyway.

Does this mean that really all that we need "traditional" conventional militaries for is to fight non-existential regional threats to our economies and political will?  When dealing with non-state threats do then things like development aid, training of foreign militaries, enhanced monitoring of international monetary transactions to stem the flow of money to extremist groups, beefed-up customs monitoring and inspections, domestic law enforcement surveillance on radical groups, etc. all become "Defence Spending"? 

I personally think that we SHOULD maintain a credible conventional military force despite our great fortune of living under the protective umbrella of the United States.  I think there are threats in the world that can and should be met with traditional military power and I think it's a much more powerful political statement of will to send your own children to pay the required price in blood than to sub-contract the work to private military contractors.  That being said, I think that many aspects of our defence can be better met with less than full conventional military forces.  Do these expenses (Coast Guard, DFAIT, CBSA, CSIS, CSE, RCMP, DFO, etc., etc.) count as part of the mythical 2% we need to spend? 

I think that the realities of a globalized and nuclear world have fundamentally changed the way the great powers compete with each other.  Does every major power having nuclear retaliation in their back pocket now mean that no great state will face the threat of conventional military defeat and loss of their ultimate sovereignty?  Is great power conflict now shifted to shifting economic and regional political domination...or even internal subversion as we're seeing in places like Ukraine, Syria and Iraq? 

 

[Cloud Cover]

@GR66: I think all your points are valid, but none of those events are ever likely to occur, same with disbanding the armed forces- it won't happen.  There is no way to force the issue unless, say, Justin Trudeau suddenly jumps out makes this an election issue "hey people in common, I've got a great idea- let's eliminate the armed forces. Harper has made such a mess of it that it is pointless to continue."  Who can argue with the history of Harper on that point? The only way for the Cons to respond would be to refute the claim and do what? Waste more money without putting in place the shock and awe changes that are needed? What's more, even Trudeau can say "even my dad spent more than Harper", which is technically true. 

   

 

[GR66]

@GR66: I think all your points are valid, but none of those events are ever likely to occur, same with disbanding the armed forces- it won't happen.  There is no way to force the issue unless, say, Justin Trudeau suddenly jumps out makes this an election issue "hey people in common, I've got a great idea- let's eliminate the armed forces. Harper has made such a mess of it that it is pointless to continue."  Who can argue with the history of Harper on that point? The only way for the Cons to respond would be to refute the claim and do what? Waste more money without putting in place the shock and awe changes that are needed? What's more, even Trudeau can say "even my dad spent more than Harper", which is technically true. 

I honestly can't imagine a political reality where the CF could/would be disbanded.  However, as other posters have mentioned there is little appetite by Canadians in general to pay the mythical 2% of GDP that would allow us to support a "traditional" conventional, expeditionary, combined-arms military.  That unfortunately hasn't stopped us from pursuing the fantasy of structuring the CF like we DO have that type of funding.

If 1% of GDP is the reality of what Canadians are willing to spend on traditional, conventional military forces then would it not make sense to structure our military and tailor our policies to the type of military we can actually afford/be willing to pay for?

Maybe the resulting military would look very different than what we have now, but it might also be able to do the reduced tasks it would be asked to perform more efficiently.

Again, I'm not saying that this is my preference for the CF...but it may be a choice that needs to be made if the funding won't/can't change.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

In the Navy, we have an old trick question when qualifying Officers-of-the-day onboard ships: We asks "You are given a duty watch of eleven seaman. You are told that a 5 tons shackles has been delivered on the jetty - How do you organize your people to bring it onboard?" And the answer is you turn to your smallest member and tell to go pick it up - because shackles are rated by strength, not by their weight, and a five tons one probably weighs about two kilos.

The relevance here? Any discussion of the proper size of the CF, or its elimination, or the % of GDP* that should be spent on it is non-sensical until two questions have been answered: What are the foreseeable threats to Canadian sovereignty or interests? And, what do we want to be able to do about it? Unless we know the answer to these question, everything is pure rhetorical musing.

* p.s.: The % of GDP is a red herring: 5% of Luxembourg GDP could barely provide them with a battalion of troops with hand held weapons, while 1% of GDP for China or the US would still give them tremendous expeditionary capabilities. This idea of the "2%" is just  a NATO average figure that has been derived as an indicator of whether you are pulling your weight in relations to other members. It has since been hijacked as end-all/be-all measure of proper defence. If we were to double our budget tomorrow, but keep the current structure and organization, I bet we could barely boost frontline soldier/airmen/seaman by more than 20%. If, on the other hand, we accept that we will never need expeditionary forces beyond deployment of a combat group of 2,500 soldiers, we could today slash and greatly simplify the Army organizational structure (read HQ's and number of units) and support organization and make huge savings. Similarly, if we accepted the fact that we would not need to fight another war at sea running convoys against the large number of submarines of a near peer enemy, we could probably reorganize the Navy towards smaller, less sophisticated ships with high levels of automation and save another bundle. Do I need to talk about the Air Force, or have I made my point?

But everything begins with deciding what exactly we wish to be able to perform for ourselves.

 

[GR66]

You mean like REAL Foreign Policy and Defence White Papers?  That is absolutely the very first thing that is needed...but also sadly one of the last things that is likely to happen.  Much easier to live in a fantasy world where you continue to expect the military to do what it did in WWII or Korea but only spend what you can get away with...and piss away valuable Defence dollars on a bloated structure instead of real capabilities in the meantime.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I honestly can't imagine a political reality where the CF could/would be disbanded.  However, as other posters have mentioned there is little appetite by Canadians in general to pay the mythical 2% of GDP that would allow us to support a "traditional" conventional, expeditionary, combined-arms military.  That unfortunately hasn't stopped us from pursuing the fantasy of structuring the CF like we DO have that type of funding.

If 1% of GDP is the reality of what Canadians are willing to spend on traditional, conventional military forces then would it not make sense to structure our military and tailor our policies to the type of military we can actually afford/be willing to pay for?

Maybe the resulting military would look very different than what we have now, but it might also be able to do the reduced tasks it would be asked to perform more efficiently.

Again, I'm not saying that this is my preference for the CF...but it may be a choice that needs to be made if the funding won't/can't change.

Maybe it's time for another split and a merge with The Defence Budget thread but I think that  GR66 is on the right track.

First a few facts:

    1. Canada's defence spending has declined, quite precipitously, since 2009, from 1.4% of GDP to 1.0% of GDP in 2013 - according to World Bank data;

    2. Canada's GDP is forecast to grow by about 2.5% per year over the next five years according to TD Banks' guesstimates;

    3. This government, Prime Minister Harper's government, has funded DND pretty fairly on a basis of activity - when the CF was engaged in operations the money flowed fairly generously to the
        elements involved; when the government wanted to cut back it did not deploy the CF on large scale operations. (It is, of course, very fair to say that starving the logistics/support base is bad policy,
        but it is politically impossible to justify high levels of defence spending when a) the CF is not engaged in combat operations and b) other, popular programmes
        are being cut or, at least constrained.)

    4. It appears that the global strategic situation is worsening; and

    5. One (not insubstantial) part of the population takes an interest in foreign and defence policy and that segment is, generally a) inclined to support the CPC or be undecided; and b) favours an effective
        military capability.

Thus, when the budget is restored to balance, after next year, and if we have a CPC government, we might expect to see defence spending rise by rates higher than inflation ~ say 3 to 5% ~ per year for the next few years to, say:

Edit to add: these figures are estimates based on the 2013 estimates, not on the 2013/14 allocations which were substantially lower and those figures are shown, in pink, on the second line.
 
          2016          2017        2018          2019          2020          2021          2022          2023          2024          2025
        $24.0B      $25.0B    $26.5B      $28.0B    $29.5B      $31.0B      $33.0B    $35.0B      $37.0B    $39.0B  
        $22.0B      $23.0B    $24.5B      $26.0B    $27.5b      $29.0b      $31.0B    $32.5B      $35.0B    $37.0B

So, now my question is: what should we, unncomitted voters who are interested in foreign and defence policy, tell the government to do?

My in initial suggestions are:

    1. 'Grow' the defence budget, again, until it reaches, say, about 1.5% of GDP, by, say, 2020, or hits $40.0B and then sustain it there, allowing for inflation;

    2. Restructure the CF to make it operationally effective and cost effective, too ~ start, as a sign of 'good faith' to voters by slashing the command an control superstructure
        and rejuvinating the fleets and field forces; and

    3. Build long term sustainability into the permanent force. High cost units and high cost people must be there, and and reform the reserve forces so that they can, effectively and
        efficiently augment the permanent force as needed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
* p.s.: The % of GDP is a red herring: 5% of Luxembourg GDP could barely provide them with a battalion of troops with hand held weapons, while 1% of GDP for China or the US would still give them tremendous expeditionary capabilities. This idea of the "2%" is just  a NATO average figure that has been derived as an indicator of whether you are pulling your weight in relations to other members. It has since been hijacked as end-all/be-all measure of proper defence. If we were to double our budget tomorrow, but keep the current structure and organization, I bet we could barely boost frontline soldier/airmen/seaman by more than 20%. If, on the other hand, we accept that we will never need expeditionary forces beyond deployment of a combat group of 2,500 soldiers, we could today slash and greatly simplify the Army organizational structure (read HQ's and number of units) and support organization and make huge savings. Similarly, if we accepted the fact that we would not need to fight another war at sea running convoys against the large number of submarines of a near peer enemy, we could probably reorganize the Navy towards smaller, less sophisticated ships with high levels of automation and save another bundle. Do I need to talk about the Air Force, or have I made my point?

But everything begins with deciding what exactly we wish to be able to perform for ourselves.

I don't think that's true at all. The % of GDP is a fair and valid sign of any nation's commitment to any particular policy or programme. It doesn't matter what any given % buys (although we must recognize that 2% of GDP for China buys a helluva lot more, £ for £, than 2% of GDP buys for Germany), what matters is how much each individual country can afford to spend - or, perhaps, how much it can afford to not spend.

Thus, for example, Israel and Singapore spend a lot on defence, as a % of GDP - and spend it fairly carefully, too, including on building a modicum of defence self sufficiency - because they live in pretty rough neighbourhoods. Germany, despite having Russia for a neighbour, spends too little because, as in Canada, they rely upon others to defend them and defence spending is politically unpopular.

 

[Kirkhill]

The real red herring in Canada's case is trying to find a threat to justify the existence of armed forces.  We've scoured many barrels and all come to the same conclusion as Whiskey.  There isn't one.

So don't justify it on defence.  Justify it on offence.

We exist to keep the peace overseas and help out our friends.  We do what we can.  We don't have to do anything.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Perhaps this isn't the time to disband the CAF.

That's all I have to say about that I guess.

 

[Cloud Cover]

You are right EITS, but I would think the Mounties, CSEC and CSIS all need to step up their game. There isn't much the CAF could have done to prevent today's tragedy, but there are ways they can provide support to hopefully prevent or thwart the next attack [and surely there will be another].

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... the Mounties, CSEC and CSIS all need to step up their game ....

Wait for it ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

... the Mounties, CSEC and CSIS all need to step up their game ...

Fair enough, but, especially in  the case of CSEC, only a few hundred people in the whole world* should ever know that their 'game' has been 'stepped up.'

_____
* And only one or two of them should ever have been elected to parliament (let's say just the prime minister, minister of justice/attorney general and leader of the opposition) and they should never know most of the details ...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The real red herring in Canada's case is trying to find a threat to justify the existence of armed forces.  We've scoured many barrels and all come to the same conclusion as Whiskey.  There isn't one.

So don't justify it on defence.  Justify it on offence.

We exist to keep the peace overseas and help out our friends.  We do what we can.  We don't have to do anything.

National Defence entails more than the mere protection of one's borders from intrusion, it also entails the defence of Canadian national interests anywhere needed, which includes abroad. As war is a pursuit of diplomacy by other means, and in defence of what Canadian wish to stand for in the world and be seen to stand for, there is an expeditionary component to National defence that must exist (A good example: As founder of the Un, Canadian will not stand for wars of aggression. Thus we signed on to the Korean war and the Liberation of Koweit war, with that we could muster and in a coalition in both cases, but we did it because it was a national interest of Canada that the sanctity of borders included int he UN charter be protected).

For those who advocate just hiring out for this function, I will just say go read Machiavelli's warning about employing mercenaries in The Prince. That hasn't changed.

A sub plot to that point (which Machiavelli could not have foreseen as state economies as we understand them didn't really exist in those days) is ERC's % of GDP argument: If the % of GDP one spends on defence matters because it is a symbol of resolve, what signal is sent to the world if you just take 2% of your GDP and pay it to the American (for instance) and tell them to defend us in exchange? In your theory, it shows our resolve to defend ourselves since it is the magical 2%, but in practice, any foe would look at it from either of two perspectives. 1) Do we think that American, as hired guns, have the resolve to defend Canada's territorial integrity to the point of taking many dead soldiers if need be? or 2) It's not Canada we have to deal with, but the US - Canada is merely the US's serf now.

 

[George Wallace]

The real red herring in Canada's case is trying to find a threat to justify the existence of armed forces.  We've scoured many barrels and all come to the same conclusion as Whiskey.  There isn't one.

So don't justify it on defence.  Justify it on offence.

We exist to keep the peace overseas and help out our friends.  We do what we can.  We don't have to do anything.

I always revert back to the Fire Department analogy.  Just because the town has not seen a fire in some time, does that justify they stop funding Firefighting training, selling off the firetruck, or disbanding the Fire Department?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Drifting even further  ff topic:  ...

I have a couple of concerns right now, things about which I am, possibly, rethinking my established positions:

    First: the very nature of the nation state, itself. OGBD talks about the "sanctity of borders," a concept that, in the West, dates, really, from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and it is a concept that
    is, indeed, enshrined in the UN Charter. I'm not so sure that the "sanctity" of borders is something that we must or even can defend. Look, just for example, at what Russia did to Ukraine. What
    would have happened to the borders of the UK is Scotland had voted 'Yes,' or to Canada's in QC voted 'Oui,' for that matter? What is happening to the borders of Iraq and Syria right now?

    Second: the nature of war. We have, again since the 17th century, come to perceive 'war' as being symmetrical: one 'side' against another; friend and foe; we and they and so on. It now
    appears to me that war is between several 'sides' and allies might be both very, very temporary and ever changing, as might enemies. We do not, it seems to me, always know
    which side we are on.

    Third: the 'language' of war. It also seems to me that we, and China, for example, speak two different languages of war: ours comes to us from Clausewitz and was, perhaps, best spoken by Roosevelt
    and George C Marshall. In our language 'war' is, eventually, a clash of forces and one side always wins. China does not appear to have believed Clausewitz and they still think Sun Tzu was right:
    'war' might involve fighting and destruction but one's war aims can be achieved without fighting. I believe that China thinks that it is fighting World War IV right now. China doesn't want, ever,
    to engage the US in physical battles but it is happy to 'engage' in every other sphere. My guess is that China is 'happy' with the way the war is going; it hasn't won all the battles but it thinks
    that it is winning enough of the important battles to, eventually, win the war. I am also guessing that IS** war aims are less that Clausewitzian.

So, I wonder: what should Canada be doing? We have, I believe, vital interests beyond our borders and we need the capacity promote and protect those interests, independent of the interests and views of others. My own, traditional response to my own concern is to demand that we have bigger, better armed forces. But, is that, really, the best use of our resources?