The Defense Minister

[Ian_M]

Hey all, I was thinking about something for a while and I'm not sure if it has been discussed before, but what are your thoughts on having a Defense Minister who was a former member of the military. Do you all feel that it would be a better idea for someone who has service in the Armed Forces (Regular or Reserve). I'm just wondering everyones thoughts on the matter.

 

[Bograt]

Unfortunately, military service is not a distinguishing mark of service within the current government. Unlike the US, where I think 30% of house reps and senators have a background in the armed forces, the numbers within Canada house is microscopic. I can not think of anyone within the current government who has served. Do you think McCallum could get past basic. While he was Minister his people tried to get him checked out to do a backseat ride in a Hornet as a PR stunt. Needless to say it didn't happen becasue he wasn't medically fit.

The view held with the current ruling party is that Defense is a secondary or even a third level cabinet post ranking with Transportation, Industry, and Fisheries. It is viewed as not as important as Foreign Affairs, of Finance.

The question is not if the Minister should have a background in Defence, but rather why is Defence viewed as not important.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

That's right, military service should be a prerequisite to holding public office.  Just like Hitler so carefully and wisely guided his country through six years of war based on his experiences as a Private First Class in the Bavarian Army in World War One, so should all our Defence Ministers at least have two years in the Reserves, because being in the Reserves makes you smart and stuff.

 

[dutchie]

I agree with Dorosh (for once). We don't require our Minister of Health to be a Doctor/Nurse, etc..... We don't require our CDS to have political experience (officially), why would his civilian counterpart be required to have military experience?

To address the issue re:US reps having more military experience than our MPs. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I am virtually positive that the US has a much higher per capita rate of military experience, thus more members of the house will have military experience.

We live in a country that proudly does not require drafts to recruit enough troops to fight major wars, and does not have conscription. Requiring/preferring Mil experience for civilian jobs goes against this.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Actually, Canada sent conscripts into combat in both of the World Wars, and was drafting soldiers as early as 1940 in WW II...

The comments about "per capita" seem reasonable and on the mark, however.  The US, simply put, has a larger military and had traditionally conducted more military operations than Canada has.

 

[Freight_Train]

The Minister of Defense should be someone who at least likes the Military...

 

[dutchie]

I agree Michael:We did have conscripts, but I was referring to countries that have required military service (some scandinavian countries, Holland up until recently, etc.)

My point being we value the CHOICE to be a soldier, and requiring military service for any position is wrong.

 

[Slim]

The Minister of Defense should be someone who at least likes the Military...

And not only willing to talk to on half of it during parades!