What Should the Army's Role, Capabilities & Structure Be?

[PPCLI Guy]

I think that perhaps you cut to the chase too quickly...

I see a question chain something akin to this:

What is our National Policy?
What elements of National Power are we willing to expend to achieve said policy?
What are the Foreign affairs implications of that decision?
What Defence Policy can we derive from that?
What do we want our military to do?
What capabilities should our military have?
How should we organise those capabilities to best achieve National Policy?

That is what I mean by First Principles.  If the answer to all of those questions lead us to the inevitable conclusion that we need to create a chain of small smart left-handed 14 year old girls chanting Girl Guide songs, then that is what we go out and get...

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Do you understand what contradiction means?

Unilaterally deploy naval assests..........get rid of AORs......   ???

When did I say "get rid of AOR's"?   What I said was withdraw from our commitment to provide the NATO fleet with an AOR.   In essence, focus on unilateral deployment and support capabilities and cooperate/coordinate when other nations choose to join causes we are committed to.



Matthew.    

 

[DJL]

I guess I missread "and be willing to sacrifice those assets, roles (NATO fleet refueling) that do not fit this new objective".......My bad

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I think that perhaps you cut to the chase too quickly...

I see a question chain something akin to this:

What is our National Policy?
What elements of National Power are we willing to expend to achieve said policy?
What are the Foreign affairs implications of that decision?
What Defence Policy can we derive from that?
What do we want our military to do?
What capabilities should our military have?
How should we organise those capabilities to best achieve National Policy?

That is what I mean by First Principles.   If the answer to all of those questions lead us to the inevitable conclusion that we need to create a chain of small smart left-handed 14 year old girls chanting Girl Guide songs, then that is what we go out and get...

In your logical hierarchy, the only thing I've tried to assess #1.   I want a unilaterally deployable/supportable set of battlegroups (primarily ground forces, but unilateral deployment of air assets and naval assets would be equally important) that can operate anywhere in the world to intercede in wars, peacemaking, and peacekeeping operations based on the will of the Canadian People, not the UN.  

Obviously poorly worded, to put it into your terminology, my question was intended to discern what everyone else's #1 would be....including yours.

Cheers,


Matthew.    

P.S.   To Zoomie - I'm not saying self-defence with naval and air assets would not be a priority, it would just be the secondary priority as I simply don't see a looming threat upon the horizon.   That being said a foreign policy/defence policy review should be completed annually to quickly identify if the world is changing and if those priorities need to be reversed.  

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Obviously poorly worded, to put it into your terminology, my question was intended to discern what everyone else's #1 would be....including yours.

I want a Defence Policy!!!

 

[Slim]

Here's a question;

What defines the defense of Canada? Remember its no longer Ivan the commie bastard coming over the hill. Now we have terrorism, counter-drug ops, countersmuggling ops (which I might add submarines would come in rather handy) Arctic and Northern sovereignty, as well as the battlegroup support that seems to have become the focus of everyones attention this last little bit.

The list could go on and on depending on your particular point of view!

So what constitutes the defense of Canada?

Slim

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

There are a number of posters here (whom I should point out have much much more experience than I do) who are very much into confining our roles to those we've had previously.

How is wanting to retain and hold on to what we have confining? Wanting air defence destroyer AORs, MBTs etc is not confining our roles it only makes sense.

I on the other hand am much more "objective-focused" and have in the past argued (much less eloquently than PPCLI) that we need to start from scratch with "what is it we want to do?"

Which to me basically say niche roles, which only hurts all the all round capabilities of the CF.

My big picture objective:  "Create the best ground forces we can, then realign all our naval/air assets to have the ability to unilaterally deploy then support said ground forces anywhere in the world."

You really can't have it both ways..first you want the air force and navy to act as a taxi service all the time then support the ground forces. I don't have a problem with supporting ground forces but you are leaning towards cuts in capabilies

.In short, redesign the entire CF to be Ground Forces-focused, and be willing to sacrifice those assets, roles (NATO fleet refueling) that do not fit this new objective.

In my 10 years in the navy I have seen the east coast tankers away supporting the NATO forces maybe twice. The AORs are for the most part used for Canadian Task Group replenishment and for Operations like OP Apollo.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

To Ex-Dragoon (and others),

First off I'm not trying to contend I have all the answers.   I'm actually struggling to ask the right questions so I can learn from you guys.

Bottom Line:   If it were up to you, how would set National Policy and how would that translate into reorganization and procurement?

Many thanks (and my apologies for my clumsy writing skills)....



Matthew.  

P.S.   To Ex-Dragoon re:   The NATO Fleet Tasking - Thanks, I thought it was more often than that....  

 

[Inch]

Well I've got a few thoughts on this so here they go.

Almost 80% of the countries in the world have some shoreline, and the vast majority have some sort of naval power. Let's look at the defence of Canada,   considering we have the largest coastline in the world and we have shores on 3 of the world's oceans, not to mention that 2/3 of the world is covered in water, I'd say that a capable navy is the most important force a country like ours could have. Followed closely by a capable airforce.   If the bad guys can't get to us, how many ground troops do we actually need to hold the ground?

Now, when we get into foreign policy and being a world power, navies still have the most firepower and mobility to get from one side of the planet to the other and be a show of force. One important caveat of military force is that you don't even have to use that force to be an intimidating presence on the world's stage. What could be more intimidating than a fully capable naval force that can get anywhere in the world in a week? The Americans aren't a superpower because of a large army, the Chinese have a bigger army than any other country, do you hold them in the same regard as the Americans? Not likely, the Americans are a superpower because they can get arse loads of firepower to within 12 nautical miles of 80% of the countries on the planet.

So, my opinion on the big picture, you can't just control one dimension or one terrain.   If you want to be a credible force in the world, you need a well balanced military with emphasis on air superiority and naval supremacy. Without air superiority or naval supremacy, the guys on the ground have no secure means of resupply let alone transport to where they're going. Don't get me wrong, a fully capable army is important too, there's no other way to hold ground or provide an "up close and personal" view of a country's power. What Canada needs to do is sit down and think long and hard about what position we want to have in the world, then build the military to meet that demand. If we want to be a stabilizing force in the world, we need a credible force with the capability to force the renegades to obey the rule of law.

I know this post was a little "Navy" heavy but forgive me, I'm in the middle of my Maritime Warfare course and I'm sold on the benefits of a bitchin' navy.

Cheers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Do I detect a MARS career in your future Inch?

 

[Inch]

Don't you swear at me!

Definitely not MARS, but quite possibly MH for my career. I love flying too much.  ;D

 

[Garry]

not to hijack the thread or anything, but anyone wearing a uniform who doesn't realise that his SOLE purpose in Military life is to support the 19 year old infanteer with muddy knees and a bloody bayonet had better re-examine his/her career.

Yes, our Fighter Force may well rid the skies of the bad guys, and our Navy may keep the seas Canadian, but it's all for naught if our Infantry aren't occupying the ground. Note the term Infantry- Tanks take ground, Infantry holds it. Artillery supports them both. As does the Log branch, ferrying bullets and beans- and the Recce guys, Combat Engineers...well, I'll eventually run out of room or forget someone, so I'll stop there- you should be getting the point by now. We all support that 19 yr old kid.

Just for fun, study ANY air war, and see what it's predicated on- the Ground Commanders plan. Naval strategy- same thing- support the ground commander.

Pick ANY war- and it's the same- all the arms support the ground commanders plan to take, and hold that ground. ..and the ground commander? He depends on that 19 year old kid.

Frankly, I cannot see any other way of doing it.

You may carry on

Cheers-garry

 

[Inch]

Garry, spoken like a "the world revolves around me" infanteer.  How about the Battle of Britain? 4 years prior to any ground action in France, I guess they were supporting the infantry that was holding the ground in England.

Why is it that the infantry types tend to hack on other capabilities to remind us all how important they are? Of course you can relate any job to the guy holding the ground, but I'll tell you how many infantry guys MH crews support on a daily basis, zero. We support the navy, the navy maintains sea superiority so the cargo ships can get through, the cargo ships bring supplies to the theater, TacAirlift delivers them, so in a round about 4th or 5th party way, we support the infantry.  Not in all cases does the infantry hold ground. It was the RAF that prevented the invasion of England, there were no ground battles fought on English territory so tell me how they held ground there?

Anyway, I digress, the infantry will keep bringing up the fact that they're the centre of the universe so I'll go back to my cushy helicopter and try not to get shot down with a Sea Sparrow.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I agree Garry but is that infanteer not more effective if he has air cover and the supplies that arrive by sea are well protected? To concentrate on one branch of the Forces at the expense of others is folly as has been tried to have been pointed out.

 

[Goober]

What good is air and/or naval superiority without any infantry to hold the ground? You can also ask, how can the infantry expect to hold any ground without air and/or naval superiority?

All 3 areas of the Forces work to support each other, no one is more important than the other, because without one, the others value has been significantly decreased.

There is something I fear in todays world. It's that terrorism is seen as the big threat now, and "guerrilla tactics" seem to be the choice of many hostile fighting forces out there, and many countries when trying to adapt to these "new" enemies, they may sacrifice some of their traditional defences or abilities. The Cold War may be over, but the threats we faced then are not gone. There may come a time when another country declares war on us, or one of our allies, and we have to be able to defend ourselves, or an allie.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

spoken like a "the world revolves around me" infanteer.

I am one of those guys who has always spouted that line, but, at the risk of being jumped on by all my fellow infanteers, there is a pardigm shift going on here with respect to the relationship between fire and manoeuvre.

Doctrine, organisations and tactics over the last 50 (one could argue 250) years have all been designed around the precept of manoeuvre supported by mass fires.   There is a new theory (that we have formally adopted in the CF by way of various Transformation documents) that the relationship should be precision fires supported by manoeuvre.   This echoes US thinking on Effects Based Operations.   If one accepts that theory, then doctrine, organisations and tactics must necessarily follow, and I think that we may find the previously unassailable moral high ground held by the infantry under attack.

Now having said that, we as a military lack a wide spectrum precision capability, and with a lack of strategic and tactical mobility (no strategically mobile engineer mobility assets to speak of), one can question our ability to manoeuvre.

Strikes me though that if you take a careful read of Strategy 2020, the Strategfic Operating Concept, and the various Transformation documents, we are slowly evolving our theory and hence doctrine of war fighting.   Organisations, equipment and tactics are sure to follow.

 

[Infanteer]

Inch, I'll disagree with the prioritization of the Navy and the Air Force over the Army.  People do not live under water or in the sky.  To truly serve our National Interest and force our will upon others (which is the root of conflict) you need humans on the ground, using force upon their society if necessary.  Even moreso in our current global world, the strategy of containment and isolation through access of the air and the sea is unworkable.  We need to push our interests overseas, and only troops can do this.

Hitler could strafe and bomb Britain with the Luftwaffe and sink convoys with the U-Boats to his hearts content; but until he was marching soldiers into Whitehall, the war was still going.

Anyways, I've made a new discussion about the broader discussion of Canadian Foreign and Defence policy (vice Naval policy) here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/21567.0.html

 

[Inch]

PPCLI Guy and Infanteer,

In no way was I trying to diminish the necessity of having troops on the ground nor the job the infantry does. I'm just sick of hearing that old line, especially when it's thrown in rebuttal of post that I put a bit of thought into.

The thing that a navy can do that an army or airforce can't do is project a presence without the need to invade or hold ground.  International laws of the sea state that any warship must be a min of 12 nautical miles from shore. So before you start dropping guys in or doing a beach landing, a show of force offshore is sometimes a better way of achieving your political agenda.  A sizable and capable naval fleet can do this without even adopting an aggressive posture, just being there is enough. Now we're not going to send troops into every country that needs to be put in line and if we do it without permission it can be considered a hostile act and escalate a conflict. So to avoid this, you obey the law and put a naval fleet offshore and conduct "exercises" as a show of force. In most cases the troublemakers will step down and holding ground wouldn't be necessary.

It's something the Americans do quite well with their carrier battlegroups.

Cheers

 

[DJL]

Though this looks like a circular debate, I feel the need to add my two bits........

If you could ask Rommel who his greatest foes were during the North African campagin, I wonder if he would say Sommerville and Cunningham instead of Monty and Patton?

 

[Infanteer]

My point was to debate this statement and point out that it is unfair to view the Army as the least relevent force based along lines of an "isolationist" stance:

Let's look at the defence of Canada,   considering we have the largest coastline in the world and we have shores on 3 of the world's oceans, not to mention that 2/3 of the world is covered in water, I'd say that a capable navy is the most important force a country like ours could have. Followed closely by a capable airforce.   If the bad guys can't get to us, how many ground troops do we actually need to hold the ground?

As DJL points out with an excellent analogy (He's precisely right; Monty eeked out a victory at Alemein because Rommel failed at Seaborne supply from Italy), arguing over which service is the most important is stupid and liable to get us nowhere.

To be a truly effective fighting Force, one must be strong in all areas, as they are all vitally important.

The Army can waste away on unfriendly shores (if it can even get there) without a strong Air Force and Navy.

The Navy, without troops to support or air assets to launch, can sit off shore and shake it's fist and curse at our enemies; especially if they happen to be naval superpowers like Afghanistan.

Airpower, contrary to the wet dreams of many an Air Force general, does not win wars.   Airpower is, however, a crucial component to a marching army or a fleet.

Hence, all three are important.   As much as we detest Unification (I do for many reasons), we are on the right track to Unify our military in a search for jointness (unfortunately, we don't quite practice this to the level we should).   A good example of the seamless level of joint naval, land, and air power that we should move towards would be the USMC or the Royal Marines - both these organizations employ naval assets supported by airpower to project land power around the globe.   If this isn't what the Canadian military, as an expeditionary force, is working towards perfecting, then I don't know what we're doing.