[grainfedprairieboy]

OK. Before anybody goes off the deep end I am a soldier, veteran and current reservist and am not personally advocating the dissolution of the military (that has been quietly endorsed by successive lieberal regimes). In another thread I wondered aloud why Canada should even have a military if the public only gives it partial support.

Personally I believe a properly funded and equipped force of 250,000 is necessary to properly assert our sovereignty and project our will internationally.

For the sake of argument I have posted an opposing opinion.

Why Does Canada Have a Military?
Kevin Brennan04 Jun 2004 04:16 pm

No, seriously. Why do we bother?

I mean, we’ve heard a lot of debate over our military funding levels, and there have been a number of dire pronouncements asserting that our military is on the verge of collapse. But I have to ask, why should we care?

The conventional purpose for a military is to defend a nation from attack by its neighbours. But let’s face reality. There’s only one nation capable of threatening Canada, and if that threat were somehow to become a reality (unlikely as that is), there wouldn’t be anything we could do about it anyway. It’s not a question of the Americans being asked to defend us, because what, exactly, are we being defended from?

Some people will cite Hans Island as a counterexample. But really, it’s not. All we really need to protect our arctic sovereignty are some icebreakers and a few guys in quonset huts huddled around a space heater. Which, ironically, is about the state of our present military. Except they don’t have icebreakers.

What I’m trying to point out is that it doesn’t make sense to talk about increasing military funding unless one also talks about the missions we expect the military to fulfill. That mission is not going to be defending our borders against a foreign invader.

Clausewitz famously wrote “war is the extension of politics by other means”. That’s especially true for the Canadian military. If they aren’t going to be used to defend us against foreign aggression, the reason for having a military is pretty much that they’re useful for foreign policy objectives. So what are some of the objectives we might want our military to fulfill?

Note that this is the beginning of a train of thought; readers are very much invited to suggest anything I miss here.

Counter-terror: It’s distinctly possible that Canada will face terror attacks from al Qaeda or other militant groups in the future. Sure, we’ve avoided them so far, but we shouldn’t be complacent about that. We also have both a responsibility and a need to prevent Canada from being used as a launching base for attacks into the U.S.

But is there much of a military role here? I doubt it. Sure, if we have special ops guys available we might use them, but this mission is a better fit for our intelligence and police forces.

Disaster Relief/Search and Rescue: We often deploy our military to assist during emergencies, like the floods in Manitoba or the blizzard of 1999 in Toronto. However, we mostly use them because they’re there. A military is too expensive to be kept around for snowplowing and sandbagging.

The Search and Rescue function is another job that the military tends to do because it can. Why not shift this over to the Coast Guard? And while we do that, let’s fund it properly. We can even give them some icebreakers and stuff.

Backup for the U.S.: It’s not put this way, but that’s the vision the Conservatives are advocating. In this vision, the main role of the Canadian military is to be able to integrate with the U.S. (or potentially other countries) in the event of intervention abroad. The political logic is that we need to be able to contribute in some meaningful fashion if we want to have any voice in global decisions. The military mostly exists to get Canada a seat at the table.

If this is the purpose of the military, then more funding is certainly required. Unless Canadian forces are modernized, we may risk becoming a liability when and if we participate in any such operations.

Rebuilding Failed States/Peacekeeping: Again, this idea uses the military as a means of giving Canada more clout in foreign affairs. In theory, this is the Liberal vision for the mission of the military, although in practice I doubt the Liberals are prepared to adequately plan for or fund this approach.

If we were to decide that this was the primary mission for our military, we’d probably want to restructure it significantly. Soldiers would have to be trained extensively in counter-insurgency techniques. Their main role would be to go into states like the Congo, Sudan, and yes, Iraq, and work to establish functioning regimes. The military would provide security to civilian specialists, and ideally be cross-trained in the skills necessary to rebuild a national infrastructure. (This would also tend to make the military attractive as a career, because a lot of these skills would translate well into the private world). We’d need to look at restructuring our foreign aid around these countries, the idea being that we’d devote significant funding to a few countries rather than spreading it around thinly.

[Tricks]

While he makes excellent points, he forgets a big one. War.

[Tricks]

He does make some good points though. Many of the things that our military does right now is easily done by other things that don't cost as much. I don't think this guy truely wants the military disbanded. I think he is trying to make a point....that...well...we don't do anything with it. Other then afghanistan, we haven't done much with it since korea. Obviously humanitarian, but that is not what it is meant for. People would say this is a good thing, a sign of good times. But look at those times...they weren't good at all. Canada as a nation since ww2 and Korea has become pacifist. Sad really.

[Arctic_Menace]

$1:

Other then afghanistan, we haven't done much with it since korea.

I'm shocked to hear you say that....

[Tricks]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

$1:

Other then afghanistan, we haven't done much with it since korea.

I'm shocked to hear you say that....

So was I. And I will bet 10 bucks I am wrong from your reaction. But after Korea, our military went into a spiral of cuts. When since before afghanistan did we go in a real combat situation? I mean where we were a big factor, equivalent or more then we are in afghanistan. Here I will help, here is a list of most (probably not all because it is Wikipedia) since ww2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... %80%931989

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... %80%932002

Like I said, we have done wonders with humanitarian aid and relief, but that is not what they are meant for. Clearly I am completely against the dispanding of the military, I find it rediculous to think like that. We need to protect our selves, and possibly other countries, but again I say, we haven't because we have become a pacifist nation. The average Canadian would rather do anything then have Canada go to war.

I am waiting for a bombardment of people telling me off and tearing me apart, I am surprised that I am expecting it, yet I am still writing this. I think I have gone insane

Regarding the pacifist people here (because I know of a few) I will end this post with a quote that is quire amazing.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important then his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill

[Arctic_Menace]

Okay, point taken, but I'd like to think that our involvement around the world has been in part due to the military.


Suez Crisis

Bosnia

Kosovo

Cyprus

etc.....

[hamiltonguyo]

*cough* Peacekeeping*cough*

hey tricks i think artic menance must have misunderstood cause he just proved your point

[Arctic_Menace]

My point is that the military has been involved in many missions and theatres of war, but it has never truly been a full-scale war, like Korea, or what Afghanistan is becoming...

[Tricks]

hamiltonguyo hamiltonguyo:

*cough* Peacekeeping*cough*

hey tricks i think artic menance must have misunderstood cause he just proved your point

Seuz and Kosovo was peacekeeping, at least from what I am understanding. I didn't even know we went into Bosnia. It says very little about NATO even being there, though I know NATO was there. I highly doubt (especially with our military numbers at that time) we made significant impact. Cyprus was peacekeeping too.

$1:

Okay, point taken, but I'd like to think that our involvement around the world has been in part due to the military.

For sure, it definately has. But at the same time, think of how other countries think of our military? Right? They think of us as peacekeepers. Which is what this guy is trying to say. He is trying to say that we are not using our military for what it is meant. When people look at Canada, they think humanitarian aid an peacekeeping right? Yet peacekeeping is actually a UN or NATO thing, and should we really be using such an expensive and useful asset as Canada's military to provide Humanitarian aid? I think we should devote some, of course. But isn't that what DART is for? When people think of Canada being in an actual combat or conflict situation, they don't think of us doing anything by ourselves. Even Canadians don't. They always think we need to rely on the US. Again, the guy makes a point, the only immediate threat to Canada is the US, and them attacking us is very unlikely. However, and because of Canada's recent pacifism what are the chances of us going into major conflict? Again, this is talking aside from afghanistan, which I am damn proud that we took part in.

I have a feeling someone is getting really pissed off about what I am saying I dont know why.

[Tricks]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

My point is that the military has been involved in many missions and theatres of war, but it has never truly been a full-scale war, like Korea, or what Afghanistan is becoming...

They may have been theatres of war, but did we take part in the war? Or did we do much like what the world did in Rwanda? Sit back and try to talk through, with small bouts of fighting?

[Arctic_Menace]

Oh no, we actually fought. We fought Croats and Serbs, and there was an incident that is almost never talked about, where Canadians were trapped by Croats and decided to fight. Which, because of peacekeeping, was strictly forbidden.


But yeah, in the 90's Canada was quite busy in the Mediterranean and Middle-East.

[Tricks]

In Peacekeeping. We didn't have the man power, or equipment in the 90s to do a whole lot but peacekeeping.

One incident when they were surrounded. Comon.

[Banff]

I still think we could use two hand held anti-aircraft missile launchers per person in Canada (64 million) and distributed if the need ever arose . Crazy but is the best our country could do , and peacekeeping ? what the heck is that supposed to be . I can only think of amnesty international or liberating those who are living in poor conditions and oppression when it comes to peace keeping . A good strong supply of high altitude defense sounds appropriate and control and distribution of AMLs could be handled by police so would the military be necessary ? To some degree yeah but war isn't all bullets and bombs it can be everything from economics to manmade diseases , poisons , etc .

[Canadaka]

I thought it was an excellent post, many good points, many I would have to agree with

[Tricks]

Banff Banff:

can only think of amnesty international or liberating those who are living in poor conditions and oppression when it comes to peace keeping .

Um...WW2 would be considered peacekeeping then? Iraq not a war either?