Found here
------------------------------------------
Forces at death's door
report
David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Canada's air force, as well as either the army or navy, will likely cease to exist around the end of this decade unless the federal government orders a massive infusion of cash, warns a Queen's University study to be released today.
In a scathing report, called Canada Without Armed Forces?, researchers paint a gloomy picture of the country's defences.
If the situation isn't fixed, Canada will have trouble exerting control over its own territory, as well as making a contribution to the international scene and repairing the country's damaged relationship with the U.S., the study concludes.
"The next government will be caught up in a cascading policy entanglement initiated by the rapid collapse of Canadian Forces core assets and core capabilities. This problem will inevitably disarm foreign policy as Canada repeatedly backs away from international commitments because it lacks adequate military forces."
If funding for new equipment continues to decline and is not increased, "then the air force will likely disappear through the 2008-2013 time-frame, and either the army or navy will disappear in the same time-frame."
It recommends the direct intervention of Paul Martin to halt the decline and begin to lay the groundwork for revitalizing the Armed Forces. It also states that the defence budget should be boosted to $18.5 billion annually, up about $5 billion from present levels.
The report was produced by officials with the defence management studies program at Queen's University in collaboration with the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations.
Doug Bland, who led the study and is chairman of the defence management studies program, said the crisis in the military is so extensive that even if Mr. Martin earmarks a substantial amount of money for the Canadian Forces the situation would not change at first. "Even if he found $3 billion a year for the armed forces, it's not going to solve his problem because of the legacy he's been left with" by Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Mr. Bland said. "We ran out of armed forces."
He noted that fixing the problem will take the efforts of Mr. Martin's government as well as the next. Mr. Bland predicted that Mr. Martin will likely cut military capabilities to solve other problems he faces.
The country's dwindling military capabilities will further hurt relations with the U.S., which has voiced concerns about Canada not pulling its weight in defence matters, he added. It will also have a direct impact on Canadian sovereignty.
"The real cost to Canadians if this $18.5 billion allocation is not provided will be not simply a loss of international respect, but most likely the loss of control over most of Canada's territory and, ultimately, the forfeiting of national sovereignty," according to the study. "Canadians, it would appear, had best prepare themselves for these ominous apprehensions."
In the past, Defence Minister John McCallum has dismissed such reports, saying that he does not take advice from retired senior officers and military analysts, but from the Canadian Forces leadership. To counter such claims, the report relies heavily on Defence department reports and statistics, as well as studies produced by the Senate and the Commons defence committee.
Mr. Chretien has also dismissed suggestions that a large infusion of cash is needed for the Canadian Forces. "We treat the military very well," Mr. Chretien said in October when he visited Canadian troops in Kabul. "They are very well equipped."
But the report presents a very different picture. It notes that there are two main problems facing the Canadian Forces for the future: There are not enough trained people and not enough resources to train them. Moreover, major equipment is falling apart from age and use, but there is not enough money to replace the gear.
Over the next 15 years the Canadian Forces will need close to $50 billion to replace obsolete equipment. But current projections indicate there will only be about $20 billion available.
The list of equipment that needs to be replaced includes everything from transport trucks and maritime helicopters to Hercules aircraft and fuel supply ships. The report warns against extending the life of such equipment since that would be too costly.
Some of the concerns voiced in the report are already starting to materialize.
Next month, the navy on the East Coast will be without a refuelling ship after one such vessel based in Halifax goes into dry dock. The 33-year-old HMCS Preserver will receive an $18-million overhaul from January to November. In the meantime, the navy's ships will have to come into port more often to refuel or rely on allies, such as the Americans, to provide supplies and fuel at sea.
The report also points out that much of the military's capability to transport troops, whether by air, land or sea, will need replacing and that work has to be done within the next five years on those initiatives. Failing to do that will severely limit participation in overseas missions throughout this decade and beyond.
Mr. Bland said he expects the government will argue the problems are not as bad are portrayed and that the military has been receiving funding and new equipment such as the $600-million Stryker Mobile Gun System. But Mr. Bland added that in the case of the Strykers, it will be several years before the armoured vehicles are delivered and an even longer time after that before there are trained units equipped with the systems.
The study traces the decline of the Canadian military over the decades. From 1985 to 1987, the Canadian defence budget accounted for 2.2 per cent of the country's Gross Domestic Product. Since 1994, the defence budget has dropped from 1.7 per cent to 1.1 per cent, according to the report.
The study also raises concerns about the cost of overseas operations and where the money will come from to pay for those. It estimates that the price tag for the mission to Kabul, along with other operations, will be around $2 billion, but it is unclear where the military will get the funds.
"Afghanistan is a bottomless pit for money," Mr. Bland noted.
Over the years, the military's equipment budget has been raided to pay for such operations, he added.
The study recommends that a planned review of defence issues deal immediately with the crisis and recommend ways in which current forces might be stretched and preserved until replacements come on line. The review should also focus on how to rebuild and transform the military, including looking at the reform of how the federal government buys equipment.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2003
------------------------------------------------
Another nation on US borders that cannot adequately protect itself? Great....
------------------------------------------
Forces at death's door
report
David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Canada's air force, as well as either the army or navy, will likely cease to exist around the end of this decade unless the federal government orders a massive infusion of cash, warns a Queen's University study to be released today.
In a scathing report, called Canada Without Armed Forces?, researchers paint a gloomy picture of the country's defences.
If the situation isn't fixed, Canada will have trouble exerting control over its own territory, as well as making a contribution to the international scene and repairing the country's damaged relationship with the U.S., the study concludes.
"The next government will be caught up in a cascading policy entanglement initiated by the rapid collapse of Canadian Forces core assets and core capabilities. This problem will inevitably disarm foreign policy as Canada repeatedly backs away from international commitments because it lacks adequate military forces."
If funding for new equipment continues to decline and is not increased, "then the air force will likely disappear through the 2008-2013 time-frame, and either the army or navy will disappear in the same time-frame."
It recommends the direct intervention of Paul Martin to halt the decline and begin to lay the groundwork for revitalizing the Armed Forces. It also states that the defence budget should be boosted to $18.5 billion annually, up about $5 billion from present levels.
The report was produced by officials with the defence management studies program at Queen's University in collaboration with the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations.
Doug Bland, who led the study and is chairman of the defence management studies program, said the crisis in the military is so extensive that even if Mr. Martin earmarks a substantial amount of money for the Canadian Forces the situation would not change at first. "Even if he found $3 billion a year for the armed forces, it's not going to solve his problem because of the legacy he's been left with" by Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Mr. Bland said. "We ran out of armed forces."
He noted that fixing the problem will take the efforts of Mr. Martin's government as well as the next. Mr. Bland predicted that Mr. Martin will likely cut military capabilities to solve other problems he faces.
The country's dwindling military capabilities will further hurt relations with the U.S., which has voiced concerns about Canada not pulling its weight in defence matters, he added. It will also have a direct impact on Canadian sovereignty.
"The real cost to Canadians if this $18.5 billion allocation is not provided will be not simply a loss of international respect, but most likely the loss of control over most of Canada's territory and, ultimately, the forfeiting of national sovereignty," according to the study. "Canadians, it would appear, had best prepare themselves for these ominous apprehensions."
In the past, Defence Minister John McCallum has dismissed such reports, saying that he does not take advice from retired senior officers and military analysts, but from the Canadian Forces leadership. To counter such claims, the report relies heavily on Defence department reports and statistics, as well as studies produced by the Senate and the Commons defence committee.
Mr. Chretien has also dismissed suggestions that a large infusion of cash is needed for the Canadian Forces. "We treat the military very well," Mr. Chretien said in October when he visited Canadian troops in Kabul. "They are very well equipped."
But the report presents a very different picture. It notes that there are two main problems facing the Canadian Forces for the future: There are not enough trained people and not enough resources to train them. Moreover, major equipment is falling apart from age and use, but there is not enough money to replace the gear.
Over the next 15 years the Canadian Forces will need close to $50 billion to replace obsolete equipment. But current projections indicate there will only be about $20 billion available.
The list of equipment that needs to be replaced includes everything from transport trucks and maritime helicopters to Hercules aircraft and fuel supply ships. The report warns against extending the life of such equipment since that would be too costly.
Some of the concerns voiced in the report are already starting to materialize.
Next month, the navy on the East Coast will be without a refuelling ship after one such vessel based in Halifax goes into dry dock. The 33-year-old HMCS Preserver will receive an $18-million overhaul from January to November. In the meantime, the navy's ships will have to come into port more often to refuel or rely on allies, such as the Americans, to provide supplies and fuel at sea.
The report also points out that much of the military's capability to transport troops, whether by air, land or sea, will need replacing and that work has to be done within the next five years on those initiatives. Failing to do that will severely limit participation in overseas missions throughout this decade and beyond.
Mr. Bland said he expects the government will argue the problems are not as bad are portrayed and that the military has been receiving funding and new equipment such as the $600-million Stryker Mobile Gun System. But Mr. Bland added that in the case of the Strykers, it will be several years before the armoured vehicles are delivered and an even longer time after that before there are trained units equipped with the systems.
The study traces the decline of the Canadian military over the decades. From 1985 to 1987, the Canadian defence budget accounted for 2.2 per cent of the country's Gross Domestic Product. Since 1994, the defence budget has dropped from 1.7 per cent to 1.1 per cent, according to the report.
The study also raises concerns about the cost of overseas operations and where the money will come from to pay for those. It estimates that the price tag for the mission to Kabul, along with other operations, will be around $2 billion, but it is unclear where the military will get the funds.
"Afghanistan is a bottomless pit for money," Mr. Bland noted.
Over the years, the military's equipment budget has been raided to pay for such operations, he added.
The study recommends that a planned review of defence issues deal immediately with the crisis and recommend ways in which current forces might be stretched and preserved until replacements come on line. The review should also focus on how to rebuild and transform the military, including looking at the reform of how the federal government buys equipment.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2003
------------------------------------------------
Another nation on US borders that cannot adequately protect itself? Great....
