Running on Empty - Harper Defence Budget Stretching Military to Breaking Point

It's the usual story.  The federal government talks a good game but it's just empty talk. A glaring example is Canada's military.  Harper came to power promising to build up the Canadian Forces into a war waging, ass kicking powerhouse.  Rick "The Beached Cod" Hillier praised Harper to the rafters for rescuing the forces from their "decade of darkness" under the Liberals.

Today the boast is burst.  Harper has his own stealth programme, quietly defunding the military.  As Liberal senator Colin Kenny has pointed out, Harper won't downsize the military to meet his budget cuts, unemployed soldiers would be hard to conceal.  Instead he's just allowing their equipment to fall apart as already overdue replacement is stalled.

Harper's Hubris inevitably summons Harper's Nemesis, the parliamentary budget officer.

Jean-Denis Frechette, the parliamentary budget officer, says the federal government will need to either pour more money into its defence budget, scale back its ambitions, or do a mixture of both in order to put Canada’s military on a sustainable footing.

The Harper government currently spends $21.5 billion on defence — or 1.1 per cent of the gross domestic product.

In order to sustain the existing number of troops, bases, tanks, planes and ships, the budget office says the Conservatives will have to spend about 1.6 per cent of GDP, which would be an increase of at least $3 billion annually.

“The model shows that it was only with the significant spending increases seen in the latter half of the 2000s that the affordability gap was closed and capability was able to be maintained and to some extent re-built. However, the recent cuts to the defence budget point to an impending affordability gap beginning in this fiscal year.”

That affordability gap — or shortfall — runs anywhere between $33 billion and $42 billion.

Frechette said, under the current budget structure, the government can afford a military about the same size it had in 1999, at the height of what the Conservatives have often described as the “decade of darkness” under the Liberals.

The Great Economist doesn't seem to understand that you can only play war war if you're ready to pay pay.  Ask the Royal Canadian Navy.  They can't sally forth to defend even one of Canada's three coasts because their air defence destroyers and provisioning ships are at dockside preparing for their next life as artificial reefs.  

It speaks volumes of the character of Stephen Harper that he shamelessly squeezed every drop of political capital possible out of the dead and broken bodies of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and then dumped them when they were of no further use to him.  This while Vlad Putin is aggressively contesting the skies and the seas, especially in the Arctic where Canada stands wholly unprepared.

Is the Militarization of Cops the Last Straw?

The line between law enforcement and the military is, sadly, blurring.  Today's cops are being equipped with combat weapons and gear, even armoured military vehicles.  They're being trained to operate in military formations - squads and platoons - and they're skilled in some aspects of counter-insurgency.

The bottom line is that this evidences a fracturing of the relationship between governments and their people.  For the public, this may be the last straw as a recent article by Johanna Mendelson Forman of the American University's School of International Service from The Globalist contends:

The appearance of armed personnel carriers, Humvees and other military equipment reveal to Americans – and the world – that U.S. cities are indeed the new war zones.

A key part of the problem is the pervasive access to heavy weaponry by local law enforcement after 9/11. Instead of focusing on community policing – getting closer to the people – law enforcement has actually distanced itself and “tooled up.”

It is scant comfort that local law enforcement agencies sell this as their approach to “homeland security.” Their weaponization – and indeed the militarization of civilian security, as their actions to “defend” themselves against protestors show – is a bridge too far.

...The brutal and violent use of excessive force to arrest Eric Garner, an unarmed citizen, in New York City was inhumane. The illegal chokehold that ultimately killed Garner despite his screams, “I cannot breathe,” reflect two trends that policy analysts have known for a long time.

First, U.S. cities are the newest zone of conflict. And second, this new type of urban warfare mentality has gone hand in hand with a greater tolerance by the U.S. legal system when it comes to holding police accountable for their actions.

Unless we are completely blind, we Americans must urgently realize one painful global reality: What we now see – and practice – at home is precisely the impunity which we Americans so frequently deride in places like Mexico.

There, we know that preservation of the rule of law is often the exception in cases of police corruption or complicity in murder.

But now the shoe is on the other foot: The failure of grand juries to indict policemen in both Ferguson, Missouri, and now in New York City all point to a dangerous conclusion: We Americans are now treating our policing activities as acts of war, and thus hold any offending acts committed in the pursuit of that broader goal to different standards than the civilian ones used to prosecute criminal acts.

Unfortunately, the urban wars of 2014 are not armed conflict as we know it. Instead, they are manifestations of ideological divides like the racism of the police in Missouri or in New York.

These actions are but a mirror that reflects the deeper divides that are rearing their heads all across the country. Whether it is a matter of color or class, all these actions, from Iguala to Ferguson to New York, send a powerful message of exclusion and hopelessness.

And, lest we want to blind ourselves, we must recognize that it is precisely this type of sentiment that lays the groundwork of unrest and instability in any political system.

,,,The result is a potentially dynamic international movement of citizens who have had enough of the status quo and are taking to the streets to make their voices heard.

The demonstrations yesterday in New York City and Washington, DC over the failure to indict police for acts of violence will only grow stronger – unless citizens regain a sense of legitimacy in our criminal justice system.

Of course this sort of thing could never happen in politically stable Canada, eh? That doesn't seem to be how the Canadian Forces see it.  They've even developed an urban warfare camouflage designed to best blend in with the urban setting in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.  I wonder if they'll add patches with the logos of Enbridge or Kinder Morgan?  Our friend, Lorne, from Politics and its Discontents has supplied a link to a very useful article from The Walrus.  It's a thought-provoking essay, especially in this era of the most secretive, authoritarian government in Canadian history.

Here is an article from AlterNet that also ponders how much more authoritarianism Americans can tolerate and the country's emerging, pro-authoritarian culture.

The Conservative Armed Forces of Canada

Once again the Canadian Forces have been caught playing partisan politics, shilling for the Conservative government.

A program to educate parliamentarians about the work being done by the Canadian military has been shut down months after it was revealed officers were using such visits to collect information on Defence Minister Peter MacKay's political opponents.

The parliamentary outreach program allowed MPs and senators to visit military units and bases to improve their knowledge of the Canadian Forces.

But the visits became controversial earlier this year when it was revealed officers gathered information on MacKay's political opponents in an effort to help out the beleaguered defence minister.

Caught out, the military actually sought to defend its perfidy.

The Canadian Forces later defended its decision to collect such information and turn it over to MacKay's office, saying the process was no different than its efforts to gather facts for the public and news media.

But some MPs said the military's practice jeopardized the parliamentary outreach program. Former military officers also warned such activities, which prompted allegations about Canadian Forces personnel digging up dirt on the minister's political enemies, crossed the line and jeopardized the long-standing political neutrality of the military.

This is another sign of a military in decay.   They're in lockstep with their Big Brothers from the States in trying to be political players, to influence if not dictate policy.   In the United States it is the Pentagon today that often prevails over the State Department in the foreign policy realm, a major contributing factor to that country's post 9/11 hyper-militarism.   This is seriously wrong and we need to cull the officer class to rid it of those who presume to act this way.

This is how military professionalism dies.   The Canadian Forces exist to serve Canada.   They are not a partisan agency for a favoured political party, even if that party is in power.   Remember that three out of five Canadians who bothered to vote in the last election did not vote Conservative.  The armed forces leadership needs to be ever mindful that they represent the three out of five just as much as the other two out of five.   They take the King's shilling but neither Harper nor MacKay wears a crown...  not just yet.
 

It Takes More than Burning a Uniform

Canadian Forces officers have collected and burned the uniforms and kit of convicted serial killer, Colonel Russel Williams.

Canadian Forces spokesperson Cmdr. Hubert Genest said in an interview that the idea to burn the uniforms had emerged “from the bottom up and been endorsed by the chain of command.”

“We did what we felt was necessary,” said Cmdr. Genest. “It feels right.”

...Military historians called the burning of his kit unprecedented. “I’ve never heard anything like that,” said Jack Granatstein, director general of the Canadian War Museum. “I guess it’s embarrassment as much as anything...to erase the shame and stigma” of Mr. Williams’ association with the Forces. “It’s an exorcism. We are exorcising the memory of Russell Williams.”

An exorcism?  Say what?  Is that how our military washes its hands of Russell Williams?  I don't think so.  Maybe the Canadian Forces should man up and show enough respect to the victims to delve into how a guy this bent could rise to the top ranks of the military.  Was there something they should have noticed?  I mean let's face it, the ranks of the most successful in any field tend to have a solid percentage of sociopathic personalities.   Officer candidates go through a bit of psychological testing on their way in along with plenty of physical testing.   During their careers they have to go through regular physical testing.   Maybe should they also get a little bit of ongoing psychological assessment too?

I think we should know that the people we put in charge of our most lethal weapons haven't come unhinged.  

Canada's Political & Military Leadership Betray the Troops

I posted this last night but it got lost in the overnight shuffle.  I think it is important enough to repost.

If you ever wondered whether Canada's top brass and their senior political masters really "support the troops", wonder no more.   They don't.  In fact, when our soldiers bleed, when they get torn apart, often ruined for life - top Tories and top Generals see to it that the whole thing is swept under the carpet until statistics are released - on New Year's Eve when nobody's watching.

Scumbags.   Scumbags in bemedalled uniforms and in tailored suits.   The guys who don't bleed, and never will, collude to make sure your gentle minds don't have to be troubled by those who do - in our name.  From TorStar:

"  Gun shot wounds, buried bombs, vehicle rollovers, rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
 
...They are the very incidents that the military has tried to keep out of the public eye with its decision to keep details on wounded soldiers under wraps.

The policy of releasing the number of injured soldiers only once a year — on Dec. 31 — has obscured the intensity of fight facing Canadian soldiers, as well as the nature of the sometimes life-altering injuries. It has also given Canadians back home a mental buffer against the numbing realities of war — soldiers who fight hard also get hurt.

 ...The fact that injuries are kept out of the public eye illustrates how unaware Canadians are of the price being paid by soldiers in Afghanistan, said Senator Colin Kenny.

“In death, you hope it’s fast and very little suffering. But the suffering of the wounded goes on and on and on,” said Kenny, the former chair of the Senate defence committee.

“All you have to do is go out to the hospital to meet them. You’re looking at people with half their face gone or their mouth is wired up and their ankles are broken because of the force of the IED,” he said.

In addition, some soldiers complain that hiding the wounded prevents them from being recognized and celebrated for their physical sacrifices on behalf of Canada. In hospitals across the country, they are suffering and recovering alone and in silence, something that can contribute to their frustration, breed resentment and lead to mental health problems.

Defence officials defend the secrecy, saying it’s vital to safeguard operational security and keep insurgents in the dark about the toll their attacks are taking on Canadian troops.

I take this stuff personally.  My own Dad was one of the horribly wounded from WWII yet he was one of the lucky ones.   His wounds ought to have been mortal but he pulled through to live out his life on a tight rope of survival.   Some of his friends weren't so lucky like many, many others.

Our military and parliamentary bosses see no end of utility in sending flagged-draped coffins in the back of hearses rolling down the outrageously named "highway of heroes" while they put the trouble cases, including those who had the misfortune to actually survive, out of sight, on the shelf to be recognized as statistics on December 31.

Operational security?  My ass.  More like a gaggle of uniformed ticket punchers who lack the decency to stand up for the minions they feed into the grinder.  And they slam others for not "supporting the troops."  But I'll bet they all have those fancy magnetic ribbons on their trunk lids too.

Scumbags.  Tory scumbags, Canadian Forces scumbags.

Canadians Want Peacekeeping Not War Fighting

It appears the Canadian public's infatuation with warfighting has soured.  A Globe & Mail poll by Nanos Research shows that while Canadians still see the military as a genuine priority, it trails health care, jobs, the environment, taxes and education in importance.  Health care and education took 1st and 2nd spots respectively.

Though years of lethal combat in Kandahar have changed the face and image of the Canadian Forces, the public that awaits the return of the troops sees a future military modelled on its vision of blue-helmeted peacekeepers of years past. Canadians retain a deep vein of interest in internationalism, but not one that gets soldiers into shooting wars - rating combat missions by troops overseas as the least important of five roles for Canada's military.

...The Nanos poll found 52 per cent of respondents rated UN peacekeeping as an important role for Canada's armed forces - a quarter rated it a 10 on a scale of importance from one to 10. Only 21 per cent of Canadians rated overseas combat missions as an important role for the military. 

Overall, said pollster Nik Nanos, Canadians still see their military's job as they have for decades, based on two main pillars: UN peacekeeping, and the kind of North American defence co-operation with the United States long done by institutions such as NORAD. "It's kind of like retro hour for foreign policy," he says.


Those views are likely coloured now by an Afghanistan mission they wouldn't repeat. The poll found 66 per cent of Canadians would oppose or "somewhat oppose" another mission like it. Only 21 per cent said they would support or somewhat support such a mission.

When it comes to Afghanistan, Canada's military and political leadership have only themselves to blame for the public's disenchantment.   Harper's John Wayne act was exposed as blatant partisan manipulation.   He was so "pro-Afghanistan" until he abruptly turned "anti."   And our military leadership repeatedly showed themselves at best mediocre, at worst probably incompetent.   Remember when stand up comedian, now safely retired general Rick Hillier bragged about sending 2,500 Canadians to Kandahar to kill "a few dozen ...scumbags"?  What a dark and bitter farce.

If We're Leaving in 2011, Why Are We Buying Armed Drones?

The Canadian Forces make do and they deliver a lot for the limited amount they're given. Even within current defence budgets they have to shop prudently. The military doesn't have money to buy expensive toys they're not planning on using. So why are the Canadian Forces buying armed aerial drones that won't even be delivered until 2015? Who do they figure they'll need those drones to kill over the next decade or two?

Obama is a keen user of aerial drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan but the results have been mixed at best. There's been a lot of anger generated in Islamabad and Kabul over the drone attacks, a lot of "blowback."

Armed unmanned drones will certainly give the Canadian Forces greater capabilities but has Parliament decided that's either necessary or desirable. If there's anything our angry world isn't short of right now it would be weaponry and enough soldiers to fire them. Just what role in the ranks of global warfighting are we carving out for ourselves and are these calls being made by our elected representatives or our unelected military leadership?

How is adding this lethal capability consistent with Canada's leadership role in rejecting land mines and cluster weapons? I don't see it but then again I haven't heard the pros and cons either.

What "Next" Assignment? Bring the Army Home - Period

It's time the grown ups got all the generals together for a little talking to. There has been a creeping mist of news stories lately claiming that Canada's top generals are looking for their next gig, even speculating they may be lobbying to take a go at the Congo. You could be forgiven for suspecting what they're really trying to do is to keep the Legion in the field, somewhere. It's as though they've finally gotten this war fighting machine and they don't want to send it back to barracks.

I think these soldiers need a little furlough. For starters, our combat troops need a rest, a good long rest. They've been at this the better part of eight years and many have had several rotations through Kandahar. Enough.

As for the generals, they need time off for meditation. We've been taught a great many lessons in Afghanistan, painful lessons paid for in blood and treasure. If those lost lives are not to have been wasted, this is the time to use those experiences to draw up a "do and don't" list.

Remember when Hillier pompously boasted about how we were going over to Kandahar to "kill scumbags" that he assured us numbered just a few dozen? There's your first "don't" - don't ever underestimate the enemy your soldiers will be required to fight. History books are full of losers who did just that.

Remember how we deployed to Kandahar with a force neither trained nor equipped for the job? They were finely honed for conventional warfare but not for counterinsurgency. Our generals seemed constantly frustrated, befuddled even that the guerrillas wouldn't stand and fight (read "stand and be mowed down"). Huh? Insurgents don't stand and fight against conventional forces with overwhelming firepower advantages. They're not morons and only a moron would think they are.

Little steps for little forces. We went over there with a total force of just 2,500. Less than a third of that were actual fighting soldiers. Counterinsurgency doctrine states that to cover a province the size of Kandahar takes 20,000 counterinsurgents (boots and rifles). The best you can do (and our soldiers did it well) with a force that size we deployed is win tactical skirmishes that decide nothing.

Read and learn. We made most if not all of the major tactical errors of counterinsurgency warfare throughout our five years in Kandahar. Get copies of the US Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency field manual, FM3-24. This little handbook contains the digested wisdom of two millenia of unconventional warfare from Caesar to the Boers, TE Lawrence (of Arabia), Guevara to Giap. The Taliban have been playing very conventional insurgency warfare. We've been the side that strayed from the lessons and we did it at almost every turn with predictable results.

With a military force as minuscule as Canada's it's foolish to try to be all things to all men. When you're small it's often best to find a niche or two where you can really excel and stick to that. Somehow Harper and Hillier got many Canadians thinking that peacekeeping was for second-raters. Real men shot people and blew shit up. There were people who really needed killin'. It was something perfect for feeble minds who slapped magnetic plastic ribbons on their trunk lids but it was pure bollocks. With all the shortages spreading around the world, the one thing our planet has in abundance is soldiers armed to the teeth ready to unload. In that particular ocean, Canada is but a guppy.

Something else that demands careful scrutiny is the abject and sordid failure of Canadian political leadership in the mission to Kandahar. I fault Paul Martin for gullibility in believing Canada could tackle the Kandahar mission with a force of 2,500 and for believing the tall tale that our military could do that and have enough strength to take on a second major effort if required. That was bullshit and if the smell didn't give it away, the taste should have. But it was Rambo Harper who was the greasy punk who exploited our forces for everything he could get out of them with both the voting public at home and his American Idol, W. We should have been out of that bottomless hole by now but for Harper's insistence on extension and Dion's feckless capitulation to his demands.

Let's take a breather. Sit back and reflect. Let's not rush into the next mission. We need to have a serious talk about Canada's and her military's role in the difficult decades that lie ahead.

Just What Role Does Iggy Have in Mind for Canadian Forces?

I watched a video clip over at Liberal Video Depot of Michael Ignatieff explaining his view of the Canadian Forces' role in Afghanistan and the future roles they may serve in peacekeeping.

After rambling on about a job well done in Kandahar, MI discussed possible future deployments in other trouble spots for Canadian Forces. One point he stressed was that our troops should never be sent in anywhere with only sidearms, suggesting he would send them armed to the teeth.

Why?

You go heavily armed to places where you're expecting to fight. Once you show up with the full array of weaponry, you're not a peacekeeper, you're a combatant. You're not setting yourself up as an honest broker, a negotiator, but as a potential adversary. You're not seeking lasting consensus but temporary compliance.

Canadian peacekeepers must be armed and they always are given what's required for self-defence - sidearms and light automatic weapons. Heavy firepower isn't part of that equation.