Austin Bay on the Canadian Forces

Austin Bay has some thoughts on revitalizing the Canadian military:

The term "Canadian military" should never be an oxymoron, but after a decade of reduction and decline, what was once one of the world's most able and elite combat organizations is now a hollow force.

The slide in defense funding that began in the mid-1990s is one cause. The current Canadian defense budget buys about 25 percent less bang and less peacekeeping than it did 10 years ago.

With the end of the Cold War, some reduction in force structure was understandable.

Actually, the Canadian government was cashing in the "peace dividend" long before anyone else in the west . . . even before it could be said to exist. The peak of Canadian involvement in NATO was probably the mid-1960s to mid-1970s. From the second Trudeau government onwards, every change in military policy seemed to be a step back from front-line commitment, a weakening of the numbers of fighting troops, a reduction in the quantity of equipment to be provided. They say there's a lot of ruin in a country, and after the last 30 years, you'd have to say the same about the military: it's amazing that there still are Canadian Armed Forces left.

Post-Cold War, North American geography played a role. Here's that presumption: The United States would always be there to defend Canada, so why bother maintaining military forces?

Canadian governments consciously decided to become parasitical on the American military. Is it any wonder that Americans view us as military freeloaders? We no longer have the "lift" to get our troops to where they're needed without help. We don't need to build a miniature of the entire US arsenal, but we do need to invest in replacing obsolete equipment and re-acquiring transport, supply, and support capabilities we used to have.

I have yet to meet or serve with a Canadian soldier who failed to impress me with his professionalism and discipline. In my experience — in terms of individual, quality personnel — only Australian troops match Canadians on a one-for-one basis.

Two years ago, I had the privilege of serving with Australian troops in Iraq. The Aussies are crack.[. . .]

Today, Canada has too few of these fine troops, and the superior troops Canada does field are not supplied with the modern, first-rate weapons and equipment they deserve — at least, not in sufficient numbers.

There is so much that needs to be done just to properly support our existing troops in current commitments in the way of equipment that it risks sounding totally unrealistic to talk about new equipment for future roles; but that is exactly what the new minister needs to tackle ASAP. The troops on deployment right now will (unfortunately) see very little direct improvement in their situation . . . military equipment is usually a long-term purchase, but there are undoubtedly small things we can do in the short-term to make their jobs easier and less risky.

One aspect of the rhetorical differences between Canada and the United States may have been (unintentionally) of significant assistance to US policy:

In many ways, the Canadian rhetorical and political game of "We Aren't America" is a reasonable, if semi-hypocritical posture. The game has actually benefited the great cause of freedom. In Cold War situations where American troops or observers might have escalated tensions, Canadians could provide security, stability and democratic presence. Canada could be the United States without Washington's alleged baggage. Those of us who understood the stakes were thankful.