• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Jerry Amernic: The downfall of Canada’s military

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,363
Points
1,160
Nailed it...

Jerry Amernic: The downfall of Canada’s military​

Over the past 50 years it’s been painfully clear the military has been off the radar in Ottawa


You can’t pin the desecration of our military on one person but over the past 50 years and more it’s painfully clear the military has been off the radar in Ottawa.

Pledges are made about meeting the NATO requirement of two percent of GDP but those pledges are always a lie no matter who forms government.4 The truth is we are a laggard and remain beholden to the United States to protect us.

It’s like that old System/360 computer running things at the NORAD base in North Bay. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. But our armed forces are broken and that is shameful.

 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,638
Points
1,040
As long as the BGHs continue to overpromise what we can do with the equipment and people we have, why would the GoC change course?

The 2% spending target is a bit arbitrary, but we are already overworking people on the sustainment/procurement side, so unless we get more trained bums in seats there is no 'surge' capacity. I think if we were honest with the GoC we'd park a number of ships etc and focus on rebuilding across the board, vice continuing to run people into the ground while hoping equipment failures don't lead to injuries/loss of life.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
659
Points
1,040
As long as the BGHs continue to overpromise what we can do with the equipment and people we have, why would the GoC change course?

The 2% spending target is a bit arbitrary, but we are already overworking people on the sustainment/procurement side, so unless we get more trained bums in seats there is no 'surge' capacity. I think if we were honest with the GoC we'd park a number of ships etc and focus on rebuilding across the board, vice continuing to run people into the ground while hoping equipment failures don't lead to injuries/loss of life.
Yes but if the forces park stuff there will very much be no replacements. Oh look you only using 6 frigates....why are buying 15? The RCAF is only using 65 planes etc. I think a better plan would be use them less or for shorter times than reduce numbers.

Running the navy even taking the ships for a hour run around the harbor everyday or so and count it as an at sea day. Show the usage. Don't power up all the systems. I think at this point the most important thing is to keep the numbers up. And have the system on paper. I know 99 percent of you will disagree but its a political game. I think divesting of equipment without replacement is the dumbest thing we do. AAD divestment the M109 divestment. Getting rid the 280s even if they were more than worn out. The politicians in this country are not embarrassed by lack of capacity of the Forces. So using the lack any type of AA defence it shows oh you don't need it so why would we buy new systems.

Better to tell the political master nope can't use that old worn out system on a deployment because you didnt buy the new replacement. Than to say no we don't have that capability. They just say to the NATO, UN, or the US we don't have that and leave it at that. If you have the capacity but the system is old or wornout you can say yes but we just need a special quick buy IOR of these and we are good to go.
 

stoker dave

Member
Reaction score
164
Points
660
One of the barriers is NDHQ. Politicians hear about shortages at DND but see lots of people in uniform outside standing around smoking, shopping at the mall, going for a liquid lunch and then crowding onto the 3:00 pm bus from downtown to Orleans.

That is what politicians see every day.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,896
Points
1,310
One of the barriers is NDHQ. Politicians hear about shortages at DND but see lots of people in uniform outside standing around smoking, shopping at the mall, going for a liquid lunch and then crowding onto the 3:00 pm bus from downtown to Orleans.

That is what politicians see every day.
Some politicians in Washington only see uniformed folks from the Pentagon as well. Same goes Whitehall in London. Although I would say having a proper Garrison in London might be a game changer.

Most politicians in both those countries don't have their heads in their...sandbox, quite as much as Canadian ones choose to have.

Our Local MP was formerly the mayor, and has been involved in local politics for at least a decade. In the past decade (when he was Mayor.. then our MP), he has not set foot on base once. He presided over Freedom of the City a couple times, but that was on his terms and on his turf.

We're one of the largest employers for the riding, but net no political points for his re-election. It's hilarious to think how many other MPs are in similar situations where a CFB is in their riding, bit they treat that as an annoyance, vice something to keep tabs on.

Canadian politicians very wary of defence. It's pandora's box.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,072
Points
1,260
One of the barriers is NDHQ. Politicians hear about shortages at DND but see lots of people in uniform outside standing around smoking, shopping at the mall, going for a liquid lunch and then crowding onto the 3:00 pm bus from downtown to Orleans.

That is what politicians see every day.
Not anymore. 101 is practically a ghost town with so many people working from home the last 2 years.

I live downtown and sometimes walk to the office. On a good day, I'll see 2 people in uniform outside.
 
Last edited:

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Not anymore. 101 is practically a ghost town with so many people working from home the last 2 years.

I live downtown and sometimes walk to the office. On a good day, I'll see 2 people in uniform outside.
Add to that a lot of the 101 functions have been moved to Carling as well. Lots more office space at 101. I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing a consolidation of office space again where places like 400 Cumberland move to 101.

But point taken regarding the perceived work ethic at 101.

Really it comes down to were do we live. I know I keep beating this drum but if Canada lived in a worse neighborhood our military would be better. But we live in the sleepiest part of the world (after perhaps New Zealand). Geopolitics (emphasis on the Geo) determines defense policy more than any other factor.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,072
Points
1,260
Really it comes down to were do we live. I know I keep beating this drum but if Canada lived in a worse neighborhood our military would be better. But we live in the sleepiest part of the world (after perhaps New Zealand). Geopolitics (emphasis on the Geo) determines defense policy more than any other factor.
Exactly, and I've been saying this on here and other places for years.

The main difference between Australian and Canadian defence policies is driven on how fast our friends can help out if needed.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Exactly, and I've been saying this on here and other places for years.

The main difference between Australian and Canadian defence policies is driven on how fast our friends can help out if needed.
Australia has been attacked more than once in recent history and fought the Japanese off of New Guinea. Their current situation is of concern as China seems intent on Cuba missile crisis-ing them with "economic deals" for small island nations, within their Oceana sphere of influence. And Indonesia hasn't always been the best most stable neighbor (East Timor crisis as an example). Rougher neighborhood for sure.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,943
Points
1,360
Exactly, and I've been saying this on here and other places for years.

The main difference between Australian and Canadian defence policies is driven on how fast our friends can help out if needed.
Australia also has the Indonesian issue to contend with. The Indonesian Archipelago is to Australia what Mexico/Central America is to the United States.

Indonesia is a pretty bad place, a metric bucket load of criminality, terrorists, etc. Not to mention they are pretty Militarized in their own right.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,638
Points
1,040
Yes but if the forces park stuff there will very much be no replacements. Oh look you only using 6 frigates....why are buying 15? The RCAF is only using 65 planes etc. I think a better plan would be use them less or for shorter times than reduce numbers.

Running the navy even taking the ships for a hour run around the harbor everyday or so and count it as an at sea day. Show the usage. Don't power up all the systems. I think at this point the most important thing is to keep the numbers up. And have the system on paper. I know 99 percent of you will disagree but its a political game. I think divesting of equipment without replacement is the dumbest thing we do. AAD divestment the M109 divestment. Getting rid the 280s even if they were more than worn out. The politicians in this country are not embarrassed by lack of capacity of the Forces. So using the lack any type of AA defence it shows oh you don't need it so why would we buy new systems.

Better to tell the political master nope can't use that old worn out system on a deployment because you didnt buy the new replacement. Than to say no we don't have that capability. They just say to the NATO, UN, or the US we don't have that and leave it at that. If you have the capacity but the system is old or wornout you can say yes but we just need a special quick buy IOR of these and we are good to go.
I've heard that arguement before but I think it's BS; nothing will get heat and light faster than not being able to send a ship to a NATO deployment. Limping a ship out to NATO that has major operational restrictions doesn't even register as the BGHs still see a tweet of a ship deployed, even if the restrictions prevent it from actually doing the NATO mission.

They will only care if that leads to an accident and there is a BOI.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,264
Points
1,260
Some politicians in Washington only see uniformed folks from the Pentagon as well. Same goes Whitehall in London. Although I would say having a proper Garrison in London might be a game changer.

Most politicians in both those countries don't have their heads in their...sandbox, quite as much as Canadian ones choose to have.

Our Local MP was formerly the mayor, and has been involved in local politics for at least a decade. In the past decade (when he was Mayor.. then our MP), he has not set foot on base once. He presided over Freedom of the City a couple times, but that was on his terms and on his turf.

We're one of the largest employers for the riding, but net no political points for his re-election. It's hilarious to think how many other MPs are in similar situations where a CFB is in their riding, bit they treat that as an annoyance, vice something to keep tabs on.

Canadian politicians very wary of defence. It's pandora's box.

Tell me you're posted to Kingston without actually telling me you're posted to Kingston.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,090
Not to sound too negative (perhaps I’m just getting cynical post Covid lockdown nonsense) - but Canadian politicians have to be some of the dumbest on Earth.

It doesn’t matter which candidates are running in our riding, neither of them rarely stand out as someone who will push anything forward. Sure, they may listen to the citizens in their riding, and many of them can help their local citizens out when dealing with the federal government… but when it comes to big thinkers or long term thinkers, Canadian politicians just are not these things.

A good example was from rmc_wannabe - a former mayor, and local MP, hasn’t once stepped foot onto the base. One of the largest local employers, and he can’t be bothered.

Why? Is it sheer arrogance? Is it not knowing how important the military is for employment in their riding? Is it total apathy, while instead being focused on Starbucks & just getting through the day?


Canadian politicians have allowed the military to wither away because for the most part, they are stupid. Some in some ways, others in other ways. They fail to understand that monetary currency isn’t the only currency around. That, and they are too proud to accept a good deal when offered.

And I think they are well aware that most Canadians are about as in touch with international affairs as they are - aka they form opinions based on what the media tells them.


0.02
 

stoker dave

Member
Reaction score
164
Points
660
CBH99 makes some good points about politicians.

I think one additional reason politicians don't like to visit military facilities is the fear of looking silly. Remember this? (Not to slag Mr Chretien, but just to point out that when you get into something you don't know anything about, it is easy to make mistakes and look foolish.).
 

Attachments

  • Picture6.png
    Picture6.png
    816.5 KB · Views: 25

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,330
Points
1,360
CBH99 makes some good points about politicians.

I think one additional reason politicians don't like to visit military facilities is the fear of looking silly. Remember this? (Not to slag Mr Chretien, but just to point out that when you get into something you don't know anything about, it is easy to make mistakes and look foolish.).
This was an example of the military being shit heads, plain and simple. The PM was set up by the unit deliberately to put the helmet on backwards and look stupid. The entire CAF paid for it dearly for the rest of Chretien’s time in office. People should have been charged.
 
Top