Chris Wattie
National Post
Canada's military has withered so thoroughly the country is practically defenceless, according to a study released yesterday by the C.D. Howe Institute.
"Whether Canadians realize it or not, Canada is now all but undefended at a time of danger," Dr. Jack Granatstein writes for the institute.
Dr. Granatstein is a noted York University historian and chairman of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century, a non-partisan group based in Calgary that advocates a greater government emphasis on defence.
However, Dr. Granatstein argues that the real threat posed by the deterioration of Canada's army, navy and air force is not from foreign invaders or terrorists, but from the United States.
He said Canada's military impotence threatens Canadian sovereignty because it invites the U.S. to take steps to defend itself against terrorist attacks, even to the point of sending troops onto Canadian soil.
"Although terrorism poses a real threat, it is not the most serious crisis," he wrote. "The danger lies in wearing blinkers about the United States at a time it is in a vengeful, anxious mood."
"The Chrétien government seems either oblivious to the danger or else it has given up."
Dr. Granatstein said it is even possible - if Canada does not co-operate with Washington's continental security plans - that the Americans could seal the Canada-U.S. border and deploy their armed forces in our territory if they felt it necessary.
"The United States is deadly serious about homeland defence, and only utterly foolish Canadians can ignore this concern," he wrote. "The Americans will act - alone if necessary."
Dr. Granatstein argues Canada's underfunded military might already have cost us heavily.
"The Americans know we do not pull our weight," he writes. "And although policymakers usually deny the existence of linkage between and among issues, the lamentable condition of the Canadian Forces may have something to do with our inability to get the Bush White House to take a positive interest in Canada's softwood lumber difficulties or U.S. attacks against our Wheat Board."
Dr. Granatstein writes in his study that Canada must address U.S. defence initiatives such as the missile defence shield or the proposed Northern Command if it wishes to have some say in continental defence matters.
To do that, he says the Canadian Forces must be rebuilt.
"Canadians thus have the choice of standing back and allowing the Americans to plan for the protection of Canadian territory or of participating in the decisions," he writes.
"Do we want some consultation or none on matters that concern Canada's security every bit as much as the United States'?"
"A weak Canadian military means that we must rely on the United States for homeland defence and defence against external threats ... If Canada maintains a credible military, we will have a voice and options that weakness cannot provide."
Dr. Granatstein outlines in detail the woes that have befallen the Canadian military under successive governments since the 1960s. He said army units are operating at roughly half-strength, warships are kept in dock for want of trained sailors to run them and the air force is short of pilots and still years away from replacing its 1960s-vintage Sea King helicopters.
"Without a change in its prospects and substantially more funding - a defence review is set to begin in late spring 2002, and many see it as the last chance for the Canadian Forces - we must expect resignations among the chiefs," he writes.
The study calls for a cash infusion of $2.5-billion in addition to the $12-billion now spent on defence, and another $10-billion for at least the next five years.
Canada spends US$265 per capita on defence, less than half the NATO average, it said.
Dr. Granatstein's study is the latest in a series of papers outlining what most analysts call a crisis in the Canadian military.
A report for the Conference of Defence Associations last month concluded the Canadian Forces are 15 years away from "mass extinction" as a capable fighting force unless the government invests billions in new equipment.
The report by Brian Macdonald, president of the Atlantic Council, which promotes Canada's role in NATO, said most military equipment now in service will ''rust out'' by 2015.
In March, a Senate committee recommended $4-billion more be spent on defence.
This month the federal Auditor-General said the military faced a critical shortage in key occupations. Sheila Fraser said the personnel shortages could take 30 years to fix.
And last week, the Liberal-dominated Commons defence committee said the Canadian Forces are critically underfunded and need an $18-billion infusion in order to avoid massive troop burnout.
Here's the link to the National Post thing, and here's the link to the Granatstein commentary from the CD Howe Inst.
Note: Here
here
Stumble It!
The Danish Navy puts up their flag on one of our islands and Canadians yawn. Foreign fishing fleets plunder the Grand Banks and Canadians yawn. Terrorists that admit to murder, documented and convicted, are free to be your neighbour because you're Canadian. Canadians talk up a good lather about 'human security' in Sudan etc. - means nothing, the UN won't even wake up to listen to Canadians - especially since we adopted Loyd Axworthy's 'soft-headed' approach to foreign policy.
Canada and its various levels of government are bank accounts that we task to provide health care, that's about it these days. Official policy is that you should be someone else - an 'insert ethnicity here-Canadian' or Quebecois or Native/aboriginal, anything but 'Canadian'.
Americans are fully aware of their faults but they still believe in themselves and believe they have something worth defending, which they do. They don't want the murder and mayhem of the middle east brought to North America(even disregarding the current situation in Iraq, it's an awful place and people want to leave). Canadians feel like they have nothing to defend but that doesn't mean that a people that do feel like they have something to defend should be vulnerable because of our apathy.
I would agree with his finding that the only country Canada has to worry about protecting itself from in the world at this time is the USA. However, a closer examination of his motives in saying this raises serious questions as to whether this to maintain Canada as a sovereign state or to get Canadians on board with the USA MDI.
Does anyone seriously believe the Americans want us spending money on military equipment to defend ourselves against them. Canadians did this in the 1950s and came up with the fastest fighter jet in the world (the Avro Arrow) very soon after successful test flights of which Deifenbaker canceled the program. Why would they cancel such a successful project after spending so much money? There can only be one answer; it had to have been because of American pressure to do so. As well, after the cancellation all of the Canadian engineers on the project went to work for NASA, which has always been a cover for American military research in my opinion.
The Americans want us to spend money on our military all right but only to use in defense of America. As well, they want to use Canadian soil as part of that shield (Canada would be first in line for radioactive fallout from missiles coming in over the north pole; not to mention damage to the ozone layer from exploding nuclear missiles next to it).
Of course, nothing in this article deals with the damage to our social programs by diverting tens of billions of dollars to MDI.
---
Dave Ruston
---
"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va
You fail to say why! So we can go on illegal invasions with America and be hated by every other nation? Or to do what the UN mandate says? If its the later, most of us would agree with you, but if its the former, cross the border and enlist yourself in the US Army. I hear they are having problems finding troops.
What they heck do you think a stronger military is for anyway? "Navy: the other white meat?"
Militaries don't just invade countries, they defend them too.
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
That is why nothing extra should be spent unless the people in power have made the conscious decision to do so with the objective being the sole defense of the Canadian borders and airspace by Canadians IN Canada.
"Canadians thus have the choice of standing back and allowing the Americans to plan for the protection of Canadian territory or of participating in the decisions"
Alas, this is what our integration into the American security envelope has been doing to us over the past 50 years... We are permitted to participate in our own defense as long as we are capable. Under these circumstances increasing military spending would not protect our sovereignty against our largest and closest threat, as the author of the article leads us to believe.
Why don't we hear any talk of finally discarding the relic of the Cold War known as NORAD in favour of enhancing the defence of our own airspace domestically? Oh, but I forgot... even thinking such a thing would be on the verge of committing blasphemy.
I noticed a comment in the movie Bowling for Columbine that was a little unnerving. Charlton Heston was told that Canadians have some 7 million guns, and our crime rate is lower than the US. His comment was "for now."
What do you think he meant by that ? Is the gun registry really about knowing where the guns are before they come to confiscate them ?
Is this the way we are going to allow the US to send troops here with no resistance ?
Just a thought.
---
"One crisis at a time is life's motto" - Carl Sagan
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca
---
Dave Ruston
---
Dave Ruston