Whither Goes the Armed Forces?

It is said that one of the deadly sins is politics without principle. Trying to keep current with developments since the Speech from the Throne, inevitably leads one to the conclusion that the shelf life of government promises and plans for the Canadian Forces, is indeed short. One also questions the principles of a government which is eager to commit and send our armed forces on politically expedient missions, but unwilling to ensure that our troops are properly trained and equipped to achieve these missions with as low a risk as possible.² The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) in their recent report, "Nation at Risk: The Decline of the Canadian Forces," alludes to the lack of sound principles by the government, stating that our armed forces are in a state of crisis as a result of government underfunding.³

Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's post-Speech from the Throne reaction to the CDA report, wherein he suggested that increased funding for the military is on the way, there is a need to question his commitment and many comments made prior to and following the speech.⁴

For starters, the PM's speech conveyed the same old message for Canada's financially-strapped military; a message that has been delivered throughout the length of this government's mandate. The niggardly funding for the needs of the forces; a neglect and disinterest in matters concerning the safety of our troops; security and sovereignty issues of our country, has not changed. And this topped off by a news report that said, "Defence Minister John McCallum's theory is that as long as soldiers are being paid, they won't care if their equipment is ancient and they cannot deploy overseas."⁵ Clearly an inane comment considering the range and depth of criticism aimed at the government by countless defence experts including the Auditor-General and special House of Commons and Senate committees. The MND knows full well that members of the armed forces are not going to stand up and publicly contradict his uncalled for comment.

All of which leads one to conclude that making sense of why the government has not supported the forces, or even enunciated what it actually has in mind for the Canadian Forces in future, is not a simple undertaking. Difficult because it is apparent the PM and many of his cabinet colleagues seem not to believe the information received from reputable defence experts who, for over a decade, have decried the state of readiness of our armed forces.

The Prime Minister's reaction, and that of his Minister of National Defence, suggest they do not appreciate, or for that matter believe, the root cause of what is happening in the world today.

It is certainly obvious the PM fails to understand the importance of the role Canada and our armed forces play on the international stage.

In the process, he has isolated himself under a fuzzy mantle of rejection and disbelief; a desperate attempt to justify the under-funding of the armed forces.

Questioning charges that his government was negligent prior to the attack on America, only tended to confuse the Canadian public.

Regardless, Canadians are very much aware that the events of September 11, 2001, exposed a wide variety of military problems which were generated by the government as a direct consequence of deep cuts in the defence budget, reduced spending on intelligence gathering and foreign policy resources.

Few will deny, with the most likely exception of the PM and MND, that the international situation demands more than talk.

As Deputy Prime Minister John Manley suggested earlier, Canada cannot excuse itself to go to the washroom when the bill arrives at the table.

Something must be done to redress our growing military and foreign affairs credibility gap.

The situation is complicated by the never-ending spending on social and other questionable government programs identified in the Speech from the Throne, all of which trump the call for more spending on the armed forces. In crass terminology, it certainly appears the PM is fully prepared to ignore the advice of reputable defence doyens, and to sacrifice the military for reasons known only to himself.

Interestingly, when it comes to responding to the call for more spending on our military, there appear to be differences within the Liberal camp itself, as evidenced in a paper delivered at a recent Liberal policy conference organized by Tom Axworthy, a one-time influential member of the party and former principal secretary to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

Mr. Axworthy openly called for more military spending. Recognizing that Canada has a "credibility gap of immense proportions" with Washington, he suggested that his paper was part of a plan to earn greater respect from the United States.6 Placing Canada's ad hoc building of defence and foreign policy in the right perspective, Mr. Axworthy wrote, "We talk the talk, but we no longer walk the walk."⁷

Mr. Axworthy is definitely not a lone voice in the wilderness calling for a "redress in Canada's military credibility gap." Respected historian Dr. Jack Granatstein has been very vocal in expressing his views on the military problem and reaffirming those of many academics and defence advocates by delivering well prepared and supported messages concerning the state of neglect imposed on the Canadian Forces.

Paul Cellucci, the US Ambassador to Canada, has not been silent either. He has delivered several up-front messages concerning the state of our armed forces. At a recent business conference in Banff, he stated "Canada's lack of strategic lift left it unable to move the military force to crisis areas.8 He then added, "Obviously, we've provided lift for Canadian troops in the past and we'd certainly do it again in the future … but we look at the post-September 11 world recognizing how dangerous it is, and recognizing that despite the huge military capability of the United States, we can't do it alone.⁹ In an October 11th article, the National Post reported Mr. Cellucci as drawing Ottawa's attention to the fact that "Canadian soldiers risk being left on the sidelines in future wars and peacekeeping missions because the logistics of including them would be too daunting," and then chiding Canada for thinking it can simply hitch a ride into theatres of operation.¹⁰ The MND had better take note of the aforementioned comments if and when he contemplates sending Canadian troops to Iraq.

The same article reported some good news to the effect that "Canada's navy receives a passing grade for interoperability from the United States and other NATO partners.¹¹ More about this later.

As if the Ambassador's criticism wasn't enough, Tom Nichols, Chairman of the Department of Strategic Policy at the US Naval War College has written a scathing piece focusing on some US allies who, he claims, show signs of taking counsel of their fears and search for an explanation of 9/11 that both excuses them from war, and reassures them they are not at risk.

He identifies Canada specifically, and our Prime Minister, when he writes, "The latest example comes from Ottawa. There have been many overseas (joined by the usual suspects inside the US) who have said a lot of fairly stupid things since last September, but the Canadian team led by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is for now, the hands-down winner of the race to see which Western leaders can say the most shameful and ludicrous things about 9/11."¹² One wonders if, had there been another more serious terrorist attack, would the story have been laid out more clearly for the Prime Minister? Surely the worst terrorist attack in history, on one of our closest allies, was not the proper occasion for the Prime Minister to whip up an argument that the reason for the 9/11 attack stems from how greedy and arrogant the West is. Mr. Nichols' most biting condemnation comes when he concludes that there isn't much to be done about the cynical pandering to fear, except to move and leave people like our PM behind. This, he claims, seems to be happening already, marking another stage in Canada's rapid decline in international influence.¹³

One aspect of the defence and foreign policy issue confronting Canadians has been swept under the carpet by a collection of our naïve politicians, including the PM. It was described in February 2002 by Douglas Bland, Chair of Defence Management Studies at Queen's University in Kingston. When commenting on the challenge of protecting the North American homeland, Mr. Bland concluded that, "Should Canada hesitate or seek to avoid their new obligations, then it seems likely that the United States will closely guard its northern border by deploying its armed forces over North America, wherever and whenever the President decides.¹⁴

We know that the Chief of the Defence Staff, in his annual report, said when referring to the state of our armed forces, "The status quo is unsustainable."¹⁵ This brings us to the globeandmail.com report which describes the content of an email sent out by VAdm. Ron Buck, Chief of the Maritime Staff (CMS) to military analysts, retired officers and Atlantic and Pacific politicians.¹⁶ In his call for support in correcting a bad situation in the forces, the admiral warned that the capabilities and robustness of the navy are in jeopardy. He confirmed what many experts have said, namely that the armed forces cannot keep functioning within the current $12 billion budget. The admiral's commendable transparent comment warns Canadians that military experts who say the forces are at a breaking point, are correct. And as other armed forces around the world are modernizing, the experts say Canada has to follow suit or retreat into a scaled-back, less relevant force.

Space does not permit a more detailed description of what the CMS stated in his email. One final quote does deserve mention though - "Our [navy's] present performance is outstanding, internationally credible and most importantly, giving Canada options. Will Canada remain a robust maritime capability in the future? Will Canadians and the government be persuaded that in the long run, a strong, modern navy is a bargain? These are the issues which now hang in the balance."¹⁷ In finding an answer to the a dmiral's questions we must not overlook the fact the army and air force have needs as well. Needs which must not be set aside as the MND builds his next budget - a task which must be undertaken in an open and transparent assessment of the real situation that surrounds the armed forces and, of course, reflects a well thought out defence and foreign policy; a policy that reflects all of what Canadians expect from their military forces. The course of action is obvious, the government must rethink, regroup, and refinance the forces.

Fred Fowlow is a retired Commander and Director Maritime Affairs, Calgary Branch.

(Originally Published in Vol VII, No. 20, Autumn 2002 edition of Starshell.)

Whither Goes the Armed Forces?

The shelf life of any article is the length of time to the next newscast.1 By Fred R. Fowlow

The shelf life of any article is the length of time to the next newscast.¹

By Fred R. Fowlow