Stupid Conservative defence promises
A story based on a February 21, 2006 briefing note (note date); one hopes the government is reconsidering its campaign promises.
Update: An interesting thread at Army.ca from May, 2005, when the Conservatives first pledged a battalion for Goose Bay. It is clear to me that the only motivation for promising these battalions in these places was politics and had nothing to do with improving the effectiveness of the Canadian Army in an efficient fashion.
A new 650-person rapid reaction battalion to be located at Canadian Forces Base Comox and a smaller unit to be stationed in Vancouver could be fully operational by 2010, according to newly released internal documents...Spending large sums of money to create new units and supporting infrastructure in places that are out of the way or unsuitable or unnecessary would be, there is no other word, nuts--especially when the money is desperately needed to do useful things to build up the Canadian Forces with new equipment and more personnel at existing bases. Even the US military is closing bases.
Harper announced the new units during a December campaign stop and also promised more navy personnel at CFB Esquimalt, new equipment such as search-and-rescue aircraft, and the creation of a territorial "defence unit" to be based in Vancouver made up of 100 regular and at least 400 reserve troops...
The Tory election plan included the creation of three other rapid reaction battalions across Canada as well as the creation of smaller territorial defence units in Vancouver and other Canadian cities...
The RRBs [rapid reaction battalions], to be based in Comox, Bagotville, Que., Trenton, Ont., and Goose Bay, N.L., will be launched next year. Each unit would include three rifle companies, light patrol vehicles, a small headquarters, and a combat service support company...
Another document obtained through the Access to Information Act says there will be a dozen territorial defence units, with "emergency response capabilities," based in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint John, St. John's, Halifax and the Niagara-Windsor corridor...
Most of the briefing note is whited out under provisions of the Access to Information Act which allows the government to exclude from the public advice to ministers. One of the exempted sections covers the estimated cost of the RRB initiative.
However, one document -- and some accompanying e-mails -- suggest that military officials are questioning the capacity of the government to meet all its military commitments.
"The initiatives outlined above aid in satisfying a few of the many key defence objectives outlined by the government," concludes the Feb. 21 briefing note to Buck [Vice-Admiral Ron Buck, the former vice-chief of defence staff].
However, it continues, the desire to create RRBs must be balanced with various other plans, including the creation of the city-based battalions, the doubling in size of the JTF2 special operations unity, and the creation of a Canadian Special Operations Regiment, a new special forces unit...
Update: An interesting thread at Army.ca from May, 2005, when the Conservatives first pledged a battalion for Goose Bay. It is clear to me that the only motivation for promising these battalions in these places was politics and had nothing to do with improving the effectiveness of the Canadian Army in an efficient fashion.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 9:01 a.m.
6 Comments:
WTF is "emergency response capabilities" and doesn't it just sound like a doubling up of civil defense stuff?
Y'know Mark, you keep bringing up what a bad idea these are, but to date, I haven't really seen you back your case up.
We're a big country. If you really want to save on infrastructure, you could create one combined air, land, and naval base on the shores of the St. Lawrence. No need to spread troops out at all, if you want to follow that line of reasoning to its ridiculous end.
Whether Canada needs to open or close bases has nothing to do with whether the US needs to open or close bases. I don't know why you want to tie the two together. Our decision should be based upon a determination of our own needs, and an assessment of how our current structure meets those needs - period.
Personally, I think a geographic distribution of forces is a good thing in a country of Canada's size. And in that light, having no land base west of Edmonton is a bad thing, having no naval base in our northern ocean is a bad thing, having large urban populations with very little exposure to folks in uniform is a bad thing.
In this, I think you're..."there is no other word, nuts."
This initiative faces two very major challenges, infastructure and personnel.
The cost of land procurement for these bases would be in the billions. With the huge cutbacks brought on by the Liberals, many bases have been closed or downsized. In order to create these units, land would have to be purchased and facilities built on them. If one looks at Toronto or Vancouver as an example, it can cost upwards of half a million dollars for one small parcel of land with a building on it. Multiply that by the size of land need to build vehicle hangers, housing, HQ building and training areas and, well, you get the picture.
Personnel is another issue. In order to man such a unit there would be a need for senior leaders and officers. With the closing of military colleges and downsizing of the military the leadership pool is just not their. Even if we started today it would take the minimum of 4 years to create a 2Lt with no experience and even then we would have to question where they would get their training. RMC is running at near capacity and there is not other military college to send them to.
Senior NCM's could be pulled in from existing units but again there is the problem of manning. If we start to pull Sgt, WO and MWO's from existing units we then face the problem of those units, who need the experience for dutie such as Afghanistan, suffering shortages of experience people. The last thing we want is for the PPCLI or RCR to be deployed to Afghanistan with Senior NCM who have been moved up too quickly due to shortages.
So, the reality is, if this is to happen don't expect to see it in the near future.
babbling: "Our decision should be based upon a determination of our own needs, and an assessment of how our current structure meets those needs - period." Agreed.
But it's a question of priorities and limited funds. The four battalion promises were pure electoral politics, nothing more. There was no "determination" or "assessment".
As I have pointed out there is no physical space for an Army unit to train at Trenton--it's in the middle of down-town suburbia.
Goose Bay would be terribly difficult to supply. especially in winter. The terrain does not appear suitable for infantry training and is certainly not vehicle-friendly.
What is the point of a unit in Bagotville? Quebec already has Valcartier. Co-locating with the Air Force base seems a recipe for confusion.
A unit in BC just might make sense but again Comox is already an Air Force base, same co-location problems.
I posted the excerpts at Army.ca:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,48580.0.html
Reaction there might be interesting.
Mark
Ottawa
Saw your post at army.ca and am interested in response as well
Unfortunately, nobody's going to engage in debate with you if you don't put an opinion out there, Mark. Try posting your thoughts on the supposed stupidity of the plan, and I'm guessing you'll get more of a response.
Post a Comment
<< Home