We need a much bigger army
Well, we could send 7,500 soldiers to Afstan, 3,000 of which would be available for field operations at any given moment. But apart from reinforcements for attrition and your regular military leave, they would have to stay there without relief until the mission is accomplished. Jeffrey Simpson:
Implicit in the Manley panel's report on Afghanistan is the apparently incontestable fact that Canada can only field 1,000 fighting soldiers at any moment.The need to spend on air and naval forces is not a reason for having a small regular army. That would be like saying we neglected to hire enough prison guards because of the need to spend on prisons. The fact that successive governments chose not to invest enough in military manpower is the only reason why we got to the state we are in. The "decade of darkness", as it were, coming home to roost.
That's all this G8 country of 33 million, blessed with one of the world's highest per capita incomes, can manage. Even then, we need foreign planes and use old equipment. It's a powerful signal of limited capability.
If Canada had more soldiers and equipment, it could have done what the Manley panel recommended: double the number of soldiers in Kandahar. But we don't have those soldiers. Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed it yesterday, in agreeing with the Manley task force that Canada seek the 1,000 extra fighting soldiers from another country.
Canada got to this state for many reasons, one of which is the need to spend on air and naval forces to protect North America. But beyond those operational factors, Canadians had come to see our army as a blue-helmeted force of peacekeepers, occasionally in danger but mostly handing out candies to schoolchildren, patrolling fixed borders and being firm but nice; the kind of soldiers on the peacekeeping monument in Ottawa, one of whom peers through binoculars, while another sends radio signals, but none of whom looks ready to fight...
posted by The Monarchist at 10:46 a.m.
3 Comments:
Many of us who lived through the "decade of darkness" inside the CF remember it vividly as a period of decline for the organization signaled by the many rounds of budget cut backs and force reduction plans. What made it particularly dark, however, for me was the sense that we no longer had a mission or even a visionary leader who could guide us safely through it. At the time, I remember saying that a generation of leaders needed to be cleared out. While that may be harsh, I'm glad the CF has found itself again. The dollars and equipment will follow...
I was right there with you. I left at the end of the Somalia inquiry. Things were so bad morale wise, NDHQ was routinely referred to as National Disgrace Headquarters.
Some wont like this suggestion, but it may be time to activate some reserve units. There could still be a "selection proces; pre-deployment training, etc. My husband is a reserve force soldier; he was regular army (airborne gunner, some of you may remember E Bty) through some of the "dark ages", then reserve force through the rest of the dark ages. He returned home from Afghanistan in August, where he was attached to his old unit (2RCHA).
Post a Comment
<< Home