The O'Reilly Factor: Is the Canadian military going down the drain?

[Dr Zaius]

This was an interesting debate from the "No Spin Zone" of the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Factor Follow-Up segment tonight, we've been telling you about Canada's continuing criticism of America's war on terror. Now comes word that the Canadian military is falling apart.

Joining us from Ottawa, the capital of Canada, is David Harris, a member of the Council for Canadian Security. Mr. Harris was once a high-level Canadian security intelligence service official.

All right. So what's going on up there? Military doesn't have enough money? Is that what it is?

DAVID HARRIS, COUNCIL FOR CANADIAN SECURITY: Well, it's just a, really, another chapter in a long one of collapse and embarrassment for the Canadian military. We had just about 90,000 troops to our name 10 years ago in time for the Gulf. That was considered an embarrassment. Now we're down to about 55,000, and we couldn't even find the 800 people, troops, necessary to put in another rotation in our forces in Afghanistan. We had to pull out entirely just weeks ago because of that. So...

O'REILLY: All right. So you've got 55,000 military people. That includes air force, army, navy, everything.

HARRIS: That is the universe.

O'REILLY: Oh, man. See, I mean, I've been, this is, this is what I mean. What is Chretien and his government think their obligation is, not only to the people of Canada, but to the Western world? Do they think they have no obligation at all?

HARRIS: Well, you know, I guess a lot of the money for these things has been siphoned off into many of these social programs and other such things that we advertise so widely.

O'REILLY: Yes, but, I mean, with 55,000, I mean, that -- you can't defend yourself. I mean, if anything happened, and you just can't. So the United States would have to do it. And the border situation is so porous and the immigration system so lax in Canada that I don't understand why most Canadians don't feel that they're in jeopardy.

HARRIS: Well, I think, you know, a lot of us really have been asleep at the switch. We've been soothed by governments that are happy to, as I say, siphon off this money into more rewarding electorally rewarding kinds of things like Medicare and all the things that we claim make us superior, but in fact render us in the long run vulnerable. And we've seen this trend going on now, Bill, for two generations.

O'REILLY: All right. Now the question is, does Chretien and his government have any moral right to criticize the United States, which is spending billions of dollars and, you know, 299 of our military are dead, wiping out the Taliban, do you have any moral right to criticize us as Canada has continually since 9/11, when you guys don't have enough military To protect yourself, you know, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and anybody else can go fly, you know what I mean? I mean, you're not going to help anybody else because you can't.

HARRIS: Well, Chretien has none at all and very little credibility or moral authority even here in Canada. His government has been up on all kinds of allegations and charges of the most incredible corruption. And yet here we have him posturing as a great moralist and savior of humanity. You know, I have to say that a great many thinking people in Canada have been disgusted by Mr. Chretien's recent statements and have been insisting on an apology for the United States (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

O'REILLY: Well, he's never going to do that. And I don't want to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) encapsulate, Chretien basically said the West was partially responsible for the 9/11 attack because they're -- we don't care about the poor and all of this other nonsense.

HARRIS: It's a troubling thing.

O'REILLY: But what really shocked me -- here's what really shy (ph) and a lot of Americans. I got tons of mail on this, Mr. Harris, was the poll that The Globe and Mail in Toronto did which showed 80 percent of Canadians feel that United States is partially responsible for that massacre on 9/11. And, you know, Americans are going, What's going on up there?

HARRIS: Yes, there's this strain of mindless small-"l" liberalism that really doesn't take into account reality, and part of that reality is that the Americans have paid for our defense and have been such good neighbors that we haven't had to be defensive.

O'REILLY: That's right. That's right.

HARRIS: We haven't, we haven't had to do...

O'REILLY: I mean, what do you need an army for when we do it all for you? And then after we do it all for you, you're telling us that we're barbarians down here. It's, it's...

HARRIS: Well, it's great, ain't it? Yes, so...

O'REILLY: No, it's not.

HARRIS: Well, this is, this is what's been going on, and those of us who've been struggling against it have been shocked by the approach of (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

O'REILLY: Yes. I think you're a voice in the wilderness, Mr. Harris, up there, though. I believe that somehow the Canadian people, and maybe it's because you banned satellite dishes up there, you know, you banned satellite dishes. You can't get the Fox News Channel and hear the voice of sanity (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

HARRIS: There's nothing sacred, huh?

O'REILLY: Yes. Mr. Harris, thanks very. We appreciate you coming on.

HARRIS: Thanks a lot, Bill.

O'REILLY: All right. I didn't know the Canadian military had fallen apart, only 55,000 people. Almost as much, many people in New York City Police Department.

So what's the real deal with the Canadian military? Is it as strong as ever or is it going down the drain?

 

[John Paul]

I've seen this topic discussed on several other boards,and apparently the common consensus among the Canadians who answered was their military is going to hell in a handbasket.Think of the American military just after Vietnam,and thats about the state its in as far as morale and readiness goes.

 

[Chuck?]

Heck, why don't they get rid of the military all together? A report by the Conference of Defence Associations highlights some of the problems:

- The army is facing a 30-per-cent reduction in its ability to conduct operations as the number of qualified officers and junior leaders continues to shrink.

- So many army officers are approaching early retirement between 2004 and 2009 that if they leave, the army's ability to command units will be reduced by half by the end of the decade.

- Severe shortages of technicians means that only half the weapons on the military's high-tech Coyote and LAV-3 armoured vehicles are ready for operations.

- The air force faces a critical lack of trained and experienced personnel. Flying hours have been reduced significantly, and the number of trained pilots for each type of aircraft is declining.

- A lack of pilots and reduced flying times mean the air force will no longer be able to conduct around-the-clock maritime surveillance on the east and west coasts. On the West Coast, it will no longer be able to support the Department of Fisheries in its patrols.

- Search-and-rescue commitments will be maintained, but at reduced levels in some regions.

- The army's patchwork of new and old equipment and a lack of instructors to train soldiers has hurt combat efficiency. It is not unusual to have armoured vehicle crews who cannot operate their radios.

- While U.S. officials appreciate Canada's contributions to the Afghanistan war, the fact the troops couldn't stay beyond six months undermined much of that good will. "The U.S. also knows that these early contributions were a 'façade' designed to mask general Canadian military weakness," according to the report.

- Severe financial problems in the navy will undermine Canadian sovereignty. In the near future, the navy will have no alternative but to concentrate on patrolling the country's coastal waters, and even that would have to be conducted under the direction of the U.S. navy.

Maybe Dubya should include Canada in his next 'Axis of Evil' speech to get them to fix this.

 

[Tex]

If I was a Canadian I would call for even a further reduction. What's the need? As long as they are in NATO, they have the most powerful military guaranteeing their safety and even if they were expelled from NATO for being freeloaders, it remains in America's interest to keep Canada sovereign should a foreign power act with aggression. Either way they get a free ride, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

 

[ER_Chaser]

Originally posted by Tex
If I was a Canadian I would call for even a further reduction. What's the need? As long as they are in NATO, they have the most powerful military guaranteeing their safety and even if they were expelled from NATO for being freeloaders, it remains in America's interest to keep Canada sovereign should a foreign power act with aggression. Either way they get a free ride, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

lol... fully agree, exactly what I feel --- to the letters!

 

[John Paul]

Just whos going to attack Canada

Canada is not a very populous country and therefore doesn't need a large military.However that being said they do have international commitments and should at least make sure that they can meet those missions they have obligated themselves to.

 

[Martin Schenkel]

Some of my opinions, as a Canadian civilian (with no military experience, but with great interest in the Canadian military, especially WW2):

The thing about Canada, is that we're not a militaristic people (by 'militaristic', I'm not assuming something 'bad'). We've had no revolutions, no civil wars. A handful of small scale rebellions, but not much of note. Although war has greatly shaped our nation (British-French colonial wars, War of 1812, both WW1 (especially Vimy Ridge) and WW2 as a whole), we have never felt the need for a large-scale peacetime military commitment. What threat do we have against us? Who wants to attack peaceful little Canada? The only nation capable of direct attack, is the USA (even its past attempted invasions have failed) and I don't think any US president in the forseeable future would be insane enough to invade Canada, the US's most important trading partner.

In terms of Canada's recent overseas military contributions, I think we've contributed far more than our fair share. Canada has participated in every single UN peackeeping/peacemaking mission. A Battalion or two have always been stationed in the Balkans, ever since the former Yugoslavia broke up. Up until the early 90s (when we pulled out of Europe), the Canadian Brigade Group in Europe was largely considered the single best Brigade (in terms of quality) in the Allied force. In Kosovo, Canadian fighters flew 10% of bombing missions, even though we provided only about 1% of the aircraft. If the US government wants to complain about the lack of Canadian commitment on the War of Terror in Afghanistan, ask the families of the 4 dead and 12 wounded Canadians from the US friendly-fire incident, if their commitment wasn't enough.

The government's military priorities fall in this order:
1. UN
2. NATO
3. 'Coalition' actions

No doubt there are a great many problems in the Canadian military today (Chuck's list is pretty bang-on), but the combination of mostly passive public support of the military, and the traditional lack of any military loby or military-industrial complex (such as in some nations), means no short-term improvements, and anything less than WW3 or an invasion of Canada itself will certainly not bring about significant overhaul of the Canadian Armed Forces. Another issue, is that the official relationship between the military and the public/private sector, does not lend itself to employees seeking part-time employment in the military. In other words, as a reservist, you'll be extremely lucky if your employer 'sympathizes' with your military commitments, thus we see fewer people joining the reserves. On the whole, although Canadians are supportive of the military, a military career is not seen as prestigious.

I don't think Canada is 'freeloading' off US military influence. While we may not be able to defend ourselves from a full scale invasion, no nation is motivated threaten us, and we have defended ourselves when threatened (Soviet air incursions during the Cold War, Atlantic fishing disputes, etc). I think the government feels (and I fully agree), that Canadian commitment to the world is far better served in a political/humanitarian role, than a large scale peacetime military role. Though, I would like to see better support for the forces we do have, especially those involed in peacekeeping.

In regards to the 'porous' and 'lax' Canadian immigration situation mentioned in the interview, the US itself determined that not a single 9/11 hijacker entered the USA from Canada. So, a strengthening of Canadian immigration would've made no difference. Anyone entering the USA from Canada goes through US customs anyways, and even the 'secure' US border with Mexico, dosen't prevent thousands of illegal immigrants.

 

[Headshot]

Canada is not a very populous country and therefore doesn't need a large military.However that being said they do have international commitments and should at least make sure that they can meet those missions they have obligated themselves to.

Yeah Isreal isnt a terribly large country either. I think it has nothing to do with size. If I was tucked under Uncle Sams wing I cant see me spending too much on defense either. But one needs to draw the line, a functioning Air Force and Navy are most haves for any country with oceanic borders. Especially with Mother Russia so close, sure they may be allies, but theyre still Russians.

 

[Tzar]

As a Canadian, I feel obliged to add my word to this debate...

I think Fading Captain summarized quite nicely the state of the situation.

I would like to emphasize that it's sad however that some Americans (such as this O'Reilly) doesn't have a clue about the extent of the peacekeeping missions the Canadian military has performed over the last 40 years all around the globe. Although these missions are not as spectacular as a full-fledged invasion of some Middle East country , these missions still do a lot to stabilize and promote a more safer world by limiting and preventing tensions in hot spots.

Now, it is true that the Canadian military has suffered in the last decade with insufficient budgets and attention. Military spending amounted to 12 billions CAN$ this year - which is basically peanuts in U.S. cash . An increase of a couple of billions is planned however for the next 5 years but even then, all things being equal, Canada would roughly have to triple its current military spending level to match the U.S. ones in terms of dollars per citizen.

Since 10 years, Canada has concentrated its efforts on getting its financial house in order. And we have succeeded. The federal government as well as most provincial governments are running surpluses since 2 or 3 years now. To be able to do this, budget cuts were needed and, obviously, between butter (Medicare and subsidized education) and guns, Canadians choose butter. For 3 obvious reasons:

1) Canada is not a superpower and although our standards of living is as good as the U.S., our economy and population is 10 times smaller.

2) Contrary to the U.S., we don't have vested economical and political interests to protect around the globe and because our role in world affairs is very low-profile, we are not the target of all the extremists of this world.

3) The only country that can realistically invade and conquer Canada is the U.S. Even if we would dump the whole federal budget into military spending (about 170-180 billions $ CAN), that wouldn't make a difference if Washington decides to invade us: we are toasted anyway. Period.

Because of all this, most Canadians wonder what's the point of spending big bucks for the army.

 

[John Paul]

Originally posted by Headshot
Canada is not a very populous country and therefore doesn't need a large military.However that being said they do have international commitments and should at least make sure that they can meet those missions they have obligated themselves to.

Yeah Isreal isnt a terribly large country either. I think it has nothing to do with size. If I was tucked under Uncle Sams wing I cant see me spending too much on defense either. But one needs to draw the line, a functioning Air Force and Navy are most haves for any country with oceanic borders. Especially with Mother Russia so close, sure they may be allies, but theyre still Russians.

I should have been more specific on that comment,what i meant was it is neither desirable or nor affordable for Canada to maintain an overly large military.Israel is another matter as they are surronded by hostile to semi-hostile neighbors.

That being said,if they are going to keep letting their forces downsize then they should at least make sure that the ones they have are the best equipped and best trained possible.

 

[Tzar]

Originally posted by John Paul


I should have been more specific on that comment,what i meant was it is neither desirable or nor affordable for Canada to maintain an overly large military.Israel is another matter as they are surronded by hostile to semi-hostile neighbors.

That being said,if they are going to keep letting their forces downsize then they should at least make sure that the ones they have are the best equipped and best trained possible.

Moreover, Israel military and state is largely subsidized by the U.S. No wonder they have such a good army for such a small country. As Headshot said, size has nothing to do with it. Money is the key word here.

 

[John Paul]

Umh,let me try this one more time.I was refering to the fact that population and power is related,the larger the population the more taxes that are generated and the larger number of possible recruits there are.I'm going on 2001 figures here but Canada has a population of around thirty million,thats almost ten times less than the population of the US.There is no way Canada can afford or even man a military in proportion to what we have.A small,well maintained,military is in Canadas best interest.

I don't see how this got turned into a discussion on Israel,but it is about apples and oranges.Israel has been under the constant threat of war for over fifty years,that along with universal conscription has led to a somewhat militarized society.Furthermore they managed to hold out in 48 withut US aid against,about what,five arab armies?

I probablely missed explaining what i was trying to say again,i knew after rereading my post that populous wasn't the word i was looking for.All i'm saying as has been pointed out is that it is not economically feasible for Canada to field a large force.

 

[Dr Zaius]

This is interesting too.

BERLIN, Oct. 7 - Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said on Monday his recently re-elected government would review whether to end conscription for the German military.

Schroeder, at the outset of a new four-year term in office, spoke after lengthy talks with his Greens coalition partners on security and foreign policy for the new government. ''One must see what the review will produce in light of new missions,'' Schroeder told a joint news conference with Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, the most prominent Greens member of government. ''I cannot tell you what the result will be before this review takes place. It would be odd if one could know the result beforehand; then one would not need any review.''

About 90,000 German men aged 18 and above are drafted each year to serve for nine months. Another 120,000 opt instead to perform about a year of community service as an alternative.

In the past, Schroeder and many mainstream politicians have argued that conscription keeps down costs and ensures the military stays anchored in democratic society. Yet pressure to end the draft is mounting in Germany, including from the Greens, after most other European Union nations have already decided to scrap military service.

Schroeder said the review on conscription would take place before the end of the new legislature's four-year term.

 

[Headshot]

hmm community service. Theres a good idea. At this point though theres no reason for German Conscription. The threat of Russia is gone, and no one else in the region ever really did threaten them.