All matters Canadian / Canada

[marct]

Hi Norfolk,

Just a couple of things I'd like to toss my $.02 in on...

Perhaps even more so than the U.S., in its own way Canada is dependent upon Airpower for its strategic defence and operational mobility.

Absolutely true. Last year I was doing some research on European tourists to Canada and one of the things that really came out was that they just had no conception of how large, and under-populated, we are. One person from the UK mentioned that they thought BC was about the size of France - when I told them you could fit 4 Frances in BC (17 in all of Canada), there was a resounding - stunned - silence. This size, coupled with a very low population density, makes it very hard to use anything but airpower for defence and operational mobility.

As to Canada's territorial water claims in the Arctic and especially the North-West Passage, they are misconceived. They are not generally recognized internationally, and of course do not in any way meet the 12-mile limit under International Law. As to the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone that International Law provides for, that's a legitimate claim Canada can hold on to. But to enforce in practice would require a modest, but noticeable militarization of the Arctic, particularly along the NorthWest Passage. In general terms, think a few AIP subs, a Fighter Squadron, and a reinforced Infantry Battalion/Battle Group either in the region or able to get there, intact and sustainable, fiarly rapidly.

Not something I would be opposed to, but operationally (aka politically) very tricky. We *might* be politically able to put together a Border Unit as the main component of an Infantry BTN/BG, but I doubt we will see either the vision, money or political will for the rest... at least until there is a major economic presence in the area.

Perhaps it would do to address Marc's question of what are Canada's defence obligations, requirements, and resources. In another thread, Marc mentioned that Canada required forces of very high quality, and it should go without saying that he is entirely correct. The problem is that the disparity between political will and willingess to allocate resources on the one hand, and international obligations and military requirements on the other is vast, to say the least....

But as to "quality" and training, that's harder now; the Human Rights Commission in the early 90's imposed requirements upon the Armed Forces that were prejudical to training, order, and good discipline, to put it mildly.

Don't get me started on the Human Rights Commission and their bastard offspring, the Tribunals ! Personally, I think that if someone in a wheelchair wants to join the CF - fine, let them, but don't even think about lowering the standards for the Infantry! Honestly, I always liked Heinlein's ideas about recruitment in Starship Troopers (book, NOT film!!!!!!). Having the training standards lowered is, IMO, ridiculous. I wonder if anyone has launched a Human Rights complaint about the lowered standards .