All matters Canadian / Canada

[jmm99]

.....................

Leroyal22regiment.jpg

and lest we not forget the spiritual ancestor of the Van Doos - CFM-Canada.

Bonsoir, mon amis

Michel

Although, it is said that, once, the Van Doos lost their goat - if so, a classic in Canadian special operations.

[031-Bacon,RG]

JMM,

There's also an old nasty rumour about an RCR weapon retrieved by the Pats, but I can't remember the whole story....

[jmm99]

is don't lift "precious relics" from the HQs of another unit lest they "get your goat" (or the equivalent) - thereby leading to a "prisoner swap".

Not a "goat rumor", according to the officer who planned and executed the operation, with no harm done except a couple of dazed subaltern "goat tenders" (the "Second Battle on the Plains of Abraham"). Classified as a helicopterborne training exercise by the "black helicopter folks". The incident cannot be found in the Van Doos historical page dealing with the many incarnations of Bâtisse (now on goat X).

La Citadelle, the regimental museum and mess impressed me; but then there were family ties to its prior incarnation as Château de St. Louis, including one ancestor executed for homicide near La redoute du Cap Diamants; and another "tué par les Iroquois" near the main entrance as one goes down the hill into the Basse Ville.

The regular Canadian regiments manage to cram a lot of history and tradition into three units.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

A Canadian think tank review popped into my email box just and apologies for bein serious it may be of interest:http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Canad...ar%20Later.pdf

From the summary:

An objective examination of progress in the other three pillars of the CFDS – personnel, readiness and infrastructure – indicates some movement towards achieving a balanced military capability, even though the actual measurement of success is challenging.

[jmm99]

for some proper UK seriousness - after all, you (the UK, not "you") are the parent nation.

Reading the CF main page on Canada First Defence Strategy, took me to consideration of what is meant by "Canada First" (that is positing that the words are intended to mean something - not always the case for political documents).

Perhaps, its meaning is found in the Roles of the Canadian Forces:

To this end, the Government is giving the Canadian Forces clear direction concerning their three roles – defending Canada, defending North America and contributing to international peace and security – as well as the types and numbers of missions it expects our military to fulfill. This level of ambition will see the Canadian Forces deliver excellence at home, be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad by contributing to international operations in support of Canadian interests and values.

My inference (which may be dead wrong) is posited on the roles being definitely weighted in the order stated: Canada, primary; North America, secondary; and international, tertiary. Of course, that may be wrong - and the roles could be differently weighted.

This brings me to my point (IMO). Canada's military problem from the gitgo (which I measure from 1608) has been too much geography and not enough people. The thought of defending Canada only, with its vast littorals and open spaces, is a daunting one to me. The concept of a very mobile combined arms force (akin to MAGTF + light Naval) seems most logical. If Canada can defend Canada and secure its borders, it will fully meet any obligation it might feel it owes to defend North America. What it feels it owes internationally is up to Canada. (IMO)

Another question I have is based in part on the Executive Summary, which envisions a very long-term series of increased military expenditures. Given the turnover in Canadian politics (just as in US politics), is there much probability that this 20-30 year plan will be implemented ?

Full plan .pdf.

What think ye, ye of Irish, French, beaver or goat heritage - and other serious folks as well ?

Regards

Mike

[tankersteve]

In my classes at the CFC, the great land mass of Canada is commonly considered indefensible, yet unassailable.

It is too much territory to cover, yet so big and open once landed on, it would be relatively simple to repulse an attacker. Much of the hospitable areas have local communities that would notice an invasion. The areas that have sparse human habitation get Canadian Ranger patrols occasionally.

Any invader into these areas really wouldn't accomplish much other than be really sorry about being in the frozen wastelands of Canada (coming from someone who spent a whole 4 days in Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut).

Tankersteve

[031-Bacon,RG]

Steve is right: we've always planned to trade space for time - it worked for the Russians in WWII and it should have worked against them in the event of WWIII - until our NATO allies could get into motion.

JMM99, I also have no faith that successive governments will stick to the plan, nor am I holding my breath waiting for the current government to honour it's promises. Public support for the Afghanistan mission, or for new equipment to meet Forces needs, is tenuous at best; when budgets bring the military into competition with social programs, the military comes a distant second every time. An example of that battle is the deferral of construction of our new icebreakers - we won't get new toys if the ballet has to find corporate sponsors.

With respect to the composition of the future CF, I agree that the vast spaces, long coasts along three oceans, and an icebound archapelago should be considerations. If we are serious about asserting our sovereignty, we need to add the capacity to support ops across the littoral. A vessel that can transport troops, provide support for tactical and Chinook helicopters, and with the ability to land fighting and logistics vehicles, would not only suit our defense needs, but also allow us to project force in support of the national interest.