Canadian military

Canada Pauses Military Assistance To Iraqi Troops

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1184521/middle-east

"Canadian special forces have temporarily suspended military assistance to Iraqi troops due to tensions between the ME country and Kurdish fighters, the defense ministry said..."

In the middle of a developing shitstorm, on the side of the USraeli plan for the dismemberment of Iraq.

Canada Honoured To Chair The NATO Military Intelligence Committee in 2018

https://twitter.com/CanadaNATO/status/956191349270892548

Canadian Special Forces From Petawawa in Africa to Train Troops

https://t.co/WQH9Tl6Enc

"Flintlock is US Africa Command's largest annual special forces exercise."

Canada does its bit for US imperialism in Africa.

Canada Adds Another $54 M to F-35 Fighter Jet Project, Bringing Cost to $500 M

https://globalnews.ca/news/4243206/canada-f-35-fighter-jet-54-million/

"Canada has quietly paid another $54 million toward the development of the F-35 stealth fighter jet, bringing its total investment in the controversial project to roughly half a billion dollars over the last 20 years..."

And lots more where that came from, no doubt. Watch Canada end up buying this US lemon.

What to do?!

We don't want to spend money on the military because the military is bad.

But if we disband the military then Trump can just take what he wants of Canada.

NATO is bad and we want to leave NATO, but Trump thinks the US should pull out of NATO and Trump is bad so we should stay to spite him?

What a predicament.

Quote:

"...The depth of the Canada-US military alliance is such that if US Forces attacked this country, it would be extremely difficult for the Canadian Forces to defend our soil. In fact, given the entanglements, the Canadian Forces would likely enable a US invasion

Umm...

Wouldn't a U.S. invasion of Canada kind of render null and void our alliance?

Specifically what language in our mutual agreement permits them to invade us, while forbidding us from defending on the grounds that "we had an agreement"??

Does rabble give Yves Engler money for this, or just a free microphone?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I have a theoretical question to anyone here who understands Canada and global military spending. I realize the mandate of the military is different in each country. If there are things that come under military spending in other countries but not Canada-- can we redifine what is military to increase the budget without spending more money?

This is not to say we should but is this a choice?

Sean, 

I once read somewhere (and I can’t find the source) that the Canadian defence budget includes a number of programs such as Veterans’ pensions, housing,  some RCMP and policing activities. This was done to make the budget look bigger than is actually is.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-departmental-results/2017-...

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/about-reports-pub...

It is sort of covered in the links above. However it is not clearly laid out unless you understand government speak better than I do.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Webgear wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I have a theoretical question to anyone here who understands Canada and global military spending. I realize the mandate of the military is different in each country. If there are things that come under military spending in other countries but not Canada-- can we redifine what is military to increase the budget without spending more money?

This is not to say we should but is this a choice?

Sean, 

I once read somewhere (and I can’t find the source) that the Canadian defence budget includes a number of programs such as Veterans’ pensions, housing,  some RCMP and policing activities. This was done to make the budget look bigger than is actually is.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-departmental-results/2017-...

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/about-reports-pub...

It is sort of covered in the links above. However it is not clearly laid out unless you understand government speak better than I do.

 

Oh. Ok.

You could also take a philosophical take on defence -- fund medical research -- including responses to pandemics. That is defence.

But, defending Canadians against poverty requires education.....

So if military is not the only "defence" spending allowed....

Sean, 

The medical research would fall under Defence Research and Development Canada (http://www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/en/index.page).

There are other groups within the forces that deal medical issues too. 

Defence spending in Canada includes a lot of different aspects, not all of it violent and destructive. 

Trump Threatens Canada: “Defence” Community Remains Silent

quote;

The bombastic rhetoric targeting the Trudeau government is coming from a state that has substantial military capacity close to the Canadian border and has repeatedly invaded nearby nations. The US is currently dropping a bomb every 12 minutes on seven different countries and its troops are fighting/operating in dozens more. And its Commander-in-Chief is highly impulsive.

Despite this aggressive posture from Washington, Canada’s “defence” community hasn’t raised the alarm or sought to capitalize on the tension by asking for more weapons and troops. Contrast this with the academics and think tanks funded by arms companies and the Department of National Defence who regularly hype lesser threats in a bid to increase military spending.

Why the difference in treatment of “threat” assessments?

The “defence” sector ignores US threats because it is not oriented towards protecting Canada from aggression. Rather, Canada’s military, weapons companies and “defence” intellectuals/think tanks are aligned with the US Empire’s quest for global domination.

According to DND, there are “80 treaty-level agreements, more than 250 memoranda of understanding, and 145 bilateral forums on defence” between the two countries’ militaries. In 2015 CBC reported on sustained, high-level, Canadian and US military discussions to create a so-called Canada-U.S. Integrated Forces. Not shared with Canadian political leaders, the plan was to set up integrated air, sea, land and special forces to operate under a unified command when deployed internationally.

The depth of the Canada-US military alliance is such that if US Forces attacked this country it would be extremely difficult for the Canadian Forces to defend our soil. In fact, given the entanglements the Canadian Forces would likely enable a US invasion: As with the 2003 invasion of Iraq — which Ottawa officially opposed — some Canadian troops on exchange in the US might march north; As is the norm when the US invades another country, Canadian officers would likely operate NORAD systems aiding the aggression; As with the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and elsewhere, weaponry produced in Canada would certainly be used by US soldiers marching north.

Quote:

The depth of the Canada-US military alliance is such that if US Forces attacked this country it would be extremely difficult for the Canadian Forces to defend our soil.

I'll ask again what I asked above when this article was first quoted three weeks ago.

Umm...

Wouldn't a U.S. invasion of Canada kind of render null and void our alliance?

NDPP didn't have it in him to answer, but perhaps you could?  Are we REALLY obligated to help them invade us??

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The depth of the Canada-US military alliance is such that if US Forces attacked this country it would be extremely difficult for the Canadian Forces to defend our soil.

I'll ask again what I asked above when this article was first quoted three weeks ago.

Umm...

Wouldn't a U.S. invasion of Canada kind of render null and void our alliance?

NDPP didn't have it in him to answer, but perhaps you could?  Are we REALLY obligated to help them invade us??

I suppose we could be charitable and assume that the writer was thinking something like "The depth of the Canada US military alliance is such that it makes it almost impossible for us to prepare against an American invasion", ie. the Americans wouldn't let us engage in that kind of planning as long as the alliance was in effect.

But to worry that Canada will be hamstrung by the terms of the alliance AFTER the invasion has taken place doesn't make much sense. It's like saying that the Russians were hindered in fighting the Nazi invasion by the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Are we REALLY obligated to help them invade us??

..oops! i didn't realize it had been posted earlier. 

..i don't think that is what engler is saying magoo. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

..i don't think that is what engler is saying magoo.

Do you feel he's saying that if push came to shove, our government would betray us all and help the U.S. invade us regardless of what any treaty says?  Or else what do you think Engler is saying with this?  Why, if an ally turns on us, does Engler feel we would have difficulty defending ourselves?

..i believe he is not taking about the government but the conflicted position the military would be in because of all the integration that has/is taking place. to me this suggests that militaries being militaries some may take the positions that support the us. engler's logic is quite plausible in my view. 

..i didn't use the word significant. and what presents the difficulty is with the integration that has taken/is taking place. which could not would lead to a lack of ability. i find this very plausible.  

Canadian Military Explained Plan to Fully Integrate Forces With the US

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-military-integrati...

"Top generals met to discuss possibility of fully integrating Canadian and US militaries [in 2015]. The Canadian military efforts were ultimately shut down and refocused on improving interoperability between the forces."

Thanks Canada, maybe next time...

Meet the Canadian Soldiers Behind A White Supremacist Military Surplus Store

https://ricochet.media/en/2394/meet-the-canadian-soldiers-behind-a-white...

"Investigation connects Canadian Forces members to Fireforce Ventures, a web store glorifying the era of white rule in Rhodesia..."

Behrens: It's Taboo To Talk About Canada's REAL Corporate Scandal

https://buff.ly/2U40l5M

"While the SNC-Lavalin scandal has torn another strip off the 'sunny ways' prime minister, there's another corporate scandal that makes the financial figures in that case - mere hundreds of millions in fraud and bribes - seem like pocket change.

But no major political party will touch it, which speaks to the manner in which an all-party commitment to bedrock Canadian militarism squelches democratic disclosure and strangles any opportunity for real economic justice.

The corporate scandal you won't hear about on the campaign trail is the largest procurement project in Canadian history, one that will result in forking over at least $105 billion in corporate welfare to war manufacturers for a completely unnecessary fleet of Canadian warships.

 The question that will not be asked is whether voters want to mortgage their grandchildren's financial future for a project that will line the pockets of Irving Shipyards and the world's largest war profiteer, Lockheed Martin?"

Got to agree

See #132 For the actually existing state of Canada/US military relations.

The size of Canada is Canadas biggest defense against invasion. Our military couldn't defend our borders.

This doesn’t really make sense but I think I know what you’re trying to say here. 

The size of Canada makes defending Canada very difficult, right? And because Canada is so big, then there are no candidates that are capable to invade  

If so than I agree. 

However, no country or serious enemy that I’m aware of in the history of imperialist Canada has invaded Canada, unless Canada had first declared war on them first (Germany Japan)

As I understand it, Canada is a northern somewhat isolated vast region of little interest to any other nation with the capacity to invade Canada. 

The only logical possibility would be the US. 

If in fact the US did want to invade Canada, then it’s game over for Canada. But why bother? Canada already does whatever the US wishes. 

I disagree with the assumptions of comfort. Due to global warming, if Canada is interested in any water sovereingty in the arctic there will be many countries it will need to defend against.

For the most part monitoring and being there is enough as most countries will test Canada to respond but not be willing to confront if we do. This is not a small issue either. The failure to regulate what could be interenational use of Canada's northern waters could lead to risks and polution as countries with little at stake travel through those waters carrying whatever they feel like. Further, a number of other countries have expressed a desire to challenge waters Canada claims as her own. This includes the US but it is not the only one.

Canada's defence needs would include both air and sea monitoring of the north. Canada also needs military ability to respond to emergencies particular natural disasters.

Paladin1 wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

The size of Canada makes defending Canada very difficult, right? And because Canada is so big, then there are no candidates that are capable to invade  

If so than I agree. 

However, no country or serious enemy that I’m aware of in the history of imperialist Canada has invaded Canada, unless Canada had first declared war on them first (Germany Japan)

Essentially what I'm talking about yes. In so far as a "risk of invasion" type attack it'll only happen in Hollywood.  Nations like China and Russia lack the transpoprt capability to cross the ocean (and arctic) and send an occupying force here. It would be crazy expensive and modern weapons of war would do a lot of damage on their way here. If they did land some kind of army they would probably have to smash through alot of winderness and unforgiving ground to reach any statigic objective.  The only threats we've really faced was from the US (and honestly no nation could really stand up against their military if they meant business), Japan and German subs harassing the coast and German nationalists in North America during either WW1 or WW2 planning to take over facilities.  Defense of Canada wise we're safe.

 

Sean brings ups alot of great observations and points in his post.

Water sovereingty, including the arctic, is huge.  Our navy intercepts drug smugglers, people trafficing slaves, people transporting illegal firearms and illgeal fishing boats.  Over fishing, polution, stealing resources and disrupting indigneous communities.

Responding to natural disasters both to aid Canadians abroad and be seen helping nations and communities that have strong voter bases in Canada are huge with politicians. Havinng a strong and capability military is a negeotiation tool for the government.

If Canada were to leave NATO doesn't expect to use any NATO-country airspace or water way.  Considering we don't currently have the capability to transport our own equipment anywhere in the world pissing off NATO would be a great way to make our military absolutely useless outside of Canada.

 

The type of military Canada needs is not the kind NATO wants. That is the dirty secret here.

NATO wants Canada to have a few top latest greatest designs at tremendous cost for Canada to participate in its operations.

What Canada needs is more numerous, weather reliable items air and sea. A handful of the best planes and ships cannot be in enough places given the size of this country. The defence of Canada, given the population size, means that Canada has to have more Toyota style pieces of equipment and fewer Ferraris. It also means more regular forces and fewer crack troops for insertion in foreign operations. Having a domestic agenda drive Canada's defence budget is more important than having US and NATO needs drive the agenda. As well the reach of mobile hospitals, water equipment  etc. can project Canada internationally better than a few extra aging but top-line jets.

Canada cannot repel an invasion through force but the least it can do is see that invasion which in itself discourages entry.

Canada has to be able to rely on itself to partol its borders especially given the US is telling us that it wants to charge 150% of cost for the service along with abandonment of independence.

Trudeau Continues Canada's War in Iraq With Little Critical Media Coverage

https://buff.ly/2Fk7WXr

"There has been little mainstream media attention - or context-given to the Trudeau government's announcement that it would extend the deployment of Canadian troops in Iraq until March 2021..."

Of course they do. Just look at the wonders achieved by western troops there so far.