Today on Blogcritics
Home » Canadian Politics: Military Spending

Canadian Politics: Military Spending

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

People are often surprised by what I have to say about the military. They take one look at me, or read some of the things I’ve written, and conclude that I’m one of those folks who don’t give a damn about the armed forces of my country. My opinion is that if you are going to have a military, you can’t be-half assed about it and not properly fund it. That’s unfair to the men and women who we send out into an ever-increasingly dangerous world.

Canada has a military that has stood them well over the years and measured up favourably to many a larger force when called upon. Until the end of World War I, Canada’s foreign policy was still being set by Great Britain, which meant that when they went to war, so did we. This explains how Canadian troops ended up in South Africa fighting in the Boer Rebellions.

It also meant that Canadian troops were placed under the ultimate command of the British, which may go a long way in explaining the reputation they earned as shock troops in World War I. Whole towns lost a generation of men at Ypres probably because some British general decided to soften up the Germans by sending waves of Canadians at them. It may have cemented Canada’s reputation as a military force in the early twentieth century, but it was at a horrible price.

World War II was the first war that Canada actually entered on its own via a vote in parliament. That it came one day after the British declared war on the Germans, and there was only one vote against (J. S. Woodsworth, a devout Christian and conscientious objector, was the only voice of dissent) probably said more about our strong ties to England than our burning desire to go to war.

Whatever the reason for entering the war, Canadian troops went into battle for the first time led by their own generals. Unfortunately they still ended up being placed under the command of the British armies, which led to the unholy disaster of Dieppe in 1942. Planned by the British, it involved attempting to land a force of primarily Canadian troops in occupied Germany for reasons that are still unclear to this day.

Perhaps it was to appease the Russians who were clamouring for a second front in Europe to relieve some of the pressure they were feeling, being the only the forces actively engaging the Germans in Europe. Or maybe it was to gauge the feasibility of invasion at that time. Whatever the reasoning, it ended up being a slaughter and less than half those involved were able to get out again, leaving the rest behind either dead or captured.

When the actual invasion took place in 1944, Canada played a key role in the liberation of the Netherlands. To this day the people of Holland remember their liberators and honour them annually. Ottawa, the capital of Canada, has received so many gifts of tulip bulbs for its flowerbeds, every year they hold an annual tulip festival. These are partially in recognition of the fact that the city sheltered the Dutch royal family during the war, but also due to our troops role in the liberation of their country.

In the 1950’s, Canadian troops started to wear the blue helmet of the United Nations for the first time. In the early part of the decade it was the civil war in Korea, but it was in 1957 during the Suez Canal Crisis that the role of the Canadian armed forces was to be defined for the next twenty-odd years. In order to separate the combatants (Israel, France, and Great Britain, against Egypt) and prevent the intervention of the Soviet Union, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Lester Pearson, proposed a buffer zone of neutral troops overseen by the United Nations. Thus was born the concept of peacekeeping forces.

Until the first Gulf War, and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney having changed the direction of our military, Canada’s armed forces became synonymous with peacekeeping. In all the hotspots around the world — Cyprus, the Golan Heights, Viet Nam, and any other place the blue helmets were called upon, you could usually find Canadian troops. They were respected by people on both sides of disputes as being fair and impartial and served with such distinction that when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Peace Keeping forces, Canada was called upon to act as one of the recipients.

Unfortunately, a succession of governments over the years has constantly under funded the forces. It hasn’t mattered which political party has been in power, they’ve talked a good game and not done what’s necessary to keep Canada’s military up to date and adequately funded. A major part of the problem has been an inability to define a clear-cut role for our troops.

Each new political master has a slightly different vision of what duties and actions our forces are to be capable of carrying out. Over the past couple of decades there has been flirtation with changing them from a buffer zone to a direct participant, but no real commitment has been made to match the need with desire.

You can’t send troops into a combat situation with troop carriers whose armour can’t stop the lightest rounds of fire or rifles that date back to the seventies. They need to have more than just one set of uniforms so they don’t show up in a desert environment wearing olive green fatigues as has happened in the past. But most importantly they need an annual budget that allows the troops and their families to live without financial worries.

This week’s announcement of nearly $15 billion in spending on military equipment to replace the aged fleets of helicopters, supply planes, and merchant ships may be necessary, but it hardly comes close to addressing the real problems facing individual soldiers. It allows the Conservative Party to say they are correcting Liberal negligence (The Liberals had included $12.6 billion in their last budget for capital expenditures on the military) and stage photo opportunities around the country and look like they are doing something, but the actuality is far less impressive then the perception.

There has been no real increase in the annual military budget for the last decade. Each year they have less money to spend on the troops, but the demands on their resources has increased. What must the morale of the troops be like if they are living close to or below the poverty line?

Kingston, Ontario, where I live, is home to a Canadian Forces Base. During the sixteen years I’ve lived in Kingston, the local papers have run stories at regular intervals of enlisted personnel having to utilize the local food banks to make it through to the end of the month. Is this the way to run an army where we don’t even pay the soldiers sufficient money to properly clothe and feed their families?

Our government seems to want to turn Canada’s military into a more aggressive force than previously. Instead of just serving as peacekeepers, as we have in the past, our troops are seeing front line duty as active participants in a war zone. It’s all very well and good to invest in equipment, but shouldn’t a commitment, in terms of financial support to the people who make up the front line troops, be as important if not more so?

Our government just claimed they found $5 billion dollars more surplus than they had counted on, so it’s obvious we have the money to increase the military’s annual budget without taking money from other programs. In fact, if this government wasn’t so obsessed with giving its buddies in the business community tax breaks to lay off workers, close factories, and sell out to foreign investment, they could probably afford across the board increases to the military and social programming.

If they can quietly pass a bill raising Members of Parliament expense accounts, how can they say there is no money for annual increases for soldiers risking their lives at their government’s request? This government had to be shamed into honouring the soldiers who have fallen in Afghanistan, has banned the press from filming caskets of dead soldiers being returned to Canada, and claims the Canadian public doesn’t understand the needs of our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Perhaps what the Canadian public doesn’t understand is how, in spite of all the flowery rhetoric wafting out of Ottawa, the government seems to be all talk and no action when it comes to supporting the troops. It’s all very well and good to buy expensive new equipment for the armed forces, but without people, you don’t have much of an army. Maybe the government should try to remember that in the future.

Powered by

About Richard Marcus

Richard Marcus is the author of two books commissioned by Ulysses Press, "What Will Happen In Eragon IV?" (2009) and "The Unofficial Heroes Of Olympus Companion". Aside from Blogcritics his work has appeared around the world in publications like the German edition of Rolling Stone Magazine and the multilingual web site Qantara.de. He has been writing for Blogcritics.org since 2005 and has published around 1900 articles at the site.
  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    Minor correction – Dieppe was a resort town in Occupied France, not Germany.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Canada has a military?

    Okay, that’s just rude, mea culpa… :-/

  • MCH

    “Canada has a military?
    Okay, that’s just rude, mea culpa… :-/”

    Yes they do. However, since their entry standards are lower than ours, a person wouldn’t be able to use phony excuses like poor eyesight or asthma to evade service there.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    So, Canada’s military allows people with sight disabilities and breathing problems to join? No wonder they aren’t anxious to fight! ;-)

  • MCH

    “No wonder they aren’t anxious to fight! ;-)”

    And you would know all about that, eh.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Unless I’m wrong, Canada’s military is presently a volunteer force. Thus nobody evades service.

  • MCH

    True, Ruvy, as is the U.S.’s…I was using hyperbole in reference to those who vociferously promote the invasion of other countries and send others to fight their battles for them, while finding excuses to not actually serve themselves.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    MCH: I can see the point you’re making but please clarify things a little.

    Are you saying that it is ALWAYS wrong to have elected leaders that have not done military service?

    Or that elected leaders who have not done military service should not be allowed to declare war?

    If the latter, I propose that all elected leaders should be purely civilian, thus eliminating war at a stroke!

  • MCH

    Chris;

    Basically, I was targeting RJ’s mocking of Canada’s military (“Canada has a military?”), which he has repeatedly done in the past.

    I just think it’s kind of hypocritical for someone who’s never served to make fun of another country’s armed forces, whose members have more courage than their critic.

    Regarding your question, yes, I would feel better if the architects of the Iraqi invasion weren’t a bunch of draft-dodgers (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, et al) and a deserter (GW Bush).

    The late Col. David Hackworth referred to them as “perfumed princes.”

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Well, I totally agree that serving your country takes some courage, though there are other demands to, like integrity or brains for example.

    I’m not sure there’s anything that’s above a little healthy mockery, MCH, especially Canadians ;-)

    Or people with ginger hair. Ginger Canadians, now there’s a group that needs mocking!

    Seriously, I find it difficult to get down with such absolutist positions. Surely it’s more of a question of wanting good leaders, rather than military leaders?

  • MCH

    OK, well, let’s take a look at his “No wonder they aren’t anxious to fight!” comment.

    I don’t know, maybe it was just the way I was raised, but shouldn’t a person have a few more credentials than just typing macho war-speak on a blog (while others fight and die in a war they “support”) before ridiculing someone elses fighting ability?

    I’ll never consider that healthy mockery, I view it as hypocrisy. But that’s just me.

    Canadians made up over 50% of the First Special Service Force (better known as “The Devil’s Brigade), the WWII outfit which captured over 27,000 Nazi prisoners.

    Yeah, I want good leaders, too, Chris; and the fact that GW Bush and Cheney are sending brave men and women to their deaths, but skipped out when it was their turn to serve, is just not good people…

    …in my absolutist opinion…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    MCH:

    How would you feel about a “hypothetical” person who “volunteered” for the Navy (in order to escape being drafted into the Army), and then spent his time in the military playing “sports” in Hawaii, in the middle of a major war that cost his country roughly 50,000 lives, while never volunteering for an actual combat role?

    I mean, if such a “hypothetical” person was to call other people cowards for not volunteering to go into battle, wouldn’t that person be a “hypocrite”?

    Just askin’ …

  • MCH

    Elliott;

    I have never said that my service was anything but mediocre. However, I did enlist during time of war and served four years where ordered – without writing thousands of empty, rhetorical war slogans.

    Your trashing of my military time is rather amusing, actually, considering how you’ve denigrated much braver men than myself. Your comparison of Max Cleland to a “gigantic thalidamide baby” always comes to mind first.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Here in America on the 4th of July it’s my belief that anyone can mock anything without special qualifications of any kind. That’s what makes it a great country.

    Dave

  • MCH

    And it doesn’t surprise me that a Vietnam War protestor like yourself would support RJ Elliott’s mocking of a dismembered combat vet, Nalle.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I support all mocking of all potential targets by anyone, MCH. A little mockery is a good thing. We can’t all be bitter, humorless haters dragging the world down to their level. That’s just too grim.

    And thank you for remembering my opposition to Vietnam.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “And thank you for remembering my opposition to Vietnam.”

    Perhaps he has a selective memory, since he does not seem to recall the numerous times I have apologized for my intemperate Max Cleland comment… :-/

  • MCH

    Look, I recall your fake ONE-TIME “apology”…18 months after the fact and having previously defended the remark.

    It’s just that I put your apology in the same class as your combat lectures:

    PHONEY.