New Reserve Commercial...

[Marauder]

Anyone see the new Reserves commercial... Looked pretty slick, focused on the whole ground-pounder aspect (although it did mention "experience the adventure while getting paid..."). Running around with rifles, arty shooting off, loaded-up RRCs flying through the water.... Not a bad start, I'd say. Opinions?

[garett]

Not too bad. Could be better though. The American Army ones are so much better. Canadian commercials in general are so tacky. We should hire some hollywood producer to make them.

[Coppermine]

What's up with America turning everything into a hollywood movie.
We shouldn't have to make some freaking commercials with special FX to show how cool it would be if you joined the military. Back in the day (I'm only 16 so I wouldn't know about the old days), the country had no problem enlisting people into the military. But now with all these fancy jobs out there promising a future with money, nobody even thinks about joining the military.
Well that's all I gotta say, for now.

[garett]

The peacetime military in Canada has always been seen by the majority as a job not as a patriotic thing to do. The economy is good so most people would rather work somewhere other then the military. If the economy goes down then the military will be more apealing. Thats just the way it works.

[King]

Well, we may not need to worry about ads in the future.

Read on article in the National Post today that reviewed the comments of a Col. Marsh, the Army Inspector General I believe. He said that be 2020 the CF will most likely cease to exist and will merge with the U.S. Armed Forces. The only time globalization ever gets any publicity is when economists are talking about a single currency or when the Greenpeace people dress up like sea turtles and bears and march on a WTO meeting. No one, at least in the mainstream media as far as I have seen has given much, if any thought to such an idea.

[wcollar]

Here is one article about the report. I guess we'll be seeing y'all down here in about 20 years. Please bring plenty of Molson with you.

Ottawa Citizen
January 24, 2001

Forces Adviser Predicts Merger With U.S. Military

Burgeoning debt will force profound changes, report concludes

By David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen

Increasing government costs and public pressure to save money could force the merger of the Canadian and the U.S. militaries in the future, predicts a top Canadian Forces adviser.

Col. Howard Marsh, who advises the head of the Canadian Army, says that the amalgamation of the two militaries could come about around 2020 as North America's society and economy undergo unprecedented changes.

In an essay on future challenges facing military commanders and in an interview with the Citizen, the colonel outlined what he predicts will be a radically altered Canada:

In the next two decades the overall public debt will increase to $2 trillion. Large numbers of retirees will put financial pressure on the social safety net, forcing government to look for new ways to save money. A North American trading bloc will likely adopt the U.S. dollar as its currency. Soldiers will be in short supply as the battle for skilled workers increases. Military training centres and institutions such as the Royal Military College in Kingston could be shut down as soldiers' professional development is contracted out.

"With the realization that training, possibly doctrine, and command support are no longer germane to the (Canadian Forces) and that most of Canada's military capability is interoperable with the U.S.A., public discussion on amalgamating the two nations' armed forces is initiated," Col. Marsh predicts in the essay to be published in June in a Department of National Defence book.

Col. Marsh, 54, emphasizes that the merger prediction is "just one possible scenario," but he also warns that expected widespread changes will affect not only the military but Canada's public service, health care, social and pension plan systems.

"I look at the change likely to come upon us and I'm led to believe we won't be able to make it, which would probably force government or the public to ask questions about government structure or a different way of looking after the Canadian Forces," he said in an interview.

Col. Marsh believes that for the next decade the Canadian military will continue pretty much as it has in the past several years.

But he notes that because of future financial pressures caused by the country's accumulated debt, "there is a day of reckoning coming."

Among Col. Marsh's duties as Land Force Command Inspector is the job of examining emerging issues and trends. But he acknowledged that his writings, which in the past have warned about future military recruiting and financial problems, have a tendency to raise eyebrows among senior Canadian Forces leaders because of their sometimes controversial nature. That's something he accepts as part of the job.

Another concern outlined in Col. Marsh's essay is the failure of the Canadian Forces to produce officers capable of examining long-range strategic issues. The Canadian Forces, he notes, excels at producing leaders who are good at tactical, short-term thinking.

But when they reach the rank of general they are expected to switch almost overnight to handling long-range issues affecting the Canadian Forces.

"At the strategic level you have to think five or 10 years ahead.

"You are thinking globally and you're having to deal with social issues, political issues, and that's part of our problem," said Col. Marsh.

At the same time, the military's promotion system penalizes lower-level officers who don't conform to the short-term thinking. One army major told Col. Marsh he was leaving the Canadian Forces because his promotion chances were halted when he tried to examine issues beyond day-to-day military operations.

"He said, 'I've been told to stop thinking because I'm upsetting the people around me,' " according to Col. Marsh. "Can you imagine being told you're not being promoted this year because you're thinking too much?"

That officer has since done extremely well in private industry, Col. Marsh added.

The colonel's other concern is the emergence of what he calls the commercial-military ethos: the effect on the Canadian Forces of such programs as Alternative Service Delivery that contract out military jobs to private industry.

Soldiers serve because of loyalty to the institution and their comrades, he notes, and there is an unspoken soldiers' covenant that they will take care of each other in combat or if they are injured. The concern is that alternative service delivery could somehow weaken that system.

Col. Marsh wonders, for instance, how will private industry transport drivers hired for a Canadian Forces overseas mission react if the mission quickly deteriorates into war? "By and large we are at peace, so we haven't had the experience yet of a unit fighting its way out of a bad spot with ASD drivers and mechanics," said Col. Marsh. "Will the transport drivers be willing to sacrifice their lives to extract the soldiers?

"If we ever undo that soldier-to-soldier covenant, that becomes really bad for us," he added.

[Coppermine]

You know, I can see a lot of good things happan with the merger of Canadian and US forces. Imaging JTF-2 and DEVGRU uniting to become the worlds most powerful counterterrorist organization.

[FNG]

Although such a merger would solve many of our current problems (training, equipment, decreased Op tempo, etc)... it would also create some pretty big ones.

For example, how will the decision for deployment be handled? Will the US Government have the ability to send an entire Canadian unit to fight in a war that the Canadian government wants no part of? Will the Canadian government also have the power to deploy US units for peacekeeping committments abroad?

Will Canadian troops lose the trust that came with their reputation as impartial peacekeepers overnight? Will our overseas warships and installations be the subject of terrorism directed against the US?

In terms of the defense industry, it would be more efficient if we simply let the US handle R&D, and production. That means our industry will be shut down. How will the economy react to a sudden rise in unemployment, a massive shift in defense spending to outside the country, not to mention the change in our GDP?

Finally will we still be a Common Wealth country? Do CF members still swear allegiance to the Queen?

On the US side of the equation, I seem to recall that they have laws that prohibit US soldiers to serve under foreign countries. Does that mean that Canadian General can't even order a US private to help an old lady cross the street?

These are the problems that just popped into my mind as I read the article. I'm sure there will be more issues than this. It will take a lot of changes to carry out such a merger... will 20 years be enough?

[Enfield]

Without a military a nation ceases to be an independent state. A military, and the right and ability to wage war, is the defining factor in what makes a nation a nation, and not another type of political body.

The more success, and the better the CF became over the past 100 years, the more independent Canada became (Vimy, and having Canadians make up their own large units and not parceled off to British command is what made as a true state).

Canada's foreign policy is based on the CF - peacekeeping is the most important thing we do in the world.

Anyways, we aren't going to lose the CF - remember, all of our gear has to be made in Canada and keeping the votes of the people in those areas is the prime concern of MP's.

Enfield

[TonyM]

Although laughable in most areas, the article does spell out something I believe is completely true: more reliance on non-government industry. In fact, its not that much of a stretch to think that a private company (like EO) could provide a better army at lower cost. I know for a fact that most industries, when privatized, are much more efficent than government. Why not the army?

[King]

Of course that could create command challenges as well. What if the government wanted to send their private army somewhere and the CEO of the company didn't agree.

[enderr]

are you sure it looked slick?? Take a closer look..chances are those guys are regs, they're all wearing steel pots, which lets you know the footage is pretty old. And it seems to jump around a lot. And be honest, how often do reserve units do single strand rope bridges. Personally, I think they should get a night vision lens, and show a raid or an ambush... The Americans have got it down pat, showing Green Berets heli-casting, and Rangers driving Zodiacs into the back of a Chinook

[Enfield]

enderr- true, it's not as good as it could be, and of course a lot of those shots are reg force - leopards, frigates, F-18's.. But it's miles ahead of that terrible ad they had before (still have in theatres?) and it's a commercial soley for reserves, which is good.

TonyM - you been reading Fortune's Warriors? *l* I don't think we'll ever the military privatized, a miliary is a nationalistic organization and doesn't operate in terms of profit/loss like most industries. Yes, if privatized any agency wil probably be run more efficiently, but I think that one of our current problems is that the military is it's already run to much like a corporation. We need to get away from corporate ethos and back to traditional military methods.
But, most of our logistics system is contracted out already... And a lot of things, in the event of war, we'd have to beg/borrow/rent from our Allies.
And how would a privatized CF work? If the Gov't doesn't give it enough money does it sell itelf elsewhere? Is it's priority profit, efficiency, or combat effectiveness?

Enfield

[TonyM]

As far as I know, no country has ever had a privatized army. So it's all just conjecture as to how it would work. So like any organization it's success or failure would lay solely on it's leadership. Could the military be non government and function? I believe yes, particularly in a country like Canada. What role(s) do we perform most? Peacekeeping lends itself very well to police type forces. Canada demonstrated the inability to participate in ground warfare (the units that did go, performed well - no disrespect to them)in the Gulf, we just did not have the resources or the polictical will to engage in a large scale conflict even as a part of an allied force. And our budget was bigger then too. So I suppose the question is could an armed rapid response force, capable of providing international or domestic disaster relief and national defense (to the same extent it is today) be provided by commercial means more effectively than by government? Again, my opinion is yes. Remember that in the "if Canada were invaded" scenario, it will not be the current army that can save us. It will be all the average citizens that rise to the occaision and augument the force, just like WWI & II, that will make a difference.

[FNG]

Is Canada, or any other nation for that matter willing to entrust their own security to a private organization? Who is held accountable for this force? If a riot requiring aid to Civil Powers happens, and a 'massacre' of billigerents ensues... who would be to blame?
What if another Somalia occurs, and some civilians are killed? The government holds no control over this force.
It might not be our government's policy to open fire, but remember that a private organization owes no loyalty to the government, so if the field commander is a little trigger happy, Canada has to pay for that.

What about the Geneva Convention? All combatants from Canada would immediately lose that status since they are not serving under a flag. They are mercenaries.

Would the UN, or NATO accept a private army as part of a humanitarian mission?

[TonyM]

I don't want to take the role of advocate for a "mercenary" force, for two good reasons. First, as noted by FNG no country's politicians will allow too much power from under their control and secondly it's all speculation as it will never happen. But some good points were brought up. As for the question of liability , that's a valid concern. I suppose it would remain as it is now. If you're an employee of a company contracted to the government, and you kill or hurt someone, guess who's responsible and gets sued? You, the company AND the government. If some native protestor gets hurt by a truck driver delivering goods under contract to supply the forces on scene in another Oka-like situation, do you think that the government is not liable? Is he not acting as a "mercenary" in a combat support role? As far as I know, no soldier has been sued personally for actions taken, so the employees would be in fact more liable than soldiers are now. For the question of loyalty to the government, again it would remain much the same as it is now. They would be the only ones able to bail you out, so you'd better stay in line. I've been left "high and dry" in foreign countries and it's no laughing matter. As for if the UN would want a private force working for them, I think it'd be the other way around. Would I, as head of such an enterprise, want to work for the UN. That's easy - NO. However, again as it is now, you'd have to go where your sent or quit. So, I don't see a lot of anything changing other than people's perception of the organization. As for the Geneva convention, this covers soldiers and other participants in time of offially declared state of war. If you put on a uniform and fight for that country, you are covered, no matter who's paying your salary.
A lot of the combat support role has been farmed out to private enterprise already, are these people not dedicated to providing a good service? In some cases I would have to say more so, but then again look what happened with the whole russian frieghter thing last summer. At the end of the day, it will a come down to cost. Look at the US, they have the mightiest armoured divisions of the world, yet are completely defenseless against one accountant and his excel spreadsheet.

[Enfield]

The terms of this private military have to be set out - is it contracted to a foreign company, or is simply a CF with businessmen instead of a Minister and staff?

I don't think insurance and various other safety and job laws would allow a company in Canada to do what the military does. Also, no private military company has ever had as much manpower and material as the CF, they have always been short term and mission-specific.

I believe EO was the basis for Sierra Leone's army for a few years, and Papua New Guinea tried to replace their military with Sandline. And MPRI (as a tool of the US State Department) has provided training and equipment to a number of nations.

I think professional soldiers for hire have been used by official international organizations before - I heard they were used as body guards for the European observers in Kosovo before things heated up there. And I think the UN hires (discretley) to protect aid workers and some programs.

But like FNG said, who are they accountable too and how? If yur Army breaks a contract, what do you do, sue them and hope they pay up? Sure, EO and a few others might have proved loyal but do we want to entrust national defence and Canada's reputation to a private corporation?
If you mena merely privatize the CF as is, retaining the same personnel just chnaging the management, how is this different from the way it is? There are still civilians in control, and it is still moderatley seperate from the rest of government and the population. Do we ned privatization to run the CF efficiently? In which case we replace the DND civvie staff with....?? Other civvie staff? Or replace the senior officers with guys from Bay street?

On the subject of the CF becoming part of the US MIlitary: The US-Cdn. command structures are so integrated (well, we're attached into their systems) that in a number of circumstances we might as well be one military. Due to NORAD, NATO, and a few other defense agreements (so many that most politicians in Ottawa don't even know they exist) the US can (in extreme circumstances) deploy Canadian forces without consulting NDHQ or the Government. In the Cuban Missile Crisis the Canadian Atlantic Fleet was halfway to Bermuda to join the blockade before Ottawa knew they had left (and immediatley called them back). But as part of the US's mobilization and deployment to Cuban waters the Canadian Navy was automatically deployed.

Enfield

[TonyM]

How do define accountability? Financial? That's easy, if you have a problem you can buy your way out, it is only a cash-flow situation. Insurance, performance bond, etc. all common vehicles used to provide accountability. Morally? That's tougher, I've got no answer for that as moral issues are bound by personal ethics, and I'm far to cynical to believe anything politicaly engineered is done on moral grounds. How is the CF accountable for it's actions now? The National Defense Act, and all Federal Acts for that matter, are not founded in law like the criminal code. They are governed by Parlimentary procedure ( most Acts start out like "The Minister may / shall....") which means that if Parliment says it's OK, it is OK. Is that accountability? Corporations under contract don't have that latitiude. Although I suppose you can argue that any contract can be interpreted differently depending on the needs of the interpretee(ask any lawyer!). As for employment standards and insurability, that's already handled privately by the SSIP people. And it's a good deal, if any of you guys don't have it, get it. Again this fictious company would be only as good as the people leading it, but because there would be far less diverse people at the top, much more efficent. As an illustration, think how things would be if NDHQ had no civilian executives (polictical side), only military personell (all top notch ex-soldiers under contract). The problem is the two don't mix well. How about Lew MacKenzie for the CEO?