PDA

View Full Version : Forces weaker than brass admits


Cree Warrior
27 September 2001, 13:09
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/story.asp?id=52792D28-ABD9-4918-B613-702D6E9DDDC8

Forces weaker than brass admits
'Effective' personnel will number only 50,000 by the end of March 2002

David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen


Tuesday, September 25, 2001

The effective strength of the Canadian military has quietly slipped to around 53,000 personnel and is expected to plunge even lower in the next six months.

The "trained effective strength" of the Canadian Forces will hit 50,684 at the end of March 2002, according to projections done earlier this year by the military's personnel branch and released to the Citizen. The number represents those sailors, aviators and soldiers who could actually be deployed, according to military officials.

In public, federal politicians and generals claim the military is around 59,000 strong but that figure includes personnel who, while still technically on the books, have retired, are away on long-term sick leave, are absent without leave, or serving time in Canadian Forces jails.

The dwindling numbers are significant as Canada prepares to join the American offensive against terrorism, according to defence analysts. If the military was needed to guard key installations at home, such as nuclear power plants, hydro generating stations and airports, large numbers of troops would be required.

"The numbers are pretty disappointing, but not surprising," said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie. But he said even the 53,000 figure for the size of the regular forces is misleading.

That represents everybody the military is capable of putting in the field, including personnel of all ages and all trades. The number of actual trained combat troops is much smaller, he notes.

"Our army really only has about 14,000 people that can be deployed," he said. During the FLQ crisis in 1970, the military sent 12,500 troops to Quebec to act as peace officers, back up police and secure key locations such as government offices and the residences of politicians and other VIPs.

At the time the military's strength was around 98,000 personnel.

As backup the military can call on its reserve force made up of part-time members. The size of that force fluctuates but it is currently around 22,000, military spokesperson Sub-Lieut. Pierrette LeDrew said yesterday.

But Maj.-Gen. Mackenzie said it is unlikely that more than 60 per cent of those part-time soldiers, sailors and aviators would be available for duty.

"Their availability is directly proportional to the patriotism of their civilian employers," he noted. "Employers may be happy to let them go if they are called out for a week to remove snow in Toronto, but not if they are assigned duties for a long period."

Unlike in the U.S., there is no government legislation to guarantee job protection to those reservists who are called to duty. The U.S. air force has already called up several thousand reservists to handle guard and air patrol duties at home.

The effectiveness of the Canadian Forces has been at issue for several years now. Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Raymond Henault, insists the military is more combat-capable than at any time since the Persian Gulf War.

Defence Minister Art Eggleton has noted the military has received high-tech equipment such as the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle, and the government is in the process of restoring several billion dollars into the Canadian Forces budget. Mr. Eggleton has blamed the media and retired officers for exaggerating the problems faced by the armed forces. Defence officials insist on using the 59,000 figure to describe the size of the military.

Retired officers, however, have responded by challenging the claims by the military's leadership that the Canadian Forces is more combat-capable than at any time since the Gulf War. Not only have numbers of regular force personnel shrunk by almost 30 per cent over the decade, but the Canadian Forces has no way to quickly transport its troops overseas by either air or ship, both key elements of combat capability.

Budget cuts forced the Canadian military to chop its personnel over the last decade. The size of the armed forces dropped from 87,600 in 1990 to the current level of 58,000 to 59,000. There are no plans to increase those numbers substantially. The military is also having problems attracting new recruits and has embarked on a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign in an effort to increase enlistment.

The 1994 White Paper, the cornerstone of the government's defence policy, called for the size of the Canadian Forces to be set at 60,000 by 1999.

© Copyright 2001 The Ottawa Citizen


Sua Sponte

garett
27 September 2001, 15:20
So basically situation normal...........

Disturbance
27 September 2001, 20:15
Its funny that the argument was over a discrepancy in a number smaller than 10000. Anything else the media wants to criticize.....how about the test with the new cadpat where a company in OD was tested with a company in CADPAT to see how many ppl were seen. Apparently 95% of the OD coy was seen and about 4 guys in CADPAT were seen. Nahhh thats a good thing the media doesnt like that stuff.

I understand that at some point all this bad PR is gonna reach someone (hopefully) up high and that can hopefully change shit around (which is a good thing). But it also has a neg. side which is pretty obvious in that all the civvies see is the shitty side our CF and a lot of it is exagerated (by our friend the media) but they dont know that. Someday (yeah right) when the Cretin is out of power and same with the liverals a lot more good will happen, I say a lot cause there is some good stuff goings on right now. I just hope it doesnt take a WTC incident to make ppl realize it.

[This message has been edited by Disturbance (edited 09-27-2001).]

Infanteer
28 September 2001, 04:57
Is it me, or has General MacKenzie been real vocal lately? Good, on him. Eggleton and Henault blame him for making the CF look bad, but ask a soldier who served in the former shithole of Yugoslavia who looked out for the troops. If you ask me, MacKenzie should be the next MND.

Enfield
28 September 2001, 15:43
Anybody else see the headline in the Province? "Canadian Armed Farces" - beautiful, I love this country.

I must admit some... frustration... with the current situation. The media, public, and government after a decade of bashing the military wholeheartedly and 30 years of underfunding and neglect, suddenly wake up and realize that - my god! - they've pushed the CF into the ground. The complete disregard for defence matters that the public and governmnet has is embarassing. The current spotlight makes it appear the military is at fault for the situation, when really it's the fault of the public and the government. Christ, there was a time when we had TWO aircraft carriers...

I say we do a poll across Canada - name one - just one - Canadian regiment, Reg or Res. Any bets on how many could answer?

Check out the NATO defence budget factsheet: www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/table3.pdf (http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/table3.pdf)
By my math we should be getting at least 22 billion a year, to meet the standard. And most of those nations don't even have G8 membership - hell, a couple don't even have a Navy (being landlocked).

[This message has been edited by Enfield (edited 09-28-2001).]

FNG
28 September 2001, 19:08
Most of the writers of these articles make it clear that the caliber of soldiers in the CF are top notch, but I still can't help but feel that every article I read seems like a kick in the balls just by association alone. What can I say? I'm proud to serve the CF, whatever state it may be in.

Well, all I can do is drive on. Do my best to influence the new troops to take their profession seriously.