Thread: Commanders explain Canadian Forces transformation

I don't believe this. Rick is raising a regt outside the Army.

Why does the Canadian Airborne Regiment comes to mind?

Wasn't that Airborne Regiment disbanded or something after an incident in Somalia?


Is this new unit a good thing, OoE?

Originally Posted by giggs88

Wasn't that Airborne Regiment disbanded or something after an incident in Somalia?

It was disbanded after a hazing video surfaced.

Originally Posted by giggs88

Is this new unit a good thing, OoE?

I always like new formations but I don't like the idea of an entire battalion (being raised as a new regiment) being outside the Army's Chain-of-Command, using primarily Army assets.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It was disbanded after a hazing video surfaced.

Ouch..harsh.

It was the straw that broke the camel's back. One thing for sure, there was no love lost between the rest of the army and the Canadian Airborne Regiment and by extension, the entire Special Operations Group. In essence, a single battalion got the resources of a brigade and still could not get their act together.

There was a strong failure of leadership, starting with NCMs who were just waiting for their retirements and hence let alot of things slide to the TF cmdr Col Serge Lebbae who exercised dismal leadership.

This being said, the disbandment was a coward's act, trying to show that Canada's warm and fuzzies instead of standing up and fixing the mistakes. Court-martial the leaders for dereliction of duty.

Colonel Austin Bay is being too kind. There was a reason why 4CMBG was tasked with VII Corps' strategic reserve role. We didn't have the toys to stay out front ... but I do remember us being bad little boys

1) The Canadians shall not move at night with lights out.
2) The Canadians shall not move at night.
3) The Canadians shall not move off road
4) The Canadians shall not move from their designated area
5) The Canadians shall not move without orders
6) The Canadians shall not move.







PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE: 2006.01.25
EDITION: Final
SECTION: The Editorial Page
PAGE: A12
BYLINE: Austin Bay
SOURCE: For The Calgary Herald
WORD COUNT: 665
Opportunity arises to rebuild military

Take two apparently contradictory terms and link them in a single phrase. The result is an oxymoron, a figure of speech yoking a perceived contradiction in terms.

"Military intelligence" almost always rates a chuckle, as does "jumbo shrimp." A skilled poet can use an oxymoron to stir emotions beyond laughter. Shakespeare riddled the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet with incongruous verbal jolts like "cold fire" and "happy daggers."

The term "Canadian military" should never be an oxymoron, but after a decade of reduction and decline what was once one of the world's most able and elite combat organizations is now a hollow force.

The slide in defence funding that began in the mid-1990s is one cause. Canada's current defence budget buys about 25 per cent less bang and less peacekeeping than it did 10 years ago.

With the end of the Cold War some reduction in force structure was understandable, though Canadian forces in 1992 were arguable already "lean" in terms of personnel and equipment.

The defence cuts, however, weren't simply based on a strategic assessment of finances and the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Post-Cold War North American geography played a role in that assessment.

Here's that presumption: The U.S. would always be there to defend Canada, so why bother maintaining military forces?

That wasn't always the Canadian defence philosophy. At one time, when it came to defending liberty and democracy, Canada punched way above its weight class, and the free world was thankful.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, while the United States hid behind the false wall of "neutrality," Canada confronted with armed force the cultural and political threat of fascist tyrants.

At the end of the Second World War, Canada had the world's third-largest navy. In 2006, despite having the globe's second-largest nation in terms of land mass, Canada deploys only three-dozen or so warships and naval support vessels.

More than one million Canadians served during the Second World War, out of a population of 12 million. Today the expeditionary military that Nazi Germany feared must juggle troops and equipment to sustain two battalion-sized task forces in an overseas deployment.

The Nazis did indeed fear and respect Canada. From Sicily to Normandy and on into Germany, veteran Canadian divisions often formed the "hard core" of an Allied thrust. That wasn't a conspiracy by London to "let the colonials be cannon fodder"; it was recognition of Canadian military capabilities and fighting spirit.

Canada's military continues to attract outstanding men and women.

I have yet to meet or serve with a Canadian soldier who failed to impress me with his professionalism and discipline. In my experience -- in terms of individual, quality personnel -- only Australian troops match Canadians on a one-for-one basis.

Two years ago I had the privilege of serving with Australian troops in Iraq. The Aussies are crack. In the mid-1970s I had the privilege of working with the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group in then-West Germany.

I saw 4th CMBG in three different major exercises, including REFORGER 76. In my opinion, the Canadian brigade was the best brigade in NATO, which probably meant at that moment in time it was the best brigade man for man in the world.

Today, Canada has too few of these fine troops, and the superior troops Canada does field are not supplied with the modern, first-rate weapons and equipment they deserve, at least not in sufficient numbers.

The lack of military punch weakens Canada as a global political player, because Canada cannot act with a full spectrum of foreign policy options.

In many ways, the Canadian rhetorical and political game of "We Aren't America" is a reasonable if semi-hypocritical posture. The game has actually benefited the great cause of freedom.

In Cold War situations where American troops or observers might have escalated tensions, Canadians could provide security, stability and democratic presence. Canada could be the U.S. without Washington's alleged baggage. Those of us who understood the stakes were thankful.

However, as the Canadian military declined, the Canadian "We Aren't America" game -- particularly under Paul Martin's Liberals -- degenerated into rank, adolescent anti-Americanism. Is there a connection between increasingly strident, appeasement-laden rhetoric and the loss of military capability? I think the answer is yes.

Canada's Conservatives have managed a narrow victory and now confront the challenges of a coalition government. Let's hope the first consensus Canadians reach is to restore and revive the Canadian military.

U.S. columnist Austin Bay writes for the Creators Syndicate.