Originally posted by valkeryie
Just heard on Global News that Canada "may" have bought the subs to make the USNavy happy. War games with diesel electric subs [on one of which a naval officer was killed as a result of a fire, while of the coast off the UK] would be useful as all the enemies of the US use dielsel electric subs. So Canada pays nearly $1Billion of its very limited defense budget to play games with the US. I pray for the sailor's family. This should not have happened.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Canadian Forces make the cover of Jane's Defence Weekly:
Worst-Managed Forces in the Western World?

It was the second anniversary of the 11 September attacks and Jane's Defence Weekly featured, as its cover story, the sad state of the Canadian military. Canada, it implied, has the most under-funded, worst-managed armed forces in the Western world.

For readers who have never seen this periodical, Jane's Defence Weekly is a small part of a very large and lucrative publishing empire based in the United Kingdom. Carefully-researched and well-documented techno-political tidbits are eagerly consumed by procurement officers and policy wonks alike.

Jane's Defence Weekly tracks who is buying what from whom, with all the news and gossip from the latest arms shows. The latter is served up mainly for the delectation of the dark lords who control the morally flexible, globe-spanning defence industry.

So, let's keep in mind the kinds of people who are fingering the pages of this posh little magazine. As one measure of its street value, consider that a year's subscription to JDW costs US$1,100. Few who are not profiting from the arms trade can afford such luxuries. (Fortunately, if one is clever, the contents of the cover story are available online without a subscription.)
www.sfu.ca...

Canadian Navy Faces Procurement Shortfalls

Recent documentation and press coverage continues to reveal that the Canadian Navy (CN) is desperately short of funds, raising the possibility that it will be unable to fulfill its global responsibilities. Current planning calls for funds to be diverted away from important procurement and modernization plans for all the services to fund current operations, which are continuing to increase. The CN also is faced with increased ship deployments at a time when overall defense funding is in decline

In late 2002, the Prime Minister, Chief of Defense Staff, leading Parliamentarians, and Canadian defense experts, made it clear to the Canadian public that action would be needed in the near future, resulting in a larger increase for the 2003 defense budget and beyond. In 2003, the Canadian Armed Forces will enjoy its largest single defense budget increase in a decade.

Funding for 2003 provides the Department of National Defense (DND) with $1.6 billion in new funding in each of the next two fiscal years, and with a sustained annual level of $800 million thereafter. In addition, the Canadian government has renewed its commitment to reassess the future needs of defense following a review of Canada's foreign and defense policy.

Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum Mulls Future Role of Forces

CANADA PREPARES FOR MAJOR DEFENSE REVIEW WITH TRANSFORMATION IN MIND

Canada is preparing for the first comprehensive review of its military in almost a decade, with plans to examine how to transform its forces in ways that make them more interoperable with allies, Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum told Inside the Pentagon in a recent interview.

Canada's Department of National Defence last undertook such a review in 1994. But much has changed since then, McCallum said, citing a security environment drastically altered by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. For Canada, the attacks resulted in increased deployments and calls for operational readiness against the backdrop of an aging military infrastructure.

"The government has committed to having another defense review probably within the next year," McCallum said. The work could take a year to complete.

www.forces.gc.ca...

Defence

Canada’s current defence policy objectives were established in the Defence White Paper published in 1994. In the late 1990s, however, it became apparent that sustaining this defence policy would require additional resources.

The Government increased defence resources in Budget 2000, Budget 2001 and Budget 2003. In particular, the $800-million annual funding increase introduced in 2003, as well as efficiency measures introduced by the department, have enabled the Department of National Defence to move towards operational sustainability in the short term.

As Canada conducts its International Policy Review and develops a new national security policy, long-term financial resource requirements will be considered as part of the review of defence strategy and associated Canadian Forces’ capacity. Rebuilding Canada’s military on old models will not suffice. Canada’s defence objectives and capabilities must match our foreign policy goals, as well as our defence and security obligations and objectives. It will also be important to recognize the need for much closer cooperation among the many agencies and departments of government that are engaged in fighting global terrorism.
www.fin.gc.ca...

Canada’s Place in the World

Canada’s current global conundrum is tied to its identity crisis. Formerly
an important player on the world stage, its influence is now greatly diminished.
Critics are quick to point out that Canada spends little on its
military, less than $265 per capita, making it last among major North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) members.3 On a Gross National Product (GNP)
basis, Canada spends just 1.1 percent on defense, putting it on par with Liechtenstein.
4 One senior Canadian officer described his country’s challenge to
overcome its geostrategic handicap as, “We are a regional power without a region.”
5 Ottawa still possesses a measure of global clout through its dynamic
economy. Choices it makes early in the 21st century will have a major impact
on its ability to halt this decline, especially in defense, and to rebuild its
strength and stature within the international system. It is fair to say that Canada
is reassessing its future defense direction, scaling back on traditional
peacekeeping commitments, increasing its role in peace enforcement operations,
and taking a new look at its security relationship with the United States.
Canadians see themselves as global peacekeepers, and this is reinforced
in the Canadian press, vividly displayed on their currency, and echoed
in conversations on the street. But the reality is different from the perception.
76 Parameters

Using United Nations peacekeeping operations statistics, the Canadian contribution
to UN missions is now rather small. Of 92 countries furnishing forces,
Canada ranks 34th, placing it in the middle third. With just 239 service members
deployed, Canada pales in comparison to, say, Pakistan with 5,252 on UN missions.
Even within the Americas, Canada is not the largest contributor. Uruguay,
Argentina, and the United States provide more peacekeeping personnel.6
Over the last 15 years, Ottawa has developed a greater hemispheric
orientation, a huge departure from its traditional Euro-centric focus. This
change began after World War II, as Canada moved from the British sphere
to a North American commitment.7 A key challenge for Canada is deciding
between two roles—continuing to support a multitude of UN missions or asserting
greater interest in a regional approach to peacekeeping and other operations
through hemispheric cooperation.8 Part of the soul-searching is due to
demonstrated difficulties in mustering adequate forces with proper equipment,
not to mention deployment and sustainment. Experts such as Joseph Jockel argue
that the country faces hard choices because Canada’s peacekeeping orientation
has led to a significant degradation of its combat capability, particularly
its ability to sustain military operations at brigade level.9 This UN peacekeeping
orientation began long ago with Canada’s involvement in the Suez Crisis.
In his book, Canada’s Army: Waging the War and Keeping the Peace, author
J. L. Granatstein explains the change in military focus:
carlisle-www.army.mil...