It’s as if they didn’t consult anyone regarding the plan either. Sure bringing the military up to full complement in 18 months sounds like a great idea, but how are we going to train these people? The training system is pretty well at capacity now; bringing in that many people that quickly will actually be counter productive.
I appreciate all the insights you've been providing over this election season and beyond Noah. Only recently started following you but constantly learning from your posts!
With Trump publicly admitting they have a kill switch “in case our allies are no longer our allies”, we have no choice but to abandon the F35 and consider a fighter where a) we get the source code, and b) we get to make replacement parts domestically.
So of all the shit that Trump says, you chose to take that one literally? There is no 'kill switch'. It's false. They could cut us off from future software releases or refuse to do deep maintenance but there is no kill switch and these would apply from the subs we get from Korea as well.
There are holes in the strategy on the recruiting delivery, but the Liberals do the same; decree the force will have more people but no tangible path forward.
On the positive side they demonstrate focus on the 'Top Priority' which is defence of Canada/the North instead of the be everywhere with insufficient people. Canada needs to quit defending European NATO and concentrate on the Northern Flank of NATO, which incidentally is the Canadian Arctic.
Well in the past fighting the USSR in Europe was a sound strategy as it would limit the damage to Atlantic SLOCs (and trade) and there was little direct threat to the Canadian homeland (except the Nuclear option), the threat has changed with hypersonics, very long range conventional cruise missiles and economic-informational warfare in the Arctic and the approaches to the homeland.
Now Canada needs to pivot to really concentrate on defending Canada (NATO's Northern Flank) and recognize that this will require a different prioritization of force capabilities (Naval and Air, rather than those built for a Land War in Europe).
1. Increasing the size of the Regular and Reserve Forces within 18 months.
I was the Executive Officer of a Naval Reserve Division. At that time (late 00s), a “clean” recruiting file (that is, no issues likely to cause delay) could easily take up to 18 months. Now granted, my experience is a bit dated, but I’m not convinced the Recruiting system is completely fixed.
2. An Arctic naval base in Churchill.
I wonder about the wisdom of putting your Arctic naval base within a bay that has a natural choke point. I don’t have a better suggestion, but I’d be interested to see if that issue was even considered.
They didn't put in the work because they were counting on Canada hates JT. Not running to lead the country just running to win an election...and I don't think they are managing that.
Floored that two of the points are virtually identical, also. Build CFB Iqaluit, aaaand also turn it into a full blown base? These chumps put that on two separate lines that have so much other shit between them they couldn’t even wave to each other.
6,000 new Qs? That’ll help about as much as sticking a napkin on my head next time I have to go outside in the friggin rain. Comox alone needs more than I could count.
Pick your poison: Vague "Made-in-Canada" promises (Liberals), or recycled platitudes (Conservatives).
To give Conservatives a little credit, I would say generally I prefer more a more concise list of priorities as being more doable.
Unfortunately a lot of their ideas are things that have been tried and failed in the past, and they offer no arguments as to why this time is different.
Also, the deterioration of the CAF is now at the point where you kind of have to address all the problems at once, which they avoid.
Just to add on to this, Murray Brewster has a good opinion piece on CBC News today, talking about how neither party has any coherent vision for defence. They are all about announcing various "goodies" here and there, but there is no overarching statement of what the purpose of Canada's defence forces should be.
It’s as if they didn’t consult anyone regarding the plan either. Sure bringing the military up to full complement in 18 months sounds like a great idea, but how are we going to train these people? The training system is pretty well at capacity now; bringing in that many people that quickly will actually be counter productive.
I laughed when I read that part yesterday, it was too funny
Marc is never gonna get to retire at this rate 🤣
Maybe he doesn't want to. He seems to be one of the more cheerful, optimistic guys in the military. We need that sort of attitude now.
I appreciate all the insights you've been providing over this election season and beyond Noah. Only recently started following you but constantly learning from your posts!
I like that nothing was said about the F-35's so at least we can count on them not screwing that up
You may have jinxed it by saying that.
With Trump publicly admitting they have a kill switch “in case our allies are no longer our allies”, we have no choice but to abandon the F35 and consider a fighter where a) we get the source code, and b) we get to make replacement parts domestically.
So of all the shit that Trump says, you chose to take that one literally? There is no 'kill switch'. It's false. They could cut us off from future software releases or refuse to do deep maintenance but there is no kill switch and these would apply from the subs we get from Korea as well.
There are holes in the strategy on the recruiting delivery, but the Liberals do the same; decree the force will have more people but no tangible path forward.
On the positive side they demonstrate focus on the 'Top Priority' which is defence of Canada/the North instead of the be everywhere with insufficient people. Canada needs to quit defending European NATO and concentrate on the Northern Flank of NATO, which incidentally is the Canadian Arctic.
Well in the past fighting the USSR in Europe was a sound strategy as it would limit the damage to Atlantic SLOCs (and trade) and there was little direct threat to the Canadian homeland (except the Nuclear option), the threat has changed with hypersonics, very long range conventional cruise missiles and economic-informational warfare in the Arctic and the approaches to the homeland.
Now Canada needs to pivot to really concentrate on defending Canada (NATO's Northern Flank) and recognize that this will require a different prioritization of force capabilities (Naval and Air, rather than those built for a Land War in Europe).
Two observations.
1. Increasing the size of the Regular and Reserve Forces within 18 months.
I was the Executive Officer of a Naval Reserve Division. At that time (late 00s), a “clean” recruiting file (that is, no issues likely to cause delay) could easily take up to 18 months. Now granted, my experience is a bit dated, but I’m not convinced the Recruiting system is completely fixed.
2. An Arctic naval base in Churchill.
I wonder about the wisdom of putting your Arctic naval base within a bay that has a natural choke point. I don’t have a better suggestion, but I’d be interested to see if that issue was even considered.
They didn't put in the work because they were counting on Canada hates JT. Not running to lead the country just running to win an election...and I don't think they are managing that.
Floored that two of the points are virtually identical, also. Build CFB Iqaluit, aaaand also turn it into a full blown base? These chumps put that on two separate lines that have so much other shit between them they couldn’t even wave to each other.
6,000 new Qs? That’ll help about as much as sticking a napkin on my head next time I have to go outside in the friggin rain. Comox alone needs more than I could count.
Pick your poison: Vague "Made-in-Canada" promises (Liberals), or recycled platitudes (Conservatives).
To give Conservatives a little credit, I would say generally I prefer more a more concise list of priorities as being more doable.
Unfortunately a lot of their ideas are things that have been tried and failed in the past, and they offer no arguments as to why this time is different.
Also, the deterioration of the CAF is now at the point where you kind of have to address all the problems at once, which they avoid.
Just to add on to this, Murray Brewster has a good opinion piece on CBC News today, talking about how neither party has any coherent vision for defence. They are all about announcing various "goodies" here and there, but there is no overarching statement of what the purpose of Canada's defence forces should be.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-liberal-defence-platforms-analysis-1.7516003
Nor surprising when you spend all of your time finding ways to undermine the other parties' efforts, instead of working on viable solutions.