There has been no shortage of chatter from my Canadian friends on Facebook concerning Greg Gutfeld’s comments concerning the Canadian military, which were made during the TV show Red Eye—the FOX News equivalent of The Daily Show.
Gutfeld’s comments were careless and disrespectful. While I believe it is certainly within his rights to criticize the policies of the Canadian Government, poking fun at Canadian soldiers by suggesting they are taking a year off for spa treatment is not appropriate while a steady stream of caskets are continually being flown home from Afghanistan.
That being said, there is one aspect of this kafuffle that I find confusing…
While I understand why Canadians are upset with Gutfeld, I am baffled as to why few Canadians have taken issue with the fact that their military forces will essentially be OFFLINE for all of 2011. Doesn’t this bother anyone? I do not mean to suggest that Canada should amass a large military or adopt American foreign policy; Canada is a distinct nation with its own views and priorities. However, Americans would very much like to feel as though they are not alone in paying for the defence of the North American continent. While the Canadian Armed Forces are full of excellent men and women who are making great sacrifices on behalf of both countries, the present size and budget of the Canadian Military is pathetic. Consider the following facts (gracious provided by The Toronto Star):
NATO's target for member countries' defence spending is 2 per cent of GDP. Even Pierre Trudeau spent 2 per cent. Canada's current defence spending totals just 1.2 per cent of GDP, and will drop to 0.87 per cent under the current 20-year government strategy.
Canada, the Netherlands and Australia have similar world interests. Canada spends $558 per capita on defence; the Netherlands $669; Australia $808.
In mid-April the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence received the Canadian army's 2008-09 strategic needs report. In it, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie revealed that the army's size has actually declined in soldiers since 2005. "The army is now stretched almost to the breaking point."
The navy's report was just as gloomy. It said the strength of the navy's fleet will be soon halved and that Canada will not be able to play a meaningful role with our allies on the high seas for five years between 2013 and 2018.
The air force report warned that, without significant new funding, up to 15 CF-18s will have to be grounded, plus four Hercules transports, four Aurora patrol aircraft and six Sea King helicopters.
The government announced in 2006 that it would increase the Regular Forces by 13,000 to 75,000 by 2010-11, and that the Reserves would be increased by 10,000 to 35,000. Then in 2007 it quietly delayed its plan for a full year and "reprofiled" it, halving the increase in regulars to 6,500 and chopping the increase in reserves from 10,000 to 1,000. The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, based on the operational tempo of the Canadian Forces over the past 10 years, estimates that 90,000 regulars are needed at a minimum.
Under its "Canada First" policy, the government promised that the Canadian Forces would increase its focus on defending Canadian territory, and that the Forces would be quick to respond to domestic man-made or natural disasters. Territorial battalions would be created at 12 centres across the country. That hasn't happened.
None of this is new. In fact, back in 2002, Canadian soldiers reported for duty in Afghanistan's desert wearing green jungle-camouflage fatigues, since the military didn't have money for both desert and jungle uniforms. The U.S. offered to provide desertwear, but Ottawa declined and instead issued its soldiers brown blankets, which were then taped over the green uniforms.
Canadians are very good at giving lip service to their “sovereign identity”; but when it comes to national defence and border enforcement, Canada very much acts like an unwanted 51st state. (Canada, by the way, only recently began equipping their border guards with firearms, after a few incidents in which border guards stationed at remote crossings in Western provinces fled their posts to avoid confrontations with armed convicts).
Despite the above facts, I am sure there are still some Canadians who remain unconvinced of the need to increase funding to Canada’s military. Besides who would possibly threaten Canadian sovereignty? This question is perhaps best answered with a photo:
The above picture was taken four kilometres below sea level in Canada’s arctic territory. But as you can see, the titanium flag being planted does not sport the illustrious maple leaf. It is a Russian flag, which is being planted by the robotic arm of a miniature MIR-1 submarine. Defence Minister Peter McKay dismissed the act as “just a show”; however, anyone who has been paying attention to the noise coming from Moscow knows that there is an awful lot of intent and determination behind this gesture. With the ice shelves continuing to melt in the arctic, it is seemingly inevitable that the Northwest Passage will eventually open and create a seaway linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. More importantly, beneath the arctic shelf lay vast oil and natural gas reserves. As the above picture evidences, Russia is determined to stake claim to both these lucrative resources. Several other countries, including Iceland, Denmark, and even the United States have also disputed Canadian claim to the Northwest Passage. These disputes will ultimately be settled by diplomatic means, but Canada will have very little leverage at the bargaining table if it has no means to enforce its sovereignty in the North. Moreover, there is little doubt in my mind that Russia will passively annex portions of Canada's Arctic territory if given the chance.
Contrary to the beliefs of some Canadians, being a sovereign country unfortunately requires slightly more than having a nifty charter and setting off fireworks on a given day each year. As a member of NATO and an advocate of peacekeeping, Canada has legal and moral obligations that require it to have a functional and effective military. Moreover, the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are risking their lives deserve the best equipment available to help ensure their safe return home. To this end, after Canadians are finished stringing up Greg Gutfeld, they should subsequently direct their wrath towards those in their government who are failing to properly fund the Canadian Armed Forces.
Gutfeld’s comments were careless and disrespectful. While I believe it is certainly within his rights to criticize the policies of the Canadian Government, poking fun at Canadian soldiers by suggesting they are taking a year off for spa treatment is not appropriate while a steady stream of caskets are continually being flown home from Afghanistan.
That being said, there is one aspect of this kafuffle that I find confusing…
While I understand why Canadians are upset with Gutfeld, I am baffled as to why few Canadians have taken issue with the fact that their military forces will essentially be OFFLINE for all of 2011. Doesn’t this bother anyone? I do not mean to suggest that Canada should amass a large military or adopt American foreign policy; Canada is a distinct nation with its own views and priorities. However, Americans would very much like to feel as though they are not alone in paying for the defence of the North American continent. While the Canadian Armed Forces are full of excellent men and women who are making great sacrifices on behalf of both countries, the present size and budget of the Canadian Military is pathetic. Consider the following facts (gracious provided by The Toronto Star):
NATO's target for member countries' defence spending is 2 per cent of GDP. Even Pierre Trudeau spent 2 per cent. Canada's current defence spending totals just 1.2 per cent of GDP, and will drop to 0.87 per cent under the current 20-year government strategy.
Canada, the Netherlands and Australia have similar world interests. Canada spends $558 per capita on defence; the Netherlands $669; Australia $808.
In mid-April the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence received the Canadian army's 2008-09 strategic needs report. In it, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie revealed that the army's size has actually declined in soldiers since 2005. "The army is now stretched almost to the breaking point."
The navy's report was just as gloomy. It said the strength of the navy's fleet will be soon halved and that Canada will not be able to play a meaningful role with our allies on the high seas for five years between 2013 and 2018.
The air force report warned that, without significant new funding, up to 15 CF-18s will have to be grounded, plus four Hercules transports, four Aurora patrol aircraft and six Sea King helicopters.
The government announced in 2006 that it would increase the Regular Forces by 13,000 to 75,000 by 2010-11, and that the Reserves would be increased by 10,000 to 35,000. Then in 2007 it quietly delayed its plan for a full year and "reprofiled" it, halving the increase in regulars to 6,500 and chopping the increase in reserves from 10,000 to 1,000. The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, based on the operational tempo of the Canadian Forces over the past 10 years, estimates that 90,000 regulars are needed at a minimum.
Under its "Canada First" policy, the government promised that the Canadian Forces would increase its focus on defending Canadian territory, and that the Forces would be quick to respond to domestic man-made or natural disasters. Territorial battalions would be created at 12 centres across the country. That hasn't happened.
None of this is new. In fact, back in 2002, Canadian soldiers reported for duty in Afghanistan's desert wearing green jungle-camouflage fatigues, since the military didn't have money for both desert and jungle uniforms. The U.S. offered to provide desertwear, but Ottawa declined and instead issued its soldiers brown blankets, which were then taped over the green uniforms.
Canadians are very good at giving lip service to their “sovereign identity”; but when it comes to national defence and border enforcement, Canada very much acts like an unwanted 51st state. (Canada, by the way, only recently began equipping their border guards with firearms, after a few incidents in which border guards stationed at remote crossings in Western provinces fled their posts to avoid confrontations with armed convicts).
Despite the above facts, I am sure there are still some Canadians who remain unconvinced of the need to increase funding to Canada’s military. Besides who would possibly threaten Canadian sovereignty? This question is perhaps best answered with a photo:
The above picture was taken four kilometres below sea level in Canada’s arctic territory. But as you can see, the titanium flag being planted does not sport the illustrious maple leaf. It is a Russian flag, which is being planted by the robotic arm of a miniature MIR-1 submarine. Defence Minister Peter McKay dismissed the act as “just a show”; however, anyone who has been paying attention to the noise coming from Moscow knows that there is an awful lot of intent and determination behind this gesture. With the ice shelves continuing to melt in the arctic, it is seemingly inevitable that the Northwest Passage will eventually open and create a seaway linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. More importantly, beneath the arctic shelf lay vast oil and natural gas reserves. As the above picture evidences, Russia is determined to stake claim to both these lucrative resources. Several other countries, including Iceland, Denmark, and even the United States have also disputed Canadian claim to the Northwest Passage. These disputes will ultimately be settled by diplomatic means, but Canada will have very little leverage at the bargaining table if it has no means to enforce its sovereignty in the North. Moreover, there is little doubt in my mind that Russia will passively annex portions of Canada's Arctic territory if given the chance.
Contrary to the beliefs of some Canadians, being a sovereign country unfortunately requires slightly more than having a nifty charter and setting off fireworks on a given day each year. As a member of NATO and an advocate of peacekeeping, Canada has legal and moral obligations that require it to have a functional and effective military. Moreover, the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are risking their lives deserve the best equipment available to help ensure their safe return home. To this end, after Canadians are finished stringing up Greg Gutfeld, they should subsequently direct their wrath towards those in their government who are failing to properly fund the Canadian Armed Forces.
1 comment:
but but! we have a FOLK song about the northwest passage! that's indisputable proof that it's ours. clearly. so... no amount of tiny robotic arms with tiny waterproof flags will threaten that.
a part of me, as well, is kind of hoping for the end of sovereign nations as we know them. because i'm a granola-crunching hippie. huzzah!
Post a Comment