I cannot be the only grumpy approaching-middle-aged dad that is welcoming the return of the military to a visible presence in Canadian life, not because I cheer a more dangerous world, but because it should hopefully help restore a degree of seriousness to public life?
Like for five years our highest-caloric-output public debates were on gender labels, we had more real estate agents than teachers, our young people aspired to jobs as influencers or crypto traders — and I’m just tired of it. I’m tired of us doing and thinking and talking about nonserious stuff.
I want to be able to say to young and/or underemployed people — no, nobody gets to be an “influencer”. And fuck crypto. Learn a trade to build new nuclear power plants, and if you don’t want to do that, our Navy needs 5000 new sailors. There is real opportunity now. For the unserious years of the Long Summer there wasn’t much meaningful to do. There is now. Get to it.
I want to say to retirees they're going to have to work unless they've got their own savings. No getting off scot free after a lifetime of tearing down what their parents built and racking up liabilities, while lecturing the young about not being serious enough.
Plus, unfunded retirement benefits are a real threat to our ability to fund the military and a surplus of influencers really is not.
To be clear: not the young people’s fault. The world got very un serious for about 10 years there.
(That said, we have a very high youth unemployment rate, at least in Ontario, and yet the trades can’t find anybody reliable. If you talk to young people, there are lots of reasons given about why they can’t move to where the work is. I do think we should stop accepting those excuses. Join the Navy, they’ll pay for your relocation expenses, and your room and board.)
And I agree, retirement age to 67 and lower the clawback limit on OAS. Part of serious life again is that retirement isn’t 30-40 years of living at the expense of a dwindling number of workers. OAS was meant to reduce senior poverty and provide for a basic retirement, not so the older generation could hoard all the real estate.
One issue, Geoff, where I think you may be mistaken, respectfully, is that young people are unreliable.
There are young folks willing to work that haven’t been able to get a foot on the economic ladder.
Part of it is their fault, partly that of their parents, and part of it is the fault of an education system that does not value vocational streaming and cooperative learning.
Trades wages don't really suggest a shortage, is the thing. Nor does the government having to bribe people to take on apprentices. I don't disagree that it's good to get young people to take on useful work, but it's not clear to me this is really a matter of anything that's indulging young people who don't want to work (it's certainly not welfare rates) as much as there even still being pretty little on offer that pays enough to live like an adult.
Having raised the age to quit school (in Ontario at least) to 18 also got rid of what was once a big draw for trades compared to jobs that needed 6 more years of education. Are the places complaining about shortages willing to even hire 18 year olds, let alone 16 year olds if we went back to that?
I am relieved the decision was made but this is just an announcement that the decision has been made, until a contract is signed it doesn't mean anything.
Next they need to announce a new F-35 and Gripen air force, which has been ongoing since Chretien.
How much of this gets cancelled the instant a friendly Democrat inhabits the White House, issues a heartfelt apology for our mistreatment by the Orange Man aberration and we go back to "not needing a military"?
Why do you believe that Canada would cancel some or all of the submarine order?
Political factors were a part of the bids made, both by TKMS and its Norwegian partner (Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, a.k.a. Kongsberg Gruppen), and by the South Korean shipbuilder, Hanwha. However, it is quite clear that technical specifications and Canadian Armed Forces requirements were front-and-centre in the bidding process.
Canada is a sovereign state that has three vast maritime frontiers to police.
Irrespective of partisans' claims about the allegedly fickle nature of the Liberal government of Mark Carney, the Conservatives are also on board with the submarine program. What's more, Canadians writ large have demonstrated a sea change in attitudes regarding military preparedness.
I'm confident that the submarine building program will proceed as expected.
For me, this isn't going to get done. Presently, Canada has a government that is amazing for making announcements. This is still a country where nothing can get done. This announcement is meaningless. There is nobody in government who can actually make this program happen - make it deliver.
Remember: this is still Canada. If the lunatic in the White House had not been elected we would not be talking about this today. That's what it took: an unhinged senile old con-man to threaten our country.
I see nothing here that screams 'lets do this and here's how'. We can't get anything done. We are not a serious country.
I couldn't disagree more. I believe that something big has shifted in enough of us that future governments would be loathe to mess with the commitments being made today in respect of defence.
One thing that does worry me, though, concerns the response of Quebec society.
We all know how fraught the debate was in French-speaking Canada about recruitment into the Canadian military was during WW1 and again in WW2.
Of course, I recognize that Quebec, like the rest of the country, has evolved since then.
Perhaps, though, Quebeckers will respond in the same way to the things that have stoked support in the rest of the country for a more robust military policy.
Chief among these are concerns about the serious threats made by the US president to extinguish our sovereignty, and worries about the level of support he has attracted amongst Americans of a certain view for this and other expansionist positions.
Again, we can't get anything done in Canada.. Not serious, etc. This isn't going to happen. There will be no subs. Only sadness, despair. An empty, hollow feeling on what might have been but could not be.
Canada is not perfect, but I'm inclined to believe that, given our history, it would be foolish to simply claim, as you seem content to do, that we are "not serious" and that we "can't get anything done".
The F35s are being made by a major US military contractor, in cooperation with subcontractors in various other countries, including Canada.
The submarines are being made in Norway and Germany.
Anyone who has been paying attention will recognize that, whereas the US government has made much of its prerogatives and is currently led by a president who has directly threatened our sovereignty, neither the Norwegians nor the Germans have threatened Canada during the 81 years that have elapsed since the end of WW2.
What's more, neither one of those two countries were ever interested in strong-arming us during the Iraq War.
Because I have no trust in Canada to ever do the right thing especially when politics dictates otherwise, as it will when Trump stops being a factor. If we ever have another Conservative government I might even see them cutting back the order for budgetary reasons. Public opinion has only been pro military expansion for like 15 seconds and could change back just as fast and more easily.
And why buy scary looking U-boats when you can roll out something like universal massage therapy or a national weekly grocery benefit instead? Which those weapon obsessed Americans are too cheap to give their citizens making us so much better.
First because the Americans won't do that. Oh, they'll make nice quiet statements about getting along, but ultimately they've changed direction. It's not like the Democrats are the party of free trade with a voting block dedicated to opening imports from Canada. They've been tariffing our lumber industry since the 80s. (Possibly longer, I'm not sure). And the public mood has shifted in the USA generally, not just among Republicans.
But second... because neither we, nor the Europeans will trust them.
Public mood in the US, even among pretty right wing Republicans, never shifted to "Hey let's fuck with Canada for no reason and really make them hate us, won't that be fun". That's almost strictly a Trump thing. This is also the driving force behind purple haired grannies suddenly wanting to load up on submarines. Once AOC or whatever equally ridiculous leftist the Democrats run becomes president all of this will go away and we go back to arguing about gender pronouns.
> Public mood in the US [...] never shifted to"Hey let's fuck with Canada for no reason and really make them hate us, won't that be fun".
That's true. They ignorant enough to believe they're being fair. They think they're the victim and sure Trump is rude, but they're just forcing fairness on everyone else. They're in a self-pitying mentality of "oh woe is us...the world is so unfair to us" and they think they're just levelling the playing field.
Or to put it another way, the US, designed, funded and created the post-WW2 order to massively benefit itself and then proceeded to massively benefit... and has now convinced itself that akshually the whole system was set up to take advantage of the USA and they're just gentle souls who were taken advantage of their allies.
AOC takes a different view than the Trump admin on things like birthright citizenship, but she's not deploying troops to Ukraine, opening up trade and agreeing "yeah, the tech industry should be less centred in the USA".
The difference between AOC and Trump is that AOC will compliment us about how nice we are and how wonderful our country is... while continuing to hose us economically and geopolitically because Americans think they're being hosed and need to reverse that. Donald Trump do the same thing, except he will insult us and threaten us and generally act low class and needy.
Through it all, we're going to remember that they're still Americans and they're still the same people they are today. Like Matt said, we will never trust them again.
First we are not 98% the same. If you think you're 98% American, that's your deal.
Second and more importantly, there's nothing reflexive about my statements.
It's an undisputed historical fact that the post-WW2 order was created by the Americans for their benefit. They were the strongest military left standing and so they could and they did. And to their moral credit, what they made didn't exploit everyone to benefit them. But make no mistake, it was created for their benefit both in the direct control it gave them and in where it placed them militarily. To pick just one example, it's not a coincidence that EVERY President of the world bank has been a US citizen and nominated to that post by the USA.
And unsurprisingly, they proceeded to benefit enormously from the system they created.
They are now suffering under the delusion that the massive benefits they accrued either didn't happen or were just the natural state of how the world came to be all by itself and they're actually being taken advantage of, not benefitting enormously from the world created by their predecessors. They forget that the very things they complain about, (American shouldering the bulk of the defence burden, American military engagement), were deliberate choices by the Americans as well as by their allies. The USA didn't want strong navies and armies capable of rivalling the USA, not even friendly ones. But as I often point out... the man who insists on picking the restaurant, the menu and ordering the wine achieves what he wants by paying the bill. There's a benefit to being the one calling the shots as there's a benefit to dining out in a restaurant you can't afford.
I don't blame the USA for what they did. It was a series of wise geo-political decisions and wise economic decisions made by the USA and unlike some countries (Russia), they didn't overly abuse their position. They favoured themselves often, (hmm Cuba has no right to Guantanamo Bay while Egypt has every right to Suez... gee I wonder why that could be), but they didn't abuse their position.
Overall, well done USA. You drew a fantastic hand post-WW2 and then you played it absolutely expertly. Now they've changed their minds and they don't like what they built.
BUT... while their belief that they were taken advantage of is just ignorant, it is inexcusable is that their reaction to **WHAT THEY BUILT AND BENEFITED FROM** has been to hurt and punish their allies.
And I don't mean it's inexcusable because it's bad or immoral. I mean it's inexcusable because we can't safely excuse it. They've shown us that they've changed and that unlike the Americans in the 1950s through 1990s they most certainly WILL abuse their position to our detriment for perceived harms from the world THEY CHOSE.
We will never trust them again.. because we cannot safely do so.
"I also tripped a little over the thought of Canadians in U-boats — I suspect many historically minded Canadians will also blink hard at that little twist of fate."
The *Israeli* navy had its first German U-boats decades ago, so it's less a blink than you might think.
The story that’s yet to come out is how much industrial offset packages played into the final downselection. Already the CBC has a piece where proponents of Algoma Steel are whining about the fact they won’t get an anticipated $342 million in business had the Korean offer been accepted. What did the German/Norwegian offer include, and who benefits? I’m glad that either offer seemed to center around a pretty good submarine design, because it became obvious that Liberals like industry minister Melanie Jolie were more interested in the industrial offset game than the actual ships.
These industrial offsets are never actually free. Politicians love them because they allow them to lob money and jobs in their ridings, but the suppliers aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and they’re going to expect to earn a target margin on the program one way or another. How much has the cost of these subs gone up because of the pursuit of those industrial benefits
From a selfish perspective, I had mixed feelings about aspects of the Korean industrial benefit offer. It included proposals to start manufacturing Hyundai hydrogen fuel cell trucks in Canada plus build a network of refueling stations. The catch? There’s already a Canadian industry focused on that market (which I work in), and Hyundai is a state-subsidized arch competitor. Competition is generally good; more hydrogen fueling stations would help accelerate development of the market. I’m just not thrilled about having to compete against another country’s industrial champion as part of a package that has the backing of *Canada’s* government too.
Perhaps we can make it up to [South Korea] by buying some other Korean weapons. They make some great kit...
END QUOTE
I wholeheartedly agree. Moreover, I suspect that at least a few people in Ottawa will quietly press for such a policy.
Not only do the South Koreans make good military equipment; they are also a crucial part of the Asia-Pacific community of democratic states. What's more, as many others have observed, Canadians did die (three generations ago) to help defend the country against an invasion by China and an effort by the Soviet Union to dominate the peninsula through what they thought was their puppet, Kim Il-song.
Given the increased number of personnel that will be needed to staff the planned increase in capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces - might this lead to a renewed sense of national unity? We're going to need (young) people from all over the country to pull this off.
They’re definitely going to need to step up recruiting and training. The Navy has had trouble manning its current submarine force with essentially one deployable boat at a time: now they need to generate crews for a fleet that’s tripled in size.
I’ve been in rapidly growing organizations, and one of the challenges is that you can actually reduce your capability and efficiency as your energy gets focused on boarding new people, getting them up to speed, and implementing the organizational structure needed to manage them. The Navy probably needs to pivot hard into training for the next several years, using their current submarine force to simply develop a nucleus of experience needed to train the crews for the new subs.
Meanwhile, they need to get the recruiting and training pipeline flowing so it doesn’t take months to process an application, do the necessary checks, and get somebody inducted.
The Navy has had trouble manning its current submarine force with essentially one deployable boat at a time: now they need to generate crews for a fleet that’s tripled in size.
END QUOTE
Indeed. However, the salaries offered to soldiers have greatly increased over the past 18 months (by about 20 percent for frontline soldiers, sailors and aviators, and about eight percent for senior officers).
What's more, do not underestimate the attractiveness of a brand new fleet to prospective recruits.
It will not be easy, but I believe that recruitment will improve.
It's not insurmountable, but there's a bit of an uphill slog. They're grappling with the pan-Canadian problem of attracting young people into trades, and also the problem that a lot of young Canadians currently aren't sufficiently fit to meet physical requirements (anecodotal to be sure, but when *my* kids are scoring high grades in gym, I get worried about today's youth. My kids are *not* blessed with anything like an athletic inheritance...)
There's also the mundane aspect of shortening the time between somebody walking into a recruiting office and being inducted into training. Right now, the lag time is still on the order of months. That's not going to cut it when competing with the private sector for candidates. At the very least, they need to make the process more predictable and consistent so people will wait.
Two immediate steps the Forces should take are to increase funding for the Cadet programs to expand a pool of potential recruits, and also start pitching joining the Forces as an option for starting out a career: sweeten the pot with educational benefits, and plan on a lot of short-time recruits who'll be there for 6 years and move on. It's way easier to get people in the door if they see it as an experience to start out than a 20 year career commitment, and they'll probably retain quite a few of those recruits once they're in.
Yes we have bought German stuff before including various types of Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 tanks — both of which are performing yeoman service in the UKR army. As for the massive new fleet — it pales in size compared to what we had in the early to middle Cold War where the RCN had aircraft carriers and many more destroyers. I obviously will not use the strength we had in WWII where at the end of the war we had the 3rd largest navy in the world.
The issue dates back to 1970 when Trudeau cut the Forces in half — a cut that has never been remedied despite some PMs’ attempts to do so (Mulroney in particular). Those cuts were to the bone and also destroyed institutional assets that were never replaced thus making it entirely possible for a downwards direction in numbers and capabilities for decades after 1970.
Yes, I have been on several of those older destroyers, including the ones built as the first serious anti-submarine helicopter carriers. As for aircraft carriers we had five — 2 in WWII with the RN but with all Cdn crews, then Warrior, Magnificent and Bonaventure from 1947 to 1970. The latter had anti-submarine Tracker aircraft as well as jet fighters (Banshees). The RCN was held in high esteem by NATO during that era. As were the RCAF and the Cdn Army.
You're correct...and the Bonny hung on 1970. I got on her - hours, not more - in 1965 having been brought up from Cornwallis (you obviously need no explanation for what that says of my status at the time).
I too had thought a Korean choice would have spread the disbursements and signify an understanding that we have a need for Asian partners as well but as you note both options had pros and cons from an alignment perspective.
The ongoing "job leveraging" procurement perspective, while I understand the intent, is also a continuing sign that domestic politics continues to be of greater importance than military capability. I would suggest that trying to remove this "cog" from most military procurement is an effort that Carney should push towards in efforts to "government good".
The follow through is critical. If this winds up on the cutting room floor after Trump is gone then Canada will have lost hope in establishing a serious presence.
Perhaps the real question for several generations is whether citizens will OK more defense spending, a purely federal responsibility, at the cost of reduced health & education spending, constitutionally a purely provincial responsibility.
I'd be curious to chart the decline in federal military spending with the increase in its health/education spending. I'd start in 1965 when Canadian medicare began and the provinces opened large numbers of colleges & universities.
Trudeau 1.0 began gutting the CF in his first term. For me, that's where it began. And certainly when I joined up in 1985, everybody was tri service right down to wearing the same hideous work dress. Mulroney put a stop to it but in the end, failed to deliver.
Mulroney had to deal with the end of the Cold War. Everybody was expecting a peace dividend, but Canadians didn't understand that Trudeau had already cashed it in 15-20 years previously. So instead the Forces had to slog on using hardware belatedly ordered by the late stage Trudeau government when they realized they had no other choice due to rust-out.
For me, America had our backs at that time- the Prime Minister and Reagan were bros. I have no recollection of a peace dividend in my travels at that time. Mulroney produced a white paper on defense in 87 as I recall. It promised the world. It went precisely nowhere and because the Mulroney government handled the economy so terribly that by 1989 the CF implemented the FRP program - the force reduction program and were paying CF members to leave.
Carney now has to deal with that which should have been done but Canada was too cheap and America would always defend us. The world is teetering toward conflict and Canada will absolutely be fighting on Canadian soil.
Libs and Cons have much to blame for what got us here, though it was more Libs than Cons, mind you, but for me, not by a hell of a lot.
. . . And on top of all the personnel and logistics and kit for Reg Forces (for all three branches), We're also still trying to figure out how to expand the reserves (or rather, "Home Guard") up to 400,000 people!
Things one must do to become "unattractive to conquest". ;-)
Maybe instead of full uniforms, etc., we just hand out arm-bands and flashlights (err, "torches", per the UK examples during WWII).
"...apparently every dollar we spend on these boats eventually being invested back into Canada."
I wonder how many more boats we could buy without this nonsense. How much a car would cost if the manufacturer promised to eventually return all the money? The price would have to be high enough so the interest early on would cover the actual cost of the vehicle. Two hundred grand at 4% would pay for a $40k car over five years.
Seems like a good idea until the hatch closes and the crew immediately becomes obsessed with eating sauerkraut, sinking freighter tonnage and winning ze Knight's Cross.
I cannot be the only grumpy approaching-middle-aged dad that is welcoming the return of the military to a visible presence in Canadian life, not because I cheer a more dangerous world, but because it should hopefully help restore a degree of seriousness to public life?
Like for five years our highest-caloric-output public debates were on gender labels, we had more real estate agents than teachers, our young people aspired to jobs as influencers or crypto traders — and I’m just tired of it. I’m tired of us doing and thinking and talking about nonserious stuff.
I want to be able to say to young and/or underemployed people — no, nobody gets to be an “influencer”. And fuck crypto. Learn a trade to build new nuclear power plants, and if you don’t want to do that, our Navy needs 5000 new sailors. There is real opportunity now. For the unserious years of the Long Summer there wasn’t much meaningful to do. There is now. Get to it.
We are not a serious country so the odds don't look good.
I want to say to retirees they're going to have to work unless they've got their own savings. No getting off scot free after a lifetime of tearing down what their parents built and racking up liabilities, while lecturing the young about not being serious enough.
Plus, unfunded retirement benefits are a real threat to our ability to fund the military and a surplus of influencers really is not.
To be clear: not the young people’s fault. The world got very un serious for about 10 years there.
(That said, we have a very high youth unemployment rate, at least in Ontario, and yet the trades can’t find anybody reliable. If you talk to young people, there are lots of reasons given about why they can’t move to where the work is. I do think we should stop accepting those excuses. Join the Navy, they’ll pay for your relocation expenses, and your room and board.)
And I agree, retirement age to 67 and lower the clawback limit on OAS. Part of serious life again is that retirement isn’t 30-40 years of living at the expense of a dwindling number of workers. OAS was meant to reduce senior poverty and provide for a basic retirement, not so the older generation could hoard all the real estate.
One issue, Geoff, where I think you may be mistaken, respectfully, is that young people are unreliable.
There are young folks willing to work that haven’t been able to get a foot on the economic ladder.
Part of it is their fault, partly that of their parents, and part of it is the fault of an education system that does not value vocational streaming and cooperative learning.
Trades wages don't really suggest a shortage, is the thing. Nor does the government having to bribe people to take on apprentices. I don't disagree that it's good to get young people to take on useful work, but it's not clear to me this is really a matter of anything that's indulging young people who don't want to work (it's certainly not welfare rates) as much as there even still being pretty little on offer that pays enough to live like an adult.
Having raised the age to quit school (in Ontario at least) to 18 also got rid of what was once a big draw for trades compared to jobs that needed 6 more years of education. Are the places complaining about shortages willing to even hire 18 year olds, let alone 16 year olds if we went back to that?
Geoff, I wish I could like this post 50,000 times.
Nothing to add.
I am relieved the decision was made but this is just an announcement that the decision has been made, until a contract is signed it doesn't mean anything.
Next they need to announce a new F-35 and Gripen air force, which has been ongoing since Chretien.
How much of this gets cancelled the instant a friendly Democrat inhabits the White House, issues a heartfelt apology for our mistreatment by the Orange Man aberration and we go back to "not needing a military"?
The Democrat’s in the White House were just as critical, just not as crass.
Canadians had their feet up and were half asleep right up to the moment that Trump said "51st state".
Why do you believe that Canada would cancel some or all of the submarine order?
Political factors were a part of the bids made, both by TKMS and its Norwegian partner (Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, a.k.a. Kongsberg Gruppen), and by the South Korean shipbuilder, Hanwha. However, it is quite clear that technical specifications and Canadian Armed Forces requirements were front-and-centre in the bidding process.
Canada is a sovereign state that has three vast maritime frontiers to police.
Irrespective of partisans' claims about the allegedly fickle nature of the Liberal government of Mark Carney, the Conservatives are also on board with the submarine program. What's more, Canadians writ large have demonstrated a sea change in attitudes regarding military preparedness.
I'm confident that the submarine building program will proceed as expected.
For me, this isn't going to get done. Presently, Canada has a government that is amazing for making announcements. This is still a country where nothing can get done. This announcement is meaningless. There is nobody in government who can actually make this program happen - make it deliver.
Remember: this is still Canada. If the lunatic in the White House had not been elected we would not be talking about this today. That's what it took: an unhinged senile old con-man to threaten our country.
I see nothing here that screams 'lets do this and here's how'. We can't get anything done. We are not a serious country.
I couldn't disagree more. I believe that something big has shifted in enough of us that future governments would be loathe to mess with the commitments being made today in respect of defence.
One thing that does worry me, though, concerns the response of Quebec society.
We all know how fraught the debate was in French-speaking Canada about recruitment into the Canadian military was during WW1 and again in WW2.
Of course, I recognize that Quebec, like the rest of the country, has evolved since then.
Perhaps, though, Quebeckers will respond in the same way to the things that have stoked support in the rest of the country for a more robust military policy.
Chief among these are concerns about the serious threats made by the US president to extinguish our sovereignty, and worries about the level of support he has attracted amongst Americans of a certain view for this and other expansionist positions.
Again, we can't get anything done in Canada.. Not serious, etc. This isn't going to happen. There will be no subs. Only sadness, despair. An empty, hollow feeling on what might have been but could not be.
Indulge your defeatist fantasies as you like.
Canada is not perfect, but I'm inclined to believe that, given our history, it would be foolish to simply claim, as you seem content to do, that we are "not serious" and that we "can't get anything done".
"Why do you believe that Canada would cancel some or all of the submarine order?"
The F35s have been a political football for decades.
The F35s are being made by a major US military contractor, in cooperation with subcontractors in various other countries, including Canada.
The submarines are being made in Norway and Germany.
Anyone who has been paying attention will recognize that, whereas the US government has made much of its prerogatives and is currently led by a president who has directly threatened our sovereignty, neither the Norwegians nor the Germans have threatened Canada during the 81 years that have elapsed since the end of WW2.
What's more, neither one of those two countries were ever interested in strong-arming us during the Iraq War.
Why the insult?
Anyways, the F35 saga began long before elbows up.
?
Because I have no trust in Canada to ever do the right thing especially when politics dictates otherwise, as it will when Trump stops being a factor. If we ever have another Conservative government I might even see them cutting back the order for budgetary reasons. Public opinion has only been pro military expansion for like 15 seconds and could change back just as fast and more easily.
That, my friend, is the question, and I fear the probable outcome.
Words are meaningless without action.
And why buy scary looking U-boats when you can roll out something like universal massage therapy or a national weekly grocery benefit instead? Which those weapon obsessed Americans are too cheap to give their citizens making us so much better.
I predict zero.
First because the Americans won't do that. Oh, they'll make nice quiet statements about getting along, but ultimately they've changed direction. It's not like the Democrats are the party of free trade with a voting block dedicated to opening imports from Canada. They've been tariffing our lumber industry since the 80s. (Possibly longer, I'm not sure). And the public mood has shifted in the USA generally, not just among Republicans.
But second... because neither we, nor the Europeans will trust them.
Public mood in the US, even among pretty right wing Republicans, never shifted to "Hey let's fuck with Canada for no reason and really make them hate us, won't that be fun". That's almost strictly a Trump thing. This is also the driving force behind purple haired grannies suddenly wanting to load up on submarines. Once AOC or whatever equally ridiculous leftist the Democrats run becomes president all of this will go away and we go back to arguing about gender pronouns.
> Public mood in the US [...] never shifted to"Hey let's fuck with Canada for no reason and really make them hate us, won't that be fun".
That's true. They ignorant enough to believe they're being fair. They think they're the victim and sure Trump is rude, but they're just forcing fairness on everyone else. They're in a self-pitying mentality of "oh woe is us...the world is so unfair to us" and they think they're just levelling the playing field.
Or to put it another way, the US, designed, funded and created the post-WW2 order to massively benefit itself and then proceeded to massively benefit... and has now convinced itself that akshually the whole system was set up to take advantage of the USA and they're just gentle souls who were taken advantage of their allies.
AOC takes a different view than the Trump admin on things like birthright citizenship, but she's not deploying troops to Ukraine, opening up trade and agreeing "yeah, the tech industry should be less centred in the USA".
The difference between AOC and Trump is that AOC will compliment us about how nice we are and how wonderful our country is... while continuing to hose us economically and geopolitically because Americans think they're being hosed and need to reverse that. Donald Trump do the same thing, except he will insult us and threaten us and generally act low class and needy.
Through it all, we're going to remember that they're still Americans and they're still the same people they are today. Like Matt said, we will never trust them again.
This kind of reflexive anti Americanism is always so absurd. Canadians and Americans are about 98% the same.
Rubbish.
First we are not 98% the same. If you think you're 98% American, that's your deal.
Second and more importantly, there's nothing reflexive about my statements.
It's an undisputed historical fact that the post-WW2 order was created by the Americans for their benefit. They were the strongest military left standing and so they could and they did. And to their moral credit, what they made didn't exploit everyone to benefit them. But make no mistake, it was created for their benefit both in the direct control it gave them and in where it placed them militarily. To pick just one example, it's not a coincidence that EVERY President of the world bank has been a US citizen and nominated to that post by the USA.
And unsurprisingly, they proceeded to benefit enormously from the system they created.
They are now suffering under the delusion that the massive benefits they accrued either didn't happen or were just the natural state of how the world came to be all by itself and they're actually being taken advantage of, not benefitting enormously from the world created by their predecessors. They forget that the very things they complain about, (American shouldering the bulk of the defence burden, American military engagement), were deliberate choices by the Americans as well as by their allies. The USA didn't want strong navies and armies capable of rivalling the USA, not even friendly ones. But as I often point out... the man who insists on picking the restaurant, the menu and ordering the wine achieves what he wants by paying the bill. There's a benefit to being the one calling the shots as there's a benefit to dining out in a restaurant you can't afford.
I don't blame the USA for what they did. It was a series of wise geo-political decisions and wise economic decisions made by the USA and unlike some countries (Russia), they didn't overly abuse their position. They favoured themselves often, (hmm Cuba has no right to Guantanamo Bay while Egypt has every right to Suez... gee I wonder why that could be), but they didn't abuse their position.
Overall, well done USA. You drew a fantastic hand post-WW2 and then you played it absolutely expertly. Now they've changed their minds and they don't like what they built.
Okay, that's fine. We'll build something else now.
BUT... while their belief that they were taken advantage of is just ignorant, it is inexcusable is that their reaction to **WHAT THEY BUILT AND BENEFITED FROM** has been to hurt and punish their allies.
And I don't mean it's inexcusable because it's bad or immoral. I mean it's inexcusable because we can't safely excuse it. They've shown us that they've changed and that unlike the Americans in the 1950s through 1990s they most certainly WILL abuse their position to our detriment for perceived harms from the world THEY CHOSE.
We will never trust them again.. because we cannot safely do so.
"I also tripped a little over the thought of Canadians in U-boats — I suspect many historically minded Canadians will also blink hard at that little twist of fate."
The *Israeli* navy had its first German U-boats decades ago, so it's less a blink than you might think.
The story that’s yet to come out is how much industrial offset packages played into the final downselection. Already the CBC has a piece where proponents of Algoma Steel are whining about the fact they won’t get an anticipated $342 million in business had the Korean offer been accepted. What did the German/Norwegian offer include, and who benefits? I’m glad that either offer seemed to center around a pretty good submarine design, because it became obvious that Liberals like industry minister Melanie Jolie were more interested in the industrial offset game than the actual ships.
These industrial offsets are never actually free. Politicians love them because they allow them to lob money and jobs in their ridings, but the suppliers aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and they’re going to expect to earn a target margin on the program one way or another. How much has the cost of these subs gone up because of the pursuit of those industrial benefits
From a selfish perspective, I had mixed feelings about aspects of the Korean industrial benefit offer. It included proposals to start manufacturing Hyundai hydrogen fuel cell trucks in Canada plus build a network of refueling stations. The catch? There’s already a Canadian industry focused on that market (which I work in), and Hyundai is a state-subsidized arch competitor. Competition is generally good; more hydrogen fueling stations would help accelerate development of the market. I’m just not thrilled about having to compete against another country’s industrial champion as part of a package that has the backing of *Canada’s* government too.
QUOTE
Perhaps we can make it up to [South Korea] by buying some other Korean weapons. They make some great kit...
END QUOTE
I wholeheartedly agree. Moreover, I suspect that at least a few people in Ottawa will quietly press for such a policy.
Not only do the South Koreans make good military equipment; they are also a crucial part of the Asia-Pacific community of democratic states. What's more, as many others have observed, Canadians did die (three generations ago) to help defend the country against an invasion by China and an effort by the Soviet Union to dominate the peninsula through what they thought was their puppet, Kim Il-song.
Korean equipment, bang-for-buck, is some of the best out there. We could pull a Poland quite easily for land equipment without any political issues.
Given the increased number of personnel that will be needed to staff the planned increase in capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces - might this lead to a renewed sense of national unity? We're going to need (young) people from all over the country to pull this off.
They’re definitely going to need to step up recruiting and training. The Navy has had trouble manning its current submarine force with essentially one deployable boat at a time: now they need to generate crews for a fleet that’s tripled in size.
I’ve been in rapidly growing organizations, and one of the challenges is that you can actually reduce your capability and efficiency as your energy gets focused on boarding new people, getting them up to speed, and implementing the organizational structure needed to manage them. The Navy probably needs to pivot hard into training for the next several years, using their current submarine force to simply develop a nucleus of experience needed to train the crews for the new subs.
Meanwhile, they need to get the recruiting and training pipeline flowing so it doesn’t take months to process an application, do the necessary checks, and get somebody inducted.
QUOTE
The Navy has had trouble manning its current submarine force with essentially one deployable boat at a time: now they need to generate crews for a fleet that’s tripled in size.
END QUOTE
Indeed. However, the salaries offered to soldiers have greatly increased over the past 18 months (by about 20 percent for frontline soldiers, sailors and aviators, and about eight percent for senior officers).
What's more, do not underestimate the attractiveness of a brand new fleet to prospective recruits.
It will not be easy, but I believe that recruitment will improve.
It's not insurmountable, but there's a bit of an uphill slog. They're grappling with the pan-Canadian problem of attracting young people into trades, and also the problem that a lot of young Canadians currently aren't sufficiently fit to meet physical requirements (anecodotal to be sure, but when *my* kids are scoring high grades in gym, I get worried about today's youth. My kids are *not* blessed with anything like an athletic inheritance...)
There's also the mundane aspect of shortening the time between somebody walking into a recruiting office and being inducted into training. Right now, the lag time is still on the order of months. That's not going to cut it when competing with the private sector for candidates. At the very least, they need to make the process more predictable and consistent so people will wait.
Two immediate steps the Forces should take are to increase funding for the Cadet programs to expand a pool of potential recruits, and also start pitching joining the Forces as an option for starting out a career: sweeten the pot with educational benefits, and plan on a lot of short-time recruits who'll be there for 6 years and move on. It's way easier to get people in the door if they see it as an experience to start out than a 20 year career commitment, and they'll probably retain quite a few of those recruits once they're in.
I agree, new modern kit is an attraction.
Yes we have bought German stuff before including various types of Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 tanks — both of which are performing yeoman service in the UKR army. As for the massive new fleet — it pales in size compared to what we had in the early to middle Cold War where the RCN had aircraft carriers and many more destroyers. I obviously will not use the strength we had in WWII where at the end of the war we had the 3rd largest navy in the world.
The issue dates back to 1970 when Trudeau cut the Forces in half — a cut that has never been remedied despite some PMs’ attempts to do so (Mulroney in particular). Those cuts were to the bone and also destroyed institutional assets that were never replaced thus making it entirely possible for a downwards direction in numbers and capabilities for decades after 1970.
There was one aircraft carrier - the small hand-me-down and fondly remembered Bonaventure - and the destroyers were DEs...destroyer escorts...referred to as Cadillacs because of the expense and the design was radical for the time - check out the St Laurent class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Laurent-class_destroyer#/media/File:HMCS_Fraser_(DDH_233)_underway_in_1983.JPEG
Yes, I have been on several of those older destroyers, including the ones built as the first serious anti-submarine helicopter carriers. As for aircraft carriers we had five — 2 in WWII with the RN but with all Cdn crews, then Warrior, Magnificent and Bonaventure from 1947 to 1970. The latter had anti-submarine Tracker aircraft as well as jet fighters (Banshees). The RCN was held in high esteem by NATO during that era. As were the RCAF and the Cdn Army.
You're correct...and the Bonny hung on 1970. I got on her - hours, not more - in 1965 having been brought up from Cornwallis (you obviously need no explanation for what that says of my status at the time).
Another grand announcement. Will we see action?
I still fall for the announcements, but only for a minute or two.
I too had thought a Korean choice would have spread the disbursements and signify an understanding that we have a need for Asian partners as well but as you note both options had pros and cons from an alignment perspective.
The ongoing "job leveraging" procurement perspective, while I understand the intent, is also a continuing sign that domestic politics continues to be of greater importance than military capability. I would suggest that trying to remove this "cog" from most military procurement is an effort that Carney should push towards in efforts to "government good".
The follow through is critical. If this winds up on the cutting room floor after Trump is gone then Canada will have lost hope in establishing a serious presence.
Thanks Matt.
Perhaps the real question for several generations is whether citizens will OK more defense spending, a purely federal responsibility, at the cost of reduced health & education spending, constitutionally a purely provincial responsibility.
I'd be curious to chart the decline in federal military spending with the increase in its health/education spending. I'd start in 1965 when Canadian medicare began and the provinces opened large numbers of colleges & universities.
Trudeau 1.0 began gutting the CF in his first term. For me, that's where it began. And certainly when I joined up in 1985, everybody was tri service right down to wearing the same hideous work dress. Mulroney put a stop to it but in the end, failed to deliver.
Mulroney had to deal with the end of the Cold War. Everybody was expecting a peace dividend, but Canadians didn't understand that Trudeau had already cashed it in 15-20 years previously. So instead the Forces had to slog on using hardware belatedly ordered by the late stage Trudeau government when they realized they had no other choice due to rust-out.
For me, America had our backs at that time- the Prime Minister and Reagan were bros. I have no recollection of a peace dividend in my travels at that time. Mulroney produced a white paper on defense in 87 as I recall. It promised the world. It went precisely nowhere and because the Mulroney government handled the economy so terribly that by 1989 the CF implemented the FRP program - the force reduction program and were paying CF members to leave.
Carney now has to deal with that which should have been done but Canada was too cheap and America would always defend us. The world is teetering toward conflict and Canada will absolutely be fighting on Canadian soil.
Libs and Cons have much to blame for what got us here, though it was more Libs than Cons, mind you, but for me, not by a hell of a lot.
The Feds like to pretend they are the defenders of health care but they are the ones who reneged on the deal of 50/50 funding.
Serious question though... Don't the subs have to be docked super secret?
. . . And on top of all the personnel and logistics and kit for Reg Forces (for all three branches), We're also still trying to figure out how to expand the reserves (or rather, "Home Guard") up to 400,000 people!
Things one must do to become "unattractive to conquest". ;-)
Maybe instead of full uniforms, etc., we just hand out arm-bands and flashlights (err, "torches", per the UK examples during WWII).
"...apparently every dollar we spend on these boats eventually being invested back into Canada."
I wonder how many more boats we could buy without this nonsense. How much a car would cost if the manufacturer promised to eventually return all the money? The price would have to be high enough so the interest early on would cover the actual cost of the vehicle. Two hundred grand at 4% would pay for a $40k car over five years.
We could name the first sub Kitchener
More likely Kretschmer ;-))
Having “Skin in the game” and the necessary tools to play the game will be a nice change for our military.
Seems like a good idea until the hatch closes and the crew immediately becomes obsessed with eating sauerkraut, sinking freighter tonnage and winning ze Knight's Cross.