| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Army soon will have just 500 available troops |
| 2004-01-14 |
| By September, the Canadian army will have only 500 troops available for deployment, fewer soldiers than the National Hockey League has players. Last year’s sudden deployment to Afghanistan was the last straw after years of cutting corners, senior commanders told David Pratt last month as he assumed his new position as Defence Minister. That unexpected 2,000-person deployment to Kabul taxed the 11,900 soldiers in the army’s field force beyond its limit. Rotations home had been deferred and training delayed. In consequence, 6,200 troops will need to go on operational waivers (the army’s term for downtime) in the coming months. Another 2,600 are scheduled for training courses. There are 600 committed to peacekeeping in the Balkans, with 200 doing similar work in the Middle East. The army has a smattering of peacekeepers and observers in such places as the Congo and Sierra Leone. That means, Mr. Pratt was told, that starting Sept. 1, for a period of about one year, the Canadian army will be able to field only 500 regular troops for new commitments. Whatever the United Nations might need of us, whatever might be NATO’s requirements, whatever coalitions the Americans might ask us to join, whatever the need may be in Afghanistan once our current deployment ends in August, Canada will be ready, aye, ready with 500 men and women. There are qualifications. About 150 reserve troops could supplement that regular force, if required. It might be possible to scrape up a few more soldiers if they were integrated into an international force that could provide all the logistical support. In a national or international emergency, the army could throw out the rules and rush troops back into service. In the absence of such an emergency -- which would in the long run make the situation even worse -- this country has only a few hundred troops ready to answer the call. On January 6, 2004, in my predictions for the New Year, I wrote: Canada will disolve its armed forces in favor of defense by junior hockey leagues. Is that spooky or what? |
| Posted by:Chuck Simmins |
| #20 >>Now, if only someone could explain why they name a unit the Princess Patricias.<< Sure. It's part of the British tradition of naming units after their honorary commanders-in-chief, who were (and are) members of the extended Royal Family. I disremember exactly who Princess Patricia was, though; I think she was that unit's honorary C-in-C around the turn of the century. The book I'm reading right now on Queen Elizabeth II does say who she was, but unfortunately I left it out in my car. I don't know if the Queen commands any regiments personally - after all, in name anyway, she's the chief honcho of the whole UK military structure - but her husband does, and Prince Charles commands a double hatful of regiments (and so does the rest of the family, even Prince Edward, which is paradoxical considering that he quit Royal Marine training). |
| Posted by: Joe 2004-1-14 6:20:32 PM |
| #19 "Dufils Brigadda"(Correct the speeling,if you wish TGA)=Devil's Brigade |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-1-14 3:27:25 PM |
| #18 How about we put the wall on the eastern border of NY? Toss that junior senator over it and you've got a deal. Hudson River would be easier to defend, just drop the bridges and man Fort Ticonderoga again. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-1-14 3:25:51 PM |
| #17 Kozlowski is correct. Their staffing levels weren't helped by the four we killed in that blue on blue incident, either. And they did set the world sniping distance record in Afghanistan. So let's make sure Cretin and Martin get the blame for this, not the guys in uniform. Now, if only someone could explain why they name a unit the Princess Patricias. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-1-14 2:59:45 PM |
| #16 Rafael, I did read somewhere (maybe here, maybe Damien Penny) that a Canadian sniper team in Afghanistan arranged quite a few unexpected meetings with Allah, at awesome distances. Thanks. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-1-14 2:53:30 PM |
| #15 hey, Steve - give us a heads up when you plan to put up that wall ... otherwise we'd be stuck in New France. On the other hand, I suspect a few people around, say, West Point might object to your plan. How about we put the wall on the eastern border of NY? Republican sentiment is actually growing in NY of late. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-1-14 2:52:59 PM |
| #14 "we need help in Afghanistan," Actually, Canadian special forces did play a considerable role in the early Afghanistan campaign. I don't know the combat specifics, but who do you think escorted all the bad guys to Gitmo? Yup, Canadians. Seems there's still some trust left between the respective SOGs. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-1-14 2:39:10 PM |
| #13 Well, if the US wanted to, it could raise an Army Corps worth of recruits in about ten minutes in Manila. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2004-1-14 2:15:58 PM |
| #12 Super Hose, nope, we're gonna have the Marines cross the Great Lakes at Detroit and drive north to James Bay cutting Canada in half at the narrowest point, liberating the western states. Then we throw a wall across the Penn/New York border isolating the liberal North East states joining them with Quebec and forming New France. Problem solved. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-1-14 1:35:22 PM |
| #11 shhh. When they are down to 500 troops, we storm across the border throgh Maine and Michigan and execute a classic pinchers movement. I can't believe they fell for the old "we need help in Afghanistan," whopper. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-14 11:54:23 AM |
| #10 I seriously think that the US military should organize a Canadian Brigade. I'm sure there are enough tough Canadians that would like to actually contribute to the defense of the West but find themselves unable to do so in Canada. Actually, I think the US could use a division or two of foreign soldiers willing to trade a 7-year hitch in the US Army for citizenship. In addition to Army basic and peacekeeping training, we could give them US history and Government courses as well as intensive US language training (including the Canadians, eh). These guys could later be attached to other US units to serve as translators, etc., as needed. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-1-14 11:49:23 AM |
| #9 Mike K: Just curious, are you the same Mike Kozlowski that worked for Chuck Fowler at NCR/Symbios? |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-1-14 10:45:35 AM |
| #8 Fighting above your weight isn' all that impressive when you are junior fly-weight. I ain't knocking the Canadian troops, I know they are absolutely top-notch. But come on! Their field army IS smaller than the NYPD (something like 38,000 I think?). Lucky for them, they'll never have to defend themselves from an external enemy. Geography and having a Superpower as a neighbor has it's benefits, eh? |
| Posted by: Swiggles 2004-1-14 10:37:58 AM |
| #7 ...FWIW, after serving alongside the Canadians, I wouldn't want to mess with five of their guys, much less five hundred. They are still smart, tough and professional - and they have always fought above their weight. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-1-14 10:03:05 AM |
| #6 Since when does Canada have a military? I thought they just relied on goodwill to keep their nation afloat. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-1-14 10:02:29 AM |
| #5 The entire field force of the Canadian Army amounts to only 11,900 troops??? I might be mistaken here, but doesn't that constitute a smaller armed force than the New York City Police Department? Who the hell are the Canadians counting on to defend them if the shit hits the fan, anyhow? Oh, wait, I think I know the answer... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-1-14 9:59:30 AM |
| #4 Even though the US is the root of all evil in the world the Canadians seem to trust us. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-14 9:57:35 AM |
| #3 If there weren't so many French up there, I'd say let's just take it over as a training exercise. |
| Posted by: KofiAnonymous 2004-1-14 9:50:10 AM |
| #2 Good. Now, if we want to annex Canada, we just have to give a call to the North Dakota National Guard. |
| Posted by: Sorge 2004-1-14 9:39:11 AM |
| #1 No, it's not spooky. Utterly insane, yes, but not spooky. |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-1-14 9:20:48 AM |