Thanks! We can't actually have a meaningful disagreement on the "how to defend" topic because of a fundamental disagreement on what the military are *FOR*.
Dyer would ask you to explain the reason why ANY Canadian should risk hate and guilt by stepping 1 metre outside Canada with weapons. Their job is to defend Canada, alone. There are on…
Thanks! We can't actually have a meaningful disagreement on the "how to defend" topic because of a fundamental disagreement on what the military are *FOR*.
Dyer would ask you to explain the reason why ANY Canadian should risk hate and guilt by stepping 1 metre outside Canada with weapons. Their job is to defend Canada, alone. There are only two excuses for this dangerous thing:
1) Pearson's "International Peacekeeping", which is noble charity work until the theory that it generates "goodwill" that leads to commercial profits shows some evidence. There's little, certainly nothing to justify costs. It's charity. Operations money should come from a separate diplomatic budget; it's not "defence"!
2) Currying favour with the superpowers to whom we've been a client to since our inception: England, France, America. Playing sidekick in return for a nuclear umbrella, these days, not to mention all that great trade.
Champions of (2) now need to explain themselves. What are we paying for, if we will not be protected, since we the protectors say we don't need to exist?
I wouldn't "onshore" a single military item that we need for wars inside Canada, that anybody else makes already. If we MUST have an item to defend our homeland, I'd buy from even(!) Americans before I'd onshore, it's a money-pit.
New R&D of drones does NOT count as such, though, they are a multi-purpose tool with a zillion uses, and nobody owns the "drone market", yet. Turkey and Iran are big drone playas in Ukraine, obviously we can afford that R&D too, if they can. It's orders of magnitude cheaper than sub R&D or plane R&D. A huge drone R&D program , along with 20% raise and better bennies, is my offer to our military to suck-up disengagement with their beloved Americans.
But if we are only buying an item for "NATO commitments", those all need to be rexamined as (a) valuable for homeland defense, or (b) just to curry favour that may never be repaid. Politics in the UK and Paris also make me glum about either nation risking hellfire to defend Iqaluit.
With respect, "their job is to defend Canada, alone" is exactly the sort of thinking that allowed Hitler's rise and the fall of Western Europe. In order to prevent war, collective security is imperative, a truth that's only more urgent with the US abandoning NATO. https://dgardner.substack.com/p/why-does-nato-exist
We participate in collective security because it is the best way to defend ourselves, not because we are charitable (why I broke that out). RIght now, Ukraine is OUR front line, absolutely.
My "plan" (unwritten) includes using that doubled budget to triple our support for Ukraine. Or more. WHATEVER IT TAKES. "It takes billions to win a war. To lose one, takes all you have." I support defending Ukraine if every other nation falls away. I support defending Ukraine if we have to leave NATO so that we can send in troops. I'll join them. (Can't fight, but I'll take jobs where the explosions can kill me. Grandmother did, in France.)
But, again with respect, in practice, (check the spending) our "collective" participation" is not Europe focused, it's very American-focused, and the "currying favour" charge comes from the $600 toilet seats - all their stuff is monumentally profitable.
That's the main part I want re-evaluated. "Switching to Europe" is not failing to participate in collective defence. I regret giving the impression; it's difficult to be concise and not do such things.
Upon editing, adding this to be super-clear: MOST NATO-Europe participation is defending us because that war could head our way. So could have Bosnia. Some NATO work is just to stick their nose in to their old colonial possessions. As a former colony ourselves, we have no interest.
OK, thanks for clarifying. Something to bear in mind is that there are lots of people who really do think defence should be about protecting our soil and ignoring the rest. Glad to hear you're not one of them but you might want to avoid language that could be misunderstood, as I did apparently.
Or, I should give up trying to summarize ten Gwynne Dyer books and 300 columns, it's all from him, just read him - and I assure you his views come from hundreds of interviews with the most-revered military around the world.
But his "Canada in the Great Power Game, 1914-2014" (third plug) is the go-to on this matter. A chapter is devoted to connecting foreign adventures to homeland defence, after the starting point of "they only exist for homeland defence". Attempting a chapter in 100 words was a fool's errand.
Thanks! We can't actually have a meaningful disagreement on the "how to defend" topic because of a fundamental disagreement on what the military are *FOR*.
Dyer would ask you to explain the reason why ANY Canadian should risk hate and guilt by stepping 1 metre outside Canada with weapons. Their job is to defend Canada, alone. There are only two excuses for this dangerous thing:
1) Pearson's "International Peacekeeping", which is noble charity work until the theory that it generates "goodwill" that leads to commercial profits shows some evidence. There's little, certainly nothing to justify costs. It's charity. Operations money should come from a separate diplomatic budget; it's not "defence"!
2) Currying favour with the superpowers to whom we've been a client to since our inception: England, France, America. Playing sidekick in return for a nuclear umbrella, these days, not to mention all that great trade.
Champions of (2) now need to explain themselves. What are we paying for, if we will not be protected, since we the protectors say we don't need to exist?
I wouldn't "onshore" a single military item that we need for wars inside Canada, that anybody else makes already. If we MUST have an item to defend our homeland, I'd buy from even(!) Americans before I'd onshore, it's a money-pit.
New R&D of drones does NOT count as such, though, they are a multi-purpose tool with a zillion uses, and nobody owns the "drone market", yet. Turkey and Iran are big drone playas in Ukraine, obviously we can afford that R&D too, if they can. It's orders of magnitude cheaper than sub R&D or plane R&D. A huge drone R&D program , along with 20% raise and better bennies, is my offer to our military to suck-up disengagement with their beloved Americans.
But if we are only buying an item for "NATO commitments", those all need to be rexamined as (a) valuable for homeland defense, or (b) just to curry favour that may never be repaid. Politics in the UK and Paris also make me glum about either nation risking hellfire to defend Iqaluit.
With respect, "their job is to defend Canada, alone" is exactly the sort of thinking that allowed Hitler's rise and the fall of Western Europe. In order to prevent war, collective security is imperative, a truth that's only more urgent with the US abandoning NATO. https://dgardner.substack.com/p/why-does-nato-exist
Much respect, we have no actual disagreement.
We participate in collective security because it is the best way to defend ourselves, not because we are charitable (why I broke that out). RIght now, Ukraine is OUR front line, absolutely.
My "plan" (unwritten) includes using that doubled budget to triple our support for Ukraine. Or more. WHATEVER IT TAKES. "It takes billions to win a war. To lose one, takes all you have." I support defending Ukraine if every other nation falls away. I support defending Ukraine if we have to leave NATO so that we can send in troops. I'll join them. (Can't fight, but I'll take jobs where the explosions can kill me. Grandmother did, in France.)
But, again with respect, in practice, (check the spending) our "collective" participation" is not Europe focused, it's very American-focused, and the "currying favour" charge comes from the $600 toilet seats - all their stuff is monumentally profitable.
That's the main part I want re-evaluated. "Switching to Europe" is not failing to participate in collective defence. I regret giving the impression; it's difficult to be concise and not do such things.
Upon editing, adding this to be super-clear: MOST NATO-Europe participation is defending us because that war could head our way. So could have Bosnia. Some NATO work is just to stick their nose in to their old colonial possessions. As a former colony ourselves, we have no interest.
OK, thanks for clarifying. Something to bear in mind is that there are lots of people who really do think defence should be about protecting our soil and ignoring the rest. Glad to hear you're not one of them but you might want to avoid language that could be misunderstood, as I did apparently.
Or, I should give up trying to summarize ten Gwynne Dyer books and 300 columns, it's all from him, just read him - and I assure you his views come from hundreds of interviews with the most-revered military around the world.
But his "Canada in the Great Power Game, 1914-2014" (third plug) is the go-to on this matter. A chapter is devoted to connecting foreign adventures to homeland defence, after the starting point of "they only exist for homeland defence". Attempting a chapter in 100 words was a fool's errand.