Posted on 09/29/2001 10:49:46 AM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's underfunded armed forces are in such a perilous state that they would find it hard to make a meaningful contribution to any international military effort against terrorism, the Canadian defense manufacturers lobby group said on Thursday.
The Conference of Defense Associations said Ottawa needed to pump in a minimum of another C$1 billion ($640 million) a year for the next five years to prevent any more damage being done.
Canada slashed military spending by 23 percent between 1993 and 1999 and currently spends around C$11.4 billion a year on its armed forces, which have shrunk to fewer than 60,000 from 84,600 in 1988 and 120,000 in 1958.
CDA Chairman Lieutenant-General Charles Belzile said that if the United States did request military help for a future campaign against terrorism, Canada would be able only to send a small force of ill-trained troops.
"If the government of Canada is prepared to volunteer troops under those kind of constraints, I suppose we (could) do it. But you'd have to scrape the bottom of the barrel," he told a news conference. "Our capabilities to help the United States (are) very limited."
In July the United States took the unusual step of criticizing the low level of defense spending and urged Ottawa to significantly increase its armed forces budget.
Canada currently spends only 1.2 percent of its economic output on defense, lower the NATO average of 2.1 percent. In February it said almost half the planes in Canada's air force would be retired for cost reasons.
Canada's auditor-general says the country needs to fork out around C$6 billion to replace outdated equipment.
A spokeswoman for Defense Minister Art Eggleton said the armed forces had to adapt to changing military realities and become more flexible to face new challenges.
"The events of Sept. 11 reinforce that and the issue is not just about money. We have made significant investments to enhance our capabilities," Renee Fairweather told Reuters.
Belzile said the CDA wanted the armed forces to grow to 60,000 people in the short term and then to 75,000.
"A vast infusion of money immediately is not going to change the problems of the armed forces by next Tuesday," he said, stressing the need for more training and to purchase more up-to-date equipment.
"If we don't get the money I think the forces are going to continue to erode...eventually you will have to really question whether or not you have an armed force or not," he said.
"We are down to the level now where you cannot deploy more than 400 or 500 people for more than six months."
Eggleton said in March that budget constraints might force Canada --which was instrumental in creating the concept of the modern peacekeeping force -- to adopt a strategy of deploying its forces early in conflicts and pulling them out quickly.
Leon Benoit, defense critic for the opposition Canadian Alliance party, said Eggleton had to increase spending on the armed forces.
"Numbers do not lie. This minister has put Canada's hard-working military in a position where it cannot meet its promises now," he said in a statement.
"By planning further cuts to defense, Eggleton has put us in a deficit situation with regards to our allies, and damaged the credibility of Canada," he said.
($1=$1.58 Canadian)
Or perhaps Rumsfeld: Leaner is meaner / A new round of base closings passes the Senate
So9
I read in another article that they have the highest general to private ratio among NATO countries. Some of their problems aren't just money, but are a matter of organization, discipline, and vision. That starts with the leadership - like the generals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.