"The US spends more on defense than the rest of NATO combined. The US forces are so far advanced from the rest that there are real questions of interoperability among members. And the US provides most of the logistics in Afghanistan. Canada's contributions are welcome but small."
Agreed. I have long thought NATO useless and its expansion flatly dangerous...though I think Canada's contributions are disporportionalty large in comparison to many of the other members.
"In Europe, conservative is a relative term. The people of the UK didn't support their presence in Iraq, but Blair had the courage to do it anyway."
Chretein however did not, so you're really only proving my point. Bad leadership makes for bad policy, and when you have conservative leaders in power, you get better military policy.
"The point is that Canada has not been as loyal an allie as you make them out to be. After the Korean War, they have done very little with us militarily when it comes to real combat. The Australians have been far better in that regard."
I just don't think there is any rational basis for this assertion. I don't think there are two free and fully independent countries on the face of the earth that have as extensive and cooperatives ties as do the U.S. and Canada, and that includes defense. I respect what Australia has done, but if they had had Rudd instead of Howard, Australia wouldn't have gone with us either...and you'd be saying the same thing about them. You "separate the individual sacrifice from national policy," but you seem unable to seperate individual leadership or parties from national policy. Strange.
"I suggest you read the history of the Falklands war and see what assistance the US provided. And don't get me started about what the US did for Europe during and after WWII. We have provided the security umbrella for Europe for almost 65 years and the Marshall Plan was essential to their recovery and economic resurgence."
I don't seem to recall there being any U.S. combat troops in the Falklands, but if you're going to start counting strategic intelligence and other military assistance as evidence of a strong alliance, then your criticism of Canada is even more unfounded.
"First, let's talk about Canada and not be diverted by the UK, which I will address later. The Canadian forces are today funded by approximately $19 billion annually, and are presently ranked 46th in size compared to the world's other armed forces, and 55th in terms of active personnel, standing at a population of roughly 65,000, not including the 26,000 reservists. Its 1.1% of GDP spent on defense ranks 132nd in the world.First, let's talk about Canada and not be diverted by the UK, which I will address later. The Canadian forces are today funded by approximately $19 billion annually, and are presently ranked 46th in size compared to the world's other armed forces, and 55th in terms of active personnel, standing at a population of roughly 65,000, not including the 26,000 reservists. Its 1.1% of GDP spent on defense ranks 132nd in the world. The UK has been in decline militarily and will continue to do so as it can no longer afford guns and butter. The British Empire has slowly receded as the UK made some hard choices, e.g., no forces East of Suez. The welfare state consumes more and more resources. As long as the US picks up most of the tab, the Europeans can luxuriate in their lifestyle and be critical of the US. Now that Obama is in charge, they can have the best of both worlds. They can control and direct what the US does, while we continue to pay the costs. "do you blame them for finding other spending priorities?" LOL. Of course I do. Why should the US taxpayer pay disproportionately for Canada's defense. Not to worry, the US is going to have to spend less on defense because we can't afford to be the world's lone superpower any longer. The huge, crushing national debt and rising entitlement costs will force us to choose butter over guns, just as it did in Europe and Canada. "
I really don't disagree with any of this...I just find it puzzling that we agree to pick up the tab for everyone's military and then complain about it when they don't invest in large militaries. Canada is probably the safest country in the world outside of the U.S., it has no historic enemies and sits on top of the world's only superpower, it's closest ally. By analogy, if I lived next door to the police station, I guess I wouldn't spend huge amounts of my paycheck on expensive alarms and high fences. The Europeans do the same damn thing. We may not like it, but we created the dependency. I'm more than happy to end it, but were getting ready to expand NATO for some inexplicable reason."
"Canada is doing its duty in Afghanistan. You can use all of the data you want, but it is the US who is bearing the overwhelming burden in terms of costs and lives. How many Canadians credit the US for defending them since WWII? Certainly not those who boo our national anthem at the Special Olympics or at hockey games."
Well, I would expect the U.S. to bear the burden in just about any conflict because of our hugely disproportionate power to any other military. I am sure we all know the score on defense since WWII, in which Canada I might add, acted admirably. It seems some Canadians have angered you, and there are plenty of snarky ones, particularly in Quebec, but you should seperate a long history of cooperation, friendship and mutual defense from rude fans at a hockey match.
"There you go again, changing the subject and attacking the UK and France. The US cannot afford to take a break and it seems ludicrous to me that the head of Canada's army suggests that they need a year off from operational duties. When has the UK or France made such a ridiculous statement?"
Well, I've never attacked the UK at all, whose assistance remains indispensible. Enough cannot be said about British sacrifices over the years. I've merely used them as a basis for comparison with Canada since they are all, NATO members, and the numbers compare well. I don't think either the UK or France have made such a statement, though I could be wrong, but operationally, no military can continue to go on indefinitely...everyone needs a break. Even the U.S., and we've had plenty of discussions about needing a break in past few years, especially with regard to the burdens placed on our national guardsmen and women. As for France taking a break, well, they haven't been active members of the NATO military command since 1966, so I would say they took one hell of a break, and when it counted most for defeating the Soviets.
"I can separate the individual sacrifice from national policy. Canda's rank as 132nd in the world in its expenditures on national defense as a percentage of GDP speaks for itself. It is a joke, but it is on the US taxpayer. I guess we indirectly subsidize the Canadian health system, i.s., less money on defense means more money for the social welfare system."
Again, I think you're being very unfair given Canada's population and the GDP numbers are very misleading because of the size of the economies we're talking about. Yes, I would like to see Canada have a more robust military, but I would also like to see Germany and France and Japan and Australia and Italy and many others have stronger ones too. I guess I just save my criticism for those whose defense we provide and lifestyles we subsidize while they sit on their hands, as oppossed to those, like Canada, whose soldiers are more often than not with us, and are currently dyeing in Afghanistan right alongside us.
I see no reason to be "grateful." Is Canada grateful for our support of Canada's security? Some Canadians have no problem booing our national anthem at the Special Olympics and at hockey games. It is Canada's duty as a member of NATO to be supportive.
Agreed. I have long thought NATO useless and its expansion flatly dangerous...though I think Canada's contributions are disporportionalty large in comparison to many of the other members.
I gasther you are referring to Afghanistan. I disagree that NATO's expansion is dangerous. The former countries of the Warsaw Pact want the protection NATO offers. As someone who lived in Poland for two years during the days of martial law and communism, I fully understand why the Poles, Czechs, et. al. want the protection NATO offers from Russia. And they want the US to be the guarantor of their new found freedom.
Chretein however did not, so you're really only proving my point. Bad leadership makes for bad policy, and when you have conservative leaders in power, you get better military policy.
I wonder how much Canadians really support a strong defense policy and an increase in defense spending. The Defense Force is declining regardless of who is in power.
I just don't think there is any rational basis for this assertion. I don't think there are two free and fully independent countries on the face of the earth that have as extensive and cooperatives ties as do the U.S. and Canada, and that includes defense. I respect what Australia has done, but if they had had Rudd instead of Howard, Australia wouldn't have gone with us either...and you'd be saying the same thing about them.
Canada is our biggest trading partner. 85% of Canada's exports go to the US and 59% of its imports come from the US. That said, you can't divorce the political leadership of the country from the people or the defense policies. Canada only spends 1.1% of its GDP on defense, which is 132nd in the world. Somebody is electing these policymakers into office. Canada is still a democracy.
I don't seem to recall there being any U.S. combat troops in the Falklands, but if you're going to start counting strategic intelligence and other military assistance as evidence of a strong alliance, then your criticism of Canada is even more unfounded.
Why would we send combat troops to the Falklands? Did Canada send combat troops to the Falklands? Your ties to the UK are far stronger than ours. Did NATO send combat troops to the Falkland?
Some believe that the UK could not have been victorious without our assistance, which consisted of intelligence and military weaponry. [to be continued]
Here is one view of the US contributions. Exaggerated perhaps, substantial yes.The Argentine military establishment had no trouble last week explaining why Britain was able to recapture the Falklands: massive U.S. military assistance
The Europeans do the same damn thing. We may not like it, but we created the dependency. I'm more than happy to end it, but were getting ready to expand NATO for some inexplicable reason."
Yeah right. Blame the victim. How do we end it? Don't these nations have the same responsibility as we have to support peace and freedom around the globe? And NATO expansion has nothing to do with nations sharing the burden. In fact, the new nations in NATO are doing more than Old Europe with the exception of the UK. I guess we can use withdrawal as a way to end this dependency. Let the Euros and Canada fend for themselves. We can't afford to be the global policeman any more.
Even the U.S., and we've had plenty of discussions about needing a break in past few years, especially with regard to the burdens placed on our national guardsmen and women
What the hell are you talking about? The US has never talked about suspending all operational duties of our military. What kind of "break" are you referring to? We want to expand our military after the cutbacks during the peace dividend years of Clinton. The problem is that we can no longer afford both guns and butter. We are stretched too thin.
It seems some Canadians have angered you, and there are plenty of snarky ones, particularly in Quebec, but you should seperate a long history of cooperation, friendship and mutual defense from rude fans at a hockey match.
It goes much deeper than that. Canada is unwilling to contribute its fair share of the defense burden. Anti-Americanism is rising. Our northern border is becoming more of a security threat due to Canada's lax policies on who they let into Canada. Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States
Again, I think you're being very unfair given Canada's population and the GDP numbers are very misleading because of the size of the economies we're talking about. Yes, I would like to see Canada have a more robust military, but I would also like to see Germany and France and Japan and Australia and Italy and many others have stronger ones too. I guess I just save my criticism for those whose defense we provide and lifestyles we subsidize while they sit on their hands, as oppossed to those, like Canada, whose soldiers are more often than not with us, and are currently dyeing in Afghanistan right alongside us.
We are talking about Canada. You can try to change the subject and divert attention elsewhere. Canada has done very little during the past 50 years in helping the US in a combat role. Yes, the 2,500 troops in Afghanistan are welcome and the deaths of 116 Canadians in combat are lamentable, but let's be real. Canada is not pulling its weight and the defense forces are in a dismal state. And for some reason, many Canadians are now whinning that they are making disproportionate sacrifices. And Americans must show how grateful they are. Give me a break. We have lost about 5,000 Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan with more than 30,000 wounded. Close to 200,000 troops have been committed. Try that in your numbers comparisons. I guess if Luxemburg sent some troops and lost 5 people, we can call their losses more per capita than the US or Canada.
Germany and France and Australia and Italy spend a greater percentage of their GDP on defense than Canada. Japan is about the same.