Canada's Worn-Out Military
As Canada prepares to leave Afghanistan, a weakness in our military is inadvertently revealed in comments by Lt.-Gen Peter Devlin, Commander of the Canadian army.
As quoted by the National Post’s Matthew Fisher – arguably the most reliable reporter covering Afghanistan – Gen. Devlin said it will be more than a year after leaving Afghanistan, before the Canadian army is “reconstituted” to a level fit to again deploy in substantial numbers.
Helicopters, Leopard II battle tanks, armored vehicles, ammunition and artillery have to be brought home and upgraded. “We will have the means, by December 2012, to deploy a capable task force – not of this size – to respond if the government of Canada wants us to,” Gen. Devlin said.
Think about that for a moment. Roughly 3,000 troops of Canada’s 23,000-member army serve in Afghanistan at any one time, many on their third tour over the past nine years. This has so depleted us, that we need a time-out to recover.
If duty in Afghanistan is hard on soldiers, it is even harder on mechanized equipment. There’s evidence that a good deal more than repairing and upgrading is required for the Leopard tanks, LAVS, and other vehicles.
Reality is, that the Afghanistan mission has absorbed virtually all the battle-ready equipment the Canadian army possesses. Much equipment needs replacing, not repairing.
For a country like Canada to have its military paralyzed for a year, unable to contemplate combat missions because 3,000 troops and virtually all the functioning mechanized vehicles in the army are exhausted, reflects poorly on the country.
What it indicates is that our army is too small, and insufficiently equipped.
Maj.-Gen. Mike Day, responsible for the training mission in Afghanistan, is on record opining that “the quality of the Canadian army is that it’s battle-hardened, combat-tested and is predicated on a training system that is as good as any in the world.”
After Afghanistan, few would challenge this view.
Judging from the effectiveness of our troops engaging the Taliban, a case can be made that Canada has “the best small army in the world” – even superior to the Israeli military, which doesn’t have the logistical or administrative problems that the Canadian army faces when fighting far from home.
It is felt by many who know, that the British army is twice as big as its country can afford, while the Canadian army is half as big as its country could afford.
In other words, Britain verges towards bankruptcy yet deploys twice as many soldiers than it can afford, while Canada, basking in comparative wealth, commits half as many soldiers as it should.
We have sufficient wealth to double the size of the army, but mostly it’s upgraded equipment and weaponry that’s needed.
If, indeed, as Gen. Devlin says, our army can’t deploy in a meaningful way until a year after the Afghanistan mission ends, it is a serious lapse that needs attention -- but is anathema to politicians who are reluctant to invest in the military.
The Canadian army has three infantry and three armored regiments, every one under-strength, supplemented by reserve forces. In the whole army, maybe 5,000 are combat troops – smaller than the Toronto police force.
As the Afghanistan mission nears its end, casualties have plummeted. However, once foreign troops are gone, it seems inevitable that the Taliban incubator of Pakistan will be a source for no peace in Afghanistan. Not reassuring.
Tweet