| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Canada’s overseas troop strength to drop sharply |
| 2004-06-26 |
| Canada will reduce its overseas military deployments to just 1,200 personnel by fall, down from 4,500 a year ago, the chief of defence staff said on a stopover today in advance of next week’s NATO summit in Turkey. Gen. Ray Henault said deep cuts in troop commitments to its two biggest NATO missions — Afghanistan and Bosnia — and the withdrawal of naval ships from the Persian Gulf, will give the country’s armed forces a much-needed respite. ...In a wide-ranging interview, Henault said the number of troops in Bosnia is currently down to 650 from 1,250 and will be fewer than 100 observers and surveillance troops supporting a European Union mission by September. There will continue to be nominal deployments in Africa, the Middle East and Haiti, where an infantry company will be reduced to a couple of UN staff officers by September. The biggest immediate change will come in Kabul, where the current contingent of 2,300 infantry and mechanized soldiers — the city’s largest foreign troop presence — will be replaced by two successive rotations of about 900 troops, most of them armoured reconnaissance soldiers. This is bad for our WOT. Say what you will about Canada’s decision not to officially join the Iraq War, Canada has discreetly helped the US by maintaining naval ships in the Persian Gulf as well as keeping their superb soldiers in Afghanistan. Unlike Mexico, GWB’s great "friend" [cough, cough] on the southern border whose country has been lavished with ongoing Uncle Sam tax $, Mexico has not sent a single Federale to help our troops either in Afghanistan or Iraq. |
| Posted by:rex |
| #26 Looks like Denmark might be claiming even more islands off Canada in the future if Canada drops the sad military they have now. Probably quite a few more Chinese port visits up north as well. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-06-26 9:34:32 PM |
| #25 May be about time for an American Foreign Legion. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-06-26 5:08:28 PM |
| #24 It's dead even (statistically). Something like 32% Liberals, 31% Conservatives, 19% NDP (Communists, basically). One thing's for sure, it's going to be a minority government. Toronto will probably be divided between Liberals and NDP. Rest of Ontario will probably go Conservative. Even though election results will be available Monday, what happens with the government won't become certain right away. Considering that Conservatives were practically non-existant in Parliament for the last several years, I'd say this is good news. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-26 2:54:17 PM |
| #23 Rafael, do Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have any chance on Monday or is it just going to be more of the Liberal kabuki dance for Canada? |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-26 2:40:51 PM |
| #22 Well, Canadian anti-terror legislation got a boost somewhat from the Supreme Court in Canada: Controversial anti-terrorism provisions that compel unco-operative witnesses to answer questions in special investigative hearings are constitutional -- but cloaking them in immense secrecy is not, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-26 1:25:48 PM |
| #21 I don't think it has so much to do with refugees. It simply is easier to get into Canada than the US, it may seem. It's all based on a points system; gather enough points, and you're in. It's even easier to bring over family members, but then I imagine same thing in the US. There have been loud cases where refugee claims have been rejected. So I assume something, somewhere is working as it should. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-26 1:08:42 PM |
| #20 Whether the jihadi agents in Canada are against *Canada* in the *short term* may be open to question. There have been more than a few which are against the US, however, beginning with the attempted Y2K bombers who attempted to come south the Seattle .... Moreover, it's not clear to me that Canada is even having the discussion about how to effectively deal with terror networks while preserving core civil liberties. As a woman I shudder at the embrace of sharia that is edging in with official approval. The US isn't handling the problem of infiltation as well as I'd like. We are, however, actively prosecuting and/or detaining members of the networks as we penetrate them. Don't see a whole lot of progress on that sort of thing up north ..... |
| Posted by: too true 2004-06-26 1:02:54 PM |
| #19 I believe it's been shown Canada's "refugee" policies have let in more problems than the US immigration process, which I also acknowledge has been a disaster. Canada's is just looser on the "political refugee" allowance. I don't have any numbers to justify that belief, just anecdotal, but also in light of the much larger numbers of visitors/immigrants to the US |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-26 12:56:38 PM |
| #18 I don't see Canada letting in agents against us any more so than the US. Or has immigration been completely shut down in the US? As far as loyal Canadians getting the upper hand, the answer will come this Monday. Remember though, I am a pessimist (and a realist). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-26 12:49:21 PM |
| #17 sarcasm, Raphael. Americans can handle the defense of Canucks if Canucks aren't actively opposing the US and allowing "refugees" in which are agents against us....The ties between the countries are too tight and too important to let lefty socialist politicians damage them. Question is, when will the loyal Canadians get the upper hand? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-26 12:35:29 PM |
| #16 I'd write them off entirely were it not for that long border Yeah. A bitch ain't it? the number of jihadis and sympathizers they're already harboring Can't be much more than what your country is harboring. At least ours are mostly immigrants. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-26 12:28:06 PM |
| #15 fine, let's take their oil/Coal/Natural Gas. Payment for "Defense Services" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-26 11:31:00 AM |
| #14 Western provinces rise up! Join with the U.S. (We'll let you all have as many guns as you want!.) Quebec can go to the Frogs. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-06-26 11:23:48 AM |
| #13 Crikey, the mounties are police not military. Rex, Bush and Fox have not been close since 9/11. Re: the Canadian military, it certainly is true that historically they have been brave and effective fighters. Now they are strained by small peacekeeping and stability/security operations overseas. I've read online reports to the effect that they can scarcely maintain a handful of helicopters and other equipment at home, too. Sad - and worrisome. Canada strikes me as having backed themselves into the same smug corner as much of Europe -- sure they are morally superior to the barbarian Americans, quietly dependent on US defense while also assuring themselves loudly that defense would not be needed if it were not for those posturing Americans stirring things up ..... I was in Banff a couple months ago and the headline in the major paper was "Canada feeling smug about itself when it looks south". The article made it clear the author wasn't criticizing that smugness, rather, was quietly reinforcing it. I'd write them off entirely were it not for that long border and for the number of jihadis and sympathizers they're already harboring. |
| Posted by: too true 2004-06-26 11:22:16 AM |
| #12 Canada has a military ? I thought mounties were just in the cartoons. |
| Posted by: Crikey 2004-06-26 10:43:49 AM |
| #11 Canada is on its way to having no military. After that, it'll be on its way to no longer being a country. What a shame. |
| Posted by: Infidel Bob 2004-06-26 9:44:46 AM |
| #10 Unfortunately Jean Joseph Jacques Chretien gutted the military and threw the money down a series of rat holes. Aha, Chretien, that demented socialist moron. I can't stand that guy. He took a nice country and turned it into a banana republic under the rule of a tinpot dictator, himself. A relation of mine flew in the RCAF in WWII. Canada lost more brave souls in WWII than the USA. Then that idiot, Cretin, and his mentor Pierre Elliot Trudeau turned the country upside down. Now Don Cherry, the NHL sportscaster, is the bravest guy in the land and the only one unfraid to speak out against Big Brother in Ottawa. I read a recent article in the National Post that Canada could only scramble 5000 soldiers if a national emergency struck Canada like 9/11. The Liberal Party of Canada let their soldiers fly in killing machines called the aging SeaKing helicopters for years and years, knowing full well they were old and dangerous. When Canada sent soldiers to Afghanistan, they did not have bullet proof vests for them so the Canadian peace keeping troops in Bosnia had to give up their vests so the ones deployed to Afghanistan could have them. Chretien also had starved the military so badly that Canadian troops had to beg a ride from the USA to get flown to Afghanistan. As for pissing away $, Chretien was a master at that-he let the Governor General take her "artiste" cronies with her on a trip to Russia to the tune of $1 million. And then there's the black hole of wasted tax dollars-the gun registry-what a hoot, it was supposed to cost $1 million and now it's up to $1 Billion and going strong. CBC, which nobody watches, costs a cool $1 billion each year. Oh and then there was the $ 3 Billion wasted on job creation grants, according to the scathing report of the Auditor General, doled out by the HRDC. Don't get me started on the black hole called health care-2 years wait list for hip replacement surgery. Yet not enough $ to supply bullet proof vests for Canadian troops who would be shot at by the Taliban. Jean Chretien never even sent off the troops from Canada to Afghanistan with a personal farewell-slimeball-he would go on vacation to Quebec instead. Did I tell you I can't stand dat guy? You could do "military" key word searches on 2 Canadian political forums if you are interested on reading why Canada has been sabotaged by the Liberal Party of Canada in terms of helping us in defense - very sad. After you read the articles you will see that Canada is at the same level of Mexico for "excuses", #2: There's: freedominion.ca and mapleleafweb.com |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-26 2:23:46 AM |
| #9 Without a Canada where would the artist go? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-06-26 1:25:47 AM |
| #8 I worked with a lot of Canadian Forces - Air (as the politicians chose to call the RCAF) in the 70' and 80's. They were good people, as professional as any military in the world in spite of being the only AF in the world dressed in green. Unfortunately Jean Joseph Jacques Chretien gutted the military and threw the money down a series of rat holes. He assumed that the US would protect Canada and hence he didn't need one. He forgot that depending on the American government for defense puts Canada in the same status as any other state of the Union. We need to remember that Canada is smaller than California. The Canadian Forces (land, air, and sea) can muster about 53,200 personnel. We have more than that here in San Diego county. Actually, I suspect that San Diego county could kick Canada's ass given Canada's current reduced circumstances. With its current miniature military, Canada should give up its pretences of being a nation, dissolve into provinces and let the ones that would like to (mostly the Western provinces) petition to join the US. The rest can sit in regal splendor and majestic irrelevance. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-26 1:17:17 AM |
| #7 If Canada could redeploy all those divisions that are arrayed along their northern border. But Iceland, bloody Iceland. ed, the growers union is well armed. So bring a friend. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-06-26 12:41:36 AM |
| #6 Wonder if there's any hope of a change if power shifts in Ottawa in the coming election. One hears now and then about sentiment in Canada to resume serious expenditures on defense, but I have no idea how likely that might be under a new govt. Shame. I know several Canadians who are furious and despairing over their nation's current imitation of a small, annoying, dependent European country. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-06-26 12:24:40 AM |
| #5 Gromky, Excellent! Looks like my plan to take over Canada with a .22 rifle and paintball pistol is about to come true. All hail king ed! In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-06-26 12:24:38 AM |
| #4 Anonymous2U - they're sure not getting their money's worth. Gromky - fine, let them disband their military completely. When the jihadis rise up, we won't have anyone to send to help them, since our troops will be tied up elsewhere. We will, however, find enough to seal the border and shoot down the incoming jihadis like the morons they are. Then the normal provinces, such as Alberta, can petition to become states. That would really put Toronto's and Quebec's knickers in a twist. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-26 12:23:32 AM |
| #3 Looks like Denmark might be claiming even more islands off Canada in the future if Canada drops the sad military they have now. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-26 12:22:34 AM |
| #2 The Federales are busy helping their allies...the Juarez cartel, the Tijuana gangs... Seriously, though, no beating up on the Mexicans. It's like whipping a third-grader for not being able to solve an integral calculus equation. Look for Canada to drop its military altogether if current trends continue. Several of my Canadian friends question the need for any military at all, citing the desire to shift the spending to social causes. |
| Posted by: Gromky 2004-06-26 12:15:31 AM |
| #1 They have no money, it's going for health care. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-06-26 12:03:37 AM |