Trudeau could promise free beer for a year at all bases and buy 400 K2s and Army.ca would still want to shoot the messenger.
It's not the message itself, it's the feasibility of it. I think this would be a great effort and a really good way to see Canada support NATO...
Depends on the type of beer…
I think he’s simply questioning the ability of the CAF to actually achieve the goal based on the issues it currently faces.
That's a rather pedantic viewpoint of what I said, but essentially, yes.
Personally I think its a good step BUT when it is (whatever unit you wish to name) turn to deploy will they have plunder other units and the PRes to do so?
I think @Infanteer comment is a fair statement though. The CAF has problems, sure, but it also has commitments to meet under SSE. The current mission and its expansion (and honestly I don't know how big that is or the nature of what it is as the media lines are all too vague so far) easily fall within the aggregate SSE mission numbers.
I think what you're seeing is a well-founded suspicion that this government does not keep many of its promises - unless it involves putting a cannabis store of every street corner.
You're privy to more than I am in that regard, I assume. I'm sure there are COAs in place, however, what are the limiting factors of "2200 to Latvia"? Res F activation? Reallocation of forces and eqpt from Bde to Bde? Do we provide for 2 Rotos and we are left without a chair when the music stops?
If it wasn’t a COA why is that the announcement?
I think @Infanteer comment is a fair statement though. The CAF has problems, sure, but it also has commitments to meet under SSE. The current mission and its expansion (and honestly I don't know how big that is or the nature of what it is as the media lines are all too vague so far) easily fall within the aggregate SSE mission numbers.
We have the kit (or are getting it) and we have the numbers needed. What we're arguing is how sustainable the mission is considering its pretty much indefinite rather than the year to year or two-year basis of Afghanistan.
What we shouldn't forget is that it's still a peacetime mission and puts only a fraction of the stress on the system and the people than Afghanistan did.
Can the CAF--particulalry the army--do better in organizing itself and its sustainment capability now that this seems to be a generational commitment? Absolutely. Can it meet these goals within the current climate? Absolutely as well.
It was a "hey, look over here" effort by the gov't to obfuscate the fact that we will not increase NATO spending commitments. Another mobius strip.I think @Infanteer comment is a fair statement though. The CAF has problems, sure, but it also has commitments to meet under SSE. The current mission and its expansion (and honestly I don't know how big that is or the nature of what it is as the media lines are all too vague so far) easily fall within the aggregate SSE mission numbers.
We have the kit (or are getting it) and we have the numbers needed. What we're arguing is how sustainable the mission is considering its pretty much indefinite rather than the year to year or two-year basis of Afghanistan.
What we shouldn't forget is that it's still a peacetime mission and puts only a fraction of the stress on the system and the people than Afghanistan did.
Can the CAF--particulalry the army--do better in organizing itself and its sustainment capability now that this seems to be a generational commitment? Absolutely. Can it meet these goals within the current climate? Absolutely as well.
Isn't this the same mission where they currently are months behind on paying people their per diem, and they had to bring in a tiger team of clerks to catch up?
Moving families requires a large infra footprint, to a place where we currently have people ten to a room. Might be a long term objective, but can't see that happening in the near term.
Is that actually what the living quarters are like there?
