Bloggers Note: In my opinion the mounting pressure to achieve the 2% military funding is not just the procurement issue but the larger issue is that the USA and the NORAD need Canada to let the USA install so called "defensive" nuclear weapons in the North ......of course they would be called defensive.
But Canadian a re surely NOT ready to let that happen.
Next for Canada is to build an Israelite like iron dome over the North.
my 2 cents
VIDEO ,,
we've recently come up with a defense
policy update that that I think applies a very significant and necessary focus on Continental defense which I would also share um with the concerned Senators I would I would talk to them about the nearly 40 billion doll investment that we are making in NORAD modernization we know we've got work to do we've acknowledged that from day one that there is more that we need to do we've clearly indicated in our budget the path to getting that done and I would be able to I'm sure I'd be able to assure those concerned Senators that Canada will be a ready and capable Ally defense minister Bill Blair responding not too long ago to a bipartisan letter from 23 US senators urging Canada to meet its 2% NATO spending commitments the senator writing in part we are concerned and profoundly disappointed that Canada's most recent projection indicated that it will not reach its 2% commitment this decade the go letter goes on to say when the United States host the 2024 NATO Summit we will expect your government and every NATO member that has not met the 2% defense spending threshold to have a plan to reach this Benchmark as soon as possible the letter is signed by Republicans including Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz and Democrats including Chris Coons and Joe Mansion it comes just two months before NATO member countries as the letter references are set to meet in Washington with us now to unpack the potential impact of that letter former Chief of Defense staff retired General Tom Lawson is here alongside former Navy Commander retired vice admiral Mark Norman hello to both of you thank you very much uh for making the time I appreciate it General Lawson uh vice admiral this isn't a strange conversation the three of us were last together I think talking about calls from NATO itself for us to spend more but this is interesting some of the names on this letter are pretty high-profile senators and I I think the first question that jumped out to me uh now well I think there's a couple of reasons for that uh one is quite simply that uh the next NATO Summit is going to be in Washington these Senators these lawmakers want to make sure it's going to be successful and if they can bring pressure to bear on some of the laggards including Canada uh and and find that there is a successful response that will be good for the outcome of this Summit but I I think more to the point uh there is a growing uh recognition that there's a high risk the next president will be president Trump and for any Senators who see NATO as a very important Alliance these 23 quite clearly uh they would like to clear away as many excuses as they can I think for president Trump to take some significant actions that they think would be detrimental to Nato like pulling out entirely or more likely declaring kind of a two-tier NATO where those who don't pay up aren't really attacked do you think vice admiral Norman the prospect of Trump is is certainly Weighing on the Senators who signed this letter and and what do you them well I I have no doubt as general Lawson said that they're they're U they're hedging their bets um and that I don't think there's politics in that I think it's just a a a a concern that um that some of the polite patience that we've discussed the three of us before especially in Washington is likely to wear thin um the Washington Summit as general Lawson indicated is significant for another reason as well it's the 75th anniversary of the uh creation of the Washington treaty which is the charter document for the creation of NATO in the first place so there there is some significance there and as it relates to um the bipartisan nature of the signatories I think that is significant in and of itself because it does transcend um the the political traps if you will of um candidate a versus candidate B which which is a bit of a conversations and I would even add to that General Lawson there are a few names on this letter that right away jumped out to me because of the frequency with which they have had bilateral meetings with uh Canadian legislators or being on side with Canada on a number of issues Senator Coons for example jumps out as a huge Ally of Canada on a number of issues particularly the detainment of of Michael C and Michael spab I remember him speaking out quite forcefully on that uh Joe Mansion Senator Mansion for example also huge in promoting the energy industry in this country so the like um vice admiral Norman points out like this this isn't this isn't just a list of people who would be uh The Usual Suspects in some ways this is a list of people who are pretty closely allied with our country right so it makes it even more significant and now what we have to do is we have to speculate uh how the Prime Minister and the government will respond to this and and you know in other years and other times I think uh a government that's looking towards an election within the next couple years might Savor a a fight with the United States it plays well sometimes in Canada but I don't think that's what we're talking about now I I think what we're talking about now is a time in which Canadians recognize uh that there are great threats around the world and they see America as a friend in that uh and if the government determines that uh significant part of pro-defense they're going to see this uh this letter coming from the Senators as something that should be responded to positively by the government and then what we're into is how does the government respond uh in a way that satisfies these senators and yet matches the monies that Canada will have in years yeah just jumping off that vice admiral nurman I think what else is interesting about the timing is that it comes after the release of the defense policy review that conversation we had last time the three of us was prior to the release of that it was in ahead of the anticipated uh release of it and and this is I feel a bit different and you can almost hear it with Minister Blair he was saying hey we are spending more we do have this plan that we've put out I would show them this plan but they they know that plan they've actually even uh encapsulated it in their letter pointing to the fact that by the end of the decade we'll get to 1.7% essentially what they're saying is that's not enough right and and that shouldn't surprise us that their their uh narrative they being not just Washington but other key allies in NATO as an organization have been telling us that you know look we want to see a concrete plan 2% and notwithstanding the merits of the defense policy update uh with respect to all the different things that are going to be explored and the increased spending that the minister legitimately is referring to the bottom line is they're not answering the mail and um that this this is a significant G Gap in the expectations of um the leadership in Washington and more broadly the leadership in NATO and you know to some degree uh the government got a bit of a easy ride if you will um when they rolled out the defense policy update because um the there was enough ambiguous language uh that uh they could put a reasonably positive spin on it um the funding if we take it at face value uh most most of it is in the out years well beyond uh the Mandate of this government and arguably into the Mandate of a next or subsequent government and um as you alluded in your question one of the big concerns I have notwithstanding the political pressure associated with this is the the fiscal framework and the fact that you know the debt payments uh here nationally are going up significantly and that's putting enormous pressure um on spending and uh as Minister Blair has indicated publicly uh he had a tough time convincing his cabinet colleagues that 1.7% was um a reasonable Target uh and now we're seeing that that's not enough so um this story isn't over and and I'm not sure there's uh an easy way out for government General Lawson um it is fascinating that the minister was kind of speculating about that or speaking about it I should say publicly at all that that isn't normally the case is there way to address I guess the the elephant in the room appears to me to be that that we're the only Ally without a plan I I I that's the part that kind of confuses me would it would it be so difficult for the government to articulate a plan uh while also recognizing the fiscal pressures they face which are very real I don't want to deny that in any way and and maybe it's not for next year or another three years but you articulate a plan to get to 2% at some point I I am a little perplexed why why they they feel like they can't do that right well I I think that the def defense policy that was just published was was quite honest I think it was put out there by a government that's going to try and find the money to do the things that are in the policy what you're getting to is there not some sort of language that can be added that indicates uh you know response to the issue of getting to 2% as quickly as possible but it's tough if you want to be clear and honest about it I mean one way to do it and the Admiral uh could uh could give a lot more detail than this uh you know outline a plan to buy 12 conventionally powered subs uh you know accelerate the program and put a several billion down on that right now and I think quite quickly we would be showing how we'd be at full 2% uh before the end of this decade the problem with that for the current government is they haven't prepared the nation although the Admiral Norman and I would be delighted to hear about such a plan there's been no preparation so you're kind of left with trying to find something that answers not only these 23 Senators but uh the NATO Secretary General who was here just a while back asking for the same thing and to balance off how Canadians would feel about I think there's a way I I think that if Canada uh seeks to refurbish their bases wings and ports across the country right now that really have fallen into deep and chronic disrepair uh fill the uh Parts bins for all of The Fleets Army Navy and Air Force uh and then become the employer of Choice by upping uh pay and benefits and I I think pay and benefits are fairly fair right now but if you want to compete against other employers and fill up those 10 or 20,000 positions that are empty uh if you do all of these things almost all that money stays in Canada and make it clear right now that these Senators uh nor the NATO Secretary General have said where that spending should take place make it happen right Canada vice admiral Norman I've got 30 seconds left last word to you well look um there are lots of ways to uh achieve the target uh the the challenge for the government is um articulating a plan to do so and the there is apparent reluctance within caucus and cabinet and and that's understandable but the reality is that to this um we are a G7 country um we are one of the founding members of NATO we depend on um multilateral security we depend on our relationship with the United States not just for our security but for our economic well-being um we need to think strategically and we need to think the long game here and um that this may require uh some some risk to be taken political risk on the part of the government um other otherwise we're going to continue to be um slapped bluntly I'm going to leave it on that note thank you very much both of you for making the time for your analysis
No comments:
Post a Comment