Canada's military pride: Worthington

First posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012
TORONTO - When Stephen Harper’s Conservatives were first elected to form a minority government in 2006, the PM adopted refurbishing, updating and praising the military as a campaign and government priority.

The DND budget rose to top $21 billion, equipment and weaponry were diverted from other roles to support the mission in Afghanistan. The returns of this unprecedented attention were that morale in the army rose, and Canada’s prestige in the world that matters, reached heights unknown since the Second World War.

Our troops exceeded expectations in Afghanistan. The competence and spirit were mindful of Canadians in the First World War, where they never lost ground they didn’t recapture within 48 hours; and the Second World War, where Gen. Dwight Eisenhower called them the toughest troops in his command.
By the time our commitment was winding down in Afghanistan (a political rather than military decision), there were many who regarded this “new” Canadian army as the “finest small army in the world.” And that includes the Israelis, who do not have the logistical problems Canada has.

During the Second World War — and certainly not in the Korean war or in post-war peacekeeping — Canadian casualties weren’t publicized or mourned to the extent that those killed in Afghanistan were — 158 dead.

Ordinary Canadians are proud of their soldiers, and the Conservative government has benefited from this national approval.

Now that Afghanistan has entered a new phase that doesn’t involve Canadian soldiers in a combat role, coupled with America’s seemingly acceptance that it cannot win in Afghanistan and is in the process of pulling out and, claiming the Afghan National Army (ANA) can now do the job, the Canadian government is once again cutting back funding for the military.

Cutting the DND budget is also a Canadian tradition.

Already it’s been announced that recruiting centres across Canada are being reduced; the TOW2 missile system that cost around $100 million three years ago, is being scrapped (thus saving $20 million, we are told); some $3.5 billion in proposed military equipment purchases has been suspended for a few years.
DND is being trimmed of some civilian employees, and something like 1,000 DND jobs are supposed to be eliminated. For those in uniform, technical and specialist pay is being reduced; maintenance and repair costs are being cut back; the number of reservists — already pathetically low at 7,500 — are to be cut by close to 30%, to 4,500 members.

Progressively, for the next three years, the DND budget is to be reduced by around $1 billion a year. (None of these cutbacks applies to the aquiring F-35 fighter aircraft, presumably because these costs won’t apply for several years).

All this (and more) is nothing to get too excited about, although it’s depressing if Canada reverts to short-changing the military that has contributed so much to its national prestige (unless you are a hopeless pacifist who views soldiers as warmongers).

Historically, the Canadian military has always made do with less, yet always has exceeds expectations and succeeds in whatever is required of it.

A recent letter in the National Post by Bob Orrick, a former executive with the Korean Veterans Association, deplores the cutbacks. He says a lesson can be learned by examining how Canada “dithered about how to fulfill Canada’s obligation under the UN Charter and assist South Korea in its most dire hour of need” when it was invaded by the North in 1950.

At the time, some five years after the end of the Second World War, Canada had already stripped the military of manpower, equipment and weapons of war.

Orrick says a lack of purpose and planning, compounded by poor equipment, led to increased casualties in Korea.

He says soldiers had to use “.303 Lee-Enfield rifles that dated back to the First World War . . . (and) tin hats . . . that also dated back to the First World War.” He asks, rhetorically: “Is Ottawa planning to walk that same route in its quest to reduce Canada’s Armed Forces to a shadow of their former greatness?”
Curiously, I was a soldier in Korea, and never felt particularly deprived by being inflicted with Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifles. True, the brand was used in the First World War, and updated versions were used in The Second World War — like the “tin hats” we were ordered to wear.

A virtue of the Lee-Enfield was that it rarely jammed, and could take unconscionable abuse and still fire reliably and accurately. American carbines were automatic, but jammed and ran out of ammunition quickly.
We in front lines hated the British-style helmets. One virtue of night patrols in the valley was that you didn’t have to wear helmets.

The Chinese burp guns — sub-machineguns — fired more rapidly than our cheap, mass-produced Sten guns. But at close quarters the Sten was effective — providing you didn’t accidentally bang its butt, which caused it to fire unexpectedly into one of your own guys.

Mr. Orrick might also have mentioned the Vickers medium machinegun, which was used in the First and Second World Wars. Speaking personally, the steady chatter of the Vickers was the most reassuring sound in the world on certain occasions. It was another untempermental weapon that was reliable and accurate.
Canadian troops in Korea were better clothed for winter than the Americans, had better boots and better food. At the end it was trench warfare, and while the roughly 6,000 troops of Canada’s 25 Brigade felt abandoned by Canada, I doubt many soldiers felt over-matched or lacking in equipment or support.
When in trouble, Canada’s infantry regiments felt well supported by our tanks and especially our artillery which was uncannily accurate when needed. Like others in my battalion of the Princess Pats, I felt safest and most confident when with other Canadian units, and not dependent on Americans, Koreans, French, Turks, or even the British.

Other troops may have had more updated weapons, but we made do with what we had.
This month marks the 62nd anniversary of the start of the Korean war, and it’s not surprising that the government is once again cutting back the military to save money. Some things never change . . .