Thursday, August 16, 2012

Turning the military clock back to its proper time

Now that a full year has passed since the federal government boldly returned the main branches of the armed forces to their pre-1968 designations – the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force – a decision that delighted and perplexed many, and appalled some as a retrograde step, an annum of perspective would perhaps be a timely and welcome thing.

Certainly the unexpected announcement attracted a considerable amount of media attention and debate, and even ignited a few spasms during a traditionally slow news month. Although the restoration was supported by a solid majority of Canadians across all spectra, including a majority of federalist Quebeckers, the shrieks and howls emanating from some quarters lambasting the move, did cause a disproportionate stir.

For example, opposition defence critic Jack Harris was adamant that the royal name change should be avoided because it would be divisive to the country, a fear that fortunately never materialized. Military historian Jack Granatstein, for his part, disparaged the restoration as “abject colonialism”, which seemed an oddly irrelevant apprehension to hold in contemporary and fully independent Canada. There were a few others, but it was the exquisite irony of former defence minister Paul Hellyer’s criticism that the reinstatement would prove a “monumental blunder of historic proportions”, and one that will have “inevitably costly consequences”, that requires a little further elaboration to properly dispel.

Mr. Hellyer – surely the most transformative defence minister in Canadian history – was understandably upset that his unification legacy had been – at least symbolically – overturned. After all, it was his single-minded audacity in the 1960s that pushed through the most revolutionary change in the armed forces of any developed country in the last century, effectively abolishing the navy, army and air force and forming a new single service, the unified Canadian Armed Forces.

Economically the merger was a massive reorganization exercise intended to amalgamate the functions of the military, reduce triplication and create integrated efficiencies – an ostensibly worthy goal in and of itself. What occurred in 1968, however, went far beyond an economic initiative. It was also a massive assault on the very identities of the navy, army and air force; their ranks, uniforms, history, traditions, titles. For a country that had always moved cautiously in reforming its institutions, and that had in the previous fifty years fought two world wars and Korea, the shock of this caused enormous pain to over a million Canadian veterans as well as to most of all ranks who were serving at the time. Unification struck at the very heart of esprit-de-corps.

The self-defeating effort to disenfranchise our sailors, soldiers and air personnel from their traditional loyalties and hard won distinctions – especially the navy, the most embattled and deeply wounded of the three – was politically motivated by a determined desire to “cleanse the forces of their Britishness”, what C.P. Champion, author of The Strange Demise of British Canada, calls “the neo-nationalist attack on [Canada’s] military tradition”. Given the ubiquity of that heritage, Mr. Hellyer was of the mind that the most efficient way to “Canadianize” the services was to scuttle them in one dramatic blow. The proud RCN and RCAF had to go; our sailors and airmen were chastened into the unification straightjacket, and ludicrously forced to don rifle green outfits and adopt army ranks. If the amorphous, brave new Canadian Armed Forces was an impossible vehicle to rally morale, the troops would have to make do with bland bureaucratic distinctions like “Maritime Command” and “Air Command” or even “Land Force Command”. The whole reinvented apparatus was, at root, an uninspiring concoction, and therein laid its eventual doom.

Some vital traditions in fact were restored before they were even abandoned. In time, nearly all would be organically returned as the unification conformists gradually ceded to reality under successive governments. With the long overdue restoration of Canada’s battle-tried titles, our armed forces can proudly reclaim their inheritance. The reestablishment of these historic identities, as defence minister Peter MacKay announced one year ago today, “is an important way of reconnecting today’s men and women in uniform with the proud history and traditions they carry with them”, which will “once again serve as a timeless link between our veterans and serving soldiers, sailors and air personnel.”

The Hon. Paul Hellyer can rest easy in the knowledge that the perfectly sensible parts of his legacy remain firmly intact, and that thanks to his historic efforts the rebranded Canadian Forces continue to be one of the most functionally integrated militaries in the world today. But it was a bridge too far, and the country could have done without the temporary defacement of its naval and military heritage. The natural process of “Canadianization” was, after all, inevitable.

Indeed, the recovery of that heritage is a happy occasion, and one that Canadians rightly support and respect. The names and deeds of the RCN, RCAF and the regiments and corps of the Canadian Army are deepened in loyal and devoted service and distinctly forged in battle. They deserve all the honours that have been bestowed upon them. Glottal stops, notwithstanding.

22 comments:

  1. A good review, Beaverbrook. I do wish for more, however. Restore the RCAF ranks and badge, restore the Army pips, crowns, and batons. Grow closer to the British and Australian Armed Forces.

    I'd like to also see a return of the Red Ensign, and when in Britain, I like to drink from pints with a Crown, not an awful "CE". I am not a reactionary. I am simply proud of my heritage, and loyal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree, a very good review. I feel also that Canada has been stripped of its history and cuture by 'pure Canadian' politics. The British helped us survive the War of 1812 - no Canada would exist without Britannia!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The main purpose, which coincided with Canada's Centennial, was the idea that we were no longer a British "colony", but an independent nation. Rather like an adolescent pretending not to know his parents because they're not cool. The reasons given for unification were mostly moot points. Duplication of posts? Nope. Officers who sailed their entire careers aren't going to suddenly find themselves running a mechanized brigade group any more than a ground-pounding infantry Brigadier would find himself in the CO's office at MARLANT. There is the issue of the "purple trades," where members can be Army, RCN or RCAF, but the number of positions in various units is the same, and so is the expense.

    Pause to re-light my pipe

    Centralizing the recruiting process could arguably be a way to pinch pennies, but then, comparatively speaking, we're talking about pennies. There are much better ways to save money, like cracking down on people abusing imposed restriction postings. Someone living in a hotel in Ottawa for seven years meals included because he doesn't want to move his family translates to mega-bucks flushed away, particularly when it's a common as it's been. Making officers more accountable for the expenses that they authorize for their units is another. I've seen literally millions wasted because people decided to burn their budget at the end of the year so that they wouldn't lose it next year. If we transpose that across the entire DND, the numbers are enough to make any savings gleaned from eliminating duplicated positions completely irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some of the name changes were useless. RCEME, for example, was changed to "Land Ordinance Engineering" for no practical reason. While some of the old Corps' names were changed to reflect the fact that personnel from all three services were represented, RCEME did not receive any other trades until 1974, when an Air Force trade was created and added almost as an afterthought. Likewise, there's no reason why the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps had to change their name; transport is for all practical points an Army affair. Trucks roll on ground, so having drivers in Air Force or Navy uniforms is exactly the kind of empty formality Hellyer argued he was abolishing through unification. The fact is that almost none of the "purple" trades are truly tri-service in nature, so for the most part, making them tri-service was simply change for change's sake. Nothing was really gained by it, so nothing is lost by the services reclaiming their traditions.

    Re-light the pipe and crank Brahms.

    The philosophical arguments against restoration are also moot points, with some bordering on Chicken Little-style hysteria. Canada is not suddenly going to lose control over our policies because Air Command is now called the RCAF. While true that Her Majesty's Armed Forces, under the supposedly "Conservative" government of David Cameron are now incapable of independent force projection, the possibility of having Canadian assets requisitioned should Argentina decide to invade the Falklands again is nil. Zero. Not gonna happen. Not that I think Cameron would actually commit to a fight in the first place, but that's aside from the point.

    As per the question of being divisive, sure it is. But then, so what? So is every other decision ever made in government. Like it or not, people don't always agree with each other. However, since Canada is a democratic country (mostly), the government legislate according to what their constituents want. It may be divisive, even controversial (such as abortion was and is) but if that's what most folks want, that's what they're supposed to get. There's no such thing as a government decision that isn't divisive.

    So the way I see it, there wasn't any practical reason for unification, and no practical reason against restoration. Indeed, with restoration now, it simply involves changing a few websites, some letter head when the old stuff runs out, and in the Army's case, ordering new buttons for our service dress uniforms. And at about $20 a set, the cost is utterly trivial.

    Pipe's out, and my two-pipe problem is solved.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Appreciate the comments. The subset designations of the Canadian Army - like RCEME - are apparently themselves - at least some of them - on the cusp of reinstatement. Fingers crossed for those.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My understanding is that the branches looking for royal designation are Armoured, Signals, Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Engineers, Medical, and Dental.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. McCrea, I disagree with you on Cameron, UK power projection, and the Falklands. If you would like to provide further argument, I would very much like to read it.

    Also, while Britain could not "requisition" Canadian forces and materiel, I would want voluntary Canadian support against Argentina.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. McCrea,

    I am very interested in your viewpoints regarding the most sensible idea of restoring tradition in Canada.

    I must however take issue with your analogy of a teenager finding their parents uncool.

    In 1967 it is arguble that Britain was the coolest country in the world, albeit in a transition from superpower to something else and in posession of an embarassingly large number of colonial enclaves.

    Perhaps there was something else going on?

    All the best,

    P

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's an analogy, so it only goes so far, but as much as Britain may or may not have been cool, being on the "decolonization" wagon was much cooler. Particularly for the Liberal Party, which has always had a nationalist streak in it.

    Britain's defence budget has been gutted. Gerald Warner reported in The Scotsman,

    "The Royal Navy carrier force halved, with the premature decommissioning of Ark Royal; two aircraft carriers to be constructed, of which one will have no aircraft and the other will never put to sea until it is sold to another country at a loss; the surface fleet cut by a quarter; 5,000 fewer sailors; the Harrier jump jet fleet scrapped; the new Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft cancelled; 5,000 RAF jobs to go; 40 per cent of the Army's tanks and heavy artillery scrapped and one brigade in every six; a decision on renewing Trident perilously postponed until 2016..."

    That was the first round of cuts, before the EU debt crisis. Indeed, with more budget being allotted to bailouts, the UK is edging towards not even being able to defend her own borders, let alone project a military force half way across the world. Amateurs think about tactics, professionals think about logistics. And the Falklands nearly didn't happen because of logistics, back when the budget for defence was there. And that's just the beginning...

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Guardian reported that 17 units were being cut from the Army, and Phil Hammond has announced that his government plans to cut 20 000 front line (whatever that means) troops by 2020. Of course, this amplifies the pressure on those still serving, and multiplies their operational tempo.

    In addition to that, it forces junior soldiers to rise in ranks faster to fill positions left by those older troops who were forced to retire early, so you get people with an incredible lack of experience in middle management positions for which they're really not qualified. This compounds the problems posed by the lack of budget, because you don't have enough money to begin with, and now you're going to have inexperienced leaders making expensive mistakes, all of which further exasperates attempts to efficiently project a fighting force anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As far as I understand it, the Conservative party in Canada never destroyed the Candian military.

    On the other hand, how could any Conservative (or Old Labour for that matter) voter ever forgive our dreadful coalition for what they have done to the navy in particular and the military in general? The three main parties have utterly ruined the country between them. Yes we can pay our bills in specially-treated paper, but in terms of what we once stand for, we have lost it all.

    Britain should have completed decolonisation of Africa and Asia sooner and left the "Commonwealth" to rot.

    Instead she should have kept most of the West Indies, citizenised the loyal subjects there and formed a proper union with Canada (& possibly Oz and NZ). The collective technological know how of such a union would even today be somewhat formidable.

    Never going to happen under this lot, who seem content to take orders from Potuguese and Belgian upstarts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. McCrea, your points are taken. This simply makes power projection more difficult, not impossible.

    P, agreed completely.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sure, I guess the UK could deploy a squadron of SAS troopers across the world to who knows where, but that's not really force projection. Independent force projection refers to the ability to deploy and logistically sustain a battle group on either land, sea, or in the air. A brigade-sized battle group with C3ISTAR and logistical support is the minimum standard for a NATO army, and the UK can't do it. Not even close. Why not? You have to be able to muster a carrier battle group, and the UK won't have one of those up until (hopefully) 2019. See, with the Harrier now out of service, the UK has zero carrier-based air attack capacity for their one remaining carrier. Might as well leave it at home, because you're not bringing anything to the fight with it. If the enemy have fast-movers with Exocet anti-warship missiles, RN ships are going to sink. Can't deploy a naval BG without force protection. If the RM come under air or artillery attack when they land, they're going to die there because Fleet Air Arm also has zero carrier-based close air support capacity. So basically, in order to support a single commando (or company) -sized landing, the UK needs a friendly airfield or friendly carriers and naval aviation assets, making them therefore incapable of independent force projection.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Likewise, in order to deploy a naval battle group, the UK needs to either stay close to where the RAF can support them from land, or rely on friendly air bases and / or carrier-based air attack to protect their ships from enemy aircraft. So, independent Army (or RM) force projection capacity is zero, and independent naval force projection capacity is zero. What about the RAF? Again, we're back to that whole carrier thing. The RAF is limited to land bases unless RN carriers have aircraft aboard that can buddy fuel, which they haven't since the Blackburn Buccaneer was retired in 1994. The UK can't independently project RAF assets anywhere in the world - not even one Tornado. Therefore, RAF independent force projection capacity is zero. So, with Royal Navy, Royal Marines, British Army and Royal Air Force independent force projection capacities at zero, zero, zero and zero, the UK's ability to independently project any kind of force anywhere in the world is zero.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mr McCrea,

    Your point is taken.

    Defence is either something worth spending on or is viewed as 3rd party insurance.

    The Americans (very sensibly) spend 5 or more percent of their GDP on defence. This gives them 11 mega-carriers and 11 "commando" carriers (in fact more larger and more capable than the lamentably-retired British carriers) and around 50 nuclear-powered subs.

    There is a question of scale here, but if Britain spent the same proportion of GDP we would be spending more than double the cash, but would get three times the capability.

    As it is, the current lot are quite content that our main deterrence is one of four available nuclear subs with at most around 10 Tomahawk missiles on each. (In Latin American terms, this is ok, but South Korea has a more powerful navy than the UK these days, especially considering the range of their geographic interest.)

    Yes, they could sink as many ships as they have torpedoes against many non-nato opponents, but no units are so good that they can't be sunk and only having three destroyers available is pitiful.

    Britain has gone from Mega-power, able to bankroll the WWI to Spain in 100 years.

    The romantic imperial attachment to Asia and Africa was a strategic blunder that drove Canada to a new identity. Now, even if our government were to have sound ideas, we couldn't beg Canada to enter a union with us in case we dragged the union down.

    The problem lies both in Conservative and Labour parties.

    In Canada, if the Liberals are elected, they at least never destroy the economy. In the UK, if Labour are elected, they always destroy the economy. Accordingly, the Conservatives have to fix an utter mess every time they are elected and they do so by reducing the country's military power - the only part of government that cannot complain, go on strike and that is efficient enough to carry out orders.

    A sad story indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. has it occurred to you that the reason the prefix Royal didnt cause a stir is that the Canadian public realizes that the Canadian military is a joke anyway?

    On the one hand, Canada has a military that exists in name only. On the other, Canada has a monarchy that exists in name only.

    Made for each other :)

    In fact, I would say the Commonwealth of Nations should be renamed the Royal British Commonwealth. A defunct international body deserves to be named after a defunct system. In fact, such a name would be a constant reminder of the evil at the heart of the British Empire. It helps no one if the name of Commonwealth is conveniently used to airbrush the history of the lands on which the British once made rivers of blood flow.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "has it occurred to you that the reason the prefix Royal didn't cause a stir is that the Canadian public realizes that the Canadian military is a joke anyway?"

    No. Not in the slightest degree. Rather it a natural reward/compensation to the services for their extraordinary service rendered in the Ghan. The military never wanted to be painted magnolia EVER and this is a long overdue correction.

    The Canadian military and monarchy are clearly extant institutions. To argue otherwise is simply ill-informed. It is a pretty sound argument that Canada's military is in fact quite sufficient in numbers (given Canada's military alliances and perceived threat levels) and within NATO the Canadians are perceived as highly competent.

    Your last paragraph is just barmy. Can you provide (or ANYBODY else Anonymous) any serious evidence of systematic British atrocities causing "rivers of blood" to flow? I suspect we may wait a long time for evidence from the French and Catholic population of Quebec to provide evidence of harsh repressions and systematic executions of their race by the Protestant Englishmen that had beaten off the professional French military in the territory. Furthermore, the "Indians" in Canada still exist and have a place in the country, quite in contrast to the casino-owner remnants of the tribes south of the border.

    Really, I can't wait for a response to this nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "It is a pretty sound argument that Canada's military is in fact quite sufficient in numbers (given Canada's military alliances and perceived threat levels) "

    Have you considered why Canada's perceived threat level is so low? Perhaps because the big superpower south of the border is not an imperialist monarchy? Ah ...the irony!

    Have you considered what a King Obama would have done to Canada, especially considering that an officer of the Queen squished his grandfather's balls between hot iron bars?

    On Jan 20, 2008, those savage, uncouth, uncivilized Americans inaugurated the son of a poor Muslim Kenyan immigrant as their President. A greater moment perhaps than celebrating Queen Elizabeth managing to keep her privileged-by-birth bottom on a gilded throne for 60 years?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Have you considered why Canada's perceived threat level is so low? Perhaps because the big superpower south of the border is not an imperialist monarchy? Ah ...the irony!"

    This is just terrible analysis. You are plainly unaware that monarchist Canada never attacked the republican USA, but that the republican USA did try to take over monarchist Canada a couple of times.

    If you are arguing that the American republic essentially stopped being imperialist around the time that they had expanded from being an Atlantic country to being a transcontinental one with bases reaching almost to Japan, then the same could be argued that the Candadians are no longer a part of an "imperialist" monarchy, but a non-expansionist one.

    I do not see why I should be celebrate any President's inauguration: I am not an American and hold no plans to become one. Hardly a "great" moment in history, an arbitrary date that is set by an electoral calendar! What is so amazing about BHO simply being elected? How is it remotely comparable to HMQ reigning for 60 years?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "What is so amazing about BHO simply being elected? How is it remotely comparable to HMQ reigning for 60 years?"

    Your language gives you away. On the one hand, a girl is born into a privileged family and suddenly one day finds herself sitting on a throne. In the lap of luxury, she manages to stay alive for the next 60 years.

    On the other hand, the son of a poor black Kenyan Muslim works hard at school, manages to get admitted to Harvard Law, becomes president of Harvard law review, then a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, a community organiser, is elected Senator and then is elected President of the United States!!

    That's not amazing (its just "simple" to you), but QE-II staying alive is a great achievement :)

    What's so amazing about the Einstein and his theory of relativity? What's so amazing about Gandhi and his crusade for freedom of 300 million human beings? What's so amazing about Edison discovering the light bulb or the Wright brothers building the airplane?

    All these stories of achievement are eclipsed by QE-II's continued ability to breathe.

    Your perception of human achievement is frankly quite obscene.

    Wonder how many minutes it would take for an imperialist USA to wipe Canada out and dethrone this great monarch. If there is one country in the world that should thank American Republicanism every night, it's Canada..lol

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Wonder how many minutes it would take for an imperialist USA to wipe Canada out and dethrone this great monarch."

    Given Canada's size and her allies, the US could never do it. And I am speaking as an American, and a veteran to boot.

    "If there is one country in the world that should thank American Republicanism every night, it's Canada."

    And yet they do not. How hard that must be for you. Please go back to your TV now, and never post on an international forum again. You are an example of why Americans are so despised.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well, back on the original topic, it's official: the Chief of Defence Staff has asked the Minister of National Defence to allow the Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Branch to once again call itself RCEME. The Minister has yet to make a decision known, but it's safe to say that it can be considered a done deal. The change might be announced this year, or they might wait for next year and make the announcement coincide with RCEME's 70th anniversary.

    ReplyDelete