thanks for posting this. interesting if painful reading.

Ehran, definitely painful material, but I hope you share this address with others. The more that are aware of the unmitigated disaster the Canadian government has been in terms of defence policy, the better for both the Canada, the US, and its other allies. Maybe the latter two groups can raise enough hell and tie it to Canadian trade that whatever political party wins the January 23rd general election, they will be more circumspect about letting their allies and trading partners down. I also hope that the media pickup on the book and make it an election issue.

I just received a testimonial for 'Canada Under Attack', which I will share with members here, as it will not be posted to the web site until my IT gets back from a road trip. Paul I have read Paul Cook's "Canada Under Attack" not once but twice. It is the best compendium of what a loss Canada has suffered in capacity, sovereignty and credibility among its allies and its own citizens through the wilful neglect of its armed forces. But criticism is one thing, proposing positive and credible solutions is far more important and, throughout, Paul shares with us his comprehensive research and expertise in all elements of military capabilities and their pertinent organization for the security of Canadian interests. He has opened and filled much of the serious debate about the role and future of our Canadian Forces. It is not just a good, but an excellent and required read for those who profess to call themselves informed and concerned Canadians. Major General (retired) Clive Addy Chair The National Security Group

IIRC the book advocated doubling the span of control of mech plt leaders. I have to admit that makes me take the rest of it(I only read the proposals not the litany of disaster for I am an Aussie) more lightly.

I (American) have just about finished reading Robert Kaplan's "Imperial Grunts". The book primarily focuses on the activities of U.S. Special Forces units in Afghanistan, Colombia, Mongolia, The Phillipines etc. There are several references in the book to U.S. Special Forces personnel praising the fighting qualities of Canadian Army, with one specific reference to Princess Patricia's Light Infantry. I had thought that the Canadian military had pretty much become a U.N. mission peace keeping force, but not according to some pretty tough SF guys.

JIMF, the US 101st and 10th Mountain found out how good in 2002 when we were assigning our snipers with those units and with US Special Forces. That's where we got the longest kill - 2,430 metres - in history. In following action they were credited with helping out a US Company that was pinned down by mortars and machine guns. The 'plinking' got underway with the first kill at over 1,700 metres. The regular shooters in the 'Pats' also did a damn damn on the Taliban-al-Qaeda types. We're now back in Khandahar, taking casualties, but this has only focussed our guys intensity for liquidating the enemy. More Cdn. re-enforcements are enroute including light armour, and artillery. However, the war seems to be shifting to more traditional hit and run attacks as the bad guys get stomped everytime they go head to head with the allies. Definitely the suicide bomber attacks are away up.

From seantheassie: "IIRC the book advocated doubling the span of control of mech plt leaders. I have to admit that makes me take the rest of it(I only read the proposals not the litany of disaster for I am an Aussie) more lightly." Some items for you to consider: 1. The Cdn. Army now has no modern IFV - Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Our LAVIII, which are wheeled light armour are a 'taxi' to the battlefield. Their amour ensures that they would be easy pickings to RPG attacks. The first US Strykers - cousins to the LAVIII - had all kinds of problems in Iraq with the RPG and especially when fired in volleys. So much so the US has been scrambling ever since to add SLAT armour and added ceramic armour plates. Furthermore there are no fixed combat lines in unconventional wars like what we've seen in recent years, where IED's and suicide bomb attacks, whether that be an attacker on foot or in a vehicle can hit you from just about anywhere. As such the LAVIII in the current CDN. military context should be a transport vehicle and not used as an uparmoured IFV -Infantry Fighting Vehicle. You are only asking for troubles if you pretend the LAV is an uparmoured IFV and that costs soldiers lives and WIA. 2. The Infantry Platoon Leader (LT. in rank), would be dismounted with his troops, as the LAV's operating with the platoon would return to their harbour or setup back from the front with an infantry security team, likely of section size to protect the 5 LAV's. 3. If we had modern IFV, then it would make sense to have a Mech. Officer operating with the 6 tracked IFV, and another officer commanding the dismounted infantry platoon. However, as that was not the case, there was no need for an officer for the LAV's where non-coms could do the job. It also ensures the LAV troops understand their role as support to the infantry and not the other way around. Of course this changes if you are talking about heavy armour forces where the infantry is the security force for the MBT Bn. or larger formation and the tank is the key player, or where you have an even mix or other combination of forces. I don't have an pro-infantry or anti-mech. attitude. I served in a light armoured recon regiment that worked closely with infantry and respect very much each elements role in an army. I also have the support of a couple of senior retired general officers from both armour and infantry combat arms who read the drafts of the book and offered their support and counsel on a number of issues. Both were well known and respected officers; one from the infantry and the other from armour, the latter in fact being the #2 officer in the Cdn. Army before his retirement. Finally, I wrote at the start of the book that many of the suggestions for change were not written in stone, but designed to make people think of our military's shortcomings, and recommend changes and challenge current policy/thinking at the military and political level. In that same vein I continue to encourage discussion, debate, constructive thoughts that improve some of the comments, and yes even constructive criticism, for that is how one distinguishes the professional from the amateur. So thank you for the comment. I hope this opportunity could cleared up your concern. If not, let's discuss your reasons why. Paul

BUGGER! After going through my recycle bin I find that it is 8 tank platoons rather than 8 IFV platoons. Hence IIRC :-) Considering most current tank platoons have 3-4 tanks either Canada has unique circumstances OR you are calling most(all?) western armies mad. As Canada like Australia usually deploys battlegroups OR at most dispersed brigades having the SP arty in the Heavy armoured regiment is a good idea.

"seantheaussie: As Canada like Australia usually deploys battlegroups OR at most dispersed brigades having the SP arty in the Heavy armoured regiment is a good idea." You are correct that in recent years the Bn. BG has been a big player in the army, especially required with the Liberals downsizing the CF. As to the SP, we both know that moving SP's with tanks has both historic and current application. The Germans in WWII used them and tank destroyers with tanks as an integral part of their operations. The concept of fluid movement of tank formations would become all the more powerful if the SP's moved with the tanks and became their base of fire allowing the tanks to make the flanking movements, or as close direct fire support for infantry. One could take this a step further, by adding a Helicopter Regiment to the CF, which would support tank formations with gusnhips and heavy lift helo's like the CH-47 that could setup forward bases with fuel and munitions, food, water, etc. all be flown ahead and over obstacles, whether they be natural or man made. In fact the US 7th Armor did this during Desert Storm. Paul

The LAV-III is very modern, infact it houses the most sophisticated battelfield software suite in the world. If you question the armour of the LAV-III I suggest looking at the variants in Iraq currently that have withstood huge attacks and have managed to limp back to base under their own power. I am not saying they are genearlly sufficiently armoured, however they quickly put critics to rest, especially when the skirts/gating is attached. The Cannon equipped with the LAVIIIs is a very formidable weapon, and while not all variants include the cannon, not all variants are IFVs inherently. The MGS (Low-Profile Turret known in the CF) is impressive on our models, very impressive. It's turning heads everywhere.