Should We Stay or Should We Go?

 One of the big questions here in Latvia (and in the rest of Eastern Europe) is whether this is going to be a series of temporary things or is it a Cold War-esque, long term deployment.  Sure, Russia's military sucks and is broken, but Putin and perhaps his successors have proven to be risk acceptant and likely to do stupid things again and again.  Indeed, I asked folks about that--are you less worried because the Russian military is not so mighty or more worried because they aggress?  The answer is the latter for these folks.  So, Canada feels a real choice--invest in the long run ... or not.  I know what Canada will do (see below), but what should it do?

The pro's of investing in the long run

• One could post more people in Latvia as opposed to temporary deployments--they could bring their families so there is less friction, people don't get in a spin cycle of every six months.
• The development of the forces here could advance beyond a six month cycle where the first two months are about getting one's shit together and the last month is about leaving.
• Everyone develops better relationships--with the locals, with the other countries operating here and nearby.
• Cost savings of not having to ship over stuff and people every six months.
   

The cons's

• The Canadian Army wouldn't be able to do much elsewhere.  No Haiti missions, no peacekeeping elsewhere (as if that is likely to happen).
• For the politicians, no new places to go so you can't make a new shiny announcement (Justin Massie's point, if I remember correctly).
• Folks may not want to leave Canada for 3 years.
   

Note, either way, Canada is committing to having 1800 troops here.  So, those questions of sustainability are not so relevant for staying for short term stints or longer term.  Once that choice was made (maybe unwittingly), those challenges will have to be confronted either way.

I have to run to the Strategic Communications conference, so I will provide a clue as to what Canada will do: