2025 Defence Platforms: Promises, Costs, and What?

It has been a tradition here to look at the defence platforms in the run-up to Canadian elections and see what they say (for the intel stuff, see Stephanie Carvin's sharp analyses).  I am late partly because I was on the road last week eating way too much pasta and gelato (not together but one and then the other, lather, rinse, repeat). 

So, what do the parties say about their plan for Canadian defence in these uncertain times, where the very foundation of the US alliance is shaking apart?

First, the Liberals since they are the front-runners, the incumbents, and actually said the most stuff about this.   Carney's team (who will be is Defence Minister?  No idea, but I hope he moves on from Blair) proposes pay raises, better health care, child care, and housing.  This all makes sense both because it helps recruiting and retention, which are central given the personnel shortage, but also the easiest way to spend more money to look good re the 2% expectation.  No cumbersome procurement processes for much of this.

Modernize recruiting.  Yep, was happening under JT but was slow and late, so good to continue that work.   Continue the work recommended by Arbour/Deschamps/Fish/etc.  That is, keep working to make the military inclusive.  A very sharp counter-point to the Conservatives even though it should just be basic stuff--we need more people, we need them to stay, let's make them welcome.  There is not a tradeoff between doing right by the people and effectiveness.

Much discussion of rearming.   Specifically mentioning NATO commitments (as if there will be a NATO in the future).  This reflects a commitment to spend at least the equivalent of 2% of Canada's gross domestic product on defence spending, which gets easier as Trump tanks the Canadian economy (basic math--if the denominator gets smaller, the resulting % gets bigger).  

• Keep the submarine commitment, of course, as it is a key to spending a lot of money AND we can't rely on the US to share its underwater info for much longer.  

• 

  Cover of 2015 Liberal defence
  platform. Notice defence is not
  really the priority here.

  Keeping the commitment to the National Shipbuilding program... even though it is the most expensive, slowest project.  Why?  Jobs in Halifax and Vancouver and now Quebec.  My first
  defence platform review blasted the Liberals for defining shipbuilding as a jobs program, but, well, that is what it is, so points retrospectively for honesty.
• Drones!  Remember when it was controversial to be pro-drone because of how the Americans used them in the Mideast/Pakistan?  Ukraine has changed all of that in a big, big way (also in Germany).
• Buy Canadian-made AWACS planes--this was JT's plan to buy off Bombardier so that the P-8 plan would not face controversy, and Carney is keeping that plan.  Quebec is a votes rich environment...
• Stuff for the army as revealed by Ukraine war--more advanced artillery, more ground-based air defence.  Absolutely.  But this may take time since everyone is watching the same war and learning the same lessons.
• Expand mission for the Coast Guard.  I am not a CG expert so I guess so.
• More money for the Rangers (most parties promise this).  Sure, there is a lot of value added and puts money into northern communities.  
•  A new bureau to do advanced science stuff.  This makes sense at this moment since we can't rely on the US to share its tech or to use its tech on our behalf.
• A New Defence Procurement Agency. This has been promised many times by multiple parties.  Given how many ministries are involved now, I am guessing it won't happen anytime soon.  Is it a good idea?  Maybe, maybe not.  It might increase accountability as only one minister/ministry would be blamed for things not working out.  But again, easier said then done.  
• The next line focuses on being more risk acceptant in making procurement decisions.  Easy to say now, hard to do when one is fearful of question period.

 The Arctic sovereignty section begins with a focus on Arctic and Indigenous leadership--the line here is nothing without you at the table.  [Foreshadowing: not all parties think this way].  A network of deep water ports sounds super expensive and unlikely, but would count towards 2%, so there's that.  Buying over-the-horizon radar with Australia is a good way to avoid dependence on the US, but is already something underway.  More northern infrastructure, with much dual use stuff, again makes sense but is wildly expensive.  

In sum, a pretty reasonable defence platform that is mostly a continuation of what Trudeau was doing, but perhaps maybe spending more money.  But can they do it more quickly?  Some of the stuff is faster than other stuff--can raise salaries a lot faster than buying subs. 

What is most obviously missing?  No mention of whether to re-think the F-35 decision?  The good news about Trump alienating Canada is that it takes the whole participation in ballistic missile defence off of the agenda.

What about the Conservatives?  At this time, they still don't have a costed platform despite promising to have one by now.  Breaking promises before the election is a bad look.  Their original promise to spend money from expanded trade with the US on defence has, um, blown up in their faces given the trade war.   The only statement I could find was this.  Very Arctic focused.  Upgrading the Inuvik facitlity into a full base sounds expensive and impractical and no mention of consultation.  Same promise about AWACS planes as everyone has to pander to Bomdardier.  New Arctic baser in Churchill, a security corridor--all season road, more icebreakers.  Nothing on personnel, although Poilievre has talked about the military being too woke, which means the end of culture change and the end of programs that fund ... me and the CDSN. So, yeah, I might have a bit of a conflict of interest here.  

I guess we will have to wait for the real platform that is supposed to come out tomorrow, several days into early voting.  A very interesting choice since everyone knew this election was coming.  Maybe PP needs a deliverology summit too?

How about the NDP? They really lean into the nationalism, so no more F35.  A promise of 2% by 2032, but on what is not clear.

So, yes, I wrote much about the Liberals, but they actually said a lot.  

I will update if the Conservative say more.

 

 

Last Eurotrip For Awhile: Sweet, Sweet Sicily

 I am so very lucky.  This Humboldt Award gave me two spells in Europe--last winter/spring and then this one, three months each.  Last year at this time, Mrs. Spew visited and we drove around East/Central Germany and then flew to Venice and Milan for a great trip.  Last week, my penultimate week in Berlin, she visited again with our daughter joining us.  After a couple of days in Berlin with another visit to the East Side Gallery (I notice something different teach time even as the wall remains the same), we flew to Sicily.  The idea was to explore Palermo, get a car and see the stuff to the west, then take our time driving to Catania where we would use that as a base to see stuff on the southeast and then dump the car and explore the city.  Oh, and have a lot of great food and much gelato and many cannoli.  

It was my first non-North American trip with my daughter, so it was great to have that experience.  She's not a kid, not by a longshot anymore, but she's still my kid and we had a great time hanging together.  I had forgotten how quickly she falls asleep in a moving vehicle--truly impressive.  Since she doesn't do this quite as much as I do, I gave her the conn as much as I could--which beach to hit, which restaurants to try, where to succeed in our quest for Arancini.  My wife, with her balky knees, kept up with us quite well. 

Mission
Accomplished

A few basics about Sicily and our trip: like before, I tried to get hotels near the old towns, the old towns can be quite stressful for drivers as the streets tend to be super narrow and the parking lots even more narrow; Italian food is amazing so we didn't dare try anything else (unlike, say, in Germany, where we had great Georgian food and finally ate at a very good Vietnamese place attached to my building); we had way too much desserts along the way; we got a car to see more of the island but didn't want to spend the entire trip in the car; we mostly crashed after dinner each night--my daughter had more of a social life in Berlin than in Sicily.  We had some recommendations from friends about places to see and restaurants, and those paid off nicely.

 

This place looked interesting,
but we didn't make it back, alas

Our first stop was Palermo, and we stayed right off the main pedestrian street, surrounded by great restaurants, many gelato places, an awesome cannoli spot, and short distances to key sites--the big cathedral and palace.   We could see some prep for Easter as the pic below suggests:

 

The next morning, I took a super easy to find and use train to the airport to pick up the rental car. I had to get a bigger one since our bags are, well, huge.  Overpacking is a Saideman trait.  Which provided some challenges later on.  I drove back, picked up my family, and then navigated the very narrow streets around the parking garage (flashbacks to Toledo and fear of getting jammed), with all the proximity alarms going off, and one turn causing me to hit something, which turned out to be a curb and not a parked car (phew!).  We then drove to San Vito Lo Capo, which allowed us to see the countryside and the coastline and the heaps of topgraphy--lots of mountains jutting out of the ground.  We were in search of their sweet beach, and we found it.  The scenery was great, we had more pasta with seafood (very much a running theme on this trip), and we went into the water.  It was cool, but it was a fun beach.  It had a dip and then a long sandbar so one could just hang and chat and admire the mountain next to the beach.  I didn't take many pics on this stop.

We then drove to Trapani, which was a disappointment.  It might be a great place, but we got pushed by the traffic to park in a distant neighborhood and didn't really see that much as we searched for a place that was open.  It was funny how some towns had most restaurants closed on Mondays, other towns had their closed restaurant day as Tuesday.

Cliff/mountain with cave and fort
next to Cufelo.

The third day of the trip was moving day--getting out was easier as the guy at the garage told us left left right right and we wished we had that knowledge the previous day.  We drove first to Cefalu, a beachside town with a really neat old town. Alas, it rained, which limited our exploration, as we weren't that well prepared.  

 

 

 

 

 

Inspired by White Lotus season 2 and by recommendations from friends, we then drove to Taormina, which is on the east coast.  We passed by Messina along the way and could see the toe of the boot of Italy quite clearly--a very narrow strait--so I mentioned some WWII stuff that bored my family.  The other notable thing along this drive was the number of tunnels, short and long, on the way.  I think I drove through more tunnels on this one day than in my entire life excepting the tunnels in Montreal and places like that.  Taormina has a gondola that takes one from the street next to the beach up to the town perched on a hill.  It was all pretty spectacular. 

We then got to Catania where we found the most unusual beds in our rooms: 

It was, um, ok.  Fine for one person, but for two, we had a problem having our feet on the bed at the same time.  Still, a very nice hotel in another excellent location--near the big cathedral and two major pedestrian streets.  And again great restaurants and perhaps the best gelato of the trip.  

We spent the next day going to Siracuse or Syracuse and walked around the old island and then an old theater, which became a running theme on the latter part of the trip. I think this was one of my favorite days as the scenery was great and the drive was easy once I got the car out of the narrow entrance to the parking garage in Catania (you can tell I am still scared and scarred).  

Ancient Greco-Roman theater in Syracuse

 

Temple of Apollo

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our last day was spent car-less, exploring Catania. 

Opera house around the corner from our hotel

Some great views of Etna.  It spewed some lava
one night, but the best pics were on my family's phones

Smaller theater--Odeon--attached to larger one

Big, in great shape, not uncomfy.

More left-wing, anarchist graffiti here than anywhere else

Interesting exhibit we happened across

Last castle of a very castle-filled Eurotrip

Ranking the places, I'd have to put Taormina at the top--just a spectacular combination of old buildings, hills, beaches, mountain view, then Palermo with a lot of stuff to see and such great food, then San Vito for the amazing views from the beach, then Syracuse for great history, then Catania which was excellent but not quite as excellent as the aforementioned, then Cufelo because the rain limited what we could see and do, and finally Trapani.  

In terms of the food, the cannoli were awesome, the gelato was fine but varied and wasn't so special.  The pasta with clams was better than the pasta with seafood, but both were terrific. Lots of pizza, and lots of overeating. 

It was a great way to finish off my two winters in Europe.  I need to come back to see other parts of the continent, and to ask more pesky questions about civil-military relations.  

 

As always, better to be lucky than good.

The Purge Continues: Cold, Multilateral Edition

 In the aftermath of JD Vance's visit to the US base in Greenland, we learn that it is a multilateral base.  How so?  The commander of that unit, Colonel Susan Myers, sent an email to everyone under her to indicate that things at the base are going well and that the Canadians and Danes within the unit should feel part of the team. 

"I commit that, for as long as I am lucky enough to lead this base, all of our flags will fly proudly -- together,"

And then she got fired.  The hacks and around the Trump Administration will say she is too woke and that she was insubordinate.  The challenge is: what was she supposed to do?  This is a dilemma facing any officer who has a multinational command--how to keep your non-Americans included when the US turns in a unilateral direction?  Dave and I started our NATO in Afghanistan book seeking to understand how commanders balance having responsibilities to two chains of command--the national one and the multilateral one.  While they often point in the same direction, that is not always the case.  We quickly realized the national one almost always matters more since the homeland shapes promotion of the officer, most of the assets they have, and so on.

As it turns out, sometimes the commander acts more on the basis of the multilateral mission.  Myers cared more about her troops and unit cohesion (see below) than she did about her career.  Not all colonels become generals--most do not--but now she will find herself seeking a new job, I guess.  It is bad for her and bad for the force, as it teaches everyone in the military that subservience to the partisan stances of the administration are more important for one's career than doing the assigned mission well.  

Michael Robinson wrote a great book about how politicization of the military can put the officers into damned if you, damned if you don't situations.  This ain't the first one of this administration, and it ain't the last.  Standing still and not doing anything, as Rush reminds us, is still a choice.  Myers could have said nothing and would have appeared complicit with Vance's statement.  Just like if the Army had said nothing when Trump's campaign team violated the rules at Arlington National Cemetery or if the generals and admirals were silent after Charlottesville (condemning racism is only controversial for the racists, but alas, that is now who governs).  With the political system shifting, the military, even if it stands still, appears to be moving, according to Robinson.  It is up to the civilians not to put the military into these situations--but the Trump administration wouldn't recognized responsibility if it walked up to them and said hi.

One of the ironies here is that unit cohesion is usually cited by the intolerant.  It refers to the aim of keeping a unit together so that it can be more effective.  It is often cited by those who don't want Black people integrated in the military or women in the military or LGBTQ+ people in the military--that their presence will disrupt the cohesion of the unit, which will make it harder for that platoon or ship or squadron to cooperate in the face of the enemy.  But, of course, the real threat to unit cohesion was always the intolerant.  

Here, the threat to unit cohesion is the Trump Administration.  That Vance's presence and speech and the entire discourse aimed against the allies threatens to disrupt multilateral efforts around the world.  In Greenland, there are Canadians and Danes in what was Myers's command, and she had to take seriously how to make them feel part of the common mission in the aftermath of Vance's divisive appearance.  The same goes for American commanders in Europe who have NATO countries contributing to their units.  The same goes for the American commander in South Korea who in an emergency would not just command all the Americans in and near South Korea but all South Korean troops.  And on and on.  It may not have been Vance's intent, but, again, the irresponsible rarely recognize when they are doing damage to relationships.

This may not be a problem for a unilateralist administration who has been discussing the possibility of no longer having an American officer serve as the top military official in NATO (SACEUR).  Trump and his team don't play well with others and don't want to play with others.  So, we are going to see more of this at the expense of American influence, power, and security.  Congress often resisted having Americans serve under foreigners because they didn't trust them--so nearly every NATO mission with the exception of KFOR (the Kosovo mission) had an American at the top.  That will end soon, alas.  

Myers had two strikes against her--she's a woman and she believed in her mission.  The longer this goes on (and it will go on), the more officers in the US military leave, are pushed out, or conform to the administration's various dictates.  I am not saying civilian control of the military is at risk, but that the effectiveness of the military is. That is what happens when one politicizes the force, when promotion is not based on merit but on fealty to the autocrat. We know this from the comparative study of autocratic militaries (Talmadge/Roessler/etc).  Another irony---those who complain that DEI gets in the way of merit promote those who are not meritorious but are loyal (Hegseth) and fire those who are doing their jobs well because they are not sufficiently loyal--Myers today, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Brown, former Chief of Naval Operations Lisa Franchetti, Commander of the Coast Guard Linda Fagan, and so on.

Those in the military will look at those who are promoted and wonder what partisan machinations they engaged in to get promoted, rather than think about their military records.  This will breed disrespect and distrust.  And it will be very, very hard to undo if there is ever a chance to do so.  Norms take generations to build, days to destroy.  Respect takes much time to be earned, but distrust can happen in a heartbeat.

We know that Trump and his ilk disrespect service, given his past blatherings about not respecting those captured in war or those wounded in combat.  So, please do not take seriously any concerns by Trump, Vance, or Hegseth that Myers or others like her are "too partisan" to be in the military.  The military does need to subject to civilian control and strong oversight, but what it does not need are loyalty tests to the individuals at the top. Do they need to be loyal to offices at the top?  Sure.  But not to any one man.

 

 

 

Steve As Fake Economist: Maybe not as Dumb As the Wannabe Oligarchs?

 I am not an economist, but so much of what is going on these days is due to faulty understandings of basic economics, so even my level of understanding may be sufficent.

I just wanted to highlight a few things that bluesky conversations forced me to think about.

First, there is the discussion of the chances of a recession happening in 2025.  In my humble opinion, the probability is not 25% or 50% but 100%.  That is, it is a certainty because IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.  A recession is when the economy shrinks as opposed to growing.  The formal definition is when it happens for two quarters.  

Will there be less economic activity this year?  There already is less and it will continue.  That cutting hundreds of thousands of government jobs AND cutting heaps of money from flowing to various actors (cities, states, universities, etc) will reduce the economic activity.  Plus, yes, multiplier effects--those restaurants and other services that benefit from having fully operating universities, states, cities, think tanks, etc will be doing less, buying less, spending less.  

This is before we get to the tariffs, which have already started to hit the economy--that firms are pausing production because they really don't know what their inputs will cost nor will they know what kinds of prices they can charge if they hope to export into markets that are, yes, raising their prices due to retaliatory tariffs.  

The only way to avoid a recession--the technical definition--is if somehow all of this temporary for one quarter and no more than that.  Guess what?  Trump is not going to reverse all of the Musking and DOGE-ing of the government, and no matter what happens with the tariffs, it will have stirred up too much uncertainty to magically erase within one quarter.  This recession is likely to last a long time precisely because this administration does not believe in standard macroeconomics.  But standard macroeconomics believes in it--spend less money, people will buy less, economic activity will slow.  Tax cuts on the very rich may prop up some investments, but they don't actually generate as much economic activity as argued--it does not trickle down.  

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned what Trump is doing to agriculture by keeping out migrant workers or what he is doing to tourism, a very big industry, due to the fear of being disappeared.  

So, that's the first thing I wanted to get off my chest.

The second is this: before the election, business folks had to consider who would be better for them: the guy who promised tax cuts and deregulation or the woman who wasn't going to raise tariffs or create a tremendous amount of uncertainty.  It seems like most of them chose the former and not the latter.

This was, in a word, dumb.  Why?  American businesses already pay very little tax, and rich people pay historically low taxes still.  And they can evade much of it.  Yes, regulation is annoying, but if they want to export to the EU, then they will face regulations there anyway. Plus they can price in penalties and figure out ways to dodge or cheat on the regs.

What they can't finesse are trade wars or uncertainty.  Uncertainty is an absolute killer except for those who can wager on it.  For most businesses, having predictable political and economic situations is basic for making investment decisions and for good operations.  Maybe the Silicon Valley types who have fallen in love with disruption think they don't need either inputs from abroad (or to sell stuff abroad) or stable environments, but pretty much every other actor in the economy relies on foreign inputs, foreign markets, and stable situations.  

So, now, they are fucked.  Unfortunately, so are we.   

Yes, we have short-term-itis among business people--that the focus is on today's market price and not tomorrow's profits. I get that.  But damn, tomorrow turned out to be today, not five years from now.  

Again, what angers me so much is that it didn't have to be this way--just like the Brits stupidly chose Brexit, which was predictably dumb, much of American business chose Trump focusing on tax cuts and deregulation and wishful thinking away the tariffs, the trade wars, the uncertainty, the cheap labor provided by immigrants.  

Will this lead to Trump's undoing?  Maybe eventually, but as long as the GOP fears Musk's money going to primary candidates and Trump siccing his mob on those who disagree with him, I doubt that the GOP will find their backbone.  Maybe the media will stop providing cover for this as people become increasingly outraged.  So, the pain has come quickly, but I don't think it will go away anytime too soon. 

Sorry to be a doomblogger, but at this point, things just suck mightily.  The protests have already made a difference as Democrats are starting to block stuff, and most elections have gone Dem since November.  But the only way out is through--impeachment won't get rid of Trump, and if it did, we'd have Vance.  

The Purge Continues: Cyber Edition

 Trump fired the head of the National Security Agency General Timothy Haugh, who is also double hatted as head of Cyber Command.  I went on a long rant on bluesky, which I will mostly replicate here.  As military folks like to BLUF--bottom line up front--just like every other institution in the US, the military is being broken.  Making fealty to the mad king will undermine effectiveness in a number of ways.  

First, some basics: to be clear, the military is always a political actor and subject to the political dynamics of a country.  It goes back to Clausewitz--that war is politics by other means--and the basic definition of politics which focuses on any kind of decision-making that affects the public, especially the allocation of money and other stuff.  Being partisan is something else entirely.  We used to have American generals refuse to vote because that they wanted to be neutral.  In the past 30 years, some of that has broken down as retired admirals and generals began to endorse candidates, playing upon the perception that they were speaking for the active forces.  But it was not inevitable that we would get here.

During Trump 1.0, many norms (standards of appropriate behavior), were violated repeatedly.

• Trump announced the Muslim ban from the part of the Pentagon paying tribute to various heroes
• Trump kept referring to the senior officers as "my generals"
• Trump blamed the generals and admirals if things went awry rather than owning things--the buck never stopped with him
• Trump used the military to deal with protestors and wanted to do it more violently--"Can't they shoot the protestors in the leg?"
• Trump pardoned war criminals

 It got to the point where scholars of civil-military relations, who usually try to avoid advocating for any military disobedience, were tempted to root for some.  In the aftermath of Charlottesville, the senior leadership spoke out in favor of a diverse force and for tolerance.  This was seen as being partisan--because it could be viewed as an implicit critique of Trump's take on the event.  But not speaking up would have been seen as complicit. 

This is where Michael Robinson's work fits in--he wrote a great book that argues that even if the military stands still, if the observers are moving, the military will be seen as moving either towards or away--that they will be dragged into partisan politics--politicization--even if they resist it.  

As I discussed a few weeks ago, when Milley retired and spoke out about how the military serves the country and not a wannabe dictator, it was pretty clear that what might otherwise be a banal statement was a criticism of Trump.

The firing of Haugh is yet another dead canary in the coalmine (that coalmine must be packed with dead canaries at this point).  A few things stand out.  He is a white man, so the previous purge was perhaps just racist and misogynist (note I am not approving--I am incredibly angry) as Trump fired one Black general and two women four star officers. One could argue (foolishly) that this was not aimed at creating a submissive class of officers.   By firing Haugh, it is abundantly clear loyalty to Trump is the only criteria that matters.

And who decides?  Laura Loomer, who is a far right agitator.  She was briefly banned by social media for being racist.  It is quite notable that this firing happened basically at the same time as several people were purged from the National Security Council for not being sufficiently Trumpian.   

It will not stop here as Trump's fundamental insecurity produces an unquenchable thirst for loyalists.  He won't ever be confident in the loyalty of whichever people he promotes to admiral or general.  His own disloyalty gets projected in every direction.

And this happens as we have already seen many disturbances in the force--banning books at the Naval Academy, the commandant of the US Air Force Academy pondering firing civilian profs, civ-mil conferences cancelled at the Army War College. 

This will produce a less effective force.  Those who get promoted will be seen as less qualified, less meritorious, as they will be viewed as moving up due to their partisan loyalty.  The civ-mil literature shows quote clearly that when you promote on the basis of loyalty, you get bad results-Talmadge, Roessler, etc.  This will create dissension and friction within as unit cohesion will break.   [Any time a military seeks to include the previously excluded--Black Americans, gays and lesbians, trans people, the intolerant argue that this is bad for unit cohesion, and a coherent unit is necessary for battlefield success.  It turns out that the real problem are the intolerant people, as the diverse armed forces of the world have proven to be most effective.]

An officer corps of yes-men (and yes, I do mean men) may make it easier to issue orders to invade Mexico or shoot at Americans, but with disrupted unit cohesion, it will be more likely that the military will not engage in such efforts in unison--and those divides might become violent.

The only winners in all of this are those countries seen by normal people as America's adversaries--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, ISIS, etc. 

Just like the tariffs, this is all so unnecessary, so destructive, so costly to so many individuals as well as to the country and to those who used to be America's allies.  

So that is my angry civ-mil riff du jour as another general is tossed for appearing to be not sufficiently loyal to the mad king.