The big, important question - *yawn*
Babble on.
I'm not going to nitpick.
OK, I'm going to nitpick a bit: why is CBC's "Reality Check" an opinion piece strewn with factual errors and assertions of opinion dressed up prettily like facts?
That's it, I promise.
I'm actually here to applaud the article, since it asks the one big question upon which our entire defence policy revolves: what the hell do we want our military to do?
Eventually the questions lead back to the fundamentals? Why does Canada have a military? Who are Canada's enemies: terrorists such as Osama bin Laden? Expansionist Chinese who want Canada's energy? Rogue states like North Korea? Or rogue Americans who want Canada's water?
...
The fault lies not with the military that Canada does know where its military fits in a changing world. That task is not for Hillier or any other general.
Nor does the fault lie only with the Harper government, but with the succession of governments that went before it. The reality is that until this government or the next figures out Canada's place in the world, nobody will know where to spend that $5.3 billion.
This question is the elephant in the military bunker, and I suspect that the Darfur vs. Afghanistan debate will provide a focal point for two visions that need not necessarily compete, but surely will.
That is, the debate might spark some introspection if Canadians bother to pay attention to the issue for longer than it takes them to finish their morning coffee. I'm not holding my breath.
Cross-posted to The Torch
Babble off.
Update: And what is up with the crown-behind-the-head photo-fetish at CP? OK, I'm really done nitpicking now.
posted by Babbling Brooks @ 1:32 p.m.
7 comments
7 Comments:
Damn you, Damian, I was going to post that one to the Torch!
I don't have to tell you I've been honking that horn for some time. And the question is not Afghanistan vs. Darfur, but how many Afghanistan/Darfurs we want to be able to do, in what kind of force, for how long ... and knowing that, how are we going to decide, when faced with Afghanistan or Darfur or the next one, whether we should commit -- bearing in mind the "how long" bit.
Without the ability to defend yourself you must rely on the will of others to defend you.
There are ALLWAYS forces at work to undermine a nations wellbeing. Not all of them ideological and few of them militaristic.
BUT "And this is the big important thing!" If you are going to be respected in this world you have to be able to rise to whatever challenge is thrown in your face.
The world sees what we do and what we do not do and make no mistake about, there are forces out there that see our weakness and wish to exploit it.
The mere fact that we can or cannot act effectively in places such as Afghanistan or Africa or anywhere else for that matter is "A big Important Question" !
I would rather see a significant improvement in our capabilities as a standing force than see a need for the kind of reaction 1914 or 1939.
Well said A.F......
Both PGP and Arctic Front have said we need to step it up. But again, what does that mean? Who will we be fighting? Overseas or at home? Offensive operations, or defensive only?
Our mix of forces, our training, our doctrine all flow from this educated guess.
Get it wrong and you end up taking a knife to a gun fight, or a MGS to a MBT battle.
As far as the idea that we should just improve our 'all around' capability, that just isn't a workable option these days. A country our size can't afford to make mistakes in procurement or training - we haven't the budget or the manpower for it.
There is no need to equip Canada to fight a war "like any other army."
Comparisons to 1914 and 1939 are specious. In those cases, we found ourselves insulated from the war by a nice, big ocean, which gave us lots of time to ramp up and prepare to fight. What we are talking about now is what troop levels and equipment we require to tackle our immediate tasks.
Those tasks do not include refighting WWII, or fighting the kind of war that we envisioned in Europe during the Cold War. That kind of warfare is obsolete; a major global conflagration involving advanced forces will quickly develop into a nuclear exchange. Quite apart from which, Canada simply cannot afford to maintain armed forces on the level required to fight that kind of conflict.
The fact is, most Canadians can't even articulate the range of tasks that the CF might be expected to perform. Instead of a rational examination of those tasks, we get calls to have a big, proud army that can fight wars, or a huggy-feely peacekeeping force (from those with no idea of what peacekeeping actually involves).
Lance, don't you feel subs do an excellent job of surveillance and deterrance for the money and manpower they use? What about clandestine insertion and recovery of special ops troops?
Personally, I think subs are generally a very cost-effective weapon, and one that provides unique capabilities to boot. I'm just disappointed that we didn't see fit to purchase a better sub for our needs.
I'm not really a big fan of submarines for Canada.
Frankly, when we talk about inserting special ops forces, we're getting to the point of wanting a ship and then seeking reasons to use it, rather than having a reason in the first place. Or at least, that's how I see it. That kind of mission is pretty low on the list of Canadian requirements.
Arctic sovereignty is a thorny problem. Because of the vast size of the area, it could consume a lot of resources. And subs aren't really the answer there -- the amount of ocean a sub can monitor at any time is pretty small.
Post a Comment
<< Home