Our army needs soldiers and guns-not more bureaucrats

By Matt Gurney - from the National Post

Peter MacKay remaining in the National Defence portfolio wasn't a surprise. MacKay is a high profile minister, and the Tories like to tell anyone who'll listen that they Support The Troops. Sticking one of the big guns of the party in that cabinet post is one way of showing that commitment. Besides, MacKay has done a decent job of it, and by all accounts likes the role and enjoys working with the men and women of the Canadian Forces.

But what was a bit unexpected was the appointment of Julian Fantino, former chief of the Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police, to be Associate Minister of National Defence, essentially MacKay's deputy.

Fantino was only elected last fall -hardly an experienced parliamentarian. There have been association ministers of defence before, but the position has often been left vacant. Fantino is the first to fill it under Prime Minister Harper.

There are political reasons to give Fantino something with a big profile: He's a well-known Toronto-area MP. And Defence isn't the worst place to put his years of work in public security to use, either. But those political reasons aside, it must be asked why Defence needed an extra minister. If anything, it needs more soldiers and equipment.

Earlier this year, it was announced that National Defence had purchased a large complex of modern office buildings in the Ottawa area. This was good news, as the existing National Defence headquarters was old and overcrowded. But when the announcement of the purchase was made, it was noted that the size of the civilian staff at Defence had grown by 31% between 2006 and 2009. Indeed, the civilian staff at Defence had grown so large, so rapidly, that it was actually exceeding its authorized strength. Defence is allotted 25,000 civilians to run the ministry. Somehow, that had ballooned to 28,500. No wonder they were out of room.

This didn't look particularly good on the Harper Tories, who have been rightly criticized for abandoning their small-government agenda. But what made them look even worse was the fact that even while the size of Defence's bureaucracy surged by 31%, the size of the Armed Forces -so publicly loved by the Tories -was able to increase only by 5% over the same period.

The military has received extra funding and equipment, starting under prime minister Paul Martin and continuing under Stephen Harper. But the Canadian Forces still have urgent equipment shortfalls, and are simply not large enough to do all the jobs expected of them.

Consider the last few weeks. Almost 3,000 Canadian military personnel are fighting in Afghanistan. Hundreds of others have joined the NATO campaign against Libya (indeed, a Canadian general is commanding the entire international ef-fort). Meanwhile, at home, we've had three major natural disasters strike all at once: major flooding in Manitoba and Quebec, and a devastating wildfire in Alberta that has nearly destroyed the town of Slave Lake, turning thousands of Canadian citizens into displaced persons. And, of course, at all times, the military must also have the reserve strength necessary to handle additional crises.

Canada's air force needs new fighter jets, and more than just the 65 F-35s the government has said it intends to purchase (a smaller number of F-35s, and a large order of less-advanced but still modern jets, would strike the right balance between size and sophistication). The air force also urgently requires more helicopters, both to carry supplies at home and abroad, and to (if necessary) transport troops into battle. The navy is rapidly rusting out, with virtually every type of ship in the fleet needing either upgrades or outright replacement. The army has benefit-ted the most from the Afghan-era urgent purchases, but still should be expanded, to reflect its duties both at home and abroad. And this is far from a complete list.

Read more...

Our army needs soldiers and guns-not more bureaucrats

True peacekeepers don't need more fighter jets - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA

Someone wrote this letter to the editor at the Intelligencer:

Will someone please tell me who we are planning to attack with these state of the art fighter jets the government wants to purchase?

There's already enough collateral damage being hoisted on our fellow human beings by man-made nuclear accidents, global warming, earthquakes and tsunamis.

If we're really interested in democracy, let's do it by example. We are in an election campaign right now because or democratic process was threatened by a Conservative leader who has set himself up as an aggressor both at home and abroad.

Peacekeepers and people with a moral conscience do not refer to human life as collateral damage.

Let's look at the civilian members we have killed, worldwide, in the name of democracy and then maybe we'll be able to put a moral price on jets that are supposed to be worth $1 billion.

God help us all.

A. Meyers

Belleville

I replied:

    I wonder if the people whom we have saved from the Taliban and Ghadafi would agree with A. Meyers?


   
 This person's grasp of world affairs and history seems weak, as many of the millions who've died in Cambodia's killing fields, Mao's manufactured famines and anti-intellectual purges, and myriad other cases of genocide and government mass murder in the last 50 years would probably have celebrated an interested world acting on their behalf. And of course their was the western intervention in the Balkans in the '90s for just that purpose.

    Consider, too, that the intervention in Afghanistan was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, which led to the first ever invocation of Article V of the NATO treaty - the Article that states an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. As a result, the crude method of response would have been a simple brute force attack on Afghanistan, as it's government was complicit in the attacks. Instead, NATO aided the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban, and has since aided in the suppression of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Have there been civilian casualties because of Allied action? Of course, but the Afghan peoples have consistently stated their preference for accidental casualties from Allied action to the deliberate brutality and murder of the Taliban. Girls having acid thrown in their faces for going to school ring any bells, Meyers?

    Your comment, "Peacekeepers and people with a moral conscience do not refer to human life as collateral damage," is entirely out of line. Once you get down off your moral high horse you might check to see how the term "collateral damage" is used and what it means. Collateral is a term referring to things of value - such as your house which might secure a loan. It is not something anyone would allow to be damaged without grave concern.


    The term as used in describing civilians killed during military action refers to losses which are always concerning to military planners and soldiers on the ground. These soldiers, who are also the ones called upon to be peacekeepers, have a much stronger moral conscience for you, as unlike you they put their lives on the line every day to protect people they've never met, have no vested interest in, and may never see again. They are willing to put themselves in the line of fire to create a peace in the first place. When these men and women return, they bring with them memories of battles, of friends lost, of seeing the horrors of war and the brutality of an enemy who does not hold human life to be as valuable as we do. These are your people without a "moral conscience". The reality is sometimes the recognition that civilian casualties were unavoidable is the only thing allowing soldiers to have any peace after being involved in a battle that included 'collateral damage'.

    "Let's look at the civilian members we have killed, worldwide, in the name of democracy..."

    And let's ask those who risk death every day in Syria, seeking democracy in the face of a brutal dictatorship how valuable, how worthy of sacrifice, democracy is. Or how about Iran, Bahrain, Tunisia, Egypt, Burma, Russia, and the former Warsaw Pact states - those now free because people risked death or died, while those still under the heel of dictators risk their lives to hopefully achieve freedom in the future.

    Your statement implies that in the pursuit of democracy the west has discounted the value of civilian lives. The opposite is true - when the west has acted, with a rogue exceptions, it has acted in a manner consistent with minimizing civilian, and sometimes even enemy, casualties.
Sir or Ma'am, I think you ought to give your head a shake - to start. Then you ought to apologize to our military. And finally, you ought to seek to educate yourself on the issues before applying pen to paper in the future.

Sincerely,
James Phieffer

True peacekeepers don't need more fighter jets - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA

Thoughts (which could become columns) on the first two weeks of the election:

Thoughts (which could become columns) on the first two weeks of the election:

• The coalition issue is one that hasn't completely gone away for the Liberals, and it won't, and it shouldn't. In our parliamentary system, there is nothing legally stopping Michael Ignatieff governing at the head of a formal or ad hoc coalition if the opportunity arises. Why he expects us to take his word when he wouldn't suggest we take any other politician's is beyond me. Especially when he was so equivocal in the months leading up to the election when it came to this matter.
• Iggy says he wants to have a 'fly-off' to decide what Canada's next fighter will be. His platform says the fighters aren't necessarily going to be replaced immediately regardless (shades of Chretien's helicopter cancellation – still waiting for those, twenty years later, thanks to the Liberals). Question is, how can you have a fly-off when there are only 2 fifth-generation fighters in the world, and one of them, the F-22, is not for sale. There is no other contender. As to the numbers being thrown around by the opposition, the numbers from the Department of National Defence are, quite frankly, more credible. The parliamentary budget office priced the planes over 30 years to get it's higher estimate, amongst other matters (the DND numbers are over 20 years – the extra 10 years significantly increase the costs, as these will be the most expensive maintenance-wise – as aircraft get older, the ratio of maintenance hours to operational hours grows), which, along with costing critiques from other sources, leads me to be quite sceptical of the basis for the higher numbers.
• The Green Party has no place in the debates amongst the party leaders. They have no MP’s, and the major raison d'etre of the party seems to be getting Liz May elected. This as she runs in her third different riding in the last three elections. And of course there's her tendency to endorse Liberal party leaders as Prime Minister. When she and her party get serious, and the party ceases to be a one issue noisemaker, we'll talk. It should be said that the Bloc shouldn't be there either – listening to Gilles Duceppe, while occasionally amusing, is a waste of what little space cheapskate networks will devote to the debates in the first place.
• How can Dalton McGuinty, Dwight Duncan, and Leona Dombrowsky look Ontarians in the face and say their government has done a good job. Government spending has exploded, meaning even with increasing revenue in the middle of the last decade Ontario ran massive deficits, and these got worse as the economy tanked in 2008-10. Now we are celebrating a deficit of 'only' $16+ billion dollars, we are a 'have not' province, the 'Sunshine List' is exploding... In terms of fiscal management, the McGuinty government since 2003 has been an unmitigated disaster.
• Saw my first robin this spring. It was frozen solid.
• In a day and age where discrimination is supposed to be illegal, how does Loyalist College get away with having new student housing which is unaccessable for those in wheelchairs? And what about the Picton courthouse? The front door doesn't open wide enough to allow a wheelchair through, and the very heavy door itself has no power assist.
• Toronto Maple Leafs fans are out, after grimly holding on to a slim chance their team might make the playoffs. While there may be some hope for next year, folks, the only good thing about this run is it means the Bruins won't get another top 5 pick courtesy the Phil Kessel trade.
• When I think of the late, great Liz Taylor (who apparently hated being referred to as Liz), I will think of an actress who dominated the scenes she was in. Are there any actresses today who can dominate a screen in that same way?
• Best tv show you've likely never watched: Justified. The boss and I download and watch it. Timothy Oliphant is great as Kentucky-bred US Marshal Raylan Givens. Great supporting cast as well, featuring Nick Searcy as Chief Deputy Art Mullen, and Walton Goggins as Boyd Crowder, who grew up with Raylan, but is not as concerned with obedience to the law, so to speak.