Harper's Tough Talk on Defense and Russia is just empty words

[Argus]

Since long before he took power Harper has echoed a conservative belief in the need to rebuild the military, which was allowed to rust out under the 'care' of the Liberals. Since day one in power he's talked tough and portrayed himself as a friend of the military who would reverse the 'decade of darkness'. He still talks that way, but it's all empty words like much of what the man has said during his political life.

Canada pledged, along with other NATO nations, to spend 2% of GDP on the military back in 2006. Instead, spending on the military has dropped from 1.4% then to little more than 1% now. NATO is now, in light of the increased threat environment from Russia, reminding its members of that pledge and urging them to increase spending. Harper's is balking however. They don't care about the Russians and they don't care about the military. There's only one thing in the world they care about, and it's getting re-elected.

You get elected by promising billions for toys and goodies, not building up the military. And you can be sure Harper and his so-called conservatives will be opening the gates wide to new spending next year as they 'balance the budget' on the back of the military.

The more time goes on the more I see the close resemblance between Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper. Both men loved being prime miniser, but neither had any ideas, policies or plans for what to do with the office. Although, to be fair to Harper, I think he has a lot of things he'd like to do, but doesn't have the courage to do any of them for fear it will cost him votes. There are a lot of complicated issues he ought to be addressing but he does nothing, the same as Chretien. Don't rock the boat. Just sit on the cash and then try to bribe your way through another election so you can... do nothing again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-balks-at-nato-push-to-increase-defence-spending/article20280482/#dashboard/follows/

[waldo]

I won't bother to challenge you in regards Chretien's actual significant contributions... the way you've written your "criticism" of Harper with a comparative broad emphasis (not just military focused) to "Chretien Liberals", is simply another standard "but the Libs, but the Libs" refrain - one that, of course, leads to and adds a most convenient deflection target for those uber-partisan MLW Harper Conservative supporters who absolutely refuse to taint Harper with any suggestion he's failed/failing in anything.

[Argus]

I won't bother to challenge you in regards Chretien's actual significant contributions... the way you've written your "criticism" of Harper with a comparative broad emphasis (not just military focused) to "Chretien Liberals", is simply another standard "but the Libs, but the Libs" refrain - one that, of course, leads to and adds a most convenient deflection target for those uber-partisan MLW Harper Conservative supporters who absolutely refuse to taint Harper with any suggestion he's failed/failing in anything.

The difference between us, Waldo, is I can recognize the deficiencies Harper displays, and how that's affects his party, while you're too much of an ideologue to ever recognize your own side can do wrong. You calling others 'uber partisan' is like Putin complaining about how cruel and militaristic the Ukrainians are.

[Keepitsimple]

I disagree with the overall perspective. Regardless of the NATO "pledge" - which I doubt many/any countries accepted or met, it's not as simple as saying our budget went from 1.4 percent (then) down to one percent now. We were in an economic boom until the global meltdown - does that mean when the economy booms, you ramp up the military and when it's down, you automatically slash? Moderation and consistency - in line with the economy, world events and national security are the levers. As a matter of fact, the Lefty Think Tank - the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives - had much to say about the continuous increases in the military budget.....but in summary, Paul Martin laid out a 5 year plan of increases in 2005 which was subsequently increased by Harper. But hey, every country has taken a beating with the economy since 2009/2010 and had to tighten our belts. Putting aside the percentage of GDP equation, military spending last year was still over $20 billion - consistent with the higher levels that we attained. But yes, we're continuing to tighten the purse-strings. Still to be seen however, is the effect that ISIS/Hamas and their ilk - and the potential for home-grown terrorism - will have on the budget.

Link: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2007/More_Than_the_Cold_War.pdf

Edited August 30, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

I disagree with the overall perspective. Regardless of the NATO "pledge" - which I doubt many/any countries accepted or met, it's not as simple as saying our budget went from 1.4 percent (then) down to one percent now. We were in an economic boom until the global meltdown - does that mean when the economy booms, you ramp up the military and when it's down, you automatically slash?

If you're Harper it does. Although I wouldn't exactly call it a boom. They did at least provide some gear which was necessary to the troops in Afghanistan. Since then they've provided so many promises I can't even remember them all. They just haven't provided any money for any of those promises to be fulfilled. New warships? New coast guard icebreakers? New aircraft? New helicopters? New armored vehicles and tanks and trucks? No movement on any of them.

[waldo]

But yes, we're continuing to tighten the purse-strings. Still to be seen however, is the effect that ISIS/Hamas and their ilk - and the potential for home-grown terrorism - will have on the budget.

you continue to improperly emphasis the recession as an outlet to attempt to provide cover for Harper Conservatives... again, as shown several times over, the recession had a mild impact on Canada, it arrived later than it did with other countries and it lasted a very short time in Canada.

of course Harper Conservatives are tightening 'the purse-strings' - simply to be able to showcase a supposed balance/presumed surplus... just in time for the election. Nothing more, nothing less! Nothing will sway that (false) "fiscally competent" drumbeat!

[eyeball]

Still no desire for any inquiry into government inaction? Anyone?

One file is much the same as any other...1st Nations, military, climate change...It goes and on so it seems.

[waldo]

Since then they've provided so many promises I can't even remember them all. They just haven't provided any money for any of those promises to be fulfilled. New warships? New coast guard icebreakers? New aircraft? New helicopters? New armored vehicles and tanks and trucks? No movement on any of them.

Harper... wrassling the Ruskies for sovereignty with his Arctic photo-ops!

[Derek 2.0]

If you're Harper it does. Although I wouldn't exactly call it a boom. They did at least provide some gear which was necessary to the troops in Afghanistan. Since then they've provided so many promises I can't even remember them all. They just haven't provided any money for any of those promises to be fulfilled. New warships? New coast guard icebreakers? New aircraft? New helicopters? New armored vehicles and tanks and trucks? No movement on any of them.

No movement?

All procurements started and completed (or in the process of delivery) by the Harper Government ………

As to the Hornet replacement, naval vessels, maritime helicopters and FWSAR, all programs started under previous Liberal (give credit where it’s due), they are all in various stages of their multiyear schedules………….The Sea King crews are transitioning to Cyclones in Shearwater……FWSAR will go to tender later this year and new naval vessels and fighters will start delivers later this decade.

There have certainly been delays in various programs, some self-inflicted political wrangling and some the fault of the supplier (which does not directly lay blame at the Conservatives and Liberals)…….Frankly Canada has had a broken procurement system for decades, which blame can directly be placed at the elected Government, but simply throwing more money at it won’t fix it.

[waldo]

The difference between us, Waldo, is I can recognize the deficiencies Harper displays, and how that's affects his party, while you're too much of an ideologue to ever recognize your own side can do wrong. You calling others 'uber partisan' is like Putin complaining about how cruel and militaristic the Ukrainians are.

oh really! Have you ever... ever... "criticized" your boy, your favoured party, without throwing equal/greater negative emphasis on/toward past Liberal leaders/governments? You've done exactly that in your latest posts this morning in the 2 currently active threads in this forum. Like I said/implied... you simply can't find fault/criticism with your boy/party without first/also mentioning something along the lines of "he/they're bad... but their sure better than those past Liberals". Right Argus... you're balanced - fer sure!

[bush_cheney2004]

….Frankly Canada has had a broken procurement system for decades, which blame can directly be placed at the elected Government, but simply throwing more money at it won’t fix it.

Absolutely.....so why (but for obvious partisan reasons), would the current ruling government be held to a different standard ? PM Harper has been remarkably Canadian when it comes to such things.

[waldo]

No movement?

you could have listed those items in a few words rather than 5 large images... sir, please don't turn this defense/military focused thread into another showcase of military porn! Thanks in advance.

[waldo]

As to the Hornet replacement, naval vessels, maritime helicopters and FWSAR, all programs started under previous Liberal (give credit where it’s due), they are all in various stages of their multiyear schedules………….

reposted to emphasize the perpetual "Liberals dark days" refrain... just like Argus did in his OP!

[Derek 2.0]

you could have listed those items in a few words rather than 5 large images... sir, please don't turn this defense/military focused thread into another showcase of military porn! Thanks in advance.

The pictorial references exemplify the point, more so then mere words, on how the OP/member is wrong on a great many things……….The equipment he claimed has seen “no movement on” can’t be denied when displayed with Canadian roundels.........concern of military porn noted though.

[waldo]

Frankly Canada has had a broken procurement system for decades, which blame can directly be placed at the elected Government, but simply throwing more money at it won’t fix it.

and, in your opinion, is the move by Harper Conservatives to put procurement (more directly) into the hands/control of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) a help... or hindrance?

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't forget the CC-130J Super Hercs....I always prefer lots of variety in my (military) porn:

The Canadian Forces signed a US$1.4 billion contract with Lockheed Martin for seventeen new C-130J-30s on 16 January 2008, as part of the procurement process to replace the existing C-130E and H models.^[34] The C-130J will be officially designated CC-130J Hercules in Canadian service.^[35] The first C-130J was delivered to CFB Trenton on 4 June 2010.^[36] The final C-130J was delivered on 11 May 2012.^[37]

Edited August 30, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

well... there goes another thread. Have at er, porn afficiandos!

[Derek 2.0]

Absolutely.....so why (but for obvious partisan reasons), would the current ruling government be held to a different standard ? PM Harper has been remarkably Canadian when it comes to such things.

It is a common theme……..obviously though, Canada could spend 2% of GDP on defense right now, but it wouldn’t speed up procurement of the F-35 or a new, made in Canada solution, to replacements required by the navy……….As you can understand, like in the United States, political realities would disallow the foreign production of new naval vessels………..Aside from purchasing interim replacements for the Hornets and a portion of the navy (3 Destroyers and 2 supply ships), at this point, a fail to see what a Conservative or Liberal Government could do differently.

[Derek 2.0]

and, in your opinion, is the move by Harper Conservatives to put procurement (more directly) into the hands/control of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) a help... or hindrance?

TBD……..On the surface, it reverts to wartime procurement under the King Government, coupled with the post war St Laurent government……….which in my view, were the only largely successful periods found in defense procurement for the Canadian Forces.

[On Guard for Thee]

well... there goes another thread. Have at er, porn afficiandos!

Yep, all downhill now.

[Argus]

No movement?

None.

You provide pretty pictures, Derek. A pretty picture of C100s bought for the Afghanistan war, of helicopters and used tanks bought for the Afghanistan war.

Since then NOTHING but delays and cancelled projects.

Where are the arctic patrol ships and the deep water port? The close combat vehicles? The tactical armored patrol vehicles? The Joint Support Ships? The cyclone contract has been a freaking disaster! The F35 project has been grossly mishandled, and they can't even buy freaking trucks!

Oh but they're 'in the process'. Right! We're spending $300 million to design the half dozen arctic patrol ships which were announced SEVEN years ago. Still no design, though. Meanwhile the Norwegians designed theirs for $100 million. What about those support ships, eh? We don't even have a decision on funding them, much less finding someone to design the damned things. The Norwegians had theirs built for $235 billion by the Koreans. The Germans paid $500 million for each of theirs. Canada intends to some day pay about $1.3 billion for each of its Joint support ships, some day... probably after I'm gone. The cyclone? What a joke! Helicopters will be obsolete by the time this piece of crap is ever sent to Canada! If the Tories had any balls they'd cancel the contract, sue Sikorsky for a billion dollars, and award the contract to the Europeans.

Trucks? How is it so freaking hard to buy some damned trucks!?

Gross incompetence is the most FLATTERING term I can use for the Tories military file. When you add in to the fact they keep cutting money from the military it just goes to show that Harper, despite all his braying and bravado, cares as much for the military as Jean Chretien did.

[Argus]

It is a common theme……..obviously though, Canada could spend 2% of GDP on defense right now, but it wouldn’t speed up procurement of the F-35 or a new, made in Canada solution, to replacements required by the navy………

That's bullshit, Derek. A number of the projects, as ham-fisted as they are, have been delayed or cut specifically for funding reasons. The trucks, as one example, the icebreakers as another.

As for 'could spend 2%" it promised NATO it would do just that, instead it cut spending from 1.4% to 1% Are you going to sit there and say that hasn't had an affect on the military?!

[Derek 2.0]

None.

You provide pretty pictures, Derek. A pretty picture of C100s bought for the Afghanistan war, of helicopters and used tanks bought for the Afghanistan war.

Since then NOTHING but delays and cancelled projects.

Projects you claimed didn't happen.

Where are the arctic patrol ships and the deep water port?

Still in development.

The close combat vehicles?

Cancelled in favour of upgrading our current LAV IIIs

The tactical armored patrol vehicles?

As pictured, starting deliveries this fall.

The Joint Support Ships?

Final design selected, with production contract to be signed in the new year.

The cyclone contract has been a freaking disaster!

No arguments there, but crews are already starting to transition in Nova Scotia.

The F35 project has been grossly mishandled,

The Hornet replacement isn't expected until the end of this decade.

and they can't even buy freaking trucks!

Yet regular and reserve forces across Canada have been driving new ones fro several years.....

Oh but they're 'in the process'. Right! We're spending $300 million to design the half dozen arctic patrol ships which were announced SEVEN years ago. Still no design, though. Meanwhile the Norwegians designed theirs for $100 million. What about those support ships, eh? We don't even have a decision on funding them, much less finding someone to design the damned things. The Norwegians had theirs built for $235 billion by the Koreans. The Germans paid $500 million for each of theirs. Canada intends to some day pay about $1.3 billion for each of its Joint support ships, some day... probably after I'm gone

The cost of recreating an industry……

The cyclone? What a joke! Helicopters will be obsolete by the time this piece of crap is ever sent to Canada! If the Tories had any balls they'd cancel the contract, sue Sikorsky for a billion dollars, and award the contract to the Europeans.

2/3rds of the fleet is already in Canada, with Sea King crews already transitioning to the Cyclone......

Trucks? How is it so freaking hard to buy some damned trucks!?

The bulk of the fleet has already been replaced, with the remainder being retailored to incorporate lessons learned form Afghanistan and Iraq, namely IED and mine protection and long term effects to the vehicles structure through fatigue of the extra weight of armour……Would you rather the army purchase trucks that would need replacing within a decade?

Edited August 30, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

That's bullshit, Derek. A number of the projects, as ham-fisted as they are, have been delayed or cut specifically for funding reasons. The trucks, as one example, the icebreakers as another.

As for 'could spend 2%" it promised NATO it would do just that, instead it cut spending from 1.4% to 1% Are you going to sit there and say that hasn't had an affect on the military?!

The trucks haven't been cancelled, nor no amount of immediate funding will recreate Canada’s near defunct shipbuilding industry overnight.

What would you propose a near doubling of the defense budget would achieve overnight? I don’t discount effects on training and maintenance, but procurement issues wouldn’t be resolved as currently envisioned, namely the Hornet replacement and the “made in Canada” replacements for our AORs and destroyers…….

[overthere]

The more time goes on the more I see the close resemblance between Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper.

When you link to info showing that Harper gave away $200 million of our money to his pals at Montreal ad agencies, I'll be the first to agree with you.