U.S. to provide air cover for Canada

[Hicksey]

The Liberals crap over the Americans and look who does the air cover for Canada!! Priceless!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/subscribe/index.html

U.S. to provide Canadian air cover

Afghanistan 'too far' for our fighter jets

Chris Wattie, National Post

Published: Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Canadian soldiers deploying next month to Afghanistan will be relying on the United States for air cover after a proposal to send Canadian fighter-bombers to the region was scrapped at the last minute, the Post has learned.

Military sources said six CF-18 jets were to have been included in Task Force Aegis, the 2,200-member Canadian battle group that is moving into restive southern Afghanistan in February.

But the air force had to change plans because of the high cost of getting the six upgraded fighters from 4 Wing in CFB Cold Lake, Alta., to Afghanistan and the technical difficulties involved in basing high-tech aircraft halfway around the world.

"It was a bridge too far," said one air force officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They just couldn't get the maintainers [and] all the[[ir equipment there and keep them there for six months."

As Canadian this is embarassing. We can't even perform the duties we have on our plate let alone getting back to where we once were with regards to peacekeeping.

[Canuck E Stan]

Martin's discussions about the military Thursday comprised the most extensive analysis the Liberal leader has offered on the party's defence policy in the entire campaign so far.

He said the ads have nothing to do with soldiers and claimed he has "probably put more money into the military than almost any prime minister."

That should clear up the question about military spending.....Probably.

Link

[Black Dog]

Wouldn't what you're suggesting just result in a duplicate bureaucracy, duplication of equipment, duplication of employees, duplication of costs and effort? It seems to me that it would be more sensible to just accept that the duties of our armed forces have expanded far beyond the traditional notion of killing people and blowing stuff up.

Fair enough: I just think that without having both aspects clearly defined and sufficiently funded, you risk "mission creep" where the organization is given too many tasks and ends up being unable to perform any of them effectively. We need a plan for our military before we buy any new toys for it.

In all seriousness, we as Canadians have collectively put a high value on the work we do in the international community, haven't we? It seems to me that peacekeeping is always one of the first things people mention when you ask them why they're proud Canadians. If that's the case, it seems to me that it's important to actually be able to meet the commitments we make, whether to our allies, or to the UN, or just to our generalized belief in the importance of providing humanitarian assistance. We need to either have the equipment and personnel to do those things, or we need to reassess our belief about how we relate to the world community.

Put me in the latter camp. It's one thing to pay lip service to an idea and to wrap yourself in past acomplishments, another entirely to actually figure out if an enterprise like peacekeeping is worth continuing. That's the most important part of the whole debate (figring out what role we want the military to play) and also the one that gets the least amount of attention.

Like it or not we live in a world where the ability to actually act according to what you say really means something. The rest of the world isn't just like Canada. We have the flash sports car and young trophy girlfriend but the rest of the world could care less. We don't even get respect from our friends any more.

Precisely my point. Using the military as a status symbol or to garner respect is a mug's game. And an expensive one.

[mar]

Its nice to keep going on about this but the reality is the majority of Canadians haven't cared about our military since the end of WWII and the only reason the neglect has been more Liberal than Conservative is simple percentages in how many years they have governed.

We have never had a post-war election fought on military issues and while Canadians like to say they take pride in our forces, it always ranks very low on their voting priorities.

So yeah, its true: we purchase land vehicles we can't transport (remember the spectacle of our retruning assets being at risk of siezure because of the bancruptcy of the shipping compary hired to transpost them?) and aircraft we can't support outside their home base. However, nobody, including the Conservatives, is even hinting at the kind of massive expenditure it would take to turn the CAF into a viable, mobile force. Plus, its not even clear the majority of Canadians support a more active international role and they are unlikely to swallow budget deficits or massive cuts to other programs to pursue one.

So its business as usual; lots of plattitudes about support but not much else.

[Black Dog]

Plus, its not even clear the majority of Canadians support a more active international role and they are unlikely to swallow budget deficits or massive cuts to other programs to pursue one.

And why would we? What possible good would it do?

[Wilber]

Plus, its not even clear the majority of Canadians support a more active international role and they are unlikely to swallow budget deficits or massive cuts to other programs to pursue one.

And why would we? What possible good would it do?

We have politicians that love to commit our people overseas to get their 5 minutes of fame on the international stage and hopefully make a few points at home. Doesn't matter if we have the capability, the military just does the best it can with what it has because they have no choice. If we are going to continue to do this stuff, lets do it right.

[mar]

Plus, its not even clear the majority of Canadians support a more active international role and they are unlikely to swallow budget deficits or massive cuts to other programs to pursue one.

And why would we? What possible good would it do?

I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I think would be helpful both to the general population and the CAF would be to clearly define what we expect from our military, because as it is, they are ill equipped for most combat roles (as distinct from peace keeping) but, increasingly, we ask it of them Afghanistan, the Balkans, etc.).

Perhaps what Canadians want is a force sufficient to defend us against a plausible military or quasi-military threat on Canadian soil such as a terrorist attack (cleary we could never defend ourselves from a massive invasion by China, the U.S., etc.), a navy and airforce sufficient to defend our air and sea borders and a peacekeping force sufficient to maintain an active role in international activities.

If that's it, fine, but lets make it clear.

[Spike22]

Pretty grim isn't it that this country can get 6 lousy fighters overseas to support our own forces.

In 1994 the defence budget was over 10 billion and we were short of cash then. Fast forward and things have gotten worse no matter what the CDS the MND or any other politition says (the CDS is also a politition so take his comments with a grain of salt too)

With the additional funds we will be able to maintain the fleets we have however there is no long term replacement plan for major capitol requirements i.e. fighters that are now from the early 80's, FWSAR etc. there is no long term vision. The military is a cash intensive business and if we don't want to play in these missions then sell all the toys and buy sports gear or something useful.

In planning these operations it goes from one deserate proposal to another (look at all the new gear the army is getting all of a sudden - were these dificiencies not know, of course they were) and the F-18 deploying was not do-able due to limited airlift capability and we are still waiting on the CC-150 air to air refueller conversions to be finished and fully operational.

Gen Hillier is an army general and is limited in his understanding about the air force and how expensive it is. His focus appears to be on the army right now and the airforce and the navy especially will be backseat players...should be fun to watch what direction the military takes once and if the conservatives win the election.

[mar]

Gen Hillier is an army general and is limited in his understanding about the air force and how expensive it is. His focus appears to be on the army right now and the airforce and the navy especially will be backseat players...should be fun to watch what direction the military takes once and if the conservatives win the election.

I don't hold out much hope. Whoever is in power, when push comes to shove they will always shortchange the CAF in favour of things the public actually cares about.

The problem hasn't been our military; we've had many insightful planners (and actually dominated by the air force in terms of strategic planning since WWII) but politicians are always a lot more concerned with how many votes they'll lose it they close this pointless base as opposed to that and other burning issues.

[Army Guy]

Some very interesting pionts have been brought up in regards to our military which truely needs some form of intervention be it by the people (voters) or the government to make it once again a viable department.

Fair enough: I just think that without having both aspects clearly defined and sufficiently funded, you risk "mission creep" where the organization is given too many tasks and ends up being unable to perform any of them effectively. We need a plan for our military before we buy any new toys for it.

I think Black dog hit the nail on the head, DND needs a white paper that clearly defines what the people of Canada want from there military. And the mission creep he talks about is already there" to many jobs not enough equipment to accomplish them all".

All that being said, years of neglect have left the dept in very sad condition and what every equipment is bought would be welcome by the Dept.

Put me in the latter camp. It's one thing to pay lip service to an idea and to wrap yourself in past acomplishments, another entirely to actually figure out if an enterprise like peacekeeping is worth continuing. That's the most important part of the whole debate (figring out what role we want the military to play) and also the one that gets the least amount of attention.

Again i agree with black dog, peacekeeping was not the primary role for the Department, yes we became good at it ,but with the decline of the powers of the UN ,UN sponsored missions have not produced the same results as say peace making missions run by NATO. I think that the whole peace keeping process should be redesigned to include a vast array of depts. Limiting DND's role to short term peace establishment then leaving. Allowing the other depts to carry out thier functions.

Its nice to keep going on about this but the reality is the majority of Canadians haven't cared about our military since the end of WWII and the only reason the neglect has been more Liberal than Conservative is simple percentages in how many years they have governed.

Agreed, But there must be some piont or time that someone has to take action. Hopefully this action comes before it becomes mission impossiable"just to expensive to revive"

Gen Hillier is an army general and is limited in his understanding about the air force and how expensive it is. His focus appears to be on the army right now and the airforce and the navy especially will be backseat players...should be fun to watch what direction the military takes once and if the conservatives win the election.

I think that this statement is a little unfair, Gen Hillier is Army but is surrounded with the commanders of each element whom i'm sure aticulate each elements needs and wants. with peanuts for a budget i think he's done well with what he's had to work with. That being said the cheapest element to outfit is the Army, most single Army contracts are not worth the billions that say a frigate replacement project or F-18 replacement project would cost. Or what the government is willing to shell out.