Saturday, October 09, 2004

We Stand On Guard For.....

Lots of military news today, so I thought I would comment.

Sheila must be in the tequila again

This is military related, but it also has to do with a little thing called logic. In yesterday’s National Post, Sheila Copps wrote (ed. need to register) regarding the purchase of the four subs, one being the HMCS Chicoutimi, the scene of a fire which caused the dead of Lieutenant Chris Saunders. She stated that over four years, three successive defence ministers tried to convince Cabinet to purchase the subs. Tequila Sheila comes to the conclusion that, since the military “begged” the government to buy the subs, the military, not the government should be blamed for their disrepair.

Let me take you through the thinking of the military mind, dear reader. The military thinks about the tasks given to it by the government and then pitches the government for the equipment to complete those tasks. In most countries, these tasks are something like defend the country from foreign enemies, and do any other tasks the government asks. The second part is where the peacekeeping and disaster relief are covered.

The military determined that having the capability to deploy submarines was important. In other countries, the governments would likely accept that advice and ask what subs we should buy to meet the need. Usually the military suggests a piece of equipment that is very fancy and does a lot of cool stuff and is the best piece of equipment for the job money can buy. Face it, if it is your life on the line, you want the best piece of kit there is. In Canada, the government is so cheap that the military is reduced to trying to get the equipment any way they can. They know the government will never buy the best subs, but something is better than nothing, so they came up with something like this used sub deal. At $800 million, less than the cost of a useless gun registry, Cabinet rejected the plan twice, until the military came up with a deal to trade the subs for free use of CFB Suffield (and, I think, CFB Wainwright) by the Brits. This is touted as “getting them for free”. Now, any kid who gets an allowance knows this is not really free, since the Brits were going to pay use to use those bases. As well, they have been mothballed for four years, so there will be a cost just to get them running again. However, in Sheila’s world this is free, just like health care is free. If you don’t actually have to give someone the money, it’s free.

Note to Ms Copps: Wake up! Based on experience, the military knew you would never approve the “Cadillac” of subs (remember what your buddy Jean said about the helicopters?), so they started by pitching the used Chevy. Four years after the Chevy has been rusting in sea water it gets approved and any problems are not the governments fault? Knowing the Liberal government's pattern of under funding the military, I would also be interested to know how much the repair costs for these subs were under funded and how that contributed to this accident.

Court Martial of Public Opinion

Global Sunday is going to hold a mock trial (article: need to register) where the government will be accused of failing to adequately equip the Canadian Forces. Ask any military member what they think of this question, and I am sure most will have already found them guilty. The only problem is the public keeps commuting the sentence.

This sounds like a bit of a publicity stunt, but maybe it will help to prevent some of my friends from getting killed. God knows nothing else has helped.

And finally,

Focus on the Big Picture

Yesterday’s National Post published a letter by the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Ray Henault, about an editorial cartoon which depicted a Canadian Forces (CF) submarine as a coffin with his comments that it was “tremendously offensive” to all members of the CF.


What is really offensive to me is the shabby treatment of successive Liberal governments towards the military.

Note to General Henault: Less time spent complaining (my job); more time spent fixing the military’s problems (your job). It’s not like you don’t have enough to do. If you are not sure where to start, email me here and I will be happy to respond. As a former member of the military, I have some thoughts as well as first hand experience. Or you could get yours ass out of the puzzle palace (National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa) and ask just about anyone else in uniform. Oh, it also helps if you listen to them.

5 comments:

Andrew said...

I don't have a reference for this, however John Robson mentioned on his show (Thinking Aloud, CFRA) that it would have been cheaper to commission 4 new subs from Canadian shipyards than it was to buy and repair the British subs. As an added bonus the cash would have all gone to Canadian companies.

Yeah - we have a brilliant government....

Babbling Brooks said...

Wicked rant. Finally someone else who knows what the Puzzle Palace is!

Chris Taylor said...

To quote the inestimable Mr. Brooks on NDHQ:

"Some days I think NDHQ should get burned to the ground. OK, most days."

It's always been my impression that the politician-facing side of NDHQ spends a lot of time worrying about their future HQ job prospects and not enough time focusing on the future of the force they're supposed to train, equip and lead.

I think this is largely a regrettable side effect of our polity's sidelining of national defence. In any other nation Defence Minister would be a very senior and important post. In our country it ranks somewhere behind Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

Anonymous said...

Funding problems aside, which are considerable but not my focus, why in God's name are we buying subs in the first place???

It is the Army that goes into Kabul with 20 year old pieces of junk, or the new junk ILTIS / LSVW, while our valiant Navy stands ready at the mouth of the Persian Gulf - ready to stop an oil-laden Zodiac boat from making safe harbour. What a joke, what a skewed sense of priorities.

I would be in favour of submarines the day they torpedo an illegal fishing vessel off our coast lines. That would add value.

They are talking about soldier systems and you can't even get a good pair of gloves? I tell you, it is NDHQ's fault for letting the Air Force and the Navy actually squabble at the table at a time when the money for the Army is negligible. The old CDS should have halted all Air and Navy funding new purchases to put better teeth on the Army- because it is the Army being worn out overseas. But of course, he was not Army.

MB said...

Can't quite agree completely anon. I think Canada needs a full military, one with subs, etc. Recent comparisons with Norway (ie. they are small, so they focus on a few things like peackeeping and mountain ops) are not really relevant. We are the second largest country in the world and need to maintain the ability to defend all of it, air, sea and land, no matter how remote the threat to us may be. Example: 200 years ago the US and England were at each others' throats. Will the US still be our friends in 200 years? Who knows.

We do need better focus, as it is my feeling that the gov't has no plan for how the military should be configured. However, I am not sure gutting the Air Force and Navy is the answer.