IN the Ottawa Sun Douglas Fisher minces few words.
New thinking on defence? Ask yourself: What other nation doesn't provide a separate chapter in its budget for defence? In our 400-page document this bold, new era for our forces got five, buried in a 25-page chapter entitled Meeting our Global Responsibilities. Our military was lumped in with -- and symbolically followed -- tsunami relief and other foreign aid.And then there is the language used. The budget speaks of "conflict situations" not wars. Our allies may be "fighting a war on terrorism" in Afghanistan but we are there to re-establish "peace and security." If anything, this budget strengthens the notion that our military's true role is to be an alternate delivery mechanism for foreign aid.
The notion the military is receiving an immediate and desperately-needed infusion of cash is a joke. Fully $10.2 billion of the $12.8 billion "promised" won't arrive until 2008-10, which is budgetary never-never land. The minority Liberal government is preening over a promise to deliver cash relief to the forces after its own re-election, and this with the proviso that only if the country is still posting enormous surpluses at that time. This is an empty, despicable boast, given the military's plight.
[...]
Perhaps most stunning of all in this budget is its lack of any new money over the next two years for new equipment.
Laurie Hawn fleshes this out.
We should also be aware of what is happening to our fighter force. For fifty years, we have had Canadian fighters patrolling our airspace, or sitting on alert to react to Soviet incursions or other air traffic situations. The focus changed on 9/11 from looking outward to also looking inward. Our ability to look anywhere has steadily eroded.We will soon be down to 80 operational CF-18s, the number that we can afford to upgrade. We are also critically short of fighter pilots, many having left in disillusionment. Flying time has been cut back to the point where we no longer train at low level and intensity of training has been reduced to preserve safety. Preserving safety under these circumstances also makes us ineffective. No matter how fast we can spin the earth, the new simulators we're buying will never fly and nothing in the new budget addresses the erosion of our aerospace sovereignty.
Most people probably don't know that 433 Squadron in Bagotville will shut down this summer to make one larger 425 Squadron. It won't be long before some bean counter or other non-warrior sees a source of further personnel cuts. Heck, if you've got 400 people, surely you can make it work with 375, or 350, or............ The same thing will happen in Cold Lake next summer, with the shutdown of 416 Squadron. That will leave Canada with two, count 'em, two operational fighter squadrons. Billy Bishop weeps!
These shutdowns will free up a handful of positions to help start a new air warfare college. What's the point of having a college about air warfare if you have no Air FORCE to apply it? I'm sure that the office equipment, pens and paper in Winnipeg will strike fear in the hearts of our enemies and respect in the hearts of our allies.
Laurie - you need a blogroll. Your viewpoint deserves more readership, and that won't happen if you move into the blogosphere proper. Outgoing linkage = incoming traffic.
As the gov's budget is technically only valid for one year, essentially the have provided nothing.
The total annihilation, and elimination of the military is a planned outcome in my opinion. It comes from the if we hide no one will see us attitude of the left, and someday were going to pay for it.
It has already cost us in political capital on the world stage, and unfortunately, if something does happen, there, as usual, will be a non reaction, and the left will blame someone else, also as usual.
Kate,
I talked to Laurie on this but he's not sure how he would go about setting up a blog. He currently has his campaign manager doing it, and they both would be willing to go after it if you could provide some guidance and/or advise.
Told them didn't know if you were into that but might be able to assist and would run it by you. I also told him the drawbacks to the system he's on is that there's no opportunity for debate without signing up for your own blog, which is kind of stupid, unless it's setup wrong.
I can certainly point them in the direction of someone (Kathy Kinsley at The Third Hand) who can manage the tech details, and I'd be happy to sherpa them through the minefield of who to link to. I'm sensitive to the desire of politicians not to be directly associated with the wilder elements of the blogosphere (after Kos "screw em" came back to bite the Kerry campaign for example) but there is a way to do it that will help ensure that traffic starts to flow naturally.