unit, the JTF2 has a separate — and highly classified — procurement budget. Despite the secrecy surrounding this commando force, it is known that they, too, have been out purchasing a multitude of new hardware and vehicles for the upcoming mission. Everything from automatic grenade launchers and new assault weapons to armoured trucks has been hastily added to the JTF2’s inventory.
Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com
Unfortunately, there are some things that simply cannot be obtained or produced before Hillier’s expeditionary force heads off to battle. In the mountainous region of southern Afghanistan, the majority of the combat missions are facilitated by heavy transport helicopters escorted by heavily armed helicopter gunships. As Canada has neither of these types of aircraft, our troops will presumably be hitching a ride aboard allied helicopters. As well, to deploy and keep a 2,000-strong contingent supplied in theatre will require the use of strategic airlift, which Canada does not possess. If history repeats, we will either rely upon the help of our friends or rent some old Russian commercial airplanes.
While many senior Canadian officers are quietly wondering why Hillier is insisting on putting all his combat eggs in one basket called Afghanistan, there are now even more serious rumblings coming from the other NATO participants. The Dutch were to contribute up to 1,000 troops to the allied force — including a number of Chinook heavy-lift helicopters (yes, the very same choppers that Canada gave them in 1992, when our policy-makers concluded there was no future need for such aircraft). But that decision has been delayed by the Dutch parliament, pending additional guarantees of support from the Pentagon.
The British defence minister is also reportedly having second thoughts about this new mission, with some senior officers suggesting the whole operation should be abandoned. Their rationale is that there is presently no stated end game for Afghanistan and no apparent exit strategy for the international community.
One would like to think that similar constructive consideration is taking place here in Canada and that someone somewhere is calculating exactly what Canada’s long-term projected involvement in Afghanistan is. (Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden anyway?) But the signs are not hopeful.
With an election campaign in full swing and Canadian casualties already mounting, the only political leader to even raise this issue is Jack Layton of the NDP.
In the meantime, it seems that Hillier remains a man on a mission, and come hell or high water, next spring, our military is gonna kick some "scumbag" butt in Afghanistan.
Note: The Halifax Chronicle H... No more Canadian troops... www.KnowledgeDrivenRevo...
Stumble It!
Let's hope Canada will listen.
We've had a good run these last 60 odd years where, other than Korea, there's been little reason to field a large army. The Canadian government has done a good job of taking advantage of that... things are pretty good around here. But, in taking a cold hard look at the world around us, I've come to the conclusion that it's time to have a real army again. We just might need it.
Hopefully, we won't... but I wouldn't bet on this and a competent, capable army is a good insurance policy, so long as it isn't squandered needlessly. Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice in other areas to support a solid army right now.
Canada won't have an effective fighting force until it has been cleared of weeds by fire. It's an ugly truth, but it is the truth and good Generals know this. Combat is necessary to build an effective fighting force. There's nothing like trial by fire to send pork-belly procurement up in a puff of smoke. This is what's happening now... Hillier planned this; he is a good General.
Afghanistan is a good place to do this, but it could just as well be Sudan or a dozen other places. There's no shortage of badguys in this world right now and Afghanistan has plenty. We are taking sides in a civil war; I happen to think the side we're taking well-reflects Canadian values. As such, we might actually do some good in the process.
Still, I harbour no illusions that we are building an army to help out the Afghan people. We are building an army to protect our interested and maintain a great way of life in what could easily be troubled times ahead. The little war in Afghanistan is serving our military needs.
David...
I think Mr Martin didn't do his, because isn't the federal surplus projected at $9B?
"Still, I harbour no illusions that we are building an army to help out the Afghan people."
It's not an illusion. Our men and women are doing some great work there. Building schools, providing water, ... clearing farm fields of mines. Helping the locals is what Canadian Forces do best. Google for 'King Marko' in Croatia.
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
No argument there. But, we don't need to embark on a major expansion and procurement spree to accomplish this. Canada is committing a significant force to the new rapid reaction COMBAT unit; this is where the new resources are going.
What I'm saying is that while this new force may benefit Afghans, or at least some to the detriment of others, we are doing it primarily for selfish reasons. Reasons I agree with.
David...
* encourage into retirement military people that joined up because it was a nice safe career option.
* provide opportunities for trained combat soldiers to test themselves in limited battle, where it's not likely to get out of control. Yes, it's risky but the young men that join the army are not typically risk-averse. Many of our soldiers want real combat experience - it's good for their careers.
* stop politicians that think the army should buy stuff that's made in their ridings, even if it's junk. With soldiers lives on the line, most politicians won't take the risk on pushing the kind of pork-belly procurement that cripples a peace-time army.
Yes, participating in Afghan combat will help America... we do that from time to time. Sometimes they help us. But, it seems pretty clear to me that Hillier is using the Afghan situation to better the Canadian army. Judging by the news reports going around, I happen to think he's doing a damn fine job.
David...
<br />
suprisingly few when you consider they invaded a country of 26 million, destroyed its military, overthrew the government, and have occupied it for, what, three years now? More Americans die in traffic accidents in a month. 42,042 Canadian soldiers died in battle during WWII (1). 35,000 German soldiers died during the initial invasion of France during WWII (2). 58,000 Americans died during the occupation of Vietnam (3). The American casualties in Iraq are, by historical standards, very, very low.<br />
<br />
"The pork-belly contracts don't get much bigger. "<br />
<br />
Sure, the contracts for the Iraqis. American politicians don't care if the Iraqi government spends WAY too much for useless American junk or services. Iraqis have oil as collateral to back up the loans. However, I expect the American MILITARY is using the Iraqi war to ram through funding on their equipment in much the same way Hillier is. I've not looked at this, but I expect it's what's going on. After all, there are good American generals too.<br />
<br />
As for empire building... why? Sure, Afghanistan will be an excellent forward base for the Americans when they invade Iran, but, other than location, the country has nothing to take. Nothing is there for Canada other than supporting America, combat training, and good will at the UN. I think, for Hillier at least, combat training and the "war footing" aspects of procurement are the important parts, putting this back on topic.<br />
<br />
Haiti has nothing to do with Hillier's procurement plans and, as such, is pretty far off topic, for this article at least. Besides, I've read the articles you link to and I don't agree with your position. Sorry, but there's not much point in debating this.<br />
<br />
David...<br />
<br />
1) <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html</a><br />
<br />
2) <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2wwfrenchA.htm">http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2wwfrenchA.htm</a><br />
<br />
3) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War</a>
Iran has resumed what many believe to be a nuclear weapons program, we know that the current leaders of that country have a deep hatred for Israel and what the consequences will be. In this case should diplomacy fail, military action may be the only solution but should and must not be the first.
If Canada wants to participate in helping the world overcome the injustices and mistakes of the past in the Middle-East, Africa and other trouble spots then yes we do need a military with teeth, because in many cases we have to make peace before we can maintain it. But let's not blindly follow the Americans hypocritical "democracy and freedom" slogan, let's use military force in a calm and inteligent fashion.
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill