(Aired on July 21, 2010)
Doug Collins told us earlier this week that it's about time Canada spends billions of dollars on new fighter jets to replace our aging fleet of CF18s. Unlike Doug, I'm not going to jump in with both feet.
First, I'm not the happiest about a multi-billion dollar contract going to Lockheed Martin without a bid process. Even at the local level, it's important that significant contracts be put out to tender. I'm aware that their aren't too many companies in the world that make fighter planes, but some sort of competitive process would have been helpful. Lockheed Martin has been criticized, and in fact penalized by the US government, because this F35 program has been racked with cost overruns and delays. Unhappily, it appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tendency to simply follow Washington's lead is coming through here. The United States has ordered 2400 F35s for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
But more than that, I'll agree with the columnist in the National Post who said the Harper government needs to give Canadians a full and complete vision of what the role of our armed forces will be going forward before making these purchases. If the war in Afghanistan is the new model for what we can expect in world conflict in the future, we have to realize that our country didn't use the CF18s in Afghanistan.
However, if the primary mission for the new F35s will be to defend the homeland, is that really the best use of taxpayers' money? I think the smarter money would go into beefed up security at ground crossings and airports. Even smarter money would go into promoting diplomacy as a means of diffusing conflict. If we really want to eliminate our enemies, the best way to do it isn't killing them, but by turning them into friends. Call it naivete, but too many of us are outgrowing our idealism.
Showing posts with label warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label warfare. Show all posts
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Billions for War Planes Well Spent
(Aired on July 19, 2010)
I know there are lots of people wondering why we're going to spend $16-billion buying 65 new fighter jets. I'll tell you why. Because we have to.
This country spends precious little on defence. Even countries that are considered "neutral" countries spend more on their defence budgets and have better armies and air forces than we do. Our aging CF-18's are about done. We recently spent over $2-billion on a refit, which was probably money poorly spent. But we have to improve.
And it won't be the last time a huge sum is spent on our Armed Forces. We desperately need to improve our naval strength. At this point, a group of Somalian pirates could probably overrun our navy, and take hostages. As our Arctic sovereignty becomes more and more an issue, as our government more and more needs to take a stand against countries which are trying to claim mineral rights and water passage rights over the Arctic circle, we need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of issues. How do we do it? We have to spend money. We have to have destroyers, we have to have aircraft, we have to have an army.
We have relied so much on our neighbours to be there for us in time of trouble, but they're kind of getting tired of it. Will the U.S. and Britain be there in time of war? Of course they will. They're protecting themselves as much as us. That's why the U.S. invested so heavily in the Pine Tree and Dew Lines during the cold war. They knew we couldn't do it, they had to do it to protect their interests. But at the end of the day, we need to put some of our money where our mouth is, and having an Armed Forces that at least gives us a minimal strength is critical to our future. I'm not a war monger in any way, shape or form, but we have to protect ourselves, and despite the cost, I believe this is money well spent.
I know there are lots of people wondering why we're going to spend $16-billion buying 65 new fighter jets. I'll tell you why. Because we have to.
This country spends precious little on defence. Even countries that are considered "neutral" countries spend more on their defence budgets and have better armies and air forces than we do. Our aging CF-18's are about done. We recently spent over $2-billion on a refit, which was probably money poorly spent. But we have to improve.
And it won't be the last time a huge sum is spent on our Armed Forces. We desperately need to improve our naval strength. At this point, a group of Somalian pirates could probably overrun our navy, and take hostages. As our Arctic sovereignty becomes more and more an issue, as our government more and more needs to take a stand against countries which are trying to claim mineral rights and water passage rights over the Arctic circle, we need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of issues. How do we do it? We have to spend money. We have to have destroyers, we have to have aircraft, we have to have an army.
We have relied so much on our neighbours to be there for us in time of trouble, but they're kind of getting tired of it. Will the U.S. and Britain be there in time of war? Of course they will. They're protecting themselves as much as us. That's why the U.S. invested so heavily in the Pine Tree and Dew Lines during the cold war. They knew we couldn't do it, they had to do it to protect their interests. But at the end of the day, we need to put some of our money where our mouth is, and having an Armed Forces that at least gives us a minimal strength is critical to our future. I'm not a war monger in any way, shape or form, but we have to protect ourselves, and despite the cost, I believe this is money well spent.
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Horrors of War Endure
(Aired on April 9, 2010)
On days like this, as we mark the 93rd anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, I always find myself a little conflicted. While I fully honour the men and women who have served and sacrificed for our country, my mind is constantly drawn to the horrors rather than the glory of war. I battle the urges to keep myself willfully ignorant of what happens a world away.
This week, the website WikiLeaks posted the video of a 2007 mistaken American attack on civilians in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad. From the sky, the American helicopter crew identifies a group of people on the ground believed to be insurgents, and fires away. Of course, the so-called insurgents turned out to be civilians. The supposed weapons they carried were actually cameras belonging to a pair of Reuters journalists.
A mistake is one thing, but the way this was handled is more than outrageous. The airmen were absolutely bloodthirsty as they picked off their supposed enemy. They shot indiscriminately, and then killed the rescuers who rushed to the aid of the wounded. In the wake of this horrific event, the gunsight video was not released until two-and-a-half years after the initial freedom of information request.
Incidents like these happen more often than we are led to believe. And while the actions of the Americans are of course reprehensible, it is incumbent on politicians not to chart a course where so much is left in the hands of those who are so brave yet so frail. This week's announcement that United States and Russia have agreed to each reduce their nuclear arsenals by one-third is a good start. But armed with the knowledge that we can still blow up the earth a half-dozen times over, there is far more progress to be made. After all, to remember is to work for peace.
On days like this, as we mark the 93rd anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, I always find myself a little conflicted. While I fully honour the men and women who have served and sacrificed for our country, my mind is constantly drawn to the horrors rather than the glory of war. I battle the urges to keep myself willfully ignorant of what happens a world away.
This week, the website WikiLeaks posted the video of a 2007 mistaken American attack on civilians in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad. From the sky, the American helicopter crew identifies a group of people on the ground believed to be insurgents, and fires away. Of course, the so-called insurgents turned out to be civilians. The supposed weapons they carried were actually cameras belonging to a pair of Reuters journalists.
A mistake is one thing, but the way this was handled is more than outrageous. The airmen were absolutely bloodthirsty as they picked off their supposed enemy. They shot indiscriminately, and then killed the rescuers who rushed to the aid of the wounded. In the wake of this horrific event, the gunsight video was not released until two-and-a-half years after the initial freedom of information request.
Incidents like these happen more often than we are led to believe. And while the actions of the Americans are of course reprehensible, it is incumbent on politicians not to chart a course where so much is left in the hands of those who are so brave yet so frail. This week's announcement that United States and Russia have agreed to each reduce their nuclear arsenals by one-third is a good start. But armed with the knowledge that we can still blow up the earth a half-dozen times over, there is far more progress to be made. After all, to remember is to work for peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
