Military wins no matter what after election

[ExistancE]

Jut my two bits:

I don't think that it is a certain win-win as suggested by this article. The problem lies in having a minority government in a house where defence is a low priority in general. If we see another liberal minority government we could see the situation now repeated, where the liberals rely on the NDP to keep them safe from a conservative-BQ vote and if Layton pulls a "spend the money on health care not defence or the NDP will help bring you down" do you think Martin will try to safeguard a military spending bill? We've already seen him alter a budget in significant ways and dangle cabinet appointments in front of dissenters in other parties to keep himself in power. It's really up in the air if we get another minority liberal government.

A conservative minority government would, I believe, see strong opposition from the house on traditionaly conservative issues such as defence. I'd wager the NDP would be against this spending, the BQ probably wouldn't support a Canadian defence spending, and given the pettiness of politicians in general the liberals might just vote it down for the heck of it. The conservatives will have a difficult time getting anything done without what would be a touchy issue for the socialist (NDP and BQ) parties.

I doubt we'll see a majority government however I'd love to see a conservative majority to set the nation up to surivive whatever center socialist agenda gets in after them.

 

[tomahawk6]

I dont see a win win situation from an election. The problem is that defense isnt a hot button issue as it is in the US. I would think the conservatives would be the best shot for more defense spending. The Liberal Party will just do as they have done for years, they talk a good game but dont put their money where their mouth is. NDP would be worse I suspect.

 

[Infanteer]

Wow, the Conservative Party supports pork-barrel politics - add another check in the box to their stellar job on criticising defence.... :

 

[Slim]

I dont see a win win situation from an election. The problem is that defense isnt a hot button issue as it is in the US. I would think the conservatives would be the best shot for more defense spending. The Liberal Party will just do as they have done for years, they talk a good game but dont put their money where their mouth is. NDP would be worse I suspect.

Not to mention foisting off the POS MGS on the Armoured Corps, instead of getting something that works (like a real tank for instance)

 

[George Wallace]

Tracks!!!!!..............................Don't you remember?.........We are a kinder, gentler Army, and we don't want TRACKS.  :

 

[karl28]

I really hope that we can get some more funding for the CF . I am most definitely a minority on that being a civy and wanting a bigger defence budget. Its sad that more Canadians don't see how important the military is. We don't need a huge military but we need one that is better equipped . That way we can handle situations that come up more easily.  I also  have a couple good friends in the CF and I worry about their safety using ancient equipment . I guess we will just have to wait and see  what's going to happen after the election. Here's to hoping for the best out come .        Just my two cents worth

 

[Slim]

Tracks!!!!!..............................Don't you remember?.........We are a kinder, gentler Army, and we don't want TRACKS.    :

For all who think we're somehow better off without the toughest fighting vehicle on the modern battlefield I say:

                                                                  SUCK ON THIS!

 

[Hunter]

Fine -- IF he leaves the C130J issue well enough alone, they are needed - PERIOD.

Scott Taylor was on CFRA this afternoon talking about the procurement of the MGS and C-130.  According to him the C-130 isn't big enough to carry the MGS.  And if our government is going to spend so much money on armoured vehicles (according to Mr. Taylor a design that has failed all of the testing criteria set by the US military), shouldn't the planes we purchase be able to carry them?  If anyone is interested in hearing what Scott Taylor had to say, the Michael Harris show is rebroadcast at 2000 nightly on 580 CFRA, or you can hear it over the 'net at www.cfra.com

I don't disagree with the fact that we need the airplanes, I just think that if the c-130J doesn't meet the requirements of strategic airlift, then maybe we should be re-examining this purchase?

 

[Infanteer]

Red herring - will Canada possess enough airlift to ever move a sufficient amount of Armoured vehicles into a distant theater.  Moving 1 LAV is fine, but how do you move 25?  100?  The A echelon as well.  All the stores and ammo that these vehicles need?  The soldiers too?  There is a RAND report that shows that even US strategic airlift will be strained to move a Stryker Brigade - I've linked it elsewhere - so how would our paltry lift capabilities (irregardless of what we bought) hold up?

 

[George Wallace]

Hunter

I too listend to that radio show.  There were a lot of mistakes on it.  First off the Americans HAVE NOT cancelled the MGS project, it is still going on.  Second, the Stryker can be stripped down and loaded on the Hercules.  Third, the Herc is not a Strategic Lift, it is a Tactical Lift, aircraft.  We desperately need those.  If we really drop that purchase in favour of Strategic Lift aircraft, that have not even been brought off the design board, we would truly be wasting our money, as then we would have to wait for it to be designed, built and then stand in line to wait for it to be delivered.  It would only be able to deliver a few pieces of equipment to a perfectly serviceable Airport, and then we would have to transport that equipment some how to the area that it is intended to be used.  The C130 does not need a perfectly serviceable Airport to land in.  It can land in a much shorter airport/runway also.  Not all of our equipment is too small for the C130, so just because one piece may not fit doesn't mean that we don't need that plane.  His little spiel about renting from the Russians is also a crock, because with the money we spent on renting Soviet aircraft, we could have bought C17s.  

I am surprised if the show doesn't get sued for comments stating that all our Top Brass should be admitted to AA.  At least to maintain some credibility of expertise, research the Military Journals that disprove everything that was said.

In the end there is no military in the world that can deploy any large amount of equipment in a 24 - 48 hour period by air.  Most large equipment will have to go by sea.  Another SHORTCOMMING in the CF.  Not all equipment will fit into aircraft.  Not enough equipment can be safely transported by air until a secure "Airhead" has been established.  

All the bickering of the 'experts' and politicians over these aircraft is based on ignorance, and lack of knowledge of what is really required.

 

[Hunter]

I am surprised if the show doesn't get sued for comments stating that all our Top Brass should be admitted to AA.

Heh heh yeah when he said that I wondered if I had heard correctly.

I don't pretend to be an expert on anything military, but I really enjoy reading what everyone else has to say on the topic.    ;D

FWIW here is Scott Taylor's editorial that they were talking about:

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/5.2%20billion.htm

 

[Michael Dorosh]

"He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up."

Is this not like saying that he does not want he opinion of the Cpl that employs the kit?   I bet listening to that cpl could have prevented things like the LSVW or the Ross Rifle.

I wonder if that was his original meaning, though.   The Corporal doesn't know that the army will expand or which missions they will be going on.   The general knows how many trucks or rifles are needed, the corporal knows how good or bad they are.   Procurement on numbers come from the top, with reports from the field, trials, etc., conducted lower down to guage quality control.

No?

This bothers me, a bit:

If, big IF I thought Gordon O'Connor meant a return to procurement driven by a detailed analysis of policies and requirements, I would agree.

It sounds to me like he wants procurement to be driven by a bunch of his old cronies â “ lobbyists (including retired admirals and generals who (just like O'Connor was) are employed by big, rich lobbying firms) and politicians sitting around in the Rideau Club â “ on top of a big office building which looks down on Parliament Hill.

Yes, it would need to be the former and not the latter.

 

[mz589]

But to me this election is not so much about military policy but the overarching issue of integrity in government.  Sure, the Conservatives are also guilty of a bit of pork-barrelling when they were in power,

A bit?

Get back to me when the Liberals try to give away Pearson airport to thieir buddies. The last Conservative government set the precedent for pork barrelling.

And let's not forget all the grandiose promises that they made regarding nuclear submarines etc. Its one thing to campaign on increasing military funding but quite another to follow through on it when the electorate doesn't consider it a priority.

This election is in the bag, it'll be a liberal minority again, the real difference maker will be 18-24 months from now when both Harper and Martin will have been turfed byt their respective parties.

 

[48Highlander]

you're right, the liberals only gave away the 407 and ontario hydro.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

A bit?

Get back to me when the Liberals try to give away Pearson airport to thieir buddies. The last Conservative government set the precedent for pork barrelling.

That party ceased to exist, remember?  When Kim Campbell was thrown out and the party was reduced to just two seats in Parliament?  They limped along then merged with the Reform party to create a new party.  I can't speak for their integrity, but I think the "old" party was properly punished even if its individual members weren't...

 

[McG]

you're right, the liberals only gave away the 407 and ontario hydro.

Wasn't it the provincial conservatives that did that?

 

[Hunter]

A bit?

Get back to me when the Liberals try to give away Pearson airport to thieir buddies. The last Conservative government set the precedent for pork barrelling.

And let's not forget all the grandiose promises that they made regarding nuclear submarines etc. Its one thing to campaign on increasing military funding but quite another to follow through on it when the electorate doesn't consider it a priority.

This election is in the bag, it'll be a liberal minority again, the real difference maker will be 18-24 months from now when both Harper and Martin will have been turfed byt their respective parties.

I agree completely.  But I think pork-barrel politics is one thing and theft/fraud/racketeering/whatever you want to call the sponsorship mess is completely different.

I have volunteered for the Liberals in every provincial and federal election since 1977, but there will have to be big changes in the Liberal party before they get my support again.  I would also like to see the leadership of both parties changed - I don't think either of them are any good.  I wonder what it would take to tempt Gen. Mackenzie to run for the Conservative leadership.  I'm pretty sure he could whip Michael Ingatieff's arse in a fight, but it would be interesting to see those two in a debate.

 

[Eland]

This bothers me, a bit:

If, big IF I thought Gordon O'Connor meant a return to procurement driven by a detailed analysis of policies and requirements, I would agree.

It sounds to me like he wants procurement to be driven by a bunch of his old cronies - lobbyists (including retired admirals and generals who (just like O'Connor was) are employed by big, rich lobbying firms) and politicians sitting around in the Rideau Club - on top of a big office building which looks down on Parliament Hill.

This bothers me a lot:

This may be the dumbest thing any politician has said since those Liberal idiots introduced this highly flawed, wasteful requirement during the CP-140 procurement process back in the early '70s.  "Regional and industrial benefits" have not accomplished anything except to:

"¢ Increase costs - always by more than even the most wildly optimistic guesstimates of benefits;

"¢ Provide photo-ops (free re-election advertising) for government MPs; and

"¢ Line the pockets of lobbyists.

O'Connor is trying to perpetuate all that is worst in our defence procurement system; I have doubts if anything can ever be improved so long as "regional and industrial benefits" are part of the programme.

That being said, even Gordon O'Connor's inane blatherings are insufficient to make me vote Green or NDP or, even worse, Liberal.

Unfortunately, Canadians generally have been sucking on the government teat for so long that they cannot conceive of any military procurement being done in Canada without 'regional and industrial benefits'. Want some sure votes? Set up a procurement project and promise that the industrial spin-offs will be located in your riding. If politicians could get rid of their own squeamishness in this area, and overcome the same thing in your average Canadian, then it would be an almost sure thing that we'd be building tanks under licence here in Canada.

 

[a_majoor]

The title of the thread is a misnomer. The Conservative "White Paper" was on extraordinary document, well thought out and responsive to the needs of the late Cold War, but since the government's since have never followed through, nor written a new White Paper, the CF has effectively been in limbo for almost two decades.

Any bets that any Liberal "commitments" to defence will be followed up if they are elected? (Hint, how many firm commitments from the 1993 Liberal "Red Book" were ever actioned?)

Sad to say, the only party that I implicitly trust to carry out their defence platform is the NDP; and I think we all know what that means.....

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I'm with a-majoor - I don't trust any of 'em.

Frankly, the Conservatives haven't offered enough detail to even begin to criticise their policy (such as it is) in a coherent manner.  What they have said over the last year has left me aghast at their abject stupidity and willingness to sacrifice military interests for political gain.  This is the party that promised, during the Goose Bay by-election, to station a battalion there.  No sense of strategic thought, no military purpose - just pork, pure and simple. 

I am mystified as to what their point is regarding the recent purchases.  Are they saying that the CF has no idea of what its operational requirements are?  It seems so.  What process would they have us follow - especially when the decisions are as clear-cut and urgent as the airlift project is?  Back to huge project offices, constant interference by local MPs trying to gain contracts in their constituencies, voracious lobbying by hired guns, crappy equipment designed more to bring in votes than against an actual need?  Remember, it was the PCs that gave us the LSVW for purely political reasons - with the direct interference of Mary Collins (then the Associate Defence Minister).

We have, for the first time in recent memory, a strategic plan, with a procurement plan to back it up.  The Conservatives would have us throw it all out in favour of the traditional BS involving industrial benefits and high-paying jobs for the lobby cartel.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Liberals and am skeptical of their intentions and revolted by their recent history.  However, the money for most of these recent project IS allocated and, barring huge scandal, isn't about to go away.  The Conservatives can only preach party politics and hare-brained schemes.

Until their defence policy becomes grounded in reality, they've lost my vote (not that the Liberals have gained it, mind you).

End of rant...

Teddy