Sunday, November 07, 2004

Future of Forces

Peter Worthington asks the question: why do the Canadian Forces need submarines?
When asked why four subs are important, a succession of defence ministers, including Bill Graham, chiefs of defence staff (Ray Henault) and admirals (Bruce MacDonald) all tend to sound alike. They all say Canada, with the world's longest coastline (240,000 km), needs the four submarines to protect our "sovereignty" and enhance our security as "eyes and ears" under the sea.

That may sound good -- but makes no sense. To establish sovereignty (even presuming such is needed) means being seen, having a presence -- not being hidden and undetected. A flag establishes sovereignty more than an underwater marker. Submarines are basically designed as weapons of war -- of attack, not defence or security.

{…}

Top priorities on what the Canadian military needs in this volatile world of international terrorism and menace, include helicopters -- for the navy and army. Tomorrow's artillery is helicopter gunships, not ground cannons. Helicopters are the "eyes and ears" of the navy, as in search and rescue for the world's second largest country.

Our soldiers know how to rappel down ropes from helicopters -- but we don't have the helicopters. We need transport planes more than fighters or strike aircraft -- half of which we already have mothballed. If necessary, the Americans have more than enough fighter aircraft. We have no way to transport soldiers or equipment to hot spots -- or out of hot spots, either by air or sea. Our few paratroops occasionally have to rent commercial aircraft for practice drops. We need more ground troops, so the ones already on combat duty don't have to be recycled until they burn out. We need more armoured vehicles, like the LAV-III and Coyote which give our soldiers a distinct edge in Afghanistan.

We need fewer generals. We should emulate Australians, whose Special Forces are reminiscent of the SAS and can function in large or small units.

All this needs planning and a program and policy -- none of which are evident at DND.

I concur. It is far past the time for Canadians to stand up and take notice of our armed forces and develop a rational defence policy that mirrors how we need our forces to operate and then - fully fund it. Instead of election by focus group issues; why don’t we as citizens, get pro-active and demand our politicians lay out their program and policy on the armed forces in the next election?

2 comments:

Andrew said...

I posted regarding the cost of those desperately needed transport airlift today. It seems like too good a price not to invest in them....

Babbling Brooks said...

Helicopter gunships are NOT the 'new artillery' and submarines are extremely cost-effective costal defence tools. But by all means, let's have that discussion at DND and in Canada at large. We're still working from a 1994 white paper that assumes a reduced tempo of operations for the CF!