Poor equipment for troops is a Canadian tradition
April 16, 2012 By SCOTT TAYLOR
Article Link
As the political storm continues to swirl around the purchase of the F-35 joint strike fighters, the Conservatives have resorted to the age-old tactic of wrapping themselves in the flag and declaring their love for our troops.
Regardless of the costs and multibillion-dollar accounting glitches in their procurement, the Harper government would have us all believe that (and I paraphrase for brevity) no price is too high to ensure that the men and women who wear the uniform will have the best possible equipment to defend Canada’s sovereignty, our core Canadian values and all things good in the world.
In other words, anyone who questions the decision to purchase the F-35 must be either anti-Canadian or pro-evil.
While such rhetoric may play well as a retort during question period or in a media sound bite, the sad fact is that rarely, if ever, have the Canadian Forces deployed on operations with the best equipment required.
Given the lengthy lead time necessary for major military acquisitions and the comparative rapid rotations of the governing parties, there is often a justifiable measure of mutual finger-pointing when such projects attract negative attention.
For instance, the Conservatives are quick to remind Canadians that it was the Liberals who first entered Canada into the preliminary joint strike fighter program. Similarly, when reports surfaced recently about the woeful state of our navy’s submarine fleet, the Conservatives voiced their continued support for the subs but took the opportunity to remind all involved that it was the Liberals who had purchased the problem-plagued, second-hand British boats in the first place.
When the Chretien Liberal government dispatched our first ground troops to Afghanistan in 2002, they deployed wearing dark green camouflage uniforms. Despite the fact that in the previous decade alone, Canadian soldiers had served in three separate desert environment missions (Western Sahara, Somalia and Eritrea), no one thought to keep desert camouflage in stock.
When Canadians deployed to Kabul in 2003, their main vehicle for transportation was the Iltis jeep. These worn-out, lightweight utility vehicles had been earmarked for urgent replacement 10 years earlier, but when Chretien was elected in 1993, he scrapped the procurement project. It was only after three soldiers died in two separate incidents involving the Iltis that the government moved hastily toward acquiring the heavier, better-protected Mercedes-Benz Gelandewagens.
In 1992, as part of their post-Cold War cost-cutting, the Mulroney Conservative government decided that rather than upgrade the Royal Canadian Air Force’s six Chinook heavy-lift helicopters, we would simply give the choppers away to the Netherlands.
Fast-forward to 2006: the newly elected Harper Conservatives find they have inherited a worsening combat mission in southern Afghanistan. With road travel becoming increasingly dangerous, the military’s suggested solution is to acquire Chinook heavy-lift helicopters. While Boeing was contracted to produce 15 of the latest F-model Chinooks, the wait list precluded Canada from taking delivery until long after our projected Kandahar pullout date. The stopgap solution was to spend $300 million to acquire six used D-model United States air force Chinooks.
For the Canadian Battle Group to be equipped with modern howitzers in Afghanistan, the army had to beg the U.S. Marines for a battery of M777 artillery pieces. Canada then paid the manufacturer to have new gun systems delivered as replacements to the marines. We pay for new, but deploy with used.
A similar arrangement was made to borrow Leopard 2 tanks that were in service with the German army. In theory, as long as we returned them to the Germans in the same condition as we borrowed them, there would be no charge. Of course, in reality, Canada had to pay for the complete overhaul and upgrades to fully replace those now-battered tanks, which were taken on loan. In other words, Canadian soldiers may have hastily acquired some of the best equipment for use in Afghanistan, but it was not drawn from our own inventory.
Were it not for the generosity of our NATO allies, Canada’s military equipment shortfalls would have been far more apparent and likely would have resulted in a greater loss of life.
The F-35 purchase has now become the latest political battlefield, but in light of our nation’s relatively brief history, it will be difficult for any party to claim the moral high ground when it comes to arming and equipping our forces.
The Canadian Forces have a proud record of accomplishing their assigned tasks despite their political leadership, not because of it.
end
April 16, 2012 By SCOTT TAYLOR
Article Link
As the political storm continues to swirl around the purchase of the F-35 joint strike fighters, the Conservatives have resorted to the age-old tactic of wrapping themselves in the flag and declaring their love for our troops.
Regardless of the costs and multibillion-dollar accounting glitches in their procurement, the Harper government would have us all believe that (and I paraphrase for brevity) no price is too high to ensure that the men and women who wear the uniform will have the best possible equipment to defend Canada’s sovereignty, our core Canadian values and all things good in the world.
In other words, anyone who questions the decision to purchase the F-35 must be either anti-Canadian or pro-evil.
While such rhetoric may play well as a retort during question period or in a media sound bite, the sad fact is that rarely, if ever, have the Canadian Forces deployed on operations with the best equipment required.
Given the lengthy lead time necessary for major military acquisitions and the comparative rapid rotations of the governing parties, there is often a justifiable measure of mutual finger-pointing when such projects attract negative attention.
For instance, the Conservatives are quick to remind Canadians that it was the Liberals who first entered Canada into the preliminary joint strike fighter program. Similarly, when reports surfaced recently about the woeful state of our navy’s submarine fleet, the Conservatives voiced their continued support for the subs but took the opportunity to remind all involved that it was the Liberals who had purchased the problem-plagued, second-hand British boats in the first place.
When the Chretien Liberal government dispatched our first ground troops to Afghanistan in 2002, they deployed wearing dark green camouflage uniforms. Despite the fact that in the previous decade alone, Canadian soldiers had served in three separate desert environment missions (Western Sahara, Somalia and Eritrea), no one thought to keep desert camouflage in stock.
When Canadians deployed to Kabul in 2003, their main vehicle for transportation was the Iltis jeep. These worn-out, lightweight utility vehicles had been earmarked for urgent replacement 10 years earlier, but when Chretien was elected in 1993, he scrapped the procurement project. It was only after three soldiers died in two separate incidents involving the Iltis that the government moved hastily toward acquiring the heavier, better-protected Mercedes-Benz Gelandewagens.
In 1992, as part of their post-Cold War cost-cutting, the Mulroney Conservative government decided that rather than upgrade the Royal Canadian Air Force’s six Chinook heavy-lift helicopters, we would simply give the choppers away to the Netherlands.
Fast-forward to 2006: the newly elected Harper Conservatives find they have inherited a worsening combat mission in southern Afghanistan. With road travel becoming increasingly dangerous, the military’s suggested solution is to acquire Chinook heavy-lift helicopters. While Boeing was contracted to produce 15 of the latest F-model Chinooks, the wait list precluded Canada from taking delivery until long after our projected Kandahar pullout date. The stopgap solution was to spend $300 million to acquire six used D-model United States air force Chinooks.
For the Canadian Battle Group to be equipped with modern howitzers in Afghanistan, the army had to beg the U.S. Marines for a battery of M777 artillery pieces. Canada then paid the manufacturer to have new gun systems delivered as replacements to the marines. We pay for new, but deploy with used.
A similar arrangement was made to borrow Leopard 2 tanks that were in service with the German army. In theory, as long as we returned them to the Germans in the same condition as we borrowed them, there would be no charge. Of course, in reality, Canada had to pay for the complete overhaul and upgrades to fully replace those now-battered tanks, which were taken on loan. In other words, Canadian soldiers may have hastily acquired some of the best equipment for use in Afghanistan, but it was not drawn from our own inventory.
Were it not for the generosity of our NATO allies, Canada’s military equipment shortfalls would have been far more apparent and likely would have resulted in a greater loss of life.
The F-35 purchase has now become the latest political battlefield, but in light of our nation’s relatively brief history, it will be difficult for any party to claim the moral high ground when it comes to arming and equipping our forces.
The Canadian Forces have a proud record of accomplishing their assigned tasks despite their political leadership, not because of it.
end
