Straight from the defence minister...
bootlegga @ Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:30 pm
I wrote Gordon O'Connor, the defence minister about why we did not deploy CF-18s to Afghanistan, while other smaller nations, like the Dutch, have deployed their own air support. Here was his answer, received today;
The Honourable Gordon J. O'Connor The Honourable Gordon J. O'Connor:
Dear Mr. ----------:
Thank you for your e-mail of 7 June 2006 concerning the deployment of CF-18 aircraft to provide air support to the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. I regret the delay in replying.
Before Canada decided to embark on the military operations in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces conducted a detailed analysis of the level of support provided by coalition forces in theatre. One of the factors studied was the level of close air support {typically provided by fighters such as the F-16 and CF-18}available during the Canadian liability period. The conclusion derived from the analysis indicated that coalition forces close air support during the February 2006 to February 2007 timeframe was sufficiently robust and responsive to meet the needs of our commanders.
The level of close air support available to our ground commanders is monitored daily. Should we reach a point when that level becomes unsuitable to meet our needs, our CF-18 air expeditionary unit is poised to deploy to take on this important role.
I trust this information is of assistance and thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Gordon J. O'Connor, PC, MP
Minister of National Defence
Thank you for your e-mail of 7 June 2006 concerning the deployment of CF-18 aircraft to provide air support to the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. I regret the delay in replying.
Before Canada decided to embark on the military operations in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces conducted a detailed analysis of the level of support provided by coalition forces in theatre. One of the factors studied was the level of close air support {typically provided by fighters such as the F-16 and CF-18}available during the Canadian liability period. The conclusion derived from the analysis indicated that coalition forces close air support during the February 2006 to February 2007 timeframe was sufficiently robust and responsive to meet the needs of our commanders.
The level of close air support available to our ground commanders is monitored daily. Should we reach a point when that level becomes unsuitable to meet our needs, our CF-18 air expeditionary unit is poised to deploy to take on this important role.
I trust this information is of assistance and thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Gordon J. O'Connor, PC, MP
Minister of National Defence
My original email;
Bootlegga Bootlegga:
Dear Mr. O'Connor,
I fully support the deployment and I'm personally glad that the mission
was extended, but I have one question for you.
Why is it that Canada does not deploy its own air wing (CF-18s) to
support the troops on the ground?
Other NATO countries like the Dutch have done so. I realize you weren't
in office, but had we had CF-18s flying in 2002, maybe we wouldn't have
lost 4 soldiers to friendly fire. And if we had them there now, our
troops would be able to call in air support anytime.
If we really are buying C-17s, then we should have no excuse why we
wouldn't be able to support an air wing there too.
Just a suggestion on my part.
I fully support the deployment and I'm personally glad that the mission
was extended, but I have one question for you.
Why is it that Canada does not deploy its own air wing (CF-18s) to
support the troops on the ground?
Other NATO countries like the Dutch have done so. I realize you weren't
in office, but had we had CF-18s flying in 2002, maybe we wouldn't have
lost 4 soldiers to friendly fire. And if we had them there now, our
troops would be able to call in air support anytime.
If we really are buying C-17s, then we should have no excuse why we
wouldn't be able to support an air wing there too.
Just a suggestion on my part.
TrippleX @ Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:49 pm
Good shit. Atleast you got an asnwer
SJ-24 @ Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:00 pm
It's been my experience that this government actually responses to your question. I can't say I got the same response to questions I asked of the Liberal government....and I asked plenty. I should also point out that General Oconnor had a reputation for taking responisibility for his actions, which is why he didn't last in a Liberal environment. They sure like to shovel the shit those liberals. 
Scape @ Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:42 pm
It is always hearting to see elected officals take the time (even if only a form letter) to respond to the public. Still think the CF-18's should be there if only for a PR move, otherwise why not scrap them?
TheGup @ Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:09 pm
It didn't look like a form letter to me...
Mr_Canada old @ Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:38 pm
SJ-24 SJ-24:
It's been my experience that this government actually responses to your question. I can't say I got the same response to questions I asked of the Liberal government....and I asked plenty. I should also point out that General Oconnor had a reputation for taking responisibility for his actions, which is why he didn't last in a Liberal environment. They sure like to shovel the shit those liberals.
How did you ask the questions?
Were you basically calling the liberals scum or where you actually being polite?
Because I wouldn't blame them for not answering many of the Anti-Liberal Right-Wingers here.