Lloyd Axworthy on Canadian Military
Patrick_Ross @ Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:59 pm
Right now I'm reading Lloyd Axworthy's book, and I came across something interesting.
In one of the chapters, he writes about how the UN wanted to send a peacekeeping force into Zaire, but was unable to do so because of the lack of available military transportation.
He then goes on to decry that the Canadian military hadn't been asking for transportation equipment, but instead was intent on acting as part of the "force of the empire" (obviously referring to the United States, and these are his words, not mine).
But isn't this entirely false? I recall hearing a litany of complaints about the Canadian military's lack of mobility, and requests for equipment that previously fell on mostly deaf ears.
VitaminC @ Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:27 am
That may have come since his book came out.....its been out a while hasn't it? I bought it on a discount rack for like $2, but haven't read it yet...
bootlegga @ Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:26 am
Well, the current/retiring crop of Liberals never fully understood what the CF needed to do its job or why it even needed to exist. Hopefully the next generation will be more like St. Laurent and Pearson than Trudeau and Chretien...
Back in 1994, the White Paper the government released made no mention of buying airlift. Bacj then our Hercs were still in great shape and there was not much inkling that we would ever need to buy/lease strategic airlift to get our people/equipment overseas. We generally used ships, not planes. The only thing it really said about airlift was;
$1:
In the absence of valid offers to buy the VIP A-310 Airbus, and in recognition of the future demand for strategic airlift support, it will, as recommended by the Special Joint Committee, be reconfigured for a strategic transport and air cargo role.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/eng/doc/white_e.htm
So, because we couldn't sell an A-310, we converted it to transport capability. But there was more interest in the paper about acquiring new APCs, replace the Labrador SAR choopers, and PGMs for the Cf-18s than in buying C-17s. The need for strategic airlift only became an issue after 9/11...
However, Axeworthy is correct in his thoughts on the CF focus on interoperability with our NATO allies, especially the US. An entire chapter is devoted to Canada-US Defence Cooperation. Not that it is a bad thing in and of itself, but perhaps their US/NATO-centric focus led us to some foolish purchases, like the Victoria class SSNs. After the end of the Cold War, the only subs we should have bought were nuke subs capable of operating in the Arctic, if indeed we bought any. Those funds could have been far better spent on other purchases.
Maggiemygosh @ Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:50 am
Lloyd Axeworthy the pinko idiot from Winnipeg doesn't even know what a military is.
He always was and still is a complete lefty jerk who continues to spread misinformation
bootlegga @ Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:55 am
Maggiemygosh Maggiemygosh:
Lloyd Axeworthy the pinko idiot from Winnipeg doesn't even know what a military is.
He always was and still is a complete lefty jerk who continues to spread misinformation
He always was and still is a complete lefty jerk who continues to spread misinformation
VitaminC @ Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:58 am
Maggiemygosh Maggiemygosh:
Lloyd Axeworthy the pinko idiot from Winnipeg doesn't even know what a military is.
He always was and still is a complete lefty jerk who continues to spread misinformation
He always was and still is a complete lefty jerk who continues to spread misinformation
Another tragic example of wasted youth. Children raised on Fox News, child abuse, and glue sniffing can be the only explanations for the development of such an obnoxious and dim personality.
Its funny how in America Liberal and Lefty are used to insult people, but in Canada calling someone Right or Conservative is considered an insult.
A girl said to me she thought I seemed a little Conservative to her the other day. I actually felt quite hurt, no joke.
Patrick_Ross @ Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:54 pm
VitaminC VitaminC:
That may have come since his book came out.....its been out a while hasn't it? I bought it on a discount rack for like $2, but haven't read it yet...
The book is current to within the past five years.
bootlegga bootlegga:
Back in 1994, the White Paper the government released made no mention of buying airlift. Bacj then our Hercs were still in great shape and there was not much inkling that we would ever need to buy/lease strategic airlift to get our people/equipment overseas. We generally used ships, not planes. The only thing it really said about airlift was;
...
So, because we couldn't sell an A-310, we converted it to transport capability. But there was more interest in the paper about acquiring new APCs, replace the Labrador SAR choopers, and PGMs for the Cf-18s than in buying C-17s. The need for strategic airlift only became an issue after 9/11...
However, Axeworthy is correct in his thoughts on the CF focus on interoperability with our NATO allies, especially the US. An entire chapter is devoted to Canada-US Defence Cooperation. Not that it is a bad thing in and of itself, but perhaps their US/NATO-centric focus led us to some foolish purchases, like the Victoria class SSNs. After the end of the Cold War, the only subs we should have bought were nuke subs capable of operating in the Arctic, if indeed we bought any. Those funds could have been far better spent on other purchases.
...
So, because we couldn't sell an A-310, we converted it to transport capability. But there was more interest in the paper about acquiring new APCs, replace the Labrador SAR choopers, and PGMs for the Cf-18s than in buying C-17s. The need for strategic airlift only became an issue after 9/11...
However, Axeworthy is correct in his thoughts on the CF focus on interoperability with our NATO allies, especially the US. An entire chapter is devoted to Canada-US Defence Cooperation. Not that it is a bad thing in and of itself, but perhaps their US/NATO-centric focus led us to some foolish purchases, like the Victoria class SSNs. After the end of the Cold War, the only subs we should have bought were nuke subs capable of operating in the Arctic, if indeed we bought any. Those funds could have been far better spent on other purchases.
Yes, this is all very enlightening (and I have less than sixty pages in the book to go, so I know what he's writing about), but I'm still pretty certain that I've heard of complaints by the military regarding lack of transportation equipment -- within the last 10 years, and prior to 9/11.
Maybe I'll have to look into this myself.