[Previous entry: "Flap over Jewish travel visa ban"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Going Soft on Iran"]

02/28/2004 Archived Entry: "We have 2 options: rebuild or disband"

Posted by steve @ 03:40 PM EST [Link]

SELF-PROMO ALERT: I almost forgot that I have a piece in today's Kitchener-Waterloo Record calling on Canadians to make a decision: rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces or simply disband it. If you live in the K-W region feel free to buy the paper, if not, click on "More" to read it.

We have 2 options: rebuild or disband

By Steven Martinovich

Even for those of us accustomed to discussing the depressing state of Canada's military, news this week that is is facing a funding shortfall of $500 million was a bit surprising. According published reports, for the fiscal year that begins on April 1, the army will be $200 million short, and the air force and navy each $150 million short. Internal documents that the government is refusing to release suggest that as many as five bases -- at Goose Bay, Bagotville, North Bay, Winnipeg and Trenton -- may have to be closed.

In the past defense experts have used the term "rusting out" to describe the state of the military's equipment. Due to the extreme age of some equipment, more time is spent servicing and maintaining it than it's actually used. The situation is so dire now that at least one base light bulbs are being removed from sockets to save money. In a few years the military may be forced to begin mothballing entire fleets of vehicles, ships and aircraft because the money simply isn't there to keep them operating.

The fault for this embarrassing and disgraceful state of affairs rests almost entirely with the Liberal government. Since 1993, the federal government has cut defense spending by 23 per cent. Despite an increase to the defence budget in 2003, we now spend less money on our military than we did in 1991. Aggravating the situation is the increased tempo of operations -- wearing out the depleted ranks and already obsolescent equipment.

By any measure we spend almost nothing on our military. We rank 153rd in defence spending out of 192 countries based on percentage of GDP, 13th out of 18 NATO nations in per capita defence spending and 34th in the world in our contribution to world peacekeeping missions, supplying less than 1 per cent of international peacekeepers in action.

Part of the blame also rests with the military's leadership for succumbing to pressure not to be completely up front about the situation. In a news story on Tuesday, Major-General Terry Hearn -- the military's chief of finance -- admitted that there were funding "issues" but argued that a long-term plan was in the works to stabilize its finances. The armed forces would become, in his words, "sustainable over the next couple of years."

The reality of the situation can't be lost on Hearn. As a recent Senate report charged, there was a lack of frankness on the part of "our military leaders, including senior DND bureaucrats" concerning the state of the military. The military has moved far past the point of band-aid solutions. The reality is that the military faces a "mass extinction scenario" -- at some point the near future the vast majority of its equipment will be so obsolete and out of date that it will all need to be replaced simultaneously.

That list includes items like the CF-18 fighter, C-130 Hercules, CP-140 Aurora, CH-124 Sea King, CH-113 Labrador, M-113 APC, Leopard tank, M-109 SP artillery, the military's fleet of transports, small arms, and the Protecteur and Iroquois class ships. Newer systems that won't have to be replaced in the near future suffer a different but no less troubling problem: it's unlikely they will be deployed in sufficient numbers. Simply put every year Canada's military declines in effectiveness.

Canadians are faced with only two choices now. We must either commit to rebuilding the armed forces or we do away with the fiction that we have one. Either option is expensive. A 2002 Senate Committee report recommended spending billions of dollars simply to replace equipment, expand our capabilities and double the number of soldiers serving. It would require far more than 'sustainable' funding that keeps the military in its current condition, such as the $1 billion the government announced for peacekeeping and equipment purchases.

The other option is cheaper in the short-term. By ridding ourselves of the military we could spend $12.7 billion annually on other priorities. It comes at the price of diminishing our sovereignty and independence as we become even more dependent on the United States to advance our common interests. Our foreign policy will be filled with sound and fury that is ignored by all. That is the choice that faces Canadians today. If we wait it will be made for us by time.

Steven Martinovich is a freelance writer in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.