Afstan: Don't trust the Polaris Institute
This left-wing thoughtless tank grossly over-estimates the cost of the various Canadian missions in Afstan.
Also a piece at Army.ca and my reaction to an interview on CBC.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
Also a piece at Army.ca and my reaction to an interview on CBC.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 10:01 a.m.
4 Comments:
Actually, I don't trust Soapbox's analysis. For one thing he spun out terms like "Global War on Terror", suggesting it is different from the Afghanistan mission, particularly with regards to the naval deployment - and he's wrong.
All elements of the deployment to Southwest Asia are related to the Afghanistan mission. That's not a matter up for debate - it is a fact. Canada is not a participant in the US GWT. Any contribution is related to an Afghanistan mission and the interception and destruction of al Qaeda, the Taliban and the completion of a regime change in Afghanistan.
I've never been a fan of the Polaris Institute but Soapbox's analysis is so far off the mark as to constitute the same exaggeration he accuses the Polaris Institute of making.
Dave, while I'd agree with you about the deployments 'relating to' the Afghanistan missions, I'm with Paul at BBS on the issue of incremental costs versus total costs. The $4.1B number is surely overblown, although the $2.1B number may not be.
Actually, this wasn't meant as an analysis, but a right wing spin. That's why I titled the piece 'Spin Cycle' and didn't post it here, as I considered it a partisan piece. Your comments tell me I need to do a better job of identifying it as such in the future.
Something I posted in reply to a comment on my blog:
"A more credible way to approach this particular subject would have been to break out the figures of the actual in-theatre Afghanistan operations, related operations then look at the incremental and total costs."
The CP news item read like a Polaris news release, not an actual news article. The reports bullets were highlighted along with suitable quotes from the report's author. I considered the report itself disingenuous and misleading.
The report was produced and released just prior to a Parliamentary debate on the status of the mission in Afghanistan. The debate in Parliament and in Canadian's minds was regarding the actual "in-theatre" operations in Afghanistan, not "related" operations. The main purpose was to inflate the cost of operations in Canadians minds, a goal that was probably accomplished.
Similiar tactics have been employed in the past to scuttle military programs and initiatives. How many people would know that the $4.8 billion dollar cost to purchase EH101's was not the per aircraft purchase price but the actual 25 year life-cycle costs. The Liberals used the $4.8 billion dollar figure to brand the deal as "Cadillac" and subsequently kill it.
My goal is, and always will be to help inform Canadians about their military in any way possible from my perspective.
As one further comment, this is exactly what I expected to happen with the Polaris report.
From Dawn Black, the NDP Defence critic:
Hansard 17:25
We are also very concerned about the cost of this mission. By the time the current mission is complete in February 2007, it will have likely cost Canadians in excess of $5 billion. The Polaris Institute has estimated that a two year extension or a new mission would cost an additional $2 billion to $3 billion.
"We could provide a huge amount of reconstruction and humanitarian aid for $7 billion, not just in Afghanistan but also elsewhere. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, military force is a blunt, dangerous and expensive instrument. For $7 billion it is incumbent upon us as guardians of the public purse to confirm that there is no alternative to the counter-insurgency approach and to ensure that this is the right mission."
Denis Coderre, Liberal:
Hansard 18:20
"I am very proud that we are in Afghanistan, but we are told that the past four years have already cost us $4.1 billion. I am willing to make this investment and to see Canada continuing to work and provide support in this area. However, it seems only logical to also ask whether we have the tools we need to succeed."
Bonnie Brown, Liberal:
Hansard 18:30
"Talking about affordable, on the prudent use of financial resources, we know that we have already spent over $4 billion in Afghanistan since we first went there on our various missions. During the same period we spent only $214 million on UN operations. We know we have 2,300 troops in Afghanistan and only 59 abroad in UN operations."
I'm always extremely nervous when I hear the NDP saying things like the $7 billion could be better spent elsewhere. After a resurgence in support for the military, it didn't take too long for that familiar refrain to start appearing. The forces have experienced 35 years of "spend the money elsewhere" and can't afford anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home