Yes and no

The editorialists at the Globe and Mail are trying: trying to scold the government to quit playing regional pork politics with the Globemaster contract, and trying my patience with their ill-informed position on the rest of the recent aircraft acquisition projects.

First, the good:

Under the proposed $3.4-billion cargo plane contract, Boeing had pledged to buy supplies and services of equal value in Canada. Roughly 30 per cent of that spending was earmarked for Quebec. Mr. Fortier has reportedly insisted that Quebec's share of Boeing's spending should come closer to its share of the nation's aerospace industry -- 55 per cent. Foreign Minister Peter MacKay is now arguing that Boeing should provide more benefits for Atlantic Canada. Boeing, in turn, has responded that it can guarantee its price only until the end of this month. The first plane was to arrive in June. This is more like a game show than a hugely important undertaking to equip our ill-equipped military. [Babbler's bold]

The Conservative party, and especially Mr. Fortier, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Harper will be shown to be hypocrites of the first order if they allow this procurement to come off the rails due to petty regional politics. Don't pretend to be a friend to the Canadian soldier when it's convenient and scores you political points in the polls, and then abandon that same soldier when the time comes to eke out the next couple of points in those same polls with some good old-fashioned vote-buying. The Canadian Forces should be something more than a public relations prop to those politicians making the decisions. Good for the folks at the Globe and Mail for saying this to their audience.

Unfortunately, they miss the mark with the rest of their critique:

Equipment specifications have been so narrowly drafted that only one supplier could truly meet the needs. Ottawa is effectively sole-sourcing its purchases of helicopters, tactical aircraft, cargo planes and fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft. In each case, the military argued that it required equipment with a proven record. Defence officials also reasoned that they needed the equipment relatively soon to replace aging aircraft or to upgrade capabilities -- and in each case only one supplier could fill their needs.

The Globe and Mail does its readers a disservice by implying that the equipment specifications have been unfairly skewed. The reality is that the CF has hobbled along with gun-tape and pocketknife solutions for decades now. When finally given the chance to obtain what they truly need to perform the tasks we set them, they took it. Hence the Chinooks, which have no peer in the rotary-wing world. Hence the Globemasters, which also have no equal among strategic airlifters. Hence the Hercules J-models, which are clearly the best choice among a limited field of options.

If the critics have realistic alternatives to these choices, it's long past time they put them forward. But we shouldn't allow these critics to pretend that the CF had a long list of viable options, and nefariously or incompetently chose to artificially narrow them. Put up or shut up, folks.

I suspect they don't because they can't. In fact, I suspect most have embraced a "sole-sourcing is bad" general construct, and haven't dug into the details of each specific project deeply enough to determine that each is actually quite justified. That the G&M has included the FWSAR project in their list of questionable de facto sole-sourced contracts, is evidence of this intellectual laziness. DND and PWGSC haven't even decided upon performance requirements, let alone the shape of the procurement format at this point. To lump this acquisition in with the others is nothing more willful ignorance. To publish this ignorance as fact is plainly irresponsible.

When it comes to Canadian mainstream media reporting on military issues, it seems the best we can hope for is a sprinkling of good with an unhealthy dose of bad.