More trouble than we're worth?
An article by Bruce Campion-Smith of the Toronto Star today breathlessly reveals that CF planners put together a plan to deploy CF-18's to Afghanistan to support the ISAF mission there.
Later in the article, the author pays lip service to the idea of contingency planning, but doesn't give the idea much weight in his piece.
A few points need to be made to provide some context here. Firstly, professional militaries plan obsessively. Contingency plans exist for every development under the sun. Developing detailed roadmaps to a whole host of operations that will never, ever happen is the lot of the staff officer. The fact that a journalist has misunderstood this institutional fetish for planning is disappointing, but unsurprising.
Secondly, the air force plan seems to be a response to a commitment we made to NATO to have the six aircraft discussed available if requested. Note that this was revealed to the public back at the end of October last year:
Thirdly, it's my understanding that the air force is anxious to get into the fight in Afghanistan in a more direct way. Again, you need to understand the mindset of the professional air force officer: Canadian troops need close air support, Canada has a weapons system that was designed to fly such a mission, so Canada should employ such assets as soon as possible. Pride and honour in the sky-blue element of the CF, exemplified by the desire to get into the fight to support their Army brethren - a fight they've trained hard for - should not be underestimated.
So, to recap, the air force was asked to develop contingency plans to deploy six jets to support NATO operations if required, they did so in appropriate detail, and they did so with some enthusiasm, given their desire to become more active in the front-line prosecution of this mission.
If it weren't for the last few paragraphs of the story, I'm not sure why this would merit an entire news piece in Canada's largest circulation broadsheet:
Aha. The failure to deploy these assets is evidence of a reluctance to be seen as escalating the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. It's all about the political intrigue, dontcha know.
Or maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, it's about how ready and desirable our fighter-bombers are for action in a high-profile international mission like this.
You see, the CF-18 fleet is undergoing a whole series of much-needed upgrades, which won't be completed until 2009. A good brief on the high-points of this modernization program is available at SFU's CASR. While the first stage of this upgrade schedule was completed last year, it's instructive to note what wasn't included: a data link system that allows Canadian pilots to meld easily into a complex tactical environment with our allies.
Obviously I'm not plugged into the classified details, but I suspect that while our CF-18's could perform ably if pressed into service, and while our air force would love to answer that call, our allies haven't asked us to contribute in that way yet because integrating our aircraft into joint operations in Afghanistan would be problematic.
While domestic politics may play a part in all of this, I believe the technical capabilities of the aircraft play a much bigger part.
Update: Someone just reminded me that $18M for a six-month CF-18 deployment isn't a good use of scarce budget resources. Especially when the broad consensus from the guys on the ground is that we have sufficient air cover from our allies. And if the government is going to splurge an additional $18M instead of taking out of the current budget, it would be better to spend the money on another fifteen RG-31 Nyala mine-protected vehicles, for example, since that's a more urgent need.
Canada's air force has detailed plans to deploy six CF-18s fighter jets to Kandahar, even to the point of predicting how many so-called "smart" bombs would be needed for a six-month air campaign battling insurgents, documents show.
Defence officials say they have no intention of sending the fighters overseas. But military memos and orders obtained by the Toronto Star make it clear that extensive planning has laid the groundwork for a deployment should the Conservative government give the okay.
"With respect to the current situation ... there are no plans at this point in time do so," Lt.-Col. John Blakeley, director of air force public affairs, said last Friday.
But just over a year ago – as Canada's army units made the move to Kandahar from Kabul – it seemed certain the air force's front-line fighter would be deployed to join them in an operation expected to cost $18 million, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.
Later in the article, the author pays lip service to the idea of contingency planning, but doesn't give the idea much weight in his piece.
A few points need to be made to provide some context here. Firstly, professional militaries plan obsessively. Contingency plans exist for every development under the sun. Developing detailed roadmaps to a whole host of operations that will never, ever happen is the lot of the staff officer. The fact that a journalist has misunderstood this institutional fetish for planning is disappointing, but unsurprising.
Secondly, the air force plan seems to be a response to a commitment we made to NATO to have the six aircraft discussed available if requested. Note that this was revealed to the public back at the end of October last year:
In Ottawa yesterday, Canada's Defence Minister admitted under questioning from an opposition MP that CF-18 fighter jets are being readied for use in Afghanistan.
"Recently we made a commitment to NATO that we will have six CF-18s ready for NATO if they require us," Gordon O'Connor told the House of Commons during Question Period. "That is why the money was spent to fix up these CF-18s."
Mr. O'Connor stressed yesterday that there was no plan currently in the works to send the jets overseas. "They will not be deployed unless there is an operational requirement, and at this time there is no operational requirement," he said in response to a question from New Democrat MP Dawn Black.
Thirdly, it's my understanding that the air force is anxious to get into the fight in Afghanistan in a more direct way. Again, you need to understand the mindset of the professional air force officer: Canadian troops need close air support, Canada has a weapons system that was designed to fly such a mission, so Canada should employ such assets as soon as possible. Pride and honour in the sky-blue element of the CF, exemplified by the desire to get into the fight to support their Army brethren - a fight they've trained hard for - should not be underestimated.
So, to recap, the air force was asked to develop contingency plans to deploy six jets to support NATO operations if required, they did so in appropriate detail, and they did so with some enthusiasm, given their desire to become more active in the front-line prosecution of this mission.
If it weren't for the last few paragraphs of the story, I'm not sure why this would merit an entire news piece in Canada's largest circulation broadsheet:
The deployment, planned for sometime after May 2006, never took place and now seems to have been shelved indefinitely.
Today, a CF-18 deployment remains a sensitive topic for senior federal government officials who fear the public may perceive Canadian jets in Afghanistan as an escalation of Canada's involvement in a divisive mission.
Aha. The failure to deploy these assets is evidence of a reluctance to be seen as escalating the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. It's all about the political intrigue, dontcha know.
Or maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, it's about how ready and desirable our fighter-bombers are for action in a high-profile international mission like this.
You see, the CF-18 fleet is undergoing a whole series of much-needed upgrades, which won't be completed until 2009. A good brief on the high-points of this modernization program is available at SFU's CASR. While the first stage of this upgrade schedule was completed last year, it's instructive to note what wasn't included: a data link system that allows Canadian pilots to meld easily into a complex tactical environment with our allies.
Obviously I'm not plugged into the classified details, but I suspect that while our CF-18's could perform ably if pressed into service, and while our air force would love to answer that call, our allies haven't asked us to contribute in that way yet because integrating our aircraft into joint operations in Afghanistan would be problematic.
While domestic politics may play a part in all of this, I believe the technical capabilities of the aircraft play a much bigger part.
Update: Someone just reminded me that $18M for a six-month CF-18 deployment isn't a good use of scarce budget resources. Especially when the broad consensus from the guys on the ground is that we have sufficient air cover from our allies. And if the government is going to splurge an additional $18M instead of taking out of the current budget, it would be better to spend the money on another fifteen RG-31 Nyala mine-protected vehicles, for example, since that's a more urgent need.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 11:16 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home