Hellyer and Kane

Nicholas Russon weighs in on the Paul Kane NYT op-ed that's raising such a ruckus in the U.S. blogosphere, but attacks it via an interesting connection with the Hellyer mistake from our own history.

Here's a snippet:

Hellyer claimed that "the amalgamation . . . will provide the flexibility to enable Canada to meet in the most effective manner the military requirements of the future. It will also establish Canada as an unquestionable leader in the field of military organization." In one sense this was true: Canada was the first nation to completely amalgamate the military services. But to be a "leader" requires that someone else "follow". That part never happened. The hoped-for cost savings may or may not have been achieved, but the economies all seemed to reduce the combat effectiveness, morale, and equipment inventories of the combat arms. A unified armed forces was no better able to resist militarily ignorant political moves than the separate services had been.

I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement with all of it, but Nicholas' post is a worth a read.