What the Afghan war demonstrates about Canada
The, to me pitiful, fact that a wealthy nation of 33 million people cannot keep some 1,000 troops in combat--with around 30-40 fatalities a year--for more than five years. Reasons: political controversy, public ambivalence, and a very limited military capacity.
Earlier:
Earlier:
Canada and Afstan: I cringe for my country
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 8:59 a.m.
15 Comments:
It is pitiful because the Public Narrative was surrendered to the Peace at any Price crowd a few decades ago. We have had our heritage stolen by these morons.
It started with Trudeau and the slope has been all down, all slippery ever since.
Until our Public Narrative is returned to Canadians from the self anointed Public Intellectual crowd located in our major urban areas and universities, helped along by our socialist/liberal MSM, the funding and broadly based support for the CF will always be too little too late.
We'll know when the discourse is again balanced when the fools who publicly whine on about how we have abandoned our "glorious Peace Keeping legacy" are silenced or better yet, laughed at for their stupidity and historical revisionism.
I'm talking about you Jacko & your buddy Mr. Staples.
That we are a sane country that recognizes that it has no business in Afghanistan.
That's what it demonstrates.
While I agree that our military capability is pitiful for a prosperous nation of 33 million, it's not exactly accurate to solely blame the state of our defence capability on a "self anointed Public Intellectual crowd located in our major urban areas and universities, helped along by our socialist/liberal MSM".
Since before Confederation, the Canadian population has, as a whole, never expressed much interest in military affairs. Sure, there were massive committments to the 1st and 2nd World War. And Korea, to me, was like Afghanistan, the Army was at war but the country did its best to pretend it was at peace.
Before the WWI, we were content to leave our defence to the British Empire. Post WWI, our military strength almost disappeared and people like Arthur Currie who would have been heroes in other countries, were hidden from view. After the second world war, our military was again cut back as we traded one protector, the British, for another, the US.
After Korea, as the Soviet threat became more real, we finally created a true standing army. But let's face it, when Trudeau started cutting personnel and committments in the 70's, most Canadians couldn't give a $hit. Further cutbacks in the 80's and 90's could really only be tolerated by a population that really don't care about their military.
I'm not saying our lack of military capability is a good thing. I actually abhor it. I just think that always blaming it on the leftie elite (Trudeau, the NDP, MSM, etc) ignores the fact that this has been a long standing issue in our history and maybe the leftie elite have been following Canadians on this issue as much as leading it.
AMartin, you show a bit of disrespect for Canada's history.
"the Canadian population has, as a whole, never expressed much interest in military affairs."
Canada has seriousl taken interest in military affairs. Remember WWII? The only outfit to not want to join was Quebec. Since we have had a stream of Quebec politicians at the helm, Canada's role in military, aerospace and such has become non-existant force.
Remember Canada in WWI? We were are respected and feared fighting force.
Remember the only war US and Canada fought against each other?
Remember Korea?
Ignorant folks like the two previous posters (no business?) shows the sad state of affairs this country is in, and eventually will roll over and die as a nation.
Oh yes, what about Avro Arrow? A country was on the brink of being a power to deal with, but due to pressure from the US (maybe they saw how powerful our military could become) and pressure from those who don't think Canada should be in anything that goes bang bang has neutered our military to a boy scout troop.
Tom: I must disagree with you about the Arrow. The story is a Canadian nationalist myth (by the way, A.V. Roe Canada was foreign-owned, by the British Hawker Siddeley Group). It was a good plane but was designed to RCAF specs, based on requirements to cover the Canadian north, that were not needed by anyone else. The range was far too great for European NATO requirements.
The US had adequate interceptors of its own developed around the same time as the Arrow:
F-101B Voodoo (which Canada evenually acquired as the CF-101F)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-101b.htm
F-106 Delta Dart
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-106.htm
We were the only country that had a requirement for a plane with the Arrow's capabilities and it was far too expensive to build for us alone. Sad but true; all the myths about it should be put to bed.
Mark
Ottawa
Tom: "Avro Aircraft Ltd, originally A.V. Roe Canada,"
Mark
Ottawa
I have to say that overall, I'm of the opinion that AMartin expresses. The Canadian public has historically rarely been more than passingly interested in military matters.
Even those who served in the wars decided that a standing military capability wasn't particularly worth preserving after those wars were done. Remember - although Trudeau didn't serve, many of those who voted him into power did.
I will disagree with Mark about the Arrow. While much of the reasoning behind the cancellation has been conveniently forgotten in the rush to mythologize the seminal event, there's more than a grain of truth to the predominant feeling that it was a mistake.
Mark, since when does "adequate" cut it with the U.S. military? That's a weak argument. And fighter escorts for bombers originating in European or Canadian bases flying into Soviet airspace could definitely have used the range. Just because they're a defensive weapon doesn't mean they're always used to defend static targets.
I think in your desire to shine light upon many forgotten factors against the project - a laudable urge, as historical revisionism does no one any good - you're overcompensating.
The only substantial knock against the Arrow was the price tag. And in hindsight, given the escalation in defence equipment costs since then, even that concern pales in historical significance.
Mark, please let me add one point about the Arrow mythology: Its French turbojet engines were to be extraordinary beasts, with projected power and fuel efficiency FAR exceeding the advanced (for that time) J79. They would have to be; the Arrow's projected performance (including a possible near 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio!) depended upon its engines achieving all performance objectives.
However, the stake through Avro's valiant engineering heart was there. Please look at the demonstrated performance levels of ANY & ALL French turbojets and tubofans right up to SNECMA's M-88. You'll see that, although the French make good engines, there was NO BASIS on which to do any more than just hope for the top-end performance projected for the Arrow. Their production engines simply couldn't have delivered it for 15-25 years.
Short of time travelling an F-100 (and its associated technologies) back to the early 1960s, the engine performance of the time was always going to deny the Arrow its place in the pantheon of heroes.
Whether (or not) you intended it, Mark, your comparison with the F-106 is spot-on appropriate at many levels.
Oops! I should have been more specific!
When I mention "time travlling an F-100" I meant an F-100PW100 turbofan engine of the mid-1970s. Short of such an engine, the Arrow would have been an adequate (but by no means world-beating) interceptor.
Jay Crawford: The Arrow's Orenda Iroquois engines (company also owned by Hawker Siddley of the UK) were Canadian.
Babbling: By the mid-50s the role of escort fighters for bombers attacking the USSR had been abandoned. The F-101 Voodoo was in fact originally designed with the escort role in mind and ended up as--an air defence (and recon) aircraft.
And, as far as I know, the escort role was never contemplated for Arrow.
Mark
Ottawa
Kinda had a doubt, checked it and just linked back to correct myself...and found that you had done it already. I was wrong and obviously confused the Iriquois with the a French engine!
Mea culpa!
Tom,
I was going to let your complete misunderstanding of my post slide but....
I didn't say that Canada doesn't have a military history or it shouldn't be proud of its achievements. (I grew up in a town that the French and English fought over 3 times). And I most certainly didn't denigrate our contributions to either the First, Second or Korean wars.
I was just trying to state that long before Trudeau, the hippie movement, and every other left wing bogeyman, many, not all, but many Canadians were content not to have to think about their military. And short of outright wartime, serious military investment (people or money) was always controversial. Just research the creation of the Canadian navy.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the Peacekeeper mythology and I wish more Canadians knew and cared about the Canadian military. But blaming a few ignores the longstanding pervasiveness of the problem.
And for the record, I'd vote for the Rhinoceros Party before I'd vote NDP.
AMartin: I was a dedicated, card-carrying (a Vice-President as I rembember, along with all other cardholders) Rhino voter. Until all three major parties ganged up in Parliament in April 1993 to pass Mulroney gov't legislation that effectively banned the party. Some democracy.
Mark
Ottawa
The F-101 Voodoo was the worse case scenerio for Canada to have. As noted, it was an escort plane, not an attack or defence. Like the Starfighter, these planes were woefully out of context to what they were designed to compete.
Canada as usual got hand-me-downs from the US and Britain. Subs anyone?
But that is digressing from the original point, Canada was once a military power, now reduced to a small band on brave soldiers, which a G7 or G8 nation can't support.
That is sad.
Post a Comment
<< Home