Choices
Worth reading today: a surface-level, but decent discussion of the never-ending trade offs between capabilities and budgets in the CF. Here's the money line:
True enough, as far as it goes. Canada is not a country that outlines its interests and then develops its military and funds it based upon those interests. The budgetary - read: vote-counting - cart always drives the capability horse.
But as I've been saying for years, it shouldn't be that way. Our political class seems to lack the statesmanship to lead public opinion on the need for stable, long-term funding for the military based upon the country's strategic objectives.
That's why we never get off the economic-cycle merry-go-round. And yes, I used the playground metaphor on purpose. Mature nations should be capable of having adult political discussions about such grave matters as war and peace. Sadly, we're not there yet.
"In the end, Canadian defence policy ends up being the art of the possible."
True enough, as far as it goes. Canada is not a country that outlines its interests and then develops its military and funds it based upon those interests. The budgetary - read: vote-counting - cart always drives the capability horse.
But as I've been saying for years, it shouldn't be that way. Our political class seems to lack the statesmanship to lead public opinion on the need for stable, long-term funding for the military based upon the country's strategic objectives.
That's why we never get off the economic-cycle merry-go-round. And yes, I used the playground metaphor on purpose. Mature nations should be capable of having adult political discussions about such grave matters as war and peace. Sadly, we're not there yet.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 9:17 a.m.
2 Comments:
Babbling--bang on: "...Canada is not a country that outlines its interests and then develops its military and funds it based upon those interests. The budgetary - read: vote-counting - cart always drives the capability horse...Our political class seems to lack the statesmanship to lead public opinion on the need for stable, long-term funding for the military based upon the country's strategic objectives..."
A theme I've been arguing here for yonks. Our governments refuse to come up with a clear assessment of what specific types of operations and missions are to be required of the CF--and without that definition force structures, equipments, and budgets cannot reasonably (rationally) follow.
So we just poop on, with no real idea where the CF are going or, most importantly, why.
Mark
Ottawa
I might add that the three services themselves are not without some responsibility for the state of affairs. None of them is willing to re-assess the need for all the various types of operations and missions it currently has (at least in theory). Each seems to think things can just go on basically as they have been--regardless of, amongst other things,real budget pressures.
Mark
Ottawa
Post a Comment
<< Home