Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Starve the Beast: Cut Military Spending
Outside of implementing a newer version of the White Paper and alas this just not going to happen, the one area of government that fat can be cut is the military. Sure the military’s operational capability was badly compromised by cuts during the 1990s, but this not all bad. Indeed, far from it. It has greatly limited our ability to engage in foreign adventurism and this is important for reasons that extend beyond wasting money. The biggest threat facing Canada by far is Islamic terrorism and this relates largely to our presence in Afghanistan. In the case of the Toronto 18 the Afghan mission was what motivated the accused to target Canada. As for Al Qaeda, the only time Bin Laden and company have mentioned Canada is in reference to the Afghan mission. Starve the beast. Government can not be trusted. Unless military spending is kept low, future governments, particularly Conservative ones, might commit Canada to foreign missions that are doomed to failure and greatly increase the likelihood that Canada will be attacked by terrorists home grown or otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You sound like Neville Chamberlin . . . another uninformed leftist!!
Why do you suppose Al Queda is having trouble recruiting?
Is it because they don't want to drink tea with Jack L.
No, its because they have been getting their asses kicked by the military in Iraq and Afganistan.
Your comment on future missions is moronic . . . . the present mission was a result of the previous lieberal govt. But, as the years pass, it will be told in lieberal circles how Harper sent the troops, more revisionist lieberal history.
Surprise surprise a Churchill/Neville Chamberlin/Hitler reference. Old Tool, if you are going to make historical references, it helps to actually read some history. Churchill references are humourous and all, but after a well they get a little tiresome. Move beyond the template and start thinking for yourself.
>>>> “Why do you suppose Al Queda is having trouble recruiting?”
According to the CIA and Mossad, Al Qaeda in Iraq is not having problem foreign fighters to go to Iraq. What they are having trouble getting is recruiting Iraqis. It seems that blowing themselves up is more a Saudi thing then an Iraqi thing, attacking the Shia brought only retribution from Shia death squads and little else and Sunnis do not appreciate it when Al Qaeda’s local tribal leader is decapitated because he has missed some religious observation. Go figure.
As for the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they are growing stronger and stronger. They have been kicking the crap out of the Pakistan army, they control great swaths of Afghanistan, and the number of attacks has skyrocketed. In other words, in addition to picking up a history text from time to time, you should also pick up a newspaper instead of watching fox news.
>>>> Is it because they don't want to drink tea with Jack L.
You do know that a quarter of Afghanistan parliament is made up of former Taliban, that Karzai family was one of the Taliban’s biggest financial backers and Karzai was considered for the job as foreign minister with the Taliban. By the way, how do you think things would be going in Iraq if the US had not sat down with Sunni groups and the whole Anbar awaking thing had not happened?
Chretien never seemed to worry about committing the military to foreign adventures, even when it was underfunded to the point of endangering the soldiers. Maybe it would be better to just shut down the military entirely, rather than leaving men and women who volunteer to serve their country endangered in superannuated deathtraps.
"Chretien never seemed to worry about committing the military to foreign adventures"
Really and how many soliders died on Chretien's watch?
11 dead, 102 wounded in the Balkans, against a much weaker opponent. I don't know about other theatres. Also, in Afghanistan, a number of casualties were in the Iltis vehicles, a residue of the Chretien years and Paul Martin's agreement to move our forces to Kandahar without adequate equipment, not to mention a lack of helicopters.
>>>> 11 dead, 102 wounded in the Balkans, against a much weaker opponent.
That many! Do you know where and when they died and under what circumstances? It is debatable whether they were weaker opponents per say. The Croats and Serbs were just dumb enough to dress in uniform and unlikely for them they were not mixed in geographically with civilian population which they were attacking.
>>>>> Also, in Afghanistan, a number of casualties were in the Iltis vehicles, a residue of the Chretien years and Paul Martin's agreement to move our forces to Kandahar without adequate equipment, not to mention a lack of helicopters.
Everything in Afghanistan went wrong with that goof Martin and has gotten progressively worse. The only good thing to come out of Afghanistan, the Liberals decision to punt the issue away for fear it might cause an election notwithstanding, is that the Liberal base would crucify the party if it committed itself to anymore futile missions that would only serve to increase the likelihood that Canada will be attacked. The good news is that Iraq has all but insured that the States will not be invading anyone anytime soon and the Canadians only go when the Americans go.
Link.
List of names
Casualties didn't get as much press when they couldn't be blamed on Bush.
The fact that the Balkan groups wore uniforms and didn't hide among civilians made them weaker opponents, in effect.
I am familiar with a role in the Balkans. What I was wondering is how they died. Were they killed by hostile fire? Were they killed in accidents? Were they killed by mines and if so were the mines planted to target them?
Post a Comment