grainfedprarieboy grainfedprarieboy:
Let's be clear here. I don't support a bottomless pit of money for the military and as far as I am concerned, the military is one of the most inefficient spenders of their own budgets and I could fill volumes about stupid purchases.
But the problem with the LPC brand of financing is that not only was the budget reduced, there was a corresponding increase in the number of deployments the military was called upon to handle. In fact, by 2000 we had soldiers deployed to 52 countries and this had stretched the army very thin for both men and money.
You need to distinguish between having an army training in garrison and one that is deploying as there is a large cost difference. This is why your historical finacial models don't shuck and jive with reality.
I don't think so. In fact concurrent to all the other complaints, one of the chief complaint was that "the Liberals never had much use for us".
Again, wrong both ways. They deploy the troops they are sending us ill-equiped. They don't and its because they hate the military and have no use for them.
Can you provide evidence showing deployments, cost associated with the deployments including troop numbers and equipment to support your point?
Don't forget that Mulroney, even if he used the troops less, was still paying for bases abroad which count as deployment in my books. Thats why he closed Lahr, and Baden-Baden, to save money.
Now you don't support bottomless military spending because as a buisness owner you can grasp the connection between the taxes you pay and gov't spending, a fact I believe is lost on alot of other people. Getting anybody in the military to actually commit to detailing how much spending is enough is next to impossible because then they would have to give up the "we are short-changed" complaint or else show that the level they expect is unreasonable.
grainfedprarieboy grainfedprarieboy:
Reduced money and increased deployments are only one complaint. A big one for the military was Chretien's disbandment of the Airborne Regiment. I fully expect you as a civilian with no understanding of the military to see this as a good idea but for soldiers who fight for their units and buddies long before Canada factors into the equation, this was the biggest insult any government could ever levy.
Actually, though it occured during your hiatis I took the opposite side in that the regiment should never have been disbanded and it was wrong. However contact Winnipegger and/or Bootlegga for a much better report on exactly who was to blame and why. The military itself bares ALOT of the blame, chief of which was their policy of "dumping troublmakers" on other units like the airborne by concealing fitness reports.
This was also a case of the military not accepting much responsibility starting right at the top and forcing a newly minted politician to deal with a very large headache. I think that this was also a case of "reap what you sow" in that the Liberals were blasted on their "military record" and potrayed as an "enemy to the forces" long before Chretien had been elected. When he was looking to cut budgets I now understand entirely why he decided to disband a unit receiving so much bad press that made no case for itself by the way they were attacking the Liberals.
grainfedprarieboy grainfedprarieboy:
There was also a long list of other grievances such as Chretien ordering the UN danger pay provided to each soldier from every country participating on UNPROFOR to be sent to the federal treasury instead of the soldiers as he felt their regular pay was enough or the time a Liberal cabinet minister needed to fly home from Europe and diverted an air force jet that was supposed to return with a 170 troops forcing these soldiers to wait several more days camped out on a tarmac. Hell, the direct social engineering of politicians setting race and gender quotas for individual units still leaves a foul taste in the mouth of an organisation which strongly believes people should be in a position by merit.
I have never heard that before. At face value its wrong. At best it was trying to recoup the cost of deployment but even then its still wrong.
I'm not saying the Liberals didn't make mistakes. Education and healthcare can do the same thing.
As for quotas, well they are both good and bad.
grainfedprarieboy grainfedprarieboy:
Yesterday at the base I gave a brief where I highlighted that Canada's navy was responsible for coastal defence but following WWII they have slowly walked away from their obligations even though there has been no parliamentary order rescinding their responsibility. They have done this in order to maintain a blue water capability but both the RCMP and Coast Guard have been unable to assume the role. In fact, it is so bizarre that Canadian and American Navy's have integrated communications and control equipment but Canadian Navy and Coast Guard do not.
And yet I can't seem to find a single sailor who has anything good to say about a submarine program.
The Navy is one area I feel Canada needs far greater resources because our military should be protecting us not off fighting US wars of aggressions masquerading as helping people who would turn on us in a second if they felt we were insulting their religion.
grainfedprarieboy grainfedprarieboy:
You make many legitimate complaints but ignore the fact that the LPC was openly hostile to the military, its culture and possessed very little understanding of how to utilise the resource. Where Harper gets Kudos is he at least listens to the soldiers when it comes to things like the flag issue. Martin to his credit, began to repair what his former boss had damaged and was probably more like Ignatieff in the sense that he had a better understanding of the role of the forces and where and how money should be spent.
I dispute the openly hostile angle. Its more of a case of not fully understanding but then how can they? Has the military ever made a single honest effort to bridge that gap or have they simply complained about them.
You have said you are a card carrying member of the Liberal party but not for any reasons of actually getting them to listen to an Albertan viewpoint. If the same thing is happening here, if the Liberals are getting advice they think is honest military advice from the military but its actually designed to make them appear more antagonistic then whos fault is it?
Chief among the problems is the whole blanket Liberal condemnation. Martin made a real effort and put real money is and quite frankly was the architect of the economic wizardry. Yet he was still vilified by the military. If you were making an honest effort and received the same treatment wouldn't you start to think "the hell with it"?
grainfedprarieboy grainfedprarieboy:
Under Harper the military will continue to enjoy more freedom to soldier unencumbered by arm chair Generals and at least a sympathetic ear to funding or manpower issues.
How do you figure? He was the only PM to tell the CF to fight on a budget.
grainfedprarieboy grainfedprarieboy:
I could happily post dozens of failures of the Harper government in regards to the military but it really wouldn't remotely compare to the Liberals.
All perspective. The helo deal keeps getting mentioned as a failure and a scandal but it was a smart financial move and a kept promise. Harper however has reneged on several military purchases and shelved plans for new SAR aircraft even though we no longer have reoplacement props.
The bottomline remains that the Liberals will soon be back in power and the military is giving it no reason whatsoever to put iy high up in the list of spending priorities.
CKA Super Elite 
