With the exception of a squadron of F-18 fighters and a couple of Frigates during the first Gulf War Canada has not sent troops into a battle situation since Korea until their deployment in Afghanistan. Until then the primary mission of the Canadian armed forces has been humanitarian aid and United Nations sponsored peacekeeping missions. Even our initial commitment under Prime Minister Jean Chretian to Afghanistan was to primarily assist in rebuilding and peace keeping after the ouster of the Taliban.
But the recent infusion of government money into the military is for purchasing equipment that has more of a place on the battlefield than in the aid station or the demilitarized zone. Even the pay increase that has been authorized for soldiers has only been for time spent in battle – hazard pay. Wouldn't you think that it would show soldiers more support if you increased their overall wage, telling them they are doing a valuable service for their country even when they are not in danger of being killed?
Of course they are using the excuse of terrorism for changing the role our military plays on the world stage. But what they fail to mention is that if Canada were to keep to it's role as peacemaker and not associate itself so closely with American foreign policy we wouldn't be considered a target for terrorist attacks. One only needs to look at abject failure of the invasion of Iraq to stop terror attacks against Americans, and indeed have led to their increase, to see how unsuccessful the policy of aggressive retaliation is.
I still find it amazing that supposedly brilliant military strategists would fall for one of the oldest ploys in the revolutionary's handbook. Get the big guy pissed off so that he retaliates and the people will rise up in revolt against ensuing oppression. The longer the occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan continue the more local opposition has grown.
Article comments
1 - The Admiral
Excuse me. But a military is for waging war, not meals on wheels. That is the purpose of a military. To fight and win wars. That is it's only purpose.
Canada is unable to provide for it's security at this point in time. Thus, failing in it's principle obligation to provide for the security of her people.
The governments job is to govern. It has no business in the healthcare industry, the daycare industry, or any other knee jerk ridiculous social program.
2 - Silver Surfer
Actually, the most successful counter-insurgency operation of the modern era (perhaps the only one if a lack of residual trouble is the benchmark) by a western nation DID use a meals-on-wheels type operation in CONJUNCTION with aggressive armed patrolling operations against communist insurgents in Malaya.
It took 12 years to win it, from aqround 1948 to the early 60s, and led to the rise of a modern, democratic muslim state (Malaysia) that has one of the highest standards of living in the world, not just Asia.
The British preferred to think of themselves as armed social workers, and it worked. The Australians learned the lessons and applied the same concept in Vietnam, and ultimately their area of operations in Vietnam was far less fraught and more peaceful than those of the US military.
It's also one of the reasons why Bush now wants to send more troops to Iraq - the change of tack is needed, because the old shoot 'em up shit just doesn't work in this context.
Fine for a regular war against Germany, Japan or the Soviets - but where is that threat today? China? Don't think so, they need us as much as we need them. India? Nah, they're on our side. That's about it, really.
Times change, and military thinking stuck in the 1960s like it is in the Pentagon won't apply in this new context.
So yes, meals on wheels does work.
3 - Mo
The military is not up-to par to protect the Country, so I feel that the military spending is somewhat justified. Canada's mission in Afghanistan seems to be only in support of the United States. The conservatives clearly are trying to establish a stronger relationship with the U.S. , however the mission in Afghanistan, as far as I am concerned is an unjustified one. However in response to Canada protecting and defending the Arctic, the last thing i'm sure the government wants at the moment is to start a military campaign there. However even the navy is in dire need of more equipment, so more money obviously must be spent on this. As well, I'd just like to add that the government's responsibiliy is to govern, and that DOES in clude the social aspects of the country (i.e. healthcare, etc.)
4 - Marc Treblay
At the risk of sounding like a Hawk, it's about time that Canada spend a little money on the armed forces. Our self-image as peacekeepers aside, the best way to make peace is to enforce it. In order to do that, the armed forces need strong offensive capabilities. Do not misunderstand me. I do not want Canada to build a war machine. We do need a strong Army, Navy and Air Force for sovereignty protection (self defence) AND to meet our commitments with Nato and especially participating in missions sanctioned and administered by the UN