CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Defence Spending  —  Operational Needs  —  Afghan Mission  —  June 2006 Are  there  any  Upsides  in  this  Breathless  Barrage  of 'New' Defence Spending by Harper's Minority Government? Dianne DeMille,  CASR  Editor "If  this is Thursday,  we must  be in Trenton !" It looks as if Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the frugal neo-conservative is actually going ahead with the wrong-headed C-17 purchase – buying an enormous aircraft  that even the USAF is not interested in anymore. (That is why these planes are being made available  to US Allies  –  Britain, Australia, and  Canada  –  at  such short  notice.) Oh well, $ 3 billion and counting – whatever...   Right now, Harper's got the power. ( He may have just blown his chances for gaining a majority  –  only time will tell. ) But  Now  for  the  Good  News The really  heartening part about  this series of announcements is that  the largest fraction  of  the projected  spending  will go towards the  mission in  Afghanistan: •  'Hot - and - High'  Helicopters  (probably  the  medium - lift    CH-47 Chinook )  at  about  $ 4.7 B •  Tactical Transport Aircraft (probably the Lockheed Martin    C-130J Hercules)  at  around  $ 4.6 B •  Medium Transport Trucks  (probably  variants of  the US    Army FMTV) currently estimated at approximately $ 1.2 B That  brings  the  total  for  funds  dedicated  to  immediate  operational  needs  to just over $ 10 billion,  or about  two-thirds  of  the total  expenditure of  $ 15 billion. The  'immediate  operational  requirements'  (IORs)  as  outlined  by  the  Chief  of Defence  Staff  (CDS),  General  Rick  Hillier,  have  been  addressed  at  last. It would appear  that  Harper just had to make it look as if  the whole package were his idea.  All  'alpha' animals do this  –  in order to create the illusion of dominance. Unfortunately, the term 'immediate' cannot be applied  to those systems that have not yet been manufactured.  The only item on the  'shopping list'  that is available almost immediately is the one thing we don't particularly need  –  the C-17 airlifter. If Mr. Harper wants to show just how powerful and clever he is, he will try to find  an  'interim  solution'  to our  (by now)  'urgent  operational  requirements'  (UORs). To be seen as a truly effective leader  –  one who  puts the  safety  and  well-being of our troops first  –  he will get some older model  CH-47 Chinooks into southern Afghanistan,  as soon as  possible,  (along  with  some  used  'H  model  Hercules). This  is  where the  'horse-trading'  comes  in.  If  we are  about  to  purchase  brand new  aircraft  from  Boeing  and  Lockheed  Martin, surely Canada  can entice even the most hardened  'Yankee  traders'  to front us  some used,  but  good  condition, aircraft.  When it comes to combat, wasting time is far worse than  wasting money. Besides,  it is  in the  interest of  the US  that all of its allies  perform well in  south- ern Afghanistan.  Soon NATO  will be required to move into eastern Afghanistan, so that  the US  can  re-deploy some,  perhaps eventually all,  of  its troops to Iraq. The  Benefits  that  Arise  from  Increases  in  Defence  Spending For over a decade,  Paul Martin had control of the purse-strings of this country  – first with the  blessing of a  populist prime minister who didn't want to get bogged down in the details,  then  as  Prime  Minister  himself. Paul Martin was not a bad person.  However, he  held fast  to some very simplistic ideas about  how a country's economy should work.  (It is highly probable that, on any given day,  he would not have been able to give you even a ballpark figure for the price of  a loaf of bread.)  His simplistic  model  for  the country's economy  led to bad policies, and even worse practices, in some cases, with devastating effects. He believed that producing huge surpluses year after year was a good thing.  No.  It simply means that you have taken taxpayers' money and then refused to invest those funds in the programs that are the responsibility of the federal government. Thomas Jefferson  summed  up the simple responsibilites of a federal government in his preamble to the constitution of the United States of America: "... provide for the common defense,  promote  the  general welfare,  and  secure the  blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ...".  Martin did not provide for our defence. Stephen Harper,  whatever  you may think of his priorities,  is a neo - conservative and a trained economist. Because of his ideology, he grasps two important things: 1) A country as rich as Canada, blessed with abundant natural resources, must be able to defend that wealth and its future prosperity, with armed force if necessary. 2) Defence spending  is the only form of  'Keynesian'  stimulation of  the economy that will be tolerated by  neo-conservatives,  'old' conservatives,  and liberals alike. Summary So there are at least two upsides to the recent spate of announcements of defence spending.  One is  that  most of  the  spending is targeted on  the Afghan  mission. (Maybe  the  pointless  C-17   purchase  will   help  us  to  lever  some  refurbished Chinooks  out  of  Boeing  under  their  CHAPS  program.) The  second   'bright  side'  to  this  spending  is  the  'spending'  itself.   Money  is like  blood  –  it's got to be  kept  in  circulation,  or  the  body  becomes  moribund. Furthermore,  Canada's  economy  is  so  closely  tied  to  that  of  the  US  that  it really  doesn't  matter  if  we  spend  some  of  our  money  in  America.  Eventually it  will  come  sloshing  back  over  the  border  again.  The  killer  comes  when  we try  to hoard  our  money,  investing  in  nothing  –  not  even  our  own  'posterity'.