- Reaction score
- 6,302
- Points
- 1,360
http://torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Peter_Worthington/2005/04/21/1006062.html
Subs exotic but excess
By PETER WORTHINGTON
As if the Gomery inquiry into the AdScam boondoggle weren't bad enough for the Liberals, now we have the submarine scandal.
In some ways, the submarine fiasco is worse than AdScam -- not for sleaze, kickbacks and double-billing, but for incompetence and horrible judgment, as detailed in a scathing report by the all-party standing committee on defence.
The Commons committee found the purchase of four second-hand submarines from the British was bogged down in politics.
That's news?
What isn't "bogged down in politics" with this government (any government, really), especially when it comes to defence?
Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a one-time general, blames the four-year delay (1994-98) for the screw-up with subs -- a standing joke, since the damn things have trouble working.
Can't these guys get it through their heads that the problem isn't "politics" per se, or delays in closing the deal, but the "deal" itself?
Of all the needs in the Canadian military -- and we have decades of negligence -- submarines are what we need least.
Oh, the Navy loves submarines -- an exotic toy.
But Canada fought two wars without subs, and no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo -- a sub's primary weapon.
Even if they functioned okay under water (they don't), they aren't needed.
Former defence minister Art Eggleton, who was in charge when the subs were acquired, waxed lavish in their praise -- as does his successor, Bill Graham, who thinks subs are vital for sovereignty.
Even former defence minister David Pratt calls subs a "vital component" to our Navy, and that Canada "got a great deal" on them. Phooey. They were initially to be a "gift."
As for "politics" in military matters, when has it ever been otherwise?
What is a declared quota system for women, aboriginals, visible minorities in the military if not "political?"
Does anyone think the Chretien government paying $500 million in penalty fees to cancel the Tory decision to buy state-of-the-art EH101 helicopters wasn't pure politics? Buying a cheaper replacement a decade later was also crass politics.
We bought a crappy, costly Italian truck made in Kelowna for the military, instead of a cheaper, better military truck made by GM. More politics.
The Iltis replacement for the Jeep was a political decision -- a vehicle since rejected by the Afghan army when we tried to give it away. There's now an Iltis graveyard in Kabul.
Back to submarines. If we were truly keen on subs being an integral part of coastal defence, why in 1996 did the Navy court martial its best and most experienced submariner on trumped up charges?
Lt.-Cdr. Dean Marsaw had to go on a hunger strike and rouse public outrage before the Navy backed down on charges that couldn't be proved.
That's got to tell you something about our Navy, if not submarines.
When it was first mentioned a decade ago, the submarine deal was depicted as too good to refuse.
Using that argument, I suppose Canada would be tempted to equip the infantry with vintage Lee Enfield rifles if they could be bought cheaply, instead of automatic assault rifles ... or medieval suits of armour instead of Kevlar body armour if they were cheap.
That's sort of what we did when we purchased the outdated Leopard I tanks when the Germans graduated to a more advanced model.
Today, the sinkable subs are being blamed on Jean Chretien -- everyone's fall guy. Even Paul Martin blames Chretien for every lapse, hoping that'll be enough to save his own job. Submarines are yet another reason to vote out the Liberals.
...now I don't know much about subs, except to say that i disagree with Mr. Worthington here, I believe they are an absolute necessity.
Subs exotic but excess
By PETER WORTHINGTON
As if the Gomery inquiry into the AdScam boondoggle weren't bad enough for the Liberals, now we have the submarine scandal.
In some ways, the submarine fiasco is worse than AdScam -- not for sleaze, kickbacks and double-billing, but for incompetence and horrible judgment, as detailed in a scathing report by the all-party standing committee on defence.
The Commons committee found the purchase of four second-hand submarines from the British was bogged down in politics.
That's news?
What isn't "bogged down in politics" with this government (any government, really), especially when it comes to defence?
Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a one-time general, blames the four-year delay (1994-98) for the screw-up with subs -- a standing joke, since the damn things have trouble working.
Can't these guys get it through their heads that the problem isn't "politics" per se, or delays in closing the deal, but the "deal" itself?
Of all the needs in the Canadian military -- and we have decades of negligence -- submarines are what we need least.
Oh, the Navy loves submarines -- an exotic toy.
But Canada fought two wars without subs, and no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo -- a sub's primary weapon.
Even if they functioned okay under water (they don't), they aren't needed.
Former defence minister Art Eggleton, who was in charge when the subs were acquired, waxed lavish in their praise -- as does his successor, Bill Graham, who thinks subs are vital for sovereignty.
Even former defence minister David Pratt calls subs a "vital component" to our Navy, and that Canada "got a great deal" on them. Phooey. They were initially to be a "gift."
As for "politics" in military matters, when has it ever been otherwise?
What is a declared quota system for women, aboriginals, visible minorities in the military if not "political?"
Does anyone think the Chretien government paying $500 million in penalty fees to cancel the Tory decision to buy state-of-the-art EH101 helicopters wasn't pure politics? Buying a cheaper replacement a decade later was also crass politics.
We bought a crappy, costly Italian truck made in Kelowna for the military, instead of a cheaper, better military truck made by GM. More politics.
The Iltis replacement for the Jeep was a political decision -- a vehicle since rejected by the Afghan army when we tried to give it away. There's now an Iltis graveyard in Kabul.
Back to submarines. If we were truly keen on subs being an integral part of coastal defence, why in 1996 did the Navy court martial its best and most experienced submariner on trumped up charges?
Lt.-Cdr. Dean Marsaw had to go on a hunger strike and rouse public outrage before the Navy backed down on charges that couldn't be proved.
That's got to tell you something about our Navy, if not submarines.
When it was first mentioned a decade ago, the submarine deal was depicted as too good to refuse.
Using that argument, I suppose Canada would be tempted to equip the infantry with vintage Lee Enfield rifles if they could be bought cheaply, instead of automatic assault rifles ... or medieval suits of armour instead of Kevlar body armour if they were cheap.
That's sort of what we did when we purchased the outdated Leopard I tanks when the Germans graduated to a more advanced model.
Today, the sinkable subs are being blamed on Jean Chretien -- everyone's fall guy. Even Paul Martin blames Chretien for every lapse, hoping that'll be enough to save his own job. Submarines are yet another reason to vote out the Liberals.
...now I don't know much about subs, except to say that i disagree with Mr. Worthington here, I believe they are an absolute necessity.
