Sovereignty means having supreme, independent authority over a nation’s geographic area, and as a corollary, the capability to enforce that authority. This task is daunting given our unique geography. Canada is the second largest country in the world, with the world’s largest coastline. About 90% of our population lives within 200 km of the U.S. border. Indeed, over 60% is concentrated in the industrial heartland between Quebec City and Windsor, Ont.
Our north represents 40% of our territory. Yet it contains only 0.3% of the national population, widely dispersed in settlements and small towns and three small cities. The resource-rich Arctic is becoming more accessible as sea ice melts and more open water appears for longer periods. Mineral and fossil fuel explorations can be expected to increase, with the attendant environmental risks to the sensitive local ecosystem. This will require our close attention.
The north also represents major air and sea approaches to Canada — and to the United States. The capacity for effective surveillance of the North as well as the detection — and if necessary, engagement — of intruding aircraft and ships is fundamental to our sovereignty, but also critical to the security interests of the United States. Canada is bound by both treaty and honour to pull its weight in defending North America from possible threats from abroad.
Control of the air is essential to this task. This is and has been a primary role for Canada’s fighter squadrons since the beginning of the Second World War and will remain so for the foreseeable future — in an increasingly complex security environment.
U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower made a valid point when he warned his citizens against the “military-industrial complex,” and its burgeoning economic impact. But Canada has the opposite problem — our public, and our elected officials and senior bureaucrats, are so unfamiliar with what it takes to run a modern military that they simply do not appreciate that protecting a country costs money — lots of it.
Purchases of necessary military equipment are routinely decried as unnecessary by the opposition, but then embraced once the party takes power and realizes that Canada does indeed require a properly equipped military. This is an old story. The Progressive Conservatives attacked the Liberals for the original order of CF-18s; those planes are still in service 30 years later, having fought in two wars. The Liberals cancelled the Mulroney government’s order for new naval helicopters, and were then forced to buy choppers when they realized they were needed, after all.
Canadians, and their elected officials, must accept that a military worth having is worth paying for. We point out that the costs of operating the CF-18s over their lifespan has also turned out to be roughly $1-billion a year, just what the F-35s will cost going forward. The F-35s cost a lot of money, yes, but not much more money than any other jet would require. And we’d get a lot of plane for the money — including advanced sensors and computers that are absolutely essential to patrolling our half of the continent.
The F-35’s project cost can only be fairly measured against what any other comparable plane would cost. And some perspective is badly needed: $1-billion is spent each year on other programs ranging from the CBC through direct support of the budget of the government of Nunavut. The cost of the F-35 fleet would constitute barely 5% of the total defence budget and 0.4 % of the total federal budget. We can afford that.
It’s time for the public, the opposition and even members of the government to accept these facts, and have an honest discussion about funding for our military. Maintaining a well-equipped and properly trained force will never be cheap. But Canada is a country worth defending.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: Don Macnamara & Hugh Segal
No comments:
Post a Comment