PunBB

blesser Wrote:when people speak of the shortcomings of our military, they're speaking of our capacity as an invading force... who do you feel like invading?

Not exactly. They're speaking of its shortcomings in performing the various roles we expect it to perform, such as peacekeeping and the defence of Canada. Those roles are ill-defined, as we haven't had a proper defence policy debate since the Mulroney years, but they don't include invading anyone.

The shortcomings are often overstated (especially when people talk about the army) but they are there. Notably, the lack of strategic air lift capability, limited tactical air lift, lack of heavy lift helicopters, limited capability of the Griffon helicopter, and obsolescence of the Sea King helicopter (identified for replacement in the Mulroney white paper!).

We're fortunate in Canada that we aren't prone to disasters. The only ugly one that's lurking out there on a Katrina scale is a major earthquake (or associated tsunami) on the West Coast. If that were to happen, those air lift shortcomings would certainly come into play. As would the fact that our forces are committed to Afghanistan and other overseas missions, so their availability is limited.

However, the notion that we could not respond or handle the situation at all is false. Note that the 1998 Quebec ice storm covered a large area, wiped out power and communications, and left parts of cities inaccessible due to downed trees and debris, but there was no suggestion that we could not handle it. Mind you, there was no requirement for large-scale evacuation or large-scale rescue.

Consider also the Red River flooding a few years back that threatened Winterpeg. Again, a large-scale disaster affecting a large area. I don't recall any complaints that we were unable to handle it.

Would we expect and get American aid in case of a major disaster? Yes. But did the US receive foreign assistance following Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Katrina? Also yes. Getting aid isn't the same as being unprepared.