"Royal" Military made the New York Times!

Harper has added "royal" to both the sea forces and the air force of the Canadian Forces. There is absolutely no point in changing the name. It's a waste of money and not many Canadians really care about it.

But, in the end, it's a name change and I do not really care what our military is named. As long as it exists and protects us, I'm happy. It's the money that I care about. Stephen Harper won his majority caring about the economy and Canadians trusted him to keep financial stability as we move into the future. Wasting money on rebranding Canadian military shows a lack of judgement. It's the economy that matters.

TORONTO (AP) — Canadians were thrilled when Prince William and Kate traveled across the country on their first official trip as a married couple. They barely noticed when their pro-monarchy Conservative prime minister appointed Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II's husband, an honorary admiral on his 90th birthday. 

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to restore the royal name to the Canadian armed forces and other recent moves to embrace the monarchy have raised hackles in this former British colony that has largely been indifferent to the fact that the queen remains the titular head of state.

Read more at the New York Times.

There is No Need for Fighter Jets

There is no need for Canada to invest $30 billion for 65 F-35 fighter jets. We simply do not need them. Stephen Harper and his cronies keep saying that we must buy them to protect our Arctic from the Russians. The truth is, in this day and age, the Russians are very unlikely to attack Canada. These fighter jets were made for the 20th century cold war, not for modern Canada. Besides, even if the Russians were to launch an air attack against Canada, there is no way that 65 fighters would stand a chance against the massive Russian air force.

The F-35 deal is a complete waste of money. There are better ways to spend $30 billion, like the Liberals have made clear in their platform. Instead, Liberals will spend on education, senior care, family care, pensions and more. Stuff that will help Canadians, instead of shiny new toys for the military. It's time to vote Liberal and stop the spending spree gone out of control.

What man-child can resist a fighter jet? Nothing so infuses the male psyche with self-wow than a $75 million — or $150 million, if you prefer — stealthy, supersonic flying machine with four-barrel cannons, bombs, missiles and built-in video system.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Related articles

• Does Canada need next-generation stealth fighter jets? (theglobeandmail.com)

Counterpoint: Lybia

Most people argue that we should intervene in Libya. Although the degrees vary, from declaring war on the dictator to providing weaponry to the rebells to executing air strikes on targets, the common argument for all of these options is that we will help introduce a new democracy, and it is our role as an established democracy to help the emerging states transition into full democracies, as opposed to becoming the next DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo). The Canadian government has decided to go in as part of a coalition for air strikes, and has already executed a few. But before we commited to anything, we should have though the whole thing through. I will present several areas that should have recieved more consideration.

Our Role in the Conflict

Essentially, "Why are we here?" What are we trying to achieve? This will determine the best course of action. For example, if our goal was to prevent massacres, we should go in as UN troops and enforce the Rules of War. If our goal was to aid the rebels, air strikes will probably do the trick, but so would providing training, intelligence, or weapons. But if our goal was to ensure that a democracy is created, it would be helpful to start with talks on both sides about what they will do to ensure democracy, and then to join the best side. This would also help ensure a proper government is set up, as opposed to an autocratic government born out of the leadership of the rebels. It would also protect, to a degree, against the "enemy's enemies", like in Afghanistan (where we are currently fighting our enemy's enemy, the Taliban, who we offered help to).

Who we are Fighting For

Are we fighting for the rebels? Or for democracy? Or both? Or maybe it's the Libyan people we are fighting for. Are we fighting to prevent massacres, or are we picking a side? If we pick the rebels, but mean democracy, we stand the chance of the opposite. We know very little about the rebels, their beliefs, hopes, principles, and plans. It might be helpful to know that they do actually stand for western democracy, and not religious or tyrannical rule. If we say we are fighting for the people of Libya, we must remember that the armies of Gadafi are also manned by civilians, and have grown with volunteers.

Our Objectives

Is our objective to remove Gadafi from power, get the rebels in power, or ensure that both parties can fight it out, with the fewest civilian casualties? An editorial cartoon in the National Post summed it up well: "So far, we have achieved all our objectives... whatever they may be." (Friday, March 25). If we don't know what our objectives are, we can't possibly have a plan. If we don't have a plan, there is nothing stopping this operation from dragging on and on.

The End-Game Scenario

When do we win? What is our signal that we're done? If we don't have one, we risk having ours change numerous times, and draw on forever. Like in Iraq, we could end up there for years and years, changing from counter-terrorists to nation-builders (and all the different faces of that). We could have our mission in Libya go from helping rebels to helping democracy to helping a struggling nation, all the while never being able to win. Currently, we don't have an end-game; we could just keep playing.

Our Pull-out Point

When do we lose? when do we say that the costs outweigh the benefits? Is it after X amount of deaths, X dollars spent, or X time elapsed? While I am typically against lose-conditions, this is not our war; it is that of the Libyan rebells and their tyrannical ruler. We might decide that we have helped, but the costs (not just money) have escalated to a point where we can no longer afford to help any longer.

But what's the message? This post is not to try to change your mind. It was written to incite you to fully flesh out your thoughts, to be able to defend your ideas against possible opponents. It was written to help you see any incomplete or incorrect thinking, and to find solutions to them. So if you hold that we should help the rebels gain democracy, think when our help ends. If you hold the opposite view, think when we would help. There's a joke where I come from: mainstream thinking is mid-stream thinking; it is incomplete. Although it isn't always true, make sure you have a complete you can rely on.