FOX’s Red Eye and the Canadian Armed Forces

There has been no shortage of chatter from my Canadian friends on Facebook concerning Greg Gutfeld’s comments concerning the Canadian military, which were made during the TV show Red Eye—the FOX News equivalent of The Daily Show.

Gutfeld’s comments were careless and disrespectful. While I believe it is certainly within his rights to criticize the policies of the Canadian Government, poking fun at Canadian soldiers by suggesting they are taking a year off for spa treatment is not appropriate while a steady stream of caskets are continually being flown home from Afghanistan.

That being said, there is one aspect of this kafuffle that I find confusing…

While I understand why Canadians are upset with Gutfeld, I am baffled as to why few Canadians have taken issue with the fact that their military forces will essentially be OFFLINE for all of 2011. Doesn’t this bother anyone? I do not mean to suggest that Canada should amass a large military or adopt American foreign policy; Canada is a distinct nation with its own views and priorities. However, Americans would very much like to feel as though they are not alone in paying for the defence of the North American continent. While the Canadian Armed Forces are full of excellent men and women who are making great sacrifices on behalf of both countries, the present size and budget of the Canadian Military is pathetic. Consider the following facts (gracious provided by The Toronto Star):

NATO's target for member countries' defence spending is 2 per cent of GDP. Even Pierre Trudeau spent 2 per cent. Canada's current defence spending totals just 1.2 per cent of GDP, and will drop to 0.87 per cent under the current 20-year government strategy.

Canada, the Netherlands and Australia have similar world interests. Canada spends $558 per capita on defence; the Netherlands $669; Australia $808.

In mid-April the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence received the Canadian army's 2008-09 strategic needs report. In it, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie revealed that the army's size has actually declined in soldiers since 2005. "The army is now stretched almost to the breaking point."

The navy's report was just as gloomy. It said the strength of the navy's fleet will be soon halved and that Canada will not be able to play a meaningful role with our allies on the high seas for five years between 2013 and 2018.

The air force report warned that, without significant new funding, up to 15 CF-18s will have to be grounded, plus four Hercules transports, four Aurora patrol aircraft and six Sea King helicopters.

The government announced in 2006 that it would increase the Regular Forces by 13,000 to 75,000 by 2010-11, and that the Reserves would be increased by 10,000 to 35,000. Then in 2007 it quietly delayed its plan for a full year and "reprofiled" it, halving the increase in regulars to 6,500 and chopping the increase in reserves from 10,000 to 1,000. The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, based on the operational tempo of the Canadian Forces over the past 10 years, estimates that 90,000 regulars are needed at a minimum.

Under its "Canada First" policy, the government promised that the Canadian Forces would increase its focus on defending Canadian territory, and that the Forces would be quick to respond to domestic man-made or natural disasters. Territorial battalions would be created at 12 centres across the country. That hasn't happened.

None of this is new. In fact, back in 2002, Canadian soldiers reported for duty in Afghanistan's desert wearing green jungle-camouflage fatigues, since the military didn't have money for both desert and jungle uniforms. The U.S. offered to provide desertwear, but Ottawa declined and instead issued its soldiers brown blankets, which were then taped over the green uniforms.

Canadians are very good at giving lip service to their “sovereign identity”; but when it comes to national defence and border enforcement, Canada very much acts like an unwanted 51st state. (Canada, by the way, only recently began equipping their border guards with firearms, after a few incidents in which border guards stationed at remote crossings in Western provinces fled their posts to avoid confrontations with armed convicts).

Despite the above facts, I am sure there are still some Canadians who remain unconvinced of the need to increase funding to Canada’s military. Besides who would possibly threaten Canadian sovereignty? This question is perhaps best answered with a photo:


The above picture was taken four kilometres below sea level in Canada’s arctic territory. But as you can see, the titanium flag being planted does not sport the illustrious maple leaf. It is a Russian flag, which is being planted by the robotic arm of a miniature MIR-1 submarine. Defence Minister Peter McKay dismissed the act as “just a show”; however, anyone who has been paying attention to the noise coming from Moscow knows that there is an awful lot of intent and determination behind this gesture. With the ice shelves continuing to melt in the arctic, it is seemingly inevitable that the Northwest Passage will eventually open and create a seaway linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. More importantly, beneath the arctic shelf lay vast oil and natural gas reserves. As the above picture evidences, Russia is determined to stake claim to both these lucrative resources. Several other countries, including Iceland, Denmark, and even the United States have also disputed Canadian claim to the Northwest Passage. These disputes will ultimately be settled by diplomatic means, but Canada will have very little leverage at the bargaining table if it has no means to enforce its sovereignty in the North. Moreover, there is little doubt in my mind that Russia will passively annex portions of Canada's Arctic territory if given the chance.

Contrary to the beliefs of some Canadians, being a sovereign country unfortunately requires slightly more than having a nifty charter and setting off fireworks on a given day each year. As a member of NATO and an advocate of peacekeeping, Canada has legal and moral obligations that require it to have a functional and effective military. Moreover, the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are risking their lives deserve the best equipment available to help ensure their safe return home. To this end, after Canadians are finished stringing up Greg Gutfeld, they should subsequently direct their wrath towards those in their government who are failing to properly fund the Canadian Armed Forces.

Making a Mountain out of the AIG Mole Hill

Over the course of the past week, the front pages of major newspapers across the United States have been saturated with coverage of the $165 million in bonuses that AIG is paying to its executives after having received hundreds of billions of dollars in government assistance. It is certainly a rich story, and has thus far served as an ideal corporate punching bag for the economic frustrations of the American people. Politicians of both parties have attempted to capitalize upon opportunities offered by the situation, with many Republican working to seize upon first issue to negatively impact Obama’s approval ratings, and many Democrats seeking to demonstrate their willingness to beat up on Wall Street fat cats.

The AIG bonuses are certainly an outrage, and the Government should certainly pursue all available legal options to prevent the payout. But right now, AIG’s distribution of bonuses is the LEAST of the issues facing our country…

While media personalities and politicians “huffed and puffed” over $165 MILLION dollars, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report this week projecting that the present budget proposed by President Obama would produce $9.3 TRILLION in deficits over the next decade—more than four times the deficits of George W. Bush's presidency. Should the CBO’s predictions hold true, by 2019 the national debt would $20.3 TRILLION with every American man, woman, and child owing approx. $66,529 each. Other non-news this week included an announcement that the Federal Reserve would take the highly unusual step of buying up to $300 billion worth of long-term Treasury bonds. This move sent the U.S. dollar into a freefall against other currencies this week and, combined with our country’s present 0-0.25% interest rate, will certainly hasten the inevitable onset of a long-term struggle with inflation. Another possible story for the front page—had the fabulous AIG barn burner not surfaced—would have been a follow-up on the $787 BILLION stimulus bill that passed with virtually no representative in either the U.S. House or Senate receiving the opportunity to read the bill in its entirety. How are the provisions of one of the most hastily written and expensive bills in the history of the United States being implemented? How is Vice President Biden’s “oversight” committee going to work? Why does the government have to pay union wages for stimulus-related construction labor? Alternatively, had they been really desperate, the new media might have even devoted a little bit of discussion as to why last week’s $410 BILLION omnibus spending bill was packed with $8 BILLION worth of earmarks, despite President Obama’s campaign promise to end the practice.

But who really cares about all of the above? Those AIG bastards took our money! $165 MILLION of it!

Wake up America! These are pivotal times that will ultimately determine the fate of the United States’ status as an economic superpower. Whether you love President Obama, or are petrified by his policies, the important economic issues at hand need to be reported, scrutinized, and discussed. If you only paid as much attention to our crumbling economy as you did steroids in major league baseball, the Obama family’s search for a dog, and Michael Phelps smoking marijuana, then perhaps the leaders we send to Washington would be more responsible with our money.

Tongue Tied Elephants

Over the course of the past month, I have grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of GOP leadership in Washington. The Republican Party's inability to effectively represent itself during the stimulus debate, Gov. Jindal's poorly written response to Obama's congressional address, and the recent feuding amongst party factions clearly evidence a lack of cohesion, organization, and vision.

The GOP is unquestionably in a period of transition, and such birth pangs are to be expected along the way. However, given the present situation, the Republican Party is not endowed with the luxury of having spare time to reorganize itself. In Congress, important decisions that will have long term impacts on the welfare of the country are being made, and the GOP needs strong leaders with good communication skills NOW.

I am supporter of the new RNC Chairman Michael Steele, and am still hopeful that he will bring some much-needed change to the GOP. But the past few weeks have certainly been a rough start to Mr. Steele's tenure. At present, the GOP has received its most effective representation from the promising new cohort of Republican Governors, such as Charley Crist (FL), Tim Pawlenty (MN), and—despite his poor performance a week ago—Bobby Jindal (LA). But these individuals cannot continue to serve as the voice of the GOP on national issues; this role must be fulfilled by Republican leaders in Congress.

The Republicans have virtually no power in House of Representatives. To this end, John Boehner (the present House Minority leader) receives very little attention from the media. However, Senate Republicans retain the power to filibuster legislation and consequently wield more influence than their counterparts in the lower house.

This leads me to the individual whom I believe to be at the crux of the GOP's present deficit in representation: Mitch McConnell (KY).

McConnell assumed the role of ranking Republican in the Senate following the 2008 election. McConnell is a skilled and experienced political strategist, but as Dick Morris remarked, he "runs from microphones." McConnell seldom makes media appearances, and often gives a dry and mundane performance during interviews and speeches. I mean no disrespect to Mr. McConnell, and am very thankful to have him in the Senate. However, communication and advocacy are not his strength, and I personally believe the GOP should consider appointing a new figurehead who can effectively advocate the Republican viewpoint to the public.

President Obama is, without question, one of the most effective communicators to ever hold the office of President. Overcoming his power of persuasion will be difficult. But while it will be almost impossible to match the eloquence of his rhetoric, I believe that the GOP can find meaningful representation by selecting a spokesperson who is intelligent yet simply spoken, respectful, genuine, and down to earth—a Mike Huckabee if you will. In my opinion, the contrast provided by such an individual would problematize Obama's style of exposition, making it seem contrived, insincere, and even elitist.

As has been demonstrated throughout the history of U.S. politics, Americans have a strong affinity for straight talk. The GOP simply has to find leaders who can provide it.