As Impolitical illustrates in this post on military expenditures, Harper and his crew are tossing any and all pretense of principled government over the side as they see their time in power come to an overdue end. This is in addition to what I was blathering on about yesterday.
After all, why carry around such heavy weight baggage such as ideals and propriety when you can make sure your friends in the arm industry are taken care of before you are turfed out?
I wonder. Did Harper have that balloon made just for him or did Cheney have a spare?Recommend this Post
Posts
3 comments:
Let me be perfectly clear. (LOL, always wanted to say that ;-)
Not all military spending for operations needs to be on weapons. Other valid purchase examples include: communications, surveillance, protection, armor, medical equipment and even recreation (while they're prepared 24/7, they don't plan to fight 24/7, who could?).
Not all military spending needs to be on operations. Examples: training, force development (building the army of tomorrow, lest you end up with an army designed for the 1950's), strategy and tactics development, concept development (figuring out what the army of tomorrow should be, before telling force development) and recruiting.
I'll agree with you, but cautiously and specifically. I think the Conservatives have been putting more emphasis on "boots and guns" and neglecting things outside of operations.
If you neglect those things you'll end up being forced to adopt whatever other countries are doing and defense contractors are making. For example, cluster bombs and land mines which are staples of the American Army. I'm against both of those weapons, but we have to support development of alternative (tactics, devices, people) - with money.
If we don't decide the army we want, the decision will be made for us.
But Mr. Harper's position with respect to the US military is well known.
Hi Brad.
Those are very good points and you are correct. Not all military spending is bad. I expect that there would be a lot of support for the spending categories you cite.
I do object to the surreptitious nature of the contract tendering and the type of equipment being considered.
The time to bring forward this sort of spending is when Parliament is in session. There is no rush that I can see.
The need is very similar to (is!) neglected public infrastructure. And, I bet some of it is shovel-ready. (LOL - I'm really learning the talk now, eh?)
Post a Comment