Thursday, September 07, 2006

On long-range commitments

I suspect a lot of Canadians must have missed the vote where Parliament approved a five-plus year extension to combat duty in Afghanistan. But based on a new statement from the Department of National Defence, we can look forward to massive military expenditures with a minimum of oversight - and an Afghanistan mission dragged out to match:
Canada's military will streamline a cumbersome buying system to ensure personnel are given modern equipment for the battle in Afghanistan, a senior bureaucrat promised Thursday.

Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister of materiel, told a defence industry audience in Halifax that he is the midst of a “transformation” of the military's purchasing arm, in part to buy hardware for troops fighting in Kandahar province...

They (department staff) aren't dragging along the old process, the 15-year process,” Mr. Ross said during his speech, referring to the traditional period of time the military has required for major expenditures...

In an interview following his speech, Mr. Ross said he expected major purchases to take less than five years from conception to first delivery...

Military procurement will see a massive ramping up in the next two or three years, said Mr. Ross.
Now, the move toward a shorter procurement time in and of itself wouldn't be a problem. But based on the deals being offered as precedents, it looks like less transparency and competition will also be part of the streamlining.

In the meantime, while procurement may become less transparent under the Cons, the long-term plans for indefinite involvement in Afghanistan couldn't be much more clear. A concerted effort to spend large amounts of money on resources specifically targeted toward Afghanistan can only lead to claims that we'd might as well leave our troops in harm's way to get some use out of the new equipment. And if the Cons are going to make commitments with that effect, then it's definitely time for a full debate about whether Canadians want to be carrying more than their weight in the mission in either the short term or the long term.

No comments:

Post a Comment