[rob love]

While MLU is no place to be talking politics.....

Under a certain party whose colour is red and name starts with an L, we went into that conflict with softskin, old vehicles. There were attempts at trying to make those softskin B vehicles battle-worthy. LSVWs and MLVWs and HLVWs got applied armour, and semi-militarized highway tractors also received add on armour packages. After the political embarrassment (and payment of life by soldiers), the G wagon was purchased with an armour package. Not cheap, but not the right vehicle for battle either.

In comes a party whose colour is blue and name starts with a C. Armoured heavy trucks are purchased quickly. Yes, they cost a million each, and were expensive to maintain. End of the day, no soldier was killed in one. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I did see some AHSVS come in with severe external damages, but in all cases the cabs were intact and the occupants safe. All those lighter vehicles with their add on armour? Relegated to in camp duties or duties within the FOBs. If they traveled in between the secure areas, it was on the back of a flat bed, where they belonged. All those G-wagons? Sent home where they belonged.

I won't go into some of the equipment purchased for the war, because some of it is still up there. But know that equipment saved lives.

Canada needed helicopters? Done. Canada needed more armoured cars (RGs and Buffalos) Done. Canadian soldiers needed Tim Horton's doughnuts? Done.

Trust me...whatever we wanted or needed, we got. From my perspective as a maintainer, we wanted for nothing.

One problem with a democratic system though is that you must make approximately 40% of the people happy to be re-elected. After a very costly war, and a deep worldwide financial crisis, the C party needs to balance the books in the next year and a half to be presentable to the public. The peacetime portion of the army is now suffering severe cuts. But nobody is going to die over the cuts. A lot of civilian employees and contractors will lose their jobs (count me in that bunch) but they will do what they have to do.

So which party would you want to go to war under? One that tries to make do, or one that is willing to pay the price and give the guys sent over there the tools to do the job?

Canada's auditor General said it best. She came out with her team and landed in Kandahar. While dis-embarking from the aircraft on the airfield, a rocket went skidding by. It must have made an impression on her. At the end of her week, her statement was: "My sense is there is good control," she said. "But I think once the decision is made to send our people into war, we have to make sure they are equipped properly, that they are well supported and well protected. And the costs of these things becomes almost a little irrelevant in the whole scheme of things." This was from Sheila Fraser, who was not known to give anyone a free pass.