Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Layton and the Military

Would somebody please give Jack Layton a refresher class on the military and how it works. In a interview with CBC radio, Layton suggested that the troops in Afghanistan would be better used protecting our coastline from foreign fishermen (h/t Chimera for the story).

Now, most of the men and women over in Afghanistan are soldiers, part of the Army, which generally refers to the Land element of a countries armed forces. To have the CF take on more of a role we would need more seamen (yeah I know, haha), part of the Navy, or the Sea element of the forces. There is no way that one could take those serving in Afghanistan and assign them to this new role, not without a serious amount of retraining (probably slightly less than training a brand new recruit in the Navy). These service members are not interchangeable and can't be switched between missions willy-nilly. Mark at The Torch has a piece on this issue as well.

Also to those on the left that were criticizing the Conservative's efforts at protecting our sovereignty in the North as unnecessary, it appears that Jack doesn't agree with you (from the same article):

"We feel a big part of our role should be our sovereignty issues, such as up North, and also in dealing with the fishing with fleets off our coastline who are coming in and destroying the ecosystems," he said.

UPDATE:
Attila Vass has a great post (IMHO) regarding our mission in Afghanistan. He presents a well reasoned and thought out view on the current situation.

Even if he is an Oilers fan.

Tags: , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Altavistagoogle said...

The armed forces are in high recruit mode here in the Maritimes. I thik Layton implied that people should be recruited to defend Atlantic Canada's economy, not go fight in Afghanistan.

As you know, the Armed forces has a high turnover. I don't think Layton was refering to the actual individuals in Afghanistan.

9/19/2006 12:35 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker