Brilliant! Unless the Conservatives prefer the approaches of one of the other candidates, and prefer to sulk in the Far-Right corner feeling angry and nursing mad conspiracy theories, this approach promises to be one of a group of policies which will give Trudeau and the Liberals a worthy competitor. Canada needs a viable choice in a party which could, indeed, form a government. This piece may start the ball rolling. Alternatively, it may get the Liberal party off its proverbial backside, and salvage our gutted Armed Forces.
I hope The Line will be giving equal space to each of the candidates for the conservative leadership as well as each of the leaders of the other parties. Especially if the current minority liberal government falls before the next scheduled federal election, a likely outcome from a brash new conservative leader looking to make their mark.
Actually, I don't subscribe to The Line to read election, any election, propaganda. I come here for the journalism, along with its insights and measured analysis.
Nice platitudes, however the only thing a CPC member likes more than a military PR op is saving every dime possible. No fan of the current PM nor the LPC, but they have increased defense spending since they were elected and (re)started projects that had been shelved during the austerity dance of 2010-2014. The last couple of years under the Harper CPC saw the lowest defense spending as % of GDP since WW2. Don't anyone kid themselves there is not a single political party in Canada that will spend on the military what is required by a G7 & NATO country.
Painful fail to haul out the "percent of GDP" metric. It's never used for a single other government budget that I can find. With every other problem, you assess the problem, devise your solution, cost that out, and budget. Only with the military do they say "you need to spend as much as economically possible, just name how high you can stand it, and then we'll decide what to spend it on".
But if you tried to assess the problem, what do we need? The ability to fight a nuclear power? Nope. The ability to prosecute aggressive war against a non-nuclear power, like the US did and Russia is now? Illegal. Only nuclear powers can get away with that; we refused, even with British and American support - and pressure.
The ability to execute a "UN Police Action", like Afghanistan is about the only legal, and non-suicidal, thing you can do with a modern military. And Afghanistan didn't work out well.
What we need a military for, is to impress America that we are an ally. Work forwards from that goal, and figure out what the smallest expenditure that will mollify them is, and spend only that.
And we have this problem because of oligarchs; including ours, who enable theirs. Charest has nothing to say about just tightening financial regulation and white-collar crime enforcement, which would do more to get rid of the next Ukraine (Taiwan, Moldova) than military threat. The people in charge of both Russia and China cannot be touched by our military, but they're afraid of our bankers.
I wholeheartedly support the positions laid out here. As for those who complain that this is an "advertorial", the proper term is an opinion piece. And it is utterly fair for The Line to be running such things.
Returning to the content of this op-ed, Mr Charest has raised the right issues with respect to our problems with procurement, our utter failure to secure the Canadian Arctic and longstanding failures to properly fund the military.
Finally, as others have pointed out, Mr Charest will likely have to account for his choice to shill for Huawei in recent years. Many others here have noticed this (and it is a serious issue).
I dunno if Jen and Matt will see this, they are truly busy. Look, I know two things, both of these people are very diligent, hard working people who say what they mean and mean what they say. They reject bullshit. This is why I hold them in such high regard.
I find it hard to believe that Jen Gerson and Matt Gurney could read this article and not see that it’s a campaign speech. Nor that they couldn’t see the implications of posting this on their feed. Are we financially supporting the propaganda wing of the federal Conservative Party?
You don’t even have to be polite about it but please tell me it ain’t so!
I am not going to stop supporting The Line for this one instance. The work y’all do is too damned important. Please do let us know if this is going to be a regular thing, though. This is not the kind of content I’m comfortable supporting.
Yes, I would say the same if this article were written by any politician.
I don't disagree with anything here and I get that the author -- and his decision to run for the Conservative leadership -- makes his opinion significant. But, there isn't a lot of significance here -- it's a pretty standard political platform statement. It honestly doesn't sound that different than the Liberal's criticism of the Harper government's record on millitary spending in 2014: http://espritdecorps.ca/defence-platforms-liberal.
No offense to the editors, but I've come to expect a bit more from pieces in The Line.
What's missing are some insights as to what we'd do differently under Mr. Charest. Canada's struggles regarding millitary spending and procurement have existed under both Conservative and Liberal governments, during times when millitary spending was both not a priority and a priority. So, what's going to be different if Mr. Charest is leader? What's his unique insights as to how we got here that can convince me that he understands how to solve this problem? If you don't have some new insights to bring to the problem, I'm a bit skeptical anything is going to change.
I don't expect a detailed plan for a leadership campaign -- that's not reasonable or smart tactially. But, some sense that the author has greater credibililty on this file than both his competitors and the other parties would make this a bit more worthy of The Line.
Please make sure you give space to real candidates as well, and not just unelectable media creations like Mr. Charest. Or maybe, even better, no candidates - they probably all have web sites.
wow...you would think that after the 2 years of Covid exposing the fragility of the health care system, we are going to spend money on the military, so that we can "contain" China? Talk about misguided priorities.
Charest has my member vote this September. Progressive and pragmatic is what that party needs to set a path and shake off all of the silly accumulated since barbaric cultural practices hotlines and Donald Trump turned them into morons.
It’s about time a leader addressed our woefull military decisions of the last 7 yrs. Now we just need to get Mr. Charest elected to a majority….,and walk the talk.
Brilliant! Unless the Conservatives prefer the approaches of one of the other candidates, and prefer to sulk in the Far-Right corner feeling angry and nursing mad conspiracy theories, this approach promises to be one of a group of policies which will give Trudeau and the Liberals a worthy competitor. Canada needs a viable choice in a party which could, indeed, form a government. This piece may start the ball rolling. Alternatively, it may get the Liberal party off its proverbial backside, and salvage our gutted Armed Forces.
I hope The Line will be giving equal space to each of the candidates for the conservative leadership as well as each of the leaders of the other parties. Especially if the current minority liberal government falls before the next scheduled federal election, a likely outcome from a brash new conservative leader looking to make their mark.
Actually, I don't subscribe to The Line to read election, any election, propaganda. I come here for the journalism, along with its insights and measured analysis.
Not the guy I want looking after Canada's cybersecurity considering his ties to Wauwei (sp?)and all....
Mr. Charest would have a bit more credibility if he hadn't spent the last few years shilling for Huwei aka the Chinese Communist Party.
Nice platitudes, however the only thing a CPC member likes more than a military PR op is saving every dime possible. No fan of the current PM nor the LPC, but they have increased defense spending since they were elected and (re)started projects that had been shelved during the austerity dance of 2010-2014. The last couple of years under the Harper CPC saw the lowest defense spending as % of GDP since WW2. Don't anyone kid themselves there is not a single political party in Canada that will spend on the military what is required by a G7 & NATO country.
Painful fail to haul out the "percent of GDP" metric. It's never used for a single other government budget that I can find. With every other problem, you assess the problem, devise your solution, cost that out, and budget. Only with the military do they say "you need to spend as much as economically possible, just name how high you can stand it, and then we'll decide what to spend it on".
But if you tried to assess the problem, what do we need? The ability to fight a nuclear power? Nope. The ability to prosecute aggressive war against a non-nuclear power, like the US did and Russia is now? Illegal. Only nuclear powers can get away with that; we refused, even with British and American support - and pressure.
The ability to execute a "UN Police Action", like Afghanistan is about the only legal, and non-suicidal, thing you can do with a modern military. And Afghanistan didn't work out well.
What we need a military for, is to impress America that we are an ally. Work forwards from that goal, and figure out what the smallest expenditure that will mollify them is, and spend only that.
And we have this problem because of oligarchs; including ours, who enable theirs. Charest has nothing to say about just tightening financial regulation and white-collar crime enforcement, which would do more to get rid of the next Ukraine (Taiwan, Moldova) than military threat. The people in charge of both Russia and China cannot be touched by our military, but they're afraid of our bankers.
I wholeheartedly support the positions laid out here. As for those who complain that this is an "advertorial", the proper term is an opinion piece. And it is utterly fair for The Line to be running such things.
Returning to the content of this op-ed, Mr Charest has raised the right issues with respect to our problems with procurement, our utter failure to secure the Canadian Arctic and longstanding failures to properly fund the military.
Finally, as others have pointed out, Mr Charest will likely have to account for his choice to shill for Huawei in recent years. Many others here have noticed this (and it is a serious issue).
I dunno if Jen and Matt will see this, they are truly busy. Look, I know two things, both of these people are very diligent, hard working people who say what they mean and mean what they say. They reject bullshit. This is why I hold them in such high regard.
I find it hard to believe that Jen Gerson and Matt Gurney could read this article and not see that it’s a campaign speech. Nor that they couldn’t see the implications of posting this on their feed. Are we financially supporting the propaganda wing of the federal Conservative Party?
You don’t even have to be polite about it but please tell me it ain’t so!
I am not going to stop supporting The Line for this one instance. The work y’all do is too damned important. Please do let us know if this is going to be a regular thing, though. This is not the kind of content I’m comfortable supporting.
Yes, I would say the same if this article were written by any politician.
He's not wrong. And he might be the only candidate with a shot at being PM.
Mr. Charest would have a bit more credibility if he hadn't spent the last few years shilling for the Huwei aka the Chinese Communist Party.
I don't disagree with anything here and I get that the author -- and his decision to run for the Conservative leadership -- makes his opinion significant. But, there isn't a lot of significance here -- it's a pretty standard political platform statement. It honestly doesn't sound that different than the Liberal's criticism of the Harper government's record on millitary spending in 2014: http://espritdecorps.ca/defence-platforms-liberal.
No offense to the editors, but I've come to expect a bit more from pieces in The Line.
What's missing are some insights as to what we'd do differently under Mr. Charest. Canada's struggles regarding millitary spending and procurement have existed under both Conservative and Liberal governments, during times when millitary spending was both not a priority and a priority. So, what's going to be different if Mr. Charest is leader? What's his unique insights as to how we got here that can convince me that he understands how to solve this problem? If you don't have some new insights to bring to the problem, I'm a bit skeptical anything is going to change.
I don't expect a detailed plan for a leadership campaign -- that's not reasonable or smart tactially. But, some sense that the author has greater credibililty on this file than both his competitors and the other parties would make this a bit more worthy of The Line.
Please make sure you give space to real candidates as well, and not just unelectable media creations like Mr. Charest. Or maybe, even better, no candidates - they probably all have web sites.
wow...you would think that after the 2 years of Covid exposing the fragility of the health care system, we are going to spend money on the military, so that we can "contain" China? Talk about misguided priorities.
Charest has my member vote this September. Progressive and pragmatic is what that party needs to set a path and shake off all of the silly accumulated since barbaric cultural practices hotlines and Donald Trump turned them into morons.
It’s about time a leader addressed our woefull military decisions of the last 7 yrs. Now we just need to get Mr. Charest elected to a majority….,and walk the talk.
This has been the empty cry of every conservative politician for decades, and has never come true.
The RCN was brutalized under Harper. It amounts to Sound and Fury signifying Nothing. If it does not come with specifics I'm not buying it anymore.