Article content continued

The White House seems inclined to cut us some slack. Ivison reports that Ottawa has been told that the U.S. administration and its military leaders value Canada’s willingness to punch above its weight during times of crisis, and also recognizes that the quality of the Canadian military allows us to do more with less. But one can only take that so far. Our army is too small to meet all of our international obligations while also retaining enough forces at home to be prepared for unexpected contingencies, such as natural disaster or civil emergency. Our air force desperately needs a new fighter fleet, and in much larger numbers than the 65-jet figure that has been bandied about. Yet that procurement program remains dead in the water. And the less is said about the disaster that is Canada’s tiny navy, with its half-functional submarines, one elderly destroyer and no supply ships, the better.

Like every NATO member, Canada has committed to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. We currently spend less than half that. It is unlikely, to say the least, that Canada will spend the extra $20 billion per year it would cost to make the two per cent target, but that is no reason to not work harder to find ways and budgetary room to invest in a larger, more capable Canadian military. If it takes the White House prodding Canada to bring this about, so be it.

And in the meantime, Canada at least needs to be smart about using what military forces it has. A peacekeeping mission to Africa simply is not a priority given our limited means and the current international situation, even if the federals Liberals had badly wanted one as a way to ingratiate themselves to the United Nations. Canada is already reinforcing our allies in Europe, tensions are rising in the Pacific, and Canada remains a part of the anti-ISIL coalition active in Iraq. A 600-man deployment to Africa is a luxury at the best of times, and these are certainly not that.