Out of the woodwork I tell ya!
DoDBuzz came up with this post and the first thing I asked myself was who the hell are these guys! Well this is what Wikipedia has on them...
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) is a Washington, D.C.-based non-governmental organization (NGO) founded in 1975. In its own words, it was established to "promote the common interests of the [Western] hemisphere, raise the visibility of regional affairs and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, as well as encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America." [1]COHA is dedicated to monitoring Latin American affairs, especially within the context of United States and Canadian foreign policy and its effect on the region. Working with a large number of unpaid research associates (undergraduate and graduate interns) and a small core of professional research fellows to improve hemispheric relations and advance the public good. Cohistas, as COHA staff is sometimes known, constantly analyze a number of ongoing themes including social justice, equal rights, anti-corruption measures, and the enhancement of democratic rights.How these bubba's wound up talking about the F-35 is beyond me...read the whole thing but here's a tidbit that raised the hair on the back of my neck...
Although the F-35 is a remarkable aircraft, it is unsuitable for the Canadian military. According to Steven Staples from the Rideau Institute, the current CF-18 fulfills two important roles of the Canadian Forces: surveillance and control of the Arctic, along with expeditionary operations including “air-to-air combat, precision guided munitions/bomb delivery, and close air support of the ground.”[xviii] The traditional Cold War concept of Arctic sovereignty applies to defending Canadian airspace against Russian bombers. Yet, supporters of the F-35 still maintain that this threat is real and that Canada needs the F-35 to protect Canadian and American airspace. Defense Minister Peter MacKay highlighted the Russian threat in 2010, when he praised two CF-18s for intercepting the two Russian TU-95 long range bombers on the edge of Canadian air space. However, critics like defense and foreign affairs analyst Eric Margolis, said that this incident was routine and that “it’s nothing to get excited about, [because] there’s much less to this than meets the eye.”[xix] In addition, Staples points out that if Russia were to go to war with the United States, “air defense would be irrelevant in any case, since the primary delivery vehicle would be intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.”[xx]The Russians and Chinese are forming "Arctic Troop" formations (The USMC should be first on this in the US military...we already have extensive training in Mountain Warfare, the next step should be to either copy the Brits and have Mountain Leaders/Arctic Warfare Specialist assigned to every Battalion or to have a SPMAGTF formed and positioned in Alaska. Either way we'd be in the race for the poles...and this should be a Marine Corps mission!) and the Canadians are using there Rangers to have a permanent force in the area. To say that sovereignty patrols are unnecessary is to ignore the obvious.
This is a left leaning group and this is a red herring. This debate in Canada is over. I smell a rat. An Australian based Think Tank rat.
i see this as a good news/bad news thing, while they make a somewhat good case against canada using it, they also make the PERFECT case for the US to procure the aircraft, from the article:
ReplyDelete"The F-35 was built to penetrate and neutralize air defense on the first day of bombardment, after which the military would switch to a strategy that relied less on stealth. The day-one stealth concept was a strategy where the F-35 performed the initial attack on an enemy air defense system. However, while these operations were very important for U.S. missions, Canada has no need for an initial strike capacity on enemy air defenses."
while it could be argued whether canada needs this capability too (i would say yes as we shouldnt be the only NATO country to have that capability but we wont open the NATO box again), this article makes the strong case that the US AF, Navy and MC are making the good decision to not cancel it and continue to purchase this aircraft.
just my opinion.
Let's see if I understand those guys right: since Russia is only feinting with its bombers, there's no need for a guard?
ReplyDeleteHave they talked with a boxer?
Ferran
well i can see their point, Russia is looking to be a real world power again and yet their conventional military is a shadow of its former self, at the very best. the only reason its taken seriously is it has alot of men, alot of equipment (although its old and outdated), large nuclear arsenal, and alot of oil and gas and while they have an old military they still have skilled weapons makers, although they seem more concerned about selling it other countries than operationalizing it.
ReplyDeletejoe.
ReplyDeleteRussia, China, Canada, the US and others are all after the natural resources in the arctic circle.
the idea that Russia is a shell of its former self is irrelevant. all the world's militaries are a shadow of their former selves.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI saw this earlier too and got a chuckle out of it. The DoD Buzz Guy (Ewing) has a job to drop x number of posts per day/week/whatever on the site to feed the fever swamp crowd.
ReplyDelete1. Troll your inbox for a PR release/announcement you can dress up.
2. Repackage the pap and call it an 'article'.
Great work if you can get it, but I suspect the pay sucks. On the other hand, there appears to be no penalty for just 'phoning it in'.
BTW: the Council on Hemisphere Affairs is a COMPLETELY 'Leftard' outfit. Have you caught their "Venezuela's Communes Aren't That Bad" pitch?
Unusually balanced article on F-35
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/stealth-advantage/
Interesting and quite rational reading