$77 Billion is cheap insurance

Vincent J. Curtis

26 Apr 21

RE: Should Canada spend $77 Billion on new fighter jets? Hamilton Spectator op-ed of today’s date.

The article proves the Spectator’s commitment to free speech.  It doesn’t matter how inane the contention, it’ll get published if the author has credentials.

The contention by Bianca Mugyenyi, director of the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute, is that Canada should not spend $77 Billion on new fighter jets but instead should spend it on some “socially useful endeavors.”  Strangely, her list of touchy-feely endeavors did not include any foreign policy initiative.

The figure $77 Billion was arrived at by adding to the $18 Billion or so capital cost a further $59 Billion in operating costs – estimated by the No Fighter Jets Coalition, by the way.  Let’s assume that’s true.  Since the jets will be operating for forty years, $77 Billion divided by forty is less than $2 Billion a year.  Cheap insurance by any measure.

How much is securing Canada’s sovereignty over the high Arctic worth to you?  Against both Russia and America?

If France had mobilized in 1936 upon Hitler’s occupation of the Rhineland, he would have been overthrown, and World War II avoided.  Was it worth saving the cost of mobilization?

Canada maintains a capable military as a deterrence against war, and as a fire brigade should a small one break out.  Anyone familiar with foreign policy knows that military power is what counts in the world.  Soft-power is bunkum.

Madam director is out of touch with mainstream foreign policy.

-30-