Setting The Record Straight

 I'm still in a bit of a writing slump, so I'll let others do the talking for me.

H/t Moudakis

A  Globe and Mail letter-writer weighs in on the F-35 versus Gripen question.

Canada should adopt a fighter jet which best meets the need for one that is cost-efficient, works well in our northern climate and falls within our control for easy maintenance and software.

I appreciate that some military officials favour the F-35 and believe while the U.S. administration is antagonistic to Canada, close co-operation with the U.S. military is possible. I think that trust is misplaced.

There is concern over a mixed fleet, but many of our allies have such arrangements. The air force currently operates more than 20 varieties of aircraft, so objections to adding Gripens to this fleet seem puzzling.

The Saab proposal to manufacture them in Canada sounds like a win-win that would allow us to rebuild our aeronautical capability. The F-35 does have better stealth capabilities, so buying the number already committed to may have merit.

Beyond that, I think the Gripen better suits Canada’s overall interests.

Carey Johannesson Victoria

 And a Star reader reflects on the hypocrisy of Pete hoekstra

Why the U.S. ambassador is wrong about his criticism of the Ronald Reagan tariff ads, Nov. 24

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra was not merely hypocritical for blaming Canada for “political interference” because of American propaganda seeking to influence politics abroad, as Éric Blais points out. The U.S. has, through use of military — either covertly or overtly, with or without allies — tried to force political change in other countries. In this century, America has exercised at least some level of political persuasion in Afghanistan (2001-2021), Iraq (2003-2011), Libya (2011), Syria (2014 to present), Pakistan (2000s to 2010), Yemen (2002 to present), Somalia (2007 to present) and the Philippines (2001 to present), not to mention Venezuela. There are dozens more examples if we go back through the previous century, including covertly supporting or waging actual violence against democratically elected regimes (Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973).

And let’s not forget the gratuitous insults against our head of state when U.S. President Donald Trump referred to Justin Trudeau as very dishonest and weak, two-faced, and “governor” while challenging Canadian sovereignty.

Hoekstra has opposed reproductive rights, gay adoption rights and gay marriage, parental leave for federal employees and expanding health care for kids. He has an A rating from the NRA for opposing gun control. He’s a true Trumpian, including the staggering hypocrisy he shows in his criticism of an ad that was simply truthful.

Barry Kent MacKay, Markham, ON

No doubt the questions will rage for some time, but the bottom line has to be that we can only retain our sovereignty by making assessments and needs that reflect our country, not the whims, passions and prejudices of foreign entities.

Time To Rip Off The Band-aid

 

I don't know about you, but I am growing tired of seeing an obese bully kicking sand in our collective faces. My national pride demands a real response. To mix the metaphor, it is time to rip off the Band-aid.

The obese bully, of course, is that vulgarian who 'leads' the U.S., Donald Trump, along with all of his enablers, chief among them his ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra. Said 'diplomat' delivers his master's message with relish, his contempt for our country obvious to anyone who can stomach listening to him. In my view, he personifies "the ugly American".

In his latest broadside against Canada, Hoekstra issues a warning that if we don't play nice with his country, there will be no trade deal. And playing nice means not even thinking about buying a competitor's military jets.

... we’re actually waiting to see exactly where the Canadian government is going to come out on this,” he said, pointing directly to the F-35 purchase review, and questioning what it means that Canada is shopping elsewhere for its fighter jets, and seeking to make its defence industrial base less reliant on the U.S.

Clearly, Hoekstra was not pleased to learn that Canada is thinking for itself when it comes to military procurements.

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly told reporters the current F-35 contract doesn’t provide adequate jobs or other economic benefits to Canada.

“We believe that we didn’t get enough when it comes to the F-35,” Joly said Tuesday.

“The industrial benefits are not enough. There needs to be more jobs created out of the F-35 contract. That’s clear to me and clear to this government.” She added the government believes it can “use military procurement to get more.”

Joly was speaking as the  Carney government engages in talks to possibly buy Swedish Gripen E fighter jets as part of his quest to wean Canada off its overreliance on the U.S. for economic and national security. 

While we have committed to buying 18 of the F-35s, with an option to buy more, the Grippen offers several advantages to Canada. It was, for example, made for rigorous northern patrol, and it promises an economic boost to our country.

Joly underscored that Sweden-based Saab is promising to create 10,000 jobs. “We’ll see how concrete (that is), and at the same time, we’re looking at (whether) Lockheed Martin can do more,” she added.

Hoekstra pushed back, saying Canadian suppliers have benefited for years from helping to build parts for the F-35, a fifth-generation stealth fighter jet.

His 'solution' to all of this?  Essentially, it is to give up any pretense of sovereignty and align policies with Uncle Sam.

He said Canada and the U.S. should deepen co-operation, and Ottawa should align its trade policies with Trump’s in order to shut out cheaper Chinese-made products, such as steel, that he said are dumped into North American markets.

“You can put in place the same barriers that we have in place. And you know, the primary target is probably China, OK, because they’re dumping steel, but you can put in place the same kind of protections that we have. And part of what we were looking at was harmonizing the barriers to unfair competition on key materials and products so that it would be fortress North America.”

Fortress America may have a nice ring to it for American acolytes of Trump and his thugs. However, I suspect the majority of Canadians would see that not as a protective shield as much as a prison which, once entered, would be hard to escape from. We must never forget while it may be about military procurements today, tomorrow it will be about something else. A bully can never be appeased.

There Is So Much Truth Here

Unfortunately, few seem to want to hear it: