Money Well Spent

Not too certain about that, but time will certainly tell.  Libya has a far way to go before it can be ascertained that the country really is better off today than it was under Moammar Gadhafi.  Like other tyrannical strongmen such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein, and the former Yugoslavia's Josif Broz Tito, he kept the country united even in its deadly tribal antipathies, ensuring that one segment of society didn't turn against the other. 

Like the other brutal tyrants, only he was permitted to commit broad-based atrocities in the name of the state and religious belief, while his firm grip on power ensured stability.  Libya, in the wake of a (disunited) opposition which NATO intervened on behalf of with the concurrence of the United Nations, still does not have reliable, active central government, it has become the sum of its parts.

Because of the brief civil war that NATO aided with, stockpiled advanced weaponry from abandoned weapons caches have fallen into the hands of insurgent and terrorist groups among Libya's neighbours, causing huge instability there, and a cascading effect of anti-government forces challenging the channels of government, rampaging, looting, raping, murdering.

But the issue at hand is Canada's own participation in the NATO effort, purportedly to ensure that the trained Libyan regime troops, well armoured and armed, did not massacre the disparate groups of defiant challengers to Gadhafi's rule.  It was the protection of civilians among the population that motivated NATO, presumably.  Yet the intervention turned into a rout of the regime, by intent and design.

This was an intervention that Canada was proud of.  Defence Minister Peter MacKay took great pleasure in lauding the troops and the current government felt fairly confident it had embarked on the right road, restoring Canada's reputation as a warrior country that could be depended on at times of war-time crisis.  Canada's obligations to its NATO colleagues were well demonstrated in Afghanistan and then Libya.

This current government has received kudos and well-earned praise for restoring a fair semblance of practical (and pricey) support to the Canadian Armed Forces, bringing it up to strength and pride in troop numbers and material support.  But why shy away at the figures involved?  And why not tell it like it is when discussing what it takes from the treasury?

Soft-peddling the total costs of the B-35 fighter jet as has been done to the detriment of public trust, and Defence Minister Peter MacKay's performance in defending costs by offering for public consumption figures that are hugely low-balled and not representative of true costs do him no favours as far as trust is concerned.

Canadians have a right to know what they're investing in, and for how much.  Government is duly elected to make decisions and choices on our behalf.  But not to lie to the electorate, and then claim to have been misunderstood.  Defence Minister MacKay has been stick-handling his file very badly of late; the glory has been tarnished and he with it.

Time to move on to another, less testy and testing portfolio perhaps?