“This transformational process to counter the Snakes that are prevalent around the world is unsettling to some,” he wrote. The general also directly linked the purchase of the MGS to the future transformation of Canada’s Army. “The MGS, in conjunction with other combat systems, will give us a much greater capability on operations such as those being conducted in Kabul, and still give us options for high-intensity combat.” “Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world,” Lt.-Gen. Instead, it was up against “snakes,” a reference to terrorists and insurgents. No longer was the Canadian Forces facing the Russians, Lt.-Gen. Warfare had changed, according to Hillier. He called Hanson’s comments “a distortion” and characterized critics of the MGS as “armchair strategists” who “preferred it the old way.” Hillier, who was Army commander at the time, responded a short time later with a 1,000-word rebuttal in the Ottawa Citizen.
He also argued that Canada’s Leopards could be upgraded at a lower cost than the MGS price tag and still provide the army with armour protection and firepower for years to come. “The Americans drove their tanks into downtown Baghdad where RPGs bounced off their armour,” said Hanson. tanks played a key role in the Iraq war, then retired brigadier general Jim Hanson ridiculed the MGS purchase in an Ottawa Citizen article that I wrote. Responding to a Canadian Forces report that showed U.S. The outcome of one of those war game simulations warned that using such a vehicle would not only cost Canadian lives but would be “morally and ethically wrong.” A few officers, however, stepped forward to question the purchases in internal memos and professional publications.īut it was a 2003 comment by a retired general that set off the most extensive and dogged defence of the MGS from the Canadian Army leadership. Studies done by the Canadian Forces in the late 1990s had already called into question replacing the Leopard tank with a lighter armoured vehicle, similar to the MGS. Those in the armoured corps were not happy with the MGS purchase, but they stayed loyal to the service and said nothing publicly. The general dismissed concerns from some opposition politicians who warned the decision would put the lives of Canadian military personnel at risk and placed the country on par with Luxembourg and Iceland, two nations at the time which also saw no need for heavier armoured vehicles. “We are losing a millstone that has hamstrung our thinking for years,” he added, referring to the Leopard. “A mobile gun system is the right vehicle for Canada’s army and will provide an excellent capability on Canadian Forces operations,” Hillier said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Manage Print Subscription / Tax Receipt.National Capital Region's Top Employers.
0 kommentar(er)
