Maritime Morning - Andrew Krystal

How well does the government really support the military?

HMCS Toronto announced recently in an email to military families that they would be coming home two days late at Christmas time, December 18th – instead of Dec. 16th due to fuel costs.

Only two days.

However, after a long, arduous, deployment of 5 months that has seen HMCS Toronto circumnavigate Africa and perform naval exercises with the South African Navy; pirate interdiction activities off of the coast of Somalia; rescue operations in the Red Sea following a volcanic eruption; anti-terrorist and anti-smuggling operations in the Mediterranean, it was said that the ship, very late in the deployment, now needed to travel at a lower rate of speed across the Atlantic in order to burn less fuel and save fuel costs (!?).

For military families (never mind the crew), the issue – if indeed it is the real one — of resource conservation in the wake of a multi-million dollar deployment, simply grated.

Since the 1960’s and military unification under the then Minister of National Defense, Paul Hellyer, the military has been starved of funds. Too much is asked with too little. The military simply work too hard. The hours are too long and the conditions too cramped, too uncomfortable – especially on ships. Canadian tax payers get too good a return on Navy labor with very little understanding of the sacrifices involved.

The Navy wives who called in today were also responding to many years of shutting up and biting the bullet. Today, they had had enough. Adding two days on a return may not seem like a lot, however, with only 3 weeks left on a 5 month deployment, with Christmas coming, with kids marking Dad’s return on the calendar, it does mean a lot.

The political and media protest all started when Dartmouth/Cole Harbor Liberal MP Michael Savage fielded an email letter from a Navy wife, Lori Rafuse, whose husband is on the Toronto. Her note from CO Virgin that fuel costs were a factor in slowing the ship down ignited a firestorm of consternation that reached Defense Minister Peter Mackay in Ottawa who was subsequently grilled by Savage.

On the air, Lori Rafuse broke down. Obviously, this just wasn’t about two days, it was about the principle — it was also about 30 years of frustration.

The Tories brand themselves as the saviors of the military — the ones who are sensitive, respectful, and responsive to Military needs. Chest-beating and a Canadian sense of military nationalism prevails in a party which garners much of its support from rural areas, and from a military that gets most of its recruits from rural Canada.

Is the late arrival of HMCS arrival a symptom of, again, attenuated budgets — a lack of real, materiel support?

The big picture is not pretty: Submarines don’t always have torpedoes, ammunition is low, and the Afghanistan costs for the army are skyrocketing. There is a lot of pressure. It affects command; it affects the crews and those in the field.

Rear Admiral McFadden heard the broadcast this week and called in. He stated that the rate of speed must be slower for the Toronto’s return and he didn’t want the ship coming back on fumes in case they were needed for search and rescue operations that might be encountered on their trans-Atlantic return.

Fair enough.

But what about removing adjusting the deployment to make allowances for the rate of travel? Remove a port visit, remove a military exercise, or simply start home earlier in order to meet with the arrival schedule.

What really happened, in my view, regarding the arrival schedule for HMCS Toronto was that someone probably made a simple error. I believe that the issue was never about the fuel. The issue is that it is not safe to cross the North Atlantic in the middle of December at 21 knots. Even 15 knots is bumpy. That’s why it is two days longer. But that is about a mistake of scheduling, or navigation – this is just speculation on my part.

HMCS Steve Virgin is one of the finest commanders in the Navy. He is adored by his crew, and is a very articulate interview subject. He has been, personally, very gracious with me. When he says that the ship needs to look out for weather and it is prudent to save fuel at a lower rate of speed, I believe him. However, the Navy PR department, and Minister Mackay say that CO Virgin actually has it wrong, it is about safety.

I don’t know about you, but whom do you trust more, a commander half a world a way on his own ship, or politicians in Ottawa and a PR department? I think CO Virgin is closer to the fuel gauge then they are.

Yes, traveling more slowly conserves fuel. And if that is the real concern, why wasn’t that factored into the deployment schedule? And why was it discovered so late in the deployment?

Ok. Stuff happens. But do not expect wives to be silent all of the time. Wives vote, have opinions, and have a right to complain when there is screw up – despite a closed military culture.

If indeed the late return of the Toronto is a fuel cost concern, then there must be a re-thinking of priorities.

Some have even speculated that senior government officials (read Mackay) and military brass were unable to come to the dockyards in Halifax on that particular Sunday to greet the ship; or that the labor and other related costs are cheaper during the week than on weekends. Again, is it about money?

There is a saying in the military that goes something like this: “if they wanted you to have a wife, they would have issued you a wife”. Callers on my show even referenced this to the wives who called and were on the air with me.

Democracy is a messy business. Being accountable not just to taxpayers but to the wives and families is part of that.

Wives who make waves are not something that the Taliban have to worry about – and that is one of the reasons we are fighting the Taliban.