There is a raging battle here over Canada’s deal to buy FG-35 fighter aircraft from the Lockheed company.The memorandum of understanding Canada has signed — it’s not a contract — pretends $9 billion will buy 65 F-35s and pay for initial logistics, simulators, spare parts and more.The unit price for each aircraft in that pitch is about $70 million per aircraft. This amount has been criticized and the figure of $139 million per plane is being bandied about.

There is also disagreement on the efficiency of the F-35 and some even say that well before the final plane has been delivered, it will be obsolete– an argument that resonates with those who buy computers, iPods, iPads and things of that sort and see their toys quickly become obsolete then endure taunts of them who just bought a new toys who haven’t yet understand that they will be in the same boat before they can say Steve Jobs.

My argument overlooks all these debates and goes to the main though seldom discussed question – what the hell do we want them for in the first place?

If, as I have done, you wade into the heavy duty statistics on how much defence costs per capita in various countries you go bats; the real question ought not to be how much all this hardware and defence manpower we think we need costs, but should we be spending anything at all except that needed to keep poachers from our waters and make sure terrorists don’t get on our land – two things we badly fail at now because we focus on the hugely expensive playthings the generals say they would like.

We lack a definition for war, for ever since the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905, we seldom declare war. In fact, I can’t think of a declaration since World War II – nowadays there is just violence begetting more violence and the only acknowledge of war comes when what it’s ended.

Canadahasn’t had a foreign soldier on its soil since the War of 1812 when it wasn’t even a country yet. Since 1867, when Canada became a quasi-country running its own internal affairs, until 1931 foreign affairs were still left to Britain. We went to war in 1914 because the British were – and thanks to the fact that 75% of the country then was of British descent with many of them being native Brits, we went in big time and lost 70,000 men in doing it. It was a war in which Canada ought not to have been having no direct issues with any of the combatants and was in no danger of being directly involved.

In 1931 Canada became fully independent and demonstrated this by not declaring war in 1939 until a week after Britain did. At that, probably ¼ of the population, including most of French Canada, didn’t think we should be in. I have no doubt that we were right to get in – Hitler was much different than the Kaiser.

It wasn’t until 1949 when the Soviet Union got the Atom Bomb and went nose to nose with the USA in Europe and very quickly confronted each other over the North Pole did Canada become threatened by anyone but the USA.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed to coalesce those threatened, or thought they were, by confrontation with the Soviet Union – Canada was a charter member and should have been because, not far away as the crow flies, or indeed the missile flies, from The USSR over the Polar route, there we are.

Time inexorably moves, bringing new issues with it and Canada developed an extremely important role as peacekeeper. As well respected Canadian military historian David J. Bercuson puts it: ”Canadawas once one of the world’s most active countries in United Nations peacekeeping operations. In fact, Canadians took pride that their soldiers did not really fight wars from the late 1950s to the mid-1990s but instead put on United Nations blue helmets to help warring nations turn from the battle field to the peace table. The story began in October of 1956 when Britain and France, allied with Israel, attacked Egypt”.

The country had sought a role and found it.

Slowly but surely NATO began to get involved in peace making especially in old Yugoslavia and, little by little became part of the world policy of the United States.

As Wikipedia (a source I use with care) states, accurately, Since the Second World War, Canadian defence policy has consistently stressed three overarching objectives:

· The defence of Canada itself;

· The defence of North America in cooperation with US forces;

· Contributing to broader international security.

In general terms, a principal focus of Canadian defence policy was contributing to the security of Europe in the face of the Soviet military threat. Toward that end, Canadian ground and air forces were based in Europe from the early 1950s until the early 1990s.

However, since the end of the Cold War, as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has moved much of its defence focus "out of area", the Canadian military has also become more deeply engaged in international security operations in various other parts of the world – most notably in Afghanistan since 2002.

The late Polish General Franciszek Gagor, chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces in an article in Armed Forces Journal starts by quoting Article 5 of NATO which stipulates that an attack upon one will be treated as an attack upon all — as a cornerstone to the whole alliance, cannot be discarded.

There is no doubt that the Afghan operation is crucial for trans – Atlantic identity. Nevertheless, the allied presence in Afghanistan does not constitute a test, but rather a task for NATO, which will remain the most influential military alliance in the world (emphasis mine). In addition, many people are asking whether the Afghan conflict is worth the effort. However, the entire NATO community should recommit itself to make tough decisions to achieve the aims of the entire “shape, clear, hold and build” strategy. In the end, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, stabilization, reconstruction and state-building in Afghanistan are all strands of the same rope (emphasis mine).

So now we have it – NATO is no longer a treaty binding nations to defend one another; we now say that a mostly Egyptian terrorist group now operating out of Afghanistan or Pakistan according to the exigencies of the moment, who attacked the US on 9/11, comes under Article 5 and we must all spring to the aid of the US and occupy Afghanistan! It’s a very short leap from there to say that NATO is now a treaty to enforce American adventures… NATO having lost its raison d’etre when the “Wall” came done has found a role as an adjunct of US foreign policy. The hard core “right” in Ottawa are unlikely to change a thing.

I believe that all but the far right in this country, which is to say about 75% of us say “let’s us go back to the role we became known and did well, peace keeping, and let the “peacemakers”, i.e. USA hawks, toddle on their way without us.