I'm not saying that decision was the right one or incorrect one, but clearly there was debate within the CF about what kind of capability we needed at that time. Therefore we can ask the question: what kinds of operations do we see the Canadian army undertaking in the future? Are they going to be the higher-end more mechanized forces that we are now building? Is that really what we see the army doing in the future, or could we get by with a lighter force doing more specific types of operations at the lower end of the spectrum of conflict?
Similarly, when it comes to the navy, do we need forces that are able to interoperate as part of U.S. carrier battle groups, or should they be able to undertake different types of operations focusing specifically on a particular region of the world, such as the Caribbean or Arctic? Is that the type of force that would be helpful to our allies?
For example, last year at the Ottawa conference on security and defence, the president of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who was a former deputy secretary of defense in the U.S., made the point that perhaps it would be wiser for the Canadian navy to become a truly Arctic force, so the U.S. would not have to be preoccupied with that region of the world.
So these are the types of discussions I think we can be having, as opposed to saying we need exactly the types of forces we have now. I don't find that's very creative. It doesn't really take into account the different types of possibilities that are out there.
I don't want to outline specific capabilities we could do away with, or not. I'm not a military planner; I'm more of a policy analyst. That ultimately comes down to a policy question about what the government wants the forces to do. Then let the military tell us what capabilities they need to be able to do it.