Rehashing the MGS debate

Another report published in the Ottawa Citizen airs the dispute over the Canadian army's pending purchase of the Mobile Gun System, a potential replacement for Canada's main battle tanks:

Two key projects of the Liberal government's plan to transform the Canadian Forces into a high-technology military aren't needed and the money for at least one of the programs could be put to better use elsewhere, according to a newly released Defence Department report.

The report questions whether the much-vaunted Stryker Mobile Gun System, as well as a vehicle-mounted anti-tank missile system, will contribute to the army's high-tech transformation. The two programs combined will cost taxpayers more than $1 billion.

In particular, the Mobile Gun System, or MGS, a wheeled light-armoured vehicle to replace the army's tanks, has been touted by various Liberal defence ministers as an example of how the government is revamping the military into a futuristic force.

But the report, obtained under the Access to Information law, notes that while such equipment improves the army's capability, that doesn't necessarily mean they are needed for the service's transformation. The study, however, concludes that little can be done about the $700-million MGS program, since it has the full endorsement of the Canadian Forces leadership.

In a way, I'm surprised that this debate is still being argued in the press: my impression was that the pointy-haired-bosses-at-NDHQ powers-that-be had already spent their share of the kickbacks for acquiring the MGS, so there was no possibility of the decision being revisited. Call me naive, I guess.