I totally agree. We should be able to deploy somewhere without having to count on the assets from other countries, including the US. That's why I said so. Truly Sovereign = Independant. After Paul Martin massacred the Canadian Forces, we are having to rebuild them now. Everyone knows that there are other things we need, like helicopter gunships, search/rescue capable vechicles etc. All these things take time though, which brings me back to priorities. Because the government has prioritized things differently than how some others might like to see it, doesn't make either side wrong on the issue. It just makes them different. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your view), their (gov't) oppinion is the one that counts. As far as a coalition-oriented action, until we are capable of being totally sovereign and independant, we have to act as best we can within the framework of our treaties and within our current limitations. As for NATO (whom I presume you're referencing), even though we don't yet have that capacity, we pull our own weight in other ways. Once we do achieve that independance we can truly begin to organize our actions and activities in a way that will provide us with a greater respect internationally and can act independantly of our allies if required. Until we do though, and so long as we still have to "hitch a ride" from others, it's an unfortunate fact that we will sometimes have to suck-it-up in the face of things we don't totally agree with in order to achieve our goals. But that's life.