Although it is true that now we are spending much more than 18 million dollars a year on airlift because of Afghanistan, but once that is over in 1, 2 or 3 years, we would have gone back to spending under 20 million a year on airlift had we not invested in these aircraft.

There is also the consideration that with the C-17's, we're capable of deploying to other places in the future without having to check on the availability of our allies' resources so that we might again "hitch a ride". We could, for example, deploy to Darfur independantly of our allies. We could send support to Israel. We could respond to Canadian priorities and Canadian interests with greater frequency and greater effectiveness on our own. C-17's make us more mobile. You may argue that sure we're mobile, but we don't have the equipment to be effective. That would be a good argument. Although I'd counter by saying it's better to be mobile and work within our limits while building towards that capability, than being capable and immobile. The point it, we have to start somewhere and the government made an executive decision which is their perrogative.