O'Connor: Drunken Sailor?

It's always sketchy to criticize the price tag when it comes to defending troops in the field, but this figure leaps out at me:

Canada's defence minister says it's costing taxpayers $189 million to send re-enforcements, including Leopard tanks, to Afghanistan to support Canadian troops.

Gordon O'Connor told a House of Commons committee Tuesday night that includes the cost of sending the tanks, a team of engineers and a counter-mortar unit. "That's transportation, plus what was necessary to get all the equipment up to standard for operations," said O'Connor in reply to questions from opposition MP's.

Five of the 42-tonne monsters are already in operation with another 12 to be deployed in the next month.

Some military experts and others have expressed concern the Leopards could further alienate Afghans already suspicious of foreign troops.

This means it costs 11 million for each tank to be sent to Afghanistan. Put another way, we are spending 22 times more for a tank than McKay found necessary to assist the entire Afghan police forces($500000). I'm not a military tactican, but I don't see how you defeat a guerilla force with tanks. Given the enormous cost for marginal effectiveness, it begs the question again, are we spending money wisely or do we currently have a military blank check, at the expense of other avenues?

Any reasonable person should see a 200 million price tag just to send and re-tool a small tank unit as excessive. What if we pumped 200 million into the Afghan army instead? What about 200 million to help the Afghan government fight corruption and regain credibility? How about 200 million to guard the border with Pakistan? What about 200 million for villagers beholden to the drug trade, which the Taliban uses to great effect? No cure all, but probably more effective than a few tanks chasing ghosts.

The only rational explanation for the tanks, we need the armanent for troop transfer. I have read a couple pieces in the last few days that highlight the massive damage inflicted on our heavily armoured vehicles. The military was unprepared for this level of attack and are in desperate need of replacements. Are the tanks a way to provide heavy armour, in light of the large attrition? If true, O'Connor should say so, because then it is easier to swallow the huge expenditure.

Note
The expenditure isn't solely for the Leopard tanks, although the bulk, so my math is slightly exaggerated- the point is not.