Over there. People have expressed concern about the supposed “militarization” of foreign policy by the “Harper government”, see here and here. On the contrary, it seems to me that it is the leadership of the Canadian Forces that is looking towards that militarization:
…
Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk authorized the establishment of the operational support hubs in up to seven locations around the world on May 13, 2010.
A directive signed by Natynczyk and obtained by Postmedia News says the initiative was launched to improve the Canadian Forces’ “ability to project combat power/security assistance and Canadian influence rapidly and flexibly anywhere in the world.”
It adds that the ability to deploy and sustain combat forces is not only contingent on strong logistical networks, but is also “an essential instrument of national power and should continue to be exploited to attain national objectives.”
The directive traces the operational support hub initiative directly back to 2007, when the Harper government acquired four massive C-17 Globemaster military transport planes.
“The decision to acquire four C-17s (CC177) for strategic airlift indicates the government’s intention to utilize the CF more extensively off continent,” it reads.
“This directive is based on the assumption that in the future, Canada will continue to deploy and employ forces internationally in support of national interests,” it later adds…
Recently I had a “shiver” in that regard, see end of this post. Now I’m getting really worried. In a seemingly neo-militarist mindset the CF’s leadership now appear to anticipate regularly deploying–and fighting?–hither and yon. That’s just a bit scary. Significant use of the CF abroad is not something that should spring easily to mind in the conduct of foreign affairs, even in crises–see here and 2) here.
Yet that is how the CF’s leadership seems to view things. Being an (auxiliary) world policeperson is not to my mind a role fitting for a rather middling power with a rather small military. And one the CF may not really be up to in any event: ‘Can the CF “maintain its expeditionary capabilities across all three services: army, navy and air force”?‘.
One really does hope this government’s approach has been misread at National Defence Headquarters. I believe very strongly that Canada has an obligation, for reasons of national interest, foreign relations and international responsibility, to maintain highly capable and well-equipped armed forces–to the extent that governments are willing to pay for them (see: ‘Finally the Truth: “Canada First Defence Strategy” Just a Scrap of Paper‘). But those forces should only be put in harm’s way sparingly and with very good reason. Not just as some matter of course.
Use of the CF if necessary, but not necessarily use of the CF.
Mark Collins is a prolific Ottawa blogger
135b2 Responses to “Mark Collins - CDS: The Canucks Are Coming”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 20th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Mark Collins gets exercised by what he sees as a militaristic, indeed aggressive mindset in the Canadian Forces and especially by the Chief of the Defence Staff. But there will be a new CDS in a matter of weeks, and the new boss may have different ideas. Sailors, for example, strike me as being inherently cautious and aware of the tides—in the affairs of men.
Second, Mark quotes a couple of points from the directive authorizing the creation of operational support hubs:
“The decision to acquire four C-17s (CC177) for strategic airlift indicates the government’s intention to utilize the CF more extensively off continent,” it reads.
“This directive is based on the assumption that in the future, Canada will continue to deploy and employ forces internationally in support of national interests,” it later adds…
Both of these are assumptions. I assume the intent of the CDS’ directive was cleared with his political masters but the precise wording may not have been. I would agree that the acquisition of C-17s was intended to help move the CF around, but, of course, the aircraft arrived in the midst of the Afghan operation. Does that necessarily imply future operations off continent? Or only the capacity to engage in such operations when and if government deems necessary? Surely the latter. And the second assumption to which Mark objects is and has been Canadian policy now and forevermore: we deploy and employ forces in support of our interests. There is, I think, nothing new here beyond the creation of up to seven mini-hubs, and certainly not enough to justify Mark’s rather overwrought concern.
- J.L. Granatstein
July 20th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
In response to Mr Granatstein I would note that I do not object to “Canadian policy now and forevermore: we deploy and employ forces in support of our interests.” I did write that “I believe very strongly that Canada has an obligation, for reasons of national interest, foreign relations and international responsibility, to maintain highly capable and well-equipped armed forces…” Clearly foreign deployments are inherent there. But this in particular from the story quoted bothered me:
‘…the ability to deploy and sustain combat forces is not only contingent on strong logistical networks, but is also “an essential instrument of national power and should continue to be exploited to attain national objectives.”..’
I truly hope I am not being “rather overwrought” about the mindset of the current CF leadership. But again keep this in mind: “Canada’s top soldier says troops ready and eager for new overseas missions”:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/canadas-top-soldier-says-troops-ready-and-eager-for-new-overseas-missions-161677505.html
In any event I certainly have no concerns about establishing the logistical hubs, a good idea. More from Matt Gurney of the National Post:
“Canada’s teeny-tiny foreign bases not worth a teeny-tiny kerfuffle”
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/20/matt-gurney-canadas-teeny-tiny-foreign-bases-not-worth-a-teeny-tiny-kerfuffle/
Mark Collins