The Canadian Press
The deputy minister of national defence has told a NATO meeting in Halifax that Canada is satisfied it is spending what it requires to meet its alliance and other military commitments.
Jody Thomas held fast to the government's stance on defence spending on Saturday, despite some pointed questioning about Canada's commitment following her presentation before NATO's defence and security committee, part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Halifax.
U.S. Republican Rep. Michael Turner, the committee's acting chairman, asked whether Canada intends to table a plan for meeting the two per cent of GDP standard for defence spending that was agreed to by alliance members at a summit in Wales in 2014.
"Many of the nations that are here are either meeting their two per cent or have in place a plan to reach the two per cent," said Turner. "Canada is one of those countries who has not yet put forward a commitment to reach the two per cent although that is a commitment that Canada joined in making at Wales."
Thomas stuck to the Liberal government's line, saying Canada intends to increase its defence budget by 1.46 per cent by the end of 2024.
"Canada's defence budget is growing by 70 per cent as a result of Strong, Secure, Engaged (Canada's defence policy)," said Thomas. "We also on the ground are leading a significant number of operations, and we have never not participated in a NATO commitment or operation."
She also reiterated that Canada believes it contributes to the alliance in a "qualitative" way through an active participation in the alliance.
"The defence budget is a significant increase in funding for national defence and our prime minister is very satisfied with that contribution," Thomas said.
'It's not enough'
But Bob Stewart, a member of the United Kingdom delegation, reminded Thomas that Canada agreed to the commitment, adding that it's "crucial" it be honoured.
Stewart, a Conservative MP, then questioned Canada's current defence spending commitment.
"It's something like 1.12 per cent at the moment and honestly, it's not enough," said Stewart. "There are many nations that are not doing enough and I include my own nation ... we have all got to contribute more and help the United States that bears the burden."
Thomas shot back that Canada's funding includes its commitment to North American Air Defence (NORAD) and she stated that there are "inconsistencies" in the way the military budgets of member countries are assessed.
"The fact is that who counts what differs from country to country," she said.
Canadian contributions
Later in the day, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said budget numbers don't necessarily reflect a country's actual contributions to NATO.
"The NATO Parliamentary Association may not be fully briefed about what is actually discussed at NATO," he said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"All of this is useless if you don't make contributions," he said, citing a list of Canadian contributions that include leading a battle group in Latvia, providing air policing over Romania, leading a NATO training mission in Iraq and building a new fleet of Canadian warships.
A report released by NATO ahead of last July's alliance summit in Brussels predicted Canada would spend 1.23 per cent of its GDP on defence this year — less than last year's level of 1.36 per cent. That leaves Canada ranked 18th out of the alliance's 29 members.
The decline is largely attributed to two one-time expenses last year:
a retroactive pay increase for service members that was included in the government's defence policy, and;
a $1.8-billion payment into the account that provides pensions for Forces members and their dependents.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, British Air Chief Marshal Stuart Peach, who is chairman of the NATO Military Committee, praised Canada for its "very strong support for the alliance."
Peach pointed to ongoing naval exercises and Canada's support for NATO's forward deployment in the Baltic states along with its support for the training mission in Iraq.
With regards to the two per cent target he remained diplomatic, saying that NATO officials have maintained there are three elements to the overall funding conversation.
"There is defence spending which is about the money, there's then a description and important modernization adaptation of NATO's capabilities of which Canada plays an important role," Peach said.
"And then there's the question of contributions and I've already set out how pleased we are with the range of Canada's contributions."
Showing posts with label President Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Trump. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Friday, July 6, 2018
US Steel for Canadian Warships
By: David Pugliese, The Vancouver Sun
The Canadian navy’s new supply ships are being constructed of U.S. steel even as President Donald Trump punishes Canadian producers of the same product with a 25-per-cent tariff.
The supply ships are being built at the Vancouver shipyards of Seaspan, which is owned by a U.S. company. The Department of National Defence confirmed the steel is being purchased from a mill in Alabama, a solidly Republican state that voted 62 per cent for Trump.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan cut some of the first U.S. steel for the ships at a June 15 ceremony, the same day that Trump launched yet another verbal attack on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau while praising North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
Trump has brought in tariffs of 25 per cent on Canadian-made steel and 10 per cent on Canadian aluminum. His government has stated that Canadian steel and aluminum pose a national security threat to the U.S.
Trump also lashed out at Trudeau as “dishonest and weak,” after the prime minister reiterated his position that U.S. steel and other products would face retaliatory tariffs. In addition, Trump has promised to punish Canadians in other ways on the economic front.
The government awarded Seaspan an initial $66-million contact to begin building 52 sections of the new naval supply ships, or about 20 per cent of the vessels. DND said the steel for the ships was ordered “a number of months ago.”
“While Canadian mills will continue to be considered for future chapters of the project, there simply was no Canadian mill who could supply the required certified steel of suitable size and grade at the time it was required,” the DND said in an email.
But Joseph Galimberti, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said domestic firms can supply enough product.
“There is capacity in the Canadian steel industry to participate in these projects,” he said Wednesday. “As a general rule, we have very high quality, quite innovative, extraordinary cost-effective producers in Canada and would like to be considered for participation” in the government’s shipbuilding programs.
Galimberti pointed out that U.S. steel producers actively lobbied the Trump administration to make sure their Canadian competitors faced tariffs. The situation with the supply ships sees those U.S. firms protected in their home markets but still profiting on sales for a Canadian government project, he noted.
“If you wanted to respond to the U.S. tariffs but you are exempting U.S steel producers who are behind the U.S. tariffs, then you have failed,” Galimberti added.
Two supply ships will be built at Seaspan. The project will cost $3.4 billion, of which 60 per cent goes for the construction of the ships.
At one point, the first ship was supposed to arrive in 2012. That has been changed a number of times, with the government later hoping for a 2018 delivery and then a 2019 arrival for the first vessel. DND is now hoping for the delivery of the first ship in 2022 or 2023. The Joint Support Ships are critical as they provide fuel and supplies for warships at sea. The Royal Canadian Navy retired its last two aging supply ships years ago.
Trump continues to threaten various nations, including Canada, with additional tariffs. But his economic policies are also backfiring on some U.S. firms.
Increased steel costs because of the tariffs forced the Mid-Continent Nail plant in Poplar Bluff, Missouri to recently lay off 60 of its 500 employees.
The company is in danger of shutting production by September unless the U.S. government grants it an exclusion from paying the tariffs, company spokesman James Glassman told CNN.
The plant is located in an area that overwhelmingly voted for Trump.
Harley-Davidson has also announced it will move the production overseas of motorcycles to be sold in Europe. The company decided on the move since the European Union has imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S.-built motorcycles.
Trump responded to the decision by Harley-Davidson by threatening to increase its taxes.
The Canadian navy’s new supply ships are being constructed of U.S. steel even as President Donald Trump punishes Canadian producers of the same product with a 25-per-cent tariff.
The supply ships are being built at the Vancouver shipyards of Seaspan, which is owned by a U.S. company. The Department of National Defence confirmed the steel is being purchased from a mill in Alabama, a solidly Republican state that voted 62 per cent for Trump.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan cut some of the first U.S. steel for the ships at a June 15 ceremony, the same day that Trump launched yet another verbal attack on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau while praising North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
Trump has brought in tariffs of 25 per cent on Canadian-made steel and 10 per cent on Canadian aluminum. His government has stated that Canadian steel and aluminum pose a national security threat to the U.S.
Trump also lashed out at Trudeau as “dishonest and weak,” after the prime minister reiterated his position that U.S. steel and other products would face retaliatory tariffs. In addition, Trump has promised to punish Canadians in other ways on the economic front.
The government awarded Seaspan an initial $66-million contact to begin building 52 sections of the new naval supply ships, or about 20 per cent of the vessels. DND said the steel for the ships was ordered “a number of months ago.”
“While Canadian mills will continue to be considered for future chapters of the project, there simply was no Canadian mill who could supply the required certified steel of suitable size and grade at the time it was required,” the DND said in an email.
But Joseph Galimberti, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said domestic firms can supply enough product.
“There is capacity in the Canadian steel industry to participate in these projects,” he said Wednesday. “As a general rule, we have very high quality, quite innovative, extraordinary cost-effective producers in Canada and would like to be considered for participation” in the government’s shipbuilding programs.
Galimberti pointed out that U.S. steel producers actively lobbied the Trump administration to make sure their Canadian competitors faced tariffs. The situation with the supply ships sees those U.S. firms protected in their home markets but still profiting on sales for a Canadian government project, he noted.
“If you wanted to respond to the U.S. tariffs but you are exempting U.S steel producers who are behind the U.S. tariffs, then you have failed,” Galimberti added.
Two supply ships will be built at Seaspan. The project will cost $3.4 billion, of which 60 per cent goes for the construction of the ships.
 |
| Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, left, cuts steel for the first of two Joint Support Ships for Canada’s Navy at the Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver, June, 15, 2018. JONATHAN HAYWARD/THE CANADIAN PRESS |
Trump continues to threaten various nations, including Canada, with additional tariffs. But his economic policies are also backfiring on some U.S. firms.
Increased steel costs because of the tariffs forced the Mid-Continent Nail plant in Poplar Bluff, Missouri to recently lay off 60 of its 500 employees.
The company is in danger of shutting production by September unless the U.S. government grants it an exclusion from paying the tariffs, company spokesman James Glassman told CNN.
The plant is located in an area that overwhelmingly voted for Trump.
Harley-Davidson has also announced it will move the production overseas of motorcycles to be sold in Europe. The company decided on the move since the European Union has imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S.-built motorcycles.
Trump responded to the decision by Harley-Davidson by threatening to increase its taxes.
Trudeau to rebut Trump’s charge of defence-spending lag with Latvia visit
STEVEN CHASE
The Canadian government is defending itself against accusations from U.S. President Donald Trump that Canada is falling short on defence spending, saying there are big military expenditure increases planned in future years and that this country always contributes to NATO deployments.
This rejoinder from Canada comes as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau heads to the Baltic country of Latvia to showcase a Canadian military deployment aimed at deterring Russian aggression.
One military analyst, however, says Canada is dodging, rather than answering, justified criticism by changing the subject to deployments from funding levels.
The Prime Minister will visit Latvia for two days, starting on July 9, before proceeding to a NATO meeting of heads of state and government in Belgium on July 11 and 12 – a gathering that promises to be fraught with tension over Russia.
Mr. Trudeau’s Baltic visit comes after Canada, and several other NATO allies, received letters from the Trump administration complaining they are not meeting a NATO commitment to undertake military spending equivalent to 2 per cent of annual economic output.
The Globe and Mail confirmed that Mr. Trudeau received a letter from Mr. Trump. Letters were also sent to Germany, according to The New York Times, and Reuters confirmed letters were sent to Britain, Belgium and Norway.
In the letter to Britain – the Americans’ staunch partner in Iraq and Afghanistan – the Trump administration went further. U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, the author of this letter, warned London it risks losing the ability to project power worldwide if it doesn’t boost military spending – despite the fact Britain already meets the 2 per cent target.
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and its support for pro-Moscow separatists in the war in eastern Ukraine have disrupted relations between Moscow and the West and have revitalized the NATO military alliance.
For the past year, Canada has been leading a NATO battle group in Latvia that includes 450 Canadian soldiers, part of a significant buildup of troops and assets on the easternmost flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Russian expansionism. Canada’s leadership of the battle group represents Canada’s largest sustained military presence in Europe in over a decade.
After the annexation of Crimea, NATO allies agreed that year to end defence-budget cuts, to start spending more as their economies grew and move toward a goal of 2 per cent of GDP for defence spending within a decade.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan defended Canada’s military commitment in the face of this latest criticism from the Trump administration, noting that the Trudeau government has promised to boost spending.
“In 2017, as part of a comprehensive review of Canadian defence spending, the Government of Canada committed to increasing [the Department of National Defence]’s funding by more than 70 per cent over the next decade,” Renée Filiatrault, director of communications to Mr. Sajjan, said in a statement.
“This plan has been rigorously costed, is fully funded, and serves Canada’s defence needs. It also upholds our long-standing role as an active contributor to global peace and security,” she said.
The Sajjan spokeswoman also underlined Canada’s long-standing contributions.
“The Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force are among the most engaged, agile, deployable and responsive armed forces within NATO. Canada is proud to have contributed to every NATO operation since the founding of the Alliance more than six decades ago,” Ms. Filiatrault said.
However, Charles Davies, a research fellow at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said that even with new budgetary commitments made in recent years, Canada is still not on track to hit the 2 per cent defence-spending target.
“The Canadian government obviously sees itself being on the wrong side of this discussion … because it refuses to engage in a direct conversation about the issue,” Mr. Davies said. “Instead, it continues to play bait-and-switch, trying to divert attention towards the entirely different subject of the politics around the commitment of forces to NATO operations. This is an intellectually dishonest response to valid criticism.”
This week, other NATO allies also pushed back at U.S. criticism.
In an e-mail on July 3 to the Associated Press, Norwegian Defence Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen said, “Norway stands by its decision of the NATO Summit in 2014 and is following up on this.”
Norway has spent “far beyond” NATO’s target on new military equipment, he added.
German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday, “We stand by the 2-per cent-goal we’ve set.” She added that “we’re on the path there. And we’re prepared … to take substantial responsibility within the alliance.”
When faced with the suggestion that such German explanations for not spending 2 per cent of GDP yet might not make an impression on Mr. Trump, she retorted: “We don’t want to impress anyone.”
Mr. Trump’s pre-NATO meeting letter-writing campaign is further ratcheting up geopoliticial tensions in the 69-year-old NATO alliance. The U.S. President is planning a controversial summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin for immediately after the NATO meeting. Mr. Trump, who has previously defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea, in recent days has left the door open to recognizing this land seizure.
Mr. Trudeau’s visit to Latvia follows a January, 2018, trip by Governor-General Julie Payette. He will be accompanied by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, Mr. Sajjan and General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff.
With files from Reuters and Associated Press
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MZHN5UBQQFHNFDLYI4LD6S2764.jpg%7D) |
| Canadian Army soldiers attack during Silver Arrow 2017, the multinational military drills involving eleven NATO member countries in Adazi, Latvia on Oct 29, 2017. |
The Canadian government is defending itself against accusations from U.S. President Donald Trump that Canada is falling short on defence spending, saying there are big military expenditure increases planned in future years and that this country always contributes to NATO deployments.
This rejoinder from Canada comes as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau heads to the Baltic country of Latvia to showcase a Canadian military deployment aimed at deterring Russian aggression.
One military analyst, however, says Canada is dodging, rather than answering, justified criticism by changing the subject to deployments from funding levels.
The Prime Minister will visit Latvia for two days, starting on July 9, before proceeding to a NATO meeting of heads of state and government in Belgium on July 11 and 12 – a gathering that promises to be fraught with tension over Russia.
Mr. Trudeau’s Baltic visit comes after Canada, and several other NATO allies, received letters from the Trump administration complaining they are not meeting a NATO commitment to undertake military spending equivalent to 2 per cent of annual economic output.
The Globe and Mail confirmed that Mr. Trudeau received a letter from Mr. Trump. Letters were also sent to Germany, according to The New York Times, and Reuters confirmed letters were sent to Britain, Belgium and Norway.
In the letter to Britain – the Americans’ staunch partner in Iraq and Afghanistan – the Trump administration went further. U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, the author of this letter, warned London it risks losing the ability to project power worldwide if it doesn’t boost military spending – despite the fact Britain already meets the 2 per cent target.
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and its support for pro-Moscow separatists in the war in eastern Ukraine have disrupted relations between Moscow and the West and have revitalized the NATO military alliance.
For the past year, Canada has been leading a NATO battle group in Latvia that includes 450 Canadian soldiers, part of a significant buildup of troops and assets on the easternmost flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Russian expansionism. Canada’s leadership of the battle group represents Canada’s largest sustained military presence in Europe in over a decade.
After the annexation of Crimea, NATO allies agreed that year to end defence-budget cuts, to start spending more as their economies grew and move toward a goal of 2 per cent of GDP for defence spending within a decade.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan defended Canada’s military commitment in the face of this latest criticism from the Trump administration, noting that the Trudeau government has promised to boost spending.
“In 2017, as part of a comprehensive review of Canadian defence spending, the Government of Canada committed to increasing [the Department of National Defence]’s funding by more than 70 per cent over the next decade,” Renée Filiatrault, director of communications to Mr. Sajjan, said in a statement.
“This plan has been rigorously costed, is fully funded, and serves Canada’s defence needs. It also upholds our long-standing role as an active contributor to global peace and security,” she said.
The Sajjan spokeswoman also underlined Canada’s long-standing contributions.
“The Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force are among the most engaged, agile, deployable and responsive armed forces within NATO. Canada is proud to have contributed to every NATO operation since the founding of the Alliance more than six decades ago,” Ms. Filiatrault said.
However, Charles Davies, a research fellow at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said that even with new budgetary commitments made in recent years, Canada is still not on track to hit the 2 per cent defence-spending target.
“The Canadian government obviously sees itself being on the wrong side of this discussion … because it refuses to engage in a direct conversation about the issue,” Mr. Davies said. “Instead, it continues to play bait-and-switch, trying to divert attention towards the entirely different subject of the politics around the commitment of forces to NATO operations. This is an intellectually dishonest response to valid criticism.”
This week, other NATO allies also pushed back at U.S. criticism.
In an e-mail on July 3 to the Associated Press, Norwegian Defence Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen said, “Norway stands by its decision of the NATO Summit in 2014 and is following up on this.”
Norway has spent “far beyond” NATO’s target on new military equipment, he added.
German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday, “We stand by the 2-per cent-goal we’ve set.” She added that “we’re on the path there. And we’re prepared … to take substantial responsibility within the alliance.”
When faced with the suggestion that such German explanations for not spending 2 per cent of GDP yet might not make an impression on Mr. Trump, she retorted: “We don’t want to impress anyone.”
Mr. Trump’s pre-NATO meeting letter-writing campaign is further ratcheting up geopoliticial tensions in the 69-year-old NATO alliance. The U.S. President is planning a controversial summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin for immediately after the NATO meeting. Mr. Trump, who has previously defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea, in recent days has left the door open to recognizing this land seizure.
Mr. Trudeau’s visit to Latvia follows a January, 2018, trip by Governor-General Julie Payette. He will be accompanied by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, Mr. Sajjan and General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff.
With files from Reuters and Associated Press
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Smol: Trump Paying Attention to Canadian Defence Spending
By: Robert Smol, CBC News
Defence procurement is the government promise that keeps on rebooting. At the moment, Canada is preparing to purchase 25 second-hand F-18 fighter jets from Australia — pending U.S. approval —as a stop-gap measure until it can replace its fleet with new jets. The earlier plan was to buy 18 used jets, making this the roughly zillionth update to Canada's defence procurement plan.
This de facto refusal to truly modernize our fighter jet fleet will make Canada look like the runt compared to our allies. And by "allies," I am referring mainly to nations beyond our increasingly rogue and unpredictable friend to the south; nations such as Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Czech Republic which, unlike Canada, are not allowing their government's fighter jet procurement plans to indefinitely sputter and stall.
In spite of promises made in the last budget, the Liberal government's modest defence procurement goals remain unfulfilled. In its 2017 spending roadmap, the Trudeau government promised $6.2 billion in capital spending in the first year. In actual fact, only $3.9 billion went to our emaciated forces.
The Harper government was actually not much better when it came to defence spending, despite its bellicose rhetoric in support of the military. On top of canceled programs and perennial delays, the Conservative government was also in the habit of making self-promoting announcements of new defence procurement initiatives, without actually earmarking the financing needed.
In fact, while in power, the Harper Conservatives allowed about $9.6 billion in military funding to lapse. Speaking to CBC in 2015, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page noted that the government was not spending the defence dollars authorized by Parliament, suggesting that "National Defence is becoming a source of funds to reduce the deficit."
Relying on the U.S.
Could this perennial dithering be the result of institutional incompetence? Lack of political will? Or is it simply grounded in the assumption that the United States will always be willing to use its military, at no cost to us, to protect Canada for Canadians? My concern is that it's primarily the latter — a premise especially worrying under the current U.S. president, who has made it clear he cares little about the welfare of his allies.
In any case, it is telling that our commitment to defend our airspace, the second-largest in the world, will be a tiny fleet of second-hand fighters.
To reiterate: Canada is the anomaly among our allies. Regardless of their own political and economic challenges, smaller nations such as Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands have ensured that their air forces have the modern aircraft needed to do the job. Success in modern warfare requires high tech, highly mobile delivery of lethal force on key enemy targets in both offensive and defensive operations, as well as over long distances and over very short periods of time. Fighter jets are a leading edge in the delivery of that capability. We need them.
Procurement among allies
Norway has purchased and is in the process of acquiring 52 F-35 jets, with several already becoming operational. Denmark is buying 27 of the same. Next door, non-aligned Sweden continues its tradition of defence self-reliance with a deal to acquire 60 of the latest JAS-39Gripen, with plans to lease 14 jets each to the Czech Republic and Hungary.
Australia, from which Canada is getting our second-hand F-18s, has already purchased and is taking on a fleet of 72 new F-35 Lightning — ironically, the same aircraft that we might finally decide we need.
We might think we don't need to match these efforts. We might well choose to hold on to the delusion that our "polite" reputation and proximity to the U.S war machine will keep us safe.
But how reliable will the United States be as a guarantor of our own defence when, under its current administration, it unapologetically shuns, slanders and shames traditional allies, all while seeming to embrace countries like North Korea and Russia?
And even if the willingness was there, the U.S military is beginning to question its own ability to sustain consistent military superiority beyond its borders. The U.S Department of Defence's own risk assessment titled "At Our Own Peril," published in 2017, states that the U.S military "no longer enjoys an unassailable position versus state competitors" and that it no longer can "automatically generate consistent and sustained local military superiority at range."
So maybe a well-equipped Canadian air force — and entire military, for that matter — is both a practical necessity, as well as a symbolic imperative. We must be ready to act, as well as be seen to be ready to act, along with our allies.
Perhaps we could afford to live with the delusion that the United States would always be ready to come to our aid in the past. Not anymore.
Defence procurement is the government promise that keeps on rebooting. At the moment, Canada is preparing to purchase 25 second-hand F-18 fighter jets from Australia — pending U.S. approval —as a stop-gap measure until it can replace its fleet with new jets. The earlier plan was to buy 18 used jets, making this the roughly zillionth update to Canada's defence procurement plan.
This de facto refusal to truly modernize our fighter jet fleet will make Canada look like the runt compared to our allies. And by "allies," I am referring mainly to nations beyond our increasingly rogue and unpredictable friend to the south; nations such as Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Czech Republic which, unlike Canada, are not allowing their government's fighter jet procurement plans to indefinitely sputter and stall.
In spite of promises made in the last budget, the Liberal government's modest defence procurement goals remain unfulfilled. In its 2017 spending roadmap, the Trudeau government promised $6.2 billion in capital spending in the first year. In actual fact, only $3.9 billion went to our emaciated forces.
The Harper government was actually not much better when it came to defence spending, despite its bellicose rhetoric in support of the military. On top of canceled programs and perennial delays, the Conservative government was also in the habit of making self-promoting announcements of new defence procurement initiatives, without actually earmarking the financing needed.
In fact, while in power, the Harper Conservatives allowed about $9.6 billion in military funding to lapse. Speaking to CBC in 2015, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page noted that the government was not spending the defence dollars authorized by Parliament, suggesting that "National Defence is becoming a source of funds to reduce the deficit."
Relying on the U.S.
Could this perennial dithering be the result of institutional incompetence? Lack of political will? Or is it simply grounded in the assumption that the United States will always be willing to use its military, at no cost to us, to protect Canada for Canadians? My concern is that it's primarily the latter — a premise especially worrying under the current U.S. president, who has made it clear he cares little about the welfare of his allies.
In any case, it is telling that our commitment to defend our airspace, the second-largest in the world, will be a tiny fleet of second-hand fighters.
To reiterate: Canada is the anomaly among our allies. Regardless of their own political and economic challenges, smaller nations such as Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands have ensured that their air forces have the modern aircraft needed to do the job. Success in modern warfare requires high tech, highly mobile delivery of lethal force on key enemy targets in both offensive and defensive operations, as well as over long distances and over very short periods of time. Fighter jets are a leading edge in the delivery of that capability. We need them.
Procurement among allies
Norway has purchased and is in the process of acquiring 52 F-35 jets, with several already becoming operational. Denmark is buying 27 of the same. Next door, non-aligned Sweden continues its tradition of defence self-reliance with a deal to acquire 60 of the latest JAS-39Gripen, with plans to lease 14 jets each to the Czech Republic and Hungary.
Australia, from which Canada is getting our second-hand F-18s, has already purchased and is taking on a fleet of 72 new F-35 Lightning — ironically, the same aircraft that we might finally decide we need.
We might think we don't need to match these efforts. We might well choose to hold on to the delusion that our "polite" reputation and proximity to the U.S war machine will keep us safe.
But how reliable will the United States be as a guarantor of our own defence when, under its current administration, it unapologetically shuns, slanders and shames traditional allies, all while seeming to embrace countries like North Korea and Russia?
And even if the willingness was there, the U.S military is beginning to question its own ability to sustain consistent military superiority beyond its borders. The U.S Department of Defence's own risk assessment titled "At Our Own Peril," published in 2017, states that the U.S military "no longer enjoys an unassailable position versus state competitors" and that it no longer can "automatically generate consistent and sustained local military superiority at range."
So maybe a well-equipped Canadian air force — and entire military, for that matter — is both a practical necessity, as well as a symbolic imperative. We must be ready to act, as well as be seen to be ready to act, along with our allies.
Perhaps we could afford to live with the delusion that the United States would always be ready to come to our aid in the past. Not anymore.
----
Robert Smol served over 20 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is currently a teacher and freelance writer in Toronto.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Canada-US Trade Dispute Could Impact US Firms Out in Military Equipment Sales
By: David Pugliese, The National Post
U.S. President Donald Trump’s tirade against Canada and threats to punish the country could undermine efforts by American firms trying to sell fighter jets and other military equipment to the Canadian Forces, warn defence and industry analysts.
One European firm, Airbus, has already been talking with Canadian officials to pitch its plan to build fighter jets in Quebec as it positions itself to win the $16-billion deal to replace CF-18 aircraft. A similar offer has been made in the past by Dassault Aviation.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s tirade against Canada and threats to punish the country could undermine efforts by American firms trying to sell fighter jets and other military equipment to the Canadian Forces, warn defence and industry analysts.
One European firm, Airbus, has already been talking with Canadian officials to pitch its plan to build fighter jets in Quebec as it positions itself to win the $16-billion deal to replace CF-18 aircraft. A similar offer has been made in the past by Dassault Aviation.
 |
| A Canadian Forces CF-18 Hornet comes in for a landing at CFB Bagotville, Quebec, on June 7, 2018. GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/GETTY. |
An Italian aerospace firm, Leonardo, is looking at building helicopters in Nova Scotia as it moves towards negotiations for a search-and-rescue aircraft modernization project the Department of National Defence says will be worth between $1 billion and $5 billion.
Trump has hit Canadian aluminum and steel with tariffs, claiming their import is a threat to national security. After the weekend G7 meeting and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s reaffirming that Canada would reciprocate with tariffs on specific U.S. products, Trump vowed more economic grief that will “cost a lot of money for the people of Canada.”
Trump’s move comes at a time when European firms are courting the Canadian government, particularly on big-ticket defence items such as aircraft and warships. Billions of dollars in new purchases are potentially at stake and European firms had a strong presence at the recent CANSEC military equipment trade show in Ottawa.
“Trump certainly isn’t helping U.S. defence companies who want to sell to Canada,” said Martin Shadwick, a defence analyst in Toronto. “It would be very difficult at this point from a political optics point of view for the government to announce awarding contracts to any American firm.”
Shadwick said whether that situation will continue for the next several years, when for instance the decision on new fighter jets is supposed to be made, would depend on any further actions by the president. Two U.S. aircraft, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-35, are among the top contenders in that jet competition. The other three aircraft are from European companies.
An earlier trade dispute with Canada has already backfired on Boeing and the Trump administration, costing the U.S. billions in fighter jet sales. Last year Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department that Canadian subsidies for Quebec-based Bombardier allowed it to sell its civilian passenger aircraft in the U.S. at cut-rate prices. As a result, the Trump administration brought in a tariff of almost 300 per cent against Bombardier aircraft sold in the U.S.
In retaliation, Canada decided against buying 18 new Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. That deal would have been worth more than US$5 billion.
Trump certainly isn't helping U.S. defence companies who want to sell to Canada
Christyn Cianfarani, president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, said it is too early to determine the impact of the U.S. tariffs on the domestic defence industry. “Tariffs are never good for trade or business,” she added.
“CADSI is monitoring the issue and consulting our members to better understand the potential impact to Canadian firms, both in terms of the direct impact of any tariffs and the more indirect, long term impact on supply chains and market access,” she said.
There is growing concern that Canadian aviation firms could be hurt by Trump’s aluminum tariffs. The Aerospace Industries Association of Canada did not respond to a request for comment. But its counterpart in the U.S. has voiced concern that American aerospace companies could feel pain.
In March, the U.S. Aerospace Industries Association noted it was deeply concerned about Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum as it “will raise costs and disrupt the supply chain, putting U.S. global competitiveness at risk.”
“There is also a significant threat for retaliation from other countries towards American made products,” the association noted in a statement.
Canada is the largest exporter of aluminum and steel to the U.S.
Trump has hit Canadian aluminum and steel with tariffs, claiming their import is a threat to national security. After the weekend G7 meeting and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s reaffirming that Canada would reciprocate with tariffs on specific U.S. products, Trump vowed more economic grief that will “cost a lot of money for the people of Canada.”
Trump’s move comes at a time when European firms are courting the Canadian government, particularly on big-ticket defence items such as aircraft and warships. Billions of dollars in new purchases are potentially at stake and European firms had a strong presence at the recent CANSEC military equipment trade show in Ottawa.
“Trump certainly isn’t helping U.S. defence companies who want to sell to Canada,” said Martin Shadwick, a defence analyst in Toronto. “It would be very difficult at this point from a political optics point of view for the government to announce awarding contracts to any American firm.”
Shadwick said whether that situation will continue for the next several years, when for instance the decision on new fighter jets is supposed to be made, would depend on any further actions by the president. Two U.S. aircraft, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-35, are among the top contenders in that jet competition. The other three aircraft are from European companies.
An earlier trade dispute with Canada has already backfired on Boeing and the Trump administration, costing the U.S. billions in fighter jet sales. Last year Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department that Canadian subsidies for Quebec-based Bombardier allowed it to sell its civilian passenger aircraft in the U.S. at cut-rate prices. As a result, the Trump administration brought in a tariff of almost 300 per cent against Bombardier aircraft sold in the U.S.
In retaliation, Canada decided against buying 18 new Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. That deal would have been worth more than US$5 billion.
Trump certainly isn't helping U.S. defence companies who want to sell to Canada
Christyn Cianfarani, president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, said it is too early to determine the impact of the U.S. tariffs on the domestic defence industry. “Tariffs are never good for trade or business,” she added.
“CADSI is monitoring the issue and consulting our members to better understand the potential impact to Canadian firms, both in terms of the direct impact of any tariffs and the more indirect, long term impact on supply chains and market access,” she said.
There is growing concern that Canadian aviation firms could be hurt by Trump’s aluminum tariffs. The Aerospace Industries Association of Canada did not respond to a request for comment. But its counterpart in the U.S. has voiced concern that American aerospace companies could feel pain.
In March, the U.S. Aerospace Industries Association noted it was deeply concerned about Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum as it “will raise costs and disrupt the supply chain, putting U.S. global competitiveness at risk.”
“There is also a significant threat for retaliation from other countries towards American made products,” the association noted in a statement.
Canada is the largest exporter of aluminum and steel to the U.S.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Is Canada a Security Threat to the US? No - Canadians Actually Help Keep US Safe.
By: Tristen Hopper, The National Post
It's been two days since President Trump called Prime Minister Trudeau 'weak' and a 'backstabber', and it’s been a week since the Trump Administration slapped Canada with steel and aluminum tariffs on the ground that reliance on our imports was threatening the “national security” of the United States.
If Canadians are particularly galled at this, it might be because no foreign country in modern times has done more to arm and equip the United States than Canada. “I would not be surprised if every single major aircraft or warship in U.S. military service today has Canadian components in it,” said Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
Below, a cursory summary of some of the Canadian stuff used by history’s most powerful military.
Landing gear
We’ll start with an entry that directly concerns steel and aluminum. Quebec-based Héroux-Devtek is the world’s third largest aircraft landing gear company, and some of that is thanks to a longstanding relationship with the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. Specifically, Héroux-Devtek is in charge of landing gear repair and overhaul for several large U.S. aircraft, including the heavy-lift C-130 Hercules. Of course, landing gear is made almost entirely of steel or aluminum. So, thanks to these new tariffs, American military procurers are either going to start getting hosed on their Héroux-Devtek contracts — or they’re going to have start getting their landing gear overhauls from a U.S. company that isn’t their first choice.
Armoured personnel carriers
“Canada and the US have been building military equipment for each other since the summer of 1940,” David Bercuson, a military historian at the University of Calgary, told the National Post. “Literally billions of dollars of such equipment has passed the border since then.” The most obvious example is the Stryker. There are nearly 5,000 Stryker armoured personnel carriers in the U.S. military, and all of them were built in London, Ontario. Not only that, but the Stryker is even based on a Canadian design, the LAV III. Coming in at a rock bottom $4 million apiece, the Americans use Strykers for everything: Ambulances, firefighting, missile platforms, chemical weapons defence and mine detection. They even started rigging them up with giant lasers to shoot down enemy drones. Armoured vehicles happen to be a Canadian specialty. While the United States was busy throwing money at big ticket items such as tanks and attack helicopters, the shoestring Canadians have gotten very good at the much cheaper task of simply strapping guns and armour to oversized trucks. And if a U.S. diplomat found themselves touring Iraq in an armoured Toyota Land Cruiser, chances are good they were shielded from bullets and IEDs by Canadian workmanship.
Specialized aircraft
Here again, the United States has it covered when it comes to big ticket aircraft such as fighters or bombers. But the U.S. military will occasionally call up Canadian plane-makers when it needs something quirky. Bombardier has retooled some of its airliners and business jets to act as airborne radar platforms. When the United States Army Parachute Team appears at air shows, they’re jumping out of a Canadian-made de Havilland Twin Otter. De Havilland has also hooked up the Americans with some of its famously rugged prop planes for use in electronic warfare, remote cargo drops or simply moving National Guard troops around Alaska. All told, the U.S. military is flying more planes built in Canada than in any other foreign country.
The U.S. military’s only cargo drone (and it has the most Canadian name imaginable)
A U.S. special forces unit is pinned down on a remote Central Asian mountaintop. Surrounded by militants on all sides, it needs an emergency airlift of water and ammunition to even see daybreak. Enter the SnowGoose, an unmanned autogyro specializing in precision deliveries to special forces. The SnowGoose is the U.S. military’s only cargo drone, and it’s an all-Canadian creation. An emerging theme on this list is that Canada is great at building niche military hardware for cheap, and the SnowGoose is no exception. As the drone’s Stittsville, Ont. builders note, it can move cargo across a battlefield at a fraction of the price of other drones.
Nuclear Fuel
Uranium is a big part of the modern U.S. military. It has more than 100 nuclear-powered vessels in the navy, and there’s also those 7,000 atomic weapons it still has lying around. Canada has sold a whole lot of uranium to the U.S. military, going all the way back to the initial atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. However, the taps were somewhat shut off in the 1960s, when Canada started limiting uranium exports to “peaceful” purposes. Still, with Canada ranking as the United States’ top uranium dealer, we help keep their uranium topped up enough to have plenty left over for the military. With the Trump administration in the midst of a Trillion Dollor Nuclear Modernization plan, keeping Canada friendly is probably a good idea.
This entry should fill thrifty Canadians with particular pride: We’ve gotten so good at squeezing every penny out of our CF-18s that we’re now globally renowned experts at fighter jet life extension. Among other things, Canada invented “robotic shot-peening,” a method of using robots to restore aging aircraft with a precision never before known. The technology has been exported to Europe, Australia and, in 2013, the U.S. Navy brought in the Quebec aerospace company L-3 MAS to give its jets a makeover.
Battlefield communications
Tactical radios are another niche technology in which Canadian companies have a built a slow but steady reputation with the Americans. In a 2017 reporton Canada/U.S. military industrial cooperation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that the U.S. military has been using Canadian radios since the 1960s. Ultra TCS, headquartered in Montreal, remains a supplier of tactical radios to both the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. And these aren’t just walkie-talkies; they’re hyper-advanced networks that can provide email, voice and even video hook-ups to American troops in battle.
Jeeps
That’s right. The Second World War-era Willys Jeep — one of the most American vehicles in history — was manufactured in part by Canada. Ford Motor Company of Canada churned out thousands of Jeeps after the Second World War. In 1952 alone, Canadian factories were making an average of seven of them per day. According to Ford Canada’s website, “these postwar Canadian-made Jeep were shipped to the United States, for the American military forces.”
DARPA is the U.S. agency tasked with pursuing military so cutting edge that they occasionally veer into outright science fiction. Last year, DARPA signed a deal with Canada’s MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates to design robots that could be dispatched into space in order to repair U.S. military satellites. And like most times Canada is brought in for U.S. military stuff, the robot space mechanic program is indeed intended as a cost saving measure. Canada has been a leader in space defence for some time. Our beloved Canadarm, in fact, technically qualifies as an early military space robot. Over the course of the space shuttle program 11 missions were sent up to perform classified work for the Pentagon. We still don’t know the specifics of what the Canadarm did for Uncle Sam on those missions, but the arm is a certifiable Cold Warrior.
It's been two days since President Trump called Prime Minister Trudeau 'weak' and a 'backstabber', and it’s been a week since the Trump Administration slapped Canada with steel and aluminum tariffs on the ground that reliance on our imports was threatening the “national security” of the United States.
If Canadians are particularly galled at this, it might be because no foreign country in modern times has done more to arm and equip the United States than Canada. “I would not be surprised if every single major aircraft or warship in U.S. military service today has Canadian components in it,” said Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
Below, a cursory summary of some of the Canadian stuff used by history’s most powerful military.
Landing gear
We’ll start with an entry that directly concerns steel and aluminum. Quebec-based Héroux-Devtek is the world’s third largest aircraft landing gear company, and some of that is thanks to a longstanding relationship with the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. Specifically, Héroux-Devtek is in charge of landing gear repair and overhaul for several large U.S. aircraft, including the heavy-lift C-130 Hercules. Of course, landing gear is made almost entirely of steel or aluminum. So, thanks to these new tariffs, American military procurers are either going to start getting hosed on their Héroux-Devtek contracts — or they’re going to have start getting their landing gear overhauls from a U.S. company that isn’t their first choice.
Armoured personnel carriers
“Canada and the US have been building military equipment for each other since the summer of 1940,” David Bercuson, a military historian at the University of Calgary, told the National Post. “Literally billions of dollars of such equipment has passed the border since then.” The most obvious example is the Stryker. There are nearly 5,000 Stryker armoured personnel carriers in the U.S. military, and all of them were built in London, Ontario. Not only that, but the Stryker is even based on a Canadian design, the LAV III. Coming in at a rock bottom $4 million apiece, the Americans use Strykers for everything: Ambulances, firefighting, missile platforms, chemical weapons defence and mine detection. They even started rigging them up with giant lasers to shoot down enemy drones. Armoured vehicles happen to be a Canadian specialty. While the United States was busy throwing money at big ticket items such as tanks and attack helicopters, the shoestring Canadians have gotten very good at the much cheaper task of simply strapping guns and armour to oversized trucks. And if a U.S. diplomat found themselves touring Iraq in an armoured Toyota Land Cruiser, chances are good they were shielded from bullets and IEDs by Canadian workmanship.
 |
| Stryker in action. Trevor Robb/Edmonton Sun/QMI Agency |
 |
| The United States Army Parachute Team leap out of a modified Twin Otter. United States Military |
The U.S. military’s only cargo drone (and it has the most Canadian name imaginable)
A U.S. special forces unit is pinned down on a remote Central Asian mountaintop. Surrounded by militants on all sides, it needs an emergency airlift of water and ammunition to even see daybreak. Enter the SnowGoose, an unmanned autogyro specializing in precision deliveries to special forces. The SnowGoose is the U.S. military’s only cargo drone, and it’s an all-Canadian creation. An emerging theme on this list is that Canada is great at building niche military hardware for cheap, and the SnowGoose is no exception. As the drone’s Stittsville, Ont. builders note, it can move cargo across a battlefield at a fraction of the price of other drones.
Nuclear Fuel
Uranium is a big part of the modern U.S. military. It has more than 100 nuclear-powered vessels in the navy, and there’s also those 7,000 atomic weapons it still has lying around. Canada has sold a whole lot of uranium to the U.S. military, going all the way back to the initial atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. However, the taps were somewhat shut off in the 1960s, when Canada started limiting uranium exports to “peaceful” purposes. Still, with Canada ranking as the United States’ top uranium dealer, we help keep their uranium topped up enough to have plenty left over for the military. With the Trump administration in the midst of a Trillion Dollor Nuclear Modernization plan, keeping Canada friendly is probably a good idea.
Speaking of nuclear weapons, it might behoove the White House to remember that if a Russian or North Korean missile should happen to be fired in their direction, a Canada-based NORAD station will likely be among the first to let them know.
Making fighter jets last forever
Making fighter jets last forever
This entry should fill thrifty Canadians with particular pride: We’ve gotten so good at squeezing every penny out of our CF-18s that we’re now globally renowned experts at fighter jet life extension. Among other things, Canada invented “robotic shot-peening,” a method of using robots to restore aging aircraft with a precision never before known. The technology has been exported to Europe, Australia and, in 2013, the U.S. Navy brought in the Quebec aerospace company L-3 MAS to give its jets a makeover.
 |
| A very old, but very well taken-care-of, CF-18. File |
Battlefield communications
Tactical radios are another niche technology in which Canadian companies have a built a slow but steady reputation with the Americans. In a 2017 reporton Canada/U.S. military industrial cooperation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that the U.S. military has been using Canadian radios since the 1960s. Ultra TCS, headquartered in Montreal, remains a supplier of tactical radios to both the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. And these aren’t just walkie-talkies; they’re hyper-advanced networks that can provide email, voice and even video hook-ups to American troops in battle.
Jeeps
That’s right. The Second World War-era Willys Jeep — one of the most American vehicles in history — was manufactured in part by Canada. Ford Motor Company of Canada churned out thousands of Jeeps after the Second World War. In 1952 alone, Canadian factories were making an average of seven of them per day. According to Ford Canada’s website, “these postwar Canadian-made Jeep were shipped to the United States, for the American military forces.”
 |
| A 1952 Willys Jeep similar to what Canada would have been manufacturing for the United States. file. |
Space robots
 |
| The space shuttle was initially envisioned as a vehicle to steal Russian military satellites, in which the Canadarm would have been critical. Max Harrold/Postmedia News |
Friday, December 1, 2017
Canada & US Hold Joint Nuclear Exercise
By: Murray Brewster, CBC News
Canadian and U.S. officials quietly held exercises last spring to practise dealing with worst-case nuclear scenarios — running through simulated attacks on both sides of the border, CBC News has learned.
The training took place against the backdrop of federal officials in this country discreetly revising contingency plans, including one to reconstitute the federal government outside of Ottawa should the capital become "unviable" in an attack or natural disaster.
Exercises are done on an annual, or semi-annual, basis, but the latest came amid fresh urgency in light of the worsening international climate, particularly with North Korean nuclear and intercontinental missile tests, the latest of which happened Tuesday.
Related:
Canada sets aside two bunkers at military bases amid global uncertainty, North Korean threat
What is generally not well appreciated is how reliant Canada would be on the U.S. in the event of either a nuclear-tipped missile landing in this country, or some kind of terrorist dirty bomb.
Documents filed recently in Parliament, in response to a written question by the Conservatives, refer to a number of contingency plans, many of which fall back on co-operation with Washington.
A nuclear scenario was incorporated into a regular exercise, known as Staunch Maple, last spring.
It took place in both Ontario and Nova Scotia and involved Canadian CH-146 Griffon helicopters, an RCMP ASTAR-350 helicopter, and two American UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters.
The Department of National Defence acknowledged, at the time, that the training scenario involved a "security incident."
But a series of government officials, speaking to CBC News on background, confirmed the scenario was designed to test the reaction of officials to "a nuclear event."
Earlier iterations of Staunch Maple involved things such as earthquake response in B.C.
The Canadian drill, which took place last April, was conducted in tandem with a much larger U.S. exercise, known as Gotham Shield, which simulated a nuclear attack on New York City.
Much of the current political debate about the threat posed by North Korea revolved around whether the U.S. would defend Canada during a missile attack.
There has been little discussion about what the aftermath might look like and how prepared the country would be to deal with the consequences.
A spokesperson for National Defence said there are contingency plans that cover "a wide range of scenarios involving attacks on Canada, including a missile attack."
Dan Le Bouthillier said a series of contingency plans were reviewed as recently as last spring, but he added periodic assessments are made to ensure they stay current.
A senior defence official, speaking on background, said the issue of whether North Korea could effectively "hurl a hunk of metal across the Pacific and possibly hit us," has preoccupied defence planning in this country for a while.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau acknowledged the hazard in a recent town hall but suggested it relates more to be being caught in the middle, rather than being deliberately targeted.
"There are potential challenges for intercontinental ballistic missiles from North Korea passing over Canadian territory," he said in Charlottetown.
Assistance from Washington
The answer to the question of what would happen in the event of a missile strike would depend strictly on the warhead and where it landed, according a number of current and former officials, who spoke to CBC News on background.
Canadian decision-makers would be notified of a missile launch and its trajectory by Norad's warning centre. A decision about trying to shoot it down would be made solely by the U.S., because Canada is not part of its ballistic missile defences.
Much of the initial post-impact response would fall on local police and municipalities.
The responsibility, however, would be quickly passed along to the federal government and Public Safety Canada, which is in charge of emergency management.
Picking up the phone to Washington is among the very first things Canadian officials, both military and civilian, would do in the event that the missile was nuclear-tipped.
A non-nuclear blast, although devastating, would likely not require an immediate call to Washington for assistance. It is in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion, even a small one, that Canada is vulnerable.
The country's military, mostly through the special forces, and the RCMP have the capability to help clean up contamination sites and treat irradiated victims.
That organization is known as the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit. But its capacity to carry out the dangerous work is limited by their size and they would require assistance of U.S. National Guard units.
A few years ago, the former Conservative government signed a memorandum with Washington to make it easier for each country's armed forces to operate on both sides of the border.
During the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, U.S. troops were quietly deployed in the event of a terrorist "dirty bomb" incident.
The commander of Canada's special forces, Maj.-Gen. Mike Rouleau wouldn't comment on the North Korean situation, nor contingency planning, but said the government's latest defence policy will allow him to increase the size of his nuclear, biological and chemical team by as many as 70 people.
The military and government officials may be well-prepared to make decisions in the aftermath of a worst-case scenario, but many experts question whether political leaders have wrapped their heads around such eventualities.
The general in charge of the country's joint operations command said cabinet ministers and the prime minister occasionally participate in exercises, and when they're not available an official will sit in their chair.
"The ideal would be everybody is available all of the time to be able to do this. That is not the world in which we live," said Lt.-Gen. Steve Bowes, who has sat in on many of the drills. "The important thing is to make sure the leader understands their authority, their responsibilities and accountability. It's not just about the individual, it's about the organization. We're much stronger in ways that don't think people appreciate."
Further Reading:
Canada could be called on for troops in event of war with North Korea
Canadian and U.S. officials quietly held exercises last spring to practise dealing with worst-case nuclear scenarios — running through simulated attacks on both sides of the border, CBC News has learned.
The training took place against the backdrop of federal officials in this country discreetly revising contingency plans, including one to reconstitute the federal government outside of Ottawa should the capital become "unviable" in an attack or natural disaster.
Exercises are done on an annual, or semi-annual, basis, but the latest came amid fresh urgency in light of the worsening international climate, particularly with North Korean nuclear and intercontinental missile tests, the latest of which happened Tuesday.
Related:
Canada sets aside two bunkers at military bases amid global uncertainty, North Korean threat
What is generally not well appreciated is how reliant Canada would be on the U.S. in the event of either a nuclear-tipped missile landing in this country, or some kind of terrorist dirty bomb.
Documents filed recently in Parliament, in response to a written question by the Conservatives, refer to a number of contingency plans, many of which fall back on co-operation with Washington.
A nuclear scenario was incorporated into a regular exercise, known as Staunch Maple, last spring.
It took place in both Ontario and Nova Scotia and involved Canadian CH-146 Griffon helicopters, an RCMP ASTAR-350 helicopter, and two American UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters.
The Department of National Defence acknowledged, at the time, that the training scenario involved a "security incident."
But a series of government officials, speaking to CBC News on background, confirmed the scenario was designed to test the reaction of officials to "a nuclear event."
Earlier iterations of Staunch Maple involved things such as earthquake response in B.C.
The Canadian drill, which took place last April, was conducted in tandem with a much larger U.S. exercise, known as Gotham Shield, which simulated a nuclear attack on New York City.
Much of the current political debate about the threat posed by North Korea revolved around whether the U.S. would defend Canada during a missile attack.
There has been little discussion about what the aftermath might look like and how prepared the country would be to deal with the consequences.
A spokesperson for National Defence said there are contingency plans that cover "a wide range of scenarios involving attacks on Canada, including a missile attack."
Dan Le Bouthillier said a series of contingency plans were reviewed as recently as last spring, but he added periodic assessments are made to ensure they stay current.
A senior defence official, speaking on background, said the issue of whether North Korea could effectively "hurl a hunk of metal across the Pacific and possibly hit us," has preoccupied defence planning in this country for a while.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau acknowledged the hazard in a recent town hall but suggested it relates more to be being caught in the middle, rather than being deliberately targeted.
"There are potential challenges for intercontinental ballistic missiles from North Korea passing over Canadian territory," he said in Charlottetown.
Assistance from Washington
The answer to the question of what would happen in the event of a missile strike would depend strictly on the warhead and where it landed, according a number of current and former officials, who spoke to CBC News on background.
Canadian decision-makers would be notified of a missile launch and its trajectory by Norad's warning centre. A decision about trying to shoot it down would be made solely by the U.S., because Canada is not part of its ballistic missile defences.
Much of the initial post-impact response would fall on local police and municipalities.
The responsibility, however, would be quickly passed along to the federal government and Public Safety Canada, which is in charge of emergency management.
Picking up the phone to Washington is among the very first things Canadian officials, both military and civilian, would do in the event that the missile was nuclear-tipped.
A non-nuclear blast, although devastating, would likely not require an immediate call to Washington for assistance. It is in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion, even a small one, that Canada is vulnerable.
 |
| Members of the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit rappel onto the deck of the ship Strait Explorer. The unit would require help from the U.S. National Guard in the event of a nuclear attack. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press) |
That organization is known as the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit. But its capacity to carry out the dangerous work is limited by their size and they would require assistance of U.S. National Guard units.
A few years ago, the former Conservative government signed a memorandum with Washington to make it easier for each country's armed forces to operate on both sides of the border.
During the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, U.S. troops were quietly deployed in the event of a terrorist "dirty bomb" incident.
The commander of Canada's special forces, Maj.-Gen. Mike Rouleau wouldn't comment on the North Korean situation, nor contingency planning, but said the government's latest defence policy will allow him to increase the size of his nuclear, biological and chemical team by as many as 70 people.
The military and government officials may be well-prepared to make decisions in the aftermath of a worst-case scenario, but many experts question whether political leaders have wrapped their heads around such eventualities.
The general in charge of the country's joint operations command said cabinet ministers and the prime minister occasionally participate in exercises, and when they're not available an official will sit in their chair.
"The ideal would be everybody is available all of the time to be able to do this. That is not the world in which we live," said Lt.-Gen. Steve Bowes, who has sat in on many of the drills. "The important thing is to make sure the leader understands their authority, their responsibilities and accountability. It's not just about the individual, it's about the organization. We're much stronger in ways that don't think people appreciate."
Further Reading:
Canada could be called on for troops in event of war with North Korea
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Trudeau Not Planning on Sending Troops Back to Afghanistan
LEE BERTHIAUME
OTTAWA
THE CANADIAN PRESS
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has thrown cold water on suggestions the Liberal government wants to sign onto continental ballistic missile defence, or that it might send troops back into Afghanistan.
The question over whether Canada should be part of the U.S.'s continental missile-defence shield has been rekindled in recent days amid concerns about North Korea's growing nuclear arsenal.
Canada opted out of ballistic missile defence in 2005 following a divisive national debate, but many defence experts and parliamentarians, including some Liberals, want the issue reopened.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan has also resurrected questions about whether Canada will be asked to follow suit.
Speaking in Montreal on Wednesday, however, Trudeau appeared to close the door on both ideas.
"On those cases, we will always take the decisions in terms of what is the best interests of Canadians," Trudeau told reporters after meeting federal and provincial immigration officials.
"And our long-standing positions on those two issues are not going to be changed any time soon."
The comments on ballistic missile defence were the strongest yet from the Liberal government, which has largely sidestepped questions about its intentions in recent weeks.
Whether the prime minister has succeeded in finally putting the issue to rest is another question, however, particularly if tensions between Washington and Pyongyang continue to escalate.
At least one Liberal MP has said Canada should reconsider its decision not join the U.S. missile-shield system, as have both the House of Commons and Senate defence committees.
The Liberals had also said in their recent defence policy that they planned to discuss with the U.S. ways to improve North America's defences against, among other things, ballistic missiles.
Exactly what form those discussions will take – and what concrete measures will be taken to better protect the continent – remains unclear.
Trudeau's position on Afghanistan was less of a surprise, as he had previously ruled out a NATO request for Canada to send police trainers to the war-torn country.
The last Canadian troops left Afghanistan in 2014, and despite concerns about a resurgent Taliban, the Liberals have instead emphasized Canada's military contributions to Iraq and Latvia.
Still, it's uncertain how the comments will be received by the Trump administration and NATO, both of which have called on allies to redouble their efforts and help end the 16-year-old conflict there.
"We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own," Trump said Monday. "We are confident they will."
OTTAWA
THE CANADIAN PRESS
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has thrown cold water on suggestions the Liberal government wants to sign onto continental ballistic missile defence, or that it might send troops back into Afghanistan.
The question over whether Canada should be part of the U.S.'s continental missile-defence shield has been rekindled in recent days amid concerns about North Korea's growing nuclear arsenal.
Canada opted out of ballistic missile defence in 2005 following a divisive national debate, but many defence experts and parliamentarians, including some Liberals, want the issue reopened.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan has also resurrected questions about whether Canada will be asked to follow suit.
Speaking in Montreal on Wednesday, however, Trudeau appeared to close the door on both ideas.
"On those cases, we will always take the decisions in terms of what is the best interests of Canadians," Trudeau told reporters after meeting federal and provincial immigration officials.
"And our long-standing positions on those two issues are not going to be changed any time soon."
The comments on ballistic missile defence were the strongest yet from the Liberal government, which has largely sidestepped questions about its intentions in recent weeks.
Whether the prime minister has succeeded in finally putting the issue to rest is another question, however, particularly if tensions between Washington and Pyongyang continue to escalate.
At least one Liberal MP has said Canada should reconsider its decision not join the U.S. missile-shield system, as have both the House of Commons and Senate defence committees.
The Liberals had also said in their recent defence policy that they planned to discuss with the U.S. ways to improve North America's defences against, among other things, ballistic missiles.
Exactly what form those discussions will take – and what concrete measures will be taken to better protect the continent – remains unclear.
Trudeau's position on Afghanistan was less of a surprise, as he had previously ruled out a NATO request for Canada to send police trainers to the war-torn country.
The last Canadian troops left Afghanistan in 2014, and despite concerns about a resurgent Taliban, the Liberals have instead emphasized Canada's military contributions to Iraq and Latvia.
Still, it's uncertain how the comments will be received by the Trump administration and NATO, both of which have called on allies to redouble their efforts and help end the 16-year-old conflict there.
"We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own," Trump said Monday. "We are confident they will."
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Ivison: CAF Budget hits Post-War Low
By: John Ivison, The Globe and Mail
Justin Trudeau will head to Sicily next month for a NATO meeting with Donald Trump and other allies. The defence department hopes to release its major policy review before then, but perhaps it would be just as well if the Prime Minister goes empty-handed.
The Americans want Canada to live up to its commitment to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, but new figures suggest this year the country will hit a post-war spending low of just 0.88 per cent. Last month’s federal budget said the defence policy review will put the Armed Forces on a “sustainable footing,” but there was no money in that budget — in fact, $933 million earmarked for capital spending was pulled out of the defence budget over a six-year period.
This is a bad omen for the prospects of a major cash infusion. In previous reviews, DND got the money first and then published a policy outlining how it would be used.
Multiple sources say that the military submitted its plan to the federal cabinet only to have it sent back to the department for some pruning.
One particular thorny issue is ballistic missile defence, the cost of which is almost impossible to gauge since the Americans won’t talk hard numbers until Canada agrees to sign on. Nobody in defence minister Harjit Sajjan’s office would talk about cabinet discussions but sources expect the review will fudge on the subject by simply asking the military to examine the issue more closely.
David Perry, a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he doesn’t believe the defence policy review is likely to assuage American concerns that Canada is a free-rider when it comes to defence.
“I’m not hearing they are dealing with a ton of money,” he said.
Before the federal budget, Perry wrote a paper suggesting the budget would establish the fiscal framework for the defence policy review. Ahead of similar exercises in 2005 and 2008, spending increases were included in the budget.
“If the outcome of the Defence Policy Review is an expansionist defence policy, and the minister of National Defence has indicated it will be, its short-term success depends on getting the needed funding put into the fiscal framework in the 2017 budget,” he wrote.
That didn’t happen — in fact, the government withdrew $8.48 billion from the fiscal framework over the next 20 years, to help pay for other priorities.
Trudeau — and his predecessor Stephen Harper — have long argued that share of GDP devoted to defence is not a good measure of Canada’s commitment to NATO.
“While the argument has merit, it would likely carry more weight if the share of our GDP devoted to defence were not in decline,” said Perry.
At $18.7 billion, defence spending is also at a new low in terms of share of total program expenditures at 6.11 per cent.
The same Senate defence committee report that found Canada is approaching a post-war low point in spending concluded that the Canadian military is “chronically underfunded,” pointing out that the Forces need more than $2 billion in new money, just to maintain current operations.
Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid
“As the world becomes a more complex place, especially with rogue regimes and non-state actors seeking and acquiring biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, and mobile missile launch capability, Canada should not rely on others to protect our national interests and defend our sovereignty,” the report said, as it recommended Canada sign up for BMD and double defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP over the next 11 years.
There are no signs that the defence policy review will reflect similar thinking.
Canada has committed to some 600 soldiers for a still-undefined peacekeeping mission in Africa; 450 troops are already in Latvia; a further 830 personnel are contributing to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Gen. Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, said the Canadian Forces are fully capable of doing what has already been announced. But it would be a career-limiting move for a general to suggest otherwise.
Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid, and closing the funding gap does not appear to be a priority for the Prime Minister.
Yet his most important foreign policy task is to have a close working relationship with the President of the United States.
If Trudeau turns up in Sicily with a defence plan that indicates Canada is not serious about paying its own way, he will be greeted by a turbulent President Trump, one in transition between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Justin Trudeau will head to Sicily next month for a NATO meeting with Donald Trump and other allies. The defence department hopes to release its major policy review before then, but perhaps it would be just as well if the Prime Minister goes empty-handed.
The Americans want Canada to live up to its commitment to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, but new figures suggest this year the country will hit a post-war spending low of just 0.88 per cent. Last month’s federal budget said the defence policy review will put the Armed Forces on a “sustainable footing,” but there was no money in that budget — in fact, $933 million earmarked for capital spending was pulled out of the defence budget over a six-year period.
This is a bad omen for the prospects of a major cash infusion. In previous reviews, DND got the money first and then published a policy outlining how it would be used.
Multiple sources say that the military submitted its plan to the federal cabinet only to have it sent back to the department for some pruning.
One particular thorny issue is ballistic missile defence, the cost of which is almost impossible to gauge since the Americans won’t talk hard numbers until Canada agrees to sign on. Nobody in defence minister Harjit Sajjan’s office would talk about cabinet discussions but sources expect the review will fudge on the subject by simply asking the military to examine the issue more closely.
David Perry, a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he doesn’t believe the defence policy review is likely to assuage American concerns that Canada is a free-rider when it comes to defence.
“I’m not hearing they are dealing with a ton of money,” he said.
Before the federal budget, Perry wrote a paper suggesting the budget would establish the fiscal framework for the defence policy review. Ahead of similar exercises in 2005 and 2008, spending increases were included in the budget.
“If the outcome of the Defence Policy Review is an expansionist defence policy, and the minister of National Defence has indicated it will be, its short-term success depends on getting the needed funding put into the fiscal framework in the 2017 budget,” he wrote.
That didn’t happen — in fact, the government withdrew $8.48 billion from the fiscal framework over the next 20 years, to help pay for other priorities.
Trudeau — and his predecessor Stephen Harper — have long argued that share of GDP devoted to defence is not a good measure of Canada’s commitment to NATO.
“While the argument has merit, it would likely carry more weight if the share of our GDP devoted to defence were not in decline,” said Perry.
At $18.7 billion, defence spending is also at a new low in terms of share of total program expenditures at 6.11 per cent.
The same Senate defence committee report that found Canada is approaching a post-war low point in spending concluded that the Canadian military is “chronically underfunded,” pointing out that the Forces need more than $2 billion in new money, just to maintain current operations.
Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid
“As the world becomes a more complex place, especially with rogue regimes and non-state actors seeking and acquiring biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, and mobile missile launch capability, Canada should not rely on others to protect our national interests and defend our sovereignty,” the report said, as it recommended Canada sign up for BMD and double defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP over the next 11 years.
There are no signs that the defence policy review will reflect similar thinking.
Canada has committed to some 600 soldiers for a still-undefined peacekeeping mission in Africa; 450 troops are already in Latvia; a further 830 personnel are contributing to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Gen. Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, said the Canadian Forces are fully capable of doing what has already been announced. But it would be a career-limiting move for a general to suggest otherwise.
Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid, and closing the funding gap does not appear to be a priority for the Prime Minister.
Yet his most important foreign policy task is to have a close working relationship with the President of the United States.
If Trudeau turns up in Sicily with a defence plan that indicates Canada is not serious about paying its own way, he will be greeted by a turbulent President Trump, one in transition between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Ottawa Weighing UN Peace-Support Operation and Child Soldier Risks for Mali Mission
By: Robert Fife and Steven Chase, Globe and Mail
The Trump administration has given the green light to Canada to dispatch up to 600 soldiers on a United Nations peacekeeping mission to Mali, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is holding back approval as he assesses the volatile risks of fighting Islamist rebels who use child soldiers.
A new Canadian Armed Forces directive, published last week, warns troops that child soldiers are likely to be encountered “on an increasing basis” in future UN or NATO-led missions and cautions them if they are not sufficiently armed they could be vulnerable to “human wave attacks” employed by child soldiers – frontal assaults where the target is overrun.
Canada does not require U.S. approval to deploy troops, but in late 2016, the Trudeau government paused a decision, originally expected by December, on where it would deploy peacekeeping troops. The Liberals wanted to obtain a better sense of what the Trump administration expects of allies and ensure it wasn’t offside with the new President who has repeatedly accused Western countries of falling short on basic defence commitments and has said he wants the NATO military alliance to focus more on counterterrorism.
Related:
Campbell Clark: A Canadian peacekeeping mission in Mali could be most dangerous choice
Related: Canadian troops could face wide range of heavy weapons if deployed to Mali
Globe editorial: On Mali, proceed with maximum caution
A senior Canadian official, however, told the The Globe and Mail that U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis raised no objections to a Mali peace mission during recent talks with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Trudeau cabinet is still mulling the pros and cons of committing Canadian troops to a dangerous UN peace-support operation, which defies the traditional label of peacekeeping.
While Mali might appear remote to Canadians, this West African country is on the front lines of the fight against terrorism, including al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. It’s a safe haven for terror groups despite French military intervention and a UN stabilization mission. Mali has, at times, served as a base for Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a terrorist leader who is the target of an RCMP arrest warrant for holding two Canadian diplomats hostage in Mali in 2008 and 2009; his extremist group also claimed responsibility for the deadly assault on the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako in November, 2015. In 2013, he spearheaded an attack on an Algerian gas plant that killed at least 39 foreign hostages.
More than 110 peacekeepers have been killed over the last four years in Mali; the location has become the deadliest ongoing UN peace operation today. UN records say 72 of these deaths were attributed to “malicious acts.” The security environment in that country sharply deteriorated in 2013, but French and African Union forces pushed back Islamist rebels who had taken control of the country’s north.
“It is the most dangerous UN mission but at this juncture … it is way, way less dangerous than any phase we were in in Afghanistan,” a second senior official said. “If you look at the 114 casualties, a majority of them came from very poor tactics, very poorly trained troops and really crappy equipment that ran over clearly visible road mines.”
The first government official said the Trudeau cabinet will not commit unless there is a carefully laid-out plan to explain to Canadians why such a peacekeeping mission is in the country’s national interest. The official said there needs to be “Canadian buy-in” before approval is granted and that may be months away.
Uppermost in the minds of federal policy-makers is the disturbing likelihood that Canadian troops would encounter battle-hardened Islamist militants including child soldiers, who are recruited as suicide bombers, fighters and spies.
The Trump administration has given the green light to Canada to dispatch up to 600 soldiers on a United Nations peacekeeping mission to Mali, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is holding back approval as he assesses the volatile risks of fighting Islamist rebels who use child soldiers.
 |
| Peacekeepers stand guard at the entrance to the Minusma peacekeeping base in Kidal, Mali, July 22, 2015. (© Adama Diarra / Reuters/REUTERS) |
Canada does not require U.S. approval to deploy troops, but in late 2016, the Trudeau government paused a decision, originally expected by December, on where it would deploy peacekeeping troops. The Liberals wanted to obtain a better sense of what the Trump administration expects of allies and ensure it wasn’t offside with the new President who has repeatedly accused Western countries of falling short on basic defence commitments and has said he wants the NATO military alliance to focus more on counterterrorism.
Related:
Campbell Clark: A Canadian peacekeeping mission in Mali could be most dangerous choice
Related: Canadian troops could face wide range of heavy weapons if deployed to Mali
Globe editorial: On Mali, proceed with maximum caution
A senior Canadian official, however, told the The Globe and Mail that U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis raised no objections to a Mali peace mission during recent talks with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Trudeau cabinet is still mulling the pros and cons of committing Canadian troops to a dangerous UN peace-support operation, which defies the traditional label of peacekeeping.
While Mali might appear remote to Canadians, this West African country is on the front lines of the fight against terrorism, including al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. It’s a safe haven for terror groups despite French military intervention and a UN stabilization mission. Mali has, at times, served as a base for Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a terrorist leader who is the target of an RCMP arrest warrant for holding two Canadian diplomats hostage in Mali in 2008 and 2009; his extremist group also claimed responsibility for the deadly assault on the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako in November, 2015. In 2013, he spearheaded an attack on an Algerian gas plant that killed at least 39 foreign hostages.
More than 110 peacekeepers have been killed over the last four years in Mali; the location has become the deadliest ongoing UN peace operation today. UN records say 72 of these deaths were attributed to “malicious acts.” The security environment in that country sharply deteriorated in 2013, but French and African Union forces pushed back Islamist rebels who had taken control of the country’s north.
“It is the most dangerous UN mission but at this juncture … it is way, way less dangerous than any phase we were in in Afghanistan,” a second senior official said. “If you look at the 114 casualties, a majority of them came from very poor tactics, very poorly trained troops and really crappy equipment that ran over clearly visible road mines.”
The first government official said the Trudeau cabinet will not commit unless there is a carefully laid-out plan to explain to Canadians why such a peacekeeping mission is in the country’s national interest. The official said there needs to be “Canadian buy-in” before approval is granted and that may be months away.
Uppermost in the minds of federal policy-makers is the disturbing likelihood that Canadian troops would encounter battle-hardened Islamist militants including child soldiers, who are recruited as suicide bombers, fighters and spies.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Canadian Forces Studying Options for Potential Syrian Deployment
By: Matthew Fisher, The National Post
The Canadian military has begun to study options for an operation in Syria, for the Liberal government to consider as U.S. president Donald Trump hints he may expand the 16-year-old war on terrorism by sending more troops to that country after the offensive to liberate the Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIL concludes.
Officers familiar with how the military does long-range planning said that offering such choices — as well as examining ways Canada might continue to contribute to the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq after the war there ends — was standard procedure. It is prudent to constantly prepare and update options regarding potential overseas deployment to hot spots in case the government of the day asks for them, they said.
What comes next for Canada and its allies is an obvious question, with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant holding only a sliver of land in Iraq and a much larger swathe of territory in Syria. Lt.-Gen. Steve Townsend, the U.S. ground commander for the wars in Iraq and Syria, expects ISIL to be defeated in both countries within six months. But nobody expects that ISIL, or its rivals, Al Qaeda, will be entirely eradicated for a very long time. There are fears the terrorist groups will go underground in those countries, increase their activities in Somalia or northern and central Africa or take their war global, launching more terrorist attacks on soft civilian targets, particularly in Europe.
It is not publicly known whether the Trump government has asked Ottawa to contribute troops or assist in other ways in the war against ISIL in Syria, or to take on other roles in the war on terror. But if there is anything to be taken from the example of the war in neighbouring Iraq, where Canada has been a participant since August, 2014, such a request is possible.
Canada is one of 17 countries currently assisting Iraqi and Kurdish forces in Iraq. About Canadian 800 troops now involved in what the Canadian Forces calls Operation Impact. About 70 are elite Special Forces from the Ontario-based JTF2. They train, advise and assist Kurdish fighters and when at risk themselves, have occasionally joined the fight.
Other Canadians are targeting experts, based in Kuwait and Qatar, or work with Kuwait-based reconnaissance aircraft which help identify ISIL targets. A small team of Canadian doctors, nurses and technicians also runs a military hospital in the Kurdish city of Erbil, about 70 kilometres east of the front lines around Mosul.
The U.S. already has 500 Special Forces soldiers in Syria and has been preparing the American public for the possibility that more troops may soon be headed there. Gen. Joseph Votel, the U.S. commander responsible for overseeing military operations in the Middle East and South Asia, took journalists with him on a secretive tour of northern Syria last week. At an undisclosed location he told his media entourage that “take-no-prisoners fighting” was in the offing to capture ISIL’s Syrian hub, Raqqa, and that more troops may be needed to accelerate the war against ISIL there.
Any expansion of the coalition war in Syria is complicated by Russia’s political and military support for the government of Syrian President Bashir Assad. There remains confusion over to what extent Trump’s professed admiration for Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, will play a role in decisions made in Washington, particularly as the U.S. president’s top security advisers regard the Kremlin with deep suspicion. Turkey, which is a member of NATO that has improving ties with Moscow, also does not want Syrian Kurdish forces allied with the U.S. to become more powerful.
The Canadian military has begun to study options for an operation in Syria, for the Liberal government to consider as U.S. president Donald Trump hints he may expand the 16-year-old war on terrorism by sending more troops to that country after the offensive to liberate the Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIL concludes.
Officers familiar with how the military does long-range planning said that offering such choices — as well as examining ways Canada might continue to contribute to the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq after the war there ends — was standard procedure. It is prudent to constantly prepare and update options regarding potential overseas deployment to hot spots in case the government of the day asks for them, they said.
What comes next for Canada and its allies is an obvious question, with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant holding only a sliver of land in Iraq and a much larger swathe of territory in Syria. Lt.-Gen. Steve Townsend, the U.S. ground commander for the wars in Iraq and Syria, expects ISIL to be defeated in both countries within six months. But nobody expects that ISIL, or its rivals, Al Qaeda, will be entirely eradicated for a very long time. There are fears the terrorist groups will go underground in those countries, increase their activities in Somalia or northern and central Africa or take their war global, launching more terrorist attacks on soft civilian targets, particularly in Europe.
It is not publicly known whether the Trump government has asked Ottawa to contribute troops or assist in other ways in the war against ISIL in Syria, or to take on other roles in the war on terror. But if there is anything to be taken from the example of the war in neighbouring Iraq, where Canada has been a participant since August, 2014, such a request is possible.
Canada is one of 17 countries currently assisting Iraqi and Kurdish forces in Iraq. About Canadian 800 troops now involved in what the Canadian Forces calls Operation Impact. About 70 are elite Special Forces from the Ontario-based JTF2. They train, advise and assist Kurdish fighters and when at risk themselves, have occasionally joined the fight.
Other Canadians are targeting experts, based in Kuwait and Qatar, or work with Kuwait-based reconnaissance aircraft which help identify ISIL targets. A small team of Canadian doctors, nurses and technicians also runs a military hospital in the Kurdish city of Erbil, about 70 kilometres east of the front lines around Mosul.
The U.S. already has 500 Special Forces soldiers in Syria and has been preparing the American public for the possibility that more troops may soon be headed there. Gen. Joseph Votel, the U.S. commander responsible for overseeing military operations in the Middle East and South Asia, took journalists with him on a secretive tour of northern Syria last week. At an undisclosed location he told his media entourage that “take-no-prisoners fighting” was in the offing to capture ISIL’s Syrian hub, Raqqa, and that more troops may be needed to accelerate the war against ISIL there.
Any expansion of the coalition war in Syria is complicated by Russia’s political and military support for the government of Syrian President Bashir Assad. There remains confusion over to what extent Trump’s professed admiration for Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, will play a role in decisions made in Washington, particularly as the U.S. president’s top security advisers regard the Kremlin with deep suspicion. Turkey, which is a member of NATO that has improving ties with Moscow, also does not want Syrian Kurdish forces allied with the U.S. to become more powerful.
Canada is already indirectly involved in the war in Syria. Since December, JTF2 has been advising Iraqi Kurds deployed near the Syrian border in northwestern Iraq, in an attempt to prevent ISIL forces escaping from Mosul and reaching Syria. It had been involved in the air war in Syria until the Liberals ordered home the RCAF’s F-18s.
If Canada were to become involved militarily in Syria again it could send a small number of JTF2 troops there in an advisory role. Another possibility is that Canada could be asked to provide “boots on the ground” to help protect civilians from violence in safe zones that Trump has said he intends to establish to prevent the Syrian refugee crisis from worsening.
Canadian Brig.-Gen. Dave Anderson, who heads the coalition’s strategic advisory team in Iraq, told Postmedia in an interview late last year that discussions were already taking place then about how “we — that is, the Iraqi security forces — can not only take Mosul but hold it afterwards.” According to Trump’s most senior general, Joseph Dunford, the U.S. and NATO are considering a long-term military commitment to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces who will be responsible for trying to prevent ISIL or other terrorist groups from regrouping. Canada’s Iraq mission could be extended indefinitely as part of that effort.
The potential ask for Canada to extend or expand its role in the region comes as Ottawa undertakes an open-ended commitment to lead a NATO battalion in Latvia from this June, and continue training missions in Poland and Ukraine.
If Canada were to become involved militarily in Syria again it could send a small number of JTF2 troops there in an advisory role. Another possibility is that Canada could be asked to provide “boots on the ground” to help protect civilians from violence in safe zones that Trump has said he intends to establish to prevent the Syrian refugee crisis from worsening.
Canadian Brig.-Gen. Dave Anderson, who heads the coalition’s strategic advisory team in Iraq, told Postmedia in an interview late last year that discussions were already taking place then about how “we — that is, the Iraqi security forces — can not only take Mosul but hold it afterwards.” According to Trump’s most senior general, Joseph Dunford, the U.S. and NATO are considering a long-term military commitment to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces who will be responsible for trying to prevent ISIL or other terrorist groups from regrouping. Canada’s Iraq mission could be extended indefinitely as part of that effort.
The potential ask for Canada to extend or expand its role in the region comes as Ottawa undertakes an open-ended commitment to lead a NATO battalion in Latvia from this June, and continue training missions in Poland and Ukraine.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Canada is Considering its Next Military Deployments
By: Bruce Campion-Smith, The Toronto Star
OTTAWA—Canada's military is facing a critical few weeks as the federal government weighs renewed deployments to Iraq and Ukraine, ponders the fate of a long-awaited peace mission, lays out a new vision for the armed forces and decides the budget to pay for it all.
It all sets the stage for what promises to be a busy year for Canadian soldiers — one that could leave supply lines stretched — as they continue ongoing deployments in eastern Europe, the Middle East, embark on a new mission to Latvia and finally move ahead on the peace mission that could take them to Africa.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan used his oft-repeated line Tuesday that the Liberal government is taking the time it needs.
“We want to make sure that we actually spend the time to get the analysis right and that it goes through the appropriate government process before we make any announcements,” Sajjan said after a cabinet meeting.
In the meantime though, the defence department hangs in limbo as it waits for announcements.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Dave Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
Military deployments to Ukraine and Iraq are due to expire in March though observers expect both missions to be extended.
The former Conservative government dispatched 200 Canadian troops to Ukraine in 2015 in a non-combat role to train local soldiers, as part of efforts to bolster eastern European countries in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It’s expected that a renewed mission in Ukraine will be announced soon.
“Canada is dedicated to the future good fortune of Ukraine. I am preparing options for the government to consider,” Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, said last week.
Vance said the military has also laid the groundwork to continue its deployment in Iraq, where some 200 special forces soldiers are helping train and advise Peshmerga troops in their fight against Daesh near Mosul. The military operates a hospital near Erbil that has treated 100 patients since November while an air-to-air tanker and surveillance aircraft operate out of airfields in Kuwait.
“Canada is committed to this coalition and options will go before government on how to stay committed to it,” Vance said.
The big question mark continues to hang over the Liberals’ peace mission. After an announcement last August that the government could deploy up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers on such a mission, a flurry of fact-finding trips to Africa by cabinet ministers, and promises of a decision by Christmas, the file has gone quiet since Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president.
Vance said the world has “changed a little bit” since planning for the mission began and said the government now needs to weigh those changes before deciding where troops are best deployed.
“The government has options before it but I think we’re finding that kind of set piece decision-making doesn’t work very well sometimes in a very, very fluid world where things are changing,” Vance told reporters.
“Where will coalition efforts occur next? What are our allies doing? What do they think?” Vance said.
Since taking over, Trump’s administration has turned up the heat on NATO member nations to pony up more for defence. The Liberal government has made the case that it matters more what Canada — which ranks near the bottom of the spending list — does with its military rather than simply measuring the bottom line. But that dynamic could be forcing the government to reframe its peace mission to account for U.S. concerns.
“I guess it’s understandable that the government wants to wait and see how the security environment unfolds given the U.S. election,” Perry said.
“They may be looking to make sure that any kind of operation we do is connected as much as it possibly could be to a broader alliance,” he said.
Still, the delay in an announcement has likely meant that plans conceived last fall will have to be updated,” Perry said.
“The mission doesn’t sit static, frozen in time while Canada decides whether or not we’re going to participate,” he said.
The other two big pieces of the defence puzzle are the upcoming budget — expected in the coming weeks — and the defence policy review which will lay out a new blueprint for the Canadian Armed Forces for the next 20 years.
According to the government, that strategy will deliver “a modern, more agile and better-equipped military.” It’s expected to touch on everything from procurement process, to whether the navy should have subs, what kind of fighter jets are required for the air force to how the military looks after its personnel.
“What are the capabilities that are required for this and what investment is going to be needed,” Sajjan said during a visit to NATO headquarters earlier this month. “Yes, we will be investing.”
But Perry said the military — which has a budget of $18.6 billion in 2016-17 — needs more money just to maintain the status quo.
“Unless the government directs them to do fewer things than it’s done before, they can’t make do with the existing funding,” he said.
OTTAWA—Canada's military is facing a critical few weeks as the federal government weighs renewed deployments to Iraq and Ukraine, ponders the fate of a long-awaited peace mission, lays out a new vision for the armed forces and decides the budget to pay for it all.
It all sets the stage for what promises to be a busy year for Canadian soldiers — one that could leave supply lines stretched — as they continue ongoing deployments in eastern Europe, the Middle East, embark on a new mission to Latvia and finally move ahead on the peace mission that could take them to Africa.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan used his oft-repeated line Tuesday that the Liberal government is taking the time it needs.
“We want to make sure that we actually spend the time to get the analysis right and that it goes through the appropriate government process before we make any announcements,” Sajjan said after a cabinet meeting.
In the meantime though, the defence department hangs in limbo as it waits for announcements.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Dave Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
Military deployments to Ukraine and Iraq are due to expire in March though observers expect both missions to be extended.
The former Conservative government dispatched 200 Canadian troops to Ukraine in 2015 in a non-combat role to train local soldiers, as part of efforts to bolster eastern European countries in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It’s expected that a renewed mission in Ukraine will be announced soon.
“Canada is dedicated to the future good fortune of Ukraine. I am preparing options for the government to consider,” Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, said last week.
Vance said the military has also laid the groundwork to continue its deployment in Iraq, where some 200 special forces soldiers are helping train and advise Peshmerga troops in their fight against Daesh near Mosul. The military operates a hospital near Erbil that has treated 100 patients since November while an air-to-air tanker and surveillance aircraft operate out of airfields in Kuwait.
“Canada is committed to this coalition and options will go before government on how to stay committed to it,” Vance said.
The big question mark continues to hang over the Liberals’ peace mission. After an announcement last August that the government could deploy up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers on such a mission, a flurry of fact-finding trips to Africa by cabinet ministers, and promises of a decision by Christmas, the file has gone quiet since Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president.
Vance said the world has “changed a little bit” since planning for the mission began and said the government now needs to weigh those changes before deciding where troops are best deployed.
“The government has options before it but I think we’re finding that kind of set piece decision-making doesn’t work very well sometimes in a very, very fluid world where things are changing,” Vance told reporters.
“Where will coalition efforts occur next? What are our allies doing? What do they think?” Vance said.
Since taking over, Trump’s administration has turned up the heat on NATO member nations to pony up more for defence. The Liberal government has made the case that it matters more what Canada — which ranks near the bottom of the spending list — does with its military rather than simply measuring the bottom line. But that dynamic could be forcing the government to reframe its peace mission to account for U.S. concerns.
“I guess it’s understandable that the government wants to wait and see how the security environment unfolds given the U.S. election,” Perry said.
“They may be looking to make sure that any kind of operation we do is connected as much as it possibly could be to a broader alliance,” he said.
Still, the delay in an announcement has likely meant that plans conceived last fall will have to be updated,” Perry said.
“The mission doesn’t sit static, frozen in time while Canada decides whether or not we’re going to participate,” he said.
The other two big pieces of the defence puzzle are the upcoming budget — expected in the coming weeks — and the defence policy review which will lay out a new blueprint for the Canadian Armed Forces for the next 20 years.
According to the government, that strategy will deliver “a modern, more agile and better-equipped military.” It’s expected to touch on everything from procurement process, to whether the navy should have subs, what kind of fighter jets are required for the air force to how the military looks after its personnel.
“What are the capabilities that are required for this and what investment is going to be needed,” Sajjan said during a visit to NATO headquarters earlier this month. “Yes, we will be investing.”
But Perry said the military — which has a budget of $18.6 billion in 2016-17 — needs more money just to maintain the status quo.
“Unless the government directs them to do fewer things than it’s done before, they can’t make do with the existing funding,” he said.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Canadian Generals Defend Strategy for Defeating ISIL
By: The Canadian Press
PERSIAN GULF — Two senior Canadian generals have defended the current strategy for defeating Daesh (also known as ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, which U.S. officials have put under review following scathing criticism by President Donald Trump.
U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis was in Iraq this week after Trump gave the retired Marine Corps general until the end of the month to come up with a plan for speeding up the campaign.
During last year’s presidential election, Trump repeatedly criticized the slow pace of progress and promised to introduce a new approach that would hasten Daesh’s defeat.
But Brig.-Gen. David Anderson and Brig.-Gen. Stephen Kelsey say they are hard-pressed to think of ways to improve the existing strategy, which they have watched unfold firsthand for the better part of a year.
And they worry that rushing to destroy Daesh could in fact undermine the progress that has been made in dealing with the root causes that led to the extremist group’s rise in the first place.
“I can’t think of a different way to do this that doesn’t create all the problems that have been there from the past,” Anderson said Monday, before Mattis’s unannounced arrival in Iraq. “I think we’ve got it right.”
Anderson and Kelsey are both based in Baghdad. And while they’re Canadian, each holds a key position within the larger international coalition for defeating Daesh.
Since last spring, Anderson has led a multinational team of military advisers posted inside the Iraqi defence ministry in Baghdad, where they have helped formulate and implement the current campaign strategy.
Kelsey has helped oversee the actual fighting on the ground, which is being largely conducted by Iraqi forces with significant assistance from Canada and other countries.
Mattis hasn’t said what changes he wants to see in the campaign plan, but reports suggest the options under discussion include putting more U.S. troops on the ground and having them do more of the fighting.
American troops, like the roughly 200 Canadian special forces in northern Iraq, have largely stayed out of the fight and instead provided training, advice and some battlefield support from behind.
Anderson and Kelsey insisted it is up to the U.S. to decide its own approach to defeating Daesh; but any change would affect all countries involved in the effort.
That includes Iraq itself, which has been the scene of more than a decade of violence and strife after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 tore the country apart along ethnic and religious lines.
Kelsey said what’s different in Iraq this time around, and what he believes will end the cycle of violence, is that Iraqi troops are the ones doing the fighting and dying for their own country.
“What’s happening now with the strategy . . . is we are enabling our (Iraqi) partners to defeat Daesh,” he said. “We’re also creating capacity for the longer term.
“And in trying to accelerate that or do it for them, we then start owning the problem and affect their ability to create their own capacity, which is the key to long-term stability in the region.”
The two generals heaped praise on the Iraqi government and military for the progress they have made over the past two years in fighting Daesh while also dealing with various economic and political challenges.
And they said despite the fact Daesh remains a threat in Iraq and Syria more than two years after Canada and other countries intervened militarily, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
“We are closer than we think,” Kelsey said. “And that’s the adult discussion that’s going to play out here in the next little bit.”
PERSIAN GULF — Two senior Canadian generals have defended the current strategy for defeating Daesh (also known as ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, which U.S. officials have put under review following scathing criticism by President Donald Trump.
U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis was in Iraq this week after Trump gave the retired Marine Corps general until the end of the month to come up with a plan for speeding up the campaign.
During last year’s presidential election, Trump repeatedly criticized the slow pace of progress and promised to introduce a new approach that would hasten Daesh’s defeat.
But Brig.-Gen. David Anderson and Brig.-Gen. Stephen Kelsey say they are hard-pressed to think of ways to improve the existing strategy, which they have watched unfold firsthand for the better part of a year.
And they worry that rushing to destroy Daesh could in fact undermine the progress that has been made in dealing with the root causes that led to the extremist group’s rise in the first place.
“I can’t think of a different way to do this that doesn’t create all the problems that have been there from the past,” Anderson said Monday, before Mattis’s unannounced arrival in Iraq. “I think we’ve got it right.”
Anderson and Kelsey are both based in Baghdad. And while they’re Canadian, each holds a key position within the larger international coalition for defeating Daesh.
Since last spring, Anderson has led a multinational team of military advisers posted inside the Iraqi defence ministry in Baghdad, where they have helped formulate and implement the current campaign strategy.
Kelsey has helped oversee the actual fighting on the ground, which is being largely conducted by Iraqi forces with significant assistance from Canada and other countries.
Mattis hasn’t said what changes he wants to see in the campaign plan, but reports suggest the options under discussion include putting more U.S. troops on the ground and having them do more of the fighting.
American troops, like the roughly 200 Canadian special forces in northern Iraq, have largely stayed out of the fight and instead provided training, advice and some battlefield support from behind.
Anderson and Kelsey insisted it is up to the U.S. to decide its own approach to defeating Daesh; but any change would affect all countries involved in the effort.
That includes Iraq itself, which has been the scene of more than a decade of violence and strife after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 tore the country apart along ethnic and religious lines.
Kelsey said what’s different in Iraq this time around, and what he believes will end the cycle of violence, is that Iraqi troops are the ones doing the fighting and dying for their own country.
“What’s happening now with the strategy . . . is we are enabling our (Iraqi) partners to defeat Daesh,” he said. “We’re also creating capacity for the longer term.
“And in trying to accelerate that or do it for them, we then start owning the problem and affect their ability to create their own capacity, which is the key to long-term stability in the region.”
The two generals heaped praise on the Iraqi government and military for the progress they have made over the past two years in fighting Daesh while also dealing with various economic and political challenges.
And they said despite the fact Daesh remains a threat in Iraq and Syria more than two years after Canada and other countries intervened militarily, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
“We are closer than we think,” Kelsey said. “And that’s the adult discussion that’s going to play out here in the next little bit.”
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Canadian UN Command Position Possibly Lost Due to Delay
The Canadian Press news service reports that Canada may have missed a chance to provide the commanding officer for the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali because it wanted to talk first to the Trump administration.
The UN put out requests to a handful of top-tier countries in mid-December as the term of the mission’s previous commander, Danish Maj.-Gen. Michael Lollesgaard, was coming to an end, the news service pointed out.
Sources told the Canadian Press the Liberal government asked the UN to hold off on a decision until after the government had a chance to consult the new American administration on Canada’s future peacekeeping plans.
Monday, February 6, 2017
What President Trump Might Mean for Canadian Defence Policy
By Vincent J. Curtis, Espris de Corps Magazine (Vol. 23, No. 11)
With the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States, the world can expect a large recapitalization of the U.S. military over the next four to eight years. We can also expect the Trump administration to pressure NATO allies to increase their defence expenditures to two per cent of their GDP (gross domestic product).
Trump famously campaigned on the theme that the United States was not going to carry a heavier share of the defence burden of the western world than was justified by economics. If NATO allies expected the assistance of the United States, then they needed to do their part. Some of that pressure will undoubtedly be applied to Canada, for Canada is one of those not spending up to the agreed level of two per cent of our GDP.
What does this mean for Canadian defence?
In the first place, it would mean that the Canadian defence budget would have to increase to be in the range of CDN $48-billion. The budget track released by the Trudeau government in its maiden budget forecast revealed a decrease in defence expenditures — the amount projected for 2016 was $29.4-billion with a decrease to $14.4-billion by 2020–2021. In the eyes of Trump, we are moving in the wrong direction.
Yes, defence is one of many competing priorities for federal tax expenditures, but national defence and maintaining good relations with allies is among the most fundamental of priorities of any national government. Those priorities have a higher call for money than new spending to make life more comfortable for a minority of Canadians. The needs of all take priority over the needs of the few.
What use could be made of additional defence expenditures?
There is no question that the Canadian Armed Forces are in need of recapitalization. The Royal Canadian Navy needs to be completely rebuilt, and soon. The fighting capacity of the Royal Canadian Air Force is aging rapidly, and the replacement for the CF-18 fleet is late and nowhere in sight. The Canadian Army could also use a new store of capital equipment for general-purpose combat operations.
The government is dithering over whether it should acquire 10 or 12 frigates to refight the Battle of the Atlantic, should it ever come back. The naval brass is still in the grip of the old-school small ship navy mentality that has dominated Canadian naval thinking since the days of the Niobe and the Rainbow. The RCN brass need to have in their top drawer a plan for a real battle fleet — a fleet consisting not just of frigates but of one or more battlecruisers as well. And if battlecruisers seem to be too war-like for political tastes, then missile-cruisers in the 10,000-ton range can be had off-the-shelf from the United States at $2-billion apiece, less than the cost of a 5,000-ton custom-built frigate. Anyhow, a capitalization project for the Navy in the range of $40-billion should be ready to go.
The RCAF is caught between the failure of Lockheed Martin to deliver a viable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a timely and cost-efficient manner, and a new government that wants to start the bidding process for a CF-18 replacement aircraft from scratch. The solutions are easy: buy off-the-shelf F-16s, or the updated F/A-18E/F Super Hornet off the shelf, both of which are also still in production. These are Gen 4.5 fighters, not Gen 5 fighters, but they can be had soon; they are still current and viable for modern combat air operations, and should be seen as an interim purchase until the Gen 5 fighters are finally available.
The Army could also use a store of useful equipment, in particular modern artillery. The M-777 proved spectacular in Afghanistan, and no army has been able to succeed in modern combat operations in the absence of dominant artillery since the 17th century’s Thirty Years’ War.
The problem of joint operations between air and surface has and will continue to bedevil CAF combat operations. If it flies, it is said to belong to the RCAF. But what about rotary aviation? What about a naval aircraft carrier? The United Timbuktu, Gao and Kidal regions ranged from 77 to 92 per cent.
Although PRTs were once described as the militarization of aid, some of these areas are just too dangerous for aid workers. In South Sudan, peacekeepers ignored the rape and assault of aid workers in the country. The adoption of a UN PRT model would allow aid workers to operate more freely in the country. It would also allow more positive interaction between the indigenous population and UN peacekeepers. The interaction with aid organizations and the local population will foster trust and, in turn, hopefully, generate useful, operational intelligence.
PRTs involved a level of Civil-Military Co-Operation (CIMIC) and that level and overall approach can vary depending on the model. There are four generic PRT models: American, German, British(-Nordic) and Turkish. These four generic models can be then divided into many sub categories that vary depending on which nation implemented the model in Afghanistan. A PRT model can be adapted to suit the requirements of a UN peacekeeping mission. Moreover, a UN PRT model in Mali may not work for South Sudan or Somalia and therefore a PRT model will need to be drafted to meet the requirements of each individual theatre.
The Trudeau government is weighing its options and conducting fact-finding missions to pinpoint the one mission that has the least of political consequences. The last thing the Trudeau government and the Canadian Armed Forces need is another Somalia incident. Since our withdrawal, UN peacekeeping missions have been blighted with accusations of rape and the solicitation of sexual relations with prostitutes and even trading weapons for gold.
Canada’s re-engagement with peacekeeping will offer its own unique challenges. Peacekeepers are regularly fired upon and that alone will create a political fervor in Canada. Our re-engagement will take political fortitude, but if the Trudeau government really desires for Canada to take international leadership, we must drive the evolution of UN peacekeeping.
Defence minister Harjit Sajjan to meet U.S. counterpart Monday
By: Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star
OTTAWA—Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will travel to Washington Monday to meet with U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis, the first face-to-face meeting between top officials in the Liberal government and the new Trump administration.
Sajjan will be joined by Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, for the meeting at the Pentagon with Mattis and Gen. Paul J. Selva, vice-chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff.
The two nations’ joint interests in the NATO and NORAD military alliances and the ongoing mission to defeat Daesh extremists will likely top the agenda for their discussion, Sajjan spokesperson Jordan Owens told the Star.
She couldn’t say if Canada’s plans for a military peace mission in Africa — reportedly on hold as Ottawa takes stock of the priorities of the new U.S. administration — would also be discussed.
“It’s certainly one of our government’s priorities so it could come up,” Owens said.
Following the formal meeting, Mattis and Sajjan, both former military officers, are expected to have dinner together.
Work continues behind the scenes for a meeting between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Donald Trump, a session that White House spokesperson Sean Spicer suggested Friday would happen in Washington, rather than Ottawa.
“I know that they’re looking at a time to come down . . . I think that will be a meeting that is set up very shortly,” Spicer told reporters during a White House briefing.
In a telephone conversation Thursday, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson talked trade and cross-border traffic.
The two politicians “underlined the importance of the Canada-U.S. bilateral relationship, including mutually beneficial trade and economic ties,” according to a statement from Freeland’s office.
They also “highlighted” progress of recent pre-clearance measures, “as well as the need for a safe and secure border that does not impede the smooth flow of goods and people,” the statement said.
Tillerson and Freeland agreed to meet “as soon as possible.”
Just a few weeks into his term, Trump is already having an impact on Canada-U.S. relations on issues such as energy policy, cross-border travel and his vow to quickly renegotiate NAFTA.
In the Commons Friday, Conservative MP Candice Bergen (Portage-Lisgar) pressed the Liberals to abandon their plan for a carbon tax “to adjust to the new reality in the United States.”
“The United States, under the new administration, is cutting taxes, decreasing regulations. They are committed to no carbon tax,” Bergen said in question period.
“Things have changed in Canada, in North America. Is the government able to pivot . . . ?”
Canadian officials spent much of the week scrambling to react to the fallout from Trump’s executive order imposing a 90-day travel ban on residents of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Libya entering the United States. There were concerns that Canadians with dual citizenships from one of the affected nations could also get held up at the U.S. border.
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale repeated assurances Friday that dual citizen Canadians should be OK, despite reports that several Canadians holding Nexus trusted-traveller cards had their cards revoked.
In the diplomatic dance of not wanting to upset the Trump administration in these early days, Conservative MP Michele Rempel said the Liberal government has “stumbled in tone” and not been vigorous enough.
“That doesn’t mean that we can’t . . . continue to have a very positive working relationship with one of our biggest allies and trading partners. It simply means that the government needs to be more transparent and more vocal in its effort to protect Canadian interests,” Rempel told reporters.
But Liberal MP Andrew Leslie, the newly appointed parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs with special responsibilities for the Canada-U.S. relationship, counselled patience.
“The whole idea of standing firm on our values, by all means, but working co-operatively with our biggest friend, largest trading partner is perhaps the wisest approach,” Leslie, a retired lieutenant-general in the Canadian Armed Forces, told reporters earlier in the week.
“I think all of us have to stay calm and carry on.”
----
With files from Daniel Dale
OTTAWA—Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will travel to Washington Monday to meet with U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis, the first face-to-face meeting between top officials in the Liberal government and the new Trump administration.
Sajjan will be joined by Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, for the meeting at the Pentagon with Mattis and Gen. Paul J. Selva, vice-chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff.
The two nations’ joint interests in the NATO and NORAD military alliances and the ongoing mission to defeat Daesh extremists will likely top the agenda for their discussion, Sajjan spokesperson Jordan Owens told the Star.
She couldn’t say if Canada’s plans for a military peace mission in Africa — reportedly on hold as Ottawa takes stock of the priorities of the new U.S. administration — would also be discussed.
“It’s certainly one of our government’s priorities so it could come up,” Owens said.
Following the formal meeting, Mattis and Sajjan, both former military officers, are expected to have dinner together.
Work continues behind the scenes for a meeting between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Donald Trump, a session that White House spokesperson Sean Spicer suggested Friday would happen in Washington, rather than Ottawa.
“I know that they’re looking at a time to come down . . . I think that will be a meeting that is set up very shortly,” Spicer told reporters during a White House briefing.
In a telephone conversation Thursday, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson talked trade and cross-border traffic.
The two politicians “underlined the importance of the Canada-U.S. bilateral relationship, including mutually beneficial trade and economic ties,” according to a statement from Freeland’s office.
They also “highlighted” progress of recent pre-clearance measures, “as well as the need for a safe and secure border that does not impede the smooth flow of goods and people,” the statement said.
Tillerson and Freeland agreed to meet “as soon as possible.”
Just a few weeks into his term, Trump is already having an impact on Canada-U.S. relations on issues such as energy policy, cross-border travel and his vow to quickly renegotiate NAFTA.
In the Commons Friday, Conservative MP Candice Bergen (Portage-Lisgar) pressed the Liberals to abandon their plan for a carbon tax “to adjust to the new reality in the United States.”
“The United States, under the new administration, is cutting taxes, decreasing regulations. They are committed to no carbon tax,” Bergen said in question period.
“Things have changed in Canada, in North America. Is the government able to pivot . . . ?”
Canadian officials spent much of the week scrambling to react to the fallout from Trump’s executive order imposing a 90-day travel ban on residents of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Libya entering the United States. There were concerns that Canadians with dual citizenships from one of the affected nations could also get held up at the U.S. border.
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale repeated assurances Friday that dual citizen Canadians should be OK, despite reports that several Canadians holding Nexus trusted-traveller cards had their cards revoked.
In the diplomatic dance of not wanting to upset the Trump administration in these early days, Conservative MP Michele Rempel said the Liberal government has “stumbled in tone” and not been vigorous enough.
“That doesn’t mean that we can’t . . . continue to have a very positive working relationship with one of our biggest allies and trading partners. It simply means that the government needs to be more transparent and more vocal in its effort to protect Canadian interests,” Rempel told reporters.
But Liberal MP Andrew Leslie, the newly appointed parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs with special responsibilities for the Canada-U.S. relationship, counselled patience.
“The whole idea of standing firm on our values, by all means, but working co-operatively with our biggest friend, largest trading partner is perhaps the wisest approach,” Leslie, a retired lieutenant-general in the Canadian Armed Forces, told reporters earlier in the week.
“I think all of us have to stay calm and carry on.”
----
With files from Daniel Dale
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Trump’s vow to use torture against ISIL won’t affect how Canada fights in Iraq
By: David Pugliese, Defence Watch
U.S. President Donald Trump’s vow to use torture if necessary in fighting ISIL won’t impact the Canadian Forces, which intend to follow the rule of law and their own values, says a top Canadian general.
Trump declared Wednesday he believes torture works and he has no qualms in using it in the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Asked specifically during an ABC News interview about the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, Trump cited the extremist group’s atrocities against Christians and others and said: “We have to fight fire with fire.”
Trump said he would consult with new Defence Secretary James Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo before authorizing any new policy, but said he had asked top intelligence officials in the past day: “Does torture work?”
“And the answer was yes, absolutely,” Trump said.
That could pose problems for troops working with U.S. forces in Iraq if it became known that detainees captured on the battlefield could end up being sent to CIA prisons or other locations to be tortured. The Canadian Forces hospital in northern Iraq has treated at least two detainees for their wounds. Their current status is not known.
Canadian Forces Brig.-Gen. Shane Brennan, commander of Joint Task Force — Iraq, said at a briefing Thursday he couldn’t speculate about how Trump’s views might affect the overall battle against ISIL.
But he vowed that Canadian military personnel would always follow the rule of law when it came to prisoners. “We will be not be going to any type of activity like that,” he said, referring to torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. “We know what our values are.”
Canadian commanders, however, declined to provide an update on what Canadian special forces were doing in Iraq. That update is supposed to come at some point, but military officers didn’t even know in what month that might happen.
During the last mission update, in November, the Canadian military revealed Canadian special forces had engaged in a substantial number of clashes with ISIL gunmen, had fired anti-tank missiles and exchanged gunfire.
Iraqi security forces, as well as Canadian-backed Kurdish troops, have been involved in assault on the ISIL stronghold of Mosul and have engaged in heavy combat.
The number of such clashes involving Canadian commandos was “substantial” and involved several dozen incidents, special forces commander Maj.-Gen. Mike Rouleau said at the November briefing. Canadian special forces used anti-tank missiles on three occasions to destroy ISIL suicide vehicles, Rouleau noted.
At Thursday’s briefing, Canadian officers said they didn’t have any information about when Kurdish forces will receive the military equipment promised by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Trudeau said last February that Canada would be providing the Kurds with lethal military equipment but nothing has happened since then.
“The intent remains to deliver the equipment as quickly as possible once the government of Canada has completed the administrative arrangements in securing an end-user agreement with the government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq,” Maj. Mark Peebles said. “Concurrent to these efforts, the process of equipment acquisition has commenced. The exact time lines for the acquisition are still to be determined as they are dependent on industry’s ability to secure the quantities sought.”
U.S. President Donald Trump’s vow to use torture if necessary in fighting ISIL won’t impact the Canadian Forces, which intend to follow the rule of law and their own values, says a top Canadian general.
Trump declared Wednesday he believes torture works and he has no qualms in using it in the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Asked specifically during an ABC News interview about the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, Trump cited the extremist group’s atrocities against Christians and others and said: “We have to fight fire with fire.”
Trump said he would consult with new Defence Secretary James Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo before authorizing any new policy, but said he had asked top intelligence officials in the past day: “Does torture work?”
“And the answer was yes, absolutely,” Trump said.
That could pose problems for troops working with U.S. forces in Iraq if it became known that detainees captured on the battlefield could end up being sent to CIA prisons or other locations to be tortured. The Canadian Forces hospital in northern Iraq has treated at least two detainees for their wounds. Their current status is not known.
Canadian Forces Brig.-Gen. Shane Brennan, commander of Joint Task Force — Iraq, said at a briefing Thursday he couldn’t speculate about how Trump’s views might affect the overall battle against ISIL.
But he vowed that Canadian military personnel would always follow the rule of law when it came to prisoners. “We will be not be going to any type of activity like that,” he said, referring to torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. “We know what our values are.”
Canadian commanders, however, declined to provide an update on what Canadian special forces were doing in Iraq. That update is supposed to come at some point, but military officers didn’t even know in what month that might happen.
During the last mission update, in November, the Canadian military revealed Canadian special forces had engaged in a substantial number of clashes with ISIL gunmen, had fired anti-tank missiles and exchanged gunfire.
Iraqi security forces, as well as Canadian-backed Kurdish troops, have been involved in assault on the ISIL stronghold of Mosul and have engaged in heavy combat.
The number of such clashes involving Canadian commandos was “substantial” and involved several dozen incidents, special forces commander Maj.-Gen. Mike Rouleau said at the November briefing. Canadian special forces used anti-tank missiles on three occasions to destroy ISIL suicide vehicles, Rouleau noted.
At Thursday’s briefing, Canadian officers said they didn’t have any information about when Kurdish forces will receive the military equipment promised by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Trudeau said last February that Canada would be providing the Kurds with lethal military equipment but nothing has happened since then.
“The intent remains to deliver the equipment as quickly as possible once the government of Canada has completed the administrative arrangements in securing an end-user agreement with the government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq,” Maj. Mark Peebles said. “Concurrent to these efforts, the process of equipment acquisition has commenced. The exact time lines for the acquisition are still to be determined as they are dependent on industry’s ability to secure the quantities sought.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)