Last week, two of Canada’s most capable and credible defence analysts, Philippe Lagassé and Justin Massie, released a scathing account of the state of the Canadian military on the highly-regarded US website, War on the Rocks.
“Don’t count on us: Canada’s military unreadiness,” is difficult reading.
Lagassé and Massie declare that “Canada’s ability to meaningfully contribute to major allied operations is in doubt for the foreseeable future,” and they present the evidence to prove it.
Their essay offers a sweeping history of decline stemming from a combination of a national strategic culture that undervalues the importance of hard power and a decades-spanning series of short-sited policy interventions from Ottawa that have left the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in what their own minister has called a “death spiral.”
The authors don’t conclude hopefully, but they do make three recommendations.
First, spend more – now: “While money is not a panacea, spending 2 percent of gross domestic product in defense could help address the shortage of personnel and crumbling infrastructure, as well as acquiring the missing capabilities to sustain operations in the current threat environment.”
Second, fix the defence planning process. Ottawa needs to make procurement decisions more quickly, and then follow through more reliably.
Finally, do away with the “complacent and self-righteous attitude” that has prevented national leaders from acknowledging the scope of the problem that Canada faces.
It’s hard to quarrel with this piece.
It should be required reading on Parliament Hill, and a wake-up call to those who continue to live in a fantasy world about the state of Canada’s defence preparedness.
But it worries me deeply that current and potential future members of the Canadian Armed Forces who read it will get the wrong impression.
Lagassé and Massie are right to argue that Canada’s ability to contribute to collective security and defence is unforgivably inadequate and will continue to be so for years to come.
Canadian allies should indeed ratchet down their expectations about the quantity of people and materiel that Ottawa will be able to contribute to alliance missions for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean, however, that individual CAF members are not playing – and cannot continue to play – significant, meaningful roles in national and global affairs.
Canada’s allies express open disappointment in Ottawa’s defence posture because they recognize the value of what they are missing.
The CAF’s historic willingness to accept difficult missions, its members’ professionalism, and the quality of their training make those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces ideal partners in the defence of Western interests around the world.
In spite of the cuts and the controversies, individual CAF members continue to be commended for their personal and professional contributions abroad.
And those who serve will continue to be welcomed when they deploy oversees because the CAF’s reputation on the ground precedes them.
In sum, Lagassé and Massie are right: Canada is set to be little more than a minor player on the international security stage.
But let that not be a reason for the best of the CAF to leave or for those thinking about applying not to join up.
***
For the text of the Minister of National Defence’s most recent summary of his view of the state of Canadian affairs, see here.
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedInat https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.
You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
“Don’t count on us: Canada’s military unreadiness,” is difficult reading.
Lagassé and Massie declare that “Canada’s ability to meaningfully contribute to major allied operations is in doubt for the foreseeable future,” and they present the evidence to prove it.
Their essay offers a sweeping history of decline stemming from a combination of a national strategic culture that undervalues the importance of hard power and a decades-spanning series of short-sited policy interventions from Ottawa that have left the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in what their own minister has called a “death spiral.”
The authors don’t conclude hopefully, but they do make three recommendations.
First, spend more – now: “While money is not a panacea, spending 2 percent of gross domestic product in defense could help address the shortage of personnel and crumbling infrastructure, as well as acquiring the missing capabilities to sustain operations in the current threat environment.”
Second, fix the defence planning process. Ottawa needs to make procurement decisions more quickly, and then follow through more reliably.
Finally, do away with the “complacent and self-righteous attitude” that has prevented national leaders from acknowledging the scope of the problem that Canada faces.
It’s hard to quarrel with this piece.
It should be required reading on Parliament Hill, and a wake-up call to those who continue to live in a fantasy world about the state of Canada’s defence preparedness.
But it worries me deeply that current and potential future members of the Canadian Armed Forces who read it will get the wrong impression.
Lagassé and Massie are right to argue that Canada’s ability to contribute to collective security and defence is unforgivably inadequate and will continue to be so for years to come.
Canadian allies should indeed ratchet down their expectations about the quantity of people and materiel that Ottawa will be able to contribute to alliance missions for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean, however, that individual CAF members are not playing – and cannot continue to play – significant, meaningful roles in national and global affairs.
Canada’s allies express open disappointment in Ottawa’s defence posture because they recognize the value of what they are missing.
The CAF’s historic willingness to accept difficult missions, its members’ professionalism, and the quality of their training make those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces ideal partners in the defence of Western interests around the world.
In spite of the cuts and the controversies, individual CAF members continue to be commended for their personal and professional contributions abroad.
And those who serve will continue to be welcomed when they deploy oversees because the CAF’s reputation on the ground precedes them.
In sum, Lagassé and Massie are right: Canada is set to be little more than a minor player on the international security stage.
But let that not be a reason for the best of the CAF to leave or for those thinking about applying not to join up.
***
For the text of the Minister of National Defence’s most recent summary of his view of the state of Canadian affairs, see here.
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedInat https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.
You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
RSS Feed
