All matters Canadian / Canada

[Jedburgh]

Here's their archive covering all issues from Spring 2000 to the present (http://www.journal.dnd.ca/engraph/archives/archives_e.asp)

Plenty of interesting articles on SOF, Humanitarian and Peacekeeping Ops, interspersed with conventional Army issues; all from the perspective of our allies to the North, eh.

[SWJED]

2 July NY Times - Canada Plans to Upgrade Its Military Equipment and Mobility (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/world/americas/02canada.html).


Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government has announced the most aggressive upgrade of Canada's military equipment in decades, laying out new expenditures of $15.3 billion to improve transportation capacities.

The new spending fulfilled Mr. Harper's campaign promises from January's election and did not come as a big surprise. But it represented the biggest break in policy by the new and mostly cautious Conservative government from 13 years of Liberal previous governments. The Liberals reduced military spending to a low of $8.4 billion in 1998, one of the lowest per capita among industrial countries.

But as Canada takes part in more global aid missions and stretches its military muscles in Afghanistan, where it is involved in its biggest combat operation since the Korean War, the government has made a case that the military needs more mobility and muscle.

The spending plan, detailed in a series of four announcements this week, sets aside money for new helicopters, planes, vehicles and ships that will give the armed forces a level of independence not seen in years after budget cuts in the 1990's halted replacements and upgrades for much of the military's transportation equipment. Most soldiers today are using equipment that should have been replaced a decade ago, some military analysts said.

In recent years, the Canadian military has often been forced to rely on foreign and commercial equipment to transport its troops to global conflicts and emergencies. Critics often point to the December 2004 tsunami that struck Southeast Asia, when it took 12 days for the Canadian disaster relief team to secure transportation to the region...

[marct]

Canada should not waste military resources on defending the Arctic, but should sign on to the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and double the amount of money it gives for foreign aid, a Senate defence committee report released Thursday says.
Source: CBC.ca news story (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/05/defence-report.html), October 5, 2006

This report marks a fairly major shift in the Canadian public rhetoric of defense. In addition to more conventional defense issues (e.g. spending limits, Arctic sovereignty), there is some interesting insight into how the debate is shifting towards a more COIN oriented strategy. The full Senate report is available here (http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/RepOct06-e.pdf).

Marc

[marct]

From CBC.ca


Al-Qaeda calls for attacks on Canadian oil facilities
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 | 12:46 PM ET
CBC News

Al-Qaeda has included Canada in a list of countries that it believes should be attacked for providing oil to the United States.

The Saudi Arabian arm of the network posted the threat on Sawt al-Jihad (Voice of Jihad), the group's online magazine, according to the Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE), a U.S. non-profit group that monitors militant websites.

According to the latest figures, Canada remains the top supplier of oil to the U.S., followed by Mexico and Saudi Arabia. Despite the tense relations between Washington and Caracas, Venezuela is listed as fourth on the top list of suppliers.

More... (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/14/qaeda-canada.html)

If they try, they will discover why Alberta is called "Texas North".

Marc

[goesh]

Canada, the US, Austrailia and England can always count on each other and be counted on to do what is necessary. Not much blood will be allowed on the ol' Maple Leaf, that's for sure. God save the Queen, errr, the PM I mean.

[marct]

Canada, the US, Austrailia and England can always count on each other and be counted on to do what is necessary. Not much blood will be allowed on the ol' Maple Leaf, that's for sure. God save the Queen, errr, the PM I mean.

LOLOL Definite "the Queen" - PM's are replaceable :D.

On a more serious note, I find it fascinating that they are openly calling for an attack on Canada. Given Canada's immigration laws and much more "liberal" culture, as well as our easy access to CONUS, I take this as a mark of either desperation or stupidity (six of one, half a dozen of the other). We may be laid back, on the whole, but they really don't want us to "get personal".

Marc

[tequila]

Likely for Canada's role in Afghanistan. God bless the CF.

[goesh]

and straying off topic a bit, isn't it a Canadian that holds the record for the longest sniper shot made, eh? I'm pretty sure it is, done in Afghanistan a year ago or so. I think it's equal amounts of stupidity and desperation for AQ to be calling for attacks on Canada.

[bismark17]

I think this is all a deception operation conceived by Marc to harden Canadian resolve. After many beers, the Prof of Computer Science of the group, decided to find an enemy server and gain root. After that they simply uploaded the message to sow confusion. Soon we will start seeing Operas preaching kindness and a rejection of extreme Jihadist views being disseminated from AQ. Of course the arabic being sung will have a distinct Canadian accent, eh. I'm looking forward to more of their perception management operations. Someone should be doing it.....

[Uboat509]

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for Canada to recall Celine Dion and deploy her to Pakistan thereby helping both the US and Canada.

SFC W

[marct]

Hi Uboat,


Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for Canada to recall Celine Dion and deploy her to Pakistan thereby helping both the US and Canada.

I think that every Canadian is proud of Celine Dion - consider, for example, what one of our top groups has written (http://artists.letssingit.com/celine-dion-lyrics-celine-dion-4pfcgkf) about her :cool:. Still and all, we are solid believers in Coalition operations so, we would have to ask for US entertainers of a similar stature to go on a joint operation: maybe Paris Hilton? :eek:

Marc

[Ironhorse]

I had the pleasure recently of meeting the Devil Dog who held the flag [yes, the upside down one] in that color guard. He was a Cpl then. He's a Maj now. I couldn't believe it was that long ago, thought he was pulling my leg, but several folks vouched for him and swore that, yes, it was him, it was that long ago, and I'm just getting old. Doesn't seem to have hurt him any. Nor the flow south of talented entertainers, oil, maple syrup, and shoe bombers.

But I refused to believe the bit about his threesome with Celine Dion and Paris Hilton backstage during a USO show. ;)

[Uboat509]

Still and all, we are solid believers in Coalition operations so, we would have to ask for US entertainers of a similar stature to go on a joint operation: maybe Paris Hilton? :eek:

Marc

Absolutely. We would be willing to send Paris, and anyone who has ever been willingly photographed with her, to the Pakistan/Afghan border. They have been sucking the life out of this country long enough so why not send them someplace else to do it.

SFC W

[AdamG]

Wonder if they just re-wrote the 'how to make a wheel' book?

March 9, 2007
Guerrillas' lessons lost
By PETER WORTHINGTON
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2007/03/09/pf-3719381.html



In the category of "better late than never," the Canadian army is publishing a 250-page manual to instruct troops on how to fight guerrilla and counter-insurgency operations.

According to the National Post, this is the first time an effort has been made to familiarize soldiers with this form of warfare presently being fought in Afghanistan.

The fact such a manual is only now being published in this first decade of the 21st Century, persuasively supports Gen. Rick Hillier's controversial view that for our military, the 1990s was a "decade of darkness." Hillier's bluntness has the Liberals in a tizzy, claiming he's parroting the Tory government's line.

What nonsense! As one who has paid some attention to the goings-on of our military, I'd argue that Hillier's "decade of darkness" is overly generous: Our military has been in a progressively darkening twilight zone since Pierre Trudeau became PM in 1968.

[John T. Fishel]

About a dozen years ago, I was invited to lecture at Canadian Forces College (CFC) in Toronto. Later, I worked with several Canadian officer colleagues at CGSC Fort Leavenworth, one of whom was then Major, now Lt. Col. David Last who is now the Registrar at the Royal Military College. Through that association, I was invited to evaluate the Master of Defence Studies program at CFC this past Fall.

I was very impressed with the difference and strides made by CFC in the last decade. Their program, patterned after Leavenworth's MMAS, is as rigorous but has a better complement of permanent civilian faculty, all of whom were chosen for their academic credentials and substantive expertise. The program can (and does) also draw on academic talent from RMC and other Canadian universities.

One of the outstanding young academics is Dr. Chris Madsen, whose article "Canadian Troops and Farm Burning in the South African War" (http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol6/no2/PDF/07-History1_e.pdf) in CANADIAN MILITARY JOURNAL, Vol 6, No 2, is an outstanding piece of historical work on "COIN" operations during the Boer War. In addition, Dave Last has co-edited a 2 volume study of SOF with reference to Canada, entitled CHOICE OF FORCE (http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1894) and FORCE OF CHOICE (http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1810), published by McGill-Queens University Press.

I supect that the new manual is just part of this renaissance in Canadian Military thought and I hope it takes the best from British, American, and French doctrine and tempers it with Canadian experience in PKO and operations in Afghanistan. If it does that, it will make a superior contibution to the cross national military doctrine discussion and debate.

[Michael Shannon]

The so called 'decades of darkness" were the response of both Conservative and Liberal governments to the demise of Canada's only convenetional threat, the USSR. Given the realities of government financing and politics, they had no other reasonable option but to reduce defence spending. The military was still given enough cash to be the second most expensive force per man in the world with total cash outlays 6th in NATO and 16th in the world. The CF made choices on what to spend it's budget on. It could have had more soldiers attend US Army Ranger and SF courses. It could have taught more foriegn languages (it only offers Spanish) at the Royal Military College. It could of had a mountain school. It could have offered COIN as a subject on it's Master of War Studies program. It could of had COIN as a subject at staff colleges. It could of bought suitable aircraft. It did none of these things but not for want of cash and not from interferance from politicians. I suggest that it was because the officer corps could not imagine particpating in a "Viet Nam", found language study difficult (in the CF it still makes far more career sense to perfect French or English than to learn Dari or Pashtu) and found playing tank versus tank war games much more fufilling than thinking about politics, culture, reconstruction and police work.

[John T. Fishel]

Jed--

Thanks for the edit. Being able to locate the books easily will help anyone who is interested in the subject. But I am most grateful for your posting of Chris Madsen's article. It really is relevant to this site.

On the "for fun" aspects, the photo reminded me of the famous photo of the Pershing Punitive Expedition to Mexico in 1916. The US and Canadian uniforms of the era were practically the same; both armies used similar bridles; but they differed with respect to saddles. The US used the McClellan (which I have never ridden but some swear by it while others hate it); the Canadians used the British Universal Pattern (UP). I have a modern version that is supremely comfortable - of course it does use a modern gel cushion for my tired old butt!

John

[Culpeper]

Canada paid a heavy price during WWI. Was cautious and didn't have a hard time during WWII as opposed to the British and Americans. They lost their punch. It is taking nearly a hundred years to get it back. I did see the Snowbirds one time and they were awesome in their slower CT-114 tutor jets. But that group, type of aircraft, and choice of name is typical of Canadian military mindset.

[marct]

All I can say, is that this is typically Canadian :confused:


Native reference will not appear in Canadian terror manual

BILL CURRY
From Monday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — References to radical natives in the Canadian Army's counter-insurgency manual will not appear in the final version of the document, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor announced.

The use of "radical Native American organizations" as an example of insurgents in a draft version of the manual has outraged native leaders, who viewed the wording as a threat to their political rights to protest.

More... (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070401.wterrornew0401/BNStory/National)

There's also a larger version with more details here (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20070331%2fnative_manual_0703 31).

Marc

[FascistLibertarian]

The experince of the Canadian Forces with the natives (specifically Oka) is one of the main domestic examples of how the Canadian military responded. It is very different than what the CF is going now in A-Stan. Regardless, it is a great case study similar to the protection of the Olympics in Montreal and the FLQ October Crisis. It should be in there even if the term "radical" maybe is not used.

[AdamG]

I wonder if these Mohawks complied with Canadian law and had only five-round magazines? Check the photo, their spokesman looks like a real winner

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2007/06/29/4299262-sun.html

DESERONTO — A small group of angry Mohawk protesters made good on their threats to disrupt transportation in Canada’s busiest travel corridor on a national day of action to raise public awareness of native concerns such as poverty, health and land claims.

*

Earlier, the Mohawk protesters near Deseronto who threatened that they had arms and were ready to use them, parked an old school bus across secondary Highway 2, forcing a steady stream of traffic and heavy trucks to turn around.

“We’ve made no secret that we have guns within this camp,” protest leader Shawn Brant told The Canadian Press in an interview. “It’s our intent to go out and ensure a safe day. Unfortunately, previous incidents have shown that aggressive tactics by the police need to be met with equal resistance by the people that they’re bringing those against."

Later, the protesters closed the nearby CN Rail main line, using jumper cables to activate crossing barriers before moving another old school bus onto the tracks.

[FascistLibertarian]

Was cautious and didn't have a hard time during WWII as opposed to the British and Americans.

?

I dont know how we had an easy time...................
check out the casulity rates of Canadians during the battle of normandy.......
Find out which divisions took the most killed and wounded.......
we did not go all infantry of course, and we tried to only build up the forces we could replace, and we lost less people than we did in ww1.
But I disagree we had an 'easy' time.
I dont think you could say any of our major army operations were easy.
Hong Kong
Dieppe
Italy (including the island and mainland)
Normandy
NW EU

Doesnt seem 'easy' to me.

[Jedburgh]

SSI, 3 Aug 07: Shaping Commitment: Resolving Canada's Strategy Gap in Afghanistan and Beyond (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB799.pdf)

Release of Canada’s first-ever National Security Policy (NSP) in 2004, followed by the International (Foreign) Policy Statement and Defence Policy Review in 2005, has publicly articulated Canada’s principal security interests for the post-September 11, 2001 (9/11), world. Nevertheless, the realities of Canada’s present engagement in Afghanistan have highlighted a gap between stated national security and foreign policy goals on one hand, and the Canadian military, diplomatic, and development effort in theater, on the other. National interests and values, articulated within the NSP and the International Policy Statement, are insufficient to frame the context for such a complex endeavor. Only a clearly defined strategy based upon rigorous analysis of ends, ways, and means and assessment of risk can enable informed national and political debate, provide the required guidance for campaign planning among government departments, and determine Canada’s preferred stake in the wider international arena, including the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Recommendations are provided with respect to resolving Canada’s strategy gap in both the immediate and longer term.

[marct]

A very interesting article. I think he does capture a lot of the core cultural questions going on right now. I'm going to have to think about this one a bit more and reread it.

Marc

[Rex Brynen]

I was having a coffee (double-double, of course) with the guys from AQ in Tim Horton's today, and caught the following headline in the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070927.wborder0927/BNStory/National/home):


U.S. senators blast Canadian border security

Claiming Canada has more terrorist organizations than any other country, a U.S. senate hearing has demanded upgrades to the shared border....

The Tamil Tiger guys didn't agree, which started a big fight with the PKK/Kongra-Gel contingent. Who knows, eh?

[SWJED]

I was having a coffee (double-double, of course) with the guys from AQ in Tim Horton's today, and caught the following headline in the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070927.wborder0927/BNStory/National/home):

The Tamil Tiger guys didn't agree, which started a big fight with the PKK/Kongra-Gel contingent. Who knows, eh?

... the surveillance video that the HSD guys sent us clearly showed it wasn't a double-double.

Looking through our biometric data we aren't even sure you are really Rex Brynen :eek: .

[SWJED]

Excepting the quote of Sen Salazar of Colorado - here is what the story was about:


American senators are demanding security upgrades at the Canadian border after a U.S. government report said it would be easy to smuggle dangerous material into the United States.

The independent Government Accountability Office sent investigators to test how easily they could transfer large red duffel bags at four unguarded and unmonitored spots along the more than eight thousand kilometres of U.S.-Canada border.

The G.A.O., the investigative arm of Congress, described in a 13-page report delivered to Congress Thursday how easily they were able to penetrate the border at several spots.

The report claims that shows how easy it would be to bring in radioactive material and other contraband...

[Jedburgh]

...The G.A.O., the investigative arm of Congress, described in a 13-page report delivered to Congress Thursday how easily they were able to penetrate the border at several spots....
Here's the 27 Sep 07 GAO report:

Border Security: Security Vulnerabilities at Unmanned and Unmonitored U.S. Border Locations (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07884t.pdf)

....On the U.S.–Canada border, GAO found state roads close to the border that CBP did not appear to man or monitor. In some of these locations, the proximity of the road to the border allowed investigators to cross without being challenged by law enforcement, successfully simulating the cross-border movement of radioactive materials or other contraband into the United States from Canada. In one location on the northern border, the U.S. Border Patrol was alerted to GAO activities through the tip of an alert citizen. However, the responding U.S. Border Patrol agents were not able to locate GAO investigators. Also on the northern border, GAO investigators located several ports of entry that had posted daytime hours and were unmanned overnight......

[Jedburgh]

For those with access, a draft copy of the Canadian Small Wars Manual, dated 23 Oct 07, has been posted on the BCKS COIN forum: B-GL-323-004/FP-003 Counter-Insurgency Operations (https://forums.bcks.army.mil/secure/GetAttachment.aspx?id=520399&pname=file&lang=en-US&aid=36393)

Scope

This publication provides a wide range of material in support of commanders and staff at all levels of command. It reflects the concepts of Canadian doctrinal philosophies and principles. This publication addresses the following:

a. introduction to understanding insurgencies;

b. a description of insurgencies and their objectives;

c. the overarching philosophy and principles by which a COIN campaign and its operations should be conducted;

d. considerations for force employment at the strategic, operational and tactical levels;

e. considerations for intelligence staff in support of a COIN campaign;

f. considerations for information operations, specifically focused on influence activities;

g. considerations for sustainment in a COIN campaign; and

h. considerations for pre-deployment and in-theatre training in support of a COIN campaign.

[William F. Owen]

a. introduction to understanding insurgencies;

b. a description of insurgencies and their objectives;

c. the overarching philosophy and principles by which a COIN campaign and its operations should be conducted;

d. considerations for force employment at the strategic, operational and tactical levels;

e. considerations for intelligence staff in support of a COIN campaign;

f. considerations for information operations, specifically focused on influence activities;

g. considerations for sustainment in a COIN campaign; and

h. considerations for pre-deployment and in-theatre training in support of a COIN campaign.

That is the clearest set of useful headings I have ever seen relating to so called COIN. If anyone can direct me at a copy of this, I would be very grateful. - and BTW, traditionally, the old Beaver Chasers actually write good manuals. Not as BS free as Aussie manuals but a really good start.

[marct]

That is the clearest set of useful headings I have ever seen relating to so called COIN. If anyone can direct me at a copy of this, I would be very grateful. - and BTW, traditionally, the old Beaver Chasers actually write good manuals. Not as BS free as Aussie manuals but a really good start.

I wouldn't mind a copy myself. BTW, Wilf, I hope you realize what "beaver" is slang for in Canada :D.

[Steve Blair]

I wouldn't mind a copy myself. BTW, Wilf, I hope you realize what "beaver" is slang for in Canada :D.

In the US as well...:D

[William F. Owen]

I wouldn't mind a copy myself. BTW, Wilf, I hope you realize what "beaver" is slang for in Canada :D.

Where I come from it's not slang!

[Norfolk]

Hopefully this one will be as original as possible; B-GL-322-007/FP-001 Unique Operations - Urban was in some ways little more than a modified reprint of FM 3-06 Urban Operations. That said, it's about time the CF has its own COIN Pub; since the demise of the old 3-volume Aid to the Civil Power, COIN doctrine had almost disappeared (not that it was overly developed beforehand anyway).


If the pub does not have a "loss or suspected compromise" warning in the Preface, I would be most grateful for a copy from whomever may have access to it, please.:)

[Jedburgh]

The Ottowa Citizen, 20 Mar 08: Elite military unit's blueprints for new HQ found in trash can (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=a6c9fc28-8ffb-4d32-a31a-5ffacd713bb8&k=23930)

Plans showing the layout of a new building for a Canadian Forces counter-terrorism unit based in Trenton, Ont., have been found in a pile of garbage on Bank Street.

The 26 blueprints, stamped with Department of National Defence markings, show everything from the location of the security fence to the floor plan of the new home of the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit (http://www.cansofcom.forces.gc.ca/en/cjiru_e.asp) at CFB Trenton.

The unit is the military's main responder to a terrorist attack using a weapon of mass destruction......

....it's an odd coincidence that they just happened to be found by an analyst from the Rideau Institute (http://www.rideauinstitute.ca).

[Ken White]

...
....it's an odd coincidence that they just happened to be found by an analyst from the Rideau Institute (http://www.rideauinstitute.ca).

Beyond odd... :wry:

[marct]

From the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080321.DOCUMENTS21/TPStory/National)...

Photographs provided by the Rideau Institute show that the schematics provide ample information about the layout at CFB Trenton and the new building, including sensitive details about the security fencing, the electrical grid scheme and the sewer system.

Just lovely! But, lest you give the Rideau Institute too much credit

The blueprints list the names of six private contracting firms, including Smith and Andersen Consulting Engineering - which has an office near where Mr. Salloum found the plans - and Wood Banani Bouthillette Parizeau, another consulting engineering company. Both declined to comment.

Of course, there is always this encouraging little note...

Mr. Salloum said he didn't take all the documents stamped with Department of National Defence markings at the Ottawa trash pile, saying he left six to eight other rolls of papers at the curbside.

[Billy Ruffian]

Wow, that's almost as good as the time when the JTF2 guys had their van stolen from a Tim Horton's parking lot with disassembled pistols and their security cards inside. Or that one time the CSIS official had her laptop and all the classified documents inside stolen from her car while she was at a Leaf's game.

[Norfolk]

Wow, that's almost as good as the time when the JTF2 guys had their van stolen from a Tim Horton's parking lot with disassembled pistols and their security cards inside. Or that one time the CSIS official had her laptop and all the classified documents inside stolen from her car while she was at a Leaf's game.

And don't forget the Indians calling up JTF 2 on their secret line and, the piece de resistance, JTF 2 arriving in the Balkans in the spring of '93 with their names on local posters and prices on their heads.

[Billy Ruffian]

Holy smokes Norfolk! Do you think we should check to see if the government has left the keys to the country in the ignition?

[marct]

Holy smokes Norfolk! Do you think we should check to see if the government has left the keys to the country in the ignition?

What ignition?!? Anyway, I'm sure that this incident was caused by a Freedom Of Information request that was submitted in English and read in French :D.

[Norfolk]

Indeed, the Auto Pact is dead and the Auto Industry nearly so. And who needs a FOIA request when leaky security positively oozes whatever people with ill-intent may desire?:wry:

[Billy Ruffian]

Indeed, the Auto Pact is dead and the Auto Industry nearly so. And who needs a FOIA request when leaky security positively oozes whatever people with ill-intent may desire?:wry:

Perhaps we need an Official Secrets Act?

Everyone already suspects it of Harper, may as well fulfill their expectations.

[Norfolk]

Perhaps we need an Official Secrets Act?

We used to have the Official Secrets Act, until it was replaced with, amongst some very odd and unsettling amendments to the Transportation Act, the Security of Information Act, several years ago. I would argue that that information was much better protected in the days when we still had the Official Secrets Act (though practical enforcement had slid badly by the 1990's) than since. All the new laws and regulations seem best suited to strengthening Government powers in ways that even the old War Measures Act (replaced by the Emergencies Act back in 1988 I seem to recall) did not surpass, or even equal in some measures I think. Not good.

[marct]

All the new laws and regulations seem best suited to strengthening Government powers in ways that even the old War Measures Act (replaced by the Emergencies Act back in 1988 I seem to recall) did not surpass, or even equal in some measures I think. Not good.

Especially when most of them have not been passed by Parliament but, rather, as Orders in Council. Makes one wonder...

[marct]

From CBC.ca


Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's outgoing chief of defence staff, will be replaced by Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the current vice-chief, CBC News has learned.

More... (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/06/harper-announce.html)

[Tom Odom]

From CBC.ca

When is Canada gonnna lern how ta spell deefense?

[marct]

When is Canada gonnna lern how ta spell deefense?

Part of our official bilingualism policy, Tom ;). 'sides that, we like keeping old British traditions alive - like spelling being a mater uv pursunal choise :D!!

[Norfolk]

Another Toad as CDS, and again from the RCD. Hmmm...very interesting [Norfolk narrows eyes to slits, suspiciously]. Well, the RCD are okay (as long as they stay in their own Mess and out of ours!), but they better remember their Brigade-mates, The RCR, too.;)

[marct]

From CBC.ca


Tories release $490B military plan without fanfare
Details posted online Thursday night
Last Updated: Friday, June 20, 2008 | 5:57 AM ET

The Conservative government has quietly released the details of its extensive plan to beef up the military, including spending $490 billion over the next 20 years to ensure Canadian soldiers are well-equipped, well-trained and highly active.

Details of the plan, known as Canada First Defence Strategy, were posted Thursday night without fanfare on the Department of National Defence's website.

More... (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/20/military-plan.html)

From DND


"Canada First" Defence Strategy

Building on the government’s significant defence investments over the past two years, the Canada First Defence Strategy sets a detailed road-map for the modernization of the Canadian Forces. It puts forward clear roles and missions for the Canadian Forces, outlining a level of ambition that will enable the CF to maintain the ability to deliver excellence at home, be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad by making meaningful contributions to operations overseas.

More... (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first/defstra_e.asp)

Full pdf version (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first/June18_0910_CFDS_english_low-res.pdf) (5.3 mb)

[Norfolk]

It was probably best that this document was released under the radar and down in the weeds; in real substance it is little different than Defence in the 70's, except a tenth the size. And the Q&A page is rather embarrassing. As for the $490 billion price tag projected over 20 years, it is a pittance, and the paper grudgingly admits as much when it states that real projected growth in the DND budget over the twenty-year span will only amount to 0.6% (compared to a nominal 2.2%). The only real growth in DND's budget would come from eliminating 2/3rds of the officer corps and at least a similar proportion of the 25,000 DND civilians.

First off, the next Government is unlikely to be Conservative, and as such, the axe will soon swing once again, and probably deeply; Secondly, fuel, M&O, and other costs will eat up many times over whatever growth may be projected; Thirdly, parts of this document, and especially Chapter VII, are nothing other than a sop to the Aerospace and Defence industry; and Fourthly, this document indicates little recognition of the long- (and even medium-) term military impracticality or ineffectuality of most of the stated missions and priorities, given present and anticipated manpower, equipment, and resources. In short, the document (and admittedly it mentions nothing that many, even most, of us did not already know that it would say months ago) may turn out to be little more than a vapour in the wind.

[Stevely]

I can't see how they can cut the DND's budget much more without having to throw in the towel and shutter your military altogether?

[marct]

I can't see how they can cut the DND's budget much more without having to throw in the towel and shutter your military altogether?

That's happened before, unfortunately :(. I'm not sure what the thinking, if one can call it that, is on the future of our military. We have spent too much time acting as Peace Keepers and with a very limited number of combat troops. This, especially when coupled with the Afghanistan mission, has created a rather polarized, and weird, political image of what our troops should be doing. I'm afraid that Norfolk is probably correct in his assessment that the next government won't be Conservative - then again, the Dion carbon tax proposal may just be enough for the Tories to get back in in a minority situation.

Personally, I would like to see a multi-party discussion and debate over where we, as a nation, believe our military should go. The officer cuts mentioned by Norfolk are a good example, as is the elimination of many of the civilian employees. What are our priority missions? What are our contractual obligations? What do we actually need to fulfill them?

[Norfolk]

Personally, I would like to see a multi-party discussion and debate over where we, as a nation, believe our military should go. [] What are our priority missions? What are our contractual obligations? What do we actually need to fulfill them?

No meaningful multiparty discussion would, or could, ever take place, I'm afraid. The utter ignorance and more or less complete indifference of all parties with regards to military matters is practically invincible; it is effectively likewise for the general public, though for much less distasteful reasons. Being in some ways Metternich's political 5xGreat-Grandson, the lack of any meaningful public interest in or substantive support for the military, while certainly not laudible, must be practically conceded as being something close to inevitable. Pretty hard to be concerned about something that never seems to touch you when it's difficult enough making ends meet day-to-day for many, and increasingly more, people. Especially when it means more money out of your own shrinking pocket. Troops can identify with that much quite well.

As Stevely mentions, there is a point at which the resources (as well as the political conditions and constraints imposed by the Government) reach the point at which a Military is brought to the tipping point between remaining a Military, or degenerating into a Gendarmerie. Since we already have a Gendarmerie, the RCMP, which does indeed have both peacetime paramilitary and wartime military roles, tasks, and missions, then if we are no longer able or willing or both to maintain a proper Military, then it's time to end the pretense and disband DND and the CAF. Re-paramilitarize the RCMP (their Constabulary role under contract to various Provinces has softened them substantially), and paramilitarize the Canadian Coast Guard. At least they will be capable of territorial surveillance as well as border and internal security. They would also be capable of limited overseas LIC missions.

The real cost of such an approach would be a national independence that would literally degenerate into legal fiction. But even as there is strong hostility towards such an eventuality, there is conversely no real will, or even recognition, of this, let alone a will or even recognition of what it would take to substantively reverse it. Unless these are effectively rectified, even asking what our treaty obligations and mission/force requirements are are of little more than interesting but merely hypothetical point.

[Fuchs]

Norfolk; there's next to no likeliness of an invasion of Canada.
I understand very well that/if the nation isn't much interested in the military.

I would only care about the efficiency, not the amount of spending.
Small armies often work pretty well - inventories like 2 Hercules planes work well in small nations even while large nations assert that inventories below a couple dozen or hundred aircraft of a single type would be ineffective.

[Adam L]

The real cost of such an approach would be a national independence that would literally degenerate into legal fiction.

In my opinion, the greatest threat to Canada's sovereignty is its inability to patrol and/or guard its northern territorial claims. With ice receding up north, everyone (especially Russia) has been trying to lay claims to the Arctic seabed. Canada has been unable to perform underwater surveys due to its lack of a powerful icebreaker. Russia has made several expeditions with one of their icebreaker (nuclear powered if I recall) to do so. I know this is a tad off topic, but I feel that it is very related to this issue.


Norfolk; there's next to no likeliness of an invasion of Canada.
I understand very well that/if the nation isn't much interested in the military.

I would only care about the efficiency, not the amount of spending.
Small armies often work pretty well - inventories like 2 Hercules planes work well in small nations even while large nations assert that inventories below a couple dozen or hundred aircraft of a single type would be ineffective.

Although Canada is a "small" country as far as population is concerned, I would think they have many of the logistical issues of a much larger nation due to the shear size of the country. Norfolk, can you give some insight on this?

Adam L

[Fuchs]

I didn't mean logistical challenges, but fleet operation efficiency.
Some officials claim that inventories need to be very large for economies of scale or the equipment could not be supported.
And then you see countries like Belgium, who have iirc two or three Hercules.

I tried to tell that a small military does not need to be underfunded. It just needs to adapt to its budget and can be fine with little budget.
I see no real reason for a large Canadian military. They should at a minimum keep their army/navy know-how, NORAD participation and fighters just in case, though.

[Adam L]

I didn't mean logistical challenges, but fleet operation efficiency.
Some officials claim that inventories need to be very large for economies of scale or the equipment could not be supported.
And then you see countries like Belgium, who have iirc two or three Hercules.

I tried to tell that a small military does not need to be underfunded. It just needs to adapt to its budget and can be fine with little budget.
I see no real reason for a large Canadian military. They should at a minimum keep their army/navy know-how, NORAD participation and fighters just in case, though.

I see what you are saying now and I completely agree. As you said, Canada is not going to be invaded. If there are any major threats they will always have the US. Having a small well equipped force is really in their best interests.

Adam L

[Norfolk]

In my opinion, the greatest threat to Canada's sovereignty is its inability to patrol and/or guard its northern territorial claims. With ice receding up north, everyone (especially Russia) has been trying to lay claims to the Arctic seabed. Canada has been unable to perform underwater surveys due to its lack of a powerful icebreaker. Russia has made several expeditions with one of their icebreaker (nuclear powered if I recall) to do so. I know this is a tad off topic, but I feel that it is very related to this issue.

Although Canada is a "small" country as far as population is concerned, I would think they have many of the logistical issues of a much larger nation due to the shear size of the country. Norfolk, can you give some insight on this?

Adam L

Hello Adam,

Perhaps even more so than the U.S., in its own way Canada is dependent upon Airpower for its strategic defence and operational mobility. The recent acquisition of C-17s was a step in the right direction, but 4 were not remotely enough; the planned acquisition of 17 C-130Js is nice, but given the choice between having a full squadron of a dozen+ C-17s on one hand, or the planned force of 4 C-17s and 17 C-130Js, the former would be better. Canada requires strategic airflift just for its own defence, whether that's airlifting and sustaining a Battalion to deal with an enemy lodgement in the High Arctic or along one of the Ocean Coasts, or doing the same with a Battle Group on the other side of the world. It is practically inconceivable that anything larger than a Regiment/Brigade airlift would ever have to be mounted, not least, obviously, because any enemy would find it difficult or impossible to mount and sustain anything larger than a Battalion-level operation. For tactical operations, something akin to the good old DHC Caribou STOL transports would do; they were originally designed to provide Divisional-Level supply and transport in nuclear war conditions, but unfortunately there has been no replacement. Obviously, Air Superiority is critical to enable any of this.

As to Canada's territorial water claims in the Arctic and especially the North-West Passage, they are misconceived. They are not generally recognized internationally, and of course do not in any way meet the 12-mile limit under International Law. As to the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone that International Law provides for, that's a legitimate claim Canada can hold on to. But to enforce in practice would require a modest, but noticeable militarization of the Arctic, particularly along the NorthWest Passage. In general terms, think a few AIP subs, a Fighter Squadron, and a reinforced Infantry Battalion/Battle Group either in the region or able to get there, intact and sustainable, fiarly rapidly.

---------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it would do to address Marc's question of what are Canada's defence obligations, requirements, and resources. In another thread, Marc mentioned that Canada required forces of very high quality, and it should go without saying that he is entirely correct. The problem is that the disparity between political will and willingess to allocate resources on the one hand, and international obligations and military requirements on the other is vast, to say the least.

At the end of WWII, the General Staff determined that the Army required 6 Infantry Divisions (1 Regular Army, 5 Reserve Army) and 2 Armoured Brigades (both Reserve Army) for the defence of Canada. The Navy Staff determined that it required 2 Aircraft Carriers along with Escorts and the like (one on each Coast), and the Air Staff determined a requirement for something like 600 Fighter aircraft (IIRC, my memory is hazy here).

They actually got an Army of 3 Infantry Battalions, 2 Armoured Regiments (Battalions), and a Regiment (Battalion) or equivalent each of Artillery, Field Engineers, and IIRC (again memory hazy) an AA Regiment, plus an SAS Company. The Navy got 1 Aircraft Carrier - plus Escorts on both coasts, and the Air Force received something like a handful of the Fighter Squadrons it was looking for. That's probably about what Canada can afford now, if it had the will do do so, though a CV or LHD is probably beyond the country's will and resources. AIP Subs and Coastal Patrol/ASW aircraft are best for coastal defence, leaving surface ships to Expeditionary and Convoy operations.

As to requirements, that's a different story. Canada is most unlikely to ever commit a force much larger than either a Battalion, Frigate Squadron, Fighter Squadron, some Logistics and Ancillary elements, or a full-fledged Battle Group or Joint Task Force. In this sense, we still possess the traditional Imperial mentality of "A Battalion, a Battery, and a Frigate". Think up to an MEU for all practical purposes. Except if a general war breaks out, then nothing short of entire Divisions, Naval Battle Groups, and Air Divisions will do. Canada attempted something like this on the cheap in the 1950's, and gave it up by the mid-1960's. Not politically sustainable then, and certainly not now.

But as to "quality" and training, that's harder now; the Human Rights Commission in the early 90's imposed requirements upon the Armed Forces that were prejudical to training, order, and good discipline, to put it mildly. The Armed Forces have tried to work around this, in some cases with quite some success. But the albatross is still there. Without the ability to demand and enforce the highest standards of selection, leadership, training, and discipline, a "small but high-quality force" is more of a wish than an achievable objective. When Infantrymen, as an example, are required every 90 days (at least) to perform the 2x10 (marching 10 miles within 2 hours with full kit, on back-to-back days), one day immediately crossing an Assault Course after the 10-miler before directly proceeding on to a Live-Fire Section Attack with no rest; and the other day peforming a Casualty-Carry immediately after the 10-miler, and then proceeding directly without rest to a Live Shoot out to 300-400m where each must achieve a Marksman's rating, then a "small, high-quality force" is practically achievable. The basics must be strictly enforced, otherwise the "small, high-quality force" is rather less than it appears on paper.

[marct]

Hi Norfolk,

Just a couple of things I'd like to toss my $.02 in on...


Perhaps even more so than the U.S., in its own way Canada is dependent upon Airpower for its strategic defence and operational mobility.

Absolutely true. Last year I was doing some research on European tourists to Canada and one of the things that really came out was that they just had no conception of how large, and under-populated, we are. One person from the UK mentioned that they thought BC was about the size of France - when I told them you could fit 4 Frances in BC (17 in all of Canada), there was a resounding - stunned - silence. This size, coupled with a very low population density, makes it very hard to use anything but airpower for defence and operational mobility.


As to Canada's territorial water claims in the Arctic and especially the North-West Passage, they are misconceived. They are not generally recognized internationally, and of course do not in any way meet the 12-mile limit under International Law. As to the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone that International Law provides for, that's a legitimate claim Canada can hold on to. But to enforce in practice would require a modest, but noticeable militarization of the Arctic, particularly along the NorthWest Passage. In general terms, think a few AIP subs, a Fighter Squadron, and a reinforced Infantry Battalion/Battle Group either in the region or able to get there, intact and sustainable, fiarly rapidly.

Not something I would be opposed to, but operationally (aka politically) very tricky. We *might* be politically able to put together a Border Unit as the main component of an Infantry BTN/BG, but I doubt we will see either the vision, money or political will for the rest... at least until there is a major economic presence in the area.


Perhaps it would do to address Marc's question of what are Canada's defence obligations, requirements, and resources. In another thread, Marc mentioned that Canada required forces of very high quality, and it should go without saying that he is entirely correct. The problem is that the disparity between political will and willingess to allocate resources on the one hand, and international obligations and military requirements on the other is vast, to say the least....

But as to "quality" and training, that's harder now; the Human Rights Commission in the early 90's imposed requirements upon the Armed Forces that were prejudical to training, order, and good discipline, to put it mildly.

Don't get me started on the Human Rights Commission and their bastard offspring, the Tribunals :mad:! Personally, I think that if someone in a wheelchair wants to join the CF - fine, let them, but don't even think about lowering the standards for the Infantry! Honestly, I always liked Heinlein's ideas about recruitment in Starship Troopers (book, NOT film!!!!!!). Having the training standards lowered is, IMO, ridiculous. I wonder if anyone has launched a Human Rights complaint about the lowered standards :rolleyes:.

[selil]

Marc,

When you look at European landscapes most of the forests have a manicured look. Sit down on a weekend and watch the hunting shows and the european hunts have that same look as a nice American park.

I live in a metropolitan area in the northern midwest. You walk 100 feet out my back yard and you can run into bears, deer, coyotes, raccoons, and you are in deep forest. A fair chunk about the size of a small city with it's own ecosystem.

With the changing population migration patterns and more people moving into cities the general concepts of frontier are being lost. Even suburbia is loosing the more wild feel to it. People in general are becoming more removed from nature, scope, scale, danger, and so much more. Take a city dweller into the woods and watch them stumble around. These are people who stumble on a raised edge of a sidewalk crack. Ask them to judge distance and they are done for.

Even the northern United States and Canada (what 2/3rds of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border?) they are becoming less able to deal with the aspects of frontier environment. Consequently areas that had been "civilized" are now returning to nature in some perverse twist.

All of that to get to here. Consider northern Canada and especially the Northern Rockies and mechanized transport is not going to happen. You can't fly jets into those box canyons and even missiles are of nearly no use. Yet you could hide an Army in there for a long time. Outside of Hope, BC you could interdict the entirety of the cross Canada rail road pretty much at will if so desired (and as done by the Cree in the 90s). A lot of the same skills that you might expect in Afghanistan would be required to fight in that area.

[marct]

Hi Sam,


When you look at European landscapes most of the forests have a manicured look. Sit down on a weekend and watch the hunting shows and the european hunts have that same look as a nice American park.

I remember the first time I was in Austria - I found it "quaint" and almost like a series of toy villages (outside of Vienna, which I love!). When we flew back, we landed in D'Or Val and bussed back to Ottawa - the difference couldn't have been more apparent.


With the changing population migration patterns and more people moving into cities the general concepts of frontier are being lost. Even suburbia is loosing the more wild feel to it. People in general are becoming more removed from nature, scope, scale, danger, and so much more. Take a city dweller into the woods and watch them stumble around. These are people who stumble on a raised edge of a sidewalk crack. Ask them to judge distance and they are done for.

All true, although I suspect that of our major cities, Toronto is probably the worst for that. It used to be that children were taken out of the cities during the summer - originally to try and escape the polio season. This created a culture of cottages and summer camps for both boys and girls, and a large part of this culture was woodsmanship - canoing, swimming, tracking, survival skills (slave labour building gigantic log cabins :mad::D), etc. That still seems to exist, but it is getting less common.


All of that to get to here. Consider northern Canada and especially the Northern Rockies and mechanized transport is not going to happen. You can't fly jets into those box canyons and even missiles are of nearly no use. Yet you could hide an Army in there for a long time. Outside of Hope, BC you could interdict the entirety of the cross Canada rail road pretty much at will if so desired (and as done by the Cree in the 90s). A lot of the same skills that you might expect in Afghanistan would be required to fight in that area.

Yup, and the same is true of most of the Canadian Shield area, although it is nowhere near as mountainous.

[Norfolk]

selil wrote:


I live in a metropolitan area in the northern midwest. You walk 100 feet out my back yard and you can run into bears, deer, coyotes, raccoons, and you are in deep forest. A fair chunk about the size of a small city with it's own ecosystem.

Sam, I noticed that you omitted mention of cougars there. Was that unintentional, or somehow connected to the surge in cougar sightings lately over here?;)


With the changing population migration patterns and more people moving into cities the general concepts of frontier are being lost. Even suburbia is loosing the more wild feel to it. People in general are becoming more removed from nature, scope, scale, danger, and so much more. Take a city dweller into the woods and watch them stumble around. These are people who stumble on a raised edge of a sidewalk crack. Ask them to judge distance and they are done for.

Too true! And the consequence of this is a sort of imbecilization; I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, but in a quite literal and technical sense. The great majority of the population couldn't fight their way out of a blueberry bush, never mind find their way back to civilization if they were dropped off in the woods somewhere. Don't even think of handing them a simple compass, let alone a map.

The e-Forces ! The Evolution of Battle-Groupings in the Face of 21st Century Challenges (http://www.cda-cdai.ca/symposia/2004/Dion,%20Major.pdf), by Eric Dion -

(From the Conclusion):




The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology.
New procurement and technology development initiatives are needed to ensure that fast
moving technologies can be quickly developed to maintain the capability of in-service
platforms and systems through tech-insertion, thereby guarding against obsolescence.
And as it has already been recommended that the USMC Marine Expeditionary Unit
model be introduced in the Canadian Army / CF to satisfy the requirements of a special
operations capability for the 21st Century, we would argue in fact that our whole Forces
need to adopt an expeditionary and evolutionary posture, structurally by shifting to task
tailored forces and culturally, by adopting a renewed operational focus, based on our ethos.


Major Dion published this paper last year in Canadian Military Journal, though he originally prepared it for a conference about 4 years ago. While I'm not a fan of the NCW that runs throughout the entirety of the article, Major Dion is spot-on with proposing the application of the MAU/MEU concept to the Canadian Army - something which has been considered on and off since the mid-60's; a very strong caveat that I would add to this is to bear in mind that the USMC in no way abandons its general-warfighting mission and role while resorting to the use of MEUs and MEBs during less than-major war operations. The Division and Regimental structures are very much still in place for fighting the Big One, but of course course adjust their deployed force structure in accord with GETM/METT-T. An established force structure much more similar to that of the USMC has, for 40-some years, been recognized in many quarters in the Canadian Army as being best-suited to Canadian requirements.

Now, Major Dion told me recently that he considered that total of 12 USMC MEU-style Canadian Army Battle Groups would be required in order to meet Canada's military obligations, missions, and roles. I will readily concede that this is correct; personally I could forsee a slightly more flexible range of from 10-13 such Battle Groups, but Major Dion is involved in Strategic Planning at NDHQ, whereas I am merely asserting the Worm's Eye-View. That said, while I do agree that is the Army-Force level we need, the force-level we can afford would be about a third of that. At present, the Regular Army comprises, on paper, 9 Infantry Battalions and 3 Armoured Regiments, each of which could form the basis for a Battle Group, as well as 3 each Artillery and Engineer Regiments, amongst other units.

Of those other units, 2 are SOF, with a third due to be formed. JTF-2, a "Tier-I" SF unit, roughly divides into a "Black" side (CT and CRW), and a "Green" side (SAS-type roles other than CT/CRW), and is in the process of expanding to some 750 men. In order to do so, selections tandards were relaxed recently, and the Selection pass rate has changed from ~10-15% to ~45%.:wry: The second, which is also expected to muster some 750 men when brought up to full strength, is the Canadian Special Operations Regiment. It is planned to be a "Tier-II" SF/SOF unit, with a Special Forces Company (in Green Beret-type roles), and 3 commando companies (for use in Ranger Battalion-type roles). Finally, the Marine Commando Regiment, tasked with the "Black" CT role at sea and to consist of 250 men, will be stood up.

Needless to say, three SF/SOF major units in an Army that possesses a Regular component that does not even amount to a full Division is not just overkill, but dangerously out of whack. The conventional units can barely recruit replacement for those who have burned out with the operational tempo of the past nearly 7 years, and Regular Army Battle Groups fighting in Afghanistan have come to rely so heavily upon Reserve fillers that Reservists now slightly outnumber Regulars within those Battle Groups. Trying to sustain 3 (while raising two of those three) SF/SOF units at the same time whle the Army is struggling just to keep up to authorized strength is self-defeating; when I raised this point, Major Dion told me that that is the reason why he wrote this paper in the first place. And Major Dion is an SF Officer. Interesting. It seems that, in reversal of what tends to happen with our Southern neighbours, "Big Army" is at the mercy of SF and SOF; weird...:confused:

Flat-out, Canada has and needs an SAS-type SF capability - what is in recent years is referred to as "Tier-I" SF. We had it in the late 1940's, then we gave it up and struggled to maintain - out of hide - what would nowadays be called a limited "Tier-II" SF capability within the Infantery Battalions and especially the Airborne Regiment, as well as delegating SOF further and further to the Airborne Regiment and 1RCR while other units prepared for conventonal missions in Germany, Denmark, and Norway. Sending Infantrymen on the Patrol Pathfinder and SF Q Courses were no substitute for a full-fledged SAS-type capability in a dedicated Tier-I SF unit. Now that we have had one of our own again for the last decade and a half (more or less), for some reason we seem to have to have two more, and Type II SF/SOF at that?

Why? Properly led, trained, asnd resourced Infantry Battalions can handle just about anything the CSOR is planned to do; moreover, Canada has no need for a Tier-II Green Beret-type capability in addition to a Tier-I SAS-type capability; it's just wasteful and the Army Pathfinders in the Battalions can handle most of those roles at least as well anyway; for those they can't, that's what JTF-2 are for. And the Marine Commando Regiment simply duplicates part of JTF-2's mission and role. More waste. Other than large-scale parachute and diving operations, there is little that a properly-led and -trained Infantry Battalion can't do that a Commando or Ranger Battalion can. As such, a single Commando Battalion, specializing in Mountain, Arctic, Diving, and Parachute operations, and a single SAS-type SF unit (perhaps only a Company or a very small Battalion) are necessary, but the resources for these can only be found by scrapping CSOR and the planned MCR as they are presently conceived, and of course, for JTF-2, to turn over its CT/CRW mission and role back over to the RCMP in order to prevent it from growing too large and sacrificing too much in the way of SF capability and quality.

Right now, it is the SF and SOF that are contributing to wreaking increasing havoc upon Regular Army units, and there is only so much to go around for everyone. We need Bentley-SF, not both Mercedes- and Cadillac-SF, and we need Honda-Conventional Forces, not Dodge. And if we need something in between the two, it should be Acura-SOF, not Corvette.

[davidbfpo]

Not to overlook the potential for movement of SF & SOF personnel from the Army to the private sector, once trained and experienced. Something that has happened here with regular and reservist (Territorial Army) personnel. A point that no doubt the finance ministry will identify and use to query why such a large SF & SOF when they leave?

davidbfpo

[Norfolk]

Having just perused the early 2007 draft, it seems solid enough, and without dragging on for hundreds and hundreds of pages, which is good. Too bad the October 2007 version was to be subjected to PC revisions, though - and the complaints raised by certain groups about its content indicate that either they had not read the document, or completely misunderstood what they were reading.

Still, the latest draft will enjoy the benefit of a fuller integration of lessons learned and more time to think about the matter. Its final approval may drag on for months or even years yet (politics):wry:, but under the circumstances, that is more a formality than an impediment to either operations or doctrinal development.

In short, I'm happy.:)

Now if they'll only replace the two (and somewhat divergent):( pams for command with one.

[William F. Owen]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=790726ea-0881-43c7-90d6-ee2e33a9a192

This is somewhat disturbing and thanks to Fuchs for pointing it out.

Units are being told to give up their 60mm mortars! And get this for a quote

"But in an e-mail, the army said the grenade launchers will soon take over the role of the mortars. "As the 60mm mortar is nearing the end of its life-cycle, it doesn't make sense to keep it while the CASW will be meeting the same requirement," the e-mail said."

On what planet does CASW (40mm AGL) meet the same requirements as a mortar. The UK already made this mistake at the platoon level and is now reversing it.

IMO, unless a 40mm AGL is on a vehicle and preferably part of a RWS, it has no place in modern infantry.

[Ken White]

...On what planet does CASW (40mm AGL) meet the same requirements as a mortar. The UK already made this mistake at the platoon level and is now reversing it.

IMO, unless a 40mm AGL is on a vehicle and preferably part of a RWS, it has no place in modern infantry.Other than as a psychological weapon.

It looks scary, booms nicely and makes more noise than anything else -- with the caveat that the Mk 47 or the CIS AGL make slightly more sense. If one can afford it, it's a nice to have toy; if one cannot afford it and a 60mmm mortar issue, IMO one would be making a really bad mistake to opt for the AGL.

[VMI_Marine]

To contradict the article, tripod-mounted AGLs can be used as indirect fire weapons. The Marine Corps' machine gunnery pub has a tabular firing table in the back for just such a purpose.

But to retire the lightweight company mortars in favor of AGLs is stupid. AGLs can't fire high angle, for starters. The M224 is very easy to set up and quickly put down suppressive fires out to 3.5 km. This sort of baffles me:


Other soldiers say they aren't used that often in Afghanistan, a signal that the weapon's time has come and gone.

Why not? When the enemy frequently engages you from distances near or beyond the max effective range of your small arms, what could be better than an easily portable mortar system for returning the love? (Note: I am assuming a dismounted force w/o vehicle-mounted HMGs.)

[Fuchs]

They seem to have a 81mm mortar in the inventory as well, so maybe it's not as terrible as on first sight.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_5.asp?cat=2
(Slightly confused; 81mm mortar being used by "artillery"?)

It was apparently a 1942 vintage (later equipped with bipod) light mortar.
We're talking about the predecessor of the M224 here.

But it's still madness to have rules like that and to talk nonsense like that.

[Maximus]

Gentlemen,

100% concur with the general sentiment of this thread. The 60mm mortar is an essential weapon in the modern rifle company, if not rifle platoon. As infantry units continue to disperse on the battlefield, they'll need more instantly available--organic--fire support, not less. Check out the article here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/05032008/news/worldnews/afghan_war_cry_109193.htm and also review the photo gallery. This is an infantry platoon reinforced operating out of a patrol base, mortars and all. This is 2008. In the book Platoon Leader, the harsh reality on the importance of 60mm mortars was learned the hard way. Initially the infantry platoon did not have it's own lightweight mortars at its patrol base in Vietnam. Soon after commencing operations, the Soldiers quickly realized why they needed a lightweight mortar. For a 2002 perspective, Sean Naylor's Not a Good Day to Die clearly illustrates what happens when "higher" makes the very dangerous assumption that rotary wing and fixed wing close air support are all that's needed for fire support in modern combat. Additionally, the book Phase Line Green, an intensely personal combat story about Hue City in 1968, also hammers home the importance of high angle 60mm mortar fire.

For our Canadian infantry brethern fighting side-by-side with us in Afghanistan, I hope "higher" re-evaluates this decision.

[Norfolk]

This sort of nonsense is par for the course. A decade and a half ago, the Eryx missile was purchased to replace the Carl Gustav; the only real advantage the former had over the latter was that it could be fired from an enclosed space, otherwise it was more or less the Government just trying to make friends with France. Infantry Battalions promptly locked them up in their armouries and tossed away the key for the next half-decade or so and continued to use the Carl Gustav until DND finally realized that the Eryx was not actually being used. Subsequently, DND ordered the Carl Gustavs removed from service and the Eryx actually taken into service.

The 60 mm Mortars in question are the old Mark 19, bought surplus from the US Army around the time of the Korean War. There was one in the Weapons Det of each Infantry Company HQ and Infantry Platoon HQ; there was also a MAG-58 GPMG and one of the above mentioned M-2 or M-3 Carl Gustav RR. The general idea was that each Platoon HQ (plus the Coy HQ) would be able to suppress the enemy through "Triple Jeopardy": the GPMG would force the enemy to take cover; the 60mm Mortar would then force them to seek overhead cover; and the Carl G would subsequently be used to kill the enemy in their bunkers or AFVs; and meantime the Infantry Sections assaulted the enemy positions.

While good in theory, and within certain limits also pretty good in practice, the truth is that this arrangement was forced by the persistent refusal of the Government to authorize and fund proper unit strengths; otherwise a Weapons Platoon would likely have appeared in each Infantry Company, and this was the express preference of many in the Infantry. When tactical circumstances required the detachment of GPMGs, Mortars, and AT Weapons out to the Platoons, that would be no problem. Eventually Light Infantry Companies received them, but it is my understanding that they are probably to be dissolved in the current restructuring, if they have not been already. This includes the final confirmation of the deletion of each Battalion's fourth Infantry Company as well. So it boils down to a personnel funding issue, as usual, with the Government unwilling to fund additional personnel slots for a new weapon, and demanding that some other weapon be deleted in order to provide manpower for the newest weapon.

And the 81mm Mortar (as well as the 120mm) being placed in the hands of Artillery units is a symptom, after a fashion, of trying to follow the example of the US SBCT TO&E with its composite 81/120mm mortar and mortar/artillery units (something that was attempted in the Pentomic Division). Now, as VMI Marine noted, AGLs can be used in the Indirect-Fire Role, but as he also noted, such fires cannot replace, only augment, the indirect fires of Mortars. Finally, the Canadians are mounted in LAV-IIIs (Strykers with turret-mounted 25mm Bushmaster), and dismounted operations have proven strenous for what are now Mechanized Infantry troops, although ILAVs (M-113A3 with turret-mounted 76mm howitzer) are increasingly replacing the LAV-IIIs for cross-country operations.

The Brits tried to replace the 51mm Mortar with 40 mm UGLs a few years ago; it didn't work of course. The Canadians needed a new 60mm Light Mortar over twenty years ago; we never got them of course, and now we have to get rid of our old ones in order to man the new AGLs, which we also should have had over twenty years ago. Just shake your head.:mad:

[Ken White]

We do the same sorts of thing down here but we throw more money at them so they're always an even bigger foul up...:mad:

[jcustis]

Quote:
Other soldiers say they aren't used that often in Afghanistan, a signal that the weapon's time has come and gone.

Why not? When the enemy frequently engages you from distances near or beyond the max effective range of your small arms, what could be better than an easily portable mortar system for returning the love? (Note: I am assuming a dismounted force w/o vehicle-mounted HMGs.)

An issue of PID? Things changed post 2002...seems like we are back to post 9/11 over there now. Somewhere in-between 2002 and 2007, I could see the requirement for PID and concerns over P of I factors being as much an issue as they currently are right now in the theater next door.

[bikewrench8541]

The M224 is a great 60mm mortar. I was OJT'd on it way back when I was a Pvt. Stayed in Mortar section for the whole float.
Super accurate, I've hit dumpsters past a klick on the first shot, easy to use, and once you're trained up on it, very fast to open fire.
Its rapid fire is limited by humped ammo but it is still more useful than a humped AGL.
Illum is a good example of it's usefulness.
The Op Anaconda is an excellent example of it's niche.
Light infantry, long supply train, intermittent air support etc.
When I hated humping it I thought about the 81 guys in Weapons Co.:eek:

[Jones_RE]

Could the requirement to drop 60mm mortars been a poison pill by the treasury board to force the army to give up the grenade launchers?

[Norfolk]

It seems that most times, whenever a Commonwealth military requires a new piece of kit - especially "small-ticket" items - it has to fight tooth and nail for it. And at the end, if it has won, the Government presents it with a "one or the other" dilemna; if you want this new piece of kit, fine, but you have to give up something else. Cut off a leg to gain an arm.:(

[Jones_RE]

The "small ticket" items don't have major defense contractors lobbying every single legislator for it.

[marct]

From CBC.ca


Disciplinary charges soar since the push into Afghanistan
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 | 11:06 AM ET

Military charges against Canadian Forces members have risen dramatically in the years since Canada sent troops to Afghanistan, a CBC investigation has found. In fact, the charges have risen by as much as 62 per cent over an eight-year period.

All military forces face discipline and morale issues resulting from soldiers serving in war zones — and from the latest numbers uncovered by the CBC, it seems Canada is no exception.

In 1998-99, just over 1,300 so-called summary charges were laid against Canadian Forces members, for everything from drunkenness to charges of a sexual nature and drug dealing. But that number rose sharply to 2,001 in 2002-03, the year Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan, and stood at 2,100 in 2006-07, the latest year in which stats are available.

More... (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/07/21/f-militarycharges.html)

Not that this surprises me, but I would really like to see hese numbers tossed into more context.

[J Wolfsberger]

Marc,

After reading the article, and cogitating a bit, I don't think this is anything particularly serious. The rise seems to be in minor infractions, handled at company level. In the US Army these would be Article 15s. The big rise (if I read correctly) is in AWOLs - which could be nothing more than a few hours or a day late in reporting back to duty after leave.

Another aspect, as one commenter pointed out, is the transition form peacetime army to wartime army - guaranteed to surface problems, which diminish over time.

Given the historic record of the Canadian forces, and their current performance in Afghanistan, I don't think there is anything to worry about.

[marct]

Hi JW,


Given the historic record of the Canadian forces, and their current performance in Afghanistan, I don't think there is anything to worry about.

I think your assessment is pretty much spot on. What I suspect, however, is that the story is "breaking" now, in part, as a way to influence our (probable) fall election. Am I correct in assuming that such a rise in infractions is pretty normal in these circumstances?

Marc

[AdamG]

As a spinoff of this thread ( http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3530 )

Second pipeline explosion bears marks of sabotage, RCMP say
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081016.wpipeline_explosion1016/BNStory/National/home

The latest occurrence ruptured a pipeline in northeastern British Columbia, causing the escape of dangerous hydrogen sulphide gas and raising tensions in a region where intense resource activity is under way.

The first attempt to sabotage an EnCana gas pipeline occurred Saturday night, about 50 kilometres south of Dawson Creek, and the RCMP reported that damage from the second blast, at a nearby location, was discovered Thursday morning.


I read this and think "ELF", but then again ...

Five missing Afghan students turn up in Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081015.wafghans1015/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081015.wafghans1015

SEATTLE — Five Afghan students studying in Washington have fled to Canada, U.S. customs officials said Wednesday.

The five men, age 30 or younger, are master's students of public administration at Kabul University, but were on a three-month study visa to complete their theses at the University of Washington. Most had previously worked for the Afghanistan government.

[Jedburgh]

....I read this and think "ELF", but then again ...

Five missing Afghan students turn up in Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081015.wafghans1015/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081015.wafghans1015
Lets try and avoid unsubstantiated linkages and alarmist conjecture. Wouldn't want SWJ to turn into WND.

The kids visas ran out and they went up north to try and obtain refugee status in a nearby location where becoming a "refugee" is much easier than here in the US. Do you blame them in not wanting to go back to Afghanistan? Canada is struggling with the broader issue, and the past few years have seen a steady increase in those seeking such status, with an numbers rising about 30% over last year in the first nine months this year. Hell, they had nearly 4,000 refugee claims just in September.

Interestingly enough, already this year Mexico has become the the largest single annual source of refugee claimants since the Canucks starting tracking the issue.

If you're looking to make linkages (not related to the pipeline incident, though), there is a thriving two-way drug trade with a diverse multinational group of players on our northern border - ecstasy and MJ from Canada to US, and cocaine from US to Canada.

Then there's MS-13, which is usually thought of as a problem domestically here in the US, and more significantly south of the border, is present and active in their usual spread of illegal activities in Canada as well.

Although I'm now guilty of unsubstantiated conjecture, I don't feel that I'm too far off the mark when I say that someone with access to make the study could probably end making a substantive link between the increased US security focus on our southern border with the surge of refugee seekers - and related illegal activity - Canada is now receiving. If that is the case, then unless our northern neighbors (http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9134/) make some serious adjustments, the situation is only going to get worse for them, as (despite certain parties' claims to the contrary) our border and internal security measures targeting the entire spectrum of illegal immigration continue to tighten up.

[AdamG]

Lets try and avoid unsubstantiated linkages and alarmist conjecture. Wouldn't want SWJ to turn into WND.

Golly. Ok, I'll articulate my unsubstantiated conjecture better: Canada's got a problem, eh.

29 Sep 2008 ... ‘Fundamentalists spreading harsh ideology in Canada’.
www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C09%5C29%5Cstory_29-9-2008_pg7_58

Quebec man's Web messages urge Al-Qa'ida to attack Canada
Praises bin Laden and blasts Ottawa for sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq
STEWART BELL, Canwest News Service
Published: 10 hours ago
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=10de1a18-fc07-436d-9ba8-5ec3712b2e30
A Quebec man has posted messages on the Internet encouraging Al-Qa'ida to attack Canada, the latest in a series of similar sentiments that are worrying counterterrorism officials.

The author of the messages, who uses the pseudonym Altar, praised terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and asked why Al-Qa'ida was focusing its efforts only on Europe instead of Canada.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/toronto-canada-shocking-islamic-terrorist-cell-trial-begins


Although I'm now guilty of unsubstantiated conjecture,

Yup.

[Jedburgh]

Adam,

The conjecture I referred to was the linkage of the Afghan students with the pipeline blast. Your linked articles did not touch on either subject.

The first:

....what shocked her on arrival in Canada was her discovery of circles of indoctrination where women are veiled even inside their own houses, with ramifications in the Middle East, Pakistan, Iran, Europe and the United States. Imams trained in fundamentalist ideology, sent on missions and paid by foreigners, spread a radical Islam aiming at isolating Muslims from their host society. Messages call for jihad and to hate the agnostics, Jews, moderate Muslims, and Christians.....
As an aside, I found it interesting that she links problems with the fundies to her perception of the rise of the evangelical right in the US and problems emerging from that issue.

In any case, problems within some immigrant communities (as well as some non-immigrant groups brought together simply by a shared radical ideology or other common bond) is an issue that also exists in certain communities here in the US, and has long been of concern to LE. And its not just radical Islam from whatever locus of origin - there's always the old example of the Irish-American community's support for the IRA, as well as current issues such as clots of White Supremacists and their militia camps in isolated areas, or certain Hispanic communities and the gang problem that migrates with them from state to state. Each is a unique security problem in its own context, but we always have to take care not to assume broader, more complex linkages and to look for the evidence.

The second linked story was simply a tale of a guy posting a rant on the 'net. The short story had a lot of alarmist spin, but little substantive context.

The final article, regarding the trial, was closer to the point - but the two year old disruption and rolling up of a terrorist cell is still not related to the incident of the Afghan students, nor does it support even a weak supposition that those students may be linked to terrorism.

Again, they crossed the border, reported to the Canadian authorities and were prepared to attend a detention review hearing before the Immigration Review Board. They didn't "disappear" - but they did know exactly what they were going to do prior to arriving in WA for their classes.

These five haven't been the only ones. Over the past couple of years it has become pretty obvious that young, educated Afghans are aware of the potential value of obtaining subsidized travel to the US on student visas, then bolting to Canada to take advantage of their more lenient policies. ACIE (http://www.americancouncils.org/) has lost a few out of host homes much farther from the border than WA. The ones that concern me aren't the ones that turn up in Canada looking to obtain refugee status (the majority), but the ones that just disappear off the radar entirely......

Regards,

Ted

[Norfolk]

Trying to sustain 3 (while raising two of those three) SF/SOF units at the same time whle the Army is struggling just to keep up to authorized strength is self-defeating; when I raised this point, Major Dion told me that that is the reason why he wrote this paper in the first place. And Major Dion is an SF Officer. Interesting. It seems that, in reversal of what tends to happen with our Southern neighbours, "Big Army" is at the mercy of SF and SOF; weird...:confused:


Correction: Major Dion put this paper out on another forum some months ago hoping to avoid what is now happening - Things aregetting worse; not long ago JTF 2 stated on its public website that it's adjusted its physical entry standards on its selection course to reflect "functionality", and as a result the pass rate has rsien from some 10-15% to ~45%. And all the while competing with the new Special Operations Regiment - with the proposed Marine Commando Regiment to come. The Army is struggling with a 1,000 man shortage of junior NCO's, and more soldiers are leaving the CF now than are joining. The wheels on the cart may be getting wobbly soon, if not already.

Another member of this board on another thread had proposed that the CF send more candiadates on the Ranger and Q-Courses: never having been to Ranger School myself, I yet have no doubt that it is effective at toughening people up. But inititail entry training should do that, not a specialized course. As for the Q-course, while Canadians do attend it, we don't need to duplicate the US SOF model; for starters, we have just to small an Army for that kind of compartmentalization.


I really need to get out, get an FAC and a hunting license, and learn to hunt, or something.

[Rex Brynen]

Jets scrambled to intercept plane (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090227.wrussia0227/BNStory/politics/home)

STEVEN CHASE
Globe and Mail Update
February 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM EST


OTTAWA — A Russian military bomber came close to breaching northern Canadian airspace just prior to U.S. President Barack Obama's visit here last week, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said today.

Norad fighters immediately intercepted it and turned it away, he said. CF-18s took off from Cold Lake, Alta., on Feb. 18. The incident took place about 24 hours before Mr. Obama journeyed to Canada for his first foreign visit.

“They met a Russian aircraft that was approaching Canadian airspace. They sent very clear signals that the Russian aircraft was to turn around - turn tail - to its own airspace, which it did,” the minister said, speaking to reporters after a visit with Norad brass in Ottawa.

[TristanAbbey]

Notice how the Canadians couched the visit, at least in Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51Q2W220090227?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true):


MacKay spoke after a meeting with U.S. General Gene Renuart, commander of the binational North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

"They (the Russians) have been professional in the way they have conducted their aircraft operations," Renuart said.

Canada's minority Conservative government has promised to spend billions of dollars boosting Canada's presence in the Arctic, which scientists believe has vast reserves of oil and natural gas.

"Our intention is very much to demonstrate our sovereignty, our capability to protect our territory, our airspace, our water (and) our people in the Arctic and that includes our resources," MacKay said.

Five countries with an Arctic coastline -- Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark through its control of Greenland -- have competing claims to the region.

Scientists say oil and gas exploration could begin during the summer months within decades.

Russia said this week it would respond to any moves to militarize the Arctic.

Ottawa -- which plans to build a deep water port in the region -- has stepped up sovereignty patrols in the Arctic and last August it said it would toughen reporting requirements for ships entering its waters in the Far North.

I'm not sure we've seen the Canadians explicitly draw the link between Russia's patrols and the new great game in the Arctic.

[AdamG]

Two recent articles that'll probably be fodder for a new Stephen Coonts novel. Anyone remember the old Cold War rumors of Spetsnaz vacations in Alaska?

Canada says will defend its Arctic
Mar 27 12:41 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.92e661444313b232e8931de00c29c73 b.3a1&show_article=1

The Canadian government on Friday reaffirmed its Arctic claims, saying it will defend its northern territories and waters after Russia earlier announced plans to militarize the North.

"Canada is an Arctic power," Catherine Loubier, a spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, said in an email to AFP.

"The government is engaged in protecting the security of Canada and in exercising its sovereignty in the North, including Canadian waters," she said.

Loubier pointed to the planned acquisition of Arctic patrol vessels, construction of a deep water port and eavesdropping network in the region, annual military exercises and boosting the number Inuit Arctic rangers keeping on eye on goings-on along its northern frontier.

Earlier, Russia announced plans to turn the Arctic into its "leading strategic resource base" by 2020 and station troops there, documents showed, as nations race to stake a claim to the oil-rich region.

The country's strategy for the Arctic through 2020 -- adopted last year and now published on the national security council website -- says one of Russia's main goals for the region is to put troops in its Arctic zone "capable of ensuring military security."

[031-Bacon,RG]

They must have gotten the story wrong - an excess of recruits actually choosing infantry, in the midst of a shooting war?

"I am 1,600 infantrymen over my establishment," Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said Thursday, adding that the high numbers of recruits who want to "serve at the tip of the spear . . . completely refuted" any notion that there were problems getting people to serve in a wartime army.

Somebody must have made a mistake, since everything I've been told (over and over and over) is that Canadians are peace-loving and unwarlike friends to everyone, who aspire to nothing more than to don the blue beret and go stand with an empty rifle as an alternative target between warring factions. I mean, at some point someone must have told these recruits that the role of infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy, right?

"I find myself in a unique position in comparison to most of my fellow army commanders across NATO," Lt.-Gen. Leslie said. "I have more volunteers every tour than I have positions. To come to Afghanistan is a competitive process."

Go figure. Teach 'em to read and think, and then they wanna go and extend the same opportunities to others. They must not have got enough hugs as children - the whole lot of them.


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2215490

[RJ]

Its genetics 031. Those ressive genes handed down from the Celts and the Norse mixed with the Tribes of Gaul and the martial blood that flows in the veins of of the tribes that inhabitated the Med Basin has always had a component that instinctively sought physical contact with the enemy.

The United States Marine Corps has become very selective in who is retained in the O300 MOS infantry field in the past couple of years. During this whole conflict the Marines never had a problem attracting tip of the spear types. Neither has the Regular US Army had a problem filling the ranks of their Infantry and Airborne Divisions.

I suspect your Forces see that in Regiments like the Princess Patricia, and some of the Scots connected Regts.

It was rumored that one of Gen. Robert E. Lee's Col.s told one of Gen. U.S. Grant's Colonel's at Appomatox Court House when the South surrendered "The only reason you won, was because you had more Irish fighting on your side!"

In every generation there are segments of the population who are drawn to the military life. Those more in tune than most, select the personal combat with the enemy route to exercise their instincts.

It may be as simple as that. :rolleyes:

[Rifleman]

It was rumored that one of Gen. Robert E. Lee's Col.s told one of Gen. U.S. Grant's Colonel's at Appomatox Court House when the South surrendered "The only reason you won, was because you had more Irish fighting on your side!"

Actually, I suspect it was because the Union fielded three million men and the Confederacy fielded one million. :rolleyes:

It may be as simple at that. :wry:

[031-Bacon,RG]

The United States Marine Corps has become very selective in who is retained in the O300 MOS infantry field in the past couple of years. During this whole conflict the Marines never had a problem attracting tip of the spear types. Neither has the Regular US Army had a problem filling the ranks of their Infantry and Airborne Divisions.

I suspect your Forces see that in Regiments like the Princess Patricia, and some of the Scots connected Regts.


Since I was in, during the '80s, the Canadian Forces have gone from a "unified" service back towards a more discrete Army, Air Force, and Navy. In the forty-year interregnum the CF has been the red-headed stepchild of Canadian federal policy, kept alive with the bare minumum of support. Coincidentally, for much of this time we have been ruled by the Liberal party.

Integration was supposed to create efficiencies, common purpose, and other such nonsense, but the real reason was to diminish the cost of maintaining a standing force in an era of nuclear weapons - especially when our cousins, the Americans whom our Liberals love to malign with such passion - were NATO-bound to defend us. We leaned on America and leaned hard; our Canadian Forces had little ability to project force.

Fast forward to the current era of SmallWar, and the attendant need for the ability to put boots where our political mouths are (oh, how I love the English language). Suddenly, CF members have purpose, the support of the general population (less in Quebec, of course), modern tools to do the job, and the prospects of a career spent serving in a meaningful way.

In short, the CF is reinventing itself to be a completely different Army than the "Force" I was in, and yes, I'm both happy and p-o'd (that I missed my chance).

What the CF becomes, however, is still up for grabs. Canada has possibly the best opportunity of any Western nation to create a modern, SmallWar specialist military - since we really have only the cadre of a military, amost all of whom will find themselves involved in some manner with our Afghanistan commitment, this graduation exercise will shape the future of the CF as it is shaping the lives of serving members. If we choose carefully how to re-grow our military we will have a CF to be as proud of as we were once of our Royal Canadian Army, Air Force, and Navy.

If we do it right, we could end up with an integrated, capable CF that looks very much like the US Marines.

[RJ]

031 - Back in the late 50's I was part of an exercise with the Princess Pats.

Did your intergration eleminate the history and traditions of those proud old regiments. I was shocked when the Brits started combining the old Scots Regiments, but they did retain there kilts and hyphenated the combined units titles.

Canada could do much worse than building the new foreces on the Marine Corps pattern. Look deep and copy the Navy Medical Service and Chaplin's seconded to the Marine Divisions to provide comfort and solace.

The US Navy Corpsmen who serve with the Marines are held in awe by the Marines and those sailors who have not served in the Fleet Marine Forces.

Rifleman - The south did fairly well with the 1:3 ratio. They did a fair amount of recruiting Irish from the "Ald Sod" and fielded Irish Brigades of their own. Savannah GA was a large port of entry for the Irish and today boasts the second largest St. Patricks Day Parade in the world. And New Orleans, drew many Irish immigrents from a section of the City called Algeirs situated across "The Irish Channel" for City of New Orleans Regiments. I had a great, great uncle who wore a Fez and Pantaloons for the City of New Orleans and a great, great grandfather who was with the 88th NY Infantry Vol. Regt. ("The Devils Own") from lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, NY of the Irish Brigade formed by the State of New York. A lot of that Regiments first soldiers were veterans of and Irish Light Infantry Regiment of the British Army The 88th Connaught Rangers. Rifleman - It is all in the gene pool. Good Stock, as a gentleman from Atlanta, GA said, once upon a time.

I've heard of an Irish Brigade Regiment from Georgia who's knickname was "The Jaspers". It might be time for someone to write a history of the Irish contribution to the Southern side of the War between the States.

[031-Bacon,RG]

RJ - Integration didn't end the regimental system; the three regular army regiments are the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infanftry, The Royal Canadian Regiment, and the Royal 22nd Regiment (Van-Doos).

[jmm99]

.....................

953

and lest we not forget the spiritual ancestor of the Van Doos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_22e_R%C3%A9giment) - CFM-Canada (http://www.militaryheritage.com/nfrance.htm).

Bonsoir, mon amis

Michel

Although, it is said that, once, the Van Doos lost their goat - if so, a classic in Canadian special operations. :D

[031-Bacon,RG]

JMM,

There's also an old nasty rumour about an RCR weapon retrieved by the Pats, but I can't remember the whole story....

[jmm99]

is don't lift "precious relics" from the HQs of another unit lest they "get your goat" (or the equivalent) - thereby leading to a "prisoner swap".

Not a "goat rumor", according to the officer who planned and executed the operation, with no harm done except a couple of dazed subaltern "goat tenders" (the "Second Battle on the Plains of Abraham"). Classified as a helicopterborne training exercise by the "black helicopter folks". The incident cannot be found in the Van Doos historical page (http://www.r22er.com/pages/heritage/traditions_et_coutumes/mascotte/la_mascotte.html) dealing with the many incarnations of Bâtisse (now on goat X).

La Citadelle, the regimental museum and mess impressed me; but then there were family ties to its prior incarnation as Château de St. Louis, including one ancestor executed for homicide near La redoute du Cap Diamants (http://www.r22er.com/pages/heritage/Citadelle/la_redoute_du_cap_diamants.htm); and another "tué par les Iroquois" near the main entrance as one goes down the hill into the Basse Ville.

The regular Canadian regiments manage to cram a lot of history and tradition into three units.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

A Canadian think tank review popped into my email box just and apologies for bein serious it may be of interest:http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Canada%20First%20Defence%20Strategy%20-%20One%20Year%20Later.pdf

From the summary:
An objective examination of progress in the other three pillars of the CFDS – personnel, readiness and infrastructure – indicates some movement towards achieving a balanced military capability, even though the actual measurement of success is challenging.

[jmm99]

for some proper UK seriousness - after all, you (the UK, not "you") are the parent nation. :D

Reading the CF main page on Canada First Defence Strategy (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first-premier/index-eng.asp), took me to consideration of what is meant by "Canada First" (that is positing that the words are intended to mean something - not always the case for political documents).

Perhaps, its meaning is found in the Roles of the Canadian Forces (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first-premier/defstra/role-eng.asp):


To this end, the Government is giving the Canadian Forces clear direction concerning their three roles – defending Canada, defending North America and contributing to international peace and security – as well as the types and numbers of missions it expects our military to fulfill. This level of ambition will see the Canadian Forces deliver excellence at home, be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad by contributing to international operations in support of Canadian interests and values.

My inference (which may be dead wrong) is posited on the roles being definitely weighted in the order stated: Canada, primary; North America, secondary; and international, tertiary. Of course, that may be wrong - and the roles could be differently weighted.

This brings me to my point (IMO). Canada's military problem from the gitgo (which I measure from 1608) has been too much geography and not enough people. The thought of defending Canada only, with its vast littorals and open spaces, is a daunting one to me. The concept of a very mobile combined arms force (akin to MAGTF + light Naval) seems most logical. If Canada can defend Canada and secure its borders, it will fully meet any obligation it might feel it owes to defend North America. What it feels it owes internationally is up to Canada. (IMO)

Another question I have is based in part on the Executive Summary (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first-premier/defstra/summary-sommaire-eng.asp), which envisions a very long-term series of increased military expenditures. Given the turnover in Canadian politics (just as in US politics), is there much probability that this 20-30 year plan will be implemented ?

Full plan .pdf (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first-premier/June18_0910_CFDS_english_low-res.pdf).

What think ye, ye of Irish, French, beaver or goat heritage - and other serious folks as well ?

Regards

Mike

[tankersteve]

In my classes at the CFC, the great land mass of Canada is commonly considered indefensible, yet unassailable. :D

It is too much territory to cover, yet so big and open once landed on, it would be relatively simple to repulse an attacker. Much of the hospitable areas have local communities that would notice an invasion. The areas that have sparse human habitation get Canadian Ranger patrols occasionally.

Any invader into these areas really wouldn't accomplish much other than be really sorry about being in the frozen wastelands of Canada (coming from someone who spent a whole 4 days in Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut).

Tankersteve

[031-Bacon,RG]

Steve is right: we've always planned to trade space for time - it worked for the Russians in WWII and it should have worked against them in the event of WWIII - until our NATO allies could get into motion.

JMM99, I also have no faith that successive governments will stick to the plan, nor am I holding my breath waiting for the current government to honour it's promises. Public support for the Afghanistan mission, or for new equipment to meet Forces needs, is tenuous at best; when budgets bring the military into competition with social programs, the military comes a distant second every time. An example of that battle is the deferral of construction of our new icebreakers - we won't get new toys if the ballet has to find corporate sponsors.

With respect to the composition of the future CF, I agree that the vast spaces, long coasts along three oceans, and an icebound archapelago should be considerations. If we are serious about asserting our sovereignty, we need to add the capacity to support ops across the littoral. A vessel that can transport troops, provide support for tactical and Chinook helicopters, and with the ability to land fighting and logistics vehicles, would not only suit our defense needs, but also allow us to project force in support of the national interest.

[RJ]

03 Bacon RG - The Marine Corps today has 3 Infantry Divisions and 3 Air Wings.

With supporting combat and logistic suport units the Marines have about 203 -205,000 troops

The Canadian Govt. should consider the Marine "Big Squad" concept of a Squad Leader and 3 fireteams equipted with 3 automatic weapons vs the smaller 9 or 10 man squads other military forces utilitize.

I'd point whoever is considering the big vs little squads argumements to the
Rifle Squad deliberations in the Trigger Puller forum cover the pros and cons in depth.

I'm a big fan of the Marine 13 man squad because I grew up in that environment. It works, it has depth, surivability and to ability to continue the attack and wreak losses on the enemy in a much higher ratio in a shorter length of time.

Ken White, who fought both sized squads in combat favors the more robust Marine Squad for serveral reason. That personal recommendation alone should convince any political, number crunching Scrooge in Canada. :wry:

I hope your politicans understand the generational threat we all face with the islamofacist elements who will not go away because we are capable of turning the other cheek.

I suspect there will be a lot of small war action in the next 30 years than having to defent the vast open spaces and depth in dfense your nation enjoys.

[RJ]

03 Bacon RG - The Marine Corps today has 3 Infantry Divisions and 3 Air Wings.

With supporting combat and logistic suport units the Marines have about 203 -205,000 troops

The Canadian Govt. should consider the Marine "Big Squad" concept of a Squad Leader and 3 fireteams equipted with 3 automatic weapons vs the smaller 8 or 9 man squads other military forces utilitize.

I'd point whoever is considering the big vs little squads argumements to the
Rifle Squad deliberations in the Trigger Puller forum cover the pros and cons in depth.

I'm a big fan of the Marine 13 man squad because I grew up in that environment. It works, it has depth, surivability and to ability to continue the attack and wreak losses on the enemy in a much higher ratio in a shorter length of time.

Ken White, who fought both sized squads in combat favors the more robust Marine Squad for serveral reason. That personal recommendation alone should convince any political, number crunching Scrooge in Canada. :wry:

I hope your politicans understand the generational threat we all face with the islamofacist elements who will not go away because we are capable of turning the other cheek.

I suspect there will be a lot of small war action in the next 30 years than having to defent the vast open spaces and depth in dfense your nation enjoys.

[Xivvx]

Seem the discussion has gotten onto the SOF side of things, but I'd like to talk about Arctic security for a moment. Currently our Navy has plans to produce "Arctic Patrol Vessels" for sovereignty missions up north. These vessels would be ice hardened and capable of winter missions, based out of ports like Nannook and Nanisivik they would be fairly lightly armed but capable of conducting fisheries patrols and "NorPloy's" currently performed by the CG. As it stands now, a Frigate usually goes up there each summer to show the flag, but it’s seen by the Navy as more of a training opportunity in ice navigation rather than real "presence patrolling" to borrow a term from the army.

Its not clear if the reg force will be the primary sailors (hardship posting anyone?) or if the reserves will be employed for crew on these ships yet, but given the Navy's problems with manning and operational tempo I don't see how this new commitment can be properly met. I know the bosses I've had haven't been able to give me a satisfactory answer regarding this, which doesn't speak well for the plan.

[GI Zhou]

Speaking to a few far more learned infantry warrant officer types the biggest issue regarding infantry squad size is moving them around the battlefield. Due to rail movement, and pesky things like small bridges and goat tracks - highways in some third world ####e hole, the vehicles have a width restriction. This means seven to ten soldiers with kit can squeeze into an APC/IFV/IMV etc. The marines have those big AAV7 'ordnance magnets' and the new Chinese ZDB05 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle is another large 'ordnance magnet' with lovely slab sides and thin armour.

[Culpeper]

They must have gotten the story wrong - an excess of recruits actually choosing infantry, in the midst of a shooting war?

"I am 1,600 infantrymen over my establishment," Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said Thursday, adding that the high numbers of recruits who want to "serve at the tip of the spear . . . completely refuted" any notion that there were problems getting people to serve in a wartime army.

Somebody must have made a mistake, since everything I've been told (over and over and over) is that Canadians are peace-loving and unwarlike friends to everyone, who aspire to nothing more than to don the blue beret and go stand with an empty rifle as an alternative target between warring factions. I mean, at some point someone must have told these recruits that the role of infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy, right?

"I find myself in a unique position in comparison to most of my fellow army commanders across NATO," Lt.-Gen. Leslie said. "I have more volunteers every tour than I have positions. To come to Afghanistan is a competitive process."

Go figure. Teach 'em to read and think, and then they wanna go and extend the same opportunities to others. They must not have got enough hugs as children - the whole lot of them.


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2215490

The Canadians rock-n-roll in today's fight.

[William F. Owen]

Speaking to a few far more learned infantry warrant officer types the biggest issue regarding infantry squad size is moving them around the battlefield.
Wrong. That is absolutely NOT the biggest issues. It's the opinion the has created nearly all the problems. The size of the section has NOTHING to do with the size of the vehicle,

[milnews.ca]

This summary of a paper just out at Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC):

This paper reports on the research conducted in the first year of a three-year study on the psychological well-being of snipers. This research began with an interview-based study of 19 snipers who had served in Afghanistan and who were still serving as snipers in Canadian army units. The results of this study show that the snipers had elevated scores on a generalized measure of psychological stress, but their scores were not as high as those of a sample of nonsnipers (from another study) who had served in Afghanistan. This finding suggests that the snipers were coping as well or better than regular soldiers. When asked about specific combat experiences, the differences were more dramatic, however. Snipers experienced more combat than the non-sniper group and expressed more concern over their combat experiences than the non-snipers. In contrast to these findings, the snipers also expressed high levels of satisfaction with their careers and stated that being a sniper had been a positive influence in their lives. Given the inconsistency of these findings, it is proposed that this research be expanded to include more standardized measures of possible outcomes and a larger sample during the second and third years of the project.

J. Peter Bradley (Department of Military Psychology and Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada), "An Exploratory Study on Sniper Well-Being: Report on the First Year of Sniper Well-Being Research (FY 2008-2009)," DRDC, July 2010 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35148793/An-Exploratory-Study-on-Sniper-Well-Being) (link to 37 page study at Scribd.com)

[jps2]

Looking at a special function requiring specific training and high percentage of dismiss /reject is a little skewed for such study between well-being after deployment.
I will not be surprised if NCO and specialists resilience to stress fight is the same as snipers.

It could be interesting to find out that nature of character (psychological orientations) are less fight-stress relevant.

Last point, 19 is not a big enough sample from a statistical point of view. Furthermore, the candidates were chosen by their staff, polluting the sample.

[120mm]

I have always been very skeptical of the preconception that killing is unnatural and stressful.

If anything, modern man is bothered most by the discovery that they LIKE to kill, which runs counter to societies myth of peaceful mankind, which can cause long term coping issues.

[anna]

Norflok,
I am surpriced by what kind of mis-inforamtion you post on here.
It is obviouse to any insider that you have NO IDEA
about the Canadian Army, its structure, equipment and such.
You will do everyone here a great service if you would restrain yourself from posting such gross mis-information!!
ANYONE realy interested in the Canadian army can find the REAL info by keystroke!

[Ken White]

Norflok,
I am surpriced by what kind of mis-inforamtion you post on here.
It is obviouse to any insider that you have NO IDEA
about the Canadian Army, its structure, equipment and such.
You will do everyone here a great service if you would restrain yourself from posting such gross mis-information!!
ANYONE realy interested in the Canadian army can find the REAL info by keystroke!He did serve in the Canadian Army and he was fairly well connected and tried to stay current. The post you presumably reference is dated June, 2008 and specifically cites another person as the source from an earlier posting on another site.

A lot can happen in two and a half years...

I'm curious. What's an insider in this case? A guy who was in the force discussed or a good web researcher? ;)

[Rex Brynen]

Norflok,
I am surpriced by what kind of mis-inforamtion you post on here.
It is obviouse to any insider that you have NO IDEA
about the Canadian Army, its structure, equipment and such.
You will do everyone here a great service if you would restrain yourself from posting such gross mis-information!!
ANYONE realy interested in the Canadian army can find the REAL info by keystroke!

Thank you for that thoughtful commentary, anna. It is certainly so much more helpful than Norfolk's long, detailed, informative posts.

[Tom Odom]

Thank you for that thoughtful commentary, anna. It is certainly so much more helpful than Norfolk's long, detailed, informative posts.

That would be Norflok

Not Norfolk :D

[Rex Brynen]

That would be Norflok

Not Norfolk :D

Well yes, flok him!

[Kevin23]

The Harper Government of Canada in order to commemorate the 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812 and to celebrate the country's past military traditions, is changing the name's of the navy and Airforce back to Royal. However, the army will be branding just the "army" following British tradition on the naming subject. The names were changed in the 1960's as part of a move by the Liberal Government at the time to unify Canada's armed forces under various commands

This move as the article state's isn't without controversy as many say the money for the re-branding effort would be better spent. While some politicians especially from Quebec, see it as an effort by Harper to tie Canada closer to the UK.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-to-restore-royal-moniker-to-canadas-navy-air-force/article2130125/

[Rex Brynen]

While understandable in terms of reemphasizing the connection between the modern Canadian military and its achievements of the past, I have to say I think it is a rather silly move from a national unity point-of-view—arguably, Canada's most important national security concern.

In the most recent polling (http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2010.05.25_Monarchy_CAN.pdf) I've seen (May 2010), only 13% of Quebeckers supported Canada remaining a monarchy. Support among Francophone Quebeckers would be even lower than that.

National unity issues aren't terribly salient at the moment. But given that the the country came within 0.58% of falling apart in the 1995 referendum, I'm not sure the gains in terms of historical attachment outweigh the potential future liabilities.

[Infanteer]

As the only thing essentially changing is the stationary, I think this will all be forgotten by anyone outside of the military in about 48 hours....

[SWJ Blog]

The Strategic Outlook for Canada (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-strategic-outlook-for-canada)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-strategic-outlook-for-canada) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

2013 Strategic Outlook for Canada (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2013-strategic-outlook-for-canada)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2013-strategic-outlook-for-canada) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Bill Moore]

I recall a thread or perhaps an article in the blog about insurgency forming in Canada, which was grossly overstated, but the unrest over indigenous rights enabled by social media does have a familiar ring to it.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/FaultLinesBlog/2013/12/6/-elsipogtog-the-fireoverwaterbackgroundreading.html


"Canada's Idle No More movement began as a small social media campaign - armed with little more than a hashtag and a cause.

But it has grown into a large indigenous movement, with protests and ceremonial gatherings held almost daily in many of the country's major cities..."

"Spence and other First Nations groups are demanding better living conditions for Canada's aboriginals, and they are angry at the country's government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which they accuse of trying to erode their land and sovereignty rights..."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/top-5-aboriginal-stories-of-2013-1.2477363


While it seems that Idle No More has settled into a quiet simmer, there is no doubt that it continues to be a force across the country, and beyond Canadian borders.

In December, Foreign Policy magazine included the four founders of the movement in its prestigious list, Top 100 Global Thinkers. And recently, flashmob round dances took place across Canada, sending out the message that Idle No More will continue to be a presence in 2014.

[jmm99]

is here (http://www.idlenomore.ca/); their Manifesto (http://www.idlenomore.ca/manifesto):


The Treaties are nation to nation agreements between First Nations and the British Crown who are sovereign nations. The Treaties are agreements that cannot be altered or broken by one side of the two Nations. The spirit and intent of the Treaty agreements meant that First Nations peoples would share the land, but retain their inherent rights to lands and resources. Instead, First Nations have experienced a history of colonization which has resulted in outstanding land claims, lack of resources and unequal funding for services such as education and housing.

The state of Canada has become one of the wealthiest countries in the world by using the land and resources. Canadian mining, logging, oil and fishing companies are the most powerful in the world due to land and resources. Some of the poorest First Nations communities (such as Attawapiskat) have mines or other developments on their land but do not get a share of the profit. The taking of resources has left many lands and waters poisoned – the animals and plants are dying in many areas in Canada. We cannot live without the land and water. We have laws older than this colonial government about how to live with the land.

Currently, this government is trying to pass many laws so that reserve lands can also be bought and sold by big companies to get profit from resources. They are promising to share this time…Why would these promises be different from past promises? We will be left with nothing but poisoned water, land and air. This is an attempt to take away sovereignty and the inherent right to land and resources from First Nations peoples.

There are many examples of other countries moving towards sustainability, and we must demand sustainable development as well. We believe in healthy, just, equitable and sustainable communities and have a vision and plan of how to build them.

Please join us in creating this vision.

Not too many flames here - e.g., the strategy and tactics are vanilla Gene Sharp (http://www.aeinstein.org/).

The basic political argument (http://www.idlenomore.ca/sovereignty_do_firstnations_need_it) is "Indigenous Sovereignty", with a realization that that concept will not be easily accepted by the "Settler States":


...
Recognition, Exercise or Termination

It is well settled and clear that Settler States such as Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand would never voluntarily recognise Indigenous Sovereignty. Nevertheless, it is the recognition of sovereignty that permits for its undisputed exercise. How then is Indigenous sovereignty to gain recognition? Sovereign recognition embraces the notion of Nation to Nation relationship, one sovereign entity's interaction with another sovereign entity. This is most commonly seen through Treaty making and alliances of mutual benefit. The historic treaties Indigenous Nations have made with European nations bear witness to the nation - to - nation relationship. In a modern context of sovereign recognition, Indigenous Nations ought to continue to make treaties and alliances with other sovereign nations. This can be easily accomplished. For example, the Mohawk Nation could negotiate and enter Treaty of commerce and trade with the Mi'kmaq Nation or the Ojibway Nation entering alliances with the Cree Nation on environmental protection. The possibilities are endless and could and should include Indigenous Nations worldwide. The issue of Sovereign Recognition can be easily solved. ... (more fore and aft of this snip)
Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

To expand a bit on INM, and esp. the Elsipogtog highway block (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/rcmp-protesters-withdraw-after-shale-gas-clash-in-rexton-1.2100703):


The RCMP said at least one shot was fired by someone other than police and that Molotov cocktails had been thrown at police, while at least five RCMP vehicles were destroyed by fire. Police also investigated suspected explosive devices at the scene.

one must look to "obedient" advocacy, civil disobedience and terrorism. The best discussion of those three areas (which can be made to overlap), in relation to "First Nation" communities in the US and Canada, I found in Robert Odawi Porter (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/new_seneca_nation_president_ro.html) (Syracuse Law (http://www.law.syr.edu/deans-faculty-staff/profile.aspx?fac=107)), Tribal Disobedience (http://www.law.syr.edu/Pdfs/0No.05-2%20Tribal%20Disobedience.pdf) (2005 draft).

"Obedient" Advocacy

Porter shows us four sectors of "obedient" advocacy: diplomacy, litigation, lobbying, and participating in the American political system (pp. 3-8; and pp. 20-24); all subject to Porter's general caveat:


Generally. The primary limitation associated with the various advocacy strategies outlined above is that Indians are unnecessarily restrained in their advocacy efforts. Primarily, this is due to the fact that the American definition of Indigenous nation sovereignty is much more limited than the Indian definition of sovereignty. It is a truism that the United States will never subscribe to any definition of Indigenous sovereignty that might threaten American interests, however those interests may be defined. ...

Thus, litigation, lobbying, voting and holding office are advocacy strategies that are ultimately successful only to the extent that the United States allows them to be successful. Thus, if Indians, say, want to take a litigation position at odds with federal law ... such a position will ultimately be quashed because it presents too great a threat to American interests. To be sure, the denial of such authority will occur judicially on the innocuous grounds that it is outside of the Indian nation’s jurisdiction. But the ultimate outcome is that the rules governing the litigating of Indigenous rights will turn on an American, and not Indigenous, view of sovereignty.

To the extent that Indigenous peoples accept this formulation of their sovereign capacity – and become completely “obedient” to the American conception of their authority – there is thus created a very real limitation on the scope of their inherent authority. This psychological acceptance invariably leads to the adoption of equally obedient advocacy strategies such as those described above. While it might very well be the case that the degree of acculturation thus far has resulted in a complete harmonization of the American and Indigenous views of sovereignty – so that any distinction between the two is merely academic – it might still be true that Indigenous nations and peoples seek to pursue self-determination in a manner different from what the United States “allows”. Litigation, lobbying, voting, and holding office will ultimately fail to allow Indians to fully maximize their opportunity for self-determination because engaging in these activities promotes obedience to the colonial power.

All that being said, recourse to legal remedies ("obedient" advocacy) and their reasonable exhaustion is the first step in my recommended playbook - you might just win (http://www.leagle.com/decision/1971923384Mich539_1877) (albeit on limited grounds); and that tree, after it grows a while, may bear larger fruit. If that is not in the cards dealt, then the next step is civil disobedience.

Civil Disobedience

Porter treats "tribal disobedience" as a specialized subset of civil disobedience (pp. 8-9):


A more refined definition of tribal disobedience can be derived from the foundational elements of what constitutes civil disobedience. Civil disobedience has been described as –


an act of protest, deliberately unlawful, conscientiously and publicly performed. It may have as its object the laws or policies of some governmental body, or those of some private corporate body whose decisions have serious public consequences; but in either case the disobedient protest is almost invariably nonviolent in character.

From this definition, the contours of what constitutes an act of civil disobedience emerge. Such an act must be (i) nonviolent, (ii) open and visible, (iii) illegal, and (iv) performed for a moral purpose to protest an unjust law or to object to the status quo and with the expectation of punishment. As a result, certain acts fall below the threshold of what is necessary to constitute civil disobedience. “Mere dissent, protest, or disobedience of the law are not enough to qualify as civil disobedience." On the other hand, purely violent acts transcend the concept of civil disobedience and fall into the realm of criminal activity.

Tribal disobedience is related to civil disobedience in that it is action designed to protest the application of unjust laws. But it differs by virtue of the more narrow application to actions taken by and for the benefit of Indigenous people. Moreover, the nature of the “unjust” laws at issue with respect to tribal disobedience relates specifically to the infringement by the colonizing government on the inherent and treaty-protected rights of sovereignty and self-determination. The acts themselves are public and illegal, and generally, but not always, non-violent.

Porter cites numerous examples (pp. 9-20), with a substantive discussion of the efficacy and risks involved in that strategy (pp. 24-30). IMO: if you're not willing to or can't spend the time (jail or prison), don't commit the crime of "civil disobedience".

Terrorism

Finally, the risk of employing civil disobedience by even non-kinetic (generally "non-violent") dissidents whatever the cause has been increased by anti-terrorism acts. Here (pp. 30-31), Porter presents an argument that could be used by a US Attorney under the Patriot Act:


Under the Act, acts of tribal disobedience could easily be interpreted as acts of terrorism. The Act defines “domestic terrorism” to include activities that –


(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended –

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

From this basic definition, it is easy to see how particular acts of tribal disobedience could be misconstrued as acts of terrorism.

Consider, for example, that sometime in the future Indians decide to block the interstate highway running through their territory to protest efforts by the state to restrict their gaming rights. No weapons are utilized in doing so, but heavy equipment is brought in to move concrete barriers onto the highways and hundreds of Indians mass on those highways. The objective, of course, is to precipitate inconvenience for motorists and a degree of economic disruption so as to put political pressure on the American political officials in a position to take corrective action to induce them to refrain from taking harmful action against the Indians. Assuming that motorists are given some notice that the barriers are in place, blocking interstate highways is not inherently an “act[] dangerous to human life.” Moreover, such an act is not committed with the intent requisite to constitute acts of terrorism because as they are not committed with an intent to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population” nor are they committed with the intent to “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”

But it does not take much to see how engaging in such an act of tribal disobedience could be construed as an act of “domestic terrorism.”

The first prong of the USA PATRIOT Act definition could be satisfied because law enforcement officials could charge those involved with blocking the highways with criminal trespass or obstruction of governmental administration. Given the very real possibility that individual Indians and non-Indians could be injured in the course taking such action, the tribal disobedience could be construed as manslaughter and thus an act “dangerous to human life that [is] a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State.”

The second prong of the definition is more easily satisfied. Clearly, blocking interstate highways is designed to pressure American political officials to cease and desist from engaging in their harmful action towards Indigenous peoples. Such action can easily be interpreted as designed “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” This is even more so in light of the fact that the USA PATRIOT Act does not require that acts of domestic terrorism be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce. Such acts need only “appear to be intended” to intimidate or coerce.

And lastly, while the Indians may deny that their territory is located within the United States, prosecuting officials will surely view the highway running through the Indian territory as located within the United States. Thus, blocking the highways will have “occur[red] primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

So, there you have the strategies in a nutshell.

Regards

Mike

[Bill Moore]

Posted by jmm99


The basic political argument is "Indigenous Sovereignty", with a realization that that concept will not be easily accepted by the "Settler States":

Funny, or maybe not, I was thinking about how all the Anglophone countries minus Britain (U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) enabled by Britain displaced the original natives and then became relatively wealthy exploiting their land. Not intended as a liberal commentary, that is the nature of man throughout history. The point is social media seems to be empowering the First Nations in Canada in new ways, and there is every reason to expect this movement to spread to the other Anglophone countries in time.

Of course there are a lot of adversaries of the U.S., etc. that can take advantage of this and provide various forms of support to keep the flames of discontent burning. O.K. maybe not, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[jmm99]

Bill,

Your point - "... displaced the original natives and then became relatively wealthy exploiting their land..." - is a valid historical fact for the American countries (to include Iberian colonized), as well as for Australia and New Zealand.

All these states, which I'd call colonialized nations, have primary cultures derived from, but different to a greater or lesser extent than the cultures of the original colonizing "parent states". All have at least the form of constitutional democracies.

Other colonializing efforts in Africa and Eurasia failed to take; primarily because not enough indigenous people were displaced and minority settler rule soon evaporated after WWII.

I'd be surprised to see a "lot of adversaries of the U.S., etc." that will be able to "take advantage" of the mainstream "First Nations" movements. We'll have to disagree on that.

Regards

Mike

[AdamG]

Neglected topic.

from October 2017 (and I suspect, incomplete),

A list of Canada’s terror incidents and attacks

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/01/a-list-of-canadas-terror-incidents-and-attacks.html

[AdamG]

When compared to the weekend body counts coming out of Chicago, enjoy some Pearl Clutching.


Rattled by string of violent attacks, Toronto wonders if city is unraveling

As residents grapple with the latest attack to hit the city in recent months, some are asking whether it was becoming less safe


Detectives in Canada are still seeking a motive for a mass shooting which left three dead – including the gunman – and injured more than a dozen others, as residents of Toronto grapple with the latest in a string of violent incidents to hit Canada’s biggest city in recent months.

Federal officials said on Tuesday that there was no terror link to Sunday’s attack in which the lone gunman opened fire along a bustling avenue in the city, seemingly shooting at random at pedestrians and into shops and restaurants.

“At this time, there is no national security nexus to the investigation,” said a spokesperson for the ministry of public safety.


Authorities have not yet publicly speculated on the motive of the gunman, Faisal Hussain, or explained how he obtained the handgun used in the attack.

In a statement, his family cited his lifelong struggle with depression and psychosis, noting that professional help, medication and therapy had failed to help him*.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/24/toronto-attacks-greektown-shooting-is-city-unraveling

* Note: Being a psychotic and a terrorist are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the latter might be a prerequisite to the former.

[AdamG]

Last Updated Jul 24, 2018 6:56 PM EDT


TORONTO -- Canadian investigators were digging Tuesday into the life of the 29-year-old man who opened fire on restaurants and cafes in a popular Toronto neighborhood, seeking to explain what prompted the rampage that killed a 10-year-old girl and a young woman and wounded 13 others.

"At this stage, based on the state of the investigation, which is led by the Toronto police service, there is no connection between that individual and national security," Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said.

But a law enforcement source told CBS News that Faisal Hussain visited Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) websites and may have expressed support for the terrorist group. They were looking into whether Hussain may have lived at one time in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, the source said. There is no indication that Hussain was directed by ISIS to carry out the attack.

The assailant's family has said he suffered from psychosis and depression for years but they never imagined he would do such a thing. It was not immediately clear whether he took his own life or was killed by police during the attack Sunday night.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/faisal-hussain-toronto-shooting-rampage-new-details-emerge-about-gunman-2018-07-24/

[AdamG]

Good catch from the blogosphere -



http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/2018/08/new-angle-on-that-canadian-mass-shooting.html?m=1


New Angle on That Canadian Mass Shooting
The mass shooting on Toronto's Danforth Avenue in Ontario, Canada last week that killed 12 sent a lot of ripples through the wider world. It's virtually a meme that if the killer's name isn't instantly released, the killer must have a name that would lead others to conclude it might be an Islamist terrorist attack, and sure enough the killers' age was released before they said they knew his name was Faisal Hussain. In what universe can you know someone's age without knowing who they are?
Fahad and Ansari had 42 kilograms of Carfentanil and 33 guns in the basement of Ansari’s home.

Thirty of those guns were a single model of Glock pistol, still in their boxes.

That second paragraph pegs my "that's weird" scale. I have no problem with someone having 33 guns, but thirty identical, New In Box, Glocks? Starting a store or equipping a task force so everyone has the same hardware? Still, despite the screams from Toronto's mayor, guns don't commit crimes, and except for (assuming Canada's laws resemble ours) the part about Hussain probably being prohibited from being around those guns, it's just an oddity. The real eye-popper, though, was 42 kilograms of Carfentanil. That's an insane amount. How insane is it?

Note the photo here https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/danforth-background-brother-records-1.4764742

Sounds like someone was tasked with providing logistics for a cell and prematurely went derka-derka.

[AdamG]

Toronto cops nabbed the suspected driver who plowed into a group of people on a crowded city street Monday afternoon, leaving 10 people dead and 15 others injured, Deputy Police Chief Peter Yuen said.

Police confirmed to Fox News the arrest of the suspect, which came just minutes after news of the incident broke. "The van involved in multiple pedestrians stuck in the Yonge and Finch area of Toronto has been located and the driver arrested," Toronto police tweeted. The identity of the driver has not been released.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/23/several-people-injured-when-van-plows-into-pedestrians-in-toronto-cops-say.html

INCEL motivations. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43877137

[AdamG]

Thanks, Trudeau.

Canada installs Chinese underwater monitoring devices next to US nuclear submarine base
Ocean Network Canada confirms addition of hi-tech sensors built by Chinese scientists to its marine observatories in Pacific Ocean
US state department has ‘nothing to say’ on matter
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2169474/canada-installs-chinese-underwater-monitoring-devices-next-us

[AdamG]

Canadian academics have collaborated on dozens of projects with Chinese military researchers – some of whom appear to have obscured their defence ties – raising concerns that Canada is inadvertently helping China modernize its armed forces.

The academic exchanges, jointly advancing technologies such as secure communications, satellite-image processing and drones, include the enrollment of Chinese defence scientists as graduate students and visiting scholars at Canadian universities, The Globe and Mail has found.

A Globe survey found that scholars with at least nine Canadian institutions – from smaller campuses such as Nipissing University to top engineering schools such as the University of Waterloo – have conducted research in partnership with Chinese military scholars. For instance, an expert in advanced computer simulations who was an adjunct professor at McGill University has also taught at the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), which reports directly to the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party.

In fact, Canada has become the third-largest global destination for such researchers, according to a report published this week by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which has catalogued People’s Liberation Army sponsorship of 2,500 military scientists and engineers for studies abroad since 2007.

The overseas movement of Chinese military scientists “raises questions about technology transfer, because they’re ultimately doing it to develop skills and learn ideas that will help the Chinese military,” writes the report’s author, Alex Joske, who adds that “helping a rival military develop its expertise and technology isn’t in the national interest, yet it’s not clear that Western universities and governments are fully aware of this phenomenon.”

Canadian universities say it is the responsibility of the federal government, not individual schools, to decide which foreign researchers can enter the country. University ethics policies generally seek to minimize the potential for harmful application of their research and require transparency, with open publication of results. But none of the universities that responded to Globe requests had specific protocols in place to deal with the transfer of technology to countries such as China that are increasingly seen as military competitors by Canada and its allies.

“Most organizations, including universities, cannot make assessments on issues of national security. If the government of Canada provides us advice on national-security matters, we act on that advice,” said Matthew Grant, the director of media relations at the University of Waterloo.

That has left few obstacles to what Richard Fisher, a senior fellow on Asian military affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center think tank, calls “the global Chinese intelligence vacuum cleaner” – an effort to scour the world for dual-use technology, which has both civilian and military value. The aims have been broad, from seeking materials for space weapons to technology for next-generation hypersonic missiles, and such work “has been immensely profitable for China’s military modernization,” Mr. Fisher said.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-chinas-military-scientists-target-canadian-universities/

[AdamG]

OTTAWA -- Canada's national homicide rate last year was the highest it's been in a decade, Statistics Canada says, because of a spike in gang-related violence and shootings. In a report released Wednesday, the agency said there were 660 reported homicides in Canada last year. Not only was that an increase of nearly eight per cent from 2016, it also pushed up the homicide rate to 1.8 victims for every 100,000 people -- the highest since 2009.
Much of the increase was linked to a dramatic rise in the number of gun-related killings, which itself was driven by more gang-related violence.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/statistics-canada-blames-gang-violence-shootings-as-homicide-rate-hits-10-year-high-1.4186494

From August 2018, a weak eye-wash attempt by Trudeau to shift the focus from the real problems to Progressive feel-good distractions.


Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has ordered a study of a potential full handgun and assault weapons ban in his country. Trudeau ordered Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister Bill Blair to conduct the study with Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale in a mandate letter, as reported by CBC News.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/404022-trudeau-asks-canadian-government-to-study-full-ban-on-handguns-and

[AdamG]

Canadian peacekeepers saw their busiest day in Mali on Sunday after extremists with links to al-Qaida attacked a United Nations base, killing 10 and injuring dozens more.

Five Canadian helicopters were scrambled from a different base after the attack, according to Canadian Forces spokesman Capt. Christopher Daniel, including two large Chinooks configured as flying hospitals and three smaller Griffon escorts.

"The Canadian helicopters evacuated 15 wounded UN soldiers," Daniel added in an email. They also delivered food, water and ammunition.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadians-mali-action-attack-1.4988318?fbclid=IwAR0Ka3dQW13gJZGHeoJzddECibUjSS_ c6O7fQf0ZkVTQ86ismedDlax3p-M