All matters Canadian / Canada

[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...

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...

Full pdf version (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?

[Rex Brynen]

Jets scrambled to intercept plane

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:

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...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."

[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/...rticle2130125/

[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 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

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

2013 Strategic Outlook for Canada

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ 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/s...ndreading.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/to...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; their 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.

The basic political argument 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:

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 (Syracuse Law), Tribal Disobedience (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 (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.

[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, 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.

Marc

[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/Colum...f-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" 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 and FORCE OF CHOICE, 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.