Cranky Defence Critic And Threats Facing Canada

 I woke up in the middle of the night because I am old and I ate and drank too much.  I couldn't resist schnitzel and strudel as I am in Vienna for a talk and for some other shenanigans (more on that in another post).  And then I saw Phil Lagassé's post on the Conservatives and if they might spend on defence if elected.  On that general topic, I am a skeptic as I think the CPC cares more about deficits than about defence, and the place to cut the budget is, alas, defence.  That is where the money is.  This was true under Harper.  I don't know what Pierre Poilevre believes in, other than opportunism and pandering to the far right, but I don't think he will commit lots of money to get Canada to 2% of GDP (on the other hand, he could tank the economy, and that is the other way to get there).  Oh, and to be clear, I think we need to spend significantly more on the military--I am just not going to threat inflate to get us there.

Anyway, Phil said in his piece that we need to spend more to deal with the threat in the Arctic, and I had to scoff. Which led to a fun exchange in bluesky, reminiscent of the old days on twitter where we would argue and people thought we hated each other.  Hint: I don't co-author with people I don't like.  Ir don't co-author with the same person several times unless we get along very well.  But it is both fun and educational to push back against one of the very sharpest defence minds in Canada.

Specifically, Phil said: "Canadians know their Arctic is vulnerable."  And my ensuing commentary focused on that: what exactly is the threat to Canada from on high?  And should we consider this the most significant/dangerous threat?  My point is that it is way back in line.  Phil says we need to have better situational awareness up north.  My rejoinder is: no invasion coming, just some spy ships on the water and below it.  Others chimed in: more ships going through the northwest passage means more environmental stuff could go awry.  And, I agree.  But where does that line up in the threat picture?  

Here's my cranky, awakened with acid in my throat, ranking of the threats facing Canada. 

1. Climate change: Canadians are paying a high price for the changing climate even if we could joke about being a beneficiary as our winters get mostly shorter.  Milder?  Variance is more certain than anything else.  Anyhow, people are dying in floods and fires, much property is being destroyed.  When I speak of threat, I think of real harms to Canadians, to the economy, to governance.  Climate change is first and it is not close.  I was mocked by someone via email when I said this on TV,  but I have never been a super lefty, green environmentalist type in my work.  It is just the reality that in dollar amounts and in lives, the warming planet is harming Canadians in a big way and it is only going to get worse. A recurring theme is that many of the threats either cannot or will not have the military as the lead agency.  This actually comes the closest given that the provinces underinvest in emergency management, knowing that the military will act if asked and won't present a bill.
   
2. Pandemics: how many people were killed by covid in Canada?  Nearly 60,000, which is more than Canadians killed in all foreign wars combined if one leaves out WWI.  Plus many people now have long covid.  It did a heap of damage to the economy, and, if you care about deficits (I don't really), guess what blew a big hole in the budget? I am very glad the Liberal government poured a ton of money into the economy as we didn't have runs on food banks during the height of the pandemic.  I just wish Conservative-led provinces actually spent the money allotted to health care on.... health care.  Will covid be the last pandemic?  No.  Indeed, given what it has done to attitudes about vaccinations, quarantines, and masking, I doubt we will respond as well next time.  Scary, eh?  The military was called out because other agencies lacked capacity, but this was really a medical/scientific thing, so let's not allocate a ton of money to the military for pandemic preparedness.
   
3. Cyber attacks.  Wars are distant, but cyber attacks are hitting Canadians every day, disrupting people's lives, hurting various businesses and public agencies, and pose a significant threat where some country could bring down our power or harm dams and more.  Is this the military's job?  Partially but not really.  We don't need people who are trained to fire weapons and ready to deploy abroad and all that stuff to fight a cyber war.  We need smart folks at well equipped desks.  We definitely need to have more money spent on the military to survive and thrive in a cyberwar environment, but the CAF is not really our answer to thwarting cyber attacks against the Canadian public.
4. Far right violence.  We live in a time of increasing attacks by xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, racists, anti-semities, Islamophobes, and white supremacists (these hates tend to travel together).  Yes, left wing extremists can have many of these attributes, but it is clear that the violence is almost entirely coming from the far right. These haters are doing real harm to Canadians right now, and the trend is in the wrong direction.  Can the military do anything about this?  I think the general rule of not having the military police the public is a very good idea.  Instead, the military's role is mostly to make sure it is not training the next generation of far right terrorists. 
   
5. Disinformation.  This is, of course, related to the prior one, but it also involves foreign actors who are trying to tilt election outcomes.  We are increasingly living in a time where people can't trust what they see and hear, or they are trusting the wrong actors.  This leads to develop dangerous beliefs--like vaccines are poisonous, that the government in power is engaging in great, deliberate harm against its ideological opponents, and so forth,  While the Liberals have screwed up many things, they need some trust in government to operate on our behalf, just as the Conservatives or NDP would need people to trust in institutions.  The military should not be the primary actor at home on this either even as they engage in info ops abroad.
6. People might I was joking about the increases in truck/SUV size being a threat, but more than 2000 people died in car accidents in 2023, and the trend is going up, even if one cuts the peak covid years from the dataset.
   
7. North Korean missiles. While China and Russia have nuclear missiles, I have a bit more faith in the workings of deterrence and a bit less worried about accidental/deliberate first use.  North Korea would not have any reason to attack Canada, but I could imagine that their aim might be that good.  Of course, what is the CAF's role in this?  Providing warning that Vancouver is doomed and then helping to respond to the aftermath.  We have no defences against ballistic missiles nor will Canada have any such systems  anytime in the future.  I am a skeptic about American strategic defense (although tactical anti-missile systems seem to range from pretty good to amazing), but I do think Canada should join the US system as the ABM treaty is very dead.  This is a military job and would justify the massive investment in NORAD modernization.  Otherwise, it really is a system to warn us to give us a few minutes to kiss our loved ones goodbye.  Oh, and manage relations with the US.
   
8. US relations!  The Canadian economy and its security crucially depend on the US, and, oh my, Canada will be so very, very fucked if Trump were to win. Democracies have lived beside authoritarian regimes before (hey, Finland!), but so much of Canada's position in the world relies on this huge market and this peaceful border and cooperation with the US.  When was the last time Canada fought abroad without the US beside its side?  UN missions?  Guess again as the UN relies heavily on American support to do its ops.  One could argue this would mean less wars for Canada--no more Afghanistans (which was purely to help its ally).  But Canada would be even at greater risk of being bullied by the China's and Saudi Arabia's of the world.  And, of course, by Trump himself.  But again, this is not the CAF's job to prevent or mitigate this.  If Trump is elected, most of the problems above get worse and this item zooms to the top.
   
9. Maybe here goes: incomplete understanding of what is happening in the Arctic. Yes, that stuff up north is still Canada, but the threat to Canadians up there is not really that posed by Russia or China but by the lack of infrastructure and by the aforementioned climate change, pandemics, etc.

So, if the military is not needed for this stuff, or only needed for domestic emergency ops, why spend tens of billions on it?  Why increase spending?  It comes down to this: the military is an instrument of policy.  This means that it can and is used to further Canadian government objectives even if most of those objectives are not about thwarting threats to Canada.  Canada has consistent interests in the world for which the CAF is a key tool, such as helping to foster stability in Europe and Asia.  Canada, like the US, has learned that when those continents catch fire, it damages Canadian interests and hurts Canadians.  A war in the South China Sea with or without the Canadian navy would be catastrophic to the Canadian economy.  War west of Ukraine would also be quite damaging.  

NATO itself is an important interest that requires the Canadian military to invest in itself and in NATO missions.  Ultimately, Canadians want to do good in the world and want to support the international order, whether we call it liberal or rules-based or American hegemony or whatever.  Because we understand that Canadians have more influence within institutions than outside of them, that the rules have favored the Canadian economy, and helped the Canadian people to enjoy the fruits of international cooperation.

Ultimately, one wants a well armed, well trained, well staffed military to prepare for the worst.  In my ranking of threats, I focused on both likelihood of the threat being realized and the amount of harm that is likely if the threat happens.  Climate change is at the top because it is happening and is not going away and is going to do heaps of damage.  The threat in the Arctic is lower down because it is unlike that any foreign actor will attack that way and the damage they can do is not that great, again compared to everything else.

Oh, and what is also a threat?  Having an under-funded, unprepared, ill-equipped military sent off to war--that way lies tragedy.  So, yes, spend more, but let's not exaggerate where the threats are coming from and what the role of the military is.