of each SI, moving from a couple of briefings in a morning to several over the course of a day to eight this year. Since this is now an annual event with similar or even the same speakers, I can get an idea of where things are generally headed. Since last year, we have a new government although not a new party in power, we have a new President in the US, and we have the same wars and hot spots to a large degree. So, much foddre for comparison, and comparison not the thief of joy (that would be envy) but a source of much joy and insight.
The briefings were held under Chatham House Rule, so I cannot attribute any statement to any speaker, but I can give the gist. To be clear, this was one of those events with the Rule is most helpful, as the folks were generally quite forthcoming saying stuff that they could not say in public. I was actually pretty surprised by some of the things that were admitted, like an honest take on the readiness of the CAF.
The biggest difference between last year and this year: the military is getting money and spending it. So much discussion of 2% as a real thing, which was not the case last summer. One service's* briefing, for example, was much less about regrets about what they could not do and more about reorganizing/reconceptualizing the balance of activities given that they have some of the resources they need to do stuff. But to be clear, the goal might be to getting things to be adequate rather than excellent--that our bases would have drinkable water, not that we about to have all the stuff necessary to fight and win against Russia.
A second big difference was a recurrent theme of sovereign capabilties/strategic autonomy. This is the Trumpness of it all--that Canada needs to build in Canada, that Canada needs to be less dependent on the US for stuff. However, still a lot of emphasis on stuff still doing well at working level, and I wonder, always, whether wishful thinking is coloring this since the working level stuff can be turned off at any moment and especially when Canada is in a difficult spot.
One consistency that is inconsistent--that Canadians want the military to domestic operations and the military don't. While the priorities of Canada first and then Europe and then Indo-Pac showed up in most slides regardless of service or civ vs mil, what they mean by Canada is not domestic crisis ops but defending the north from imaginary overinflated threats. Oh and South America--not on the list of priorities--not surprising but always notable. For me, the big missing piece, and it is less of a DND/CAF thing than a Canada thing, is the far right threat. I think if we had this briefing in 2004, Al Qaeda would have been mentioned. In 2014: ISIS. Now? Hmmmm.
Speaking of the Arctic, well, oh my. So, yes, Russia and China are doing stuff up north, but this does not really threaten the peoples up north. But since those folks are aware of Russia in Ukraine and China towards Taiwan, when the Canadian government promotes threats to the Arctic so that the public supports more defence spending, the government is scaring, rather than reassuring, the northern communities. While I have always been an Arctic Security skeptic--that the threat is overinflated--I hadn't realized that one of the consequences of threat inflation has been to upset the folks up north.
Golden dome came up here and there. My big question--what does Trump's $61b mean for Canada--was not clearly answered, and I don't blame the folks who talked to us. BUT the fun coincidence is that our current planned outlay for NORAD modernization is C$82b or so over 20 years, which is about US$62b. It is fun, isn't it?
One thing that was an undercurrent of the briefings is humility--there is only so much Canada can do. Given the shortages in personnel (Navy leads by being short 23%), the CAF can't do everything. The Latvia deployment is the show for the army, with 1650 or so troops. This was a fun number for me, since our promise to NATO is 2200 or so. Which means we can get up to 2,200 for exercises, imitating our allies who surge troops in when they feel like. The problem, of course is that if the balloon goes up, it will be very hard or impossible for Canada to send more troops into a very hostile airspace. The last couple of days, I have been asked whether Canada could contribute to a peacekeeping/security guarantee mission to Ukraine if Russia and Ukraine stop fighting. Putting aside the unlikelihood of a deal and that Putin would oppose NATO troops being part of such a thing, can Canada send troops to such a mission? Only if Canada gets out of the Latvia business or at least cuts it quite significantly. So, probably not is my answer.
One tidbit that reminds us how limited Canada is: we have defence attachés in 44 countries, which means that more than half of our embassies either have a remote attachés or none at all (Canada has something like 110 embassies, which also means almost half the world has no Canadian ambassador/embassy).
Finally, the Carney campaign promised a defence procurement agency, and we haven't heard much about it. But it does seem like it may actually become a reality but not quickly.
So, it was a terrific day in a great week, and we definitely drank from the firehouse. Much to think about. I am very grateful to the SSHRC and MINDS grant programs that made this week possible and to the Public Affairs group at DND for facilitating this day. Our participants got a lot out of it, and so did I.
* The military refers to each branch/service as an environment--army-land, navy-sea, air force-air--but I find it it awkward and I am stuck in my ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment