# Politics and the Canadian Forces project



## NS Highlander (6 Mar 2005)

I am doing a paper for college political science course on the relationship between the CF and politics/politicians and I am looking for potential sources of information. I have seen the intelligent and thoughtful dialogue on this site and I realized that the members would have some great sources of info for me to take advantage of. Any books, articles, internet sites, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
P.S. I didn't know where to post this so I chose this forum as I am looking for some historical documents/ sources for my project, sorry if I placed it in the wrong one.


----------



## mdh (6 Mar 2005)

NS Highlander,

What angle are your pursuing? The relationship between elected governments and the CF is a pretty broad topic.  Can you be more specific?

For example you might want to focus on the Somalia incident or Unificiation. I'm sure there is plenty of potential information for you here.

cheers, mdh


----------



## pbi (7 Mar 2005)

I agree with mdh: you need to focus that paper down or you will be trying to cover a huge issue. Far better to pick a particular incident, issue or war and use it as an example to argue your point. Good luck.

Cheers


----------



## NS Highlander (7 Mar 2005)

yes, I was already thinking that I would use Paul Hellyer's unification of the forces as an example of politicians interfering with the CF and focus my paper more specifically on that.


----------



## pbi (7 Mar 2005)

OK-start by going to your nearest good library (probably a university is best...) and look up the Glassco Commission Report. This is the report that was the basis for Unification. You might also want to read Hellyer's own book. After that try looking back through _Hansard_ (the record of Parliamentary proceedings) to the time period of the Glassco Commission Report and the subsequent discussions preceding unification. You might also look in past issues of the various service journals published around that time to get some military opinions. As well, check the library's microfiche on leading Canadian newspapers of that time period to get some current commentary by politicians.

Good luck. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Mar 2005)

I'm not so hard on Paul Hellyer as I used to be.

While you are at the library and looking up Unification, pick up Douglas Bland's Chiefs of Defence - excellent survey of Unification and its subsequent evolution; the book is strongly helped by the fact that Bland was able to interview almost every Minister, Deputy Minister, and CDS that served since the early '60's.

I think Hellyer was right in some aspects for ramming home unification in that prior to a Single National Command Element, the Canadian Government was unable to get a single cohesive piece of advice from its military - rather it got Army, Navy, and Air Force empires competing to give advice based along "Service-Based" ideas of National Defence.   This tended to be uncoherent and extremely demanding (Big Army! No Big Fleet!! NO, AIR POWER!!!) - what Hellyer wanted was a National Command element that he could turn to for unbiased advice based upon the requirements of Defence.   Unfortunately, I feel that Turdeau's "brilliant leadership" (cough - Donald McDonald - cough), combined with some systemic failings when Unification was enacted, allowed Hellyer's ideal to become unglued.   I feel that now we have re-gravitated towards a Service Based force which may bring back alot of problems that we should have left behind in the 60's.   I think we saw shades of this with the reaction to General Hillier's call to put Army interests ahead of Navy and Air Force ones.   Hellyer wanted Commanders to view assets of National Defence as one and the same - building on capabilites that furthered National Security rather then supporting independent goals and plans.

What do I mean by "systemic failings"?   I feel that taking traditions, personal structures, and tactical organization that each service possessed and throwing it in the blender was a big mistake.   Environmental or Service-based "Tribalism" is a strong force and has many valid and important roles to play in the branches of a Military and attempts to either ignore them or do-away with them completely are bound to end up in failure (or, in our case, with some major headaches).   I feel that any attempt to reinforce Hellyer's notion of National Command will have to do a much better job of incorporating and accommodating Service-based requirements into a National Defence Force.

Incidentally, I believe the American's had this same Defence debate in the 1950's.   Their approach and solution (in the form of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) was different then ours.   You may want to look at that as well.


----------



## NS Highlander (20 Mar 2005)

Thanks for the useful info gents. I have already hit up the sources you have said and they are turning out to be very beneficial to my project


Cheers, NS Highlander


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Mar 2005)

Go to this site - there are lots of papers that have been written on your topvc.

http://wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/index.html

Dave


----------

