# Canada's New Counterinsurgency Strategy Manual



## gordjenkins (31 Mar 2007)

_Following closely behind their counterparts in the United States and Britain, Canada's Department of National Defence is preparing a comprehensive counter-insurgency field manual for its soldiers and officers_. 
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=102&ItemID=12444
and
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ELM20070325&articleId=5175
and
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37063

I guess the first big question is "if the counter- insurgency " involvement of Canada is not working- then how does Military PR react? 

Also question two - insurgency externally in Afghanistan and Haiti and insurgency internally in Canad  -hmmm! Wonder what group of insurgents are being referred to in Canada ?? 

Must mean in the future in Canada - right??

 We don't have ant insurgents in Canada now - right ???


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Mar 2007)

First, we saw this angle here....

*Counterinsurgency Manual Shows Military's New Face*
Jon Elmer, Inter Press News Service Agency, 22 Mar 07
Article link



> ....Maj. D.J. Lambert, the Canadian director of army doctrine and lead author of the manual, has cited several examples of historic Canadian counter-insurgencies, including battles with George Washington's U.S. forces or the Northwest Rebellion led by Louis Riel and the Metis in 1885.  Presently, while Canada's Afghanistan mission dominates the attention and resources of the military, according to the manual, Canadian Forces are actively engaged in various levels of confrontation with at least three ongoing insurgencies -- in Afghanistan, in Haiti, as well as with domestic indigenous organisations in Canada, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society.  Despite its "specific and limited aims", the First Nations rebellions in Canada are nevertheless insurgencies because they are animated by the goal of altering political relationships with both the Canadian government and at the local level -- within indigenous reservations themselves -- "through the threat of, or use of, violence", the manual states ....



Now, MSM picks up the baton, and runs like crazy - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

NOTE:  I've highlighted the last sentence of this piece because although the factoid appeared in some English MSM coverage, it was FAR from the lead element in the stories I saw.

*Forces' terror manual lists natives with Hezbollah*
Aboriginal leader decries military draft as 'complete attack on our political rights'
Bill Curry, Globe & Mail, 31 Mar 07
Article link - Permalink

Radical natives are listed in the Canadian army's counterinsurgency manual as a potential military opponent, lumping aboriginals in with the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad.

The military is putting the finishing touches on the manual, but a draft version of the document obtained by The Globe and Mail outlines a host of measures the military might use to fight insurgents at home and abroad. The measures include ambushes, deception and killing.

The draft manual was produced in September, 2005, and recently released through an access-to-information request. A final edited version of the army manual is expected to be complete within months, but a cover letter states that the draft version was immediately circulated in 2005 to army units for military training.

Its inclusion of "radical Native American Organizations" as a potential target of military action surfaces at a time of heightened tensions between aboriginals and the federal government.

"The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims," the manual states. "Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence," the manual states.

The Mohawk Warrior Society was involved in the 1990 Oka crisis in Quebec, which spawned a 78-day confrontation with police and the military that left a police officer dead. The society normally describes more militant natives from the traditional Mohawk territory, covering parts of Quebec, Ontario, Vermont and New York State.

Stewart Phillip, the Grand Chief of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs who recently predicted "a summer of aboriginal protest" in response to the perceived lack of action on native poverty in the federal budget, said he is "absolutely outraged" by the manual.

"It's a complete attack on our political rights," he said.

"What we're seeing," Mr. Phillip continued, "is the deliberate criminalization of the efforts of aboriginal people to march, demonstrate and rally to draw public attention to the crushing poverty that is the reality within our communities."

Native leaders who are not regarded as militant have called for a summer of protest over a perceived lack of attention from Ottawa on issues such as native poverty and land claims.

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice has responded with warnings of financial penalties for any native group that uses federal money to plan such protests.

"Working together to find common solutions is a much more constructive way of dealing with issues than planning blockades," he said in a letter to The Globe and Mail this week.

The manual defines an insurgency as "the actions of a minority group within a state who are intent on forcing political change by means of a mixture of subversion, propaganda and military pressure, aiming to persuade or intimidate the broad mass of people to accept such a change."

Counterinsurgency, according to the manual, involves "much more" than simply military action, and can include psychological measures aimed at defeating an insurgency.

Much of the manual appears to be aimed at Canadian missions in failed or failing states where various factions are fighting for power. Among the army's proposed measures are "deception operations" to fool the insurgent and "physical destruction" of the enemy.

"Attrition will be necessary, but the number of insurgents killed should be no more than is absolutely necessary to achieve success," the manual states.

The Canadian Forces were not able to find someone yesterday who could comment on the manual. It is therefore unclear whether this is the first such manual created for the military or whether natives have previously been listed by the army.

The most recent protest by natives led to arrests and charges yesterday for three men connected to the blockade of Quebec's Highway 117 on March 12 and 13.

The highway is the Abitibi region's main link to the south, and the blockade caused major concern for the residents of Val-d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda.

Among those arrested was Guillaume Carle, the controversial leader of the recently formed Confederation of Aboriginal People of Canada. Mr. Carle led the protest of about 50 people, *many of whom were carrying rifles.*



*Natives blast rebel label*
Jorge Barrera, Ottawa Sun, 31 Mar 07
Article link - Permalink

The military's decision to identify the Mohawk Warrior Society and "radical Native American organizations" as insurgents in a draft version of a guerrilla warfare field manual has sparked concern among First Nations.

In an article titled Canada's Military Plots War Crimes Against Indigenous People, which is circulating on blogs and chatboards, the Mohawk Nation News Network says labelling Natives as insurgents raises troubling questions.

"Why are weapons being pointed at us? We are defenceless. Why are we being compared with the Taliban who have rockets, artillery and modern weapons to blow up U.S., Canadian and British tanks that are inches thick?" asks Kahentinetha Horn, the network's editor.

"Does Canada's Parliament or the Canadian people know about this genocidal action that is being done in their name? Since when is it legal to make plans to attack us?"

Under the heading "Overviews of insurgencies and counter-insurgencies," the manual says Native "insurgencies" differ because they have "specific and limited aims."

"Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek political concessions ... and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve (First Nation) level, through the threat of, or use of, violence."


----------



## KevinB (31 Mar 2007)

Uhm -- here's a little something for though -- dont have an armed insurection and the Army would have to put it down...

Or maybe he thinks natives should be consitutionally allowed to shoot policemen?


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> The manual defines an insurgency as "the actions of a minority group within a state who are intent on forcing political change by means of a mixture of subversion, propaganda and military pressure, aiming to persuade or intimidate the broad mass of people to accept such a change."






> Among those arrested was Guillaume Carle, the controversial leader of the recently formed Confederation of Aboriginal People of Canada. Mr. Carle led the protest of about 50 people, *many of whom were carrying rifles.*



That seems cleaar enough to me.........


----------



## frist one (31 Mar 2007)

I agree with Infidel-6.


----------



## GAP (31 Mar 2007)

Maybe it's about time the natives were put on notice that the method of their actions can be viewed in this way. 

They have been treated with kid gloves and extreme PC for decades, and it has to stop. They are entitled to protest, agree/disagree with issues, challenge either in the street/courts, but they do not have the right to intimidate others through the threat of violence.


----------



## orange.paint (31 Mar 2007)

Army manual lumps radical natives with Hezbollah
Updated Sat. Mar. 31 2007 10:12 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Radical natives are included on the same list as the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah in a new counterinsurgency manual being prepared for the Canadian army.

The manual is in the final stages of preparation, but The Globe and Mail has obtained an early version of the document.

The draft outlines tactics, including ambush, deception and killing, which the military could use both at home and abroad against military opponents.

The document was put together in September 2005, under an access-to-information request. 

A cover letter stated that although the manual was considered a draft version, it had been circulated for immediate use as a training manual until the final version was completed.

The final copy is expected to be released to the military within months, The Globe reports.

The draft is specific in listing some natives as potential enemy combatants. 

"The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims," the manual states. 

"Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence."

The Mohawk Warrior Society played a role in Quebec's Oka crisis of 1990 that led to a 78-day standoff with police and left an officer dead.

The draft manual surfaces at a time when many feel the recent federal budget ignored many of the issues faced by natives, and as a months-old dispute between natives occupying a housing development near Caledonia, Ont. and residents, drags on.

Stewart Phillip, the Grand Chief of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs said he is "absolutely outraged" by the manual.

"It's a complete attack on our political rights," he told The Globe.

"What we're seeing is the deliberate criminalization of the efforts of aboriginal people to march, demonstrate and rally to draw public attention to the crushing poverty that is the reality within our communities."

Phillip recently said he expects "a summer of aboriginal protest" against the government.


Many natives and the federal government are at odds over the $5 billion Kelowna Accord, a document negotiated by former prime minister Paul Martin to address native issues but never tabled by the Conservatives, and the plight of the residents of Kashechewan. 

The reserve in northern Ontario has faced water contamination, sickness and flooding, but Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice says the government can't afford the $474 million price tag estimated to move the embattled Kashechewan reserve, as requested by the residents.

Prentice has warned the government will impose financial penalties against native groups that use federal money to plan summer protests against Ottawa on issues such as land claims and poverty.

"Working together to find common solutions is a much more constructive way of dealing with issues than planning blockades," he wrote to The Globe.

According to the manual, an insurgency is "the actions of a minority group within a state who are intent on forcing political change by means of a mixture of subversion, propaganda and military pressure, aiming to persuade or intimidate the broad mass of people to accept such a change."

The response to that, the manual states, can go beyond military response to include psychological tactics to defeat the enemy.

The manual seems to focus on the Canadian military serving in places where governments have lost control and factions are fighting for power.

The Canadian Forces has not yet commented on the manual and it is not clear whether native groups have been previously listed as a potential opponent.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Mar 2007)

Forces' terror manual lists natives with Hezbollah
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070331.TERROR31/TPStory/Front

quote]Radical natives are listed in the Canadian army's counterinsurgency manual as a potential military opponent, lumping aboriginals in with the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad...[/quote]

The headline is purposely misleading. It's a (draft) counterinsurgency manual, not a counterterrorism manual. It does not "list natives with Hezbollah"--nor, contrary to the first paragraph, is there any "lumping" with the Tamil Tigers or the (Palestinian?) Islamic Jihad. The draft makes very clear the limited nature of native aims and that any possible violence is almost certain to be much different in scale and nature from those of the terrorist groups the _Globe_ highlights. The mere fact that all are mentioned in the same manual is no reason for saying it equates them, which is what the _Globe_, shamefully, has done.

What malicious, gutter, yellow "journalism".  What will the _Globe's_ editorial staff not do to villify the CF?  Hurl.

Mark
Ottwa


----------



## Blackadder1916 (31 Mar 2007)

I won't comment on the specific actions (or potential for action) of any Canadian organization or racial/social/political grouping.  That would only add to the feeding frenzy.  I will restrict my comments to the draft manual in question though I have not seen it and can only base my opinion on the few news reports out there (and my attention was brought to them by this means).

I always thought that one of the basic tenets of any counterinsurgency operation was winning 'hearts and minds'.  This also means creating a positive public image of the forces that are used in any COIN operation.  By including specific references to events involving current Canadian organizations and individuals the authors of the manual have given voice (and additional legitimacy) to them.  I wonder if they also included, as an example, events from the October 1970 timeframe and possibility of such future actions, or did they realize the public outcry that would ensue from that. 

The potential for increased scrutiny of all the CF does in this vein should have been expected:
B-GG-005-004/AF-005     Use Of Force In CF Operations  Chap 3  (the version I had access to may be outdated, came from the LLIW disk dated Dec 98)


> THE CANADIAN FORCES AND DOMESTIC OPERATIONS
> 
> 1.	Although the CF are not a law enforcement agency, they may be called out in support of civil authority during a national emergency, to support law and enforcement agencies, or as a last resort.  In any event, the CF only assist in the enforcement of Canadian law and will only take action at the specific request of the federal or a provincial government.  *The use of the CF in domestic operations is potentially sensitive and controversial; thus, CF actions will result in the closest scrutiny by the government, the media and the general public.*  ROE during domestic operations will be closely monitored and reviewed to ensure their compliance with government policy and objectives.



Canadians (and rightfully so) expect violence and criminal activities to be dealt with by law enforcement agencies.  They expect political activities to be conducted in public and without restriction.  Anytime you have the *hint of a possibility* that the military may involve itself, of course there will be an outcry.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Mar 2007)

blackadder1916:  The military does not "involve itself".   The civilian authorities request their involvement: "aid to the civil power" in the _National Defence Act_.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?Parl=37&Ses=3&ls=c7#famendedtxt

Are the CF not supposed to develop doctrine for how to implement such requests?  As with Oka?
http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/aboriginals/aboriginals13_e.html



> The Canadian Armed Forces were called in under the aid to civil power provision in Part VI of the National Defence Act to remove the barricades and quell the dispute by force...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (31 Mar 2007)

blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Canadians (and rightfully so) expect violence and criminal activities to be dealt with by law enforcement agencies.  They expect political activities to be conducted in public and without restriction.  Anytime you have the *hint of a possibility* that the military may involve itself, of course there will be an outcry.


I disagree. Canadians have a right to expect their military to be the force of final resort for any domestic crisis. It comes with the oath and the uniform. 

And while there will _always_ be "an outcry" from one segment of the population or another, I would argue that it would be irresponsible, bordering on negligence, to _not_ prepare suitable doctrine and contingency plans.

After all, look at the positive coverage the CF received from the silent actions of Pte Cloutier at Oka (despite his subsequent career self-immolation)









> By including specific references to events involving current Canadian organizations and individuals the authors of the manual have given voice (and additional legitimacy) to them.  I wonder if they also included, as an example, events from the October 1970 timeframe and possibility of such future actions, or did they realize the public outcry that would ensue from that.


 The days of referring doctrine and training to "the Fantasians" is long gone. Real threats are discussed with reference to real events. I recall no references to the October Crisis though (I don't have my copy handy).

As pointed out (I thought quite clearly) in the media reports, the doctrine's references to "radical Native American organizations," are specific and intentional. 


> "Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence."


 No discussion of curtailing political discourse, the right to assembly, speech, or marches. Merely pointing out current realities for the benefit of those troops who may be called upon by elected representatives to act - - in support of law enforcement - - on behalf of law-abiding citizens.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 Mar 2007)

So we're just supposed to pretend that Oka never happened???

Oh, and Caledonia ... and Gustafsen Lake .... and Penticton ... and Burnt Church ....


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Mar 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> So we're just supposed to pretend that Oka never happened???
> 
> Oh, and Caledonia ... and Gustafsen Lake .... and Penticton ... and Burnt Church ....



And I heard on the radio last night they are gearing up to shut down the town of Deseronto too.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (31 Mar 2007)

In any fight against an insurgency/terrorist organization there are some important characteristics to remember.  The insurgent has a political and fundraising element; it is important to counter these as well, nor should we accept any claim that their political fronts speak for an entire community.   Insurgents need an artificial (or actual) political reality to justify their acts; we should never accept their version at face value *nor should we provide an opportunity for them to make claims justifying that artificial (or actual) political reality*.   An insurgents’ interest in political change may be secondary; they may be acting first and foremost for internal/psychological reasons. We may never be able to physically destroy them, but diminishing or ridiculing their importance could just as well badly wound them.

By including a specific Canadian group in this manual (who while currently active, more so as a criminal enterprise IMO, poses little military threat) or even by referring to potential domestic operations as counterinsurgency, it elevates them to the importance of the external terrorist organizations that were listed.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 Mar 2007)

It seems to me that any marginal political "legitimacy" is of secondary importance to the fact that they represent a potential threat that the CF must be prepared address, if so ordered.  Perfect planning, preparation and practice might one day prevent the CF from getting involved in an Ipperwash-like incident.

The grade-school attempt to spin this just stinks: whatever happened to the media reporting the news, rather than trying to create it?


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Mar 2007)

blackadder1916: So we either need a secret addendum to the counterinsurgency manual that few can see or a specific document on dealing with response to native actions in Canada should the civil power request CF aid.

What do you think the _Globe_ and all the other media might make of the latter document?  One cannot win when they (for reasons that really do escape me) are out to get you.  Unless the _Globe's_ Editor-in-Chief is taking desperate measures to revive a failing medium.
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008845.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Apr 2007)

Well, kids, no worries about references to Aboriginal organizations in the final, if this is to be believed - shared with the usual disclaimer...

*DND Dismisses Report on Counterinsurgency Manual*
Josh Pringle, CFRA News (Ottawa), 31 Mar 07
Article link

*A statement from the office of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the "final version will not contain references to any current aboriginal organizations."*

O'Connor's office calls a manual for the Canadian Military a draft only.

The Globe and Mail says the draft manual lists "radical Native American Organizations" as potential opponents.

The draft version puts the radical Canadian aboriginals among security threats such as Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

The document outlines measures the military might use to fight insurgents at home and abroad.

The Defence Department calls the report "speculative, sensational and inaccurate." 



Will share link to full statement whenever it gets posted (not on CF or Minister's site as of 1210EDT).


----------



## Blackadder1916 (1 Apr 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> ... or a specific document on dealing with response to native actions in Canada should the civil power request CF aid.


Wouldn't that be called a contingency plan?  Something different than a doctrinal publication.  I hope we already have them and they are classified appropriately.


----------



## Garett (2 Apr 2007)

I ran a search on the draft document and could only find one paragraph about natives, it was a side note and referenced radical native organizations that essentially commit crimes to achieve their goals.  It doesn't sound like new information to me.  "Saskatchewan" and "North West Canada 1885" are two RCR battle honors after all.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Apr 2007)

_Globe_ today, bottom of p.4:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070402.MANUAL02/TPStory/National

Final version of terror report will not refer to natives, O'Connor says

What "terror report"?



> References to radical natives in the Canadian army's counterinsurgency manual will not appear in the final version of the document, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has announced...



One wishes to scream.  Then there is this:

Natives plan rail blockade
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2007/04/02/3896104-sun.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (2 Apr 2007)

We are tripping over ourselves to be PC to the natives *again*!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Apr 2007)

My job as a federal inspector takes me far a field into remote areas and I have to deal with people with minimal social skills and a lot of anger about government in general. I also have to deal with First Nations quite a bit. Most are decent, but you do run into some less savory types. I recently pointed out at a OSH meeting that we and other government inspectors would make prime targets for any group that wants to make a statement against government polices either by kidnapping or attacking us. There was a lot of uncomfortable shuffling of feet and navel gazing going on. Another good reason to bring my buddy Mossberg along with me on my trips. Wish I could bring my friend Sig and his associate Sauer along also.


----------



## pbi (2 Apr 2007)

This issue didn't show up on our media scan service here at CFC this morning, so it may be dying down. 

While we could certainly argue about how effectively and fairly Canada deals with its aboriginal problems, and whether or not they are required to follow the same laws in the same manner as non-aboriginals,  I can't really see the point in identifying specific threats (real or potential) in what is essentially a generic manual designed for application all over the place. It is not an intelligence survey nor a contingency plan, with a need to be specific. The principles of COIN ops are pretty well established and tend to hold true more or less, no matter what the exact circumstances. So not identifying specific groups (who may change with time anyway-would we still call the Jewish fighters of the 1940's "terrorist gangs"?) wouldn't hurt the usefulness of the manual much, and would probably keep it relevant longer.

The real question to me is: how did the journalist know where to look, and what to look for? Is all our doctrine development process to be held up to this kind of ill-informed, selective scare-mongering? Will every doctrine manual have to go in front of a govt committee to ensure it has no "nasty bits" that might conceivably offend someones sensibilities?

Cheers


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (2 Apr 2007)

There are reporters who are applying wide scale for access to information of all kinds. It's the same way they learned of the CO of a ship on operations who shuffled his duty free stuff around in order to help with his dwindling supplies of taxable stuff. They are basically trolling to try and find stuff they can sensationalize.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Apr 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO: "sensationalize":  +5.  Indude.  They are not reporting, they are creating "stories", often in pursuit of a certain agenda.
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008676.html

They think they are Woodward and Bernstein when they are essentially supermarket tabloid hacks unwilling or unable to do real research.  And knowing nothing about that upon which they are writing--for a public 
that, sadly, in large measure shares both their ignorance and their attitude.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dodger1967 (2 Apr 2007)

With regards to the press reports, it's all just hype.
I have known a few Aborigonal People, most of what I know of them, is that for the most part are honest people.

Experience has shown that if you don't want groups like the Mohawk Warrior Society to flourish, you arrest the leaders and outlaw the organization. Most of the Warriors in Oka, infiltrated from the United States, because they have "Treaty" rights to cross the border at will.
If you're going to have internal trouble, the first thing you should be doing is closing the bloody land border crossings. The second thing you should be doing is arresting every Aborigonal who's committed a violent offence. The Third thing that should be done is siezing every weapon, that an Aborigonal, or anyone else for that manner, has no business owning. Common sense tells me that an Indian wouldn't hunt with a .357 Magnum Revolver, .50 Snipers Rifle, or an M 16.

Finally they Govt. should get off it's arse and deal with Caledonia and other hotspots, with intensive negotiation, which will benifit both sides.

Cheerz
Paul


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2007)

Being "nice" to your "enemies" in your training manuals isn't new.  Anybody remember the Fantasians?  Peculiarly they had the latest Russian kit and used Warsaw Pact tactics.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (3 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Being "nice" to your "enemies" in your training manuals isn't new.  Anybody remember the Fantasians?  Peculiarly they had the latest Russian kit and used Warsaw Pact tactics.



Yeah but we always beat those Fantasians! They were ruthless too. One Fall when we were on exercise in Pet they blew up all the chip wagons in the Ottawa Valley thus denying our troops (especially 1 Commando) of Poutine! Imagine?? We taught them a lesson they'll not soon forget!!  ;D


----------



## Pikache (12 Sep 2007)

Kinda related, but here's US counterinsurgency manual

http://usacac.army.mil/cac/repository/materials/coin-fm3-24.pdf


----------

