- Reaction score
That sounds a lot like MacKenzie King's view in the approaching and early years of WWII. He envisioned Canada's contribution to be limited to supplies, support and materiel rather than committing troops to another "European war".All we need, politically, is to be capable of defending our sovereign territory (which hasn’t been under credible threat in a long, long time), living up to our NORAD commitment, and living up to our NATO comitment.
For the defence of our territory, you’ll be hardpressed to find an argument to have a modern, near-peer military to do so. We have never been under threat in the recent and not so recent past so a token force is all that is required to be seem as defending our land.
For our NORAD commitment, we need to keep the US happy enough so they don’t back out of the agreement. This has a direct link to the defence of our territory - a lot of it is done through NORAD.
For our NATO commitment, we need to be involved enough to be seen as a plus value and doing out part. There are several ways to do so which do not involve being a top-tier force in all aspects of warfare. The most efficient way politically is to invest in non-kinetic, low risk, low cost capabilities that are in short supply and that act as force multipliers.
Investing in anything else would be foolish from a political point of view.
We could excel in logistics, transport and all that non-kinetic stuff, but at what point are our contributions viewed as having a very robust and efficient way to bring home the bodies of other nations' combatants?