• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Military chief warns China and Russia are 'at war with the West' and Canada is not ready

Notwithstanding the logic or correctness ion Rick Hillier's comment it was a PR disaster. It put the gov't-of-the-day in a position from which there was no backing away: he was their guy saying things that the overwhelming majority of Canadians did not want too hear.

Admirals and generals, like children, should be seen but not heard.
*Mr. Campbell, I’m not so sure it was an outright PR disaster at the time, any more than his “murderers and scumbags” statement was. It was intentional, to swing the pendulum of public thought across the chasm of milquetoast bland growing sense of post-nation statism, to at least bring some energy to the ‘what is Canada truly?’ dialogue. It was a thought negotiation band set-point, which even Gen Hillier knew wouldn’t be taken by most as the point of equilibrium. He knew it and it was part of the effort to shift public thought from some (naive) view of Canadians as blue-beret’d scouts to a intellectually more honest ‘peacekeeping was borne of a military with a (relatively) recent combat experience (Korea).’
 
Last edited:
Notwithstanding the logic or correctness ion Rick Hillier's comment it was a PR disaster. It put the gov't-of-the-day in a position from which there was no backing away: he was their guy saying things that the overwhelming majority of Canadians did not want too hear.

Admirals and generals, like children, should be seen but not heard.

But PR disaster or no, he was accurately describing the job. The fact that that clear statement was a PR disaster speaks volumes about the relationship Canadians have with their Army.

They don't want to know.
 
But PR disaster or no, he was accurately describing the job. The fact that that clear statement was a PR disaster speaks volumes about the relationship Canadians have with their Army.

They don't want to know.
I recall a significant numbers of Canadians were quite pleased with his statement. Not everyone is swayed by Unicorn farts and blue berets.
 
I don’t think Trudeau actually cares about the consequences of his policy direction. The moment he is out of office, he will be on a flight to his next position at some IO in Geneva or Brussels. His kin will have the luxury of global mobility by virtue of the family name and neither Trudeau nor his kids will be around to see the decline of Canada.

That is, until one of them come back in a generation to run for office—PM Xavier Trudeau or PM Ella Grace Trudeau in 25-30 years.

Shhh.....you'll spoil the ending.

That is the plan. I would love to know what was promised.
 
I look at the timing of that statement, and we were deep in the Afghanistan War, with many of our soldiers paying the ultimate price.

I always viewed General Hiller's as a straight shooter and with the war being very front and center to a lot of Canadians then, he told it like it is.
In July of 2005 we were not "deep in the Afghanistan War". We were in the process of deploying a PRT to Kandahar as part of a whole of government effort. TF 1-06 which was readying to deploy in Feb 2006 was seen as more of an adjunct to the PRT than a major fighting force. The mission was envisioned as humanitarian in nature. TF 1-06's predecessor, TF Bayonet, had a relatively benign tour. Only a very few of our people had paid the ultimate price in Kabul. The Taliban insurgency that had been reconstituting itself was mostly off the radar of our intelligence resources and came as a massive shock in the summer of 2006.

Things didn't really start to turn to hell in a handbasket until the spring of 2006. If anything, Hillier was clairvoyant.

🍻
 
The CAF has been working on Pan Domain for some time

How Canada Fights

After reading the Pan Domain Force Employment Concept and listening to the interview I think I am left with more questions than answers.

It’s correctly pointed out that the CAF typically does not do anything really Joint. We do combined but only joint in a large coalition context and usually with non Canadian elements.

The new concept seems to suggest that we want to now do joint in a fully Canadian context within and across all domains. That is a very big change so I would like to know what the roadmap is to achieving that and what level we see as the integration point for that? Is it a Task Force level, CJOC, SJSs? I think the US is seeing the theatre commands as that integration point.

The other change I don’t fully understand from the document is the revitalization of Campaign Design. Given Canada is generally a junior partner operating within a US or NATO (aka US) force, with that element building the overall campaign plan as we saw for OEF, OIF, OIR, how do we see us doing Campaign Design? We have to date followed our allies campaign design and plugged in forces in line with our abilities and their requirements.

I don’t think we are actually talking about that kind of campaign design though but it’s not clear to me what we do mean.
 
In July of 2005 we were not "deep in the Afghanistan War". We were in the process of deploying a PRT to Kandahar as part of a whole of government effort. TF 1-06 which was readying to deploy in Feb 2006 was seen as more of an adjunct to the PRT than a major fighting force. The mission was envisioned as humanitarian in nature. TF 1-06's predecessor, TF Bayonet, had a relatively benign tour. Only a very few of our people had paid the ultimate price in Kabul. The Taliban insurgency that had been reconstituting itself was mostly off the radar of our intelligence resources and came as a massive shock in the summer of 2006.

Things didn't really start to turn to hell in a handbasket until the spring of 2006. If anything, Hillier was clairvoyant.

🍻

Thank you for the clarification. I assumed the rise of the Taliban activity had already happened at this time.
 
Thank you for the clarification. I assumed the rise of the Taliban activity had already happened at this time.
The buildup had started very gradually in 2004 and really more in Helmand but mostly covertly - things started picking up there in early 2006 just before the British came and pulled TF 1-06 into that on several operations. The first notice of a serious incursion in Zhari/Panjwayi was around May 2006 when the TF started noticing that the insurgents were standing and fighting rather than taking a few pot shots and running away. Aug 3rd and Aug 19th is when things really blew up there and those two events directly led to Op Medusa in September.
 
After reading the Pan Domain Force Employment Concept and listening to the interview I think I am left with more questions than answers.

......

The new concept seems to suggest that we want to now do joint in a fully Canadian context within and across all domains. That is a very big change so I would like to know what the roadmap is to achieving that and what level we see as the integration point for that? Is it a Task Force level, CJOC, SJSs? I think the US is seeing the theatre commands as that integration point.
That is not how I understood it, and remember that the interview was in Aug 20.....and the issued PFEC underwent some changes between 2020 and its release in 2023.

The PFEC is essentially the equivalent of the US Joint Warfighting Concept, now supported by the Combined Joint All Domain Command and Control program (CJADC2). On the CAN side, I hear that work is underway to produce the Pan Domain C2 Concept, or PDC2. It is designed to ensure joint and combined interoperability with our key Allies.

The other change I don’t fully understand from the document is the revitalization of Campaign Design. Given Canada is generally a junior partner operating within a US or NATO (aka US) force, with that element building the overall campaign plan as we saw for OEF, OIF, OIR, how do we see us doing Campaign Design? We have to date followed our allies campaign design and plugged in forces in line with our abilities and their requirements.

I don’t think we are actually talking about that kind of campaign design though but it’s not clear to me what we do mean.
At its simplest, a Canadian Campaign Design would ensure that we don't do multiple ROTO 0s...
 

I was with you up til here


This is where you lost me


This is where you might need to lay off the conspiracy theories before bed time.

Disregard my post lads. It may have been like 3:30am and I may have been sitting in a friend's car after a night at the bar...

I started writing that post when we left. Continued to write it once I remembered I had started it, sitting in a McDonald's. Finished writing the post in bed about an hour later... 🤷🏼‍♂️


(I 100% do not recall writing this. Genuinely. But I am pleasantly surprised & downright shocked at the coherency of my incoherent drunk cyber mumbling...)
 
The new concept seems to suggest that we want to now do joint in a fully Canadian context within and across all domains.
The idea of centralized Canadian missions instead of parcelled out contributions parcelled across a larger allied mission is not so much new as it is a thing we have never done. There was a lot of talk 2000ish to 2010ish about the “Team Canada” approach and the “flagship mission” with full spectrum of joint Canadian assets owning a high visibility AO. But we never wanted to invest in all the sustainment & support above the tactical operator units.

At its simplest, a Canadian Campaign Design would ensure that we don't do multiple ROTO 0s...
That would require BG & TF Comds accept they are not more special than the team before.
 
I stumbled across this 2018 TRADOC graphic that attempts to describe the US vision of the Multi-Domain universe. Horribly messy. I suspect that its messiness is a function of reality. I also suspect that it is reflective of Canada's reality as well. And we have 100,000 people trying to manage this mess.

1698505693828.png

 

Chief of defence staff says military must switch gears in increasingly chaotic world​

SARAH RITCHIE
OTTAWA
THE CANADIAN PRESS
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 26, 2023

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre talks to his troops as he takes part in an announcement in Petawawa, Ont., on Oct. 19. In a new message to military members, the chief of the defence staff says China and Russia don't differentiate between war and peace.SEAN KILPATRICK/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The chief of the defence staff said in a recent message to Canadian military members that China and Russia are expansionist powers that don’t differentiate between war and peace, and that the two states are the most significant threats to the world’s democracies.
Gen. Wayne Eyre released a document called a pan-domain force employment concept to Canadian Armed Forces members, which he says will form the foundation for changing the military’s operations.

“We are in a time of profound change, with the world more chaotic and dangerous than at any time since the end of the Cold War,” Eyre wrote in the foreword to the 45-page document.
He singled out Russia and China, saying they aim to rewrite the rules-based international order and will act “just below the threshold of armed conflict.”

“The CAF will continue to respond to crises of all kinds, foreign and domestic, but our clear priorities are deterrence, defence and countering the sub-threshold actions of our adversaries,” Eyre wrote.
He described the concept as a driver of change in the Armed Forces – one that “directs the implementation of a campaigning approach” – and said it will have broad-ranging implications over the course of years.
“Rather than conducting operations as discrete, reactive, episodic and relatively static activities, campaigning orients the CAF towards a holistic, pro-active and sustained approach,” it says.
The military has sometimes been slow to respond to hostile actions, the document says, and it calls for strengthening Canada’s ability to “compete below the threshold.”
It also calls for the military to integrate its operations in all battlespace domains – air, land, maritime, space and cyber – from the outset, rather than grouping them together in an ad hoc way.
Right now, the military is configured to counter overt military actions on land, at sea and by air – but other countries are adapting more quickly, the document reads.

“These authoritarian powers draw on all instruments of national power – diplomatic, information, military, and economic.”
Information is being used to sow confusion, it goes on, and the military needs to work more closely with what the document calls “other instruments of national power” and other parts of government.
At the same time, climate change also increases the risk of armed conflict, it notes.
“Climate change causes humanitarian crises, intensifies competition over scarce resources and exacerbates existing problems, particularly in fragile states that are already facing pronounced economic, political and societal challenges.”
The concept makes mention of evolving the Armed Forces’ culture and the way the military recruits, trains and employs members.
Eyre was not made available to answer questions about the document on Thursday.
The pan-domain force employment concept notes that it is not meant to be read as a policy or strategy, but is instead intended to guide the Armed Forces as it adapts and evolves.
The military is still waiting for a defence policy update from the federal government that was initially set to be released in fall 2022.
It is not clear why the policy has been delayed, and the government has not provided a timeline for its release.

I wonder if Bill Blair is feeling his oats in the new political environment. I have to believe that he saw this before Gen Eyre released it.
 



I wonder if Bill Blair is feeling his oats in the new political environment. I have to believe that he saw this before Gen Eyre released it.
Or passing on the message that our neighbor to the South has impressed upon our Dear Leader?
 
Or passing on the message that our neighbor to the South has impressed upon our Dear Leader?

There has been much talk about splits in the US establishment and the Republicans in particular. I was just listening to the new Speaker.

Concerns have been expressed that he may represent a shift away from supporting Ukraine and Israel. His words seem to suggest the opposite.
He has stated explicitly that Putin cannot be allowed to win in Ukraine. He also has spoken favourably about immediately releasing funds to Israel.
I think his problem is with Biden and Biden's policies - specifically the lack of clearly defined intent. There is also a sidebar issue concerning Biden's ties to Ukraine, Russia and China amongst others.

My sense is that if the Speaker pursues a policy of line item votes rather than omnibus votes that a vote on supporting Ukraine would achieve a majority of both Republicans and Democrats and would pass easily. Just as support for Israel would.

The big difference is likely to be over whether the support comes from raising new taxes, borrowing more money or reallocating existing funds.

In short, I don't think that our government is going to be hearing any change in policy from our neighbours to the south except, as you suggest, them being more forthright in expressing their expectations of our government.

This is kind of a clarifying moment. The mob in the center is becoming less tolerant of the noises from the edges.

And if you were elected by those voices from the edges you may be in trouble.
 
Back
Top