New Israeli Approach to War?

[Kirkhill]

Canada is in a prime position to play this game.  And probably needs to play it.

Getting our resources to tide water and converting them to cash is our first priority.  Those that oppose that movement - of good or ill intent - are doing a disservice to Canada and serving the aims of those, private and public, that are threatened by the competition.

Converting the cash to capabilities that increase Canada's influence is the next issue.

Building terminals and vessels to ship from Canada and receive at the Point of Consumption hydrocarbons (coal-oil-gas), lumber, grain, potash, sulfur all serve Canada's interests.  It increases influence and wealth.

That wealth can be converted into assets that influence events in non-military fashion -  Public-Private Partnership of CSE, MacDonald Detweiler and UAV suppliers - taking responsibility for unarmed surveillance (sigint, satellites and UAVs) and for internet warfare - is one cheap, high value avenue for Canada to secure itself, and others and influence events.

Cheap?  Yes.  Radarsat Constellation, at 1 BCAD for 3 Satellites with 24/7 capability for 20 years is cheaper than a dozen F35s or a single CSC.

Adding leased UAVs, operated by MDA, to supply an unarmed reconnaissance capability that could be used domestically and globally in exactly the same "non-military" fashion as the Radarsat system would also be a seller.  We then get to see the other side of the hill and determine which movements we want to remove from the covert to the overt.

CSE's annual budget is 350 MCAD.  Doubling that budget would add immense capabilities in terms of internet warfare.

In a book titled Ghost Force an SAS veteran described the future SAS man as a man or woman in a suit with a valid passport and a credit card.

These are the first tools of the state.  I could find elements of those solutions in a small country that I admire and consider worth emulating - Sweden.

It sells resources, services and technologies and follows its own path internationally.


The next level of response for the state is the ability to apply force.  I suggest that the air force is best positioned to meet that requirement first.  It is flexible in time, space, scope and scale of response and applicable domestically and globally.  While it is expensive to furnish and operate it is cheap in the most important resource - lives at risk (also known as headlines).

The next level up is CANSOFCOM - JTF2 CSOR SOAR etc.  Cheap in manpower and head lines.

The final level of response is the Army - the most expensive and least flexible service.  There is a scene in the movie "We were soldiers once, and young"  where the unit is being beaten on all sides and the unit commander calls "Broken Arrow", bringing down all available air assets on his position.  At that point a chap in white shirt on a radio says:  "There's no hiding it now".  That is always the great fear of commanders and politicians when the Army is committed.  Mistakes can't be hidden and people die.  Apparently 138 deaths in action over a 12 year period is as much as Canadians and their politicians can stomach.

How does the Navy fit into all of this?  As it always has.  It exists to supply platforms from which to fly the Canadian flag,  from which Canadians can operate and to keep the sea lanes open so that hydrocarbons, lumber, potash and sulfur can make it to market and supply the funds necessary to buy Canadians options and security.

And finally the militia (yes the militia and not reserves) - rather than equipping them with exotic tools so that they can become occasional soldiers that need extensive upgrading prior to deployment I think they should be supplied with tools they know how to use already.  This means pick up trucks, civilian radios and cell phones, Bobcats, quads, snowmobiles and chainsaws. They should be taught soldierly attitudes and procedures so that, regardless of the tools they have to hand, they can act as a disciplined body in a crisis rather than a rabble of individuals.  Make them and the Rangers a volunteer fire department that the government and their neighbours can rely on whenever more manpower than the local constabulary can supply is required.  An armed volunteer fire department, equipped with small arms and man-portable weapons (MGs and Mortars) and with any exotic kit necessary to operate domestically (Bandvagns come to mind) but a volunteer fire department none the less.

 

[pbi]

...Very sophisticated targeting needs to be done, and since this is a form of the "Effects Based Approach to Operations" there will need to be a military dimention to this IOT ensure the damage is focused on the right targets, spillover effects don't cause too much collateral damage and that Canadian targets are sufficiently hardened to prevent a response in kind. (One might envision a stock trading floor with a small military staff overseeing operations, for example)....

I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't think that this part actually requires a military force at all. It just requires people capable of understanding and applying the methods and capabilities you describe. It could even be (but maybe shouldn't be...) done by a private company.

Those that oppose that movement - of good or ill intent - are doing a disservice to Canada and serving the aims of those, private and public, that are threatened by the competition.

I'm with you on just about everything except this. To me, this borders on tarring people who are quite rightly concerned about private property rights, aboriginal treaty rights, the environment, and public control of what corporations are able to do or not do, as somehow "enemies of the state". That plays directly into the silly line the CPC trotted out a while ago that people who questioned the Alberta-Pacific pipeline were "foreign funded eco-terrorists".

I do agree that we need to get on with the business of responsibly exploiting our resources, but not by marginalizing or excluding reasonable concerns abouit how it's done. If you want to see what happens when economic exploitation by or on behalf of the State happens without controls, just look at the environmental trainwreck that communism left behind in Eastern Europe: try the Aral Sea for a start.

These are the first tools of the state.  I could find elements of those solutions in a small country that I admire and consider worth emulating - Sweden.

Although I might be accused of naivete or (horrors!!!) anti-Americanism, I've often wondered about the idea of a Canada that could emulate Sweden. We would have to be militarily strong enough, and politically reliable enough, to reduce US uneasiness, but it is an interesting thought.

The next level of response for the state is the ability to apply force.  I suggest that the air force is best positioned to meet that requirement first.  It is flexible in time, space, scope and scale of response and applicable domestically and globally.  While it is expensive to furnish and operate it is cheap in the most important resource - lives at risk (also known as headlines).

I agree with your assessment of the relative roles and priorities of the services that you have assigned. If we were truly to pursue the "Swedish" policy you referred to above, then we would have to get serious about Defence of Canada: "Canada First" would have to actually mean something more than a scattered handful of CF-18s, a few minor surface combatants, and (effectively speaking...) no submarine fleet. It would most definitely be a much more heavily armed capabiity, not a hollow gesture. While typically Canadians have never been big on defence spending in peacetime, I wonder what the public support for "armed neutrality" might be?

And finally the militia (yes the militia and not reserves) - rather than equipping them with exotic tools so that they can become occasional soldiers that need extensive upgrading prior to deployment I think they should be supplied with tools they know how to use already

Years ago, when I was early in my Army career, I read a paper by a Professor Willett (RMC, I think...?) recommending something very similar. The Prof suggested that instead of being a "poor cousin" imitation of the Regular Army, the Militia should have concentrated on being much more of an unconventional force. His rationale was that while a few under strength reserve
Brigades (Districts in those days...) tryin to array themselves to fight in a conventional manner would have little effect, by contrast tens of thousands of "People's Militia" (yes-I know...sounds horrible...) could make an invasion a very costly and painful experience for even the largest and most sophisticated invader.

At the time I thought it was a pile of rubbish that would totally undermine our existence and professional ethos, but on reflection stimulated by this thread, I wonder.

 

[Kirkhill]

......


I'm with you on just about everything except this. To me, this borders on tarring people who are quite rightly concerned about private property rights, aboriginal treaty rights, the environment, and public control of what corporations are able to do or not do, as somehow "enemies of the state". That plays directly into the silly line the CPC trotted out a while ago that people who questioned the Alberta-Pacific pipeline were "foreign funded eco-terrorists".

.......

Actually I agree with you about the concern.  Hence my circumlocution on the point.  The line between an honest, concerned citizen and an enemy of the state can, at times, be vanishingly thin.  Something about pathways and intentions......

The answer is not clear to me.  Perhaps it only becomes clear when the stakes are higher.

 

[a_majoor]

The problem differentiating "concerned citizens" from "Foreign funded Eco terrorists" is more a case of determining the "ends" of the activities rather than the means. An interesting fact that I rediscovered re reading "The Sling and the Stone" is the Sandinistas carefully coopted moderates in Nicaragua, "Liberation Theology" priests and various concerned citizen groups in the US, Europe and Latin America to put political pressure on the US government to reduce or eventually deny aid to the Somoza government, while at the same time frustrating any attempts to create an acceptable compromise agreement. The Sandinistas presented the front of wishing to remove a corrupt and oppressive government, while carefully concealing (especially from their "allies") their true goal of seizing power and establishing an authoritarian regime on the nation.

The Moderates, Liberation Theology priests and concerned citizens were coopted because they were speaking or working against the corrupt and repressive regime (which was their right and indeed duty to do so), without their understanding the true ends of the Sandinista movement's leadership.

So while PBI is quite correct that we don't silence people's ability to express legitimate concerns, we should also develop a legion of Vivian Krauses to carefully examine the relationships and funding of these groups to see that they are not "False Flag" operations that are promoting an end which is hostile to Canada and her national interests.