ON TARGET: The RCAF is Still Not 'Woke'?

Photo credit: TOP GUN 2 Maverick

By Scott Taylor

At the end of August, there was a bizarre story about a military investigation into potentially offensive comments made by Air Force pilots at a call-sign meeting.

For those readers who have not watched Tom Cruise’s 1986 Hollywood blockbuster Top Gun or the recently released sequel, Top Gun: Maverick, call signs are an important element of the elite fighter pilot culture.

According to RCAF spokesman Col. Adam Thompson, “The call sign has a practical purpose and is used for brevity and quick identification while removing some flight leadership barriers that may arise by rank or position.”

The call sign selection takes place at the unit or squadron level and involves suggestions from fellow pilots. Once assigned, that moniker remains with the pilot throughout his career.

This all sounds rather innocuous, which is why the RCAF’s late August announcement generated such public interest.

In a statement from RCAF Commander Lt-Gen Eric Kenny, it was announced that pending the results of the call sign investigation, the scheduled change-of-command ceremony in CFB Bagotville, Quebec was being postponed.

It was revealed that the call sign assignment meeting in question had taken place at CFB Cold Lake, Alberta in June 2022. With no details released by the RCAF as to the nature of the allegedly offensive commentary, it was left to pundits such as myself to surmise that whatever was said must have been “incredibly offensive.”

The fact that two months after this call sign meeting took place, a senior officer’s assignment was put into limbo while military police investigators probed the incident, certainly added to the gravitas.

Myself and others questioned how any officers in the Canadian Armed Forces would still think it acceptable to utter any potentially offending remarks in the current socially aware climate.

At the time of the alleged incident, the CAF had been under a near continuous 19-month long, media crap storm for sexual misconduct at the senior level.

For that reason I opined that the offensive call sign comments under military police investigation were unlikely to have been sexual in nature. However, it turns out that our uniformed, commissioned officers with the skill set to fly a modern fighter plane, do not necessarily require common sense.

Despite the RCAF’s best efforts to keep the call-sign quiet, in this era of social media posts, it was only a matter of time before the offensive content surfaced.

As reported by David Pugliese in the Ottawa Citizen we now know that the call sign which would be used to identify a male pilot was based on a consensual sexual relationship with a female Canadian Forces Officer.

That female officer subsequently had a consensual same-sex relationship. Armed with this knowledge, the RCAF fighter pilots assigned their colleague the call sign FAWG. This is an acronym for “F***ed a Woman Gay.”

One can easily understand why the RCAF senior brass would not want the details of this call sign made public.

However, as long as the nature of the offensive content remained unknown, the usual apologists could safely claim that this was yet another ‘woke’ overreaction to some harmless jesting by a handful of fighter pilots.

Unfortunately, an estimated 30 RCAF personnel attended that call sign meeting when ‘FAWG’ was assigned and it took two months before any action was taken.

Only after a military member complained that this call sign was based on an abusive and derogatory comment against a female military member as well as the LGTBQ2+ community was the investigation initiated.

That someone in this current climate would think this call sign reference was in any way acceptable speaks to that individual’s lack of social awareness.

The fact that some 30 fellow officers either concurred with this call sign or failed to raise any objections, is clear proof of the toxic environment which still prevails.

Even the producers of the Top Gun: Maverick sequel had the good sense to include a female pilot, call sign Phoenix, who proved her worth as a member of an elite squadron.

According to Col. Thomson, assigning call signs “is meant to foster esprit de corps.” I think it is safe to say that in this instance the opposite result was achieved.

In the end, two senior officers were charged for allegedly failing to stop the assignation of the ‘FAWG’ call sign and junior officers are reportedly facing administrative action.

The two senior officers were docked play. While a number of junior officers are also facing administrative action the RCAF has declined to provide details on numbers of individuals or the actions that have been taken against them.

ON TARGET: Canadian Armed Forces in 'Crisis'?

By Scott Taylor

The Canadian Armed Forces are facing a manpower crisis, which threatens their operational proficiency. At present, the regular force is short some 10,000 personnel from its authorized manning level of 67,000 service members.

That amounts to a 17 per cent shortfall. This may not sound significant but according to U.S. military doctrine, any combat unit that suffers a 10 per cent casualty rate can no longer be considered effective.

The worst part of this crisis is that the Canadian military continues to face a challenge in both recruiting new members and retaining trained soldiers.

Analysts claim that the COVID-19 pandemic combined with reputational issues stemming from the series of high-level sexual misconduct cases, are to blame for the current shortfall in personnel.

In an attempt to open recruiting to a wider cross section of society, Chief of Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre recently changed the CAF’s dress code regulations.

Under the terms of the new policy, members can choose their hairstyle, sport face tattoos and select which gender of uniform clothing to which they best identify.

Last week, it was also announced that you no longer need to be a Canadian citizen to enlist in the military. Permanent residents will now be eligible to apply to join the Canadian Armed Forces.

In the past there had been provisions made to allow immigrants with Permanent Resident status to enlist, but that was reserved for professional specialists who were already serving in a foreign military.

The advantage for those permanent residents seeking to obtain full citizenship is that immigration officials will be giving priority to those who have served in the CAF.

In theory, this widening of the pool of eligible applicants should help address two of the Canadian military’s current challenges at the same time.

They are presently woefully short of personnel, and those members that are in uniform are lacking in diversity.

While I wholeheartedly applaud these policy changes, I remain pessimistic as to the outcome in the short term.

I understand that some very qualified people may have been exempted from enlisting under previous dress and deportment regulations. A youthful decision to get a face tattoo or multiple piercings may have kept a few otherwise excellent candidates out of the ranks.

However, I do not think that since General Eyre revised that policy that recruiting centres have been swarmed by an eager horde of tattooed, pierced hipsters. The military, by the very nature of the institution remains a symbol of conformity and authority.

As for attracting new immigrants through the lure of fast-tracked citizenship, I fear the same equation might apply.

Service in the military is a pretty consistent experience worldwide. The uniforms, food and pay may differ but the basics of the soldiering lifestyle are generally universal.

Immigrants coming to Canada would have had the option of serving in the military in their home country, yet they were obviously seeking something different for themselves and their families.

I personally think that a Canadian military that reflects our society as a whole will benefit the institution.

It will better connect those presently under-represented factions and that in turn will generate an increase in diversity over time. However, I do not think there are any quick fixes in the offing through these two recent initiatives.

To meet the manning shortfall during the decade long commitment to Afghanistan, the CAF had to resort to a partial mobilization of the reserves. I think that this current manpower crisis calls for a similar call to arms for Canada’s militia and reserve units.

Over time the appeal of a career in uniform may start to attract those hipsters who visibly challenge authority through their appearance. Likewise, once a critical mass of under-represented groups flesh out the ranks, others from that demographic may be encouraged to enlist. That will take time.

Meanwhile, the CAF needs to take drastic measures to reverse the present course. Tasking the reserves to select part-time service members to temporarily become full time personnel would appear to be the simplest solution.

It worked in Afghanistan, it can work again.

ON TARGET: Lt. Gen (ret'd) Maisonneuve: Should he be Cancelled?

By Scott Taylor

In every good Hollywood boxing movie, there comes a scene when a pummelled boxer is instructed by his trainer to ‘stay down’ in order to avoid a further beating. If the boxer still attempts to rise, the trainers will mercifully ‘throw in the towel’ to signal the official to end the fight.

I fear that in the case of Lt-Gen (ret’d) Michel Maisonneuve, he either has no trainer in his corner or he is too punch-drunk to accept their sound advice.

The saga begins on November 9 when the Conference of Defence Associations Institute hosted their 30th annual Vimy Gala dinner in Ottawa.

The CDAI promoted this event as ‘one of the most formal dining evenings which unites the defence and security community.’

While the Vimy Gala did bring out a record number of well heeled guests – which included a Supreme Court Justice, senior military brass and top bureaucrats – the keynote speech proved to be far from unifying.

In accepting this year’s Vimy Award, Lt-Gen (ret’d) Maisonneuve criticized everything from the removal of historical statues and apologies to victims to the Trudeau government’s climate change policies.

Maisonneuve bemoaned the lack of unbiased media reporting and took particular offense to the recent changes made to the Canadian Armed Forces dress regulations which now allow members a freer expression of personal choices.

While Maisonneuve’s comments were rewarded with a standing ovation, it was clearly evident that many in attendance were not pleased. Realizing that such remarks from the recipient of what is intended to be an apolitical award from an apolitical organization, CDAI executive director Youri Cormier was quick to issue a disclaimer. “Many attendees were offended by [Maisonneuve’s] speech. His remarks do not reflect those of the CDA Institute” stated Cormier.

Some of those offended guests immediately posted their displeasure on social media outlets that evening.

The next day, November 10 the Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans announced that Maisonneuve, who was already on their board of directors, was to lead that organizations’ fundraising efforts. So far, so good. It seemed that Maisonneuve was in the clear.

However, on November 15, Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese published the Vimy Speech story complete with Maisonneuve’s anti-government policy statements, plus the fact that many senior, serving personnel had responded with a standing ovation.

Following the Citizen report, National Defence Minister Anita Anand and Lt-Gen Jennie Carignan, the Canadian Armed Forces Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture, both publicly criticized Maisonneuve’s comments.

Exhibiting a lack of bias which Maisonneuve claimed no longer exists in mainstream media, the National Post published a copy of Maisonneuve’s entire speech online. Like throwing fuel on a lit fire, the contents of the speech remained polarizing within the defence community on many social media platforms.

Maisonneuve’s self-proclaimed ‘anti-woke’ commentary was music to the ears of those who long for a golden era that never was, while to those who consider themselves progressive, Maisonneuve’s words were akin to dinosaur grunts.

As the controversy continued to bubble over, on November 25, the Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veteran’s asked for and received Maisonneuve’s resignation from their board of directors.

It was at this juncture that the good general should have heeded the famous words of U.S. General Douglas Macarthur and simply ‘faded away.’ Instead, Maisonneuve decided to double down with a statement published once again by the National Post.

He claimed his words had been ‘misrepresented’ and ‘distorted’ even though they had been published in their entirety. For a guy who had loudly criticized those special interest groups who ‘fight over who gets to wear the coveted victim’s cloak’ Maisonneuve is now painting himself as a victim of cancel culture.

Responding to the allegations that his criticism of Chief of Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre’s new military dress regulations were out of place, Maisonneuve wrote “This is simply not true.” Pledging his respect for Eyre, Maisonneuve acknowledged that the current CDS is “navigating a difficult road.” However this was then followed by Maisonneuve stating that in his opinion “uniforms ought to be uniform.”

He also used his statement to double down on his criticism of the Trudeau Liberals. “The government does not seem to understand the requirements of military service and it’s unlimited liability clause.” wrote Maisonneuve.

The truly ironic part of Maisonneuve’s argument is that he repeatedly calls for leaders to be less divisive and more unifying.

I realize there are many loud voices who consider themselves to be in Maisonneuve’s ‘anti-woke’ camp and they will happily echo his sentiments.

However as a retired general, Maisonneuve should have had the good sense not to use the apolitical forum of the Vimy Gala to mount his soapbox and air his personal beefs.

If the CDA Institute truly feels Maisonneuve does not reflect their views, then they need to revoke the award which they bestowed upon him.

As for Maisonneuve, I suggest that it is high time to throw in the towel.

To paraphrase the old saying; “If you wish to extricate yourself from a crap storm, stop blowing hot air.”

ON TARGET: Canadian Military Must Adapt To Changing Battlefield

Genya Savilov/AFP/Getty Images

On Saturday November 19th, I was honoured to attend the Gala Ball celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Governor General’s Foot Guards. The event was held in the landmark Chateau Laurier Hotel’s ornate ballroom. Former and serving members of the Regiment were turned out in their scarlet mess kits while the band wore their scarlet tunics and distinctive bearskin hats.

Minus the preponderance of cell phones and the style of the ladies’ evening gowns, a black and white photograph could convincingly represent the Regiment at the time of its founding in 1872.

While it was a fitting tribute to Canada’s oldest reserve regiment, the visuals also served to illustrate just how much warfare itself has evolved over that span of a century and a half.

The bright scarlet tunics of the soldiers were meant to be seen by the enemy and the massive bearskin hats were intended to give the impression of greater height.

No thought was given to camouflage with white cross belts and metal trimmings polished till they sparkled.

Soldiers were meant to march in densely packed ranks and deliver volley fire at point blank range. The British empire – including Canadian regiments – were taught the lessons of concealment, cover and camouflage by the South African Boers at the turn of the last century.

The trenches, barbed wire and machine guns of World War One changed tactics one again and modern armies ditched the ornate headgear for helmets that actually protected soldiers.

For those closely following the current conflict in Ukraine it is readily apparent that the battlefield continues to evolve and with it the way in which we approach combat.

The current scourge of the battlefield is the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) more commonly known as drones.

While both sides are using drones extensively, it would seem that the NATO supplied Ukrainian forces have been far more successful in employing this technology.

There are lessons to be learned from this war for Canada. While we did employ a limited number of drones during our decade long counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, we would need to massively increase our drone arsenal should we ever be drawn into a near-peer war.

The Taliban, unlike the Russians and Ukrainians, did not possess any effective anti-aircraft defensive measures to counter drones. In this regard, Canada is akin to the Taliban as our military possesses zero tactical air defence systems.

While many of the drones employed in Ukraine have their own direct fire weapons, or are of the ‘kamikaze’ variety, the remainder are used as spotter aircraft to direct the heavy artillery.

Canada has a limited number of modern M-777 howitzers which were extremely effective in the counter-insurgency role in Afghanistan.

These 155mm howitzers have a long-range precision guided capability. However, they are towed artillery which means the gun crew has no armoured protection.

Experience has shown that the Russians have an effective counter-battery artillery capability which makes the four M-777 towed artillery which we gave to Ukraine, a dangerous liability.

Again, if Canada ever expects to be involved in a near-peer conflict with an artillery equipped adversary, we should start investing in a fleet of modern, self-propelled, armoured howitzers.

In addition to the equipment proving successful on this new age battlefield, Canada should also look at what type of soldiers are emerging as the victors.

While there are still a large number of tough looking infanteers and tankers on the front line, the real scourge of the battlefield are the legion of drone operators.

These talented former video-gamers do not have to bench press 100 kilos or climb over a two meter wall, they simply have to manipulate a joystick and press buttons.

Given that the Canadian military is currently 10,000(+) personnel short of its authorized strength of 67,000 regular force members, perhaps we need to rethink who we believe would make a good soldier?

We have evolved body armour and camouflage to the natural limit, but perhaps it is time to evolve this even further. Maybe the future warrior is not seen by the enemy at all because they are able to employ remote weaponry via sophisticated drones.

If that becomes the case, then perhaps the old Colonel Blimp brigade can finally stop bemoaning the current relaxation of dress regulations and allowance of facial hair and tattoos.

ON TARGET: Railing Against the 'Woke Cancel Culture'

By Scott Taylor

On Wednesday Nov. 9, the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDAI) hosted their 30th annual Vimy Gala Dinner at the Museum of History in Ottawa.

In their promotional material, CDAI billed this event as “one of the most exclusive formal dining evenings in the country which unites the defence and security community.”

Indeed, the Vimy Gala did bring out over 600 attendees that included Richard Wagner, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Jody Thomas, Trudeau’s National Security advisor, a bevy of senior military officers and the majority of the Ottawa Service Attaché Association (OSAA).

So far so good.

Then Lt-Gen (ret’d) Michel Maisonneuve took to the podium to give his acceptance speech as this year’s recipient of the Vimy Award. The CDA Institute selection committee sought to honour Maisonneuve for his life-long contributions in defence, including his work on military education, support for veterans and his commitment to bilingualism.

Fair enough. Maisonneuve served in the army for 35 years before retiring in 2007 at the esteemed rank of Lt-General.

However, rather than simply accepting his kudos, Maisonneuve chose to climb onto his soapbox to rail against everything from cancel culture to climate change.

He prefaced his speech with a recap of Canada’s past military victories, which oddly enough included the recent war in Afghanistan. Note to the good general, we lost that one.

His segue into crapping on the current state of affairs rang an eerily Trump-like tone. “Canada was a great nation and though we are faltering today, I believe we can be great again,” stated Maisonneuve. Then his tirade began.

His first target was social media and the rise of cancel culture. Then he turned to the state of actual journalism. “The line between “news” and op-eds has blurred and too often we are subjected to sermons written not by seasoned journalists but by first-year graduates of woke journalism schools,” claimed Maisonneuve, adding that “unbiased reporting seems to have died with Christie Blatchford and Matthew Fisher.”

For the record, both Blatchford and Fisher were both unrepentant cheerleaders of all things Canadian military.

It should also be noted that in attendance that evening were CBC’s seasoned defence reporter Murray Brewster and Global News’ Mercedes Stephenson who was recently recognized for her investigative reporting on senior level military sexual misconduct. They are both very much alive.

On the topic of climate change, Maisonneuve pulled no punches. “Canada’s prosperity is being sacrificed on the altar of climate change as opposed to being used to help the world transition to clean energy.” said Maisonneuve. As for those who protest climate change, Maisonneuve opined they should “be punished, not celebrated.”

On the topic of formal apologies to various groups for historical wrongs, Maisonneuve believes that “the phenomenon for collective apologies flourishes in our country” and that “individuals and groups fight over who gets to wear the coveted victim’s cloak.”

Even more specifically, Maisonneuve took issue with Chief of Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre’s recent changes to the military dress code. “I see a military … where uniforms have become a means of personal expression rather than a symbol of collective pride and unity: uniforms are no longer uniform.”

Not unsurprisingly, Maisonneuve’s words were a tonic to the old guards’ ears and the crowd rewarded him with a standing ovation.

However, the sentiment was not unanimous as was admitted in a subsequent statement from Youri Cormier, the executive director of the CDA Institute. “Many attendees were offended by LGen (ret’d) Maisonneuve’s speech. His remarks do not reflect those of the CDA Institute.”

Unfortunately for the CDA Institute and Maisonneuve, the division sown at the Vimy Gala did not remain within the exhibition hall at the Museum of History.
Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese soon broke the story of the standing ovation by serving officers for Maisonneuve’s anti-government policy remarks.

As one would expect, Maisonneuve’s stance served as a lightning rod to polarize the defence community. Many felt that the general was speaking truth to power while many felt just as strongly that Maisonneuve is out of touch with the current social climate.

Minister of National Defence Anita Anand and Lt. Gen. Jennie Carignan, the Canadian Armed Forces Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture, both publicly criticized the speech after the Citizen article published.

It should be noted that Lt. Gen. Carignan was in attendance at the Vimy Gala when the remarks were made.

That said, if the CDA Institute truly thought this dinner would “unite” the defence and security community they could not have picked a worse candidate to give the keynote speech.

As a positive take on this incident, it is heartening to see that there are two separate camps. That means that while some still pine for the dinosaur era, there are progressives in the military community who get the fact that the times have changed.

ON TARGET: Is China the real threat?

By Scott Taylor

It has been nearly nine months since Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine. What was expected to be a lightning-strike armoured assault to capture Kyiv has turned into a long drawn out farcical rout of the Russian military.

Last week Putin’s senior defence officials went on Russian state television to announce they would be making a temporary tactical withdrawal from the Ukrainian city of Kherson.

With Ukraine having successfully destroyed or damaged the major bridges, the Russian military can no longer supply and sustain the roughly 40,000 soldiers in their Kherson bridgehead on the west bank of the Dnipro river. The fate of those Russian troops will be determined in the days ahead as Ukraine’s military continues to advance faster than the Russians can evacuate their forces back to the east bank of the Dnipro.

Of the original Russian invasion force of 120,000 combat troops, U.S. intelligence estimates that nearly 90,000 Russians have thus far been killed, wounded, captured or have deserted.

To make up the loss of frontline combat capable units, Putin reluctantly ordered the mobilization of 300,000 ill-motivated reservists.

In terms of equipment, Russian losses have been equally heavy with shattered armoured vehicles littering the Ukraine landscape from Kyiv to Kharkiv to Kherson.

To replenish this arsenal, Putin is able to tap into the vast fleets of moth-balled Soviet Union-era armoured vehicles. However, if the Russian first string of soldiers and weapons failed to defeat Ukraine forces, it is unlikely that these less trained, less motivated conscripts with antiquated tanks will somehow reverse the course of the war.

The best result Putin can hope for now is to slow the Ukraine counter offensive, dig in on the east bank of the Dnipro river and hope that crippling oil and gas shortages across western Europe force President Volodymir Zelenskyy’s allies to demand a negotiated settlement.

While much of the credit for Russia’s defeat goes to the Ukraine military’s courageous defence, their success would not be possible without the training, weapons, munitions and money supplied by NATO countries.

This is by definition a proxy war between Russia and NATO fought on Ukrainian soil. For the NATO cheerleaders, the good news for you is that western weapons and intelligence gathering remains vastly superior to the previously much-hyped Russian war machine. The bad news for the NATO cheerleaders is that any future fear mongering is likely to fall on deaf ears.

The standard talking point among the Colonel Blimp brigade is that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has made the world that much more dangerous. They argue that if a madman can simply invade a sovereign state to overthrow the existing regime, then none of us are safe.

This narrow view of geopolitics conveniently omits the recent U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and in the case of Libya, the western allies did not even bother trying to prop up a puppet regime. NATO simply bombed Libya into continual anarchy. But I digress.

On Feb. 24, 2022 as Russian tanks crossed the Ukraine frontier, it was admittedly a very scary development.

However, we now know that those vaunted Russian warriors are nowhere near a NATO standard.

Yet we still have fear mongers here in Canadian defence circles who point to the Arctic to remind Canadians that this dangerous rogue Russian regime is our northern neighbour.

Geographically that is true, and Russia has done far more to develop it’s Arctic resources than Canada. However, if Russian ground forces could barely advance a few hundred kilometres into Ukraine before their logistics and resupply collapsed into chaos, what chance could they have to conduct large scale military operations in the barren Arctic?

Likewise, the warmongers will then pivot and claim that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has emboldened China to take action against Taiwan.

If that is indeed the case, I’m not sure exactly what example the Chinese would wish to follow.

The Russian military is being ground into oblivion by NATO’s sophisticated weaponry used in conjunction with its superior satellite intelligence gathering systems. While NATO has not declared war on Russia, members states – including Canada – have been quick to empty out their own arsenals to keep Ukraine winning the fight.

If China is watching this war, there are many lessons to be learned and the most important would be that a U.S – NATO backed adversary will still dominate the battlespace.

NATO countries may not have the political will to expend their own soldiers lives, but it seems they will happily supply weapons to a proxy nation to weaken their rivals.

ON TARGET: MND Needs a Reality Check on Armoured Vehicles

By Scott Taylor

Earlier this month, Defence Minister Anita Anand boasted that Canada is regarded as a ‘leader’ in the provision of modern armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine.

In an interview with Global News, Anand stated “in terms of vehicles, I’ve told my colleagues across the NATO alliance to think about Canada as a leader in this area because what we are providing to Ukraine are brand new vehicles fresh off the [assembly] line to make sure that Ukraine has best-in-class technology.”

What Anand was referring to was the recent shipment of 39 Light Armoured Vehicles (LAV) directly from the General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) facility in London, Ontario to Ukraine.

While I have no doubt that the hard pressed Ukrainian military will welcome any donation of modern weaponry, I do not think that Anard quite grasps the scale and scope of the current conflict in Ukraine.

According to U.S. and UK intelligence sources, Russia has lost over 2000 main battle tanks in the first eight months of combat. While Ukraine’s losses are not reported, it is safe to say that Canada’s 39 Light Armoured Vehicles will make roughly one week’s worth of battlefield attrition in Ukraine.

Also, if NATO sources are accurate, to date Ukraine has captured and re-employed some 440 Russian main battle tanks and it is believed that Ukraine now possess more armour than the Russian invaders.

As for Anand’s point that Canada can lead the way in terms of providing armoured vehicles in the future, one has to politely ask “in what universe?”

The fact that Canada had these 39 brand new LAV’s to give away directly from the GDLS factory has it’s origins in a 2018 diplomatic spat between Canada and Saudi Arabia.

It is a little publicized fact that Saudi Arabia is Canada’s best customer for arms exports. Over the past two decades GDLS-Canada has produced over 1400 LAV’s for the Saudi Kingdom.

In August 2018, the Saudis had just placed a whopping $15 billion order for more LAV’s from GDLS when Global Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland publicly denounced the Saudi Kingdom for human rights violations. In turn the Saudis expelled Canada’s ambassador to Riyadh and cancelled all new trade deals.

Canada stood by Freeland’s position and shrugged off the Saudi rebuke as simply the cost of holding rogue regimes accountable.

That was not the sentiment at General Dynamics USA when Saudi Arabia stopped making payments for the Canadian built LAV’s.

Technically Saudi Arabia did not owe any money to GD-USA as military sales are run through the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC), which acts as the middle man.

However this was simply semantics, and GD-USA was indeed taking the hit as CCC could not pay for the vehicles if the Saudi Kingdom didn’t fork over the cash.

To resolve this impasse, the Canadian government hastily moved up its own plans to buy new LAV’s, doubled the purchase order and provided GDLS-Canada with an upfront $600 million interest-free loan.

This deal was for $3 billion and GDLS-Canada is to build a total of 360 new LAV’s for the Canadian Army.

The 39 we just shipped to Ukraine were available only because the Saudi dispute forced the Liberal government’s hand into bailing out GDLS-Canada and their parent company in the USA.

While this batch of new LAV’s never actually entered service with the Canadian Army, they are still slated to eventually replace our army’s existing worn out older armoured personnel carriers.

Given GDLS-Canada’s production track record, which assembles about 70-100 LAV’s a year, Anand’s promise to lead the way in arming Ukraine is a pipe dream.

Furthermore, while GDLS-Canada produces a world class quality LAV, to date this class of light-armoured vehicle has not played a major role in the static battlefields in eastern Ukraine.

The Russian Soviet era built LAV’s have proven to be extremely vulnerable to modern anti-tank weaponry. Even the heavier main battle tanks on both sides have been of questionable value.

What has proven effective in Ukraine is long-range artillery with precision munitions.

That is what Ukraine really needs and unfortunately Canada does not produce such ordnance.

While it is understandable that Anand would like to capitalize on the ‘Stand with Ukraine’ public sentiment by telling us we are ‘leading’ the way, we are not, nor will we be in the foreseeable future.

ON TARGET: DND Procurement is Spiralling Out of Control

By Scott Taylor

There has been a lot of recent news about defence procurement in Canada, and sadly, none of it has been positive.

Last week the Ottawa Citizen reported that Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux is warning that taxpayers will face a $300 billion price tag for 15 new warships.

To be fair, that figure includes the cost of maintaining and upgrading the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships over its life cycle. Giroux’s numbers cover the 65-year process, right from designing the new ships to the eventual disposal of the vessels.

However, Giroux did peg the cost of developing and building these 15 frigates at $84.5 billion which amounts to $5.6 billion per ship.

To put this in context, the UK has recently built two 65,000 ton aircraft carriers at a cost of roughly $4.5 billion each.

Those apologists for Canadian shipyards who claim this is an “unfair comparison” are simply earning their paycheques.

It is inexplicable that Canada would pay such an astronomical sum of money for so comparatively little actual naval capability in return. 

In terms of timelines, it should be pointed out that Irving Shipyard was first selected to build the 15 new CSC’s back in 2011. At that juncture the acquisition cost was pegged at just $26 billion.

To date no steel has been cut and the hoped for construction start date on these ships is not until 2024. In his latest report, Giroux noted that a one-year delay in the project added $7 billion to the total cost.

While the CSC project represents the largest procurement in Canadian history, it is not alone when it comes to cost overruns and delivery delays.

In the saga of acquiring two new Joint Supply Ships (JSS) for the RCN, the current projection is for the first to be delivered by Seaspan Shipyard in 2025 with the second vessel complete by 2027.

For those who follow these things closely, it will be remembered that the original timeline for this project was to have the first new JSS in service by 2012.

This was then pushed to a 2018 delivery and then 2019. Now we wait. As for the cost, the original budget was set at $2.3 billion for two ships. That price tag is now at $4.1 billion.

The $20 billion (and climbing) project to replace the RCAF’s fleet of aging CF-18 fighter jets is a saga in itself, which has yet to be fully played out.

At present, the Lockheed Martin F-35 is the aircraft which won the competition to replace the CF-18. The Liberal government has entered negotiations to acquire 88 F-35’s with the first delivery to be in 2025. However, to date no contract has been signed with Lockheed Martin.

While the CF-18 replacement remains a long drawn out series of dramas, the Fixed Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) acquisition must rank as one of the Canadian military’s most ill-fated procurements.

Originally ‘fast tracked’ in 2004, the Liberal government of the day authorized DND to purchase 17 aircraft to replace the well-aged fleet of Buffalo airplanes that were serving Canada’s FWSAR needs. The original price tag was $1.1 billion and the first delivery was to be in 2006. 

However, it was not until December 8, 2016 that a contract was finally signed for Airbus to provide 15 aircraft at a cost of $2.2 billion. While deliveries of the C295W have begun, they have yet to be successfully certified.

This means that with the old Buffalo’s finally retired from service, Canada is presently deficient in this vital FWSAR capability, particularly off the BC coast.

As the war in Ukraine has served to illustrate, sophisticated modern weapon systems cannot be swiftly replaced. In a modern war scenario, if Canada were to engage in combat with a ‘near-peer’ such as Russia or China, we would be forced to utilize what we have in our existing arsenal.

Given that we have given away armoured vehicles, artillery and much of our ammo to Ukraine already, we would be in a sorry state.

With the current lead times, delays and cost overruns of virtually all of our recently major procurements, maybe we need to completely overhaul our sense of urgency when it comes to equipping our military with what they actually need.

If one closely follows the combat trends in Ukraine, this would mean buying loads of aerial drones, anti-armour missiles and ground-air defence systems. Not manned fighter jets and anti-submarine ships.

ON TARGET: Should Canada Ramp up for War?

By Scott Taylor

In recent weeks, Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre has been publicly urging the Defence Industry to ramp up production to what he terms a ‘war footing’. It is Eyre’s professional opinion that an increase in domestic military hardware will make it easier for Canada to continue supplying weapons and munitions to Ukraine.

It would also better enable Canada to replace all of the lethal and non-lethal aid, which has already been drained from the Canadian Armed Forces arsenal in order to keep Ukraine in the fight against Russia.

The crux of Eyre’s argument is that the current Russia versus Ukraine conflict provides the catalyst for boosting military equipment production.

In an interview with CBC last May, Eyre told Canadians “I think what this [Russian Ukrainian conflict] has shown, though, is the need for us to increase the capacity of the defence industry. Given the deteriorating world situation, we need the defence industry to go into a wartime footing and increase this production liner to be able to support the requirements that are out there, whether it is ammunition, artillery rockets … you name it. There is a huge demand out there” said Eyre.

All of this may be music to the ears of those executives toiling in the military industrial complex but I think it will be harder to sell the Canadian public on the concept of increased defence spending being the answer to global security.

For decades the fearmongering NATO pundits all warned us of Russia’s incredible martial power. During that campaign of deliberate disinformation, Putin used these over-hyped capabilities to inflate his own political status.

Perhaps Putin actually began to believe the NATO propaganda himself. However, the minute Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, the myth of Russian military invincibility began to unravel.

The NATO spinmeisters did their level best to keep frightening the world by writing off Ukraine’s military and speculating on which western European countries Putin would gobble up next.

The proposed Russian ‘Special Military Operation’ was to last just 72 hours and result in the establishment of a pro-Kremlin regime in Kyiv.

The initial armoured thrusts by the Russians were thwarted by a determined and proficient Ukraine military. The opening act of the war also drew back the curtain on a Russian military hobbled by corruption and incompetence.

As the Russians were driven from the battlefield, analysts began to admit what they had known for years: The Russian military is woefully unprepared to support itself logistically outside of their own territory.

The subsequent months of fighting have also proven that the NATO- supported Ukraine military is superior to the Russian invaders in terms of sophisticated weaponry, training, tactics and above all morale.

The Pentagon estimates that as of Oct. 13, the Russians have suffered a total of 80,000 casualties, which includes over 20,000 deaths.

In terms of military hardware, the Russian losses have been extreme, with literally thousands of tanks, artillery, armoured vehicles and supply trucks having been destroyed or captured to date.

The prolonged conflict has also seen Russia expend the majority of its guided weapon systems such as cruise missiles.

To address this shortfall, Russia has resorted to using Iranian supplied low-tech suicide drones to attack Ukraine’s power grid.

As a quick aside, I would like to issue a quick reminder to those NATO cheerleaders who are currently denouncing Putin’s targeting of civilian infrastructure as a ‘war crime.’ Back in the spring of 1999, NATO air forces – including Canada – spent 78 days deliberately bombing Serbia’s power grid – and we bragged about the new graphite bomb technology which we employed while committing what we now call a ‘war crime.’ But I digress.

Russia has also expended so much artillery ammunition that if NATO intelligence is correct, Putin has had to beg North Korea for resupply.

As one gloating pundit commented, for Russia to seek assistance from North Korea is “scraping the bottom of the barrel.”

It is impossible to predict just how long Putin will continue to reinforce the failure of his Ukraine invasion.

His recent draft of 300,000 reservists would indicate that, for the time being, Putin is prepared to keep the meat grinder rolling in the form of conventional combat – with the ever present threat of nuclear escalation held in reserve.

Whatever the outcome, we now realize that the Russian military capability was never what our NATO cheerleaders claimed it was, and after this Ukraine conflict it will be decades before they can ever again be considered a credible threat to European security.

With Canadians focused on emerging from a pandemic, rampant inflation and climate-change related natural disasters, General Eyre will have a tough sell on convincing the public that we need to spend billions of dollars to make more weapons.

ON TARGET: Ukraine Drain Takes Toll on the Canadian Military

Photo credit: Tech. Sgt. Jack Sanders

Last week, Minister of National Defence Anita Anand announced that Canada would be providing an additional $15.2 million worth of military aid to Ukraine. Anand’s announcement came shortly after the June 26-28, G-7 meeting wherein all member states pledged to continue supporting Ukraine’s war effort for the duration of the conflict.

The simple truth is that no analyst forecast that Russia’s invasion would drag on this long – with still no end in sight.

Many observers, myself included, did not think Russian President Vladimir Putin would actually launch an invasion. I thought that the troop build-up along Ukraine’s border was an elaborate bluff to force negotiated concessions from Ukraine.

I will admit that I was proven wrong when Russian troops actually crossed the border. However, no pundit predicted that in the David versus Goliath struggle between a diminutive Ukraine and the mighty Russia, that David could prevail.

With Ukraine President Zelenskyy’s pre-invasion approval rating sitting at just 27 per cent both Putin and the U.S. State Department believed that very few Ukrainians would fight for his regime.

In the early hours of the Russian invasion, the U.S. did not urge Zelenskyy to fight to the death, but rather they offered him a safe passage out of Kyiv.

Famously, Zelenskyy replied, “I need ammunition, not a lift.”

However, by this point it was becoming readily apparent that Ukraine’s army was indeed willing to fight and die for their country if not for Zelenskyy’s corrupt regime in Kyiv.

Unsurprisingly Zelenskyy’s approval rating soon soared due to his daily televised addresses wherein he embodied brave defiance.

As for the ‘ammunition’ he requested, the U.S., Canada and several European countries did indeed heed the call.

As sophisticated modern weaponry cannot be produced overnight, this meant that these donor nations had to deplete their own war stocks and arsenals.

Canada provided numerous 84mm Carl Gustav anti-tank systems, four M-777 155mm howitzers and 39 Light Armoured Vehicles.

As part of our announced $500 million commitment to the Ukraine defence effort, Canada also purchased some 20,000 rounds of 155mm artillery shells at a cost of $98 million.

This sounds like a substantial donation until one realizes that in the current conflict, Ukraine is firing nearly 6,000 rounds of artillery every day. It is estimated that the Russians fire up to ten times that volume.

The fact is that Canada’s armoury has been practically depleted.

There are no more weapons or munitions for us to send which explains why Anand’s recent pledge of support was for winter clothing.

Included in Canada’s $15.2 million donation is some 400,000 items of cold weather military kit, which include; jackets, pants, boots, gloves and parkas.

A further 100,000 items of cold weather clothing are to be drawn from the existing Canadian Armed Forces inventory. Given that the entire CAF is comprised of about 60,000 regular force members (estimated to be 10 per cent below authorized strength) and of that number less than 20,000 are in the army, taking 100,000 cold weather-clothing items out of the inventory is bound to create a shortage for the foreseeable future.

With munitions stocks already drained and the priority being to get newly purchased shells to Ukraine as fast as possible, one has to surmise that there is a moratorium on live fire combat exercises for the purpose of training Canadian soldiers.

Add to this the frequent training cycle interruptions as CAF combat troops are deployed in aid-to-the-civil-power operations such as the recent clean up from Hurricane Fiona’s devastation of the Maritimes.

If it has not occurred already it will only be a matter of time before the shortages of weapons, uniforms and training seriously erodes the combat proficiency of our Army.

Recruitment and retention are already a serious concern for the CAF, and I daresay watching the Defence Minister repeatedly handing over Canadian equipment to Ukraine will have a serious impact on morale.

If professional hockey players were told to hand over their skates, sticks and pads to another team because they were already playing in the “big game,” they would rightfully realize that this donation would preclude them from ever participating.

Add to this the scenario that they are sent out to chainsaw downed trees rather than scrimmage on the ice, and you will have them questioning what exactly still makes them hockey players.

That might actually explain why the CAF’s morale is low and retention and recruitment are fast reaching crisis levels.

ON TARGET: Putin's Miscalculation in Ukraine: Why Russia Cannot Win this War

By Scott Taylor

There is now absolutely no denying that Russian President Vladimir Putin made a major miscalculation when he invaded Ukraine.

Following a series of successful counter-offensives by Ukraine in early September, the Kremlin had no alternative but to order a partial mobilization if they wish to continue exercising Putin’s “Special Military Operation.”

The Russian military continues to under-report their battlefield casualties suffered to date – but the announced mobilization of 300,000 reservists acknowledges that Putin’s initial invasion force of 200,000 has been decimated.

Western media have been quick to highlight the unpopularity of the widening war among Russian citizens.

As long as the war was being waged by volunteer soldiers and mercenaries like the infamous Wagner group, the average Russian civilian was content to accept the state-controlled message as to Putin’s stated war arms.

However, now that reservists and former military personnel are being called up for frontline service, suddenly Putin’s rationale for the invasion no longer stands up to scrutiny.

Luckily for the U.S., and to a lesser degree Canada, the decades-long military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan did not result in us having to resort to a partial mobilization or a lottery draft.

Canadians were blissfully content to display ‘support the troops’ bumper stickers as long as they themselves never had to face the prospect of being drafted and sent to fight an unwinnable war on foreign soil.

The Americans avoided drafting civilians by implementing a policy known as ‘stop loss’ wherein soldiers could not leave the military even after their term of service was fulfilled.

As was revealed by reporter Craig Whittock in what is now dubbed the Afghanistan Papers, the December 2019 Washington Post expose clearly illustrated that senior Pentagon officials, and presumably Canadian officials, knew from the outset that victory in Afghanistan was unattainable.

But I digress.

The conundrum facing Putin and his generals now is very similar to that which confronted the Pentagon and NATO commanders in Afghanistan. The Russian generals must realize they cannot win in Ukraine, but at the same time Putin feels that politically he cannot concede defeat.

The Russians will by now have realized that the NATO supplied weaponry is far superior to their own in Ukraine.

Given Canada’s current struggle to find the training resources for new recruits, one can only imagine the challenge of mentoring the freshly mobilized 300,000 Russian reservists into capable combat soldiers.

Added to the battlefield losses in the first several months of the war – estimated to be more than 80,000 killed, wounded, captured and deserted – the Russian military is still heavily engaged in full scale conflict in the Donbas region.

We have also witnessed the failures of the Russian Army’s logistics and their command and control capabilities.

In the short term Russia will need to rely on these same defeated and demoralized veterans to train the newly mobilized troops to utilize the same inferior weapon systems and employ those same tactics which have proven so disastrous thus far.

It will be akin to Dr. Frankenstein’s monster trying to put together the next version of his flawed self – while still engaged in an epic bloody struggle with Ukraine.

On the flip side, the recent success of the Ukraine Army proves that the NATO’s investment of weaponry and advanced training is paying out serious dividends.

Entire Ukrainian military units are presently withdrawn to the UK, where the best and brightest NATO combat trainers – including 250 Canadians – prep them to return to the battlefield.

If these parameters remain unchanged, the current advantage enjoyed by Ukraine in terms of weaponry and tactical competence will only increase over time.

Putin will be forced to mobilize more and more troops and his inability to quickly produce or procure advanced guided munitions will steadily erode his Army’s already deficient battlefield competency.

To recap the war to date, it has mostly been a series of embarrassing setbacks for Russia.

The initial armoured columns launched to capture Kyiv were defeated with serious losses. Ditto the Russian airborne assault aimed at capturing the Antonov airport.

Russian naval forces were able to capture Snake Island, but then Ukraine sank the missile cruiser Moskva – flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. After months of bombardment, Russia abandoned Snake Island.

In the air, Russia’s supposedly superior air force has been unable to achieve complete superiority over the battlefield due to the preponderance of NATO supplied portable air defence systems (MANPADS).

As witnessed during the September counter-offensives, the Ukraine air force remains a potent adversary.

It is still somewhat of a mystery but Ukraine was also able to strike a Russian military airfield in the Crimea – either with precision munitions or special forces operations – to destroy a number of Russian warplanes on the ground.

During the second stage of the war, Russia’s methodical advance in the Donbas, it was apparent that Ukraine was lacking in artillery and ammunition.

However, even that Russian advantage has been countered with NATO’s large scale provision of long-range weapon systems.

When combined with U.S. and NATO intelligence, Ukraine is able to pinpoint and target Russian ammunition dumps and command centres well back from the frontlines.

All told, things do not bode well for the 300,000 Russian civilians who were just drafted to prolong Putin’s misadventure in Ukraine.

ON TARGET: Turning Tide of War in Ukraine

By Scott Taylor

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of significant developments in the ongoing war in Ukraine.

While it remains the case that the widely divergent claims from each side makes it difficult to get a clear picture of what is transpiring, one thing that is crystal clear is that the Russian invaders have suffered a major defeat near the city of Kharkiv.

With the war entering its seventh month we had been told that the Ukraine military – bolstered with the latest in NATO weaponry – was preparing to launch a counter attack.

In early September, a major attack was launched by Ukraine in the south, with the objective of liberating the Russian occupied city of Kherson.

Prior to the start of their counter-offensive, Ukraine successfully utilized long range, NATO supplied artillery and rockets to destroy three major bridges across the Dnieper river.

The destruction of these vital spans essentially cut off nearly 20,000 Russian troops on the western bank of Dnieper.

However, after some initial success the Ukrainian attacks were blunted, and the overwhelming Russian artillery inflicted heavy casualties.

Then came the lightning-speed master-stroke by Ukraine in the region of Kharkiv. As all of Russia’s strategic focus was on the south, Ukraine burst through their main lines of defence in the east.

Again, Ukraine was able to employ long-range artillery – in this case the M-777 howitzers, equipped with the precision guided Excalibur munitions.

As an aside, the Canadian Army donated four of these M-777’s plus $100 million worth of conventional shells to Ukraine as part of our lend lease military assistance package. 

But I digress.

To keep the Russian commanders in the dark, Ukraine also employed the sophisticated AGM-88 HARM (anti-radar) munitions.

With the superior technology, weaponry, training and motivation the Ukrainian attackers soon turned a Russian defeat into an embarrassing rout.

Panicked Russians reportedly abandoned their armoured vehicles and ammunition stockpiles and fled in terror.

Armchair strategists were quick to identify that the key to this sudden success near Kharkiv was that Ukraine had successfully duped the Russians into believing the main thrust was to be against Kherson in the south.

With nearly 20,000 troops in danger of encirclement on the west bank of the Dnieper, Russia had taken the bait and reinforced the Kherson bridgehead with some of their best battle groups.

As a result, those defenders left on the ‘quiet’ Kharkiv front were actually militiamen from the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics.

That means that this fighting in the east sector was actually a clash between Ukrainians.

Since Putin launched his invasion forces into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the western media re-set the clock and dumbed down the war into a simplistic ‘Russian invader versus Ukraine defender.’

Lost in any western analysis was the eight years of combat and conflict between Ukraine’s pro-Russian separatists and the NATO-trained Ukraine government forces.

In 2014, in the wake of the regime change in Kyiv, the Russian-speaking and ethnic Russian majority residing in the eastern Donbass oblasts took up arms to declare their independence from the newly installed Ukraine administration.

Both Donetsk and Luhansk declared themselves to be independent republics.

Until the eve of Putin’s invasion, not even Russia officially recognized these republics. Canada still recognizes these separatist territories to be an indivisible part of sovereign Ukraine territory.

This means that those residing in Donetsk and Luhansk are still considered to be citizens of Ukraine.

Up until Putin’s February 24 invasion, residents of these disputed territories were considered to be pro-Russian separatists. However, once the Ukraine military began liberating these regions, they are now being dubbed as “collaborators” which has a far more ominous tone.

Also disconcerting is the fact that both the Russian, and pro-Russian Ukraine forces weren’t just beaten in battle – they were humiliated.

For the past eight years, NATO trainers including a large Canadian contingent, have been forging the Ukraine military into an extremely proficient fighting force.

We witnessed that in the early days when Ukraine destroyed the Russian invasion force outside of Kyiv. Since then, Canada and NATO have resumed their training role with Ukraine forces that are rotated out of the frontline for mentorship at safe bases in the U.K.

Canada, the U.S. and other NATO allies have poured weapons and munitions into Ukraine, and the superiority of those weapons over Russia’s arsenal was witnessed in the recent counter-offensive.

Russia is receiving no such outside assistance or mentorship.

Their corruption and lack of capability was exposed months ago and it seemed they were struggling to somehow still force a face-saving negotiated peace.

However, now that the very notion of Russia being a conventional military power is laughable, that leaves Putin with just his nuclear deterrent.

Let’s hope that Ukraine’s success remains measured in that it can in no way be construed by Russia as the ‘existential threat’ which they could use to justify employing a nuclear warhead.

ON TARGET: Beloved Queen's Passing Opens the Door for a New Canada

ON TARGET

The death of Queen Elizabeth II at the age of 96 after 70 years as the Commonwealth’s reigning monarch was certainly not an unexpected shock. Nobody can live forever.

However much her eventual demise may have been anticipated, the reality of her passing makes one realize just how deeply the Queen was woven into Canadian culture. For most of us, Elizabeth II has been the only monarch we have ever known.

Through all of the societal changes and political upheaval over the past seven decades, she served as a singular symbol of continuity. 

Prime Ministers and Governor-Generals came and went, but our head of state remained constant.

As Elizabeth retained her popularity, Canadians by and large took it for granted that the Queen of Canada was in fact a British monarch.

It had been that way prior to and beyond confederation so the attitude became ‘well if it ain’t broke, don’t fit it.’

We simply accepted the fact that the Queen’s image adorned our currency and our postage stamps. For the military, Royal affiliation runs deep and is a huge part of our national martial tradition.

Rightfully so, Canada will mourn the loss of our long-reigning Queen. However, the pain of Elizabeth’s passing will not be felt evenly across Canada’s diverse multi-cultural divide nor across the generational gaps.

Over the past 70 years, Canada had steadily emerged from its roots as a British colony.

That said, while many will mourn the death of the Queen, there is less than luke warm willingness to accept Prince Charles as Canada’s new King.

Nearly 67 per cent of Canadians are disapproving of Charles, and 76 per cent would disapprove of Camilla being named the Royal Consort.

In a March 2022 poll by Research Company, only 21 per cent of Canadians supported a continued constitutional monarchy, while 49 per cent of survey respondents preferred an elected head of state.

During this period of mourning leading up to the Royal funeral and Charles’ ascension ceremony, perhaps it is time for Canada to seriously consider what sort of nation we want to be, moving into this post-Elizabeth era.

Before our mint starts rolling out coins with King Charles’ image on the reverse, perhaps the Trudeau Liberals could conduct a referendum on whether we should simply stick to the old formula “the Queen is dead. Long live the King.”

Now before I get a backlash from those accusing me of being some sort of anti-monarchist, I wish to clarify that I had nothing but respect and admiration for Queen Elizabeth II.

As an impressionable seven-year old schoolboy living in London in 1968, I had the occasion to witness Queen Elizabeth’s trooping-of-the-colours in honour of her birthday.

This ceremony involved thousands of British Guardsmen in their bearskin hats and scarlet tunics, along with columns of Household cavalry troopers resplendent in their shining breast-plates.

I am fairly certain it was that experience which convinced me to include soldiering among my list of lifelong ambitions.

When I did enlist in the Canadian Army in 1982, it was to Queen Elizabeth’s II that I took my oath of loyalty.

I’m not sure that Canada is ready to become a Republic or to begin electing a head-of-state. However, this historic juncture should spark debate about who we want to be as Canadians in the future.

The unpopularity of Charles and Camilla should make this an easy point of discussion.

For the Canadian military, this might provide the catalyst to retire the unit names and traditions associated with the Royal family and Canada’s colonial past.

This might sound like blasphemy to our historians and monarchists, but it might make things less confusing for average civilians wishing to enlist.

One example would be The Princess Louise Fusiliers – a storied reserve infantry Regiment in Halifax. The Princess is long dead and no Canadian soldier has fired a fusil (a type of musket) in over one hundred years.

Canada’s armoured units are all still named after cavalry regiments, yet no Canadian has ridden into battle since 1918.

We still call them the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, despite them becoming mechanized prior to the Second World War.

New, numbered units could still carry the battle honours of all these fine regiments, but the new monikers could at least reflect the modern day role that they currently perform.

Rest in Peace Queen Elizabeth II. Long did you indeed reign over us.

ON TARGET: The RCAF's Call Sign Caper

By Scott Taylor

Last Monday the Royal Canadian Air Force issued a brief and bizarre press release. The official missive advised the media that a Change of Command ceremony scheduled for the following day at CFB Bagotville was being delayed.

The statement from RCAF Commander Lt-Gen Eric Kenny specified that military investigators were looking into comments that were allegedly made during a meeting wherein attendees were choosing the call-signs (aka nicknames) for fighter pilots.

“On June 22, at 4 Wing Cold Lake, a call-sign review board, where call-signs are assigned to members associated with the fighter community, took place in a small group social setting” Kenny stated. “An investigation was launched into statements made during this activity and remains ongoing. The investigation will examine actions of those involved during the call-sign review board.”

The DND later confirmed that there had been multiple RCAF officers present at the call-sign review board. What is still not clear is what remarks or offending statements were allegedly uttered.

Given the enormous popularity of the recently released Top Gun movie sequel, many young Canadians are now well aware of the importance of call-signs within the elite fighter pilot community.

For those of my generation, we were taught that same lesson when Tom Cruise starred in the original Top Gun release back in 1986.

Even back in those far less politically-correct times, when females were not allowed to fly fighters, the call-signs seemed rather innocuous, such as Maverick, Goose and Ice Man.

Ditto for the Top Gun sequel, which pointedly includes a female as one of the best pilots in the movie, with the call-sign “Phoenix”.

The concept of fighter pilot call-signs was adapted by the RCAF many years ago.

Again as with the Top Gun characters, most of these monikers are rooted in light humoured camaraderie.

For instance I can recall asking former Chief of Defence Staff General Tom Lawson how he came to acquire his call-sign “Shadow.” It turned out that this had nothing to do with his piloting skills allowing him to closely follow an intended target. Instead, it reflected the fact he had an unusually rapid growth rate of facial hair. But I digress.

The process of choosing the call-sign attributed to each fighter pilot takes place at unit social gatherings. The individual’s peers relate anecdotes and then provide suggested suitable call-signs. The other pilots then vote on the call-sign and it becomes ‘official.’ One presumes the consumption of alcohol occurs during these events.

Given that no clarifying details have been released regarding the Cold Lake incident, we can only speculate that whatever was said must have been incredibly offensive.

So much so, that on the eve of a Change of Command ceremony, the RCAF would publicly put the promotion of a senior officer on hold.

What is truly stunning is that whoever made the alleged offending remarks or failed to call them into question, did so in the current socially aware climate.

By this I mean how could this individual not have been aware of the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces have been embroiled in a continuous crap-storm of sexual misconduct scandals for the past 19 months?

We cannot know that the alleged statements made at the call-sign review board were sexual in nature, but it has been the entire culture of the CAF that has been thrust under the media microscope.

Many of those senior leaders that have been embroiled in these scandals are facing allegations that date back ten, twenty and even thirty years ago.

That said, it is almost beyond comprehension that under the present glaring media spotlight, that any senior officer would not be fully cognizant of possible consequences.

One would think that most of our senior military commanders would be afraid to utter even a compliment to a colleague if it could possibly be misconstrued as sexist.

Yet somehow, at a meeting involving multiple RCAF officers, comments were made that, by their nature have sparked a police investigation.

Let’s hope that the results of this investigation shed some light on the matter.

ON TARGET: Ukraine War: No End in Sight

By Scott Taylor

On Aug. 24, Ukrainians celebrated their 31st Independence Day against the backdrop of it also marking the six-month milestone of Russia’s ongoing invasion.

Vladimir Putin gambled on a lightning victory, which would have toppled Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government. A pro-Russian installed puppet interim Ukraine-leader could then recognize the separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent or autonomous states and Putin could declare a victorious ‘Special Military Operation.’ That was the plan.

What Putin’s advisors had failed to grasp was that while the majority of Ukrainians are indeed fed up with their corrupt politicians, they still love their country. That willingness to fight for their own land, coupled with eight years of NATO having provided training and sophisticated weaponry made the Ukraine military a tenacious adversary.

In the days leading up to Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion, western military pundits advised us that Putin had amassed an attacking force of 190,000 troops.

Without context, this appeared to be a David vs Goliath clash with the massive Russian military machine poised to crush tiny Ukraine.

However, at the war’s outset, Ukraine had 200,000 NATO trained regular troops with an additional 900,000 enlisted in the reserves.

Thus it was actually a case of a Russian David foolishly attacking the Ukraine Goliath on their own territory.

Therefore, it should not have been so surprising that the initial Russian onslaught was blunted and repelled.

What did come as a shock was just how poorly the Russian military performed both tactically and logistically.

In the initial drive to capture Kyiv, kilometres-long Russian armoured columns were stalled for want of fuel. Short of rations, invading Russians resorted to looting grocery stores.

As the Ukraine defence intensified, the demoralized Russians withdrew from their push on Kyiv leaving the battlefield littered with thousands of abandoned and destroyed armoured fighting vehicles.

When the fighting shifted focus to the eastern Donbass region, the casualties on both sides continue to mount at an appalling rate.

At the end of July, UK intelligence sources estimated that the Russians had suffered over 80,000 casualties, which includes killed, wounded, captured and missing.

If that figure is anywhere near accurate, that would mean that Putin’s initial invasion force has suffered nearly 50 per cent combat casualties.

Given that U.S. military doctrine states that a 10% casualty rate renders a combat unit ineffective, it is a wonder the Russian’s can still function at all.

Due to the preponderance of Russian artillery, in particular ammunition supplies, it is believed that Ukraine’s battlefield casualties are even higher.

While Russia does not release casualty figures, last week Putin passed legislation to recruit and train an additional 137,000 soldiers before the end of 2022.

Last month, Defence Minister Anita Anand committed 225 Canadian troops to resume training Ukrainian recruits at military bases in the U.K.

Canada had been providing combat instructors to the Ukraine military since 2015 as part of NATO’s Operation UNIFIER. That training was suspended and our military personnel withdrawn from Ukraine at the outset of the invasion.

However, now that the plan involves bringing Ukrainian recruits to the U.K, it would seem as though we too are planning for this war to drag on well into the foreseeable future.

Like two punch-drunk heavyweight boxers, under the current pattern of battlefield attrition, neither Russia nor Ukraine have the capacity to land a knockout blow on their opponent.

Russia can pummel Ukrainian positions with artillery, inflicting heavy casualties and forcing a withdrawal. Lacking sufficient infantry, the Russians can capture ground but are hard pressed to hold it against Ukrainian counterattacks.

For their part, Ukraine has the manpower – they presently outnumber the Russian invaders by a ratio of 4:1 – but they are not trained to mount large scale coordinated all-arms offensives.

During the past eight years of NATO training, the Ukraine forces honed their skills in small unit tactics. Thus they excel in ambush and defence.

However, to dislodge the entrenched Russian forces will require large scale combined air-power, artillery, armour and infantry assaults.

Neither side is likely to overcome their current shortcomings any time soon, so they will continue to indefinitely slug it out in a battle of attrition.

ON TARGET: Afghanistan Fiasco Must Not be Forgotten

By Scott Taylor

We are now into the seventh month of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and that conflict has devolved into a bloody stalemate.

The preponderance of Russia artillery is now being countered by Ukraine’s new found capability to strike strategic targets well behind the frontlines.

Over the past several weeks, there has been very little in the way of territorial gains by either side. However, the casualty figures continue to climb at a staggering rate.

Ukraine President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has admitted that his armed forces are losing between 500 and 600 troops killed, wounded or missing every day.

U. S. Intelligence sources claim that Russian has suffered between 70,000 to 80,000 killed and wounded since the invasion began on Feb. 24.

What has been the most shocking element in this conflict is the embarrassing incompetence of Putin’s war machine.

During the initial 72 hours of the invasion, western military analysts were writing off the Ukraine Army and the topic of discussion had already shifted to which country Putin would invade next.

Then, through a combination of tenacious Ukraine defence and woefully inept Russian military logistics, Putin’s vaunted armoured columns ground to a halt.

The strategic objective of seizing Kyiv in a lightning strike failed miserably and the Russians were forced to retreat.

There was a graveyard of knocked out Russian tanks left behind and humiliating scenes of Ukraine civilians driving around on abandoned Russian armoured vehicles.

In less than a week of fighting the world saw that the long-feared Russian military might was in fact a myth.

Even Putin must have been shocked at how poorly his formations performed in actual combat compared to their annual displays of martial prowess held on parades in Moscow’s Red Square.

No one in their right mind would think that after the drubbing they have received at the hands of Ukraine that the Russian military is contemplating widening this war into a full conflagration with NATO.

Hell, we now know that Putin’s objective has been reduced to simply ‘liberating the Donbas’ region of eastern Ukraine. Even that remains an unsure bet as more sophisticated long-range artillery becomes available to Ukraine’s force.

That said, last week marked the dubious one-year anniversary of another humiliating military defeat of a failed invader. In August 2021, the Taliban rolled to victory in Kabul as the U.S military hastily evacuated Afghanistan after nearly twenty years of occupation.

The world’s greatest military superpower supported by the NATO alliance had failed to defeat the Taliban. Perhaps more accurately, the 300,000 strong, U.S trained, U.S equipped and U.S paid Afghan National Security Force had failed to even fight the roughly 50,000 rag tag Taliban insurgents.

However, during the initial stages of the U.S occupation, it was American and NATO soldiers that led the fight against those Afghans who took up arms to resist the illegal invaders.

From 2002, until 2014, Canada committed some 40,000 troops to this conflict. During that time, 159 Canadian soldiers were killed, another 2,000 suffered physical wounds and countless thousands continue to suffer from the unseen scars of PTSD.

While the Canadian government made the decision to cut bait and entirely withdraw from the mission in 2014, no one was so delusional at that time as to believe that the U.S. and remaining NATO allies would ever defeat the Taliban.

The best result the U.S. could hope for was to emulate the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. After a ten-year failed occupation of Afghanistan,  Soviet troops handed over control to the Afghan communist army that they had trained and equipped. Although the Afghan warlords soon captured the countryside, the Soviet equipped Afghan army was able to hold Kabul until 1992.

By that time this was an inter-Afghan war and the Soviet Union had already collapsed, so there was no direct humiliation to their armed forces.

This time around the Afghan security forces saw the writing on the wall, and they had no intention of dying for a lost cause. As the U.S. began to pull out, the Afghan security forces either melted away or actually joined the Taliban.

This is perhaps best illustrated during a recent military display in Kabul when Taliban pilots flew a flypast in formation with formerly U.S. Blackhawk helicopters. There is no way the illiterate Taliban fighters learned to fly helicopters on their own.

The worst part of the whole two decade long U.S. occupation of Afghanistan was that the American planners knew from the outset that the war was unwinnable.

Thanks to the intrepid reporting of the Washington Post, in 2019 the so called Afghanistan Papers were published wherein it revealed the “explicit and sustained efforts by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public.”

So either the U.S. government also lied to NATO allies such as Canada about the winnability of the Afghan war, or they shared the truth and our own government chose to keep misleading the Canadian public.

Neither option should bring much comfort to those brave Canadian soldiers who were sent to fight a war the Pentagon knew we could not win.

ON TARGET: Putin Does Not Have a Monopoly On Disinformation

By Scott Taylor

With regards to the war in Ukraine, the Canadian public is being warned repeatedly to be wary of Russian disinformation. This is solid advice and there is ample evidence that the Kremlin spreads falsehoods at an alarming rate.

On the flip side, it appears that western media accepts and disseminates Ukraine’s version of events at face value, regardless of how illogical it may in fact seem.

From the outset of this war, the vastly divergent versions of events and overwhelming abundance of visual images has made it all but impossible for impartial analysts to predict the future course of events.

For instance, last Thursday media reports showed a series of explosions at a Russian airbase in the Crimea. This was followed by images from a satellite purporting to show as many as 10 frontline Russian fighter planes damaged beyond repair.

Initially Ukraine officials gleefully claimed responsibility for the destruction.

This prompted President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to chastise his government officials for discussing military matters with the media. Such remarks were “frankly irresponsible” according to Zelenskyy.

The Russian airbase is over 150 kilometres from the front lines in eastern Ukraine and well out of artillery range of the Ukraine military. There was no evidence of an airstrike, leading many to speculate this may have been an act of sabotage by Ukraine special forces.

The Russian defence ministry claims that the explosions were caused by faulty ammunition storage and that no planes were damaged.

Close followers of this conflict will recall a similar pattern of counter claims when the Russian missile cruiser Moskva was damaged and sunk in the Black Sea last April.

Ukraine claimed to have fired a sophisticated anti-ship missile to sink the Russian flagship, whereas the Russians claimed it was some sort of accidental explosion aboard the vessel due to crew negligence.

I’m not sure what school of public affairs the Russians subscribe to, but I truly do not understand how it is somehow preferable to destroy your own military equipment through professional incompetence.

Perhaps it is a cultural trait wherein they think a self-inflicted blow denies their adversary the bragging rights of having landed a solid hit.

Either way, the Moskva is at the bottom of the Black Sea and there appears to be 9 or 10 jumbled masses of crumbled metal at a Crimea airbase.

On July 29 a camp in Donetsk housing Ukraine prisoners of war was shelled by artillery.

The barrage left at least 50 dead and another 70 wounded. The casualties were mostly Ukraine prisoners, but it also included guards from the pro-Russian Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) militia.

Russia claimed that Ukraine had fired the deadly munitions using U.S. provided HIMARS long-range missile launchers.

Ukraine vehemently counter claimed that Russia had deliberately shelled their own prisoner-of-war camp in order to then blame Ukraine for the resultant carnage.

For most western media, this twisted logic was enough for them to assess this as a ‘he said, she said’ impasse.

However, the question begs, if these Ukraine prisoners were already in captivity and Russia wanted them dead, why would they not simply shoot them? Why use an area weapon like artillery to destroy infrastructure within your own territory and inflict casualties on your own soldiers?

Simple logic gives the Russians the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Ditto for the recent disputed claims as to which side is responsible for the artillery shelling in the vicinity of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

To recap events, Russian troops captured the Zaporizhzhia facility in March shortly after the initial invasion of Ukraine.

During that fighting, it was being reported that the nuclear reactors were in danger from Russian artillery fire.

This eventuality sparked memories of the Chernobyl meltdown disaster in 1986. As a result, for a couple of days this spring, the world held its breath and all eyes were on the Ukraine conflict.

In the end, Russian forces secured the nuclear plant undamaged and they have been operating it ever since.

Now that the fighting has returned to the vicinity, Ukraine’s nuclear agency Enerhoatom claims “Russian invaders again shelled the Zaporizhzhia plant and territories near the nuclear facility.”

For their part, Russia says it was Ukraine that fired the estimated 10 artillery shells that recently landed near the reactors.

Again we are to believe it is a case of ‘he said, she said’ and we know how those Russians love to misinform. Except that it makes no sense that Russia would shell a nuclear plant that they control and are presently operating.

On the other hand, Ukraine needs to keep the attention of the world focussed on the war in order to keep securing the donations of money and weapons.

Nothing grabs headlines like the possibility of a world ending nuclear meltdown.

Propaganda and misinformation are not the sole purview of the Russians. We need to be wary of all sources from this conflict. Even those we support.

ON TARGET: No, Canada Did Not Call Putin's Bluff!

By Scott Taylor

Last Thursday, Minister of National Defence Anita Anand held a press conference in Toronto wherein she announced that the Canadian military would resume training Ukrainian soldiers.

Since September 2015, Canada deployed Combat instructors to Ukraine as part of Operation UNIFIER. During that period it is estimated that Canada trained over 33,000 Ukraine soldiers to a NATO standard of proficiency.

When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, Canada suspended the training mission and withdrew our military personnel. However, it did not take long for the world to see just how effectively the NATO trainers had reformed the Ukraine combat forces.

In a stunning series of clashes in the opening weeks of the war, the Ukraine defenders clobbered the Russian invaders to the point that Putin’s war machine seemed cartoonishly inept.

Yet as weeks turned into months and the war devolved into an artillery duel, the casualty meat grinder is chewing up both sides.

Thus, Canada will resume their training, only this time they will be assisting the Ukraine recruits at a base in southeast England.

Anand announced that the 225 personnel deployed will be drawn from the Edmonton-based 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. The training is to begin as of Aug. 25.

I’m not sure what level of training these Canadians mentors will provide, but to adequately prepare a soldier for a combat deployment takes at least 16 weeks.

That said, if we are bringing recruits from Ukraine to England for extensive training it would seem that no one expects the fighting to end anytime soon.

Which brings us back to the current battlefield, which is blasting through artillery ammunition at a prodigious rate. And those shells are not cheap.

As part of the $626 million worth of weapons and other military aid that Canada has provided to Ukraine were a number of M777 155mm howitzers.

We also provided 20,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition that was purchased from a U.S. manufacturer and shipped directly to Ukraine.

The cost of that deal was $98 million, which means that each artillery shell costs roughly $5,000. The Ukraine military is firing between 5,000-6,000 shells a day while the Russians are firing between 20,000-60,000 rounds daily.

Russia has access to vast weapon stockpiles from Soviet-era Cold War arsenals. Ukraine on the other hand is now entirely dependent on foreign countries donating munitions from their own reserves.

European allies are wary that if the current war should widen beyond Ukraine’s borders, they will need such munitions for themselves.

Canada has been negotiating with South Korea to acquire 100,000 rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition, which we would then donate to Ukraine.

That plan was first reported in late May by the Ottawa Citizen, but to date it has not been finalized.

Ironically, as Defence Minister Anand was trying to convince Canadians that we are doing everything possible to keep Ukraine in the fight, back in Ottawa Ukraine’s ambassador as well as Conservative MPs were arguing that Canada is in fact fuelling Putin’s war machine.

The focus of their criticism was the Liberal government’s decision to waive their own sanctions regime against Russia in order to return a turbine that is essential for the export of Russian gas to western Europe.

It has been an ironic reality that from the outset of Russia’s invasion, many of those European countries most vocally denouncing Putin’s aggression are also his most dependant consumers of oil and gas.

With the war inflated increase in fossil fuel prices, western Europe has paid Russia over $100 billion during the first five months of the war.

Germany relies heavily upon Russian oil and gas and any curtailment of those imports would collapse their economy.

Hence, the Liberal government bowed to German pressure and agreed to ship the vital turbine in order to keep the Russian gas flowing.

This decision prompted a heated backlash from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy which was echoed at a parliamentary committee last Thursday in Ottawa by Yulia Kovaliv, Ukraine’s Ambassador to Canada.

The bizarre response from Global Affairs Minister Melanie Joly was to claim that Canada was calling Putin’s bluff. According to Joly, Canada returning the turbine would not allow Russia to claim that any interruption in gas exports would be due to Canada’s interference.

In reality, I believe the vast majority of Canadians would be happy to bask in Putin’s condemnation if it resulted in shutting off the money that is fuelling his war machine.

We will train Ukraine soldiers, scour the world market for munitions to send them, and fly the blue and yellow flag in solidarity with Ukrainians. But when we had a chance to cripple the Russian economy, we chose not to.

In the end, Germany’s dependency on Russian fuel trumped our emotional support for Ukraine.

ON TARGET: Untracked Weapon Deliveries to Ukraine Could Have Dire Results: INTERPOL

By Scott Taylor

As the war in Ukraine continues to rage, the west has been scrambling to fulfil embattled President Volodimir Zelenskyy’s insatiable demands for more heavy weaponry and ammunition.

Canada has heeded Zelenskyy’s call, promising an additional $500 million in both lethal and non-lethal military aid to Ukraine in addition to the support we provided prior to Putin’s February 24 illegal invasion.

The Canadian military arsenal has been severely depleted in order to equip the Ukraine defenders with anti-tank systems, howitzers and even Light Armoured Vehicles (LAV).

It will take years to replace those munitions and weapons drawn from active duty Canadian combat units.

However as Ukraine struggles valiantly to defend itself from the Russian invaders, providing this weaponry to Zelenskyy has given Canadians some pride in the fact we were contributing to the greater good.

Then, last month Jurgen Stock the head of Interpol released a disturbing report wherein he expressed the Agency’s concerns that these untracked weapon deliveries to Ukraine could end up in the hands of criminals or terrorists. “The wide availability of weapons during the current conflict will lead to the proliferation of illicit weapons in the post conflict phase” Stock told reporters.

Interpol fears that pilfered arms and armaments could end up on the European Union’s black market.

Stock’s warning echoed an earlier report from the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation. As early as April 2022, this agency noted that weapons were already being trafficked from Ukraine to organized crime groups.

The warnings from these two law enforcement agencies have prompted several NATO donor nations to discuss better ways to monitor these arms and armaments after they are delivered to Ukraine.

The Department of National Defence confirmed to the Ottawa Citizen that Canadian officials are not included in those discussions.

There is presently no way for Canada to track the $500 million worth of weaponry that we have shipped into the Ukraine conflict zone.

To reassure any uneasy Canadians, National Defence spokesman Dan le Bouthillier told the Citizen that Canada is alert to the danger. “We are monitoring these developments with interest and will leave no stone unturned in our work to ensure the safe delivery and use of military aid” said Bouthillier.

Privately, military sources advised the Citizen that once our weapons cross the Ukraine border there is no way to track them.

The Captain Obvious cabal will be quick to point out that fears of donated weapons to Ukraine being sold to criminals will only aid the Kremlin’s propaganda machine.

That it will.

However we would be moronic to attempt to view this war through a simplistic prism wherein, everything Russian is bad and ergo, everything Ukraine must be good.

These warnings come from both Interpol and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation – not from Russian trolls on social media.

No one is suggesting that the west stop shipments of heavy weapons into Ukraine.

Given the desperate need the Ukraine military has for such sophisticated munitions one would think that Zelenskyy’s government would readily agree to outside oversight to track this weaponry.

It is not like we don’t know how stockpiles of weapons can easily fall into the wrong hands if not secured.

In August 2021, as the Taliban rampaged to an almost bloodless victory over the U.S. trained and equipped Afghan government forces, American troops had to abandon an estimated $18 billion worth of weapons, munitions and equipment.

As a result, the Taliban has acquired the most powerful arsenal in Central Asia.

Without a treasury to maintain a massive Afghan standing forces of nearly 400,000 which the U.S. had established, the Taliban found themselves in possession of a tremendous surplus of sophisticated arms and armaments.

One can only surmise that the sale of these weapons to third parties of dubious intent are now supplementing the Taliban’s income from the sale of illegal narcotics.

The collapse of the Afghan army in 2021 was not unprecedented. In 2014, the American trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces fled in the face of the Daesh (aka ISIS or ISIL), offensive. Rather than fight, the Iraqi army melted away leaving their vast arsenal of weapons and combat vehicles in the hands of the Islamic extremists.

In 2010, the NATO supported insurgency in Libya led to the eventual overthrow of President Moammar Gadhaffi.

When NATO failed to secure the vast arsenal which they had supplied to the Libyan rebels, that country degenerated into violent anarchy which persists to today.

The unsecured weapons of Libya also found there way into the hands of rebels in neighbouring Mali. That conflict also continues to this day.

The moral of the story is that we must heed the current warnings of Interpol and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Corporation.

Otherwise it won’t end well, and this time the fallout will be felt in Europe.

ON TARGET: The Demise of Soldiering in Canada?

By Scott Taylor

Last week the Canadian Armed Forces made the official announcement that henceforth there will no longer be any gender restrictions on uniform clothing items. Service members can now order and wear whichever uniform they feel best suits their individual identity.

It was also announced that all restrictions on military haircuts are being lifted as of this September.

Making the announcement in a video on social media was the awkward looking pair comprised of Chief of Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre and Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer Gilles Gregoire.

Watching two completely bald, Caucasian, career-military men talk about the importance of one’s hairstyle being an indicator of the CAF’s new policy of inclusivity was almost farcical.

Needless to say, in the wake of this announced policy change the Internet exploded with the outrage of veterans.

To follow their collective argument, this is the end of soldiering in Canada and yet another reason that they wish Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would – to gently paraphrase – “exit and make love to himself.”

My initial reaction was to question whether or not this latest development would in fact successfully address the CAF’s current problem with both retention and recruitment of personnel.

It is hard to envision someone in uniform thinking “if only they would let me grow my hair long and dye it blue, then I would happily continue serving.”

Likewise, not many long blue-haired folks are seen outside recruiting centres contemplating their martial-trade options.

However, while this is yet another significant milestone in the CAF’s evolution, I am pretty confident that with the passage of time it will become the accepted norm.

When I joined the CAF in 1982, the military was still fighting against accepting the newly adopted Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My platoon was the last to graduate before the Charter was implemented and our instructors loudly bemoaned the fact that this would be the end of soldiering in Canada.

Prior to the protections of the Charter, NCO’s could verbally and physically abuse recruits, and it was felt this was the only way to properly forge a real soldier. Turns out those instructors were wrong.

Fast forward to 1987 when the decision was made to allow females to serve in combat trades and aboard warships.

Those serving in these heretofore male-only trades loudly protested that mixed gender units would be the death of soldiering in Canada. Turns out they too, were wrong.

Up until 1992 it was illegal to be homosexual and serve in the CAF.

As a result of these strictly enforced regulations the military was undoubtedly the most homophobic institution in Canada.

When it was announced that homosexuals could serve legally, the old guard once again hailed that this was the end of soldiering in Canada as we know it.

That was in the pre-Internet era, so these sentiments were circulated via tub-thumping in the messes, and vitriolic letters to the editor.

That was of course 30 years ago and contrary to the naysayers’ predictions, the Canadian military continued to soldier on in impressive style.

From 2001 until 2014 Canada deployed some 40,000 troops to Afghanistan.

That force included Canadians of diverse ethnic backgrounds, genders and sexual preferences and they fought side-by-side under a single identity – that of being a Canadian soldier.

Throughout history, the Canadian military has indeed reflected the values of society at large.

When viewed through the prism of 2022 hindsight, those values do not always stand the test of time.

During the First World War, Blacks wishing to serve in the military found it extremely challenging.

To accommodate these Black volunteers and to alleviate the manpower shortage at the frontlines in Europe, Canada established a segregated unit known as the Number 2 Construction Battalion.

These Black soldiers had white officers and were relegated to non-combat, labour tasks.

Until recently, the heritage of No. 2 Construction Battalion was trumpeted by the Department of National Defence during Black history month each year.

Finally someone realized that segregating these volunteers by race and having them perform menial tasks was not such a glorious martial history after all.

This past Saturday, the CAF made an official apology to the descendants of No. 2 Construction Battalion at a ceremony in Halifax.

One day in the not so distant future we may come to realize that someone with long hair, face paint and a skirt can still make a hell of a warrior.

Wait a minute, I just described Braveheart.

Freedom!