ON TARGET: Empathizing with the Modern Veteran

By Scott Taylor

During Remembrance Week, the majority of Canadians wear their poppies and with any luck they will give momentary pause at cenotaphs to reflect upon the meaning of this special time. It is a period for Canadians to pay their respects to those fellow citizens who served our nation and paid the ultimate price on the battlefield. It is a time for sombre mourning, not for the glorification of war. 

For my generation -the Baby Boomers - Remembrance Day ceremonies were deeply moving for the simple reason that they were attended by literally hundreds of thousands of veterans.

Those who had fought in the Great War were still in their 60's and 70's, while the World War 2 and Korea veterans carried their war-time memories fresh in their minds. As such, the horrors and sorrow of war dominated the sentiment of the ceremonies. The Great War vets returned to Canada believing they had fought 'The war to end all wars', while the motto of our WW2 veterans was that of simply "Never Again!". 
Between 1914 - 1918 Canada enlisted over 700,000 personnel into the ranks of the Expeditionary force to fight in Flanders. This was drawn from a population of just over seven million. In addition to manpower, Canadian factories and farms helped to fuel the war effort of the British Empire. During WW2 the three branches of the Canadian military grew to over 1 million, which again constituted nearly 10% of Canada's entire population. Again Canadian industry and farmers rose to the occasion to ensure victory over the Axis forces. Between 1950 and 1953, close to 40,000 Canadians served as part of the United Nations intervention in Korea. 
When these veterans returned home and demobilized, they were changed individuals. Changed by the horrors of war. However, society had also gone through a total transformation. For instance, women had entered the workforce. In addition, the sheer numbers of Canadians who had served meant that they were surrounded by hundreds of thousands of fellow veterans who fully understood the horrors of war. They could frequent the local Royal Canadian Legion and not have to explain or reminisce with a fellow veteran. They simply understood and empathized.

Fast forward to the present and there is literally a dwindling handful of living veterans from WW2 and Korea. All of them are around 100 years of age or more. The modern veterans are those who served on UN Peacekeeping operations, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. Unlike the previous generation of veterans, these soldiers were all regular force or reservists who volunteered to serve in a conflict zone. They were not temporary 'Citizen soldiers' as before. They were career warriors who volunteered. Due to the comparatively small numbers involved in these modern conflicts, the modern veteran has very few fellow Canadians who fully understand the horrors they have seen.

There is no where near the same level of peer support available to these modern veterans. It is also true that Canada's involvement in the more recent conflicts is not as clear cut as our participation in those previous wars. 
In both World Wars Canada was on the winning side and in Korea our soldiers successfully held back the communist forces of North Korea. The sacrifice made by our soldiers could be justified by ultimate success. 

However in more recent deployments that clarity is far more elusive. Our peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia failed to prevent the bloody dissolution of that nation, and in some cases, like the 1993 battle of the Medak Pocket, failed to protect Serbian civilians from ethnic cleansing at the hands of Croatian militiamen. 

Those who served in Afghanistan now realize that they fought and died in a war in which the Americans knew from the outset was unwinnable..

What this means is that during this Remembrance Week Canadians need to do more than simply wear a poppy and take a minute of silence. 

I urge people to use this time to truly reflect on the sacrifice of all our veterans. They fought for Canada regardless of the outcome and it needs to be remembered that not all sacrificed the ultimate, but ultimately they have all sacrificed if they have served in uniform. We shall remember them.

ON TARGET: Bungled Handling of Sexual Assault Continues to Plague DND

By Scott Taylor

Last week Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese wrote a couple of news items to follow up on how a Department of National Defence (DND) civilian employee continues to battle resistance from her former employers over the sexual assault she faced in the workplace. The assault took place during an overseas mission.

Back in October 2023 the Ottawa Citizen first broke the story that Kristen Adams had been sexually assaulted by an Albanian soldier on the NATO base in Latvia. What made the story exceptionally newsworthy was the fact that when Adams reported the assault, she was told by her employers that she should have realized she faced such dangers when accepting a job supporting Canada’s military mission in Latvia. 

I can understand that when a soldier voluntarily enlists, they realize they are entering a contract which entails unlimited liability in that they could be killed in the line of duty. However, I cannot fathom a civilian position with the Canadian Department of National Defence that comes with the inherent risk of sexual assault.

To recap events as they unfolded, Kristen Adams was employed by the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services (CFMWS) to support Canada’s forward deployed battle group in Latvia. On December 3, 2022 she was working at the Commons canteen on Camp Adazi, which is open to all the NATO contingents stationed there. According to Adams, she greeted an Albanian soldier whom she knew and he proceeded to grab her left breast without her consent. Following this action, the Albanian reportedly commented to Adams “Oh, you are very strong.”

Shortly thereafter, Adams reported the incident to Canadian military police who promptly told her that under NATO rules, they had no jurisdiction to investigate. As a result, Latvian

Military Police were brought in to examine the case.

After interviewing only Adams and the accused, on December 14th, 2022, the Latvians notified the Canadian Military Police that the investigation was ‘concluded’, without providing any further details. 

While it was outside their jurisdiction, the Canadian MP’s created a “shadow file” of Adams' case which did not dispute Adams' version of the events.

“On Dec 3, 2022, the victim was working as a civilian employee when a military member from another nation touched them inappropriately and without consent” the DND shadow file concluded.

No charges were laid against the Albanian and on February 3, 2023, CFMWS informed Adams that her contract was being terminated two months early “In order to ensure there is no further risk to [Adams] health.” 

The real kicker came three months later when Ben Ouellette, a Vice President of CFMWS wrote a letter to Adams. It read in part: “As you were made aware during pre-deployment training which occurred from 6 to 15 September 2022, there are risks involved in deploying to a theatre of operations where numerous countries work and live together and of the cultural differences that exist. In accepting to deploy, you [were] taking on a certain risk of working in this environment.”

Come again? Does Mr. Ouellette truly believe there is a culture on this planet wherein males can simply grope women's breasts?

Given that by the time  Ouellette sent Adams this note, the nationality of the accused was well known, so are we to assume that Ouellette believes this is the cultural norm in Albania? How is this man the Vice President of anything?

Furthermore, all the soldiers at Camp Adazi are members of NATO and therefore they are considered to be the defenders of the shared values which we purport to collectively defend. Why then would Adams be at risk of sexual assault while in Latvia?

After the original story broke, Adams told the Ottawa Citizen that she felt her case was swept under the rug to protect the Latvia mission. That did not stop her quest for justice. Using the Privacy and Access to Information Acts Adams was able to obtain a treasure trove of documents revealing how the leadership at both DND and CFNWS reacted out of fear of media coverage, rather than out of a sense of responsibility to their employee.

After the Ottawa Citizen's first story broke there was an internal backlash among CFMWS employees as to how a fellow staffer had been thrown under the bus. This prompted CFMWS Chief Executive Officer, ret'd Major General Ian Poulter to issue an apology to all CFMWS staff for the manner in which this affair had been handled. The one person who did not receive an apology from Poulter was Adams. The documents obtained by Adams reveal that no apology was sent to her for fear that the mea culpa would prompt further stories in the Ottawa Citizen. Well, it turns out their prediction came true. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I served with Poulter from 1984 - 1986 and I considered him a bright young officer. We have remained friendly if not friends over the years and I must say these actions are not those of the man I once knew.

He knew that CFMWS had failed Adams, and he formally admitted so to all the employees, but he would not make that same admission to the victim for fear of repercussions in the media. That is not leadership. Those are the actions of a bureaucrat who puts the reputation of the institution ahead of the welfare of the victim.

ON TARGET: Canadian Army's Sleeping Bag Saga

Photo: Joint Task Force-Ukraine AK02-2019-0010-030

By Scott Taylor

The military procurement system in Canada is constantly making headlines for multi-year delays and multi-billion dollar cost over-runs on major combat platforms.

For many a casual observer of the Canadian Armed Forces, the very scope of these purchasing boondoggles defies comprehension by the average layperson. Civilians do not normally buy cutting edge weaponry and then factor in the life-cycle costs of maintaining that weapon.

Hence the news that the federal government is in the midst of a plan to build 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) frigates for the Royal Canadian Navy, at a projected cost of over $100 billion, with the delivery of the first ship not slated until 2032, barely warrants a single 'harrumph' from the ordinary taxpayer: It is simply incomprehensible.

However, every once in a while a media story breaks regarding a military purchase that can clearly resonate with the average Canadian citizen. In mid-September CBC reporter Murray Brewster filed a story headlined "Canadian Army says new military sleeping bags not suitable for 'typical Canadian winter'.

Only the year before, the Department of National Defence had announced a $34.8 million purchase of what they term the General Purpose Sleeping Bag System, or GPSBS to use the military acronym. According to the GPSBS team spokesperson, Andre Legault, this purchase was "about making sure we have everything the soldier needs to be able to perform in Iraq in the summer, all the way up to the high Arctic in the winter." Given that Iraq's summer temperatures hover around 50 degrees Celsius, the GPSBS in that circumstance would simply need to keep the user warm in whatever temperature to which they set their air conditioner.

Thus what Legault was really defining was the conditions in the high Arctic in winter.  Turns out that the DND procurement officials over-egged the pudding on that particular claim.

In a late November 2023 exercise in Ram Falls Provincial Park, Alberta, 350 members of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry spent several days trialling the new GPSBS. Although the nighttime temperatures did get as low as -20 degrees Celsius, these PPCLI soldiers were sleeping in tents with stove heaters. Despite using both the inner and outer layers of the GPSBS, soldiers reported 'critical issues' with the new sleeping bags. Namely that they were still cold.

At the end of the exercise, the 3PPCLI Quartermaster deemed that the new GPSBS were "better suited for use in weather conditions that are characteristic of late Spring or early Fall" and not "for typical Canadian winter conditions nor the extreme cold of Alaska'. As 3 PPCLI was soon scheduled to head to Alaska to conduct joint training with the US military, it was requested that they be issued with the Canadian Army's old 1965 pattern sleeping bags for that particular exercise.

For those of us of a certain generation (I served in the PPCLI from 1982 -1986) it will be fondly recalled that those sleeping bags were probably the most popular piece of kit that we carried. It would keep you warm at -60 degrees and the biggest drawback was you never had enough down-time inside that bag.

Which begs the question, how is it possible that procurement officials in 2023 cannot match what was done in 1965?

If one divides the GPSBS' $34.8 million price tag by 45,502 - the total number of soldiers in Canada's Army and Army Reserve- those sleeping bag systems cost roughly $765 each. Anyone who camps in the winter will realize that you can get a top of the line, Austrian- manufactured sleeping bag rated for the 'high Arctic in mid-Winter' for a retail price of just $425.

So, just like when our old Army rain gear that was 'water-resistant' rather than 'water repellant' (there is a big difference), and the ridiculous recent acquisition of 90 open-topped, GM Defense Canada un-armoured tactical dune buggies for the Canadian Battle Group in Latvia, it would seem that the tradition of Canadian Army gear being purchased by those who will never use it continues unabated.

ON TARGET: Canadian Armed Forces: The Numbers Don't Add Up

By Scott Taylor

On Thursday September 26 Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Jennie Carignan appeared before a parliamentary Committee. The primary focus of the committee was the status of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) with regards to the ongoing recruiting and retention crisis which has led to a crippling shortage of personnel in the Canadian military. Prior to his retirement, outgoing CDS General Wayne Eyre had publicly acknowledged that the CAF was short 16,500 personnel of an authorized combined regular and reserve strength of 101,500. General Carignan stated that as of the end of August there was a total of 92,798 Canadians in uniform. This would appear to suggest that General Eyre's shortfall has been reduced down to 8,802 personnel.

However, General Carignan herself cautioned the committee by admitting that these numbers fluctuated on an almost daily basis. Those familiar with the CAF will realize that the 'on strength' numbers include what old school sergeant-majors used to derisively refer to as the 'sick-lame-and lazy'. In the current vernacular this would  include those personnel who are on extended sick leave, stress leave, parental leave and retirement leave. Add to that number the 10,000 or so personnel that have been recruited but have only received basic training and remain awaiting their trades training. This category is defined as 'non-deployable' by the CAF. In other words no matter which way you count it, the CAF numbers do not add up to an effective fighting force.

General Carignan explained that attracting civilians into recruiting centres is not the problem. Last year over 70,000 Canadians signed applications to join the CAF. However, due to bureaucratic red tape and lengthy security clearances fewer than 5,000 applicants were actually recruited. As the personnel shortfall crisis deepens, the CAF have made changes to that system. General Carignan says that in this fiscal year the CAF is on target to recruit and train 6,400 personnel. This she explained will keep pace with the number of personnel expected to retire or release within that same timeframe. In other words, the current projection is to simply stop the hemmoraging without actually pumping in any fresh blood to flesh out the ranks to full strength.

The reason for this half measure according to General Carignan is the bottleneck in the training system. They simply do not have the personnel to train the necessary personnel to make up the existing deficit. The Liberal government, with their focus on the imminent upcoming federal election, seem content to carry forward the military shortfall well into the next decade. In that timeframe, General Eyre had cautioned that the CAF will need to increase by 14,000 personnel in order to man and maintain all the new weapon systems which are presently on the order books. Without an immediate course change the CAF is hurtling towards an existential tragic end.

It does not have to be the case. It is not enough art this stage to merely tread water (or drown-proof to be more accurate). The training bottleneck needs to be overcome immediately and the answer to this would be to re-enlist recently released military personnel as trainers. I believe that if the government were to make an appeal to the patriotism of these veterans, and to sweeten the pot by also offering significant cash incentives and bonuses, you would easily create a professional training cadre. It would not be a permanent solution but rather a surge call-up of veterans and reservists to address the immediate shortfall. Once the CAF is returned to full strength and the 'non-deployables' are made deployable, things could return to a balance of recruiting to match releases. Given that Canada has let the Strategic Reserve list lapse such a re-enlistment of trades qualified veterans would require a partnership with Veterans Affairs Canada. Again give the threat to the institution in which so many once served with pride, I have no doubt that there would be no shortage of volunteers for the cause.

ON TARGET: CANADIAN ARMED FORCES: Preparing to fight the last war

A CH-147F Chinook helicopter conducts a practice landing near Kamloops, BC during Operation LENTUS on September 14, 2017. Photo: Cpl Dominic Duchesne-Beaulieu

By Scott Taylor

Just over a decade ago, the status of the Canadian Armed Forces was that of a high profile efficient institution.

Canada's commitment to the war in Afghanistan was winding down but while it had lasted, the CAF had developed a training infrastructure focussed entirely on preparing the next battle group to rotate into Kandahar.

Canadian Forces Base Wainwright was converted into a scale model of the Kandahar province. Afghan interpreters and cultural advisors briefed Canadian combat soldiers on what to expect when they arrived 'in-country'. Journalists were hired to play the part of, er, journalists in order to prepare Canadian soldiers for the information war that they were heading into. Trained regular and reserve soldiers could expect to spend up to 12 months preparing for their six-month tour in southern Afghanistan.

During winter months when Wainwright Alberta freezes over, troops were sent to train in California. It literally became an entrenched routine for the Canadian Army. The nature of the warfare in Afghanistan was that of counter-insurgency against a largely illiterate and poorly armed foe.

However their hostility and fanaticism meant that Canadian soldiers could never let their guard down. After the pitch battle of Medusa in 2006 against the Taliban, the insurgents learned that they could not best a NATO force in conventional warfare. From that point forward they resorted to planting improvised explosive devices and conducting suicide attacks.
When first deployed to Afghanistan in 2002, the Canadian contingent was woefully equipped to fight a counter-insurgency in Central Asia. Despite the fact that we had deployed ground forces to the first Gulf War without desert clothing in 1991, we sent the Airborne Battle Group to Somalia in 1993 without desert clothing and again we had sent peacekeepers to Eritrea in 2000 without desert clothing.

In 2002 the first Canadians to arrive in Afghanistan did so in forest green camouflage which for those familiar with the dusty hot climate of Kabul and Kandahar is an oxymoron.

In 2002 our troops originally patrolled the streets of the Afghan capital in open Iltis utility vehicles. The Iltis fleet had been considered so worn out back in 1992 that the Canadian Transport Company attached to the UN Mission in Cambodia loaded them on flatbed trucks rather than drive them on jungle roads.

There was an emergency procurement office opened that same year with a $200 million budget to acquire new Light Utility Vehicles, Wheeled (LUVW). However upon the Liberal Party's sweeping victory in 1993, freshly empowered Prime Minister Jean Chretien shut down not only the controversial Sea King Helicopter replacement, he also axed the LUVW project.

Following  successful Taliban suicide-bomber attacks on Canadian Iltis vehicles the Chretien Liberals hastily bought a fleet of armoured Mercedes Gelandewagens at list price, with no industrial benefits in exchange. Once there was political will, driven by public outrage over our troops' lack of protective equipment, the Liberals suddenly found a way to make it happen. 

As the Taliban upped the explosive quantity of their IEDs, Canada would replace the Gelandawagens with South African Nyala armoured vehicles, which were bought and shipped directly to Afghanistan. When the Kandahar roads still proved vulnerable, Canada sought and bought six heavy lift Chinook helicopters to keep troops out of danger. These were older 'D' model Chinook helicopters which we purchased directly from the US Air Force in theatre.

However, Canada also purchased 15 brand new Chinook 'H' models from Boeing. These were delivered after Canada made the decision to withdraw completely from the doomed Afghanistan mission.

As such Canada now possesses an abundance of helicopter heavy lift capability which would be perfectly suited to waging a counter-insurgency against a poorly equipped foe.

Ditto for the M-777 towed howitzers that we purchased for the Canadian artillery. They are perfect for long range engagements from static positions against a foe who does not have artillery of their own.

Both the Chinooks and the M-777's have no place on a modern battlefield as witnessed by the ongoing near-peer conflict in Ukraine.

Artillery needs to be self-propelled and armoured to protect the gunners from counter-battery fire, while the Chinooks would be flying death traps in an environment laden with sophisticated air defence systems.

First Person View (FPV) drones are the new master of the battlefield yet Canada has yet to announce any plans to acquire such systems. Nor has Canada yet secured a low level air defence system to combat FPV drones.

The war in Ukraine has also shown that uninhabited maritime drones are steadily sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet. Despite this naval warfare development Canada continues to proceed with the building of capital warships without announcing any program to procure uninhabited maritime attack drones.

Which war exactly are we preparing to fight?

ON TARGET: CANADIAN ARMED FORCES: At the Tipping Point

Canadian and Ukrainian soldiers conduct weapons range training at the International Peacekeeping and Security Centre in Starychi, Ukraine during Operation UNIFIER on November 25, 2015. Photo: Joint Task Force Ukraine, DND

By Scott Taylor

It has been three and a half years since Russian President Vladimir Putin did the unthinkable and formally invaded Ukraine.

It has been more than 10 years since the Maidan protests overthrew the pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, resulting in Russia's military annexation of the Crimea.

In that interim Canada has staunchly expressed support for Ukraine and soundly denounced Putin's aggression. Since 2015 Canadian military personnel have been training recruits for the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). To date Canada has trained an estimated 40,000 Ukrainian soldiers, and following the withdrawal of Canadian personnel from Ukraine just prior to Putin's invasion, that training mission resumed in Britain and Poland.

Canada initially provided Ukraine with non-lethal military aid, but following the February 2022 invasion by Russia, the Canadian military began providing weapons, ammunition and combat vehicles to the AFU.

Since 2017 Canada has also forward deployed a battle group into Latvia as part of NATO's operation REASSURANCE to deter any future Russian aggression in the Baltic.

To a layperson, it might seem that Canada is doing its bit to keep Ukraine in the fight to protect its own sovereign territory. However, for close observers of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine it is obvious that the modern battlefield has evolved dramatically in the past 30 months.

In the very early days of the invasion, vast columns of Russian tanks were turned into heaps of scrap metal by the AFU. While Canada had provided Ukraine with a large number of Carl Gustav anti-tank recoilless launchers, there were few reported cases of these knocking out Russian armour.

Instead it was the FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile made by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin that soundly defeated Putin's armoured columns.

For the record, Canada does not have the FGM-148 Javelin system and the bulk of our Carl Gustav ammunition was donated to the AFU without yet being replaced.

Since those early clashes devolved into a slogging stalemate of trench warfare, it has been aerial autonomous drones that have become the queen of the battlefield in conjunction with heavy artillery. The First Person View (FPV) drones used by both sides have made troop movements a nightmare by day and night. The so called 'suicide drones' can disable armoured vehicles or bunkers with their explosive payload whereas observation drones can pinpoint targets for artillery. Yes Canada donated four of our Army's 37 M-777 155mm howitzers to the AFU along with over 40,000 rounds of 155mm artillery shells.

However on the modern battlefield the M-777 is the wrong weapon system. They are a towed artillery piece, without armour protection and a crew of eight gunners. In a battle with an opponent armed with artillery and a sophisticated counter-battery capability like the Russians, the M-777 is a death trap. It cannot 'shoot and scoot' and the crew have no protection. What is needed is a modern, armoured self propelled gun system such as the BAE Archer or the KNDS Caesar guns. With their automated loaders these system have crews of just 2-4 or 3-5 respectively, and most importantly they can fire and move within 20 seconds.

As for the 40,000 artillery rounds which we donated, with the AFU firing 2,000 rounds a day that amounts to three weeks worth in a war that has been raging for 130 weeks. However, since Canada has not restocked our inventory it has left our Army with at best two days worth of ammunition for these howitzers according to former Chief of Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre.

Canada's current capacity for the domestic production would be 5,000 rounds a month. there is a plan to add another production line but that is not expected to come to fruition until September 2025.

For the record Russia is currently producing 250,000 artillery shells per month. But I digress.

Canada has recognized the importance of employing low level air defence systems to counter drones. As such it was announced in January 2023 that Canada was spending $406 million to purchase a National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAM) from Kongsberg. At time of writing the AFU have yet to receive this NASAM from Canada. Ditto for a second RBS 70 NG air defence system from Saab worth an estimated $227 million, which will be earmarked for the battle group in Latvia whenever it gets delivered.

For the record, Canada has not announced any acquisition of a fleet of FPV drones, despite their prominence on the battlefield in Ukraine.

What Canada did announce was a rush purchase of 90 Light Tactical Vehicles from General Motors Canada. These are essentially desert dune buggies with no ballistic protection and no protection from inclement weather.

In case no one in Ottawa has been watching, let me remind our generals that the Russian Army today is not the paper tiger that got destroyed before the gates of Kyiv in 2022. They are now battle-hardened veterans of the modern battlefield and the Russian defence sector is in full gear.

Meanwhile Canada has depleted the combat cupboard, we look to ramp up artillery shell production sometime next fall and our Battle Group in Latvia freezes their asses off in dune buggies during a cold damp Baltic winter.

ON TARGET: CANADIAN ARMED FORCES: Back to Begging?

By Scott Taylor

It is hard to imagine that less than two decades ago, the Canadian military was named 'newsmaker of the year' by Macleans magazine.

This recognition was admittedly due to the steady stream casualties our battle group was suffering in the war in Afghanistan, echoed by the drumbeat of war mongering pundits arguing that this sacrifice would someday all be justified.

Canada fully withdrew from that conflict in 2014, and three years ago the Taliban were victorious in driving the US-led coalition out of Afghanistan. Which means there is absolutely no way for the armchair generals to spin the sacrifice of our soldiers -158 killed, 2,000 wounded or physically injured and thousands more suffering the unseen wounds of PTSD - into anything but a tragic waste.

Since that juncture, the Canadian military largely slipped from the news feed. Canada did briefly support a UN mission in Mali, and the CAF deployed CF-18 fighter jets and special forces trainers to battle Daesh (aka ISIS or ISIL) in Iraq.

Since 2015 hundreds of Canadian military personnel have been actively training Ukrainian soldiers. Originally this was done in Ukraine. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, this training has been conducted in the United Kingdom and in Poland.

Canada also forward-deployed a battle group into Latvia in 2017 as part of NATO's Operation REASSURANCE to deter further Russian aggression.

However as these missions -other than one friendly fire fatality in Iraq - have been mercifully bloodless, they do not garner headlines. Unfortunately the old adage 'if it bleeds, it leads' remains a truism in the media world.  

As such when the CAF does find itself in the spotlight these days it is for its ongoing existential shortcomings in personnel, inadequate and outdated equipment or failures in leadership at the most senior levels.

It does not take a Sherlock Holmes level detective to connect the dots and to realize that these three factors combine to create an almost perfect storm, or as Defence Minister Bill Blair recently described it as a 'death spiral' for the CAF.

The statistics show that Canadian citizens are still willing to join the CAF. Last year some 70,000 citizens submitted applications, yet just over 4,000 were actually processed due to a bureaucratic backlog of security clearance checks. Of course, even if the clerks could cut through this Gordian's knot and you proceeded to bring in the more than 16,500 personnel to make up the current shortfall in the CAF regular force and reserves, there is not enough trainers available to put this many recruits through basic training.

Should you somehow clear that hurdle, the question becomes what do we equip them with to make them combat capable? In the early days following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Canada scraped up all available equipment, armoured vehicles, weaponry and most crucially ammunition, and shipped it to Ukraine.

The problem is that to date no effort has been to replace this inventory in Canada's depleted arsenals. Former Chief of defence Staff General Wayne Eyre briefed Parliament on the staggering fact that at present Canada has only about two days worth of artillery shells if we were to expend it at the rate of fire we see in the Ukraine war.

To date we have provided 10 Leopard 2 Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine which leaves pitifully few such tanks operational in Canada. Without realistic training for our own combat forces, how is Canada to continue providing trainers for the Armed Forces of Ukraine? Without the personnel shortfall being addressed post haste, how can Canada continue to furnish a battle group in Latvia, let alone expand that unit to a full brigade in the near future?

The solution will only come from senior leadership convincing the Liberal government of just how dire the circumstances are currently.

The recruits are out there and the trainer shortage can be addressed through lucrative bonuses offered to recently released veterans.

As for the equipment vacuum, they need to do what Canada did during the Afghanistan conflict. They need to admit that the procurement system is broken and forget about looking at all major purchase as a regional job creation program. When we needed howitzers for Afghanistan we took used M-777's from the US Marine Corps and bought them new guns as replacements. When we needed Leopard 2 tanks we borrowed them from the German military stocks. We needed heavy lift helicopters so we bought six very used Chinook choppers from the USA that were already in theatre.

Those who point to Canada's performance in Afghanistan as some sort of proof that Canada's military procurement system works just fine, are dead wrong. The only reason our battle groups had the gear and munitions they needed was because out of necessity, we begged and borrowed from our allies.

As embarrassing as it may seem for a G-7 nation to find itself this desperate, it is time to start the begging again.

ON TARGET: Canadian Armed Forces Called 'Early Quitters" in Afghanistan War

By Scott Taylor

In a recent editorial in the National Post, former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott chastised the Trudeau liberals for underfunding the Canadian Armed Forces. The article’s lengthy title and subtitle read: Canada’s military neglect has made it an Anglosphere outsider: In the not-so-distant past, Canada was a major participant in freedom-defining wars. Allies are now leaving it behind".  

Abbott notes that Canada is currently among the eight NATO members that are spending less than the alliance's stated objective of two percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on national defence.

Abbott praised Canada's contribution to the Great War and the Second World War, but then he veered onto a different course which makes one question his grasp of history. Abbott wrote: " For decades, Canada has punched below its weight; in more recent times, it has largely opted out of any serious military commitments — in Vietnam and Iraq, for instance."

Yes, Mr. Abbott, Canada steered well clear of the fiasco and ultimate defeat of the US military-led effort in Vietnam and we opted out of the US-led illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 because we knew that the allegations Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction were bogus.

We do not have the blood of those war crimes on our Canadian hands. For the record, Canada did send naval, air and ground assets to assist the US-led international alliance to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation in 1991. But I digress. 

Where I take great exception is Abbott's aspersion to Canada's contribution to the war in Afghanistan. Abbott wrote, "despite a strong initial contribution, Canada was an early quitter from the Afghanistan war even though the campaign objectives were essentially humanitarian, aiming to bring a feudal society into the 21st century."

Abbot continued with this dubious justification of the war, " At least as conceived, if not always as practised, [Afghanistan} was the quintessential “moral war” that a well-intentioned country could have pursued."

And pursue it we did, to the tune of 158 Canadian soldiers killed, 2,000 wounded or physically injured and countless thousands more suffering the unseen mental wounds of PTSD.

For Canada to be dismissed as an 'early quitter' by this former Australian Prime Minister might sting somewhat if those allies like Australia who continued the fight had delivered an eventual victory. They did not.

This month marks the third anniversary of the Taliban's complete victory over the US-led, 20-year occupation of Afghanistan. The rag tag force of largely illiterate Taliban zealots utterly defeated the 400,000 strong Afghan security forces that were armed, equipped, trained and paid by the Americans. There was no real resistance in the summer of 2021 as the Afghan security forces simply melted away as the US forces began their final withdrawal.

To mark the anniversary of their self- liberation, this past week, the Taliban staged a series of parades to demonstrate their newly acquired arsenal. Thanks to the Pentagon, the Taliban now possess armoured vehicles, helmets, night vision goggles, body armour and a surplus of assault weapons.

The Taliban also staged an impressive flypast of military aviation which included both fixed wing and rotary aircraft. Since your average illiterate, or even a gifted illiterate cannot teach themselves to fly, navigate and maintain an aircraft, that means the Taliban pilots of today, were likely US-trained pilots during the conflict. Another reason that Abbott's quip about Canada being 'early quitters' doesn't hit home is that courtesy of the release of the Afghanistan Papers we now know that the senior Pentagon leadership knew from the outset that the war in Afghanistan was unwinnable. The Washington Post published the compilation of interviews that ultimately became known as the 'Afghanistan Papers' in 2019. They reveal that not only did high ranking US officials realize the war was unwinnable, they also deliberately misled the public with false claims of success.

Contrary to Abbott's claim that this was a 'moral war', the fact that our US allies deliberately lied to us in itself would undermine any smidgen of morality.

Abbott claims our lack of defence preparedness has made Canada an "Anglosphere outsider'? Well maybe with the recent track record of the Angloshere's massive defeat in Afghanistan, we are better off sitting on the sidelines.

ON TARGET: THE CANADIAN ARMY'S NEW VEHICLES: What Were They Thinking?

(Photo credit: GM Defense)

By Scott Taylor

It was recently announced that the Liberal government has purchased 90 new vehicles for the Canadian Army at a cost of $36 million.

This fleet of Light Tactical Vehicles is earmarked to equip Canada's forward deployed battle group in Latvia as part of NATO's Operation REASSURANCE. As the contract was  awarded to General Motors Canada in Oshawa this would seem on the surface to be a win-win-win story for all involved. A responsible federal government investing in vitally needed equipment for the Canadian Army and creating jobs in Canada's defence sector. Who could argue with that?  
Well it did not take Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese long to look under the hood of this vehicle purchase, only to find that find the warning light was on.

In a Aug. 2 story headlined Concerns Raised about new Canadian Army trucks, Pugliese noted that U.S. officials have already reported that these Light Tactical Vehicles lack protection, are too cramped and have had problems with cracked engines and steering loss. Following a series of tests in 2020 and again in 2022, the Pentagon evaluators noted that these vehicles were not operationally effective against a near-peer threat.

For those unfamiliar with that term, 'near-peer' means if our soldiers were to engage in combat with a modern military equipped with weaponry similar to our own capabilities.

Given that these 90 new tactical vehicles are to be based in Latvia as a deterrent to Russian military aggression, the Pentagon tests would indicate that this is a useless purchase.

Despite having the word 'tactical' in the title, these new vehicles offer no ballistic protection and mount no heavy weaponry. The Pentagon test report actually states "personal weapons were not easily accessible on the move, degrading the ability of the squad to quickly react to enemy actions and ambushes."

On social media, Canadian troops familiar with conditions in Latvia noted that in addition to having no ballistic protection these new vehicles also appear to offer the crew no protection from nature's elements.

The design is that of an open-topped, open-sided vehicle based on the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 pickup truck. It is essentially an over-sized dune buggy, so the troops might wonder how they will fair in the frigid cold of a Baltic winter.

In defending the purchase of this fleet of vehicles, National Defence spokesperson Frédérica Dupuis told the Ottawa Citizen that the vehicle had a proven record with NATO and that an off-the-shelf design was needed by Canada to ensure quick delivery to soldiers. To recap then, something which has no place in a near-peer conflict needs to get into the hands of our troops in Latvia in a hurry?  

Has no one in National Defence Headquarters been watching the conflict in Ukraine for the past two years? If they were they would note that the weapon systems in the highest demand are drones, counter-drone technology, low level air defence systems, self-propelled heavy artillery and artillery ammunition. Loads and loads of artillery ammunition.

The Canadian Battle group forward deployed along the Russian border currently need all of the above on a 'quick delivery' basis. What they do not need, ever, is a fleet of un-armoured dune buggies that would be nothing but a mobile coffin on a battlefield dominated by First-Person-View (FPV) drones.
Instead of remaining silent on the subject, Canadian Army Commander, Lt. Gen. Michael Wright praised this purchase of 90 new Light Tactical Vehicles. He claimed that the investment in the new trucks would improve the Army's operational readiness and then baselessly claimed that this fleet of dune buggies would be '"enhancing its deterrence posture on the easter flank of NATO."
For those familiar with the normal snail's pace of Canadian military procurement projects the 'rush' on this one will be clearly evident. The announcement was made on July 23, delivery and training will start sometime in August and they expect to have wheels on the ground in Latvia by October. That my friends is shit through a goose quick.

As for boosting domestic defence industry, well that turned out to be a bit of a bait-and switch. While the contract was awarded to GM Canada of Oshawa, the vehicles are actually made by GM Defense LLC of the United States and will come from Concord, N.C.

ON TARGET: DISASTER RELIEF: A Disaster for the CAF?

Photo Credit MS Dan Bard, Directorate Army Public Affairs

© 2024 DND-MDN Canada

By Scott Taylor

Last week as Canada watched in horror as Alberta's landmark town of Jasper was engulfed in a wildfire, the federal government announced that the Canadian Army would provide disaster assistance.

In this instance, some 75 members of the Second Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (2PPCLI) have deployed to assist residents of Jasper to safely return to the remnants of their charred town.

Over the past few years, the sight of Canadian military personnel assisting citizens in the wake of disasters has become all too commonplace.  Forest fires in Alberta? Send in the military. Flooding in Quebec? Send in the military. Massive blizzard in Newfoundland? Send in the military. Pandemic stricken long term care facilities in Ontario? Send in the military. Power lines downed by a hurricane in Nova Scotia? Send in the military.

The sight of uniformed military personnel on site with specialized equipment is reassuring to civilians, and to be honest it is a great public relations exercise for the Canadian Armed Forces.

However, what the average layperson fails to grasp is that this is not the primary task for what is supposed to be a combat capable, armed forces. Every unscheduled deployment interrupts the scheduled training and professional development necessary to keep our military formations sustained.

Now it is no secret that the CAF are woefully understrength at present due to a crisis in both retention and recruitment. At last count there were 16,500 vacancies in an authorized regular and reserve joint strength of 105,000. The recruitment shortfall is not due to citizens not being willing to volunteer. Last year some 70,080 individuals signed up at the recruiting centres but only 4,301 could be processed and sent to basic training.  

The reason for this is twofold as the bureaucratic process is backlogged, and due to the shortfall in personnel, trainers are in short supply as well.

Again, for those not familiar with a modern military, soldiers do not simply go through entry level training and become combat capable. At all levels personnel receive advanced weapons training, leadership training, trades training and when money and ammunition stocks permit, actual formation level training exercises.

Pulling a unit out of that rotation for unscheduled disaster relief operations, throws a monkey wrench into the works. And when you are dealing with a profession that involves the use of lethal force there should not be a cutting of corners.

Recently retired Chief of Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre understood all too well the impact which Operation LENTUS has been having on the state of readiness of the CAF. Operation LENTUS was initiated in 2010 and is the blanket term for any domestic deployment of the CAF as aid to the civil powers. In an April 23 virtual town hall video conference with the senior leadership of the CAF, General Eyre stated: “I made it quite clear to other departments that our capacity to do what we did last year is not the same, especially with reduced readiness (and), increased deployments to Latvia. We’re not going to have the same forces available…for the scale and duration of response.”​​​​​​​ This year the CAF commitment to the forward deployed battle group in Latvia as part of NATO's Operation REASSURANCE is set to grow from the current 800 personnel to roughly 2200 Canadian troops.

As the overall force numbers continue to decline, and the fixed commitments continues to grow, something will eventually break. Given the reality of climate change, the demand for federal disaster assistance will only increase. The answer cannot always be 'send in the military'. They are a spent force.

Why not implement a limited form of national service and create a manpower pool nationwide that could be called upon in an emergency. There is already in existence Team Rubicon which is a volunteer force of mostly retired military personnel.

Why not build heavily upon this organization as the foundation with a registry of community minded Canadian citizens willing to deploy when needed.

While we are being creative, why not purchase 24 Canadian-built CL 415 water bombers and create a full squadron of fire fighters based on retired RCAF aircrew. For those Colonel Blimps still fretting about Canada not spending the full 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product on national defence, we can add the cost of these organizations to the defence budget. Defending Canada's natural resources in the face of extreme weather conditions brought on by climate change is more patriotic than militarily occupying a hostile third world country. 

ON TARGET: What is Wrong with Canada's Warships?

Credit: Government of Canada/Canadian Department of National Defence

By Scott Taylor

Last week it was reported that HMCS Max Bernays was sitting in the US Navy's Pearl Harbour dockyard awaiting repairs after experiencing flooding while at sea.

The story broke when crew-members of HMCS Max Bernays contacted Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese to tell him they were temporarily stranded in Hawaii. While I can think of few better places for Canadian sailors to find themselves beached, this incident is yet another embarrassment for the Royal Canadian Navy.

HMCS Max Bernays is an Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship known as an AOPS and at less than two years in service, it is practically brand new.

The vessel was part of Canada's contribution to the US-led RIMPAC 2024, a multinational naval exercise involving warships and aircraft from over 40 countries.

National Defence subsequently confirmed to Pugliese that HMCS Max Bernays had to return to Pearl Harbour on July 12 after experiencing mechanical issues and seawater flooding a part of the ship. It reportedly took the crew over 30 minutes to stop the flooding but in that timespan HMCS Max Bernays had taken on 20,000 litres of seawater. For the math experts out there this amounts to roughly 19.8 tons of seawater which is not exactly a bird bath's worth of fluid.

When technicians discovered additional problems with some pumping and cooling systems, the decision was made to return to port. HMCS Max Bernays had to sit out the RIMPAC 2024 exercise as repairs were made. On July 25, the RCN announced the ship was back in the exercise. The incident with HMCS Max Bernays is just one of a series of problems that has plagued the AOPS fleet which is constructed by Irving Shipbuilding.

To date it has been reported that other AOPS have experienced similar flooding which has caused excessive corrosion, there were mechanical failures of the anchors, a refuelling system too heavy to use and design flaws hindering the operation of Cyclone maritime helicopters from the flight deck. The AOPS purchase totals nearly $5 billion but that price tag grows with each new revelation of these 'teething trouble' defects.

For some unexplained reason the government procurement officials involved in the AOPS project only requested a one year warranty from Irving. That means that every time Irving has to sort out these glitches, the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook for the cost. Of course the embarrassment of the RCN having to suspend participation in a major international Navy exercise is incalculable.

Already the RCN is struggling with a crippling personnel shortfall of over 1600 sailors fleet wide. No doubt the news of a practically new warship breaking down and flooding will not send Canadian citizens flocking to the recruiting centres.

Those who follow the RCN closely will recall the 2014 incident involving the supply ship HMCS Protecteur, on a return voyage from Pearl Harbour. In heavy seas, HMCS Protecteur experienced a catastrophic engine fire. It took the crew over 11 hours to extinguish the blaze but by then the ship was without power and wallowing in three to four metre swells. The 279 crew members showed impressive innovation as they jerry rigged generators from items contained in the supply ship's cargo hold.

At the time of the fire HMCS Protecteur was 46 years old, making her older than the Captain and the crew. It would prove to be her final voyage, but she was not officially scheduled for decommissioning until 2017.

At the time, the heroism of HMCS Protecteur's crew saving themselves at sea from their own ancient ship, should have been a positive story.

But that tale could not be told without some measure of blame being assigned to the successive governments that failed to build replacement supply ships. The current saga of HMCS Max Bernays crapping out in Hawaii will be even tougher to spin. These AOPS are the future of Canada's maritime defences. It will be even tougher to recruit, and retain sailors based on the AOPS’ performance to date.

ON TARGET: BEYOND RECOVERY: The Canadian Armed Forces in Crisis Mode

By Scott Taylor

Following the recent NATO Summit in Washington DC, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Defence Minister Bill Blair sheepishly returned to Ottawa after being thoroughly chastised by their allied counterparts.

Despite the Trudeau Liberals increasing Canada's Defence budget by over 54% since they were elected in 2015, the NATO honchos want even more money spent on military hardware.

Thus, Blair and Trudeau have pledged that by 2032 Canada will spend that magical NATO target figure of 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on the defence budget. Of course that promise is not worth the paper upon which it is not written, as there is little to no chance that Trudeau and Blair will still be steering the government eight years from now. To be fair, there are a lot of major purchases underway which will indeed spend a lot of money, but most of those projects will not see deliveries until well into the future.

For the RCAF, the Liberals announced they would purchase 88 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at a purchase price of $19 billion. Keep in mind this is the one aircraft that the Trudeau Liberals vowed to never buy during the election campaign of 2015.

While two of these F-35's flew over Ottawa on Canada Day in the RCAF 100th anniversary flypast, those aircraft were flown by the Vermont Air National Guard. That was because Canada will not receive its first F-35 until 2026 and the final delivery of the 88th fighter is due in 2032. The full life cycle cost of the F-35 is now estimated at a whopping $74 billion.

Last month there was a lot of hype announcing the fact that Irving Shipbuilding is starting the construction of a fleet of 15 new River Class Destroyers.

This is not a new project by any means as it is the product of the 2010 National Shipbuilding Strategy launched by the Harper Conservatives.

Until last month these warships were designated the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) and the design is based upon the British Type 26 frigate. Nevertheless, the RCN does not expect to commission the first of the River class destroyers until 2030, with the 15th and final warship entering service in the early 2040's.

The cost for this acquisition project is now estimated to top $100 billion. Not factored into that equation is what the Canadian government will need to spend to keep the current fleet of 12 Halifax-class frigates serviceable until that date. The City class frigates entered service in the early 1990's, and although they have all gone through a thorough mid-life refit and modernization, the maintenance costs will only balloon as these vessels age out.

Another big spending announcement made coincidentally while Trudeau and Blair were at the NATO summit is the proposed acquisition of 12 modern, diesel electric submarines. This project is in its infancy and there is no timeline for when Canada's submariners can expect the new fleet.

Of course for anyone familiar with Canada's current submarine capability, or more accurately our lack thereof, the question begs just who the hell is going to operate these 12 new submarines? At present the RCN possesses four used British diesel electric submarines that were built in the 1980's. Canada took possession in 2004.

However the log books show that since 2021 only one of these submarines - HMCS Windsor - has even put to sea. In two brief patrols in 2022 and 2023, HMCS Windsor logged a grand total of 57 days at sea.

The RCN admits that the reason for this is a shortage of qualified personnel. This amounts to a true conundrum wherein you cannot qualify submariners without going to sea, and you cannot go to sea without qualified submariners.

This of course is not the only instance of the Liberal government putting the cart before the horse to solve a defence problem. In 2015 shortly after they were elected, the Liberals announced that the RCAF had a capability gap in that they did not have enough pilots and qualified ground crew to meet both Canada's NORAD and NATO commitments.

The solution was to announce the sole source purchase of 18 Super Hornets from Boeing. When Boeing took Bombardier to the international trade tribunal over an unrelated civilian contract, the Trudeau Liberal government voiced their displeasure and declared that Boeing was no longer a 'trusted' supplier. The Super Hornet deal was scuppered, and to address the capability gap Canada instead purchased 18 legacy F-18's that had been mothballed by the Australian Air Force.

As a result of the lengthy refurbishment of these aircraft not all have actually entered service with the RCAF to date.

In March of this year the RCAF suspended its advanced fighter training due to the advanced age of its CT-155 training aircraft fleet. For the record the 24 year old CT-155's are considerably newer than the RCAF's fleet of CF-18 fighters. As the RCAF awaits the 88 new F-35's, would be fighter pilots are awaiting slots on allied Air Force's training courses.

All of that to say that the Liberals' heady promises of shiny new equipment in the distant future may be a case of too little too late.

ON TARGET: Canada Slammed at NATO Summit

By Scott Taylor

At last week's NATO Summit meeting in Washington, Canadian leaders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau braced themselves for criticism from other alliance members regarding our purported lack of defence spending.

It is true that based on the percentage of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Canada ranks in the bottom third of the 32 member states. However, when based on the actual dollars spent, Canada ranks 7th in NATO and incredibly, 16th in the world.

However, back in 2014, NATO alliance members collectively pledged to bring their spending up to two percent of each nation's GDP. At the time it was the Stephen Harper Conservatives that signed on to that pledge. For the record, Canada was spending just under one percent of GDP on defence at that juncture.

Under the Trudeau Liberals that percentage has increased to approximately 1.4 percent of GDP. Under the current Defence Policy Update which was just released, that figure is set to climb to 1.7 percent of GDP by 2027. To be fair, the Liberals have only ever promised to strive to attain the two percent of GDP goal. They never promised to actually meet that goal. But I digress.

The expected backlash did materialize in Washington DC, particularly from US lawmakers. One of the most strident voices was that of US Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. In a televised interview Johnson called it “shameful” that Canada has yet to hit the two percent goal nor provided a realistic plan to do so. “Talk about riding America’s coattails.”

This is ripe coming from our neighbour and closest ally. I say this because, while we may not be spending the arbitrary proportion of our GDP on defence, the fact is that we have hardly been riding on America's coattails.

It was their foreign war in Afghanistan that we supported for more than ten years. As part of the NATO led International Security Assistance Force and as part of the US led Operation enduring Freedom, Canada lost 158 soldiers killed with another 2,000 suffering physical injuries or battle wounds. Of the 40,000 Canadian troops who rotated through the Afghanistan conflict, many thousands are still coping with the invisible wounds of PTSD.

Canada cut bait and withdrew from the Afghanistan conflict in 2014. Many a Canadian hawk in the form of politicians and pundits decried this withdrawal as premature as the hoped for victory was just around the corner.

That myth died in the summer of 2021 when the Taliban emerged victorious. The world's greatest superpower aided by NATO, the world's largest most sophisticated military alliance ever assembled, lost a two decade long campaign against a largely illiterate band of fanatics.

The crazy part about all of this was that eventual defeat was always expected by the senior leadership in the Pentagon. This was revealed by the Washington Post 2019 in a bombshell story that was based on a series of documents which collectively have become known as the Afghanistan Papers. The Washington Post revelations were based on a series of interviews conducted by the US military's own Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). The documents reveal that high-ranking officials generally held the opinion that the war was un-winnable while keeping this view hidden from the public. 

Due to the difficulty of creating objective metrics to demonstrate success, information was manipulated for the duration of the conflict. The Afghanistan Papers clearly revealed that senior US officials made "explicit and sustained efforts to deliberately mislead the public."  

What is not known is whether Canadian officials were in on this deception from the outset, or were our US counterparts deliberately misleading Canada and the other NATO members? Neither option will provide any comfort to the families of those Canadian soldiers who paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. Nor will it help to heal the wounds of those who returned from that unwinnable war broken physically and mentally. 

When it comes to the war in Ukraine and NATO's efforts to deter Russian aggression, Canada is also not riding on anybody's coattails. As a nation we have provided Ukraine with military trainers, military equipment and $14 billion in loans and loan guarantees to keep them resisting the Russian invaders.

Since 2017, Canada has forward deployed a battle group to Latvia where we have command of the international NATO brigade. Given the sorry state in which our military currently finds itself, maintaining that sort of operational tempo has been a challenge and that effort is set to grow in scale with Canada nearly doubling the manning level of the Latvia commitment.

I recall an incident back in 1998 when British Lieutenant General Sir Hew Pike took command of the NATO force in Bosnia. Pike made some disparaging remarks about the quality of the Canadian troops under his command.

In response, then Defence Minister Art Eggleton rose in the House of Parliament to defend the honour of our military. His brief rebuttal was simply 'Take a hike Pike'.

I would hope that Defence Minister Bill Blair could find a similar quip to dismiss Speaker Johnson's allegation that we are riding on the US coattails.

ON TARGET: HAIL TO THE NEW CHIEF: General Jennie Carignan Named Chief of the Defence Staff

By Scott Taylor

It is now official. Canada has named the next Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jennie Carignan, the first female to ever command the Canadian Armed Forces.

The choice of General Carignan to replace outgoing CDS General Wayne Eyre was not unexpected. In fact I predicted it in a commentary over three months ago.

While there are currently 11 Lieutenant-Generals on the CAF payroll, only three of those were female and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau clearly wanted his legacy to include the appointment of the first female CDS in Canada.

The three female Lt-Gen's in the running included Vice Chief of Defence Staff Frances Allen and Chief of Military Personnel Lise Bourgon, however it was General Jennie Carignan that possessed the most operational experience. Hence her promotion to the top job.

For those 'unwoke' dinosaurs who publicly denounce General Carignan's appointment being due to the fact that she is a woman, please take a moment to actually study this officer's resume. This inspiring officer was first noticed by Esprit de Corps magazine back in 2017 when she was nominated by her peers and voted by the judges to be one of the Top Women in Defence for that year.
At the time, General Carignan was a Colonel and she was Commandant of Royal Military College, St-Jean. Obviously those who nominated General Carignan and the judges who selected her for the Esprit de Corps award were not wrong in their assessment of her professional merit.

Since that juncture in 2017, she has been promoted four times and as a Major General she commanded the high profile NATO contingent in Iraq from November 2019 until November 2020. 

At the time of her appointment to CDS, General Carignan was serving as the Chief Professional Conduct and Culture Command.

Needless to say, there will be grumblings by some of the male candidates who were passed over for promotion. However as an objective observer I applaud the Prime Minister's selection of General Carignan to lead the CAF. 

That said, I have to question the judgement of General Carignan in accepting the post at this particular juncture. Since I joined the CAF as an infantryman in 1982, and through 36 years of reporting on defence issues in Canada, I have never seen the CAF institution at such a perilously low point. Morale is in the toilet, causing a recruiting and retention crisis that threatens the very existence of the CAF.

In an effort to address the morale issue, General Carignan's predecessor, General Eyre implemented the controversial repeal of CAF dress and deportment standards. As anyone who understands the meaning of the word 'uniform' would expect, General Eyre's attempt to embrace politically correct policies to demonstrate more 'inclusion' backfired horribly.  As a result, as General Eyre packs up his office memorabilia, as of July 2, 2024 a revised, more traditional standard of dress and deportment has come into effect.

Besides restoring morale and addressing the crippling shortage of personnel, General Carignan will need to deal with the political vacuum in which Canada currently finds itself. The Trudeau Liberals are plummeting in the polls and destined for a defeat in the next election. Defence spending is never a popular topic, and not one to win over undecided voters. Defence Minister Bill Blair is hardly the sort of politician to start fist pounding on Trudeau's desk to demand more support for the CAF.

Which leaves General Carignan without a whole lot of support in high places. At this juncture the CAF senior leadership needs to regain the trust of the rank and file, and this will not be an easy task without the political will to effect major changes. In other words, General Carignan may soon discover that she has been sent on a fool's errand. General Eyre seemed all to content to be that errand boy of Trudeau. Let's hope General Carignan proves otherwise. 

ON TARGET: General Wayne Eyre on 'Openness & Transparency'

By Scott Taylor

In a string of recent articles, Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese has exposed the senior leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces to be a bungling behemoth of misguided bureaucracy.

In particular Pugliese has focused on outgoing Chief of Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre.

Back on March 7, General Eyre appeared before an Ottawa conference, wherein he called for increased openness and transparency within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. Eyre said more information about the military had to be provided to Canadians.

This was a speech delivered in a public forum to retired and serving military officers, parliamentarians, diplomats and defence analysts. It is something which would normally be posted to the DND website to ensure that media outlets reporting on General Eyre's comments would be accurate.

However, when Pugliese asked General Eyre's office for a copy of the 'openness and transparency' speech, he was told to make a formal request under the Access to Information Act (ATI).

Obviously General Eyre and his advisors do not understand the word 'irony'. It is now evident that General Eyre and his advisors also do not understand that the Access to Information Act is a federal law, not merely a suggestion.

On April 8, Pugliese did file a formal request for General Eyre's 'openness and transparency' speech along with the requisite $5 fee. The ATI stipulates that those documents requested under the act are to be released within 30 days. That stipulation was ignored. General Eyre's office has yet to release a copy of that 'openness and    transparency' speech, putting Canada's Chief of Defence Staff at odds with the laws of the country he is entrusted to defend.

At this point it appears that General Eyre's refusal to release his speaking notes is both petty and petulant. His staffers would be wise to remind him that such actions reflect upon the office of the CDS and not just General Eyre personally.

Understandably General Eyre would have some animosity towards Pugliese, who is without a doubt the most connected defence reporter in Canada. Those inside the CAF and DND know that if they want an embarrassing truth to see the light of day, then Pugliese is the conduit through which to make it public.

To wit, last month Pugliese asked General Eyre's office for a copy of the video from a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the CDS and the Canadian Armed Forces Chief Warrant Officer Bob McCann. Again, the brain-trust in General Eyre's office told Pugliese to pound salt as that video was intended of 'internal use only'.

But as reported in the Ottawa Citizen, a copy was eventually leaked to Pugliese. That video copy came from military staff who have grown increasingly frustrated with attempts to clamp down on information that could be considered embarrassing to the senior leadership or the Liberal government.

The contents of that townhall provided material for no less than three revealing stories, not the least of which being the assessment by CWO McCann that the reason for the current retention problem in the CAF is due to 'toxic leadership'.

A prime example of that toxic leadership would be General Eyre's failure to live up to his own 'openness and transparency' speech, or to abide by the federal ATI laws.

Last Wednesday Pugliese wrote about another issue raised in the townhall video, with a story headlined "Too much bureaucracy at NDHQ, top general says, but no changes offered to status quo".

Eyre noted to those in attendance that the CAF/DND currently has too many 'Level Ones'. For those unfamiliar with this term, a 'level one' executive reports directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Deputy Minister of the department. On the military side this would be the Commanders of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. For those old timers doing the math, it is a head scratcher to determine how that number is now at a staggering 23.

In terms of General Officers and Flag Officers, Canada currently has 140 of these GOFO's for just 86,175 regular and reserve personnel. This must be one of the highest ratios of GOFO's-to-personnel in the world.

While General Eyre acknowledged this absurd overstaffing of NDHQ, he offered no specific direction forward other than to acknowledge changes had to be made. “I am of the personal view that we have too many military and civilian Level 1s,” he told the officers during the meeting in April. “So lots of work in that space."

That is hardly a decisive way forward to deal with such a significant problem.

ON TARGET: Questioning Canada's NATO Commitment

By Scott Taylor

Last Wednesday NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg was hosted by the NATO Association of Canada at a private dinner in Ottawa.

In addition to Stoltenberg using the occasion to browbeat the Canadian government into spending more on national defence, the attendees gathered to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the military alliance. The original Charter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was signed on 4 April, 1949 by the original 12 members, of which Canada was proud to be among.

Those were the early days of the Cold War and the threat of the Soviet Union spreading communism throughout Western Europe was a clear and present danger. The key component of the NATO charter remains Article 5 which outlines a commitment to collective defence.

While it was fear of Soviet expansion that prompted NATO members to form the alliance, once formed it was fear of NATO aggression that prompted the Soviet Union to form the Warsaw Pact in May 1955. This communist bloc alliance included Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. With the exception of Albania withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact in 1968 and four more countries joining NATO that was pretty much the opposing line-ups on either side of the 'Iron Curtain' that divided Europe until the collapse of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1992.

Thankfully for all involved, at no time during those tense years was article 5 of the NATO Charter ever invoked. However, with the threat of the Soviet Union removed, the question now begged what to do with this untested massive military alliance known as NATO?  

For those hawks in high places, the answer was to expand the membership. The thaw of the Cold War changed the map of Europe with East Germany reunifying with West Germany. Former Warsaw Pact members eagerly got in line to join NATO; Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and both of the now separate republics of Czechia and Slovakia have become NATO members.

The breakup of Yugoslavia from 1990 until 1995 created the new states of Slovenia, Croatia, North Macedonia and Montenegro, all of whom are now NATO members.

The three former Soviet Baltic states -Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia have also joined the ranks of the alliance. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, both Sweden and Finland have added their not inconsiderable military might to the alliance. This brings the total membership to 32 developed nations, fielding the most sophisticated weaponry in the world.

So for Stoltenberg and the NATO groupies making merry at the 75th anniversary celebration last week, just what milestones exactly would they be heralding?

Well in 1999 NATO violated international law by bombing Serbia for 78 days. After an unexpected stubborn resistance by the Serbs, that tiny country finally submitted to the NATO alliance.

Although it was not until 2008 that the disputed province of Kosovo declared itself an independent state, the desired result of NATO redrawing the map of Europe through military force remains a political mess. Kosovo still does not have full status at the UN as 89 of 193 member nations still recognize Kosovo as the sovereign territory of Serbia.

Within the European Union there are five member states blocking Kosovo from membership for the same reason. In a recent article on Kosovo, Matthew Karnitschnig of Politico wrote: "Put simply, even after decades of American aid and support, the country remains an economic and political basket case."

The article also outlined that Kosovo has one of the lowest per-capita GDP's in Europe, a poverty rate of over 20 percent, and is plagued by corruption and political turmoil.

So, not much to celebrate there. In September 2001, in the wake of 9-11 all NATO members heeded US President George Bush's invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Charter.  While possibly reassuring to the US public, almost every UN member also agree to be an ally in the War against Terror. So no biggie.

Then there was the Afghanistan fiasco. NATO troops, including Canadians, fought for more than a decade in that country. The end result was a failure in 2021 when the Taliban took over. Better to forget that one.

In 2011 NATO took the lead role in fulfilling United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 which called for a no-fly zone over the skies of Libya. The NATO generals promptly empowered themselves to bomb the bejeezus out of President Moamar Gadhaffi's loyalist forces. After 10 months of aerial bombardment the various rebel factions succeeded in murdering Gadhaffi.

However the fractious rebel forces immediately began fighting each other and Libya was plunged into a bloody anarchy that continues to this day. So not really worthy of a Victory Parade, but nonetheless Canada staged a full ceremony with flypast on Parliament Hill to celebrate NATO's defeat of Libya.

In 2018 NATO agreed to assist the US coalition in Iraq. While the NATO flag may still fly over some heavily guarded Green Zone buildings in Baghdad, the alliance has no more chance of a successful exit from Iraq than we did with Afghanistan.
With a 75-year track record of 1 for 5, maybe NATO should have simply disbanded after they won the Cold War.

ON TARGET: PUNCHING BELOW OUR WEIGHT: Canada's Defence Budget

By Scott Taylor

There has been a steady drum-beat of late wherein all the usual suspects have been echoing their age-old chorus that Canada must increase its defence spending drastically.

Their hook of course is that global security has been drastically eroded following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the Hamas terror attack on October 7, 2023, which sparked a eight-month, ongoing Israeli military intervention in Gaza.

To fuel the debate in Canada, US lawmakers recently signed a petition decrying Canada as 'laggards' when it comes to defence spending. In a May 23 letter signed by a bipartisan group of 21 American senators, they urged Canada to meet the NATO alliance's collective goal of member states spending two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on national defence.
For the record Canada currently spends $26.9 billion per year on defence which amounts to roughly 1.33 per cent of our GDP.

In terms of real dollars spent, that expenditure ranks Canada sixth among the 32 NATO member states, and believe it or not, 14th in the world. Not bad for a supposedly peacekeeping nation.

For Canada to comply with the two per cent GDP goal, we would need to increase the annual defence budget by $20.1 billion to a whopping $47 billion.

Last Thursday, former US Ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft was in Toronto to attend the C.D. Howe Institute's annual Directors' Dinner. She too weighed in on the '2% of GDP on defence spending' message, only she included both a timeline and a warning.

"The bottom line is that Canada needs to step up." stated Ambassador Craft. "Canada needs to spend more on its own defence and more to help Ukraine."

She urged that Canada spend at least the two percent of GDP on defence as early as 2024. In other words -immediately.

Ambassador Craft's advice to those in attendance was curt: "So, I come to you today with a simple message: Buckle up and get ready -because Trump is coming back."
The part that I cannot fathom, is that among all of these Canadians and American stakeholders clamouring for Canada to spend more on defence is that no one is even discussing what they want that money spent on.

Canada already wastes a boatload of money on botched, delayed and overpriced procurement projects.

If it was increased capability in terms of weapons and warriors, Canada could field a far better more effective fighting force by simply buying proven weapons off the shelf. That is also not something that lends itself to a quick fix. Sure Canada could agree to suddenly boost the budget by $20 billion, but the truth is that our woefully understrength CAF cannot absorb additional personnel at that rate. Nor do we currently have enough trained personnel left in the ranks to operate the current worn out vehicle, aircraft and maritime fleets.

You could spend a wad of cash on recruiting ads, but the truth is that last year 71,000 citizens applied to enlist and the over worked recruiting centres could only process 4,500 files.

If no one seeming cares about what Canada actually spends the money on just so long as it is defence related, here is a quick fix. Incorporate the Coast Guard as the fourth service branch of the CAF in the same way that it is part of the US military and add that cost to the defence budget.

Convert the Royal Canadian Mounted Police back into a para-military police force (even if in name only) similar to the French Gendarmerie or the Italian Carabinieri and add that budget to the total.

Finally take all health benefit costs associated with caring for Canada's veterans and label that the cost of defending Canada.

If these pundits simply want the accounting ledger to meet some arbitrary percentage of a fluctuating GDP amount, then get creative with the accounting.

Should one actually want defence dollars to purchase real military capability, that will be the subject of another column.

ON TARGET: Back to the Future: The CAF's Dress Code Fiasco

By Scott Taylor

On Wednesday June 5, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) issued a directive that, as of July 2, 2024 there will be new, stricter dress codes in effect for all serving members.

For those who follow Canadian military affairs closely, this 'new' direction is actually a sharp reversal of the recent controversial policy change which was announced in September 2022. At that juncture, Chief of Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre and then Canadian Forces Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Gilles Gregoire had made a joint announcement repealing many of the military's traditional regulations on dress and deportment.

"Many of us have grown up with an ingrained view of what a traditional sailor, soldier or aviator must look like. And over the ages, uniformity has been a method used to install discipline. But uniformity does not equal discipline or operational effectiveness any more than the colour or length of your hair define your commitment or professional competence," General Eyre stated.

"So as our society evolves, our military standards also change and evolve. We will balance our traditions with societal expectations, and the needs of the service."

To achieve that goal Eyre and Gregoire went on to explain that there would no longer be restrictions on hairstyle, hair colour, facial hair, tattoos, and piercings. From that point forward service members would be free to wear the uniform items that are no longer gender specific.

The irony of having these two particular veteran senior military leaders - both Eyre and Gregoire are bald, middle aged Caucasian males - talking about the inclusivity of relaxed dress standards, would have been hilarious were it not for the gravitas of what they were announcing.

It was not just the hard core military traditionalists who were alarmed by these regulation changes--it was anyone who understands the definition of the word 'uniform'. Included in Eyre's statement was a strong argument against the removal of these standards. Yes, people have an ingrained view of what they want military members to look like. Just like police officers or first responders, we expect a certain level of professional appearance. Likewise with airline pilots or flight attendants.

That the CAF would allow individuals to sport all manner of hairstyles including hair colour and outlandish facial hair would naturally have an impact on the public perception of all in uniform, even if only a relative few availed themselves of these new freedoms.

This latest directive is an attempt to ensure that "the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual."

The official announcement noted that while Eyre & Gregoire's policy change had some positive effects "there has been inconsistent interpretation and application."

That my friends is one hell of an understatement.

To be fair, the proposed 'new' dress codes are not going to be draconian in that we will see nothing but 'high and tight' US Marine Corps style haircuts. For instance the directive states that "hair extending below the lower portion of the shirt collar must be tied back away from the face. The volume of hair must not prevent the proper wearing of the headdress or protective equipment."

The fact that servicemembers now have to have a regulation in place telling them they cannot have so much hair that they cannot don a hat speaks volumes for how low Eyre and Gregoire lowered the bar.
In announcing the imminent changes to the dress code, Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer, Bob McCann said "what got lost in translation is that we, who choose to serve, represent when we wear the CAF uniform. We do not represent just our individual selves but everyone who wore this uniform and fought before us so that we can enjoy the freedoms and way of life we get to enjoy today."
This seems such a logical understanding of the word 'uniform' that one has to ask, ‘Just what the heck were Eyre and Gregoire thinking?’

ON TARGET: CAF Leadership: What does 'Toxic' Mean?

By Scott Taylor

Last week was another public relations fiasco for the senior leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces. Ottawa Citizen defence reporter David Pugliese released a story with the headline "Soldiers Leaving Canadian Forces over 'Toxic Leadership', top adviser warns'.

The Citizen article was based upon video footage of an April 23 virtual townhall hosted by Chief of Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre. This virtual event was for the CAF's top military leaders to discuss the Liberal government's recently released Defence Policy Update.

An official request by the Citizen for a copy of that video was initially denied by the Department of National Defence, with the explanation that it was 'for internal use only'.

However, a copy of the video had already been leaked to Pugliese by an anonymous source. Most likely this footage was provided to the Citizen by a military member who had grown frustrated with the senior brass' attempts to clamp down on information that could be considered embarrassing to the senior leadership of the CAF. 

In this case it was a blunt assessment from the Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer Bob McCann. In addressing the current crisis in retention of trained personnel, McCann downplayed the notion that members were fed simply up with their constant postings. "A lot of our members leave this organization not necessarily because they are not going where they want to be," McCann told the senior officers on the virtual townhall. "They leave because of toxic leadership or bad leadership. This is one aspect that we need to address if we are going to support our members better as they serve."

For Chief Warrant Officer McCann to make this statement to those very same toxic leaders while seated next to CDS Eyre, the very individual whom he directly advises, is ballsy in the extreme. It is a true litmus test of how far morale in the CAF has plummeted when the senior individual representing the concerns of the non-commissioned ranks tells the general officers and flag officers that their toxic leadership is to blame for the exodus.

The fact that their first reaction was to try and prevent those video comments from being made public indicates that McCann's words fell on deaf ears.

The story broke during the annual CANSEC defence show in Ottawa where the defence industry showcase their wares to the CAF and government procurement officials. This year's event drew a record 7,200 attendees on the first day alone, creating essentially the world's biggest water cooler. Given the composition of the crowd - mostly serving and retired senior officers - the 'toxic leadership' story generated plenty of discussion.

Perhaps somewhat unfairly, a lot of the focus was on soon-to-be retired CDS, General Eyre. It was on his watch that the CAF announced the relaxing of the dress and deportment standards which now allow for any and all hairstyles, piercings and tattoos. Uniforms are still worn but members can now choose the gender specific clothing which they wear.

For many of the retired officers now employed in the defence industry, this year's CANSEC show was the first time they witnessed what those changed standards have produced in terms of the appearance of currently serving members.

Needless to say there were a lot of gob-smacked Colonel Blimps 'tut-tutting' and bemoaning the fact that the CAF has 'gone to hell in a hand-basket'.

What was most often discussed was the fact that none of the dress and deportment changes were actually necessary. The claim by Eyre was that it was necessary to attract sufficient recruits due to the existential personnel shortage.

However recent media reports highlighted the fact that last year alone 71,000 people applied to join the CAF but only 4,100 were administratively processed. In other words, General Eyre lowered the CAF's standards to fix a problem that did not exist. That will be his legacy.

It is anticipated that General Eyre's yet to be named successor will re-establish more professional dress and deportment standards shortly after they assume office later this summer

ON TARGET: Time to Mobilize Our Canadian Armed Forces Veterans?

By Scott Taylor

There is no denying that Canada's once proud military is facing an existential threat. Already woefully understrength, the current deficit between recruitment and retirement has the Canadian Armed Forces on what the Minister of National Defence admits is a 'death spiral'.

With close to 16 per cent of the authorized personnel roster vacant, all three military branches are already failing to meet their operational obligations to NATO and NORAD.

The Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force have had to cancel international deployments due to a scarcity of trained personnel. The Canadian Army has had to cut down training exercises for those Battle Groups preparing to forward deploy to Latvia as part of NATO's Operation REASSURANCE.

The plan is now for those Canadian troops to hone their combat skills once they are already sitting on the Russian border. This challenge of sustaining the Latvia commitment will only increase as Canada has promised to increase that force from the current reinforced battalion to that of a full mechanized brigade.

Now add to this mix what is known as Operation LENTUS and even a casual observer will understand how the CAF are being pushed beyond the breaking point.

Operation LENTUS is the umbrella term for all CAF domestic deployments. In the past few years this has involved numerous operations to fight wild fires, combat floods, evacuate refugees and provide clean-up crews for the aftermath of hurricanes and deadly blizzards.

The number of troops deployed in these instances has varied from 60 to 2600, which most armchair generals will realize as being a rather large percentage of the current CAF. These unscheduled disaster relief missions interrupt scheduled training courses, and of course they burn out those personnel actually deployed away from their families for extended periods of time.

This year the weather experts are predicting an incredibly intense storm season which will no doubt result in another wave of natural disasters. While it is a positive exercise in public relations to deploy the military to assist Canadian civilian victims of these disasters, the truth is that at some point the entire CAF institution will simply collapse.

One potential solution would be to stand down Operation LENTUS as a regular force tasking. Let the CAF focus on rebuilding its ranks and managing its actual combat related duties. To backfill the government's ability to provide aid-to-the-civil-power, why not expand upon the existing veteran-led humanitarian organization named Team Rubicon Canada?

Founded in 2016, this organization is a spin-off of a similar veteran-led initiative in the USA. Presently Team Rubicon Canada is a largely volunteer organization with limited resources and funding.

However, I think that if there was government will to do so, a large number of CAF veterans would heed the call to provide disaster relief assistance to fellow Canadians. Especially if by doing so it means the current regular force CAF can get back on track and focus on rebuilding the institution.

Obviously there would need to be a structure of support in place in terms of compensation and medical coverage etc. The government could also greatly expand the resources and equipment available to Team Rubicon. Why not create a squadron of retired RCAF pilots and equip them with water bombers to operate as Air Rubicon? Our CAF veterans have the same wide variety of special skills which makes the regular force valuable in the aftermath of natural disasters.

While they may be a little long in the tooth, I am confident that a large number of retired veterans would jump at the chance to once again serve Canada. Protecting our natural resources and fellow citizens would in fact be far more personally rewarding than fighting a war they could not win in a hostile Afghanistan.