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.

ON TARGET: An Existential Threat: The CAF's Manpower Crisis

By Scott Taylor

Last week there was seemingly some good news for Canada's beleaguered armed forces. A recent Toronto Star news headline noted that "The Number of Applicants to Join Canada's Military is Soaring".

Unfortunately the text continued with "Why Hasn't that Resulted in More of Them in Uniform?" The answer it turns out is that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are unable to process the applications which they receive in a timely fashion. As a result, the gap between recruiting and those serving personnel who are releasing from the CAF continues to widen.

At last count there were 16,500 vacancies on the payroll of the CAF's combined regular and reserve establishment of 101,000. At a recent defence conference in Ottawa, Minister of Defence Bill Blair referred to the current recruiting versus retention crisis as a 'death spiral'. According to the newly tabled Defence Policy Update, despite the promise of billions of dollars added to the budget, there is no course correction mentioned which will reduce that 16,500 shortfall in personnel until the year 2032.

While Minister Blair told the Toronto Star that he doesn't "want to wait till 2032 to replace the 16,500. I think we need to go faster,”  he offered no plan of action which would hasten the timeline.

However, what the Toronto Star article reveals is that Canadians are still willing to enlist in the military. In fact they did so in record numbers last year with 70,080 individuals volunteering to serve in uniform. The year before that the number of applicants was 43,934 amounting to a two year total of 114,014 potential personnel for the CAF. That is more than enough to replace the entire authorized strength of the CAF.

However the overwhelmed recruiting centres were only able to process 4,301 applicants last year and just 3,930 the year before. That comes to a two year total of 8,231 which means 105,231 would-be recruits went unprocessed.

This makes one question the rationale for the CAF senior leadership to radically reduce the dress and deportment regulations in order to cast a wider net to address the recruiting shortfall.

The theory was that if any and all hairstyles were acceptable, including facial hair, tattoos and piercings, the CAF would be a more welcoming and diverse workplace. Uniforms are still to be worn, albeit they are no longer gender specific. For traditionalists, the idea of coloured hair on the parade square seemed a drastic measure to attract otherwise hesitant applicants.

Given the numbers, it would seem that dress and deportment was not the problem, but rather it was the recruiting and training branches that simply could not process the influx.

Another policy change was to allow immigrants with Permanent Resident status to enlist in the CAF. Prior to November 1, 2022, a recruit needed to be a Canadian citizen. This move bore fruit as over 21,000 Permanent Resident card holders to date have eagerly flocked to recruiting centres. Unfortunately, due to a lack of resources through which to conduct the necessary background checks on these immigrants, only 77 such applications had been processed as of February 2024.

If a pilot were to announce over the intercom to the passengers that their plane was in a 'death spiral' you would expect the next words to include a plan to take drastic measures to correct said spiral.

Instead Minister Blair continues to display a total lack of urgency.

Here is a suggested course of action. The present understrength CAF is like a starving person too weak to digest the necessary nutrients in order to recover. As a short term measure the Liberal government should put out the call for former service members to return to duty on an emergency call-up basis. They would not require background checks and they already know their trade. The job would be simply to enrol and train the new admissions.

They could be offered a lucrative signing bonus and a lucrative temporary salary. This money could come out of the savings which the CAF has been realizing as a result of having 16,500 unfilled positions for the past two years. That amounts to billions of dollars if you do the math.

There are thousands of  applications already on file and there is no shortage of new volunteers to join. The legion of called-up veterans could temporarily flesh out the training centres and process the necessary admin and medical procedures.

As for those with Permanent Resident status, why not conduct their security clearances while they are going through their Basic Military Training courses? It is called concurrent activity. Surely there are enough retired military police, intelligence branch and CSIS staffers willing to commit to restoring the CAF to full operational strength. 

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and these are definitely desperate times.

ON TARGET: Canadian Armed Forces: Top Heavy with Brass

By Scott Taylor

For months now the senior leadership of the Canadian military have been bemoaning the crippling shortfall of personnel in the ranks.

Before a parliamentary committee last year Chief of the Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre acknowledged that there are currently 16,500 vacant positions from a Canadian Armed Forces', combined regular & reserve authorized strength of 101,000.

The reason for this crisis is a combination of the CAF's failure to attract recruits while simultaneously failing to retain trained personnel.

For those who follow the affairs of the CAF closely it will be understood that General Eyre's numbers are somewhat misleading. When you factor in all those serving personnel who are currently on sick leave, stress leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, retirement leave and those personnel recruited but still awaiting trades training, those numbers make things far worse in reality than in Eyre's briefing notes.

The lack of experienced, trained technical staff means that ships' companies cannot put to sea, planes lack pilots and vehicles are inoperable due to maintenance delays. All of this leads to frustration and burn-out for veteran service members and as a result they are retiring early.

However, things are not bleak across the board as all 138, permanent and temporary, General Officer & Flag Officer (GOFO) positions remain staffed at 100%. As the bottom falls out of the CAF at the rank and file level, the top offices remain filled to the brim.

Clearly the government realizes that even a casual observer will question that bloated ratio of GOFO's to the dwindling number of troops they still command.

On the official Government of Canada website it states, "The Canadian Armed Forces is structured to have 631 Regular Force members per 1 GOFO, which makes us lighter at the top when compared to like-sized military forces of some of our closest Commonwealth Allies."

This is a classic example of, well to be blunt, horseshit. Our closest ally is the USA and in 2017 their military had 900 GOFO's for a force of 1.3 million service members which is a ratio of 1:1,400. The US Marine Corps has just 62 GOFO's for some 180,000 Jarheads which is an impressive ratio of almost 1 GOFO per 3,000 marines. The British press recently questioned why their Army was commanded by 53 General officers when the troop strength had dropped to 70,000. That would be a ratio of 1 GOFO per 1,300 British soldiers.  

So no, we are not 'lighter at the top' than our allies as the government website claims. Quite the opposite is true. The worst part about this top heavy structure of the Canadian military is that this is not a new problem.

Back in 1995, in the wake of the Somalia Scandal which had shone a public spotlight on the darker reality of the CAF, citizens questioned why Canada had 96 GOFO's for a military with only 65,000 regular force personnel.

The Liberal government of the day had been quick to disband the entire Canadian Airborne Regiment overnight, but in the case of the bloated command structure they set a goal of 1 GOFO per 1,000 personnel, to be achieved through natural attrition.

Fast forward nearly three decades and that 96 is now 138 and while authorized a regular force strength of 71,000, the actual number is less than 60,000. This means that despite a passage of time which extends beyond that of a full military career, that attrition morphed into addition.

Given that the just released Defence Policy Update (DPU) does not project the CAF addressing the present personnel shortfall before 2032, it is time to drastically slash the bloated leadership of the CAF.

Later this summer, the retirement of General Eyre will open the door for the Liberals to start making good on that reduction through attrition that they promised.

Given the reduced size of the CAF, the next CDS should remain a Lt-General (aka a 3 star general rather than a full 4 star General).

This would set in motion a pattern where-in the 11 current Lt-General positions would be reduced to that of a two star Major-General as the incumbent retires.

Our NATO allies do not care how much gold braid our generals wear on their hats. They care about how much actual combat capability we can deliver. And right now that isn't much.

ON TARGET: THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES DISAPPEARING ACT

By Scott Taylor

It would seem that the senior leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) continues to whistle past the graveyard as it becomes clearly evident that the personnel shortfall has begun crippling Canada's military operational readiness.

A recent CBC headline noted "Changes to training forced by budget cuts could leave military less ready for a fight, experts warn". The CBC story noted that drastic internal DND budget cuts have led to the cancellation of a qualifying exercise for combat troops headed to Canada's forward deployed battle group in Latvia.

The 'expert' sounding the alarm bell on this development is none other than Lt-Gen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie, a former Army Commander.

Since Canadian battle groups began deploying to Latvia in 2017 as part of NATO's Operation REASSURANCE, the final phase of their training was conducted at CFB Wainwright. These qualifying exercises were combined-arms training wherein soldiers would coordinate infantry, tanks, artillery and aircraft.

Without that level of training Leslie fears that Canadian soldiers are now "going to have to learn on the job, using other people's equipment and expertise".

The explanation given to the CBC by Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre was that these qualifying exercises were cut to allow the soldiers deploying to spend more time with their families. "What we're finding was the battle groups, the various units that we're deploying, were spending a lot of time on exercise here at home to get to a very high level, and then going to Latvia and doing much of the same work." So in other words 'not to worry folks, no need to study for the exam, we'll pick it up during the test itself'.

The problem with Eyre's comments is that he knows his former Army Commander, Lt-Gen Leslie is correct.

The cracks in the CAF's    operational readiness are not limited to just the Army. The RCAF has recently announced that they are grounding their aging fleet of jet trainers (which are actually newer than Canada's CF-18 frontline fighters) and farming out pilot training to allied nations.

The current shortfall of trained pilots has resulted in the cancellation of international deployments in support of NATO objectives.

The commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee issued an unprecedented video message last year wherein he admitted that due to personnel shortcomings the RCN will not be able to fulfill its operational objectives through the foreseeable future. It was a brave admission, but definitely one which resonated with Topshee's sailors.

As an Ottawa resident I must admit that I was surprised to learn that the Ceremonial Guard will not be performing the Changing of the Guard ceremony on the lawn in front of Parliament Hill again this summer. The band will still make a daily appearance and there is a much reduced guard changing ceremony performed at Rideau Hall.

However that long standing martial spectacle has been suspended. It was halted first in 2020 due to Covid-19 but now it is due to a shortage of personnel in the two Reserve regiments that constitute the Ceremonial Guard - The Governor General's Foot Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards.

Not everyone realizes that the Scarlet coated guardsmen with their towering bearskin hats were actually serving members of Canada's militia. They are combat capable soldiers who have often deployed abroad alongside our regular forces. In order to keep the tourist friendly event a fixture in Ottawa, the Changing of the Guard ceremony may need to become a privately owned re-enactor enterprise in the future.

Now before the Colonel Blimps begin heartily thumping on their tubs at the loss of another tradition, there are many examples where this is indeed the case.  At the Citadel in Halifax the 78th Highlanders perform drill and musket demonstrations and at Fort Henry in Kingston Ontario, it is a foundation that funds the re-enactors each summer. They have no formal connection to the CAF.

Perhaps it is also time to do something similar with the RCAF's demonstration squadron known as the 'Snowbirds'. The aged out Tutor planes which the Snowbirds use are overdue for retirement and it seems unlikely that any government of the day will spend the billions of dollars necessary to buy a new fleet of show planes. Particularly when skilled pilots are in such scarce supply.

ON TARGET: Does Canada Really Need The CF-35 Joint Strike Fighter?

By Scott Taylor

The controversial procurement of 88 new F-35 fighter jets for the RCAF was back in the news again last week. An anonymous whistleblower leaked documents to National Post columnist John Ivison which resulted in an article entitled How Canada’s military-industrial complex made sure Ottawa bought its preferred fighter jet.

For those of us who have closely followed this two decades-long procurement process to replace the RCAF's aged out CF-18 Hornet fighter jets, there is little in Ivison's piece that would be considered new information. It is alleged by the whistleblower that from the get-go in 2004, the senior leadership of the RCAF wanted to purchase the F-35 and only the F-35.

It mattered not that at the time that only a single prototype of this 5th generation, stealth fighter was in existence. Nor did it matter that the teething problems suffered by the early models of the Joint Strike fighters caused aviation experts like then US Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to threaten to cancel the entire project if he was elected. In short Trump was elected and he did not cancel the F-35 purchase.

In Canada, it was the Conservative government of Stephen Harper which first announced in July, 2010 that we would be buying 65 of the F-35's at a purchase cost of $9 billion. The first delivery of these new fighters was to be in 2016. To sell the idea to the Canadian public, then Defence Minister Peter MacKay actually posed sitting in the cockpit of a full scale mock-up of an F-35 at the Museum of Aviation in Ottawa.

To this day I have no idea how the Conservative government was able to use the grounds of a federal museum to display something which Canada had yet to actually purchase, let alone fly operationally. The Lockheed-Martin owned mock-up belonged on a military trade show floor, not in a museum dedicated to the history of aviation in Canada.

The images of MacKay sitting at the controls of a fake air force plane have not aged well given the turbulence encountered thus far in Canada's purchase of this aircraft. In brief, in 2015 the Trudeau Liberals vowed not to purchase the F-35 if elected. The Liberals were elected and the RCAF were then told to hold a competition to find the best possible replacement for the CF-18 fleet. As Ivison's whistleblower now claims, the fix was in for the F-35 to win.

In 2022 the Liberals were thus forced to announce they were buying 88 of the F-35's for the purchase cost of $19 billion. Remember this was the one plane which the Liberals had told voters they would never buy. The first delivery is not expected until 2026. 

Which begs the question as to how, 20 years later, the Joint Strike Fighter is still the best possible solution for Canada's military? In that interim we have learned the lessons of our prolonged occupation of Afghanistan in that in a counter-insurgency against a primitively armed foe, the modern fighter jet has no role. The war in Ukraine has shown us that manned aircraft are too vulnerable to modern air defence systems and that uninhabited aerial systems such as drones are the way of the future.

To see the speed with which modern warfare evolves, the Russian army has now developed what they call 'Turtle Tanks' wherein an armoured shield is welded atop their armoured vehicles to counter the threat of anti-tank kamikaze drones. While presently enjoying a measure of success against Ukrainian defenders, this will no doubt soon be countered with more sophisticated, delayed action shaped charges married to the existing drones.

With Trudeau's Liberals dropping in the polls, maybe it is not too late to bring out their old campaign promise to axe the F-35 contract if elected again? The $19 billion in savings would buy a boatload of disposable drones and the truth is that by 2026 the RCAF will be hard pressed to find any pilots to fly the new F-35's.

ON TARGET: Canada's Military Procurement: A Laundry List of Broken Promises

When the Trudeau Liberals announced their long awaited Defence Policy Update on Monday, April 8, it did not take the sceptics long to take to social media to criticize the policy paper.

While the announced spending hike is enormous -the Canadian defence budget is to nearly double from the current $30 billion to roughly $59 billion by the end of this decade - the problem is that close followers of the Canadian Armed Forces have good reason to believe that little of what is promised in the DPU will ever see the light of day. 

Comic strip aficionados will recall the Peanuts character Lucy perpetually convincing Charlie Brown that this time she will hold the football in place so that he might 'kick it to the moon'. Inevitably, at the last minute Lucy snatches the ball away and Charlie Brown ends up flat on his back swearing to never again trust Lucy's word.

Only a foolish military analyst -and there have been a few out there -would hail this current DPU as a solid building block to rebuild our badly depleted CAF. 
For those who remain unconvinced that when it comes to the Canadian Military, government promises are meant to be broken, here is a short peek back down memory lane.
Back in 2003, the Canadian Army had a battle group deployed to Afghanistan, and as insurgent resistance was stiffening, Canadian commanders realized that they would need better protection and more firepower.

Thus it was announced that Canada would spend $600 million to purchase 66 Mobile Gun Systems (MGS) from General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). This was controversial among senior Army commanders who were hoping to acquire a new Main Battle Tank instead.

The MGS are based upon a Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) wheeled chassis, with the addition of a 105 mm gun for fire support.

Doubters of this purchase were put in their place by then Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier. A former armoured officer, Hillier was of the opinion that Main Battle Tanks were at that juncture "Cold War relics". Fortuitously the MGS purchase never went ahead and Canada ended up borrowing Leopard 2 MBT's from Germany to support our troops in Kandahar.
In 2005 there was a lot of fanfare when the government announced they were investing $750 million to produce 30 Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles. The MMEV's were to become the nucleus of our ground forces combat fire support.

The concept was in fact a marriage of the Air-Defence Anti-Tank System known by the acronym ADATS mounted on a LAV 3 chassis. The ADATS had been built in Canada immediately after the Cold War ended and had been mothballed almost immediately. Alas as events unfolded, they have remained in mothballs as the MMEV project was quietly cancelled. 

By 2009 the Army realized that it needed something heavier than a LAV 3 in Afghanistan and they needed it on an urgent basis. The Army wanted to buy the Swedish Combat Vehicle 90 off the shelf, but bureaucracy prevailed. A competition was then launched to ascertain which Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) would be best suited for Canada's future Army. The project called for the purchase of 108 CCV's at a cost of $2.1 billion, and they were to be the backbone of our combat forces for the foreseeable future. After two rounds of what was called 'testing to destruction' the three remaining bidders - BAE Systems, Nexter and GDLS - were informed that the whole deal was off. Given that our combat mission in Afghanistan was concluded, the Harper Conservatives killed the procurement to save money. 

It was the Harper Conservatives who had also originally announced in 2010 that they would buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to replace the RCAF's 80 CF-18's at a purchase cost of $9 billion. The first delivery of these CF-35's was to be in late 2016. However in 2015 the Trudeau Liberals ran on the promise that if elected they would scrap the Conservative’s plans to purchase the controversial CF-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Once elected, Trudeau did scrap the initiative to buy the F-35s and the Liberals subsequently ordered the RCAF to hold a competition to determine the CF-18's best possible replacement. Lo and behold the F-35 won the competition and the price tag is now $19 billion for 88 aircraft, the first of which will not be delivered until 2026. 

For the long suffering Royal Canadian Navy nothing exemplifies their dangling carrot of procurement promises better than the saga to replace the now long retired HMCS Protecteur class supply ships. First announced in 2004, the original timeline called for a contract to be signed by 2009 with the first of three ships delivered and in service by 2012. There is now only two such ships on the order book and the first will not be delivered until 2025 with the second due in 2027. The cost has continued to climb.

So when the Liberals table a DPU in 2024 promising $73 billion in additional defence spending over the next 20 years, forgive me if I do not believe that this time Trudeau is going to 'kick it to the moon'.

ON TARGET: Canada's Defence Policy Update: Seeing Will be Believing

By Scott Taylor

On Monday April 8, Minister of National Defence Bill Blair unveiled the Liberal government's long awaited Defence Policy Update (DPU). Titled 'Our North, Strong and Free' the new policy outlines a significant spending increase and promises to acquire some very specific new capabilities and equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces.

“Through this policy, Canada will invest $8.1 billion over the next five years and $73 billion over the next 20 years in our national defence,” Blair stated in the DPU.

In terms of equipment acquisitions, the DPU shopping list includes; early warning aircraft, tactical helicopters and new long range missiles for the Army. 

The government plans to buy specialized maritime sensors to improve ocean surveillance as well as build a new satellite ground station in the Arctic. The DPU blueprint includes plans to establish additional support facilities in the Arctic for military operations. Also referenced, albeit without detail, is a new fleet of submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy.

There will be a major investment in domestic ammunition production to replace those stocks of artillery shells which Canada donated to Ukraine. Having learned their lesson from that war, Canada also plans to significantly increase the Army's strategic reserve of ammunition.

Due to the numerous delays to the Canadian Surface Combatant program a large sum of money has been set aside to keep the RCN's aging Halifax-class frigates operational until the new Type 26 destroyers eventually enter service.

With a nod to the fact that the modern battlefield is evolving into new domains, the DPU focussed on improving the CAF’s ability to conduct cyber operations. The government plans to establish a Canadian Armed Forces Cyber Command. Also to be pursued, is a joint cyber operations capability with the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) Canada's secretive, Ottawa-based electronic intelligence gathering organization.

While not as sexy as the wish list of futuristic weaponry and spy gizmos, the DPU also set aside increased funding to address the construction of  affordable housing for military personnel. That was about the only item to address the most pressing issue which is currently crippling the CAF: the combined retention failure/recruiting shortfalls which have resulted in woefully depleted ranks.

You can buy all the weaponry in the world, but it will be useless if there is no one left in uniform to use it.

As for what all this will mean for the actual future of the CAF, a few polite reminders might help put things in perspective. First of all, this DPU was initially announced by the Liberal government back on April 7, 2022 as an 'urgent' necessity in the immediate aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That was nearly two years to the day before they actually tabled this DPU. That is not an 'urgent' response in any universe.

At the DPU technical briefing last Monday, it was confirmed that prior to making the details public in Canada, Minister Blair had first briefed NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to get his blessing. Apparently Blair also pre-briefed US Ambassador to Canada David Cohen. Those who follow Canadian military affairs closely will be well aware that both NATO and the US have been pressuring Canada to increase defence spending to the NATO alliance target of 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

This new DPU projects a massive increase from Canada's current annual defence budget of $30 billion to a staggering $50 billion by the end of this decade. However, thanks to Canada's robust economy that will only put us at the 1.76 per cent GDP mark. In other words, closer but still no cigar from Stoltenberg.

Perhaps the most important detail to remember is that this is a projected 20-year plan, which is unlikely to survive any change in government. To coin the old phrase 'I'll believe it when I see it'.

ON TARGET: Debunking the Vimy Ridge Myth

By Scott Taylor

This week marks the 107th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. While April 9th is the day of commemoration, the battle itself lasted three days.

What is amazing is the myth that has grown around that April 1917, First World War clash in Northern France. To many Canadians, Vimy Ridge has become the symbolic birthplace of where and when Canada became a truly independent nation, and shed its colonial past.

The short version of this myth’s genesis is that at Vimy Ridge all four Canadian divisions fought together as a single corps and that they succeeded in capturing the ridge after both British and French attempts had failed. This is a pretty specific criteria, which in my opinion does not stand up to closer scrutiny.

For one thing, the Canadian divisions may have fought as one corps, but they were collectively commanded by British General Julian Byng. If that does not define colonial troops, I do not know what does.

It is also important to note that the fighting for Vimy Ridge was not an isolated battle. It was actually part of a larger British diversionary attack coordinated with an even larger French offensive all along the Aisne river.

While the Canadians captured Vimy Ridge, the larger objective failed as the major French offensive was soundly defeated. The French losses in that battle were so horrific that the French Army subsequently mutinied. For months to follow the French soldiers refused to participate in any further attacks.

Thus it is hard to argue that Canada’s success at Vimy Ridge was a major turning point in the outcome of the war.

As for casualties, by today’s standards the Canadian losses at Vimy were sickening. In under 72 hours of combat we suffered 3,598 killed and a further 7,004 troops wounded. All that to capture one stretch of high ground without achieving a major breakthrough. In fact, the German 6th Army simply pulled back a few kilometers and dug in again.

Now some of those who espouse the Vimy myth as Canada’s birthplace will argue that it is a symbolic battle which exemplifies the entire war effort of Canada as a Dominion in the First World War.

If that is the case I would suggest that the Battle for Hill 70, fought in August 1917 would have been a better choice. At Hill 70 the Canadian corps was by then under the Canadian command of General Arthur Currie, and the casualties suffered were far lighter.

However, I have long challenged the premise that Canada fighting an imperial war to aid Britain somehow reflects our independence as a nation.

For me, it was the little known Chanak crisis of 1922 when Canada first cut the umbilical cord with mother country Britain.

As that juncture a resurgent Turkish national army, born from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, under the Generalship of Kemal Attaturk were defeating the Greek Army in Anatolia.

The British wanted to assist the Greeks but knew that their war weary population was not ready for another foreign war. Thus the call went out to the Common Wealth nations to contribute soldiers to the cause.

Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon McKenzie notified then British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill that unlike the declaration of war in 1914, Canada’s response would no longer be “automatic” but rather it would require the consent of Parliament.

When Parliament rejected the request, Canada officially said “no.”

Following Canada’s lead, both Australia and South Africa gave the war a thumbs down. Britain had no choice but to force the Greeks to accept a separate peace with the Turks and the rest is history.

This chapter of our history needs to be taught in our schools as the true coming of age of our nation. Fighting a good battle under British command in an imperial war does not make you independent. Saying ‘no’ to Britain did.