What do Canadians think about Defence?
In a speech to the House of Commons in 1875 by David Mills, an Ontario Liberal MP. said “In a country situated as we are, not likely to be involved in war, and having a large demand upon our resources for public improvements, it is highly desirable to have our military affairs conducted as cheaply as possible."
It can be argued that for most Canadians this view still reflects the majority of opinion. Unfortunately it is not 1875 and we live in a different world.
For academics Canadian defence policy can be summed up by a few taglines. Canada wants "A seat at the table", the "commitment-capability gap" depicts the tendency of Canada's defence ambitions to surpass the means allocated to the armed forces, while more cynically some have suggested that politicians normally inquire "how much is just enough?".
For some analysts the idea of "defence against help" is regularly employed to shed light on Ottawa's approach to North American security. Defence against help is a concept identified in the early 1970's by Nils Ørvik as a security strategy for small states. To avoid unwanted “help” from large neighbours he argued that smaller countries had to establish and maintain military credibility.
This concept first became clear in Canada in August 1938 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised that “the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire.” At that time Prime Minister King promised that Canada would ensure that “our country is made as immune from attack or possible invasion as we can reasonably be expected to make it, and that, should the occasion ever arise, enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way, either by land, sea or air to the United States, across Canadian territory.”
King’s promise to the United States meant that Canada was no longer free to pursue a completely autonomous defence policy. If Canadians were to prove incapable of providing for their own security, the US would do it for them. This “involuntary American guarantee” suggests that the United States is likely to defend Canada from external aggression regardless of whether or not Canadians wish to be defended.
Most Canadians may not think it but it can be argued that in our the most important part of our "Defence against Help" can be found in NORAD. If that is indeed the case then our Defence is coming to an end because the time is coming when Canada will discover that it doesn't really have an Air Force.
We don't have enough transport aircraft to meet our stated needs. We don't have enough search and rescue aircraft for a country this size, nor do we have the numbers of long range reconnaissance/patrol aircraft our lengthy coastlines demand. Many of the helicopters we use are aging and we do not have a viable number of lift helicopters. Even more important, we don't have the personnel to properly maintain and fly the aircraft we do have. All these shortcomings are most evident, and most troubling, in our fighter fleet.
The fleet of operational Cf-18 Hornet jet fighters is currently down to about 37 aircraft. This fleet size is sufficient only to sustain domestic NORAD operations. In fact it has been announced that the RCAF would withdraw from NATO commitments for the foreseeable future. Even more problematic is the lack of pilots and support personnel, which may even lead to the Air Force being unable to fulfill the NORAD alert mission requirements in full. This will only get worse as the F-35 transition gets underway in the coming years. It is more than likely that there will be insufficient personnel to staff both aircraft types, which will likely result in even fewer available CF-18s to meet the alert role.
Russia is North America’s persistent and proximate threat. The strategic position of Canada, the second-largest country in the world with the longest coastline, is vital to both countries. It needs to be watched and protected. In a fractured world Russia is far from being the only threat to continental security.
What will happen when the United States loses confidence in its northern neighbour
to be a stalwart, binational partner? What will happen if the U.S. believes that there is a serious security threat that needs to be met by NORAD and that Canada is not capable of fulfilling our obligations to continental defence?
What will happen is that the commander of NORAD, an American, will take off his NORAD hat and put on his NORTHCOM hat (it should be pointed out here that the commander of NORTHCOM-the U.S. command tasked with defending North America is the same person who commands NORAD) and move the assets he deems necessary from NORTHCOM to NORAD. He may or may not pretend to ask our permission to order changes to areas of responsibility or even t0 move U.S. personal and forces to Canada.
When that happens, when Canadians realize that not having an Air Force has real world consequences that affect Canadian sovereignty and security, we will blame the politicians for getting us in this mess.
The politicians will blame the generals and the generals in turn will complain about the politicians.
The truth is, it will be our fault. Canadian Citizens have not made Defence a priority for their leaders. We have chosen an illusory security and short term gains over real security and long term planning. We have taken the easy way and there will be no one else to blame but ourselves.
So I have decided that the time has come to tell our political leaders something different. If asked in the future I am going to tell anyone who will listen that:
I'D RATHER HAVE AN AIRFORCE THAN A NATIONAL PHARMACARE PROGRAM
