National Post (National Edition)
Better uses for military spending than Reserves
The National Post’s Matt Gurney made some very valid points, particularly around procurement, in his recent column “Keep Canada safe by building out the Army Reserve.” What he proposes however, is a solution without addressing the question. Namely, what is the purpose of the Canadian Armed Forces?
This is neither a policy nor pedantic question. The Selection and Maintenance of the Aim is considered the master principle of war. So then, what is the aim of the Canadian Army?
On the face of it, the defence of Canada. Obviously.
However, Canada does not face a credible existential threat. Regardless of American policy (or lack thereof ), any real threat to Canadian sovereignty poses grave risk to American territory. We share a uniquely trusting and integrated relationship with the world’s pre-eminent superpower. No invading force could land on Canadian soil without first defeating American naval and air supremacy. In the exceptionally unlikely scenario that America itself poses a threat, simply recall that America spends 40 times more than Canada on its military. It is a non-starter.
So, if not for national defence, what will Canada use its armed forces for? Attack?
Unlikely. China aside, Canada’s greatest international dispute is with the Philippines over garbage collection.
The defence of allies is a more plausible scenario. A resurgent Russia and a reluctant America set a hazardous scene along the Caucasus and former Soviet Bloc. Would then Canadian defence policy see to shore up Europe’s defences? In part this already occurs — Operation REASSURANCE in Latvia for example.
Would then a bolstered Canadian Reserve Army of some 29,000 soldiers be prepared to deploy to Eastern Europe? Since the Europeans are less than keen to fight Russia over the annexation of Crimea, it is hard to imagine considerable Canadian domestic support for an Expeditionary Force.
For these reasons, Canada does not need a bigger Reserve Army.
I am a huge supporter of the Canadian Reserve. I spent more than a decade in it. But building out the Reserve does not meet any realistic need by the Canadian people and fails the master principle of war.
A more realistic aim is that Canada will defend and
militarily support its allies.
Canada’s mission in Afghanistan is a useful and recent reminder of what the Canadian Army excels at. A succinct summation of Canada’s contribution is that Canadians held Kandahar Province. We did so by providing a world-class Combat Battle Group of some 1,200 soldiers, backed up by similar numbers in other posts.
This was strategically invaluable as the American-led mission handed over a vital region to a highly capable ally. Basically, they didn’t have to worry about it.
Canada’s military spending is best applied on the ability to contribute a moderate force capable of undertaking any mission, anywhere, in support of our allies abroad. This does not call for a Reserve, but wellequipped and highly trained Regular Army. Critically, this must be supported by the logistical capacity to get that force out the door, on the boat, and around the world. NATO in general is overly reliant on America’s global lift capacity and Canada could do more here.
We should continue the process of rebuilding our mechanized infantry, artillery,
CANADA DOES NOT FACE A CREDIBLE EXISTENTIAL
THREAT.
and armour. More money should go into Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR), another area where NATO largely relies on America. Cyber is another domain where Canada could punch well above its weight and play a leading role.
The Reserves remains important. It is a key source of personnel to the Regular Army and plays a strategic role in the defence of Canadian soil. It must remain a credible cohort of trained soldiers that can be called up in times of crisis.
However, to suggest that a significant expansion of the Reserve Army is central to Canada’s safety or role on the world stage is simply not credible.