An American take on Canada’s defence policy

An_American_Montages.jpg

OP-ED

by Lindsay Rodman

The Hill Times
January 24, 2018

Now that Canada’s defence policy has been introduced, and has moved toward implementation, we have an opportunity to assess what Canada accomplished—and what it didn’t—with this new document.

Especially from the perspective of Canada’s closest ally and partner, the United States, it takes a few months to understand how a country’s new policy interacts with its bureaucracy, and how it is messaged and implemented, internally and externally.

After releasing the new defence policy—Strong, Secure, Engaged—in June 2017, the Department of National Defence has undergone some substantial reshuffl ing of personnel, including a new deputy minister, to ensure that the right people are in place to execute this ambitious new strategy. Some of those new people have since also had the opportunity to provide some clarification about the major provisions of the policy with their public statements. We finally have as full a picture as we are going to get, at least for now, about what the policy means for Canada.

It provides some meaningful reassurances. The document was released last summer one day after Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke about United States President Donald Trump’s administration seeking to “shrug off the burden of world leadership,” implying that Canada was poised to look elsewhere for partnership and support. Reassurances are therefore important, and the policy provides a strong foundation for the continuation of the strongest alliance and partnership in the world.

It also provides investment in key areas that signal to external onlookers that Canada is moving in the right direction. Increased investment in intelligence and intelligence platforms, and high-skill or specialized technical capabilities are welcome from a partner like Canada.

Most media analysis focused on expanding troop numbers and fixing procurement, both of which are welcome from the perspective of a partner and ally. However, the more interesting portions of the document are embedded in the back: Canada’s new “concurrent operations” concept.

In the policy, Canada has articulated for the first time what its maximum engagement globally might look like, in terms of numbers of forces and numbers of missions that Canada must now plan for.

However, missing from the document is any sense of broader strategy; in other words: what these missions might be, what those thousands of troops are going to be doing, and why. Without a sense of how Canada might engage in the world—where, and toward what end—it is hard to know whether Canada will succeed at organizing, training, and equipping its force.

The lack of strategic underpinning is disorienting from an American perspective. In the United States, the Department of Defense is statutorily obligated to draft strategy and policy documents routinely. These documents are derived top-down, meaning that defence policy cannot exist without reference to overarching strategy documents that provide important context.

The concurrent mission concept in the second-to-last chapter of the Canadian policy is the only articulation in the document of what Canada intends to be able to do with its people and materiel, and it does not follow from any articulation of goals or priority.

For Canada to be transparently accountable to its people about its defence policy, Canadians need to understand not just what DND is doing in terms of numbers of forces and procurement of weapons systems.

Those numbers are important in context; what does Canada seek to use those people for, and where does Canada believe it might use those weapons systems?

For partner nations, transparency is also important. As a trusted partner and ally, the United States will depend on Canada to help defend both North America (as part of NORAD) and Europe, in the event of an attack on a NATO country. Spending is one important signal of commitment, but Americans will look to a bigger question first. We are still missing a greater sense of who Canada wants to be in the world.

Lindsay Rodman is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, former director for defence policy and strategy at the U.S. National Security Council in the former Obama administration, and a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Image credit: The Hill Times

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTERS
 
SEARCH
PODCAST

An Update on the NAFTA Renegotiations

May 21, 2018


On today's Global Exchange Podcast, we touch base with CGAI's North American trade experts in light of a busy week on the NAFTA file in Washington. After months of hard-pressed negotiations, and 6 weeks of 'perpetual' discussions in Washington, the deal has reached its next turning point, with Congressional leadership signalling that they'd need a new deal by May 17th in order to have it passed before U.S. mid-term elections in the Fall. With no deal in sight, and the Congressional deadline now in the rear-view mirror, we sit down with Sarah Goldfeder, Laura Dawson, and Eric Miller to ask where we go from here.


IN THE MEDIA

No suitors emerge for pipeline project stake as Kinder Morgan deadline looms

by Dan Healing (feat. Dennis McConaghy), The Canadian Press, May 23, 2018

Iran Nuclear weapons deal: ticking time bomb

by Marc Montgomery (feat. Ferry de Kerckhove), Radio Canada International, May 23, 2018


LATEST TWEETS

HEAD OFFICE
Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Suite 1800, 421-7th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4K9

 

OTTAWA OFFICE
Canadian Global Affairs Institute
8 York Street, 2nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 5S6

 

Phone: (613) 288-2529
Email: contact@cgai.ca
Web: cgai.ca

 

Making sense of our complex world.
Déchiffrer la complexité de notre monde.

 

© 2002-2018 Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Charitable Registration No. 87982 7913 RR0001

 


Sign in with Facebook | Sign in with Twitter | Sign in with Email