The degree
to which Canada’s ability to defend itself has been degraded is alarming. The
situation in Ukraine has highlighted the fact that the post-WW2 world order is
fraying. The west generally has walked away from confrontation, demonstrated a
lack of resolve and abandoned allies in nearly every major confrontation since WW2.
A multi-polar world similar in nature to pre-WW1 has emerged. We are sitting atop
of a tinderbox comprised of strident competitors, a multi-polar geopolitical reality,
a perception by our competitors that we are unwilling to throw down the gloves
and a lack of realization on the part of leadership and the population
generally how fast our way of life can end.
Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
Click here: FOR MORE THOUGHTS ON POLITICS
Imagine a scenario
whereby, the Ukraine / Russian conflict ends with Russian success. Imagine then
that there is a push by Russia into eastern Europe. Imagine then, China sees the
build-up of troops in eastern Europe and the resulting depletion of troops in
the Pacific Region as an opportunity to take back Taiwan. Imagine then that China
sees an opportunity to expand its efforts in a manner that challenges the US
proper. Imagine the US military is preoccupied with this reality and Canada comes
under attack and we no longer have the US to rely on to defend our country – as
they have done vicariously since, it would be safe to say, 1960. Now we must
defend ourselves. It is fundamental that as a nation we can defend ourselves,
to hold our own territory against all comers. Presently, given the state of our
military and the expanse that is Canada, we would be unable to defend ourselves.
Whether the need to protect our country
comes via this scenario or another is really of no issue, the issue, however,
is if the need were to come now, we are ill-prepared.
When the crunch
comes there is only you and I to defend our country and the people we love. Institutions
are absent the ability to fire a gun, you and I must do that. It is important
that as leaders we prepare for the worst, Machiavelli in his book Prince and
Principalities expounds on the obligation of the “Prince”, ergo leader, to
peruse his territory and contemplate its defence – I am eager to remind you, the
world has changed little since he offered this advice. I have thought a great
deal about how we might defend Canada, it is a complex task. The only certainty in
this contemplation at this point is that the military is under-resourced to do
the job, it would fall to civilians in concert with the military to defend Canada.
It is for this reason that we must prepare our civilian population for the task
and introduce the military to civilians in a manner that facilitates a
productive interface should the need arise.
I am in
constant contact with young Canadians, they are adventurous people – jumping from
planes, skiing off cliffs, repelling off the side of mountains – they are fit and
tough and what we will need when the chips are down. Further, I am familiar with the cultural make-up
of the million firearm owners, hunters and gun sport enthusiasts, people who we will need when the chips are down. We have four-wheel drive clubs, snowmobile clubs, and mountaineering clubs – all people we will need when the chips are down. We have
a wealth of professional groups – tech specialists to engineers – all people we’ll
need when the chips are down. The key to defending Canada is exciting the capacities
of these groups to effect our defence. The sooner we call on them all, the
sooner we integrate their willingness and capability the better prepared we
will be. I believe, if you queried most Canadians, if we found ourselves in
Ukraine’s position if they would you help defend us – they would answer yes.
The Swiss model
is admirable, in that, every able-bodied person is trained to participate in
the defence of the nation. The government, as a product of interfacing with
their people through training, believes in its people enough to trust them to
have and use firearms in an appropriate way. The only drawback I see in this
model, as I understand it, is participation is mandatory. The model I would
suggest for civil defence would be like the Swiss model, only less formalized and
voluntary. The goal of creating an effective defence force is to extract human
and physical assets from the civilian population in a way that mitigates the
cost of activity the civilian population chooses to do anyway and in so doing you
mitigate the cost of to government having access to those assets.
By way of
example, of the million restricted and vetted gun owners in Canada many are
enthusiasts and as such spend their time honing firearm skills in the military
context. These groups, usually in gun clubs, could be approached and brought
into the civil defence fold. If one reflects on Ukraine’s circumstances now,
they are handing firearms out to people who have had little experience with
them. I am a civilian that has spent my life in BC’s wilderness, and I am a
pretty good shot, I think they would love to have me in Ukraine right now – if Canada
ever suffers a similar fate, we want everyone with skills to be ready and
available to interface effectively with the military. If the government were to
approach this group and offer to provide them with military-issue firearms
and supply ammunition to practice with, and to keep these firearms and sundry
related items at the ready in the event of strife, many of this group would be
happy to participate. Further, if the military were to offer attractive and
exciting training opportunities, like repelling out of helicopters etc., along
with a “community” / “social” element to the process the skill set of this
group would be greatly expanded.
This model
could be expanded to other groups as well, four-wheel-drive clubs, for example,
have local knowledge, explore the countryside in groups of vehicles and
would enjoy the opportunity to interface with military personnel in various ways.
Many are hunters and pursue other outdoor sports, hence they have a unique skill set that represents an asset in the civil defence space – civilian evacuation, troop
movement, munitions transport and the like. There is a huge resource in the civilian
population in the form of existing assets that the government can access by offsetting
the cost of ownership by intermittent payment, tax considerations etc. thereby,
increasing capacity many many fold at little or no extra capital cost.
Formal military
training is useful and can be provided via a modularized educational
program. The goal would be to offer the training on a self-paced basis or to
interface with civilian organizations' skill groups. By way of example, you may
have a person in a gun club that is a part of the military program and is a
heavy-duty mechanic – you could provide an online course augmented with onsite training
to have them certified on equipment that is peculiar to the military – upon completion, you would reward this person for their time and offer other benefits for being
at the ready and to retain their interests. This type of human capital comes at
a greatly reduced cost relative to full-time military personnel.
The reality
at the moment is, that if Canada were in the same situation as Ukraine, we would
have to augment military capacity with civil assets – so we should build out
that interface NOW. The other reality is, if faced with a conventional army like
the Russian army we would be forced to defend ourselves in unconventional
ways. We’ve been taught these unconventional modalities in a very painful way
in Afghanistan, we should take that lesson and apply it to our circumstances. We
can teach people to be gorilla warriors, we can prepare for such a war and we
should.
President Eisenhower
warned of the “military complex” and its motivations and expansion. When the government embarks on procurement for
anything, especially a new piece of military equipment, nobody is setting out save
the government money, they are there to make money. I recently read an article about
a new gun the Canadian military developed and purchased, a gun, when I divided the
total dollar amount spent on the guns by the number of guns purchased, I
arrived at a number of approximately $2500 – I am assuming this was a typo. At
the fall of the wall, the Taliban was buying Kalashnikovs for about $50. The
first 303 British I purchased I paid $30 for, and I could buy ammunition to
practice with at Surplus Herbies for pennies a shot. We likely have millions of
303 British warehoused somewhere, they are old, outmoded, still, in the hands of
a half million Canadians sitting on hillsides, they would be a serious thorn in
the side of an enemy. Taliban, with Kalashnikovs, wearing sandals, sent the world's
two most powerful armies home with unmet objectives – effectively defeated. While in Canada, Canadian moms are researching the safest SUV to drive Jonny to
preschool, young Afghan kids are cutting their teeth on the butt of their Dad’s
Kalashnikovs, listening to how great grandfather beat the British is a nearby pass
and then again how his Dad killed a squad of Americans the exact same way 100
years later. The point I am making here, it is culture and the willingness to
defend ourselves that will determine our success, if we are smart we can likely
do it with what we have on hand – never underestimate the power of 34-0-0 and diesel
fuel in the hands of the most resourceful people in the world.
I can hear many
in Canada’s academic circles saying, Neil, you are advocating militarizing our country;
this is an action that promotes war. Worse, you’re advocating trusting everyday citizens
with firearms and knowledge related to defence. This is my question for them,
how many are advocating returning to Afghanistan to promote human rights or to
even bring to Canada the young Afghan people who risked their lives in the
pursuit of our way of life – very few if any. Why? The Taliban offers too strong
of a deterrent. I advocate these measures because I know and because it is a
truth clearly indicated by history, that the best deterrent is capacity – capacity
means the likelihood of my grandsons ever having to use a rifle is greatly reduced.
No comments:
Post a Comment