[CaptainCrunch]

I wanted to start this last and final segment of this exercise by thanking those who have provided excellent feedback, questions and debating points that have made this posting more than just an exercise in writing and numbers.
This last section is all about defining the current and future missions of the Canadian Forces and is an attempt to bring everything previously into a conclusion.


To me and to simplify things there are four critical missions undertaken by the Canadian Armed Forces:


1) The defense of Canada's borders and waters
2) Search and rescue of people in distress
3) Responses to crisis natural and otherwise
4) International deployments for the UN and NATO


In order to be able to execute the above missions, by its nature the Canadian Armed Forces needs to be more than a sum of its parts, it needs to be a multifaceted force composed of varied front line conditions, well trained members and supported by a proper logistical structure. The best way to bring the requirements of this whole topic into focus we need to look at the current and future missions based on the above 4 definitions.


1) The defense of Canada's borders and waters

Canada is a vast nations with varied climates and environments, from the mountains to the West to the prairies to the arctic to the Canadian Shield, Canada's military can find itself fighting in different environments that require different equipment and training. With a sometimes harsh and extended winter and hot summers Canada's mission can become overly complicated and difficult. Now the predominant debate against having a varied military is that there is little to no chance that an invasion can happen here, and we can depend on America to intervene on our behalf under the NATO treaties. However I will argue that none of us can predict the future, and that things can change.
People tend to forget that the Russians and Germans were fast allies at the start of WW2 and that when the Germans invaded Russia they actually passed freight trains on the way into Germany carrying food and fuel as part of Russia trading agreements with the Third Reich.



With Arctic resources becoming more and more key in terms of various nations future strategies Canada is facing multiple claims to their arctic resources spaces, we are also facing a resurgent aggressive Russia who is rebuilding their Northern Navy and Frontal Aviation Units and a United States that continues to ignore our national waters in the North.


But the key point is simple even if we believe that a future invasion isn't going to happen it's in our best interest to believe that the worst case scenario could happen and train and equip our military to deal with that eventuality. Currently I would argue that the current military is woefully unprepared to defend the arctic. Beyond the lightly armed Rangers Canada doesn't have the ability to generate a quick response to a threat to the Arctic. Our Navy has precious little in the way of frozen water armed assets, and there is a key shortage in terms of aviation responsibility in terms of actual combat or intelligence gathering.



Right now the key or right thinking is that any assault on our arctic sovereignty will come from Russia using a combination of submarine and naval interdiction, and the use of airborne troops and seaborne troops backed up by Soviet Frontal Aviation. Canada needs to be able to fight a delaying action until NATO response can kick in and fight to prevent an enemy from digging in.



In a future scenario where Arctic Resources become more critical Canada has to be able to have a faster response to an Arctic or Arctic waters incursion.
While Canada's naval rebuild could be in fact a smart strategy with the construction of heavier hulled arctic capable armed fighting ships, Canada falls short in terms of modern submarines that can operate efficiently in arctic waters, it's also crucial that Canada makes a decision on the CF-18 replacement, create a deployable arctic trained response force based around airborne transport and enhance key arctic surveillance and intelligence gathering at the undersea, sea and air levels.

As for the defense of the rest of Canada sub arctic, even I find it hard to believe that the American's would ever invade or attack their northern neighbour. For the recent chills in our relations with the United States they still remain our fast and close friend. My scenario involves the above arctic invasion scenario, there is a common notion in the halls of American power that Canada's military for all of its exceptional work is incapable of living up to its agreements under the NATO agreement to provide a force that can defend its own nation.
So what happens if the worst case happens and the Russians invade Canada's arctic territory and America is forced to come to our defense?



Will the Americans fight our battles for us and spill their own blood and simply leave? The more likely solution is that the Americans would use the justification of "Its happened so what's the future solution to it happening again?" In this case the American's will either leave their units in place under a North American defense strategy or the more likely which is to demand the integration of the Canadian Forces into the US Military structure with an American command structure.



Again, the exercise in terms of any future military strategy is to envision the worst case scenario and plan for that eventuality because you're then prepared for anything less serious.


In order to head off these future nightmare scenarios is to show that Canada takes its border defenses seriously and show that we as a nation are capable of defending the integrity of our country and become a good NATO and Norad partner.

2) Search and rescue of people in distress

I will admit that this is the weakest area of my expertise and one that I won't spend a lot of time on. Basically the Canadian Forces needs to be able to provide expertise in search and rescue whether its an individual lost in the mountains, or a sinking ship in our waters or arctic rescue. While Canada certainly has worked hard on training for all of these eventualities the common fact is that our response times to these scenarios is extremely compromised by a lack of front line dedicated equipment. In other words once we get on site, we are extremely good at what we do, but it's our ability to respond quickly and get on scene that are compromised by the rust out scenario that I've talked about in other writing. Canada still has a shortage of front line dedicated search and rescue vessels and aircraft and a large percentage of the equipment that we have is less then reliable and needs to be addressed. Canada also needs to have the search and rescue infrastructure in place that can provide quick, coordinated and competent response, the Conservative Governments closing of rescue stations on the West Coast for example are an example of a short sided strategic decision in which lives could possibly compromised..

3) Responses to crisis natural and otherwise

IN JL Granatstein's excellent book "Who killed the Canadian Military" he lays out a nightmare scenario where two disasters occurred at the same time and Canada couldn't respond to both effectively. What happens if there are let's say major terrorist events in two cities, or let's say that there is a massive earth quake in Vancouver and a massive life threatening blizzard in Toronto at the same time, does Canada have the crisis infrastructure, personal, Logistics and advanced planning to handle both if the Canada Forces is called in to aid. The simple answer is no, even though Canada has done a good job of improving its heavy lift capability in recent years, the shortage of reliable medium ground and air transportation causes a striking concern in being able to get rescue equipment, personal and supplies and infrastructure on site in a timely basis.

We've seen what happens when the worst case scenarios aren't taken seriously and the military isn't prepared for it and hope that they have enough or have done enough. The weather disasters in the States is a prime example of learning on the fly and why it's a bad way to plan. Mistakes in terms of disaster assistance natural or otherwise becomes mathematical in terms of loss of lives, and loss of infrastructure.

If Canada bases its strategy around the rapid response to two crisis' happening simultaneously it becomes logical to assume that they can easily respond to one major incident without waiting for our allies down south for assistance.

Going back to the shortfalls in laid out for the Canadian Army especially in terms of lift and transport capability it becomes key for the replacement or enhancement of the logistics side of the Military, it also becomes key in looking at how our forces are distributed across the country and the equipment that they have access to has to be reliable and up to date.

To be finished tomorrow