[CaptainCrunch]

I might have to split this into multiple posts when I have time to do them. But to start with, I think there needs to be a discussion around what specifically the mission of the Canadian Forces is, because frankly its not simple.

Canada has to defend itself, and be able to actively participate in the defense of the North American Continent. Its more then just simply being able to fight a land or sea or air battle for Canada. There is the problem of geography, weather, logistics and the ability to supply an army in the field properly. What's the threat. After 9/11 we saw the decline of nation state warfare of advanced militaries who would take to the field and slug it out over lines on a map. Instead we saw the rise of asymmetrical disorganized warfare. small unit tactics, the rise of special forces and their effectiveness. At sea navy's switched from ship to ship, to ship to land and insertion of forces. In the air we saw more intelligence gathering and close in air support. With the rise of the taliban, the various Iraqi "rebel" groups and then later ISIS we saw an emphasis on hideous grinding bloody warfare. Set piece strategies went out the window as did mobility hyper fast warfare and combined arms concepts. Instead it was literally taking on the hydra. Things like drones and drone strikes and advanced satallite technology and recon took precedence. Armored vehicles and light armored vehicles lost a lot of their effectiveness.

Now things have switched in the last few years back to nation state warfare concepts. With the rise of China and their military modernization with an emphasis on coastal defense, the naval ability to blockade and control sea lanes, and offense by bombardment. Russia went through a modernization and theoretical professionalization of their military. With Ukraine though we've seen a lot of problems rise up with the quality of their equipment and training. Other nations are following the rush to pivot their military.

We've seen a lot of emphasis in 5th generation warplanes not just for their ability to defeat advanced air defenses and control the skies but to be able to get in theatre mass data. We've seen infantry force multipliers in terms of equipment. The advent of hypersonic missiles and the reinvestment of nuclear arsenals. At sea, we're seeing a new generation of submarines including Hunter Killers, Ballistic Missile and Cruise missile boats, the emphasis has also changed back to at sea naval development.

Can Canada create an armed force that can do all of these missions really well? No, but at the same time with the saying that information is everything, Canada has to create a military that can gather intelligence connected to arctic sovereignty and coastal defense, connected to the defense of their airspace both ballistically and through conventional means, and to be able to act as an effective fighting force if there is ever in theory a threat to Canada as a whole.

So the question is, what is the mandate of the Canadian Armed Forces.? Lets look at that.

First and foremost the defense of Canadian soil. Lets not have any illusions, Canada's armed forces is really designed or should be defined around the concept of holding actions. Canada doesn't have the main power or equipment to effectively fight even a holding action. The hope is to delay, inflict casualties and give up land for time and hope our allies come to our aid. However we have to understand that if someday there is an invasion of Canada, the American's might be tied up with their own concerns as any North American attack strategy is based around neutralizing and American response.

Second of all the support of our various treaties. Canada has to have a strong role that leads to a seat at the table with Norad. We have to be active participants in the defense of North American air space. We also have to due to this have strong early warning of bombers and ballistic strikes.

With Nato, its a mixed bag on deployments, NATO will request based on need, whether its fighters, trainers, ground force infantry, armor, ships to form around a battle group etc.

UN Peacekeeping. Now I think the concept doesn't work, and Canada really hasn't been active in it for a while doing very little. But the question is should Canada bother preparing for UN deployments? Or offering to fill roles?

Natural Disasters - By design the Canadian Forces should be able to handle at least two active massive events at a time on opposite coasts. However right now, Canada's military would probably struggle with one, and disaster response needs to be sharply defined.

There are other issues as well. Canada is having trouble with recruiting, beyond the rust out, and what is being seen as a poorly lead military with serious disciplinary issues and very little unit cohesion. People are leaving which is gutting our experienced NCO and officers core taking experience and leadership with it. New people aren't joining forcing us to recruit landed immigrants, the way we sell and support the forces is having a devastating effect.

Over the next few days or whatever, I'll try to address a lot of things. What's the forces mix look like? How big or small should it be. What changes have to happen due to the battlefield becoming more digital.

Right now even with the long awaited purchase of the F-35, the Canadian Forces could be looked at as dismal and failing. I'm sorry its harsh but its true. The tough Canadian Military from the 40's and 50's has slide to the we'll make due despite the cuts 60's to 70's to 80's. To the so called peace dividends of the 90's to the avalanche of neglect and poor strategic and budgeting decision of the 2000s.



I'll try to keep it short and to the point. It will come across as harsh and critical to be honest.