I come from a military family. RMC accepted me in 1975. I considered the Marines during Vietnam. I chose another path — but not out of contempt for service. Out of realism about leadership and direction. My cousin is a retired Colonel. Other relatives served at sea, in the air, in artillery, in Afghanistan. I support the military fully. What I don’t support is drift.
Andrew Potter is right to ask who our military is for. Afghanistan exposed something uncomfortable: we spent blood and billions without ever explaining to Canadians what Canadian interest was being defended. Alliance is not submission — but neither is it strategy. If we are going to spend tens of billions now, expand reserves, buy submarines and jets, and talk about citizen armies, then say clearly what problem we are solving. Arctic sovereignty? Continental defence? NATO projection? Domestic resilience? Pick one. Build around it.
And whatever that strategy is, it must include an industrial spine. A country that cannot build, repair, arm, fuel, and supply its own forces is not sovereign — it is subcontracting its security. Military spending without strategy is theatre. Strategy without industry is fantasy. If we are going to rearm, let it be for Canada — not as a slogan, but as a hard, articulated national purpose.
"We went to Afghanistan to suck up to America." No, we went to Afghanistan to honour our NATO commitment to collective defence of the alliance under Article 5 of the treaty, which was invoked two days after 9/11, as documented in many places, not least of which is Dr Sean Maloney's history of the Canadian Army in Afghanistan, available via canada.ca. Pretty sure G&G themselves have previously written on this site that treaty obligations of any sort aren't a matter of discretion, regardless of the personalities or dynamics involved at the time.
I'm sorry, I generally like Potter's writing, but that's such an egregious misrepresentation of the facts that I can't take the rest seriously, and I'm surprised Gurney (being the military historian he is) let that slide. Potter's either ignorant of history, incompetent at checking his facts, or willing to play fast and loose with the truth so that he can establish the right tone for his rant. I stopped reading there. Others can consider the rest of his argument if they want but I give no serious consideration to a piece that either willfully or lazily gets the basic facts wrong. There's much more intelligent writing out there on the (very important) topic of CAN/US military relations than this.
It didn't get any better after you stopped reading.
I, too, like the author's writing, but this piece is an outlier. There is much to take issue with in this piece, but I'll leave it at the fact that nowhere did the author cite our Article 5 obligations under NATO.
Such casual disregard for such a critical element of our collective security obligations is quite something. I would have expected better from such an intelligent and respected author.
While I think Potter’s overall point remains valid, I agree that he set it up poorly in this piece. Even if Article 5 just becomes part of the facade, it’s a real piece of this topic. I think it connects to a broader point about what we owe friends, and that is timely with the consideration of “friendshoring” for our upcoming defence-industrial strategy. Does solidarity matter or not? Do we only talk about it when it suits us or costs us little?
JB said exactly what I was thinking as I read. While I take no issue with the premise that going forward we must build our defenses as described, to suggest what happened in Afganistan was to appease the Americans ( and then somehow suggest that Trump is involved, decades before he was elected), is pure deluded fantasy. We were there for a real reason, a member of a coalition, and I've seen no sign from Americans, pre-Trump, that our contribution was in any way denigrated! Was that whole thing written by a Carney Comms person?
Article five did not require us to get involved in Afghanistan to the extent we did. The US was not attacked by the armed force of another state but a bunch of fanatical terrorists based in Afghanistan. The US quickly went in and destroyed ISIS and should have quit while it was ahead. Everything after that was a choice for both the US and for Canada to get involved in a civil war understanding nothing about Afghanistan and its fragile tribally-based structure. For most Afghans we became the enemy not the liberator.
Rebuilding our military is a duty that has been ignored by our political leaders since John Diefenbaker shelved the Avro Arrow . Not withstanding the US, we have a duty as a Country to our NATO partners to be militarily strong and ready to defend democracy and freedom wherever the need arises be it the Middle East, Russia, China, North Korea, Greenland or our own Arctic which is becoming endangered as we speak by Russia but especially by China. Needless to say, we owe it to our veterans who have and are serving daily to protect and defend this great country. Thousands have done so to protect our way of life. Forget history at our own peril.
What happened to Potter? Not well researched actually. Goddard was not a “combat engineer” working with 1 RCHA. She was killed by a Taliban rocket in her own LAV while she was calling down artillery fire for the attack on said Taliban. And yes we were all part of a NATO force doing so. His take on the USA is generally wrong and only makes a little sense when you apply the God-awful Trumpian changes that have occurred. This will not last.
Having said this, yes indeed, we should look after our own defence — because we should have all along anyway and because we agreed to do so as a member of NATO. Even as a member of the UN, our ability to seriously contribute relatively small PK forces in the 1990s was undermined by a series of ongoing cuts, the worst of which were the original ones by Pierre Trudeau, the nasty follow-on ones by Chretien and then again by JT. Even Mulroney and Harper got into the act of undermining our basic defence capabilities for what has always been since WWII, a small professional force. We have never recovered from all those cuts. That’s why we are in such a pickle now and have many factors working against the expected success of a suddenly worried govt. Worried because they have finally realized how badly the Forces are in need of extraordinarily serious attention — right now. On too many fronts to even begin to list.
Totally agree with your comments re Trudeau, Chrétien et al. My father and uncle were in the military and although I’m now 75 but I have not forgotten the dismay of my father and uncle at the cuts and disrespect for military and it’s traditions by Pierre Trudeau and Hellyer.
My dad and uncle and friends were not surprised at that lot and what they did. Both of them took early retirement, if I remember correctly.
For me, the military exists first to defend Canada at all times and to close with and destroy the enemy when war comes. Between those two are aid to civil powers and United Nations peacekeeping, digging out Toronto when the snow is quite terrible.
That's purpose has always been there, but it drowned beneath piles of culture war crap that were entirely performative courtesy of Katy Perry's boyfriend. He was an unserious prime minster and Canada became an unserious country as a result. It still is performative and I suspect it continues to not go over well with CF personnel.
I do not get dark times leadership vibes from the new guy. I could be wrong.
For me this column is about Canada's "seat at the table," that Canada lobbied hard for under JT's watch. Ottawa needs to understand that seats at the international table are only available for nations who are armed and ready for Article 5 or whatever hell is coming our way.
We are not safe. The arctic is the theater of interest that can easily transform into a theater of war. Anyone poo-pooing this needs to get their head examined.
The best kit in the world for any military is out there to buy off the shelf.
I fully expect there will be a push to 'keep it in Canada' when that means, 'put that shell casing manufacturer in Quebec or the GTA." So, no off the shelf.
The moment I heard Carney was tying things to jobs, my 'we have !#$ been here before" alarm kicked in. If we are rearming it must be about the best kit we can possible afford. Yes make manufacturing deals but instead of a factory in a Liberal (And CPC too) riding. If we are rearming we must bring back seriousness to the Canadian Forces.
And they must be protected by a duty of care after they serve and not ripping $4.2 billion from Veteran's Affairs Canada like they are currently doing. And in a recruitment crisis, why would anyone volunteer for the CF when Ottawa doesn't give a rat's ass about veterans because there is no political price for them to pay by doing what they are doing.
Because volunteering to lay down your life for your country has to matter in Ottawa, right?
I believe a time is coming soon when this country is going to be tested like it never has before. We are not safe and becoming less so by the day.
It's been a long time since Canada had a defense white paper that seriously considered the missions we want our armed forces to perform. The Trudeau and Chretien-era white papers largely treated the armed forces as social workers with guns. Liberal white papers going back to the 1964 Hellyer document have tended to suspiciously regard military expenditures as mere "toys for boys" wasting money on things that would never be needed while there were far more politically rewarding domestic initiatives to pursue.
The one exception would be the Mulroney 1987 white paper, which gave serious thought to what was needed to fulfill Canadian commitments to NATO and to assert arctic sovereignty. It was largely derided as trying to make Canada a "junior Cold Warrior" instead of the noble "peacekeeper" image that the Liberals had been pitching for years to cover up their underspending on defense.
What Canada needs is a serious, non-partisan parliamentary committee to articulate the missions we want the armed forces to perform. It needs to be non-partisan because defense policy in many ways has to transcend routine changes of governing party: there has to be continuity given the long timelines to develop capabilities, and also in recognition of the fact that the world security situation doesn't change merely because Canadians have elected a new government. Members of all political parties must be involved, but they need to put on their big boy pants and leave the politics at the door.
Start with the missions: what do we want the armed forces to do for us? Defend Canadian airspace? Defend our exclusive maritime economic zone? Perform disaster response? All pretty simple. How about defending arctic sovereignty? Projecting power to support NATO? Deploying forces to support multinational missions? Disaster response in other countries? Get that shopping list done, and then there's a starting point to figure out the force we need to do it.
Maybe human nature provides perspective. "Thanks, but what have you done for me lately; people don't think about you as much as you think they do; and, the alligators are getting close to my canoe."
Every government, or every stripe, has, outside of wartime, ignored the needs of the Canadian Forces. How we go about starting our own military industry is an interesting challenge. Step one is to make sure none of it is in Quebec, which history shows takes projects to siphon cash into people's pockets while delivering little.
As has been pointed out, we responded to Article 5. That wasn't kissing up. That the current US administration has forgotten just shows what complete and total assholes they are.
Timely article asking a serious, adult question that can be answered only by the current government. The optics suggest that the purpose of a renewed military is to distribute tax dollars to areas of Canada rich in potential Liberal votes. I know that is not what Carney is saying but take time to look at what he is doing.
Regrettably the two biggest cheerleaders for getting involved in Afghanistan were the Canadian military and the Department of External Affairs. Both were determined to suck up to the Americans as usual but other factors were in play; for Foreign Affairs budget and staffing increases, and 'being in the know' trips to Washington for briefings and consultations; for the Canadian military bigger budgets, more kit, medals and promotions. All for nothing.
I agree with the article feedback about NATO being the reason for our involvement. Just because it doesn’t fit the current US narrative about NATO, fact-checking is an important part of combatting false statements made by the current administration to bully its allies. That said I want to commend Andrew Potter for recognizing the anniversary and the people who gave the greatest sacrifice - reminding us to remember their sacrifice.
And I agree it is important to ask ‘why’. I have no military background and yet the answer is clear to me - Canada must be ready to protect our sovereignty in the face of a shifting world order, while remembering there are all types of levers. We don’t need to know the immediate threat to get behind a “Be Prepared” motto.
I disagree with much (though not all) of what Andrew states in the first two thirds of his article, but his ultimate question (and the article's title) is valid and essential to answer.
An interesting book is Gwynne Dyer's "Canada in the Great Power Game" documenting how Canada was pushed around first by Britain and then the United States as an adjunct to their foreign policy. Maybe Article 5 was invoked in the case of Afghanistan but it was entirely due to American maneuvering in the Middle East in the previous 60 years. I believe that we should build a strong navy to protect our shores and then a small well trained and equipped military.
Potter's start is odd, but he's right to be furious at US selfish scumbags who diminish the deaths of real people solely in aid of the US. Calling it an obligation under NATO changes that not one bit. It was FOR the U.S., and maybe a mistake we should have avoided like Iraq II (and fictional WMD.) The US has a track record (Gulf of Tonkin).
But the point is made, and maybe not necessary. Coordination with the US military is now a data point, among many lesser concerns. The one, single, clear priority is defence of our country, without them. Of course, we'll make our purchases, strategies, organizational changes, and hiring in alignment.
As example, anyone waiting for us to complete the f-35 order, before a fleet of Gryphons, Gryphon manufacturing and services arrives in Canada (like maybe a fat, iggorant, obnoxious, ugly amerikkan ambassador) ... should practice their patience.
I come from a military family. RMC accepted me in 1975. I considered the Marines during Vietnam. I chose another path — but not out of contempt for service. Out of realism about leadership and direction. My cousin is a retired Colonel. Other relatives served at sea, in the air, in artillery, in Afghanistan. I support the military fully. What I don’t support is drift.
Andrew Potter is right to ask who our military is for. Afghanistan exposed something uncomfortable: we spent blood and billions without ever explaining to Canadians what Canadian interest was being defended. Alliance is not submission — but neither is it strategy. If we are going to spend tens of billions now, expand reserves, buy submarines and jets, and talk about citizen armies, then say clearly what problem we are solving. Arctic sovereignty? Continental defence? NATO projection? Domestic resilience? Pick one. Build around it.
And whatever that strategy is, it must include an industrial spine. A country that cannot build, repair, arm, fuel, and supply its own forces is not sovereign — it is subcontracting its security. Military spending without strategy is theatre. Strategy without industry is fantasy. If we are going to rearm, let it be for Canada — not as a slogan, but as a hard, articulated national purpose.
Well said!
"...say clearly what problem we are solving."
I think one hint is the $1B we are sending to China so they can build troop ships... er, ferries.
Industrial spine built in important Liberal and CPC ridings. That needs to stop and of course it won't.
"We went to Afghanistan to suck up to America." No, we went to Afghanistan to honour our NATO commitment to collective defence of the alliance under Article 5 of the treaty, which was invoked two days after 9/11, as documented in many places, not least of which is Dr Sean Maloney's history of the Canadian Army in Afghanistan, available via canada.ca. Pretty sure G&G themselves have previously written on this site that treaty obligations of any sort aren't a matter of discretion, regardless of the personalities or dynamics involved at the time.
I'm sorry, I generally like Potter's writing, but that's such an egregious misrepresentation of the facts that I can't take the rest seriously, and I'm surprised Gurney (being the military historian he is) let that slide. Potter's either ignorant of history, incompetent at checking his facts, or willing to play fast and loose with the truth so that he can establish the right tone for his rant. I stopped reading there. Others can consider the rest of his argument if they want but I give no serious consideration to a piece that either willfully or lazily gets the basic facts wrong. There's much more intelligent writing out there on the (very important) topic of CAN/US military relations than this.
It didn't get any better after you stopped reading.
I, too, like the author's writing, but this piece is an outlier. There is much to take issue with in this piece, but I'll leave it at the fact that nowhere did the author cite our Article 5 obligations under NATO.
Such casual disregard for such a critical element of our collective security obligations is quite something. I would have expected better from such an intelligent and respected author.
While I think Potter’s overall point remains valid, I agree that he set it up poorly in this piece. Even if Article 5 just becomes part of the facade, it’s a real piece of this topic. I think it connects to a broader point about what we owe friends, and that is timely with the consideration of “friendshoring” for our upcoming defence-industrial strategy. Does solidarity matter or not? Do we only talk about it when it suits us or costs us little?
JB said exactly what I was thinking as I read. While I take no issue with the premise that going forward we must build our defenses as described, to suggest what happened in Afganistan was to appease the Americans ( and then somehow suggest that Trump is involved, decades before he was elected), is pure deluded fantasy. We were there for a real reason, a member of a coalition, and I've seen no sign from Americans, pre-Trump, that our contribution was in any way denigrated! Was that whole thing written by a Carney Comms person?
It was written by the evil twin of Andrew Potter, the evil twin is the Carney Comms person.
Article five did not require us to get involved in Afghanistan to the extent we did. The US was not attacked by the armed force of another state but a bunch of fanatical terrorists based in Afghanistan. The US quickly went in and destroyed ISIS and should have quit while it was ahead. Everything after that was a choice for both the US and for Canada to get involved in a civil war understanding nothing about Afghanistan and its fragile tribally-based structure. For most Afghans we became the enemy not the liberator.
Rebuilding our military is a duty that has been ignored by our political leaders since John Diefenbaker shelved the Avro Arrow . Not withstanding the US, we have a duty as a Country to our NATO partners to be militarily strong and ready to defend democracy and freedom wherever the need arises be it the Middle East, Russia, China, North Korea, Greenland or our own Arctic which is becoming endangered as we speak by Russia but especially by China. Needless to say, we owe it to our veterans who have and are serving daily to protect and defend this great country. Thousands have done so to protect our way of life. Forget history at our own peril.
What happened to Potter? Not well researched actually. Goddard was not a “combat engineer” working with 1 RCHA. She was killed by a Taliban rocket in her own LAV while she was calling down artillery fire for the attack on said Taliban. And yes we were all part of a NATO force doing so. His take on the USA is generally wrong and only makes a little sense when you apply the God-awful Trumpian changes that have occurred. This will not last.
Having said this, yes indeed, we should look after our own defence — because we should have all along anyway and because we agreed to do so as a member of NATO. Even as a member of the UN, our ability to seriously contribute relatively small PK forces in the 1990s was undermined by a series of ongoing cuts, the worst of which were the original ones by Pierre Trudeau, the nasty follow-on ones by Chretien and then again by JT. Even Mulroney and Harper got into the act of undermining our basic defence capabilities for what has always been since WWII, a small professional force. We have never recovered from all those cuts. That’s why we are in such a pickle now and have many factors working against the expected success of a suddenly worried govt. Worried because they have finally realized how badly the Forces are in need of extraordinarily serious attention — right now. On too many fronts to even begin to list.
Totally agree with your comments re Trudeau, Chrétien et al. My father and uncle were in the military and although I’m now 75 but I have not forgotten the dismay of my father and uncle at the cuts and disrespect for military and it’s traditions by Pierre Trudeau and Hellyer.
My dad and uncle and friends were not surprised at that lot and what they did. Both of them took early retirement, if I remember correctly.
A bit of basic research would have told you Capt.Goddard was a FOO not a "combat engineer". Do better !
Or as it was beat into our heads in basic and TQ3; “Pay attention to detail!”
For me, the military exists first to defend Canada at all times and to close with and destroy the enemy when war comes. Between those two are aid to civil powers and United Nations peacekeeping, digging out Toronto when the snow is quite terrible.
That's purpose has always been there, but it drowned beneath piles of culture war crap that were entirely performative courtesy of Katy Perry's boyfriend. He was an unserious prime minster and Canada became an unserious country as a result. It still is performative and I suspect it continues to not go over well with CF personnel.
I do not get dark times leadership vibes from the new guy. I could be wrong.
For me this column is about Canada's "seat at the table," that Canada lobbied hard for under JT's watch. Ottawa needs to understand that seats at the international table are only available for nations who are armed and ready for Article 5 or whatever hell is coming our way.
We are not safe. The arctic is the theater of interest that can easily transform into a theater of war. Anyone poo-pooing this needs to get their head examined.
The best kit in the world for any military is out there to buy off the shelf.
I fully expect there will be a push to 'keep it in Canada' when that means, 'put that shell casing manufacturer in Quebec or the GTA." So, no off the shelf.
The moment I heard Carney was tying things to jobs, my 'we have !#$ been here before" alarm kicked in. If we are rearming it must be about the best kit we can possible afford. Yes make manufacturing deals but instead of a factory in a Liberal (And CPC too) riding. If we are rearming we must bring back seriousness to the Canadian Forces.
And they must be protected by a duty of care after they serve and not ripping $4.2 billion from Veteran's Affairs Canada like they are currently doing. And in a recruitment crisis, why would anyone volunteer for the CF when Ottawa doesn't give a rat's ass about veterans because there is no political price for them to pay by doing what they are doing.
Because volunteering to lay down your life for your country has to matter in Ottawa, right?
I believe a time is coming soon when this country is going to be tested like it never has before. We are not safe and becoming less so by the day.
Good comments indeed.
It's been a long time since Canada had a defense white paper that seriously considered the missions we want our armed forces to perform. The Trudeau and Chretien-era white papers largely treated the armed forces as social workers with guns. Liberal white papers going back to the 1964 Hellyer document have tended to suspiciously regard military expenditures as mere "toys for boys" wasting money on things that would never be needed while there were far more politically rewarding domestic initiatives to pursue.
The one exception would be the Mulroney 1987 white paper, which gave serious thought to what was needed to fulfill Canadian commitments to NATO and to assert arctic sovereignty. It was largely derided as trying to make Canada a "junior Cold Warrior" instead of the noble "peacekeeper" image that the Liberals had been pitching for years to cover up their underspending on defense.
What Canada needs is a serious, non-partisan parliamentary committee to articulate the missions we want the armed forces to perform. It needs to be non-partisan because defense policy in many ways has to transcend routine changes of governing party: there has to be continuity given the long timelines to develop capabilities, and also in recognition of the fact that the world security situation doesn't change merely because Canadians have elected a new government. Members of all political parties must be involved, but they need to put on their big boy pants and leave the politics at the door.
Start with the missions: what do we want the armed forces to do for us? Defend Canadian airspace? Defend our exclusive maritime economic zone? Perform disaster response? All pretty simple. How about defending arctic sovereignty? Projecting power to support NATO? Deploying forces to support multinational missions? Disaster response in other countries? Get that shopping list done, and then there's a starting point to figure out the force we need to do it.
If we're not doing this for Canada and our sovereignty, independence, protection and self respect then it's not worth doing.
As I see that as your major thesis Andrew I agree with you.
Maybe human nature provides perspective. "Thanks, but what have you done for me lately; people don't think about you as much as you think they do; and, the alligators are getting close to my canoe."
Every government, or every stripe, has, outside of wartime, ignored the needs of the Canadian Forces. How we go about starting our own military industry is an interesting challenge. Step one is to make sure none of it is in Quebec, which history shows takes projects to siphon cash into people's pockets while delivering little.
As has been pointed out, we responded to Article 5. That wasn't kissing up. That the current US administration has forgotten just shows what complete and total assholes they are.
Yup.
Timely article asking a serious, adult question that can be answered only by the current government. The optics suggest that the purpose of a renewed military is to distribute tax dollars to areas of Canada rich in potential Liberal votes. I know that is not what Carney is saying but take time to look at what he is doing.
Regrettably the two biggest cheerleaders for getting involved in Afghanistan were the Canadian military and the Department of External Affairs. Both were determined to suck up to the Americans as usual but other factors were in play; for Foreign Affairs budget and staffing increases, and 'being in the know' trips to Washington for briefings and consultations; for the Canadian military bigger budgets, more kit, medals and promotions. All for nothing.
I agree with the article feedback about NATO being the reason for our involvement. Just because it doesn’t fit the current US narrative about NATO, fact-checking is an important part of combatting false statements made by the current administration to bully its allies. That said I want to commend Andrew Potter for recognizing the anniversary and the people who gave the greatest sacrifice - reminding us to remember their sacrifice.
And I agree it is important to ask ‘why’. I have no military background and yet the answer is clear to me - Canada must be ready to protect our sovereignty in the face of a shifting world order, while remembering there are all types of levers. We don’t need to know the immediate threat to get behind a “Be Prepared” motto.
I disagree with much (though not all) of what Andrew states in the first two thirds of his article, but his ultimate question (and the article's title) is valid and essential to answer.
An interesting book is Gwynne Dyer's "Canada in the Great Power Game" documenting how Canada was pushed around first by Britain and then the United States as an adjunct to their foreign policy. Maybe Article 5 was invoked in the case of Afghanistan but it was entirely due to American maneuvering in the Middle East in the previous 60 years. I believe that we should build a strong navy to protect our shores and then a small well trained and equipped military.
And as it turns out, 20 Saudi hijackers destroyed America. In the end, Osama won.
Potter's start is odd, but he's right to be furious at US selfish scumbags who diminish the deaths of real people solely in aid of the US. Calling it an obligation under NATO changes that not one bit. It was FOR the U.S., and maybe a mistake we should have avoided like Iraq II (and fictional WMD.) The US has a track record (Gulf of Tonkin).
But the point is made, and maybe not necessary. Coordination with the US military is now a data point, among many lesser concerns. The one, single, clear priority is defence of our country, without them. Of course, we'll make our purchases, strategies, organizational changes, and hiring in alignment.
As example, anyone waiting for us to complete the f-35 order, before a fleet of Gryphons, Gryphon manufacturing and services arrives in Canada (like maybe a fat, iggorant, obnoxious, ugly amerikkan ambassador) ... should practice their patience.