armed forces
Sapped of both hard and soft power, Canada needs action to keep up in a dangerous world
From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Charles Burton
Ottawa’s vexing indifference toward national defence and security will not serve or protect Canada.
Speaking to an international crowd of leaders, ministers and other representatives who had gathered earlier this month in Beijing for a forum that marked 10 years of China’s Belt and Road Initiative global infrastructure program, Chinese leader Xi Jinping declared that “changes of the world, of our times, and of historical significance are unfolding like never before.”
Quite right. Will the Russian invasion of Ukraine be resolved without war with NATO? Will armed conflict in the Middle East, fomented by Iran, spiral into a regional war? Would China open a third front by invading Taiwan? If the atrocious provocations to war by Iran, Russia and China develop simultaneously on three fronts – setting off a world war in Asia, the Middle East and Indo-Pacific – where will Canada stand?
Canada should be a respected and resonant voice in the international arena. We are both an Atlantic and a Pacific nation, and our heralded history of peacekeeping involvement in the Middle East dates back to the Suez Crisis of the 1950s and Lester Pearson’s Nobel Prize. In the Second World War, prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King sat down for four power meetings with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin.
Canada once mattered. But those days are long gone.
Years of underfunding defence and freeloading on the U.S. for our national security are leading to Canada being phased out. The significance of the Group of Seven and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance has become equalled or overtaken by that of organizations from which Canada is excluded, such as the Quint and AUKUS, which is aimed at Indo-Pacific security even though Britain is not a Pacific nation. Despite reportedly telling Western leaders and officials at the G20 summit that it had credible intelligence that India’s government was involved in the assassination of a Canadian citizen, no leader was willing to publicly criticize Narendra Modi. Our soft power authority has faded.
Given our pathetically depleted hard power capabilities, Canada needs a reality check on what we can actually do with the limited resources at our disposal.
First of all, it is time to stop mouthing hollow bromides about “our” north, and actually reorient our defence to establish a meaningful presence in the Arctic. China now defines itself as a “near-Arctic nation,” with increased investment in the region and plans around a potential shipping route – a “polar silk road” – that could emerge between melting ice caps; Russia, meanwhile, has argued that much of Canada’s Arctic waters actually belongs to them. If a major conflict were to arise with Russia and China allied against the U.S. and Canada, our unprotected Arctic could be quickly lost to Beijing and Moscow’s ambitions to expand their territory beyond Europe and East Asia.
Secondly, Canada must protect its northern stores of critical minerals. We talk a good game on this, but so far that has mostly been political bafflegab. Beyond making an obvious statement about our sovereignty, developing our northern resources is a productive way to create economic opportunities for northern Indigenous communities, and shows our allies that we are serious about stopping China from monopolizing valuable minerals in Canadian soil that are vital to the world’s high-tech future.
Finally, Ottawa needs to step up and meet the challenge to Canada’s security from Iran, Russia and China. There was tough talk in Parliament earlier this year about foreign actors manipulating our democratic institutions, but there has yet to be legislation tabled to create so much as a foreign agent registry. The federal government’s response to the 34 well-considered recommendations of a House of Commons special committee on Canada-China relations released in May was dismissive.
Even the Commons subcommittee on international human rights’ report on Tibetan residential schools in China was effectively ignored. One would have thought this issue would be something Canada could take a lead on, considering our history in this area. But in responding to the report, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly didn’t even acknowledge the recommendation that Canada sanction Chinese Communist officials complicit in their residential schools policy.
What is the point of investing considerable resources into parliamentary committees if the government sees them only as an irritant to be checked, rather than a positive contributor to national policy development?
We are facing an axis of cold-blooded dictators determined to destroy Western-supported stability and order. With global tensions more combustible than at any time in a generation or more, Ottawa’s vexing indifference toward national defence and security will not serve or protect Canada.
We need to refocus what remains of our military and security resources to what really matters, and fast.
Charles Burton is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, non-resident senior fellow of the European Values Center for Security Policy in Prague, and former diplomat at Canada’s embassy in Beijing.
armed forces
Canadian military survey on ‘extremism’ asked soldiers if they’ve worn ‘Make Canada Great Again’ hats
From LifeSiteNews
A survey approved by Canada’s Department of National Defence and sent to Canadian soldiers about ‘right-wing extremism’ seems to define ‘extremism’ as including patriotism and questioning mainstream narratives.
A survey sent to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) questioned soldiers regarding so-called “extremism” activity, including wearing “Make Canada Great Again” hats.
On November 26, the Department of National Defence sent CAF members an “extremism” probe gauging “Hateful Conduct and Right-Wing Extremism in the Canadian Armed Forces,” written by the Ontario Tech University’s Network for Research on Hateful Conduct and Right-Wing Extremism in the CAF.
“The collected information will provide researchers with the means to understand and provide recommendations on how to detect and combat hateful conduct and radicalization among CAF members,” the news release read.
“Study results could also help develop recommendations on targeted interventions, systemic reform, and policy,” it continued.
According to screenshots obtained by independent media outlet True North News, the survey’s definition of “extremism” seems to include patriotism and questioning mainstream narratives.
One section asked if soldiers had purchased “extremism merchandise” such as a “Make Canada Great Again hat,” “‘liked’ an extremist group post on social media,” or “provided strategic advice or training to an extremist group” in the past two to five years.
The questionnaire questioned if soldiers had ever “searched for and watched extremist music and/or videos,” “sported a tattoo or clothing with extremist symbols,” or verbally or physically attacked a member of a racial or religious minority.
Later, the survey asked CAF members to what extent they agree with statements including, “Jews have too much control over certain institutions,” “Canada appears to be moving towards fascism,” and “non-white immigration trends are a threat to white people.”
While the survey was approved by both the Department of National Defence and CAF Social Science Research Review Board, the former has since distanced itself from the probe.
“The DND/CAF is not funding this research, nor has it contracted this research,” the department said. “This study is being conducted by independent researchers from Ontario Tech University’s Network for Research on Hateful Conduct and Right-Wing Extremism in the Canadian Armed Forces.”
However, as radical as the survey is, it is in keeping with the woke agenda embraced by the Canadian military under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Since Trudeau took office, the Canadian military has become increasingly woke and has been forcing LGBT ideology on its personnel. At the same time, military recruitment has plummeted.
In April, Canada’s first “transgender” military chaplain was suspended for alleged sexual harassment, after he reportedly sought to grope a male soldier at the Royal Military College while drunk.
As LifeSiteNews previously reported, the military spent Canadians’ tax dollars on pro-DEI polls, guest speakers, presentations, and workshops, as well as LGBT flags. The workshops covered topics including “the gendered nature of security,” while one talk discussed “integrating gender and diversity perspectives.”
In 2021, the defence department revealed that it has two separate committees and eight programs that worked to appoint homosexual advisors to “innovate” religious instruction and gender-neutral uniforms.
In June of 2023, the Canadian military was criticized for “raising the pride flag” in honor of the “2SLGBTQI+ communities.”
That same month, Canadian troops in Latvia were forced to purchase their own helmets and food when the Trudeau government failed to provide proper supplies. Weeks later, Trudeau lectured the same troops on “climate change” and so-called disinformation.
Last November, officials admitted that the nation’s military is shrinking to dangerously low numbers as Trudeau continues to push the LGBT agenda on Canadian soldiers. In addition to low recruitment, the military is struggling to retain soldiers.
armed forces
The Case for Peter Hegseth — Time To Try Something Different
By S.L. Nelson
Success in today’s world favors smart, creative leaders who can quickly adapt and make decisions that benefit their organizations. President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense marks a significant shift from his first administration.
Hegseth, with fewer ties to the traditional defense establishment, is expected to transform the department in two vital areas: First, he will expose generals and admirals who act out of self-interest; second, he will refocus the military on its core function of lethality — the use or threat of deadly force to win wars and deter enemies.
Hegseth’s appointment threatens senior military officers who are more concerned with their legacy than with mission accomplishment. These officers feel susceptible to changes that will threaten their carefully curated norms. Many current leaders have avidly promoted DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and CRT (Critical Race Theory), and Hegseth’s threat to remove these programs stokes their fears. These leaders have promoted subordinates who share their views, creating a cycle of making leaders in their own image. To break this cycle, Hegseth will also need to ensure that general officers are held accountable for the officers they promote. These actions will ensure that his and President Trump’s ‘Warrior Boards’ achieve their desired effect and weed out the right leaders.
Civilian leaders and politicians should also scrutinize the retired officers who placed these generals in their positions in the first place. If multiple legacies are at risk, flag officers will develop and implement more objective metrics for recommending general officer positions.
Hegseth’s leadership will refocus the Department of Defense on its core purpose. By removing ineffective leaders who prioritize social theories over military effectiveness, he will eliminate a major obstacle. These changes will encourage accountability and forward-thinking approaches. A clear message will echo from the top down that adapting to change means manning, training, and equipping the military to win wars, rather than allowing military officers to succumb to the self-loathing which places individual egos above selfless service to the country.
Adapting to change is also the responsibility of military commanders. Officers command Army organizations. It is significant that in some branches of the United States Army, up to half the officers do not desire to compete for Battalion Command. Many reasons include burnout and the threat of investigations that are launched ad nauseam in a zero-defect environment. The Army cannot be effective if officers do not want to command. Commanders hesitate to enforce standards in this environment because an unhappy subordinate can ruin their career with a retaliatory allegation. If an investigation is launched, commanders worry that general officers will dispose of these allegations negatively rather than appear lenient. Secretary Hegseth will support his commanders because his commander in chief supports him.
Not supporting your subordinate commanders has vital consequences for national security. A glaring example of a lack of support for the Department of Defense is demonstrated by the contempt of the Chinese in answering Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s phone calls and his apparent indifference to it. “I think we’ll continue … to stress how important it is, and hopefully Minister Wei will schedule that call,” Austin told CNN.
One can hardly imagine Hegseth having the same attitude as Secretary Austin. Trump proved during his first term, with sanctions and recently renewed threats of another trade war with China, that his government will support its Defense Department by imposing harsh sanctions and other measures. This whole-of-government approach will allow Hegseth to focus on the military and make its interactions with foreign militaries more effective.
In fact, the Trump transition team is already laying the groundwork for forward-leaning tariff plans through legislation. Because legislation will make it harder to have subsequent administrations revoke these actions, the Defense Department will benefit from a more permanent government position when it comes to the exercise of economic power. Hegseth will, thus, occupy an even stronger position to engage with military threats to the United States with supporting economic policies that are not just unilateral executive actions by the Trump administration.
President-elect Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth frees the Department of Defense from being anchored in the change dynamics of the past. Current and future change undercurrents cannot be managed with legacy processes. Leaders must adapt and be free to act outside of institutional norms, especially those tied to a selfish cycle of self-promotion and government social experiments rather than the effectiveness of the Department of Defense.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
S.L. Nelson has served from the tactical to strategic level as a military officer. His views are his own and do not represent the position of the U.S. DoD.
-
Business2 days ago
Argentina’s First Budget Surplus in 123 Years
-
Business11 hours ago
Trudeau’s four-day trip to Europe racks up $71,000 food bill
-
Automotive22 hours ago
Trump’s proposed EV subsidy cuts and tariffs could upend BC’s electric vehicle goals
-
Indigenous1 day ago
Trudeau cabinet adviser says residential school grave skepticism is ‘hate’ speech
-
Christopher Rufo12 hours ago
Luigi Mangione and Left-Wing Nihilism
-
Business1 day ago
Mom sues Mattel after ‘Wicked’ doll packaging provided link to pornographic website
-
Business2 days ago
Does Income Inequality Matter?
-
Business1 day ago
Why Government Can’t Build Broadband or Charging Stations… Or Anything!