HOW DO WE HELP THOSE WHO CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES?By Fred R. Fowlow"Leadership is based on the trust of followers. No reward-in money, praise, or prestige- can overcome a lack of trust in the honesty and integrity of a leader." Commander Sam J. Tangredi, US Navy1 A Department of National Defence brochure tells Canadians the Navy is combat-capable and versatile, the Army is a professional, well-trained force able to perform and support a wide range of missions at home and abroad, and Canada's Air Force is a dynamic and valued part of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Would that all these claims were true when there is mounting evidence that reductions in defence spending throughout the 1990s, has had a serious negative impact upon Canada's military capability. A factor which undoubtedly accounts for a US military survey to rank Canada among a small group of countries doing substantially less than their fair share when it comes to military spending.2 The 1994 Defence White Paper implied that the CAF would be combat-capable and ready to respond to both high and low intensity tasks. There have been a few occasions when the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and the Minister of National Defence (MND) warned that the Forces were approaching the end of their limit. Recently, Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley confirmed Canada had reached the end of its military limit when it comes to responding to requests for a military contribution to UN peacekeeping missions. This was followed by another statement that defence was not a top Canadian government priority. An enigmatic comment which came at a time when the MND was announcing a substantial infusion of funds into the defence budget. Many feel the government's complete indifference to defence matters sends a message to the military, which likely accounts for the current retention and recruiting problems. Canadian tradition dictates that members of the Armed Forces do not publicly complain about the state of readiness of the CAF. As a consequence, when military matters are under public scrutiny, one observes a steady stream of non-controversial comments from senior officers. Approaching every challenge with a can-do attitude, the message they deliver tells the government that assigned missions can be fulfilled with existing force strength and equipment. Without hesitating, the government concludes all is well with the military, and are prepared to do more with less. It is agreed the government must have the final authority to allocate funds for resources, and order the deployment of the CAF to international peacekeeping, peacemaking, or conflict situations. However, with this authority comes an ethical and practical responsibility to ensure that all members of the CAF are properly trained, equipped, and informed in regards to the national policies they are expected to defend. The process charges senior officers with the task of keeping the government informed of the limitations of their forces. Many wonder to what extent has this been happening, since there appears to be growing support for a proposal that our military leaders must be allowed to speak more openly with Canadians without fear of reprisal, especially when they feel compelled to criticize government defence policy and spending. One speculates that such a change would not likely be endorsed by politicians, and perhaps a small number of senior military personnel. In his recent keynote address given to the Canadian Defence Association Institute (CDAI) annual seminar, Hugh Segal, President of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, presented a thought-provoking case in support of a challenge to change the civil-military discourse so that the facts and choices-as understood by Armed Forces leadership--are an integral part of the national debate.3 Clearly a suggestion that the leadership of the CAF should not be artificially silenced when defence issues are being debated. His next comment, obviously caught the attention of many. He said, "I know of no provision in the National Defence Act, no definition of democracy, no view of insubordination that would support suppressing the views, expertise and strategic insights of our military leadership on this issue."4 It would be interesting to hear the MND's response to this observation. During the seminar, the Chief of the Land Forces, having heard Segal's comment, confirmed what many have been saying about the Forces when he stated that not everything is in good shape, admitting there are too many tasks and insufficient resources to maintain the Army over the long term, as it is currently constituted. Training is inadequate to maintain collective war-fighting skills, and there is significant skill-fade in some areas.5 MGen. (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie would no doubt agree wholeheartedly with the chief of the Army. The chiefs of the air and maritime forces could probably make the same statement; both have serious equipment replacement and force-strength problems. They have been forced to make mission, equipment, and training adjustments as a consequence of budget cuts. All that has been happening to the CAF supports the statements made by Foreign Affairs Minister Manley. In other words, the Liberal cabinet is indifferent to national defence. One cannot ignore the suggestion that the CAF are showing strain. Near-term readiness, such as it is, is barely keeping current as a consequence of inadequate funding. The real question now is-do military leaders, without threat of reprisal, want to participate in open discussion of all aspects of defence with Canadians? If the answer is yes, then the time for trust, honesty, and integrity has arrived, for both the politicians and the military. --------------------------- Footnotes:
(Fred Fowlow is Director Maritime Affairs, NOAC Calgary Branch.) Copyright © 2001 Fred R. Fowlow (Originally Published in Vol. VII, No. 14 Spring 2001 issue of Starshell) |