The Evolving Role of the Canadian Forces

It's time to move the conversation about Canadian defence and security out of the ivory tower and into the streets.

The Canadian government’s recent decision – supported by the Official Opposition – to extend the mission in Afghanistan raises larger societal questions about the roles and responsibilities of the Canadian Forces in expeditionary operations overseas. Although many Canadians have been ambivalent about the Afghan mission and its long-term chances for success, our collective national appreciation for the men and women who choose to serve, placing themselves in harm’s way to protect our values and interests at home and abroad, has seldom been higher. It is exactly this confluence of actions and attitudes that makes such a national conversation all the more pressing, for at least three reasons.

First, Canadians need to understand that, in contemporary operations, the Canadian Forces never “go it alone.” The CF are deployed overseas within NATO or UN operations and domestically as part of a web of provincial and federal authorities and taskmasters in response to emergencies such as the 1995 Oka crisis, the 1997 Winnipeg floods, the 1998 ice storm, and the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Operations are usually joint, complex, and comprehensive, not only in terms of the nature of the security challenges being addressed, but also with respect to whom is included. When we make decisions about where the military goes, Canada is part of a larger team, and that means recognizing that sometimes we’re sent out as a starting pitcher and other times we’re in the bullpen. Obviously, these are the careful and negotiated decisions that any government must make before troops are committed and any assignment of roles is agreed upon.

Second, we need to move past the now-tired debate over whether the dominant tasks of the CF should be peacekeeping or war fighting. Peacekeeping, after all, is no longer what it was during the Cold War and today includes both peace building and peace enforcement, with missions governed by far more robust rules of engagement than in the past. But war fighting has changed too, particularly during counter-insurgency operations, when the goal of winning “hearts and minds” often dictates that less is more in calculations over the utility of lethal force. As long as Canadians and their government believe the military should have an expeditionary capacity to serve in a variety of roles we cannot effectively predict, then we need, to use military speak, a “multi-purpose, combat-capable force.” We do not have to leave our heritage as peacekeepers or war fighters behind; we can and should incorporate both into our national narrative. Canada is one of the very few states whose origin story does not begin in revolution or violence, but negotiation and compromise – that is the legacy of Confederation. Fairness, proportionality, respect for diversity, and a commitment to ensuring that all perspectives are heard and all conflicts de-escalated in a search for win-win solutions are values that permeate all our actions in the service of our national interests. However, when our closest allies or global security have been threatened, Canadians have not shied away from the difficult and dangerous job of repelling or rolling back an authoritarian foe with a treacherous predilection for expansion.

Finally, we need to think about how security has evolved in the 21st century and remember that the military can only take us so far. During the Cold War, state-centric security was paramount, but by the 1990s Canadians contributed mightily to an international debate on human security, an effort that focused less on states and more on removing the everyday use or threat of force against individuals and their communities – even when the source may be the state itself. Like the original term “national security,” “human security” grew out of efforts to make sense of a new and dangerous international reality – not the end of the Second World War and the context of communist “containment,” but the post-Cold War reality of crumbling power blocs, failed states, intra-state conflicts, genocides, transnationally networked sub-state armed actors, and vast movements of refugees and internally-displaced persons.

Too often, academics, politicians, and policymakers have been situated in one box or another, when of course the “answer” – if there is one – is that it is not a case of either state or human security, but of both. Not only are states still the most important actors in the global arena, they are the only actors that have been historically successful in enshrining, protecting and, when necessary, enforcing human rights.

Furthermore, given the pressing and omnipresent challenges of climate change, we have now to consider environmental security. We must also be more attentive to the particular security requirements of women, especially as they are often the micro-level engines of both local stability and economic growth in developing societies. If we are to take security seriously and holistically, then it means we don’t just send the CF overseas, we have to dramatically expand long-term assistance in the areas of development, trade, and governance. If we seek stability and security of a lasting variety, this means sending overseas more Canadians who do not wear a uniform: development workers, educators, diplomats, civil servants, and health-care providers. Unfortunately, these jobs will not be risk-free.

None of this is new. But these discussions have generally happened only inside the relatively small community of defence and security professionals – be they in a political office, a think tank, an ivory tower, or a uniform. Parliament is surely the wrong place for the wider conversation on extending the mission in Afghanistan to occur, as this risks narrow partisanship and the irresistible mudslinging that comes with minority governments. It’s up to Canadians themselves to undertake this task – a worthy one to consider when we’re removing the poppies from our lapels and the somber remembrance of Nov. 11 is over.