We have an army?
That could make our country aggressive...oops.
Need a larger army? I don‘t think we do. I think we need to take better care of the one we do have...as well as the other two branches. Make sure it‘s staffed to its capacity, funded properly, equipped properly, and the government should task it out accordingly to its capabilities. Simply having a bigger army isn‘t going to bring the influence by itself, it is what we do with what we have and how effective we are that makes the largest difference. I would use the analogy that ‘its not how big it is it‘s how you use it‘ but in that case, size does matter.
Ways in which I see the CF playing a strong role in foreign policy
1. Defending international economic interests by assisting coalitions in stabilizing different areas of the world for expansion and inclusion in the world economy. (Additional benefits according to the liberal peace thesis)
2. Reassure our southern neighbour that we are doing our part and are not a weak link in North American Security.
3. Promoting Canadian values abroad. Eg. Tolerance, compromise, democracy, rule of law. CF has been often deployed on peacekeeping and stabilization missions which show our willingness to put our ‘muscle behind our mouths‘. The Human Security Agenda pressed primarily by former minister of foreign affairs lloyd Axworthy is a good example of the diplomatic side to this. See also the ‘responsibility to protect‘ document at
the foreign affairs website. (Primarily UN peacekeeping, peacemaking] as well as particular contributions to world security such as our present deployment in Afghanistan - keep up the good work !)
As a side note:
The human security agenda can also be seen as a way of diverting attention from Canada‘s declining military role which has been in the past the idea of ‘middlepowerhood‘. This is well documented and off hand, I can think of Jack Granatstein and Joseph Jockel that particularly see it this way. There is a good series of books called "Canada Among NAtions" that comes out every year, check out several volumes of that. John Manley called Canada‘s behaviour as eating at the dinner "table and then, when the bill comes, [going] to the washroom". Canada‘s ability to participate has been seriously questioned for years, and I don‘t think I need to go into anything on that because it is well known here, and it is very well documented.
Domestically,
I we don‘t need a larger land force although the Navy and Airforce may need some increases in authorized strength.
1. Sovereignty Missions. As I see it particularly emphasizing sovereignty missions in the north. With thinning ice up there, the waterways are opening up and we should be (if we want to keep it) in a position to be able to control it. That includes having Naval vessels with re-inforced hulls to deal with the ice.
But the land force is useful for many purposes at home as we have seen. As are the Airforce and the Navy.
2. Defence is one of the largest employers in Canada from tertiary employment to direct employment. This benefits communities both directly and indirectly across Canada, as well as boosting economies in areas that sometimes have little else to sustain them.
3. Ice Storms, Forest Fires, mild snowfall in toronto, floods, emergency response for terrorist attacks. Any other emergencies that might come to pass. (More cynically: dealing with separatists and militant natives being among the more controversial roles that our military has played at times)
4. Our Airforce, Navy, the RCMP and the Coast Gaurd cooperate with eachother on tracking illegal immigration (ships off the west coast anyone?) We also cooperate with agencies in the US through NORAD by assisting in monitoring airspace security, and also drug smuggling across the borders and such. However, due to funding issues, we are increasingly hardpressed to play these roles. (well documented)
5. Traditional defence role for Canada. As unnecessary as it might seem, it is necessary.
If you want any more, and I have LOTS...PM me or e mail me.
Good luck
