National Defence Committee on March 6th, 2012

[Dr. Lee Windsor]

I would add that while the regional focus may shift, in terms of the missions that may be required to be accomplished by the Canadian Forces in a shift towards the Pacific Rim, there's no indication that the potential missions of the future would change. The main threat to stability continues to be the collapse of failed states and the instability and insecurity that results from that. Being able to respond to failed states in that region of the world—and we're already involved in a response to a failed state that's bordering on that regional world—will continue to call in the future for the kind of balance that Admiral Murray is been speaking about.

Whereas the tendency may be to look at the challenge of the Pacific in the future as a profoundly naval problem—certainly the United States viewed it in that way in the 1930s—the best way to be capable of responding to a variety of international, political, and military necessities is, again, to have a range of options open.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. McKay, your time has expired.

Batting cleanup, Mr. Norlock, you have the last question of the day.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In some people's view, my question may be a little distasteful, but it builds on some of the other testimony you gave to previous questioners. It has to do not only with the readiness of the armed forces, but with the readiness of a population to support their armed forces and how the armed forces can maintain the support of a population.

We know that future conflicts will undoubtedly incur terrorist activities and civil unrest. We also know, in learning from our experience in Afghanistan, that the enemy tries to demoralize and show the population and the countries that are in there—and I'm referring in this specific case to NATO countries—how futile it is to be there, because they're going to kill more of our people and they're going to kill a bunch of theirs. As we saw those numbers of casualties going up, we of course saw at the same time the numbers of people who worried about the utility of being in a conflict that, on its face and in reality, was a just cause.

So realizing what the aim of the terrorist is, and realizing that they utilize against us the very things you look to as precious, such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and making sure that things are reported on, how do we prepare a military to talk to the public? I think it was done very well in the middle and near the end of Afghanistan, when generals got up and talked about the sacrifice being made.

Could both of you comment?

[Dr. Lee Windsor]

Well, again, taking a long view, a 100-year view of this issue, the best way to maintain popular support for the mission is to carry out missions that are morally just. In those instances in which Canada has become involved in struggles around the world to do the right thing, whatever that may be, whatever it's understood to be at the time, the armed forces have had the full support of the population—with the extension that it's your job, the job of all of you, to make the public understand what the morality of the mission is.

There were no Winston Churchills for Afghanistan. There was not even a good William Lyon Mackenzie King for Afghanistan. The Canadian public and the Canadian Forces were let down by a political leadership of Canada that did not clearly explain to the public—and still has not explained—why it was necessary for our men and women to die for the service of this nation or any other.

[VAdm Larry Murray]

I think that whole area is really an interesting one. I would say that I take considerable pride as a Canadian in the context of.... Let's talk about Afghanistan. Whatever individual citizens' views might have been about the commitment in Afghanistan, there was never any doubt that they were supporting the members of the Canadian Forces. Whenever there was an issue around PTSD or health care or support of families, there were 30 million Canadians who rallied around it, whatever their views.

I think the challenge is to figure out, when you look south of the border, how some of these things sometimes develop if you don't support the troops. I'm not saying there wasn't a little bit of that, but for the most part that wasn't the way it played out in Canada, and the challenge is to figure out how to continue in this way.

It's not up to the generals or the troops to advocate why they're somewhere, but it's certainly fair ball to expose them and to expose Canadians to the Canadian Forces to explain what they do. Short of an Afghanistan, I would say we should have open houses at bases, open houses on ships, and should be exposing Canadians in general.

I would say that this is a huge reason the reserves and cadet programs are so important in this country. The reserves are in many more communities than a regular force. Whatever number we end up with—70,000, 60,000—is located on super-bases normally away from large population centres. This is a huge reason for our needing the reserves, and as I said, the cadet programs. The reality is that the Canadian Forces.... I mentioned my view that the reason they do so well is that they're Canadian. Exposing Canadians to them, particularly given the wonderful multicultural makeup of this country now, with many of those folks coming from other countries, where a uniform is not necessarily somebody you actually want to spend any time with—in fact, going the other way is usually a pretty good idea.... Giving them some sense that folks wearing a Canadian Forces uniform are actually Canadians who have morals, ethics, and all of that stuff....

How we do it? I'm not sure. You folks are much more expert at that than I am. I think that engagement is extremely important. If we don't have another Afghanistan soon—which I would be very happy with—or a Libya, how does the conversation happen?

I think that whole area of how, in a democracy, the citizens engage with the military and the military with the citizens, so that everybody has some mutual trust and understanding, is really important.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Time has expired. We're out of time.

I have one question for Professor Windsor, and I'm going to ask it. Even if there's not enough time for a response verbally, if you could, please provide it to the committee in writing.

You made the comment that we're not well-served by preparing for the last mission and that this was an opportunity, as we went through a retooling of the Canadian Forces. In particular you're alluding to the Canadian army. You mentioned the Afghan assets that we acquired for that battle. Some of those definitely enhanced capabilities, and some of them only really applied to the Afghanistan mission.

I would like you to jot down your thoughts on what assets we bring out of Afghanistan that are going to enhance capabilities and our readiness, and which you see as being of no value as we move forward. If you could do that in writing, I'd appreciate it.

With that, I'll take a motion to adjourn.

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I want to thank both of you for your presentations today.

We're out of here.