National Defence Committee on March 23rd, 2011

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

This goes back to target selection and why we pick certain targets. Without going into the details, because I know you can't, is it fair to say that we rely on a wide variety of sources of intelligence from various areas? It's a refined and exact process when we do select this ammo dump versus something else.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Yes, it's both the upfront process of taking a look at all of the intelligence and surveillance information and then of course it's reviewed through a battle damage assessment process where we want to take a look and see whether the target has been effectively engaged or not, what the results of our engagements were. That's why sometimes targets are re-engaged.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

With respect to Arab League participation, can you talk about that a little bit more? Is anybody on the ground or in the air yet from them, and what challenge is that presenting to command and control of the coalition?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Ms. Sinclair will answer that.

[Jill Sinclair]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off, if you want to take it from the operational, Admiral.

What's interesting, obviously, about this whole situation is that the Arab League and the African Union and the secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference all have called for action through the United Nations. Hence, we saw the development of the UN Security Council resolution 1973. I think the full shape of the coalition is that it's still taking shape. It's still early days in a way. Qatar has certainly shown itself to be interested in participating alongside the coalition at the moment. As for other countries, I think we'll just have to wait and see who wants to join up.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So nobody has actually shown up yet from the Arab League?

[Jill Sinclair]

I'm not aware if the Qataris are actually alongside anyone at the moment. Does anyone know?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

The Qataris haven't started flight operations, but they're making preparations. I couldn't tell you exactly when that will take place.

If I could just address the issue of Arab League and other country involvement in NATO operations, for example, of course if you look at ISAF, there are a number of Arab countries under what is essentially a NATO command system in ISAF operating in Afghanistan. That's not necessarily a showstopper for them. You can have a NATO command structure that's hybridized to allow for some other nations to participate, with their liaison officers and participants in the chain. I think we can find a way to do it. Whether it be under NATO or under other measures will be of, course, an issue for consent among nations.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

With respect to organizing and coordinating an operation like that, realistically, is there any other organization in the world that could manage an operation like that, other than NATO or something NATO-like?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Well, of course the U.S. can do it on its own, and that's why it often leads off in coalitions. It has the capacity, with its global component commanders, to be able to do this kind of mission relatively rapidly. NATO can of course do it. As I say, be it in some kind of a hybrid system or be it purely NATO, it has the capacity to take this on and bring folks in.

There aren't very many other organizations. The EU has a limited command and control capability, as we've seen in some of its minor missions. The United Nations runs some missions, but they tend to be relatively minor and certainly not of the complexity of an operation like this that requires a fairly detailed air tasking order that deconflicts, for safety and security, all of the airplanes that are operating, so there are no blue-on-blue kinds of engagements. It's very complex, and normally you need a NATO or a U.S. kind of structure to deal with that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We haven't heard much about the Libyan navy, and I don't know what kind of a navy it has. Is the Libyan navy any kind of a factor, any kind of a threat, or any kind of concern?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

There are some naval assets, but they have essentially stayed in port and are not presenting a threat at this time.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That's probably smart.

As for Canadians playing key roles in command and control, obviously it's evolving. Are we happy with the roles Canadians have been playing in the command and control of the overall coalition structure?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Well, of course in our own national structure we've got our own, so we put a colonel, as I said, into the Canadian Air Component Command in order to do that level of coordination in Ramstein. But there are Canadians elsewhere. For example, Lieutenant General Bouchard is the deputy commander in Naples and therefore able to provide a sort of Canadian face to the—

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We've got a pretty high-level representation.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Hawn.

Mr. Dryden, you have the floor.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I'm not even quite sure how to phrase some of these questions. I'll just start with things I would like to know, and whether you're able to tell me or not is another question.

I can imagine how, in the early stages like this, things would be fairly straightforward. I can also imagine how, as you described at some point earlier, this is an evolving situation. I've also listened to a number of the debates on news shows and news channels from the U.S. in the last few days, and the kind of speculation that is part of those shows about what the real U.S. purposes are, how far they imagine this situation will evolve, and what kinds of goals they may have.

When you have rules of engagement like this--and it's just to help me think through this--and a few different actors that are part of it, is it fairly normal for people to interpret the rules of engagement somewhat differently, from one actor to another?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

That's actually an excellent question, and in my own experience I have found some interesting challenges with that. I guess I would say to you that in a coalition the differing rules of engagement present both a challenge and an opportunity. They present a challenge because it's sometimes difficult to rationalize which country is prepared to do what kind of mission. But they also present an opportunity, because some countries will be better able, by capacity, inclination, and rules of engagement, to take on some missions, and some nations will be more attuned to others.

If you're a commander of coalition operations, or even NATO operations, where sometimes nations still come with their own national restrictions--sometimes caveats, sometimes things they're more inclined to do--under those circumstances you have to find the right balance. Truthfully, you have to find the same balance among individuals. Personality often comes into play as well. Not all commanding officers are the same. Some are more aggressive, some are less aggressive, and some are cautious. They present the panoply from left of arc to right of arc, in terms of capability, inclination, energy, etc. So a commander's job is to get to know the people working for him and try to match the people to the mission, be it by nation, the skill sets they may bring to their units, and all of those things. It can be a complex business. Generally you will find that they operate with a matrix that shows the various nations and their different rules of engagement, and they use that matrix to optimize how they assign targets to get the best job done for the mission.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

As you say, things evolve. At least some of the ranges of goals I have heard go beyond the protection of civilians to in a sense freeze certain circumstances. So a division of Libya would result. And there is certainly the discussion about regime change--going as far as that.

Is it possible for someone under these rules of engagement to interpret them in that way, so in order to achieve those goals under the rules of engagement they could interpret that this is as far as one can reasonably go? Or you can go further on that. Is that part of the complication of any kind of effort like this?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

There's always going to be a limit. What I'm saying is there are sometimes people who aren't prepared to go to the limit that's been agreed to by a coalition or by an alliance. The limits are still established. We don't exceed those limits; there's no effort to exceed those limits. But sometimes individual nations will arrive and they won't be prepared to go to even that limit, so you do have to manage that. That kind of debate takes place in the North Atlantic Council and elsewhere as nations come to an understanding of what they're prepared to do. That's why they go through a process of asking for an initiating directive to do a plan. They then approve an operations plan and then approve an actual directive that allows the mission to take place, understanding as they're going along how that mission is being designed and evolved, and taking into account how a commander who is designing the mission will keep coming back and offering his guidance on how he thinks it should happen. Then there's the political guidance that would come from the alliance, which then would provide the limitations on what he can and should do.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

There are two questions I'd like to ask, and I'm sure my time is getting close to the end.

When we're talking about the involvement of Arab League nations or African Union nations, is it possible that what is going on now is that for a lot of those nations it is a kind of wait and see? They're seeing how this mission is going. They're seeing the extent to which it is going. They're seeing not only a global reaction but also a reaction of other nations that may be part of the Arab League or the African Union, and they will get involved more or less depending on what they see in these days ahead. That's the one question.

On the other question, as you describe--again, I can imagine this and picture this--as things evolve, and as you said, the discussions continue, and you have the different forums in which to have these discussions, and some are willing to go to a certain extent, others are less willing to go to a certain extent.... Is the challenge for any country once they're in the midst of something like this to get drawn along with certain actions and directions that are happening that they may find very difficult to get out of, even if the original position is not where they're interested in going?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

I know Jill Sinclair has something to say here.

Let me give you a quick, upfront answer, which would be yes and no. Yes, nations do consider, as they're going along, how they ought to participate. The UN Security Council resolution is a direction unto itself, but nations have the ability to decide the extent to which they're going to offer resources, for example, and participate in a mission.

And to your second part, are nations going to be dragged along, the answer to that is no. Nations have the authority, the sovereignty, to make their own decisions on how they're going to play or not play at any stage. NATO, for example, operates on consensus.

Ms. Sinclair, do you want to answer that?

[Jill Sinclair]

Thanks.

Mr. Dryden, you're touching on the essential politics of the issues, obviously, and in fact it's not so much about the rules of engagement, it's really about what the intent of governments was when they signed up to the Security Council resolution. I think Mr. Harris asked a variation on the same question.

But as the admiral says, in terms of the ongoing debate, everyone knows there has been a vigorous discussion around the NATO table. I don't think anybody around that table is going to get dragged into anything they don't want to get dragged into. And similarly, on the discussions that took place before the Security Council resolution was actually landed, people have very specific views about this. As you say, Mr. Dryden, countries will decide what they want to bring to this effort. Some have already said they support resolution 1973, but they're going to support it by doing humanitarian operations or they're going to do very specific sets of things.

I think you'll find that as this mission takes more shape and definition--it is still very early days--countries will be determining how they get into this mission, whether they get into the mission, and what they're going to contribute. But again, I think my colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs might be best placed to answer this in more detail.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Dryden.

I will give the floor to Mr. Braid.