Integrated force with the U.S.
- Thread starter Remius
- Start date
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Beat me to it. Nice article Cudmore, good reading.
This will send the sales of tin foil hats through the roof in some quarters. >
This will send the sales of tin foil hats through the roof in some quarters. >
- Reaction score
- 3,554
- Points
- 1,160
CSOR and 7th SFG already draw the lineage from the FSSF, would make sense if those units collaborated again.
Makes for some interesting ideas, but considering how risk adverse/deployment adverse some of our prime minister candidates are, the idea might die on 20 Oct 15.
James should have found a better person to interview about this. That schmuck from Carleton has no literally no idea about what JTF2/others provided in Afghanistan. There's a lot of open source information out there outlining huge operational successes, and CANSOF units becoming first-choice for missions over US units.
Makes for some interesting ideas, but considering how risk adverse/deployment adverse some of our prime minister candidates are, the idea might die on 20 Oct 15.
James should have found a better person to interview about this. That schmuck from Carleton has no literally no idea about what JTF2/others provided in Afghanistan. There's a lot of open source information out there outlining huge operational successes, and CANSOF units becoming first-choice for missions over US units.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,332
- Points
- 1,160
Any war we go to these days is already a fully integrated effort with the US, AFAIK.
Let's just step back. In a previous existence I worked in J3 in NDHQ on Canus matters, among other things. In 1940 Canada and the United States signed the Ogdensburg [NY] Agreement and set up the Permanent Joint Board on Defence (PJBD) which still exits. In 1946 we agreed on (I think it's called ) MCC 100, the North American Defence Plan. Our continental defence policy is still based on this.
We now have perhaps a formal agreement coming for other operations outside the NATO and North America umbrella. I am of the "two up, one back, bags of smoke and see you on the objective" school, but there is a lot to be worked out before hand. Good move.
We now have perhaps a formal agreement coming for other operations outside the NATO and North America umbrella. I am of the "two up, one back, bags of smoke and see you on the objective" school, but there is a lot to be worked out before hand. Good move.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Ah, James, the storm of ignorant indignation you have unleased from the usual suspects in the comments section of the story is absolutely brain cell degrading and hilarious to read at the same time. Thanks for the free entertainment provided by all the armchair politicians/generals out there in CBC land. 
- Reaction score
- 3,554
- Points
- 1,160
cudmore said:
Look forward to it, thanks for the update.
Here's some more on this: http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/canada-election-2015-military-integration-canada-us-1.3248594
CBC News has learned that a Canadian military effort to formally create integrated forces with the United States for expeditionary operations included an even more ambitious option — a plan to fully integrate military forces, explored during a meeting with the top generals from the two countries.
The Canadian military efforts were ultimately shut down and refocused on improving interoperability between the forces.
Information provided by the Department of National Defence shows the Canada-U.S. Integrated Forces program was led at the highest levels, with then Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson and the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, meeting on "several occasions" to hash out a plan that included an option for "fully integrated forces."
On Monday, CBC News reported that the Canadian military had been working on a plan to create a binational integrated military force with the U.S., under which air, sea, land and special operations forces would be jointly deployed under unified command outside Canada.
That force was described by a military source as a deliberate arrangement, scaled according to the nature of the conflict it expected to face, with formally established rules for command and control and logistics.
Discussion of the plans for an integrated unit was contained in an October 2013 briefing note prepared by the military's Strategic Joint Staff and obtained through access to information.
Government not part of discussions
Daniel Proussalidis, a spokesman from the defence minister's office, said in an email to CBC News Monday the document was not presented to the defence minister and the government has not considered its contents.
Defence Minister Jason Kenney and Gen. Tom Lawson speak to the media in Ottawa in April. The Defence Department says the government was not part of high-level discussions to integrate Canadian and U.S. forces for missions abroad. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
"The government has neither expressed interest in the concept of Canada-U.S. force integration nor directed exploration of it," Proussalidis told CBC News.
A Conservative spokesman also said the party had no desire to establish a "standing integrated force."
But the new information from the Defence Department shows the planning was deliberate and sustained, and it happened at the highest levels of both forces.
Those two comments raise the possibility the plan was being pursued without the specific direction or approval of the Conservative government.
The Defence Department says three different concepts were reviewed:
Enhancing military interoperability and co-operation.
Creating an integrated force of specially designated national units to deploy abroad.
"Fully integrated forces."
A fully integrated force could be politically dangerous in Canada, where there are perennial concerns about the quality of a bilateral relationship described by some as akin to sharing a bed with an elephant.
Concerns over Canadian control
There would also be deep concerns about maintaining national control over the Canadian Forces, particularly as it relates to questions about the use of force and varying interpretations of international law.
In the end, the Defence Department says, "Gen. Lawson indicated that Canada was not prepared to field fully integrated land forces at this time."
"The two armies do not intend to field formally integrated forces at this time," wrote DND spokesman Dominique Tessier in an email.
"Instead, they are developing the capability to operate together on any mission authorized by the government of Canada. Canada-U.S. co-operation is excellent; we are trying to make it better."
Canada and the United States have long maintained fully integrated air forces in the form of the North American Aerospace Defence command, a binational unit that protects the air approaches to the continent.
Norad commanders are able to deploy and control forces of each other's militaries in pursuit of the goal of common defence.
Over the past few years, Norad has also assumed increasing command and control over naval forces that protect the maritime approaches to North America.
But those efforts are focused on defence; the integrated forces planning was for expeditionary forces to be deployed on operations overseas.
The Defence Department says the planning began as an attempt to maintain the level of interoperability with U.S. forces achieved during the long war in Afghanistan.
CBC News has learned that a Canadian military effort to formally create integrated forces with the United States for expeditionary operations included an even more ambitious option — a plan to fully integrate military forces, explored during a meeting with the top generals from the two countries.
The Canadian military efforts were ultimately shut down and refocused on improving interoperability between the forces.
Information provided by the Department of National Defence shows the Canada-U.S. Integrated Forces program was led at the highest levels, with then Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson and the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, meeting on "several occasions" to hash out a plan that included an option for "fully integrated forces."
On Monday, CBC News reported that the Canadian military had been working on a plan to create a binational integrated military force with the U.S., under which air, sea, land and special operations forces would be jointly deployed under unified command outside Canada.
That force was described by a military source as a deliberate arrangement, scaled according to the nature of the conflict it expected to face, with formally established rules for command and control and logistics.
Discussion of the plans for an integrated unit was contained in an October 2013 briefing note prepared by the military's Strategic Joint Staff and obtained through access to information.
Government not part of discussions
Daniel Proussalidis, a spokesman from the defence minister's office, said in an email to CBC News Monday the document was not presented to the defence minister and the government has not considered its contents.
Defence Minister Jason Kenney and Gen. Tom Lawson speak to the media in Ottawa in April. The Defence Department says the government was not part of high-level discussions to integrate Canadian and U.S. forces for missions abroad. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
"The government has neither expressed interest in the concept of Canada-U.S. force integration nor directed exploration of it," Proussalidis told CBC News.
A Conservative spokesman also said the party had no desire to establish a "standing integrated force."
But the new information from the Defence Department shows the planning was deliberate and sustained, and it happened at the highest levels of both forces.
Those two comments raise the possibility the plan was being pursued without the specific direction or approval of the Conservative government.
The Defence Department says three different concepts were reviewed:
Enhancing military interoperability and co-operation.
Creating an integrated force of specially designated national units to deploy abroad.
"Fully integrated forces."
A fully integrated force could be politically dangerous in Canada, where there are perennial concerns about the quality of a bilateral relationship described by some as akin to sharing a bed with an elephant.
Concerns over Canadian control
There would also be deep concerns about maintaining national control over the Canadian Forces, particularly as it relates to questions about the use of force and varying interpretations of international law.
In the end, the Defence Department says, "Gen. Lawson indicated that Canada was not prepared to field fully integrated land forces at this time."
"The two armies do not intend to field formally integrated forces at this time," wrote DND spokesman Dominique Tessier in an email.
"Instead, they are developing the capability to operate together on any mission authorized by the government of Canada. Canada-U.S. co-operation is excellent; we are trying to make it better."
Canada and the United States have long maintained fully integrated air forces in the form of the North American Aerospace Defence command, a binational unit that protects the air approaches to the continent.
Norad commanders are able to deploy and control forces of each other's militaries in pursuit of the goal of common defence.
Over the past few years, Norad has also assumed increasing command and control over naval forces that protect the maritime approaches to North America.
But those efforts are focused on defence; the integrated forces planning was for expeditionary forces to be deployed on operations overseas.
The Defence Department says the planning began as an attempt to maintain the level of interoperability with U.S. forces achieved during the long war in Afghanistan.
- Reaction score
- 4,412
- Points
- 1,160
It's interesting, because, historically, since 1914, anyway, Canadians have been in the forefront of efforts to assert our national control over our armed forces, even when they were tightly integrated into the UK's command and control structure.
My recollection, hazy at best and I'm too lazy (bad cold) to go do the research, is that there were deep divisions in Canada's delegation in London over Op Husky (the invasion of Sicily) with Gen Andrew McNaughton (grandfather of LGen (Ret'd) Andrew Leslie) opposing Canadian participation,* while others, including Vincent Massey, then High Commissioner, favoured a Canadian role.** The decision to go was, finally, made in Ottawa, by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, over McNaughton's objections and the issue of Canadian control became a factor in McNaughton's eventual return to Canada.
_____
* In part, at least, because he wanted to preserve a single, large Canadian Army for the (inevitable) invasion of France.
** In part, again, because Canadian public opinion, a factor of great significance to Mackenzie-King, was greatly in favour of "getting into the fight," somehow. Some of McNaughton's subordinates also favoured dividing the Canadian Army and joining in Husky,
as a very junior partner, because they felt a need to gain practical battlefield experience. I think Massey included their comments in his final report to King.
Edit: format
My recollection, hazy at best and I'm too lazy (bad cold) to go do the research, is that there were deep divisions in Canada's delegation in London over Op Husky (the invasion of Sicily) with Gen Andrew McNaughton (grandfather of LGen (Ret'd) Andrew Leslie) opposing Canadian participation,* while others, including Vincent Massey, then High Commissioner, favoured a Canadian role.** The decision to go was, finally, made in Ottawa, by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, over McNaughton's objections and the issue of Canadian control became a factor in McNaughton's eventual return to Canada.
_____
* In part, at least, because he wanted to preserve a single, large Canadian Army for the (inevitable) invasion of France.
** In part, again, because Canadian public opinion, a factor of great significance to Mackenzie-King, was greatly in favour of "getting into the fight," somehow. Some of McNaughton's subordinates also favoured dividing the Canadian Army and joining in Husky,
as a very junior partner, because they felt a need to gain practical battlefield experience. I think Massey included their comments in his final report to King.
Edit: format
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
cudmore said:
Don't get me wrong, James. I actually enjoy reading the usual suspects doing their best Exorcist impressions of Ms. Blair on the bed. Endless entertainment at their expense.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
I'm sure, however, that there are plans and discussions on any number of scenarios and possibilities on any given day.
- Reaction score
- 1,658
- Points
- 1,190
For the love of your sanity, don't read the comments on CBC.news regarding this article.
Those who believe that the PMO wasn't innformed of this discussion are crying high treason (they are actually accusing the brass of treason).
Those who believeHarper the PMO is lying and knew about it are, well, doing there usual Harper bashing.
Those who believe that the PMO wasn't innformed of this discussion are crying high treason (they are actually accusing the brass of treason).
Those who believe
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
cupper said:See, this is how it starts. Joint exercises, then joint operations, then amalgamating units.
The UN takeover of 'murica, black helicopters and Obama taking all the guns.
Jade Helm was a cover. >
Cupper, we've been through this before. You need to take the pills in the order the Doctor told you to, and not mix them up. Also stop commenting on the CBC web page. 8)
- Reaction score
- 1,036
- Points
- 1,060
My guess is that it was Dempsey who put an end to the full integration idea. Particularly after he would have had to absorb all the Generals, Colonels, Majors and Captains of 5 (count 'em...5) "Divisions" from what really are 3 and arguably 4 separate but uniquely Canadian " .com armies", 2 official languages, all of the admirals, Commodores, captains and PA officers from navies that are essentially ship less, (east, west, reserve)anywhere between 1 or 3 officer schools, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the QR and O's (!) and more cubicles, bases and stations than be filled by both countries combined.
I still think, from a thread that exists long ago, that the CAF cannot be fixed and should be scrapped. So rather than integrating I think we should contract out at 1.5% GDP. Citizenship obstacles for serving with the contracting entity (USA, Russia, whoever ....) would be a waiver in a contract term.
The fact we even have a CDS so desperate that he has to float this idea to the JCS tells me calculus ends with zero- we will be defenceless at this rate of decline, procurement catharsis and HQ bloat within 15 years, if we are not already there. It is for this reason, I think it is smart that defence is not an election issue because, like health care, the issue is one of aging gracefully to institutional death because of the cost and inefficiency.
I still think, from a thread that exists long ago, that the CAF cannot be fixed and should be scrapped. So rather than integrating I think we should contract out at 1.5% GDP. Citizenship obstacles for serving with the contracting entity (USA, Russia, whoever ....) would be a waiver in a contract term.
The fact we even have a CDS so desperate that he has to float this idea to the JCS tells me calculus ends with zero- we will be defenceless at this rate of decline, procurement catharsis and HQ bloat within 15 years, if we are not already there. It is for this reason, I think it is smart that defence is not an election issue because, like health care, the issue is one of aging gracefully to institutional death because of the cost and inefficiency.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Lumber said:
That's what's so funny, the tin foil hat brigade freak show that is the comments section on anything connected however slightly to Harper and his government.
Staff Weenie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 109
- Points
- 630
I heard he caused Ebola too.
Similar threads
