Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

December 14th, 2005

Tags

Comments

13 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Profile of a Defence Minister

Younghusband with Minister of National Defence Bill Graham
Younghusband being presented with an award by Defence Minister Bill Graham

The Canadian Minister of National Defense Bill Graham was formerly the Minister of Foreign Affairs under both the current and previous Prime Ministers. Originally trained as a lawyer, he taught International Trade Law and was director of the Centre of International Studies at University of Toronto.

He does have an adventurist side to him, and has gone a number of times to Afghanistan to hobnob with the troops. In 1960 he drove from England to Pakistan and back.

By all accounts he is a much better Defence Minister than the last couple of fellows. He is a Liberal though, but I won’t hold that against him. ;)

Comments to this entry

ElamBend
December 14, 2005
2:41 pm
Younghusband,
Does the war college offer tours? What is involved in getting an MA in War Studies? Could a simple civilian get accepted (a foreigner at that)?
Younghusband
December 14, 2005
2:55 pm
War Studies has two streams: the thesis route and the course route. The thesis route consists of doing 3 courses your first year and a thesis the second. The course route is two years and 6 courses.

Although not as strict as other schools (we are small so everything is much more informal here) the workload is intense. Prepare to do loads of reading and writing. It is all good though as the profs really push you to produce conference/publishing worthy material.

The Graduate Program at RMC has become mainly populated by civilians. I would say more than 50% of my classmates are civvies, the rest are RegForce or Reservists. Although there are none in my class this year, there have been foreign students in the past. If you are American I don't think it would be too much of a problem. If you are from a shady country then you will probably have to go through some more stringent security checks, but I am not sure.
ElamBend
December 14, 2005
3:07 pm
I am pleased to hear that America is not considered a shady country.
I'm not afraid of the workload as I have suffered the rite of passage that Americans do so well known as law school.
This is something I've often thought about doing later in life. The RMC would be an ideal place for me to do it because a) the particular subject I'd want to study would involve Canada and b) I've always had a bit of a facination with Canada. (I love to impress Canadian friends with knowledge of Canadian politics - which, to be sure, is really a parlor trick).

Thanks for the info.

BTW, Which course route did you choose? Also, what is the tenor of the student body? Are they mostly traditionalist? Are there many francofones there?
Younghusband
December 14, 2005
3:16 pm
Oh mate, if you did law school then you'll have no worries here. We have a foreign PhD candidate here doing work on Canada's foreign contributions. What would you want to cover? Canadian politics _is_ a parlour trick! ;)

I am on the thesis route. "Tenor"? Do you mean politics-wise? It is actually pretty mixed, which is more than I can say for most other Canadian universities. Every military person here can speak French, and many of the civvies as well. There are a lot of Quebecois Officer Cadets, but the graduate students are mostly Anglos.
snow
December 14, 2005
3:20 pm
"I love to impress Canadian friends with knowledge of Canadian politics "“ which, to be sure, is really a parlor trick."

That is hilarious, ElamBend! (I'm Canadian).
ElamBend
December 14, 2005
4:22 pm
I'd want to study the problems facing small nations in their decisions for long-term military strategy, particularly small nations with lots of material resources and land mass.
Of course Canada has lots of material resources (both land and sea), a small populations [which will hopefully, through immigration, will not shrink], possibly opening up soon international seaways to the north, and a special consideration (the giant next door). Basically, I'd like to offer up my plan for the military for the next 100 years as if I were the Regent of Canada.

However, I think the study could have implications for a couple of other countries, namely Australia, but also maybe Russia, Argentian, Kazahkstan, etc.; but my focus would be Canada.

I'm interested in the special considerations that a small but rich nation would have to make in establishing its long term military goals. I fear that Canada may no be preparing for such things, but perhaps I am wrong.
Younghusband
December 14, 2005
6:54 pm
bq. Basically, I'd like to offer up my plan for the military for the next 100 years as if I were the Regent of Canada.

Then you must be interested in the current CDS's plans for transformation. We are at the beginning of a seachange in the Canadian military that is shaking up the organization and making people nervous. Any comments/suggestions?

For some background covered at CA, take a look at "Canada's military new and old":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/07/30/parrish-and-the-canadian-military/, and "the new commanding officers":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/08/19/canada-command/ and the controversial new "CDS's comments":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/07/15/our-job-is-to-be-able-to-kill-people/ .
lirelou
December 15, 2005
1:16 am
Actually, Younghusband, my neighbors used to refer to the "Quebecois" and other Francophones (Acadiens, Metis, etc) as "vrai canadiens", unless, of course, they were French immigrants, in which case they were "maudit-francais", which was better than a "mauditanglais", spoken as a single word. Sort of like "Damnyankee" in the post-civil war South.

p.s., While the 22me remains my favourite Canadien regiment, I have made it up to Kapyong on two occasions whilst living here in Korea, and have had the honour of rendering a salute to those veterans of the PPCLI who earned the U.S. Presidential Unit Citation in a hard fought Korean War action that convinced the Chinese to abandon human wave tactics against western troops. Enjoy your time.
Ron Patterson
December 15, 2005
3:26 am
The graduate program sounds fantastic!! Canada is of special interest to me. I am am American. The new challenges, building a defense strategy in a time when NATO is appearing to loose its focus and mission. Balance increased defense spending with social programs, keep Westen Canada in satisfied. Middle level countries face a rough road as the U.S. seems to increasingly going it alone. Do not believe the Liberals are up to the challenge. But hope to see a new Canadian military arise or could see the" failure of Canada" in the future. Good Luck
Younghusband
December 15, 2005
6:30 am
Lirelou, thanks for mentioning the difference. But I do think there are a lot of Quebecois here. I have also had a chance to hang out with Princess Pats since they are garrisoned fairly close to my hometown. Some tough boys!

I am very satisfied with the program here and would recommend it to anyone interested in a career in defense/foreign affairs/security-related fields etc. Lots of really interesting profs and students that have some amazing experiences. If anyone has any private questions tehy would like answered feel free to "contact me":http://www.cominganarchy.com/colophon/.
ElamBend
December 15, 2005
2:31 pm
YH,
I have been following recent developments, but they're not quite aligned with what I was thinking, which was a) multi-generational b) strategic. Unless I'm reading things wrong, my impression is that the current changes involve moving Canadian forces into the next generation of warfare, basically keeping up with those they'd most likely be fighting with (the U.S.), which is mostly tactical upgrades. The only real strategic thinking is the acknowledgment that part of this partnership will involve actual fighting.
Okay, I guess the acknowledgement that just peace-keeping is not going to defend Canada's borders or trade routes, etc. is a pretty important one to be made public.
I feel like Canada (and any small nation with big partners) have to weigh the long term advantages of such a partnership with the realities that at certain times they must be prepared to fight on their own. That is to say, unless a challenge is existential, the big partner won't automatically come to help. Canada relies heavily on trade (and not just with the U.S.), plus the sea lanes to the north look like they may be opening up soon. No good will from being known as peacekeepers is going to help Canada to promote its interest and the U.S. will be an uneven partner in that respect. So, what strategy does Canada take?
Certainly strengthen the military, but a rapid force won't cut it. There must be provision for armor and artillery. It can be small, but must then be mobile enough to apply pressue where pressure is needed (thus, no relying on the U.S. or the Ukraine to get you there). The navy has to be expanded. It doesn't have to be capital ships like supercarriers or battleships, but Canada thrives on seabourne traffic and fisheries and must be able to defend them.

This is really off-the cuff and rushed do to business pressures, but I'll try to come up with a more coherent explaination later.
IJ
December 15, 2005
5:12 pm
EB raises in the debate what must be a common problem for national governments. If they want to spend more on the military, governments must somehow first persuade the electorate to pay more taxes specifically to fund their military ambitions; or cut public spending on voter sensitive services - for example health and education. NATO would like an answer too.
IJ
December 19, 2005
2:43 pm
More "from NATO":http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2005/s051219a.htm to show us that many alliance countries seem to depend heavily on others for security.

The "latest statistics":http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p05-161.pdf reveal that most member governments aren't meeting their pledge to spend two percent of GNP on defence. Indeed, the target isn't being met by 19 out of the 26 countries.