However, midway through a bite of my Ahi Tuna salad my phone buzzed: an email. Casually glancing at it (as it was most likely a work related email, which I had little intention of acknowledging) I read the name of the sender: “Centre for Military and Strategic Studies”. I smirked slightly, remembering how I had been rejected on the first round of acceptance letters from U of C. “Screw them”, I remember thinking, “I got in to the JD/MBA program at Michigan and I’m on my way to Dalhousie with an entrance scholarship”. I don’t know why I even opened the email, I guess partly out of curiosity and the need for self validation, but I did. It contained a letter of acceptance to the CMSS program at the U of C. Smiling, I tried to describe the program to my coworker, betraying my utter lack of knowledge of what CMSS was—I couldn’t even remember why I applied!

We finished our lunch, shook hands, and I went home. As the day grew to a close I mulled that email over in my head. I read and reread the CMSS website, looking at the courses offered, and what the program entailed—thinking how interesting and fulfilling it looked. I remember feeling frustrated, almost resentful that I now had a choice to make. Perhaps Hegel was right, and the slave is indeed freer than the master, because this choice weighed heavily on my mind. I was going to law school; this had been decided years ago, right? Why would I do a Master’s Degree? I’m not an academic by any stretch of the imagination. But gradually the idea began to make more and more sense, and law school started to seem longer, harder, and more daunting than it ever had before. A few days later I flew to Edmonton, my decision still not made. The decision was made in the same manner I make every decision: spontaneously and without consideration of the consequences. While sitting in my brother’s filthy, disgusting basement suite reading cnn.com I realized something: I wanted to do this. I wanted to try this program. I emailed Trisha stating my intent to accept their offer and asked what my next step was. For better or worse I was going to the University of Calgary.

Fast forward ten months. I’m half way through this thing now, and the consequences of my decision bear considering. It was a rocky start, to be sure and I’m not entirely sure how well I fit in the academic world. I don’t have any particular research interests, and my skill at achieving the minimum required grades for the minimum required effort in undergrad is

Definitely NOT Joel

simply not amenable to success in graduate studies. I’d never written anything worth publishing, or undertaken any effort at research beyond the minimum level to achieve the grades necessary for law school. I’d never really taken anything seriously, and relied more on my ability to talk my way out of things than my ability to plan carefully (which, if I’m being honest doesn’t really exist). I had to relearn things fast. I could not BS through this stuff, and there was no exam at the end to bail me out. I found this out quickly, and despite some early hiccups I’m chugging along now, and things are going well. I know that I’ll never be a scholar, and contributing something meaningful to academia will forever be out of my reach. I’ll never be able or willing to conduct research like any of my peers, and you won’t see me speaking at a conference or offering anything meaningful to the erudite, intelligent conversations one hears at CMSS. But in spite of this I think I like this thing of ours, and I’m mildly proud of myself for giving it a go. Soon I’ll be an M.S.S. plying my trade in industry. It wasn’t a choice I ever expected to make, but maybe many years down the road I can look back and know that it was my best choice.

- Joel Thompson

Shock-shelled by all those soul-tainting notions, I did what many valiant soldiers would do in such circumstances: flee the real world and pretend that everything is okay by leaving all that I know behind and start a new life. Enter the People’s Republic of China. New identity, new purpose, new light at the end of the tunnel in this piece of paradise.

After being parachuted over the city during nightfall to avoid drawing suspicion, I had to ditch all the remnants of my past life and assume the role of… a student at Beijing University (some people like it rough, what do you want me to say…). I thought I had known torture before, but I had never experienced anything of the sort. Recitation after recitation, the “you don’t have to understand, just know it, it’s gonna be alright” drills, learning Mandarin tones… THE TONES!! But fortunately Dr. Cooper prepared us well with his incandescent belief and faith in human life, so I decided to blend in. As much as a white guy can blend in a city of 20M + Chinese people. At least all white guys look alike, except for that red-head guy, he does stand out.

Beijing has a surprising lot of foreigners (all “journalists” or “political advisors”, no doubt). The Spanish contingent is omnipresent, you cannot escape it. Seeing local Chinese people having a distinct favorable bias towards foreigners is also something I did not expect. This is why I was surprised to be approach by this gentleman (Beijing University teacher) coming to me and saying: “you know that all the Americans in Beijing in the 1970s were actually spies, don`t you?”, hands folded with a disarming smile. After some intense cold sweat, thinking my cover had just been blown in a thousand pieces under his scrutinizing eyes, I was left gasping for air as soon as he left the room. Don’t get me wrong: it’s not that I did not want to end up in a forgotten, officially-none-existing Chinese jail (I always like to experience local flavors and culture), I just wasn’t in the mood for that on that specific day. Nonetheless, I am more careful now. I have barricaded my windows on the fourth floor and we walk in teams of three strategically positioned going to class, after losing our tails by riding a bike, taking a cab, backtracking with the über-developped subway system and swiftly walking past the shadows of the suffocating Beijing smog that cover our steps.

The official mission of getting to know more about China’s naval development is not an easy task. I feel like First Lieutenant Aldo Raine trying to speak Italian to SS Colonel Hans Landa, so gathering information is not a walk in the park. Baby steps such as these as hurting my pride, no doubt, but the pride of a dead man is not worth much more, mind you, so I patiently await the moment where my language skills will be adequate, and then I shall be as elusive to Chinese authorities as Dr.Keeley’s IR concepts. That, my friends, is elusive.

It seems, however, that other people from my… “trade”… have already been here before me. The subversive ideas of the West have creeped in surreptitiously despite all the intended goodwill of the Chinese government officials. The young minds know they do not know what is going on in the inner sanctum of the PRC. Some students surely have kept contacts with these foreign agents, because a good chunk of the educated youth is desperately looking for an opportunity to immigrate in Europe, the US or Canada. The rest, well, are happily living the Chinese dream, accessible to those who are going to Beijing University. The following could be a quote from any 18-22 years old boy scout on campus: a good career, a good position, money, a big car, a big house, a  nice wife, and well-connected in-laws (helps you a lot if you want to get fat eating with the Politburo at the society’s expenses).

So far, this tireless journey has been quite a ride. Networks are being established, info is being gathered, Clausewitzian and Sun Zi-ian concepts are being applied to my daily life. I shall continue on this path of exploration, so I can come back here enlightened… just in time to write a thesis about all the stuff that happened over the last year. Senses sharp in the firestorm, I will not fail. Hell yeah.

(Radio silence)

Check out the conference website at: http://www.strategyconference.ca

The conference program is available at: http://www.strategyconference.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/conference-program_-finalonline1.pdf

We remind everyone that the general public is welcome to attend as many or as few panels as they wish! But if you can’t get to the conference in person, we will be tweeting all about what’s going on, so please follow our Twitter account: http://www.twitter.com/s3cstrategy

And finally, the play-by-play will be available at the conference live blog http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=siteviewaltcast&altcast_code=a8b5627a2d&height=550&width=470

We hope to see you at the University of Calgary Roza Centre!

Welcome to the 14^th Annual Graduate Strategic Studies Conference, another in the strong tradition of academic symposia organized by the students of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.  I extend my greetings to our presenters and guests who have travelled from all over the world.  This conference is unique in the field for being organized wholly by, and presenting papers from, graduate students.  This year’s conference executive, chaired by Brice Coates with the assistance of Maria Robson and Jeremy Stuart, has worked tirelessly with the support of the graduate students of CMSS to put on a great academic event.  I encourage all presenters and attendees to make the most of this experience by discussing and exchanging ideas both in and out of your field.  The topics being discussed this year are evidence of the breadth of strategic studies and the variety of fields touched by its interdisciplinary approach.  I personally believe this conference fosters an environment that is a reflection of the uniqueness of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, at the University of Calgary.  I therefore encourage you to speak with the faculty and students of the program, as they are the best representatives of our mission: to promote and develop excellence in Military, Security and Defence Studies. 

Dr. David J. Bercuson, OC, FRSC

Director

Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (CMSS)

University of Calgary

I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of our moderators, speakers, and attendees.  I am honoured to have been selected as the 2012 Conference Chair, and proud that we have assembled a group of presenters with such fascinating and original material.  The quality of the submissions for this year’s conference was extraordinary, which made the selection process that much more challenging.  We received a record number of submissions from 14 countries and over 25 academic institutions across the world. As such, this conference is a rare opportunity to interact with fellow graduate students from St. Petersburg, Russia to Sydney, Australia.  I encourage you to engage your fellow presenters in discussion and debate, as this is one of the strongest ways of developing your own ideas and research.  Avail yourself to your colleagues, share your ideas, and most of all, enjoy!

 Brice Coates

Conference Chair, Masters Student

Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (CMSS)

University of Calgary

Panel Procedure:

We have planned a full two days of conference proceedings, therefore the timing of all events must be adhered to as closely as possible.  As such, all presenters will have a maximum of 15 minutes to present their paper.  A time keeper will be sitting in the front row and will show:

3 minutes remaining = green paddle

1 minute remaining = yellow paddle

Time expired = red paddle

 Once time has expired, the panel chair will thank the presenter and invite the next presenter to the podium.  There will be a question and answer period once all of the panellists have presented their paper and we ask you hold your questions until then.  The panel chair will moderate the question and answer period.

General Conference Information:

There is time scheduled both mornings for registration and we encourage you to arrive as early as possible.  There will be a continental breakfast and it will give you a chance to meet your fellow conference attendees.

Lunch on Friday will take place at the Rozsa Centre.  Lunch on Saturday will take place at the Last Defence Lounge in the MacEwen Student Centre which is marked in the map in your conference program; there will also be CMSS students to help direct you from the Rozsa Centre to the Last Defence Lounge.

Dinner on Friday will begin at 18:00 in the Blue Room: located on the upper floor of the Dining Centre (also marked on your map).  It is a short walk from the Rozsa Centre located on the west side of the Hotel Alma.

We remind you that there is no smoking in any of the buildings on campus.

The Strategic Studies Students’ Consortium (S3C) Proudly Presents:

The 14^th Annual Graduate Strategic Studies Conference

Rozsa Centre – University of Calgary

February 10-11, 2012

Day One: February 10^th

8:15 – 8:45                                     Conference Registration and Continental Breakfast

Husky Oil Great Hall, Rozsa Centre

8:45 – 8:50                                    Welcoming Remarks

Brice Coates

Conference Chair, Masters Student, Centre for Military and

Strategic Studies

8:50 – 9:00                                    Opening Address

Dr. Elizabeth Cannon

President, University of Calgary

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

9:00 – 9:45                                     Cherie Henderson

Security Expert, Government of Canada

Working to Protect the Security of Canada in Today’s Threat Environment

PANEL I

9:45 – 10:45                                    Intelligence: Security and Strategy

Panel Chair:                                     Cherie Henderson

Security Expert, Government of Canada

Jim Robson                                    University of Toronto

The Chemistry of ENORMOZ: Breaking Down the Success of Soviet Espionage into the Manhattan Project

(jim.robson@utoronto.ca)

Braden R.W. Ambler                        Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

Debating Tactics, Negating Strategy: A Critical Appraisal of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Against al-Qa’ida and Associated Movements

(brwamble@ucalgary.ca)

Maria Robson                                    Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

The Canadian Advantage: Cold War Signals Intelligence

(marobson@ucalgary.ca)

PANEL II

10:50 – 11:50                                    Terrorism and Countermeasures

Panel Chair                                    Dr. Gavin Cameron

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary

Senior Research Fellow, CMSS

Capt. Andrew P. Betson            Captain, US Army; Patterson School of Diplomacy, University of Kentucky

Slow Learners: The British Military in Contemporary COIN

(andrew.betson@uky.edu)

Jen Lacovara            Russian and Eurasian Studies, European University at Saint Petersburg

Predicting Post Conflict Terrorism through Pre-Conflict Indicators

(jlacovara@eu.spb.ru)

Ophir Falk                                    School of Political Science, Haifa University

Correlation between Legal Compliance and Targeted Killing Effectiveness

(ophir_falk@012.net.il)

LUNCH

12:00 – 12:45                                     Evan’s Room, Rozsa Centre

PANEL III

12:50 – 13:50                                     Ethnic Conflict and Peacebuilding

Panel Chair:                                     Dr. Pablo Policzer

Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Latin American Politics

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary 

Tobey Berriault                        Department of Political Science, University of Calgary

Assessing the contribution of traditional practices on reconciliation reintegration in post-conflict Sierra Leone

(teberria@ucalgary.ca)

Ben Denison            Texas A&M, George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service

Bosnian Disconnect: EU Security and Enlargement Policy Impact on Bosnian Elites

(bdeniso@tamu.edu)

Hadleigh McAlister                        Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

The Militarization of Refugee Camps and Transnational Insurgencies

(hlmcalis@ucalgary.ca)

PANEL IV

13:55 – 15:10                                     21^st Century Security

Panel Chair:                                    Dr. Terry Terriff

Arthur J. Child Chair of American Security Policy

Senior Research Fellow, CMSS

Interim Department Head, Political Science, University of Calgary

Jeff Collins                                    University of Birmingham

Moving Beyond the Balkans: Post-Heroic Warfare and the Second Lebanon War

(jeff.francis.collins@gmail.com)

Rebecca Jensen                        Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

Compellence and Deterrence in the 21^st Century

(rjensen@ucalgary.ca)

Carmit Valensi                                    School of Political Science, Tel Aviv University

Exceeding the State: Hamas & Hizbullah as Hybrid Actors

(carmitvalensi@gmail.com)

Amanda Stuart-Ross                        Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

Biological Weapons: A Twenty-First Century Threat
(agstuart@ucalgary.ca)

BREAK

15:10 – 15:20

PANEL V

15:20 – 16:20                                     Arctic Security

Panel Chair:                                    Dr. Rob Huebert

Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary

Associate Director and Senior Research Fellow, CMSS

Lauren Moslow                        Department of Political Science, University of Calgary

Security, Sovereignty and the Canadian Arctic

(lamoslow@ucalgary.ca)

Timothy Choi                                    Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

Canada’s Northern Fleet: The Relevance of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships

(thtchoi@ucalgary.ca)

Bill Carruthers                                    Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

The Impact of Satellite-Automatic Identification Systems on the Arctic Security Spectrum
(carruthers.wg@gmail.com)

PANEL VI

16:25 – 17:25                                     Strategy Through the Ages

Panel Chair:                                     Dr. Holger Herwig

Canada Research Chair in Military and Strategic Studies

Professor, Department of History, University of Calgary

Senior Research Fellow, CMSS

Julian Brooks                                    Department of History, Simon Fraser University

Blue Tunics and Goose Steps: ‘Proto-peacekeeping’ in Ottoman Macedonia, 1903-1908

(jabrooks@sfu.ca)

John Livingstone                        War Studies, Royal Military College

Relieve Vicksburg or Seek a “Battle of Annihilation”? An Analysis of Robert Edward Lee’s Grand Strategic Vision in the Summer of 1863

(jliving3@uwo.ca)

Samantha Hossack                        Department of History, University of Calgary

Losing the Battles to Win the War: Carthaginian and Roman Intelligence in the Second Punic War

(sam.hossack@gmail.com)

Lucas McMahon                        Department of History, University of Calgary

Dealing with the Crusaders: Irregular Warfare in Byzantium

(lucas_m@telus.net)

Reception and Dinner

6:00 – 9:00                                     Blue Room, Dining Centre, University of Calgary

Memorial Lecture

7:00                                                Dinner Served

7:45                                                David Biette

Director, Canada Institute

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C.

9:00                                                Closing remarks and Invitation to the Graduate Lounge

Day Two: February 11^th

8:45 – 9:15                                     Conference Registration and Continental Breakfast

Husky Oil Great Hall, Rozsa Centre

PANEL VII

9:15 – 10:15                                     The World at War, 1914–1918 and 1939-1945

Panel Chair:                                    Dr. Patrick H. Brennan

Professor, Department of History, University of Calgary

Senior Research Fellow, CMSS

Keith Hann                                    Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

Victory Against All Odds? – Apparent Contradictions in the Carrier War in the Pacific, 1942

(palindromedary@gmail.com)

Bodie Dykstra                                    Department of History, University of Calgary

“Digging like Blazes”: Entrenchment and the Birth of Position Warfare at the Battle of the Aisne, 14-27 September 1914

(bddykstr@ucalgary.ca)

Donna Sinclair                                    Central Michigan University

Operation 60,000, the Axis’ Dunkirk?

(sincl1dl@cmich.edu)

PANEL VIII

10:15 – 11:15                                    Security Issues in Asia

Panel Chair:                                     Dr. David C. Wright (Invited)

Professor, Department of History, University of Calgary

Senior Research Fellow, CMSS

Ruth Richert                                     Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

The Role of Identity in US-Pakistan Relations

(revrichert@gmail.com)

Mendee Jargalsaikhan                         Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Roles of Small Powers in the New “Great Game” in Greater Central Asia

(menduulj@yahoo.com)

Mitchell Parkinson                        Department of Political Science, University of Calgary

From Soviet Invasion to Civil War: The Internal Roots of Conflict and State Breakdown in Afghanistan

 (mrparkin@ucalgary.ca)

LUNCH

11:30 – 13:00                                    Last Defence Lounge, MacEwan Student Centre

Lieutenant-Colonel Daniel Drew

Senior Military Officer, DRDC Suffield, CFB Suffield

Department of National Defence

Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan: The Canadian Experience, 2008

PANEL IX

13:15 – 14:30                                    Israeli Security

Panel Chair:                                     Dr. David Tal

Kahanoff Chair in Israel Studies

Professor, Department of History, University of Calgary

Research Fellow, CMSS

Shaiel Ben-Ephraim                        Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

To Build and be Built: Strategy, culture and the birth of the Israeli settlement project

(shaielb@gmail.com)

Danielle Brown                        Interdisciplinary Center Herzeliya

Israeli strategy facing Palestinian unilateral quest for statehood – missed opportunities in the international legal arena

(Danielleb@newyork.mfa.gov.il)

(Please note: While Ms. Brown is an employee of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, she is not here as a government representative and the opinions expressed in her presentation are hers alone.)

Oren Magen                                    School of Political Science, Haifa University

Deterrence in Ethno-Political Asymmetrical Conflicts – a Research Program

(magen.oren@gmail.com)

BREAK

14:30 – 14:40

PANEL X

14:40 – 16:00                                    Society and Warfare

Panel Chair:                                     Dr. Josephine Smart

Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Calgary

Krystel Carrier-Sabourin            War Studies, Royal Military College

Comparing the “Canadian Experience” of Integration to the American FETs Model: Implications for Foreign and Defence Policy

(krystel.cs@gmail.com)

Timothy Shaw                                    Centre for International Security Studies, Sydney University

The Legality and Morality of Killing in War: Just War Theory and its Implications for Understanding the Etiology of PTSD

(timothy.shaw@sydney.edu.au)

Cayley Bower                                    Department of History, University of Calgary

Masculinity, War, and Antimoderism: English Canadian Men and the First World War

(cbevans@ucalgary.ca)

Ryan Flavelle                                    Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

The Art of War in Canada:  A.Y. Jackson, Arthur Lismer, the Group of Seven and the Influence of the Great War on Canadian Art

CLOSING REMARKS

16:00                                                Brice Coates

Conference Chair, Masters Student, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

CLOSING RECEPTION

16:15-21:00                                    Conference Buffet Dinner

CIBC Hub Room, Rozsa Centre

Speaker Biographies:

(Please see separate booklet for presenter biographies)

Cherie Henderson

Security Expert

Government of Canada

See print version

David Biette

Director, Canada Institute

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C.

David Biette is Director of the Canada Institute, an integral program of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. The Wilson Center is the living, national memorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968; it establishes and maintains a neutral forum for free, open, and informed dialogue in a nonpartisan setting. The Canada Institute works to increase awareness and knowledge about Canada and U.S.-Canadian relations among U.S. policymakers and opinion leaders; it focuses on three topic areas: energy and environment, trade, and borders and border security.

Prior to joining the Wilson Center, Biette was executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States. He also served as a political-economic officer at the Canadian Consulate General in New York City, where he was a policy analyst for energy, environment, political, native affairs, and transportation portfolios, promoting Canadian federal and provincial policy to federal, state, and city agencies, private corporations, environmental NGOs, local and national media.  He has an M.A. in international relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, a B.A. from Bowdoin College in Maine, and a Diplôme de Hautes Études de Lettres et Civilisation from the Université de Nice (France). Biette lives in Arlington, Virginia, with his wife, Ann Timmons, a communications artist, and their two children.

Lieutenant-Colonel Daniel R. Drew, OMM, CD

Senior Military Officer, DRDC Suffield, CFB Suffield (DND)

Lieutenant-Colonel Drew joined the Canadian Forces in June 1976 as an Officer Cadet in the Officer Candidate Training Program.  In 1977, he was Commissioned in the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI) as a Second Lieutenant.  Drew has served in all three battalions of his Regiment and 2 Airborne Commando, The Canadian Airborne Regiment.  He is a U.S. Army Ranger, graduating in 1980 as the Officer Distinguished Honor Graduate and the winner of the Merrill’s Marauder Award for Leadership and Navigation Excellence.  He commanded Delta Company of the Second Battalion during the Medak Pocket operation in Croatia in 1993, an action for which the Second Battalion was awarded the Commander-in-Chief’s Commendation.  In 2011, LCol Drew assumed the duties of Chief of Staff for a NATO Headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan that supervised the training and development of the Afghan National Army.

In addition to six Regimental tours, including five operational tours overseas, Lieutenant-Colonel Drew has been employed as an Operations Staff Officer at Area and Army level and as a Company Commander in the School of Infantry in Gagetown, NB.  He is a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada and the United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Class of 1997.  He assumed Command of Canadian Forces Base Suffield in June of 2005 and is currently the Senior Military Officer at the Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Suffield. Lieutenant-Colonel Drew is married to Carol Drew (nee Poole).  They have three children; Jonathan is a member of 3PPCLI (and is presently in Afghanistan)

The 14th Annual Graduate

Strategic Studies Conference

February 10-11, 2012

Conference Executive:

Brice Coates

Conference Chair and S3C VP Conference

Masters Student, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

Maria Robson

Communications Director and S3C VP Finance

Masters Student, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

Jeremy Stuart

Executive Advisor and S3C President

Masters Student, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

Conference Contributors:

Centre for Military and Strategic Studies Administration

A very special thanks to the following people, without whom this event would not have been possible

My thanks to previous Conference Chairs Marshall Horne (2010) and Rachael Bryson (2011) for their support.  Particularly, the advice and unwavering support of Cindy Strömer (2008, 2009) was both appreciated and invaluable.

Many thanks to Nancy Pearson Mackie and Shelley Wind for their guidance, experience, and counsel.  A special mention must be made of Dr. David Bercuson and Dr. Holger Herwig for their continued support of all initiatives taken by the students of CMSS.

I was entrusted with the responsibility to organize and chair this year’s conference by the students of the Strategic Studies Students’ Consortium (S3C).  This conference reflects we students, and I hope that the executive has put together an event that makes you proud.  A special mention to the members of the Paper Selection Committee: your efforts were tireless and it could not have done it without you. (Alphabetically:) Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, Rachael Bryson, Bill Carruthers, Tim Choi, Katie Domansky, Keith Hann, Nathan Hawryluk, Hadleigh McAlister, Kim Pavelich, Jeff Rakebrand, Ruth Richert, Amanda Stuart-Ross, and Matthew Sutherland.

My most sincere thanks to my fellow conference executive members: Maria Robson and Jeremy Stuart.  I cannot thank you enough for your dedication and work over the past few months.  Your efforts were indispensable.

Finally, I would like to thank all the presenters for sharing their expertise on their given topics and allowing us the opportunity of engaging with their research.  This year’s conference owes its success to the quality, the knowledge and the engagement of its participants.

Brice Coates

Conference Chair

Masters Student, CMSS

Yes, as a former political science student I shouldn’t admit to having had preconceived ideas of what I thought to expect upon my arrival to the Holy Land. However, given the degree to which both of these issues are covered in the media, it’s almost impossible not to. While I wasn’t exactly expecting Qassam rockets to go flying past me once I hit the ground, I also didn’t expect to find such a flourishing and peaceful state.

Allow me to start from the beginning…

Having survived my first redeye from Calgary to Toronto to catch my flight to Tel Aviv, I made my way to the El Al terminal to pick up my boarding pass and drop off my luggage, which I wrongly assumed would be a twenty-minute process.

Getting through El Al security was a challenging and painted a rather uninviting picture of where I was headed. I was picked out of a crowd of people before I even got in line to pick up my boarding pass. For whatever reason, my blonde ponytail, track pants, and gigantic suitcase painted me a perfect target for interrogation. I was asked a series of security questions (as are all people who wish to fly El Al). I had been warned in advance that the purpose of the interrogation was to evaluate my facial expressions to see if I was lying. The entire time I remember thinking to myself “did first year psych say that looking up to the left while responding to a question meant I was lying, or was it the right?” I settled for looking down to the right, which was extremely unnatural for me. While I didn’t lie, I was still nervous…

El Al employee: purpose of the trip?

(An exhausted and tired) Me: research.

El Al employee: duration of the trip?

Me: ten days.

El Al employee: do you speak Hebrew?

Me: no, but I would love to learn.

El Al employee: did anyone give you a package to bring to Israel?

Me: no.

El Al employee: the reason we ask miss is to make sure you are not carrying a bomb?

(Wide-eyed) Me: no bomb.

[Insert an additional twenty question]

El Al employee: Where do you go to school? What is your program? What do you study?

Me: The University of Calgary, the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, and I study warfare (for obvious reasons, I was not about to specify what type of warfare).

For whatever reason, (and I swear I didn’t look up to the left while answering these question) I was asked, along with the group of students I was travelling with, to go through an additional security clearance. We were taken to this security area, where all of our belongings were searched. Minutes before our flight took off we were given the go ahead and thankfully boarded our plane. A grueling twelve-hours later we had arrived in Tel-Aviv.

We immediately met our tour guide/translator Michael, which I may or may not have told my mom was our personal bodyguard for the duration of the trip. To put things into perspective, Michael stands at 5’6 and weighs an approximate 150 lbs. Fantastic man.

The first few nights we stayed in Jerusalem, which was such an incredible experience. We started the day off with a tour of Jerusalem’s Old City, which was absolutely stunning. We then made our way to the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) which was interesting.

In terms of people I met, the list is long. I met with Yossi Klein Halevi, a fellow at the Shalom Harman Institute in Jerusalem and contributing editor to The New Republic, over dinner. Which brings me to the topic of dinning in Israel. While the food is unbelievably delicious, they bring you plate after plate. Eating in Israel is like a sport. It requires commitment. I also met with Palestinian representative Hiba I. Husseini, a former legal advisor to the Palestinian Negotiations Team in the Oslo, Stockholm and Camp David processes. Later that day I met with Professor Allen Zyzblat at the Supreme Court of Israel, where we had an informed discussion on human rights and international law. I sat down with Khaled Abu Toameh, a Jerusalem Post Palestinian Affairs journalist. We talked about his role in brining journalists from North America into Gaza and his thoughts on the future of the conflict. Met with Professor Asher Susser from Tel Aviv University. We got into a rather heated debate…. which I would be happy to discuss in person. I met with several other individuals, but for the sake of expediency I shall move on…

Jerusalem Security Barrier

I was able to tour the Jerusalem security barrier and the occupied territories. It was fascinating being able to see something that you read about in the newspapers and have discussions on in class. While touring the security barrier I wandered into a small Arab village. With the help of Michael, I was able to ask them a series of questions, one of which included whether or not they would prefer to live under Israeli or Palestinian control. Completely unprompted, these people said the choice was easy and would prefer to continue living under Israeli control.

On Friday night I took part in my first Shabbat dinner, which was quite the experience. Before dinner we went to the Westin Wall, which is located in the Old City. This was a truly unique experience. People from all over come here to pray. People write prayers/wishes and put them into the cracks of the wall. Apparently Obama put a prayer in the wall before he won office. Ryan Gosling still hasn’t proposed, so who knows (joking).

The ancient fortress of Masada, eastern edge of the Judaean Desert. Dead Sea (background)

Now moving on to my experience in the Dead Sea region. Floating in the Dead Sea should be on everyone’s bucket list. It is an absolutely mind blowing experience. I covered myself in the black mud and made my way down to the sea. There wasn’t any sand, but instead white salt everywhere. It honestly looked like there was snow at the edge of the sea. And instead of sandbars at the bottom of the sea, there were ripples of crusted salt. It was strange. So as I walked further into the sea I eventually (and naturally) flipped onto my back. I could not stop laughing. It was hilarious. Its like you are on a floaty in the middle of the sea, without the floaty. You cannot sink and you feel incredibly light (which is great for the ego, haha).

I also went on a tour of the Odem Winery. For those of you who know me, this was dangerous. Enough said.

Moving on…

Perhaps the most amazing experience of all was my tour of the southern city of Sderot. Some of you might have read about Sderot. The Gaza Strip often launches Qassam rockets at Sderot. I was told that if I heard a siren in the streets to run for shelter. Things got real. As I was walking down the empty streets, I noticed that the bus shelters turned into rocket shelters, which are located everywhere in Sderot. What made this experience so amazing was the fact that we stumbled into a schoolyard. Michael had approached the teachers and asked if we could speak with the children. At first I was a little shocked. You can’t just walk into a schoolyard here in Canada, but whatever he said worked because we were let in.

The children were very eager to speak with us and asked a million questions—but then again so did we. I asked them what they wanted to be when they grew up. Ballerinas, doctors, and rich landowners were among the more popular response. I asked them if they were scared because of the rockets. One of them explained that they knew the drill and that it was a part of life. My heart ached at that point. One kid asked us if we knew Justin Bieber, we all laughed. Another little man asked what the weather was like. I responded with “cold, very cold.” At that point he told us how he felt sorry that we had to endure the cold. My heart broke at this point. These children have to deal with the reality of Qassam rockets being launched at them, and they are telling me they feel sorry for us because of the weather. How does that make any sense?

I could write for days on my experience in Israel. My time in Tel Aviv was amazing. Fantastic city. However, I still prefer Jerusalem and cannot wait to go back. I guess to sum things up, it was incredible to visit a place that I have studied for so long. Words truly cannot describe my time in Israel. If you want an accurate understanding of anything in life, you need to experience it.

While the vast majority of students have had to deal with theory in their research, this is usually imposed by the advisor. Often it seems as if the beleaguered student is forced to swallow his theory remorsefully, as if he were reliving the horror of partaking particularly noxious medicine as a child.

The major claim against theory, as a concept, seems to be that it is disconnected from reality. The main thrust of most graduate work at CMSS seems to be to dissect policy. In this manner of thinking, theory as seen as irrelevant to the actual policy on the ground and a needless distraction. While the vast majority of students have had to deal with theory in their research

Needless to say, I seriously disagree.

First of all, policy analysis is not an academic pursuit. It is a completely professional pursuit. The academic enterprise is based on the concept of advancing and building

Theory?

knowledge. It is designed to seek answers which can be examined and debated, falsified and argued and hopefully: improved and assimilated. Policy analysis is disposable. Once the circumstances change, it becomes irrelevant. It is sort of like the difference between Led Zeppelin and Justin Bieber.

Furthermore, the field we are in is strategic studies. Strategic studies is simply a subfield of international relations. The field is intimately tied to those nasty “ism’s” we have all come to hate. Strategic studies champions the application of theories in a manner which is intimately related to the issues of the day. Ultimately, the idea is to tie the burning security issues of our time with the tremendous body of knowledge which the relevant academic disciplines have amassed over the years.

When we approach a political question without theory, we stumble around blind, looking at facts without context. What often tends to happen is that the analysis and policy

Policy?

prescribed unknowingly use the same approach as an existing theory but apply it badly due to a lack of understanding of the nuances and elements that were put into it, and without any comprehension of its pitfalls. The weakness of every important theory is ruthlessly exposed by peer review and the counterarguments of the proponents of other theories. This causes an almost Darwinian process whereby the weak-points are abandoned and new and more tested structures are built on the strong points. But none of the benefits of this process are bestowed on the knowingly ignorant.

Clausewitz, the undisputed high priest of CMSS (who I am contractually obligated to mention in this blog) told us: “theory exists so that one need not start afresh each time sorting out the material…” He also tells us that it serves a higher purpose, not as a simple call to specific action, but in order to “provide a thinking man with a frame of reference for the movement he has been trained to carry out, rather than to serve as a guide which at the moment of action lays down precisely the path he must take.”

Just as importantly, theory gives us an important measure of humility. Other people, just as smart as we are, have thought about these same problems before we have. Chances are, whatever our intuitive approach is, someone has spent years elucidating and refining similar ideas. We must acknowledge the previous work and find the holes, gaps and weaknesses in existing bodies of work, rather than pretending that it is all worthless and irrelevant.

Finally, theory and academic speculation have shaped the world around us. For good or for ill. We live in a liberal nation built on the work of Locke and Hume. We have a capitalist system built on the work of Smith and Ricardo. The United States came out of a cold war opposing the results of the socio-economic analysis of Marx, which it managed to control using ideas of deterrence based on Brodie and Schelling. Its policy in the world for twenty years was based on the Democratic Peace Theory, developed by Doyle and Rummel.

There is no escaping the importance of theory in shaping our lives and its importance in our discipline. Belittle it at your peril.

Current Keystone 435,000 b/d; Proposed Keystone XL 700,000 b/d

But this pipeline isn’t solely an American decision, is it?

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Jeremy Carl, a research fellow with Stanford University, was asked to comment on the environmental and political consequences of America potentially rejecting the pipeline. He stated, “Canada is going to do this. That’s where the environmental argument should be made about whether or not this is smart. The reality is, otherwise, this oil is likely to wind up in China, and what are the environmental, political and security implications of that?

Proposed Northern Gateway: 1,177kms, 193,000 b/d capacity

I ask, is a pipeline a foregone conclusion? A race to the bottom if you will? Pull up your socks America, because if you don’t take it, Canada has no problem selling to China – and we’re not bluffing? It’s happening!

If this is reality, I must have lost the plot, because I hear opponents of the project still exist.

Are the Native bands, environmentalists, and those who think such money should perhaps be directed towards R&D aimed at alternative energy sources all ailing from some sort of mass delusion? Any person who has taken a moment to critically assess pro-pipeline arguments associated with job creation, or the infamous ‘ethical oil’ stance, would recognize that XL is not the mother ship proponents claim it to be. Opponents of the pipeline are not suffering from granola-induced hysteria. These concerns, in addition to those associated with tar sands green house gas emissions, are valid.

Despite these arguments, is Carl correct? Have we entered a ‘hop on the train or get off the tracks’ type of situation? Pipeline or bust? I would like to say no, but now I’m not so sure…

Sincerely,

Concerned supporter of oatmeal and other cereal grains

The roughly 3,000-ton Littoral Combat Ship, on the face of it, appears even less capable – a single 57mm Bofors gun on the bow and a SeaRAM launcher. The SeaRAM is an eleven-round RAM launcher mounted within the Phalanx CIWS frame so as to provide radar guidance in the absence of separate guidance radar on the LCS. Two versions of the LCS exist: the LCS 1 *Freedom* monohull design and the LCS 2 *Independence* trimaran. Despite the drastically different hull forms, they are both nonetheless fairly similar in terms of naval capabilities. The aforementioned weapons are standard to both, as well as room for organic helicopters on the same order as DDG 1000. The major innovation with the LCS is the concept of mission-specific “plug-and-fight” mission packages. These are separate systems that offer a variety of capabilities: mine countermeasures (MCM), surface warfare (SUW), and anti-submarine warfare ASW). Twenty-four each of the MCM and SUW packages and sixteen of the ASW modules are to be procured. These will be distributed amongst a planned total of fifty-five LCS hulls. Depending on the mission, an LCS can swap out its modules (or have them added in) within two days. Additionally, the LCS was built for very high speeds: over forty knots for short durations. Their structural forms were also designed for maximum stealth against electromagnetic radiation.

USS Independence LCS-2; the future of seapower? (Source: Wikipedia)

The mine-hunting package is currently undergoing revision as the original mine-clearing system is not performing as well as the Navy would like; instead, the Navy is looking into a new MH-60R-mounted system called the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) as a basis for modification into carrying out the mine-hunting mission. Another part of this mission package is the unmanned vehicles that would operate on and under water, such as the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System mentioned above. However, these have yet to demonstrate efficacy in realistic conditions or have yet to be proven sufficiently reliable.

The anti-surface warfare module currently consists of two 30mm cannons added to slots located on top of the hangar. These would be used in conjunction with the stock 57 mm Bofors, which has a range of seventeen kilometers. The Navy has recently decided to settle on the Griffin missile as an extra means of providing defence against small boat swarms. The Griffin missile is currently very short-ranged – a mere 2.7nm. This is supposed to be a short-term solution until a longer-ranged weapon of comparable size can be found. This may not seem like a lot of reaction time, but the LCS’s high sprint speeds may well provide the extra time needed to address the threat. Running away from threats may not be very glamourous, but the tactical advantage this may provide cannot be ignored.

Finally, the following equipment would be added to comprise the anti-submarine mission package: a “Light-Weight Tow Torpedo Countermeasure”, a “Multi-Function Towed Array System”, and a “Continuous Active Sonar – Variable Depth Sonar”. In conjunction with the MH-60R (presumably equipped with torpedoes), this should give the LCS a decent ASW capability.

But the LCS program has received significant criticisms based on their cost, low survival standards, and construction defects. The Navy desires 55 LCSs over the next few decades as a relatively cheap way to bolster its force numbers. The original price for the LCS seaframes (without mission packages and modules) was to be $250 million, but has since nearly doubled. Congress appears to have become resigned to the inevitable fact that the $250 million figure was too optimistic and has settled for instituting a cost cap of $450 million.

Concerns have also been voiced regarding the survival standard to which the LCSs are built. To minimize cost and leverage existing civilian infrastructure, the ships are built only to a “Survivability Level 1” standard – enough to allow the crew to evacuate after a hit, nothing more. In other words, despite the fact that it is termed a “combat ship”, it is not expected to maintain “mission capability in a hostile combat environment.” That is not to say it is going to be a write-off at the first sign of combat, however. Some fragmentation armour protection and automated damage control systems, plus a shock-hardened hull, means that it has a chance to “reposition” after being hit. That the LCS will heavily employ remote-controlled vehicles for its various missions also means that it does not have to approach threats, particularly mines, as closely and thereby reduce its risk exposure. Further, it appears that the LCS is expected to operate as part of a networked group of combatants, either other LCSs or large surface combatants and aircraft, if the threat expected is to be of “high intensity”. When operating by itself, it is to be in only “low-to-medium threat environments” where it can outgun small boat threats and defend itself from sudden ambushes with its RAM. The design principle appears to be based on the acceptability of a “mission kill”, which is a tactical loss, so long as the ship survives and thereby maintains theatre-level strength.

Of course, to get to the point where combat survivability is an issue, a basic structural integrity under non-combat conditions has to be initially present. Yet, LCS 1 USS* Freedom* has suffered from significant hull cracking during its trials. In February 2011, heavy sea conditions resulted in a six inch crack below USS *Freedom*’s waterline on the outside hull, with a three inch crack on the inner side of the bulkhead and resultant leaking. The crack appears to have been the result of a poor-quality weld between steel plates, rather than a design defect. However, other smaller cracks had also appeared earlier on the vessel’s aluminum superstructure, which have since been addressed via design changes. Problems with the first-ship-of-class notwithstanding, these appear to be problems that should be fairly easily addressed.

USS Freedom LCS - 1; Freedom never tasted so salty. (Source: Wikipedia)

Despite the problems outlined in this section, the Littoral Combat Ships are likely to be effective so long as they keep within the strict confines of the operational concepts that justified and defined their development. The only problem – one that has not been mentioned – that appears likely to plague the LCS fleet in the future is the same one that threatens the relevancy of the DDG 51 class: room for growth. The need to attach *ad hoc* buoyancy tanks to USS *Freedom *and subsequent lengthening of other LCS 1 hulls means that they are already reaching their maximum usable displacement. This may severely limit the extent to which future technologies can be integrated with the LCS 1 seaframe.

Tim Choi

So how did I come to choose Uganda for my research?  Northern Uganda, more specifically Acholiland, has been plagued by conflict and fear from the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) since 1987. The LRA, led by Joseph Kony, is infamous for its use of terror tactics on civilians and the abduction of children to be used within army ranks. It was this indiscriminate nature of the atrocities committed by the LRA and the lack of international attention given to the conflict which was my initial lure to northern Uganda. However, it was not until learning that many of the women and girls in the LRA have been trained in combat (though they are not yet considered to have been combatants) that my decision to travel to Gulu to find out why was firmly set.

At the beginning of her research trip, Kimberly Pavelich helped develop programs in reproductive health

Initially my research focused on the reintegration of female ex-combatants back into their civil community and the challenges these females faced.  From focus group discussions I held, one particular and significant challenge that emerged is that females are not recognized as combatants (particularly in the cultural context).  This results in women and girls missing out on key reintegration services and support.  The importance of these services is evident in the vast efforts taken by non-governmental and governmental agencies to assist in the reintegration of combatants due to the potential security threat posed by frustrated ex-combatants drifting back into crime or renewed conflict.  However, through talking to women I discovered that not only do some women speak of returning to the bush (the colloquial term for returning to the LRA) in part due to the of lack of support from their community, but women also want to be treated as equals to their male counterparts in the reintegration and justice process.  It is from this that I decided to shift my research from reintegration to instead focus on the consequence of ignoring females as active participants in the LRA in their community post-conflict.

In the end, the most valuable aspect of my research was my connection to the community, which I was able to gain through work with a Ugandan grassroots organization.  With this organization, I spent the first of my three months in Gulu assisting in programme development in the area of reproductive health.  By the second month I had become a familiar face within the community. This allowed me to contact community leaders I had worked with about holding potential focus groups on the extremely sensitive nature of my research with female ex-combatants.  After approaching the leaders, they would not only organize a group of women for me from their community, but they also would provide a safe and comfortable spot for the women for us to hold our discussions. Ultimately it was this connection that allowed me to be welcomed by community members which in turn opened up a window of culture, war, displacement, and re-growth.

Kimberly Pavelich

Masters Student, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

The Joint Strike Fighter continues to make international headlines.   In the first instance, the Government of Norway announced last week that it would budget over $40 billion to procure and maintain fifty-two JSFs over a thirty-year period.   Currency conversion, inflation, and different weapons aside, Canada’s math appears to stink.  More so, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer argued last spring that the JSF will cost Canada closer to $30 billion over a thirty year period.  Second, it was announced that the current limited production of the F-35 will be reduced in order to correct minor defects in the air frame that were discovered as a result of purposeful “fatigue testing” of the design.  Associate Defence Minister Fantino argues this will have little impact on the Canadian procurement, as the Government is expected to introduce the fighter incrementally in small batches.  Third, and finally, there remains speculation that the entire project may be cancelled.  The United States is looking to make defence cuts as part of larger austerity measures.  Senator John McCain, who sits on the Senate Armed Service Committee, has consistently questioned the almost $1 trillion in research and development that has result in only twenty some odd fighters actually being produced.

I don’t question the “Ted Danson” (obscure Seinfeld reference) ability of the JSF, but I do wonder whether this is the right next generation fighter jet for Canada.  Landing strips in the Canadian Arctic are too short to land the plane.  But, the addition of a drag chute, which would make shorter landings possible, will compromise the stealth nature of the fighter.  The JSF’s current communications package means it cannot communicate with ground troops with potentially dangerous implications (wiki “Tarnak Farm Incident”).  Also, there is an issue with the JSF’s mid-air refueling nozzle.   It is different than the current Canadian one, meaning Canada will either have to buy new air-tankers, use external fuel tanks, or engineer the old nozzle to fit onto the JSF.   Yet once again, the last two refueling options mean changes to the plane’s design, meaning even the most minor of fine-tuning of the JSF for Canadian requirements could compromise its stealth ability.

I don’t think Canada has learned from its previous procurement fiascos.  Anyone remember the Avro Arrow?  In 1957, Canada built the world’s most modern and first all weather interceptor.  It was pretty much the F-35 of its day… very Ted Danson. Yet, Prime Minister Diefenbaker made the correct call to cancel the fighter before it went into production.  Like most high-tech gear the price had drastically escalated from $2 million to $12 million per jet.   This is the equivalent of today’s (not initial) price tag of the JSF jumping from $75 -150 million per unit price to $450-900 million!  Canada had originally only planned to build the Avro frame, with the weapons, radar, and engines to be imported from either the States or UK.  The point being, when you deal with ‘high-tech’ state of the art technology (meaning “Ted Danson,” just in case you are not with me), it must be expected that today’s pricing will not reflect tomorrow’s production costs.  These fighters are going to cost more than we presently expect, despite whatever the Government of Canada tells us.  Second, look at the Victoria-class submarine.  Canada bought four used subs from the UK, but decided to gut the UK designed boats to make them acceptable to Canadian standards (electrical and weapons systems.)  Although the last boat came to Canada almost ten years ago, no sub has ever fired an actual torpedo and the subs spend more time in drydock then on actual patrol.  When we buy foreign, even if the JSF project is part of a multinational endeavor, we cannot change, tweak, poke, alter, amend, or otherwise revise particular systems in order to make the item more “Canadian,” and expect everything thing else to work perfectly (Read: Stealth).

So I guess the question is, why do we need this particular plane?  Both DND and the Government will tell you we need the JSF to intercept Soviet-era bombers from flying over the North Pole and invading Canadian air space.  So Canada basically needs the JSF to interdict bombers in the Arctic even though we will be required to modify it for Arctic operations and there clearly exist better planes on the market for conducting long-range operations.  This seems to me a somewhat strange justification.  Although the planes are stealthy, they cannot get into the Arctic to interdict any ‘evil doers’. Furthermore, ancient Russian bombers remain a greater threat to themselves, than to Canadian airspace.  I do believe it is necessary to prevent unwanted intrusions of Canadian airspace, but it seems to me a big waste of technology.  The Russians fully expect Canadian resistance.  That’s how this air-based game of chicken is played: they try to sneak in, and we prevent them from doing so.

Instead, I believe the true value of the F-35 will be for expeditionary operations, like with the example of CF-18 participation in Gulf War I and more recently in Libya.  In an offensive role, stealth will increase the survivability of the plane in actual hostile situations. Within a multinational framework, refueling issues would not become a major problem through the use of regional basing.

Canada has always employed its military within an integrated multi-national framework.  In the First and Second World War, the Canadian Army adopted the British kit while operating within a larger British command structure.  When the 6^th Canadian Infantry Division prepared for Pacific operations in 1945, it discarded British equipment and adopted an American kit because it was expecting to operate under American command and logistics.  If Canada desires to continue its participation in coercion operations, upholding collective security, and earning a seat at the World stage, it will always be required to have the proper toys to do so.   I certainly feel this is the intent of our present Government.  It has realized that if Canada wants a say in global politics, it must pay the price of admission.  If the US buys the F-35, Canada should too, so it can interoperate effortlessly with the USAF and other NATO countries in overseas operations.  Although the US may go to war without Canada (Gulf War II), I strongly doubt Canada would ever go to war, or engage in collective security, without the support of the US.

Then how should we solve the dilemma I raised? How should Canada’s fighter force be constituted?  It seems all too easy to me.  Canada should develop a mixed fighter air force.  We should procure fewer JSFs, say somewhere in the range of eighteen, for expeditionary operations.   Given the needs of training, maintenance, and attrition, this should facilitate a nationally representative Canadian commitment for overseas operations within a larger multinational framework.  It may result in a higher per unit cost, but it also protects Canada from counting its chickens (JSF) before the eggs hatch (production). Ultimately, I do not really care how many are bought for expeditionary needs – leave that to DND – but it should be way less than the present sixty-five fighters.  By prioritizing the JSF for expeditionary operations, it will also avoid many of the issues surrounding Canada’s domestic and continental air-interdiction needs.  Mainly, that stealth fighter technology, at least in its present form, does not bode well with long-range operations.  Instead, Canada should look for a different, and proven, fighter that has long-range abilities to meet it domestic needs.  Any opinions on which exact fighter are duly welcome.  Nonetheless, this would not prevent the proposed other fighter from participating in overseas operations, nor does it exclude the F-35 from domestic use.  It just gives Canada more options for exercising its national air power.

Importantly, this idea is not new.  Prior to the CF-18, Canada did have two different fighters.  For domestic use, Canada operated the MacDonnell CF-101 Voodoo.  It was purposely designed in the 1950s for meeting the requirements of North American Air Defense Command (today’s North American Aerospace Command).  Meanwhile in Europe, the RCAF used the Canadair (Lockheed) CF-104 Starfighter.  Operating from 1961 to 1987, the Starfighter was used within a NATO framework, and was tasked for high-speed strike and deep reconnaissance operations.  This was simply jargon for dropping nukes (yes, we did have them both domestically and internationally until the 1980s) deep behind enemy lines.

Any thoughts?

Seahorne, out.