CANADIAN FORCES UNIFICATION AND CANADIAN FORCES TRANSFORMATION
Canadian Forces Unification and Canadian Forces Transformation
Introduction
The Canadian Forces role and organization are under the National Defence Headquarters, which combines the CF and Department of National Defence into a unified command system. The unification of the defence department and forces in 1971 is the beginning of substantial changes in the Canadian Forces. The belief is that the unification is the source of the recent 2005 transformations taking place in the structure and organization of CF. The transformations are the final chapter of the 1960s unification process. The goal is to define and establish the differences between CF’s unification and transformation as a way of understanding its current organization and role.
Canadian Forces Unification
The unification process began in 1923, with the Department of National Defence trying to unit militia, navy, and defence. The process failure is under the influence of internal resistance, war in Europe, the Second World War, creation of NATO, and the Korean War. However, the unification was a success under Paul Hellyer, following the signing into law the 1968 Canadian Forces Reorganization Act.[1] The unification of the armed forces is the integration of the military and civil structures of the National Defence Headquarters.
Canadian Transformation
Military Transformation is “a set of activities which the DOD tries to harness the revolution in military affairs to have fundamental changes in operational concepts, technology, doctrine, and organizational structure”.[2] Canadian Force’s transformation is in the Canadian Security and Defence Policy, in the RMA.[3] The goal of this transformation is to have an agile, flexible, and quick thinking CF capable of responding to various situations, both humanitarian and counter insurgent.[4] This transformation has a technological element, where “The Forces will maintain or modernize those capabilities that remain valid, acquire new ones and eliminate those no longer needed”.[5]
Differences between the Concepts
CF’s Unification was under the influence of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the concomitant response of the forces when the government briefly lost control of the CF.[6] Hillier’s Transformation is under the influence of the threat of terrorism, failing and failed states. The unification goes beyond restructuring the force, but entails comprehensive review of defence policies, integration of command for an ordered organization and the decrease issues of trio-service inefficiencies. The transformation, on the other hand, is the change in functioning, to a more agile and quick thinking force. The goal of the transformation is to better position the Canadian force in the world in the coming decade. The Canadian unification is notably an attempt to develop a defense policy founded on a Canadian base. Unification is to allow the unified force to meet necessary requirements for change. The transformation process is concentrating on changes in the forces’ processes and technical methods.[7] This new world order uses technology in the military, like Kosovo’s war where sophisticated media generated and distributed messages to reporters. Technological advances in the military field engage the management of information by shutting down of cable links, satellites, and microwave towers, mostly due to international security.
The Unification’s defence policy aim was to defend Canada and North America and take part in international operations of the nation’s choice.[8] The Unification had little constraints imposed, therefore, giving the minister of defence and the government flexibility. This led to the centralization of administration and control under one chief of staff instead of the three chiefs. However, CF’s Transformation is focusing on different CF-Defence departmental activities like operations, material, human resources, science and technology, and defence industry.[9] The Canadian Force’s Transformation seeks to have smaller tailored units for tasks, while the Unification seeks to have one large military body under one leadership. The 2005 Transformation strives for a decentralized leadership and decision-making process, while the Unification developed a central leadership and command center under one military general. Hillyer’s Unification created high command that controlled battles and forces. This was an integrated defence policy with one defence program, one headquarters and one chief of staff. The 2005 Transformation, on the other hand, strives for control of battles at lower echelons of the force. The transformation seeks to develop the military force to create a professional and highly educated force, while the Unification was more on the restructuring of the organization and role of the CF. the Unification’s transformations entailed the creation of a streamline bureaucracy and modernization of military management methods.[10]
Conclusion
The structure and organization of the military is under the influence of guiding defence policies. These defence policies depend on the command and principle guiding the government and military command. For the Canadian force, major changes in its role and structure are under the Unification and Transformation processes. Unification focuses on centralization of command and control through integration and restructuring, while transformation focuses on changes in decentralization of organization, technological innovation, and change in doctrine, concepts and structure.
Bibliography
“The Glassco Commission and its Repercussions – Out of the Shadows: The Civil Law Tradition in the Department of Justice, Canada 1868-2000”, Department of Justice, 18 Oct 2012, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/civil/place4.html. The text refers to Report of the Royal Commission on Government Organization, Vol. I, p. 19.
Department of National Defence, Canada’s International Policy Statement: a Role of Pride and Influence in the World: DEFENCE, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, 2005, p. 12.
Gosselin, D. and Stone, C., General Hillier: Understanding the Fundamental Differences Between the Unification of the Canadian Forces and its Present Transformation, Canadian Military Journal.
Sloan, E., Canada and the Revolution in Military Affairs: Current Response and Future Opportunities, Canadian Military Journal, 2000, p.8.
Sloan, Elinor, The Revolution in Military Affairs, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, 2002, p. 32.
[1] “The Glassco Commission and its Repercussions – Out of the Shadows: The Civil Law Tradition in the Department of Justice, Canada 1868-2000”, Department of Justice, 18 Oct 2012, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/civil/place4.html. The text refers to Report of the Royal Commission on Government Organization, Vol. I, p. 19.
[2] Sloan, Elinor, The Revolution in Military Affairs, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, 2002, p. 32.
[3][3]“A major change in the nature of warfare brought about by advances in military technology which, combined with dramatic changes in military doctrine and organizational concepts, fundamentally alter the character and conduct of military operations.” Sloan, Elinor, Revolution Military Affairs, p.7.
[4] Hillier, op. cit., p. 323.
[5] Department of National Defence, Canada’s International Policy Statement: a Role of Pride and Influence in the World: DEFENCE, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, 2005, p. 12.
[6] Gosselin, D. and Stone, C., General Hillier: Understanding the Fundamental Differences Between the Unification of the Canadian Forces and its Present Transformation, Canadian Military Journal.
[7] Department of National Defence, International Policy, p.12.
[8] Gosselin, D. and Stone, C., General Hillier, p.7.
[9] Sloan, E., Canada and the Revolution in Military Affairs: Current Response and Future Opportunities, Canadian Military Journal, 2000, p.8.
[10] Gosselin, D. and Stone, C., General Hillier, p.8.
