Challenges and Future Plans for the Canadian Army

In September 1943, the First Canadian Division executed a bold assault on Potenza, an Italian town, which aided British and American forces in transforming a potential defeat into a triumph. Today, one might question the ability of the current Canadian Army to perform similarly in a large-scale combat operation alongside U.S. forces. Currently, the prospects seem bleak.

Since the Cold War’s end, the Canadian Army has been focused on ‘contribution warfare,’ designed for multinational coalitions and operations other than large-scale combat. This approach was suitable during the post-Cold War era when countries like Canada engaged mainly in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency. However, this era has passed. The current army does not align with the needs of Canada or the expectations from the U.S.

Recognizing this, Ottawa has introduced Inflection Point 2025. This plan targets the transformation of the Canadian Army into a force equipped for sustained, high-level combat against similar or near-equal adversaries. Despite the potential of this plan, it remains only a concept. As the saying goes, even the most well-crafted plans can fail.

If Ottawa merely focuses on organizational charts without investing in recruitment, equipment, training, and sustainment systems, the Canadian Army risks remaining underprepared. Critical investments in these areas appear unlikely in the near future.

Recruitment and Procurement Challenges

Inflection Point assumes that the army’s strategy will not only address a shortfall of 3,000 soldiers but also add 8,500 personnel by 2040. This is an assumption rather than a certainty, and based on historical patterns, achieving this goal is questionable.

The procurement process poses another challenge. Units deployed for deterrence or warfighting require top-tier equipment suited for evolving battlefields. However, Canada’s procurement system, even after recent reforms, remains ill-suited for rapid and efficient delivery of such equipment. Political interests, such as job creation and diversification from the U.S. arms industry, often overshadow the real needs of the army.

Furthermore, even if equipment procurement becomes efficient, sustainment—maintaining the supplies and personnel necessary for prolonged combat—remains daunting. Given current consumption rates seen in conflicts like the Ukraine War, Canada risks quickly exhausting resources with replenishment taking years.

Doctrinal and Tactical Concerns

The Canadian Army, similar to other NATO forces, is slow to implement tactics and organizational changes informed by recent conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine. Without adopting these necessary changes, Canada risks maintaining formations that lack needed survivability, flexibility, and lethality.

To American readers, this may seem to reside solely as a Canadian concern. Yet, akin to the contributions made in World War II, the performance of the Canadian Army on foreign battlegrounds holds significant importance to the U.S. A future American victory might depend on a well-prepared Canadian unit arriving at a critical time, much like in 1943 at Potenza.

For the sake of both nations, it is crucial for the Canadian Army to advance beyond its current plateau, prepared to secure victories parallel to its past achievements.

Andrew Latham is a professor at Macalester College in Minnesota. He is also a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy.