The Politics of Canadian Defense - 09 May 1985 - CIA Assessment

[Retired AF Guy]

While scrolling through the various CIA declassified reports on Canada I came upon this report on Canadian defence policy after Brian Mulroney's defeat of Pierre Trudeau in 1985. While the report covers a lot of familiar territory, especially to those of us who served in the military during those years, its still interesting to see what the US assessment of the situation was. Enjoy.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Superb analysis, reads the Canadian psyche awfully well--plus ça change...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[NavyShooter]

What's old is new again?

Interesting how well our closest neighbour pays attention and understands us...

 

[Good2Golf]

CIA nailed it.  Ironic how relevant and still applicable it is today: budgetary pressure impeding promised Defence growth; currying NATO favour (particularly the UNSC seat); and Arctic sovereignty...plus que ça change indeed!

Thanks for the link RAFG!  Great find.

Regards
G2G

 

[Journeyman]

Interesting how well our closest neighbour pays attention and understands us...

Well, our neighbour's intelligence organizations at any rate... which may change with their leadership.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The validity of the assessment aside, I wonder about where this report fits into overall American "intelligence operations" aimed at Canada.  Some of the things that I noticed that may colour the depth of analysis provided:

• Requested by a relatively junior officer (a major) in the J5 (strategy and plans) section of the Joint Staff and judging by the lack of a distribution list (which is usually found on most of the released CIA documents) no distribution other than to Major McHugh.
  
• Analysis prepared by EURA/WE/BBC (Office of European Analysis, Western European Division, BBC?, perhaps the section that deals with Britain, Canada and somebody else who begins with "B" - other CIA reports about the UK originate from BBC).
  
• Any questions about the analysis were to be addressed to "John McLaughlin"* whose intelligence credentials included: (according to Wikipedia)
  

  McLaughlin's CIA career lasted more than 30 years, starting in 1972 with a focus on European, Russian, and Eurasian issues at the Directorate of Intelligence. From 1984 to 1985, he served a rotational tour at the State Department in the Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs. He returned to CIA and served as Deputy Director and Director of the Office of European Analysis from 1985 to 1989 . . .

It was a very spot on analysis of the Canadian political situation as it related to defence spending at the time but other than a couple of comments attributing information to "a noted Canadian historian" (describing Trudeau as malevolently anti-military) and "senior officials in External Affairs and DND", there was nothing new that a well informed person of the time could have easily gathered by reading the newspaper every day.  Well, maybe mentioning former minister Robert Coates as a defence hardliner (or even relevant) came as a surprise to someone who remembers the time.

* As an intelligence product, it is good, and quality wise seems to be consistent with Mr. McLaughlin's other analyses:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/03/mclaughlin_as_a_former_kgb_officer_trump_is_an_open_book_for_putin.html

President Trump "Is An Intelligence Recruiter's Dream," "Totally Transparent"

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The validity of the assessment aside, I wonder about where this report fits into overall American "intelligence operations" aimed at Canada.  Some of the things that I noticed that may colour the depth of analysis provided:

• Requested by a relatively junior officer (a major) in the J5 (strategy and plans) section of the Joint Staff and judging by the lack of a distribution list (which is usually found on most of the released CIA documents) no distribution other than to Major McHugh.
  
• Analysis prepared by EURA/WE/BBC (Office of European Analysis, Western European Division, BBC?, perhaps the section that deals with Britain, Canada and somebody else who begins with "B" - other CIA reports about the UK originate from BBC).
  
• Any questions about the analysis were to be addressed to "John McLaughlin"* whose intelligence credentials included: (according to Wikipedia)

It was a very spot on analysis of the Canadian political situation as it related to defence spending at the time but other than a couple of comments attributing information to "a noted Canadian historian" (describing Trudeau as malevolent) and "senior officials in External Affairs and DND", there was nothing new that a well informed person of the time could have easily gathered by reading the newspaper every day.  Well, maybe mentioning former minister Robert Coates as a defence hardliner (or even relevant) came as a surprise to someone who remembers the time.

* As an intelligence product, it is good, and quality wise seems to be consistent with Mr. McLaughlin's other analyses:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/03/mclaughlin_as_a_former_kgb_officer_trump_is_an_open_book_for_putin.html

President Trump "Is An Intelligence Recruiter's Dream," "Totally Transparent"{/quote]

I would be particularly interested in what appears to be one or two sentences of redacted info in the paragraph speaking about the late PMPET.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Lumping "the media" in with "the opposition" to establish "tenuous claims and allegations" resulting in an "unsophisticated nature of the defence debate in Canada" and "the almost universal failure of the general populace ... to perceive an external threat."

Nothing has changed, even after a war and emergence of threats that resulted in the execution of Canadian soldiers and civilians on our own soil.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Blackadder1916: I would imagine most of the CIA analysis was based on regular diplomatic reporting by US embassy Ottawa (language about contacts would fit that), plus whatever CIA/NSA liaison personnel here may have sent back.

As Wikileaks showed a lot of US dip reporting is first rate. Covert CIA collection only needed in certain circumstances, almost certainly not in Canada at the time.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Underway]

That last few paragraphs are in particular the way forward for the CAF at this current time again.  Harper's Conservatives new it and played upon it.  The Northern commitment is key.  The tie in with economic benefits is also key.

We need more ships for the northern commitment.  AOPS show up.  RCN gets involved with the design process and suddenly we have much more than armed icebreakers but multifunctional patrol ships. Which will probably also be used far more outside of the north than actual in the north.  It's almost a bait and switch, taking advantage of unsophisticated Canadian media and voters.

Now we just need to do that for submarines and aircraft and it will be good.  Frankly the army centric focus of the CAF hurts us significantly in these discussions.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I would be particularly interested in what appears to be one or two sentences of redacted info in the paragraph speaking about the late PMPET.

Here is the URL to the CIA FOIA search engine: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/

If you go looking for info on PET the results deal mostly with politics/election results and the odd in-depth report. Type in "Canada" and you get some very detailed reports.