The Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence are grappling with the requirements of Strategic Review and the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, as well as a larger transformation initiative and a possible refresh of the Canada First Defence Strategy. General Walt Natynczyk, Chief of the Defence Staff, spoke with editors Toby Fyfe and Chris Thatcher.
Without unpacking the recommendations of each of these reports, this seems a lot to take an organization through. How will you maintain the effectiveness you need?
The focus for the Canadian Forces (CF) and DND is on operational excellence. We have about 13,000 men and women deployed on operations, and we move forward with all of these transformational agendas cognizant of the fact that we have people in harm’s way. As we go through the various exercises we have to ensure that we enable their success. And that provides us a focus unlike any other organization, be it government or civilian. In each exercise – Transformation, Strategic Review or the DRAP – we have to find the efficiencies but at the same time we have to maintain that effectiveness.
Are you starting to see some common themes emerging from these reports that suggest areas that need to be addressed, either from a CF or a DND perspective?
What we are finding is that the institution has been under a lot of pressure because of the operational tempo over the past five years. In 2006, when our forces moved from Kabul to Kandahar, I don’t think anyone anticipated the level of the insurgency or the fact that we were going to be in heavy combat. And that has stressed our people. Even though we had short of 3,000 people deployed, when you consider the people who were training or recovering, you had about 9,000 people in the mix. On top of that, through this period we were working up to support the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with the Olympics, so another 4,500 people committed for a long period in terms of the training and build up, and then in the middle of that we had Haiti and then Libya. So you had the entire organization that was set up for this kind of mobilization, but also all the work in terms of procurement, repairs, capital management and so on.
How does the recently adopted CF global engagement strategy help set your priorities?
The global engagement strategy was developed by our policy folks and Foreign Affairs and allows the minister, deputy minister and leaders of the CF to build upon our relationships with our international partners. Part of it comes from our operational success over the last while: our partners want more of Canada. Given that we have the Americas strategy, traditional relationships with NATO allies, a focus on the Arctic, and given that Canada is a major Pacific nation, we need to engage with all of our partners. The global engagement strategy has been very effective in focusing us with regard to those countries that wish to have a stronger relationship with Canada.
Does greater engagement require new skills and competencies?
We train for general-purpose combat capability. And when you train to that level of intensity, you ensure all of the leaders have the skill sets, the discipline, the training to do anything across the spectrum of conflict. As we proved in Afghanistan, we can prosecute combat operations and at the same time, with a more gentle touch, conduct training. From my perspective, we have it about right.
I take your point, but on knowledge transfer are there management issues around demographics and the changing of people?
I’m pretty pleased with what we call the lessons learned process, which is highly honed as a result of our experience in Afghanistan and Libya. Ensuring that lessons learned are applied saves lives. Key was how quickly you go from observing a change, assessing it, determining a solution, and then apply it. It is now part of our culture to apply those lessons learned and change behaviour.
At the tactical level, that lessons learned process has changed significantly and appears to work well, but you’ve struggled at the strategic level. Do you feel you now have a better handle on that?
I think it is always more challenging at a national strategic level because the further you are from the sound of the guns the less everyone understands. When you are close up to the sound of the guns you need to change, you need to adapt, you need to be agile because it is life or death. As you move back from the tactical theatre to the operational and then the strategic, there is always inertia that grows. And yet you do need to change and transform to enable success at the front. Things change for one of two reasons: evolution and crisis. Evolutionary change is really hard because you are trying to get everyone into the same space and understanding of the problem. In a crisis it’s easy – everyone understands the same problem. What you’ve described is the result of that evolutionary change. At the same time, you need to exercise and demonstrate strong leadership to change the path. It goes right back to the original purpose and focus of the CF, which is to enable operational success.
You’ve mentioned a couple of times relationships with other departments: is this a “newer” direction for the military?
Right from peacekeeping operations 30-40 years ago, we’ve always been closely linked with Foreign Affairs and central agencies. But since 9/11, I think we are talking a lot more about relationships with Public Safety and the RCMP. Operations in Afghanistan and the experience with the Olympics have given it more focus. The reality of these complex domestic and international operations is that they are all about relationships and trust and confidence.
The armed forces invest a lot in leadership. This seems such a priority not just for you but also for the organization as a whole.
We have a term: the strategic corporal. Well, now it is the strategic private. Whether on a patrol somewhere in Kandahar or now on the training mission in Kabul, onboard the ship HMCS Vancouver or in an aircraft, we rely upon these men and women to do the right thing. The cost of an error is catastrophic, at a tactical level, at an operational level and at a strategic level. So we invest more in terms of training and professional development than any other institution because we expect so much of our people and because this is a life or death proposition.
Outside your door I saw the quote from Sun Tzu: “Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys. Look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death.” What does it mean to you?
We have a tremendous profession of arms, but with our principles of duty, integrity, loyalty and courage, we ask tremendous things of our men and women. Having served with other nations’ militaries, I think we have the best force in the world. But we have to ensure they are always set up for mission success. They go into operations with the confidence that they have the very best probability of achieving their mission and doing so while mitigating the risks so they can come home safely. So it is about respecting them and always keeping in mind who they are as human beings.
How would you describe your leadership style?
I would say personable in trying to get the best of all of those leaders who work for me. As I learned from a gray beard when I took command of my unit, the first thing you ne
