The Donroe Doctrine

Vincent J. Curtis

2 Feb 26

Trump’s National Security Strategy is primarily about economic, and America’s primary adversary in a global economic and political struggle is China. Trump says, “The choice all countries should face is whether they want to live in an American-led world of sovereign countries and free economies or in a parallel one in which they are influenced by countries on the other side of the world.”

Readers of this space will be familiar with the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by President James Monroe in 1823. It warns European powers against colonialism in the Western Hemisphere, and declares the Western Hemisphere as the sphere of influence of the United States. The Trump Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, or the ‘Donroe’ Doctrine, reaffirms the Monroe Doctrine and extends it as follows: “We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.” Trump was 18 years old during the Cuban missile crisis.

“The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity.”

The Strategy emphasizes persuasion over bullying by the US for its selfish ends. “We will enlist established friends in the Hemisphere to control migration, stop drug flows, and strengthen stability and security on land and sea. We will expand by cultivating and strengthening new partners while bolstering our own nation’s appeal as the Hemisphere’s economic and security partner of choice.”

Canada might not have enlisted under the ‘Trump Corollary,’ but she volunteered seventy years ago in the NORAD agreement to partner with the United States in the defense of North America.  The “alternative defense partners” referenced applies to Cuba, Panama, and Venezuela which allied themselves with powers inimical to US interests and hostile to the Monroe Doctrine. Russia, China, Iran, and perhaps Hezbollah are the unnamed alternative defense partners. Mexico, for all its long history of animosity with the US, has mostly adhered to the Western Hemisphere concept in its disputes with the US. (e.g. rejecting the Zimmermann Note, 1917.)

Trump has in mind how the United States fought WWII. America’s supply chains and all essential war resources were practically secure from German and Japanese intervention. Extra oil came from Venezuela; coal, iron, steel, ship building, munitions, Canadian uranium, factories were all secure. Tomorrow’s war essentials, the rare earths, are being dealt with by Trump now.

“The United States will prioritize commercial diplomacy, to strengthen our own economy and industries, using tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools. The goal is for our partner nations to build up their domestic economies, while an economically stronger and more sophisticated Western Hemisphere becomes an increasingly attractive market for American commerce and investment.”  China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ Trump sees as a direct threat to American influence. Not much in this for Canada, except perhaps to steer clear of China, and a clue to us to look to Latin America more closely for trade. (Brazil has 213 million people.)

Without saying ‘China’ explicitly, the Strategy aims to reduce China’s alarming influence in Latin America. “Non-Hemispheric competitors have made major inroads into our Hemisphere, both to disadvantage us economically in the present, and in ways that may harm us strategically in the future. Allowing these incursions without serious pushback is another great American strategic mistake of recent decades.”  Venezuela was under Chinese and Iranian influence before the seizure of Maduro, and Trump is now putting pressure on long-time Russian ally, Cuba. Trump forced China to give up control of the popular app TikTok, and has forced Panama to end Chinese control of port facilities on either end of the Panama Canal.

Canada can make peace with Trump by balancing its trade with America. One stone that kills many birds at once is to purchase lots of needed military gear from America: aircraft, both fixed and rotary-wing; ships, artillery systems, and tanks. Otherwise, Canada should increase American imports, and find alternatives to China.

-30-

 

The US National Security Strategy Part 2

Vincent J. Curtis

1 Feb 26

 His first Administration, 2017-2021, confirmed President Trump in his belief that his national and foreign policies will deliver what he wants, to Make America Great Again, and to Keep America Great. His four years out of office gave him time to collect his thoughts and perfect his program.

Continuing in pedagogic exegesis, Trump asks, “1) What should the United States want? 2) What are our available means to get it? and 3) How can we connect ends and means into a viable National Security Strategy?” Trump’s answer to the first question is a lengthy and detailed essay in itself. In the overall, America should want safety as an independent republic, safety from attack by hostile foreign powers, from hostile influences, from espionage, predatory trade practices, drug and human trafficking, and cultural subversion. In these answers one can see the reason for the Golden Dome, the push for Greenland, his chasing China out of Panama and Venezuela, and his personal animosity to America’s political Left, whom he regards as culturally subversive.

Next up are Trump’s concerns for control of America’s borders and its immigration system, concerns which, along with DEI, fall under the rubric of cultural subversion.

The heart of Trump’s proximate end is this: “We want the world’s most robust industrial base. American national power depends on a strong industrial sector capable of meeting both peacetime and wartime production demands. That requires not only direct defense industrial production capacity but also defense-related production capacity. Cultivating American industrial strength must become the highest priority of national economic policy.” This is the basis for Trump’s tariff policies, and his goal of ending America’s trade deficit with the world.

The aircraft carrier USS Yorktown was badly damaged at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and she was desperately needed for the Battle of Midway. Repair was estimated to require some weeks. Upon docking at Pearl Harbor, 1400 dock workers on their own set to work for 72 straight hours patching up Yorktown, and got her ready for battle. Could America do this today? Doubtful. America’s auto industry worked miracles of productions during WWII.

Trump has seen the war by the Left on the sources of American power generation, first nuclear, then hydro, and since 1992, coal.  Alleged “climate change” is seen by Trump as meant to cripple American power. “We want the world’s most robust, productive, and innovative energy sector—one capable not just of fueling American economic growth but of being one of America’s leading export industries in its own right.” America’s exports of LNG and crude oil to Europe reduces Europe’s dependence on Russia, and every barrel of Venezuelan and Alberta crude America imports means another barrel of American crude at the service of American foreign and economic policy.

When it comes to “soft power”, Trump is not all brutality, and reveals a deftness that arises from experience in dealing with Middle Eastern potentiates, “we exercise positive influence throughout the world that furthers our interests. In doing so, we will be unapologetic about our country’s past and present while respectful of other countries’ differing religions, cultures, and governing systems.”

Trump closes his overall aim with a normative end for American culture, “Finally, we want the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health, without which long-term security is impossible. We want an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age. We want a people who are proud, happy, and optimistic that they will leave their country to the next generation better than they found it. We want a gainfully employed citizenry—with no one sitting on the sidelines—who take satisfaction from knowing that their work is essential to the prosperity of our nation and to the well-being of individuals and families. This cannot be accomplished without growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.” Could Canada want less for itself?

-30-

 

The Origin of Natural Gas on Earth

Vincent J. Curtis

23 July 2026

 The planet earth is the product of a supernova.  This supernova occurred 5 billion or more years ago, and some of the products of that supernova found their way into this solar system some time around 4.6 billion years ago.

Before this solar system was born, somewhere in the Milky Way galaxy, a star of the category ‘blue giant’ formed. These stars are fifty to one hundred times the mass of the sun, and it is necessary that this kind of star be the origin of the matter on earth.  These stars have short lifespans as stars go, perhaps as short at 30 million years. Their immense gravity causes them to burn fuel at a gigantic rate.  This star would have begun its life composited entirely of hydrogen, which, under the pressure of gravity begin the process of atomic fusion into helium. Before the hydrogen is exhausted, hydrogen and helium begin fusing into the element lithium. As gravity continues to crush the star’s matter under greater pressure, the temperature rises, hydrogen begins to run short, and the heavier elements themselves begin to fuse to create even heavier elements. Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon are notable steps in a giant star’s life. Magnesium is produced by fusing two carbons.  In the more massive stars, silicon, the product of fusing carbon and oxygen, becomes notable. In the most massive stars, nuclear fusion can continue under increasing pressure and temperature right up to the creation of iron, the product of fusing magnesium and silicon.

When these massive stars begin producing iron, the end is near; iron production may last only a couple hundred years, according to current theory. But iron is the limit. A star can gain energy by fusing elements into iron, but heavier than iron is endothermic; that means that more energy is absorbed than is released by fusing nuclei into elements heavier than iron, such as nickel.

At the end, the star simply can’t produce enough heat to resist the pull of gravity, and it collapses.  In that collapse a massive amount of energy is released all at once and results a supernova. What is left of the star after a supernova could be a dwarf star, a neutron star, a black hole, or even nothing at all.  Unimaginatively massive amounts of material are blasted into space.

In the explosion of a hydrogen bomb, it is said that all the elements capable of being formed are formed momentarily, perhaps a few microseconds. Something similar but on an incomparably greater scale must happen in a supernova, and elements heavier than iron are formed, right up to uranium at least.

The products of that supernova streamed out into space, cooling as they went.  The earth’s core is composed of a massive chunk of hot iron and some nickel.  In the earth’s crust is found massive amounts of silicon and oxygen, along with calcium, magnesium, and aluminum. There are also ore deposits of many heavy metals too, including lead and gold, right up to the heaviest known naturally occurring element, uranium.  On the surface of the earth is a massive amount of water, a compound of oxygen and hydrogen. The atmosphere is composed of nitrogen and oxygen, along with traces of argon and carbon dioxide.  All of these elements are the products of the atomic fusion processes that occur in massive stars. The massive chunk of hot iron that forms the earth’s core points to the supernova of a massive star, a blue giant, and the elements heavier than iron, right up to uranium in the earth’s crust, point to a supernova also.

On Titan, a moon of Saturn, rivers, lakes, and seas of liquid methane, CH4, and ethane, C2H6, the primary components of natural gas, were discovered.  Titan has a nitrogen atmosphere and water in its crust. The massive amount of methane and ethane on Titan cannot be biological in origin. So, how could they have been created?

They must have been created by the explosion of a star, perhaps the same explosion the debris of which formed the earth.  The creation of carbon is a major step in the lifespan of a star, and a star never runs out of hydrogen.  In the final explosion of this star, the carbon and hydrogen mixed, and when the streams of material shooting out into space cooled enough, the two elements must have combined together chemically to form methane and ethane.  The amount of material expelled from an exploding star is massive compared to the amount of methane and ethane found on Titan, but for Titan the amount was huge.  Everything found on earth is miniscule compared to a star a hundred times more massive than the sun, but it is sufficient to form a small planet like earth.  And this must be so for the earth to be composed as it is, with a hot iron core, and of the elements that it is.

Methane can certainly be formed by biological action, but deposits of natural gas are found in the earth’s crust as deep as 10,000 m down. Ordinary tectonic action would not be able to form biological methane at depths so deep.  In addition, on the ocean floor is found a compound called methane hydrate, a compound of water and methane.  The nature and location of this material make biological origin unlikely, but a raining down from space of methane and water could explain it.

From the massive amounts of methane and ethane on Titan, one is drawn to the conclusion that they have to be the product of an exploded star, for biological action simply can’t explain it.  Hence, too, on earth some at least of this planet’s deposits of natural gas might have come from an exploded star.

-30-

 

 

The U.S. Antional Security Strategy, Part 1

Vincent J. Curtis

1 Feb 26

“The business of America is business” is a saying attributed to President Calvin Coolidge. American businessman and President of the United States Donald J. Trump understands a deeper truth than Coolidge meant: that American military, diplomatic, and cultural power in the world depends upon its economic power. Hence, the success of the American economy and American business is the central concern of Trump’s National Security Strategy. The focus on “America First” or a foreign policy that puts America’s national interest first, places Trump as a disciple of Hans J. Morgenthau, and of Henry Kissinger’s “A New Foreign Policy for the United States”. Published in 1965; Kissinger proposed self-interest as the first principle of American Foreign Policy, and cautioned against deeper American involvement in Vietnam.

The Strategy makes clear that the Trump Administration sees China as America’s chief rival and adversary in the world. ‘Enemy’ is too strong a term to describe Trump’s perception of China, for the Strategy sees continued trade between the two countries, and Trump himself is too clever a negotiator to make clear so stark a relationship between America and Communist China, and between himself and China’s president, Xi Jinping.

The goal of the Strategy is straightforward, “To ensure that America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come”. The purpose of the document is to provide coherence and focus to how the United States will interact with the world, by explaining “the essential connection between ends and means: it begins from an accurate assessment of what is desired and what tools are available, or can realistically be created, to achieve the desired outcomes.” The strategy is almost military in its antiseptic analysis.

The Strategy criticizes American strategic goals since the end of the Reagan Administration and the rise of so-called neo-cons in foreign policy, “American strategies since the end of the Cold War have fallen short—they have been laundry lists of wishes or desired end states; have not clearly defined what we want but instead stated vague platitudes; and have often misjudged what we should want.”

The Strategy criticizes the thinking of the “elites” as follows: “Our elites badly miscalculated America’s willingness to shoulder forever global burdens to which the American people saw no connection to the national interest. They overestimated America’s ability to fund, simultaneously, a massive welfare regulatory- administrative state alongside a massive military, diplomatic, intelligence, and foreign aid complex. They placed hugely misguided and destructive bets on globalism and so-called “free trade” that hollowed out the very middle class and industrial base on which American economic and military preeminence depend.” The echoes of Vietnam, of the inflationary pressures of the late 1960s through the 1970s, and everything from Bush 41 onwards reverberate through these passages. That “hollowing out” began with the 1992 NAFTA agreement, and accelerated rapidly in 2002 after China was admitted to the World Trade Organization (Bush 43).

Trump is plainly determined that America will learn from its past mistakes that he observed in his earlier life. “They allowed allies and partners to offload the cost of their defense onto the American people, and sometimes to suck us into conflicts and to suck us into controversies central to their interests but peripheral or irrelevant to our own.” (Saudi Arabia & Kuwait v. Iraq, 1990. NATO.).

The cardinal error made by the “elites” of the past, was, “they undermined … the character of our nation upon which its power, wealth, and decency were built.”

Here Trump observes that beneath America’s economic power is the character of the American people that make that economy actual. The worm of hatred, self-loathing, and contempt for American success began with the Vietnam War, and persists to this day in academia. Trump was a young man in the 1950s and 1960s, and his view of America was shaped in this period of undoubted American greatness, dominance, prosperity, success, and essential goodness.

Next: Ends

-30-

 

 

Why the EX?

Vincent J. Curtis

26 Dec 25

This space has consistently argued against the purchase of the Lockheed-Martin F-35 for the RCAF, and instead urged that the Boeing F-15EX be the fighter jet that Canada buy.  The USAF sees some wisdom in this, as it is acquiring about 100 of these thoroughly modernized fighters from Boeing.  The combination of factors for this purchase by the USAF include: delays in delivery of the F-35, the wearing out of the F-15C/D inventory, and the favorable economics of operating a mixed fleet of both F-35 and F-15EX.

The proponents of acquiring the F-15EX emphasize that it is a powerful complement to the F-35, with special emphasis on the “deep magazine” of the F-15EX as compared to the F-35.  In stealth mode, the F-35 can only carry four missiles; whereas the loadout on the F-15EX is 12 missiles.  Hence, if the enemy air defenses are suppressed, an F-15EX sortie can deliver as much firepower as three sorties of F-35s.

Another feature offered as reason for an F-15EX acquisition is lower operating cost.  The fly-away cost of an F-35 is said to be US$82 million; that of an F-15EX is US$90 million, but the mission availability rate of the F-35 is only 67 percent, while that of the F-15EX is 83 percent. In addition, the maintenance costs of the F-35 are very high, and special hangers are required to maintain the radar absorbing coating which preserves its stealthiness. The F-15EX requires no special surface treatments or hanger conditions.

Finally, there is a radical difference in performance. The top speed of an F-35 is Mach 1.6, and it has a service ceiling of 50,000 ft; the top speed of the F-15EX fully loaded is Mach 2.5, with a service ceiling of 60,000 ft., while stripped down (to deal with those pesky Chinese balloons) the F-15EX can reach 65,000 ft, and is rumoured to have a top speed of Mach 2.9.  These, combined with a 9 g turning capability, make the F-15EX very hard to shoot down with a missile; and the new electronic suite in the F-15EX will give the pilot plenty of warning about incoming trouble. The F-15EX outranges the F-35 by several hundred miles, and has a 20,000 hr service life.

So, why should Canada purchase the F-15EX? The primary mission of the RCAF, now and always, is the air defence of North America.  A vital secondary role is the demonstration of Canadian sovereignty over the High Arctic by flights of Canadian combat aircraft in Canadian air space in the far north. For the latter purpose, stealth is not a requirement, and in some ways, i.e. the demonstration of sovereignty, stealth is a detriment: you want to be seen demonstrating sovereignty.  A fighter jet with long-range, high speed, and a deep magazine is the aircraft to deal with a flight of incoming Russian bombers. Being visible might well act as a deterrence, for there’s nothing on an adventurous Russian bomber that hurt an F-15EX.

Now, let’s talk acquisition.  There are serious production delays that retard the acquisition of a fleet of 88 F-35s.  The Boeing production line for F-15EXs is fully up and running and is filling orders at a rate of two aircraft per month. There’s plenty of room for increase to fill an urgent need from Canada. Boeing has previously indicated that money spent by Canada to acquire Super Hornets would be offset by Boeing running more business through its manufacturing facility in Winnipeg, so the industrial offsets are potentially there.

Thus, this proposal boils down to the acquisition of a smaller number of F-35s, and a larger number of F-15EXs, giving the RCAF the potential for SEAD that opens the way for the big puncher.

What about the Gripen E?  Nothing wrong with it.  I’ve likened it to Volvo’s take on the F-16, and we’ll see what it can do against Russia this spring in Ukraine. But how does the Gripen E fit in with the operational concepts elucidated above?

-30-

 

REPOST: Is COVID a Bioweapon? A conspiracy theory.

Vincent J. Curtis

 9 June 21

After Tucker Carlson’s remarkable opening monologue last night on Fox News, I no longer feel restrained about releasing this explosive piece written nearly two years ago.  I submitted to a couple of places for publication but it was considered too hot at the time. Vincent J. Curtis 28 Feb 23.

What follows is sheer speculation.  But it is speculation based on facts.

The proposition to be discussed here is that the COVID virus was an early development bioweapon in a program to address India’s growing demographic advantage over China.

It is often complained about by Canadian social justice warriors that the poor, women, and the racialized are suffering the worst from COVID.  The implication is that racism, sexism, and good old white supremacism are at work in healthcare in Canada, particularly in Ontario.

It is true that a surprising proportion of the patients hospitalized in Ontario with COVID are people of East Indian or South Asian ancestry.  India, as of this writing, is having a very tough time dealing with COVID.  So let’s take it as read that people of South Asian ancestry have a peculiar susceptibility to COVID.

The Chinese Communist Party is scared to death of India’s demographics.  China’s old “One Child” policy is coming home to roost.  Though China has now adopted a three child policy, the demographic damage of decades of the one child policy will be felt over the next thirty to fifty years.  China’s population is beginning to age, and China may see an actual decline in population by 2070.

On the other hand, India’s population is young and growing.  India is expected to surpass China in population in the coming decades.  China has been the most populous region on earth for millennia, and that point of pride will be eclipsed soon by India as a consequence of the policy of the Chinese Communist Party.

Chinese policy going back to the days of Sun Tzu is to take the long view, to win without a battle, and that the Chinese race will eventually absorb any conqueror on account of its vast numbers.  That last point is now at risk.

China has a border conflict with India going back sixty years.  Minor skirmishes instigated by China erupted recently along the so-called Line of Actual Control in the Himalayas.  Indian soldiers worsted the Chinese in these episodes, and Indian media attributes their success to the Chinese soldiers, being the one child of their family, are “precious little princesses” who aren’t willing to risk their lives or even their comfort combatting the rugged Indians.

How would a communist deal with a rising demographic advantage of a rival?  A regime that killed 70 million of its own people would have no qualms about killing several hundred million of the enemy’s population.  The question would be how to do it with minimal accountability.

Although big tech and major media in the U.S. have, for their own reasons, tried to discredit the story that the COVID virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it is now accepted that it did.  It is also becoming known that, incredibly, U.S. tax dollars might have funded “gain of function” research in the Wuhan lab.  “Gain of function” in this case means taking a virus found on a horseshoe bat, and modifying its genetics to make it infectious to humans.

But what if the level of know-how was such that the virus could be made especially deadly to humans of a particular genetic make-up?  It has been popular for several years to have one’s DNA tested in a lab, and you get a report on your racial ancestry.  The lab work is done in China or is owned by the Chinese; and while individual test results may be private, a picture of genetic characteristics of a region can slowly be built up after enough individual cases are evaluated.

As a bioweapon, COVID is badly designed.  It attacks the very old and the sick.  If you wanted to kill healthy, military age males, the Spanish flu virus is the bug for you.  For this reason, COVID virus may be simply an early development in the project, a project to develop race-selective fatal diseases.  It’s release may have been accidental, or not.

All this is wild speculation; the stuff of the fever-swamps of conspiracy theorists.  However, somewhere there is an intelligence analyst thinking along these lines.

-30-

Vincent J. Curtis is a retired Canadian research scientist, and occasional free-lance writer.

Planning for mobilization in 2002

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Nov 2025.

 In May, 2002, I submitted an article to the Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin entitled “From Here to There: Phase IV mobilization and the New Army Strategy.”  I don’t know if it was ever published, but this 6050 word opus covered the problems of mobilization through its four phases in light of the-then recently released “New Army Strategy” and before our major Afghanistan deployment. (of course, the NAS and full mobilization were completely incompatible.) It looks like the Army is once again reviewing plans to raise armed forces through at least a phase III mobilization.  To save time, and to provide old insights, below are the first few paragraphs of that 2002 paper.

The army exists to destroy Canada’s enemies.  In natural order of priority, the army is expected to defend from external threat the national territory of Canada, then North America, then the territory of its treaty allies such as NATO.  The army may be called upon by the Canadian government to make war upon a foreign country not contemplated under the previous three heads, as we are now doing in Afghanistan.  The army may also be called upon to contribute forces in support of United Nations operations, or undertake a range of customary domestic operations.  These latter uses of the army are decidedly of a second tier priority to that of the defense of Canada and of her interests against a direct external threat.  An army, in the first instance, is an instrument for war fighting, and all the other subsidiary capabilities of an army stem from that.

 Phase IV mobilization refers to the level of mobilization at which the entire country is roused for war.  A War Emergency is declared, the militia is called out, freedoms are restricted, and Canadian industry is turned over to war production.  It represents the maximum level of effort the country can exert in self-defense.  Twice in our history, in World Wars I and II, Canada stood on this footing.

The role of the Regular army in peacetime is not to fight a war.  The Regular army provides for the immediate defense requirements of Canada and the day-to-day deterrence against attack of Canada’s interests.  It makes the plans, conducts the training, and develops the doctrine of the army for its primary and secondary missions.  It serves as the basis for an operational commitment, but the capability of the Regular army and the scope of its overseas missions are strictly limited by the defense budget. The Regular army, as presently constituted, would never be called upon to fight in a major war, for it is too small to fight and its soldiers too well trained to waste in battle.  At best it could engage in strictly limited conflicts with a low risk of casualties.

The New Army Strategy is a plan of change that moves the Regular Force in the direction opposite to full mobilization.  Armour and artillery are going to be reduced in readiness.  Certain combat capabilities such as pioneers and mortar platoon are going to be stripped out of a doctrinal battalion.  The capabilities of the brigade group are going to be modularized into company-sized bodies so that a deployed unit or sub-unit can be more easily task tailored. The organizational structure of a task tailored unit may not resemble that of a conventional battalion at all; and losing pioneer and mortar platoons, the battalion is less of a combined arms team than it was.

The aim of the New Army Strategy is to create, in the Regular Force, a model army that is “more agile and lethal, tactically decisive and medium weight”.  None of these properties are absolute, they are relative, and depend upon the enemy and terrain.  For that reason, the Regular Force is expected to become “capable of continuous adaptation and task tailoring across the spectrum of conflict.”  This flexibility will be achieved by the Regular Force becoming “knowledge-based and command-centric.” 

The reason for these changes boils down to money: too much deployment, too little budget, and an urgent need to modernize. Part of the purpose of the New Army Strategy is to maximize deployable manpower for operations other than war.  Another part is to prepare the Regular Force, within our limited budget, to accept niche roles within a larger allied structure for combat like operations, and to maximize our combat power through the use of the new technologies.

The New Army Strategy is founded on the belief that until the government radically changes its policy on defense funding, the days of full, mechanized brigade operations by Canada are over.  Indeed, supporters of the New Army Strategy have argued that those days are over for everyone.  The United States Army and Air Force are now so technologically superior that they have made the army of every potential enemy of ours obsolete.  Nobody can stand in the field against an American armoured division supported by American air power.  Our potential enemies, it is argued, will not in the foreseeable future attempt to employ mechanized forces to impose their will against Canadian interests but will instead employ the techniques of asymmetric warfare, cyberwarfare, and terrorism to forward their aims.  Our enemies of the future may not even be governments.  Mechanized brigade groups are not able to shield us from these kinds of threats and these kinds of enemies.  In any event, Canada is quite unlikely to go it alone against an external threat; and with our spare defense budget and at a Phase II mobilization level, the New Army Strategy will enable the Regular Force at least to participate somewhere in a U.S. or U.N. led force.

-30-