A Ranger Reset?

Vincent J. Curtis

21 Oct 20

The United States Scouts was a unit of the United States Army between 1866 and 1942.  It consisted of Native American Indians, who served as guides and, at times, combat soldiers when the United States settled its West.  These were the days before topographical maps, and local geographical knowledge was essential for successful military operations against plains Indians hostile to settlement.

Indian scouts were hired for their skills and their loyalty.  They did not train in the conventional combat methods of the U.S. Army of that period.  When they fought, which was often, the Scouts employed the methods and tactics of Indians.  The last Scout Troop was disbanded in 1942, co-incident with the disbandment of the last horsed U.S. Cavalry unit at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

Akin to the Scouts, the Canadian Rangers are hired into the Canadian Army reserve on account of their knowledge and skills acquired from a lifetime of experience in Canada’s North.  They receive little training, and they are equipped economically.  The CBC recently published an opinion piece by Robert Smol which argued that the Rangers needed to change – reset – “to keep pace with a changing North.”

Smol’s opinion deserves to be seriously considered.  He holds an M.A. in War Studies from RMC, served for twenty years in the CAF, and retired as a Captain in the Int Branch.  Smol says that the Rangers should be trained to a military standard of Army Reserves.  He says that the Rangers are the only element of CAF reserves that cannot be sent directly into combat.

The Rangers have been in the news of late on account of a few of their members being associated with “far-right” “hate groups.”  Could military training cure the Rangers of unpopular political views?  Smol thinks yes.  “…disgraceful conduct by non-Indigenous members of the Rangers should be our clarion call for a Rangers reset.”

I don’t think Smol has considered all the factors.  In the first place, what offensive and defensive army tactics could the Rangers employ in Canada’s far north?  Are section attacks that are taught on the Mattawa Plain relevant to warfare on the Arctic tundra?  Who would be the enemy, and what would be a possible strategic situation?

Does the Canadian Army even have a defensive doctrine that is applicable to tundra?  The Russian Steppes are not at all like our Arctic tundra.  You can’t dig slit trenches in tundra.  Maneuver Warfare, with tanks and wide, sweeping maneuvers as occurred in Russia 1941-1944, simply isn’t applicable to Canada’s high Arctic.  Before the Rangers are trained in combat operations, maybe the Canadian Army needs to develop a force employment doctrine for land operations in the high Arctic first.  After that, you still have to define a place for specifically Ranger operations.

Smol, I think, neglects the reason why Canada even has a Ranger force outfitted and organized as it is.  The first Rangers were organized during World War II to serve as eyes and ears on the British Columbia coast against possible Japanese operations.  After the war, the same idea was leveraged to maintain a Canadian military presence throughout the North.  Occupation is an important component of sovereignty, and nothing says occupation like guys with guns.  Aboriginal habitation doesn’t count as a sign of sovereignty.  Yes, Canada maintains a post at Alert, but the Arctic is a big place, and Alert doesn’t cover the entire region.

Another advantage to the Rangers as presently constituted is economy.  They don’t cost a lot of money to get the job they do, done.  That job is demonstrating sovereignty.  If a military situation arises that is bigger than a Ranger Patrol can handle, it’s the job of the big boys from down south to deal with.  Rangers are the recce element.

Nevertheless, Rangers were deployed to Neskantaga First Nations for a real-world Aid to the Civil Power operation last November.

Trained militia reservists are known to have awkward political views.  Military training didn’t cause them, or cure them.

-30-