CAF Operations: A Comprehensive Approach to Enable Future Operations

  • Neil Chuka
  • Heather HrychukEmail author
Part of the Canada and International Affairs book series (CIAF)


Despite increasing calls to harness and integrate the entirety of state power in response to defence and security challenges under a Comprehensive Approach, the benefits posed by such integration often go unrealized in Western nations. Simultaneously, hybrid actors, possessing strategic outlooks incompatible with Western security objectives, seem increasingly able to harness multi-spectral elements of national or group power to achieve their desired ends. This chapter examines insights provided by recent Canadian operations, and those of hybrid actors, to understand how Canada can improve its ability to apply Comprehensive Approach principles. Moreover, it draws linkages to Canadian institutional, bureaucratic and cultural features to stimulate thinking about what will be required in future security environments. In doing so, it argues that strong, decisive leadership, robust institutional structures and inter-organizational processes are necessary to facilitate development of holistic approaches in response to contemporary security challenges.


  1. Archambault, Peter, and Brad Gladman. 2011. A Role for Effects-Based Planning in a National Security Framework. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies 13 (2): 1–26. Google Scholar
  2. Axworthy, Lloyd. 1997. Canada and Human Security: A Need for Leadership. International Journal 52 (2): 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourgault, Jacques, and René Lapierre. 2000. Horizontality and Public Management Final Report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Public Management.Google Scholar
  4. CBC News. 2011. NATO Worried over Possible Libya War Crimes Probe. CBCNews.
  5. Chuka, Neil. 2007. Confusion and Disagreement: The Information Operations Doctrine of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and NATO. MA thesis, Department of War Studies, Royal Military College of Canada.Google Scholar
  6. Chuka, Neil, and Jennifer Born. 2014. Hybrid Warfare: Implications for CAF Force Development. DRDC-RDDC-2014-R43. Ottawa: Defence Research and Development Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. 2010. Air India Flight 182: A Canadian Tragedy—Volume One: The Overview. Ottawa: Government of Canada.Google Scholar
  8. Duffield, Mark. 2001. Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  9. Franks, C.E.S. 2004. Putting Accountability and Responsibility Back in the System of Government. Policy Options 25 (9): 64–66.Google Scholar
  10. Freedman, Lawrence. 2014. Ukraine and the Art of Crisis Management. Survival 56 (3): 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glenn, Russell. 2009. Thoughts on “Hybrid” Conflict. Small Wars Journal.
  12. Grammer, Nicholas. 2008–2009. Integrating Civilian-Military Operations: The Comprehensive Approach and the ATF Experience. Paper Presented to the CPSA Annual Conference. Author’s copy.Google Scholar
  13. Heuser, Beatrice. 2010. The Evolution of Strategy: Thinking War from Antiquity to the Present. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffman, Frank. 2009. Hybrid Warfare and Challenges. Joint Force Quarterly 52 (1): 34–39.Google Scholar
  15. Kaldor, Mary. 1999. New and Old Wars. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lagassé, Philippe. 2010. Accountability for National Defence: Ministerial Responsibility, Military Command and Parliamentary Oversight. IRPP Study, No. 4.Google Scholar
  17. Manley, John. 2008. Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan. Ottawa: Government of Canada.Google Scholar
  18. Mueller, Karl (ed.) 2015. Precision and Purpose: Airpower in the Libyan Civil War. Santa Monica: RAND Corp.Google Scholar
  19. Murray, Williamson, and Peter Mansoor. 2012. Hybrid Warfare—Fighting Complex Opponents form the Ancient World to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. NATO, Warsaw Summit Communiqué. 2016.
  21. Patrick, Stewart, and Kaysie Brown. 2007. Greater than the Sum of Its Parts? Assessing Whole of Government Approaches to Fragile States. New York: International Peace Academy.Google Scholar
  22. Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability. 1979. Final Report, 194. Hull: Canadian Government Publishing Centre.Google Scholar
  23. Scales, Robert, Jr. 1998–1999. Trust, Not Technology, Sustains Coalitions. Parameters XXVIII (4): 4–10.Google Scholar
  24. Wentz, Larry K. 1997. Intelligence Operations. In Lessons from Bosnia: The IFOR Experience. Washington, DC: National Defense University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Defence Research and Development CanadaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations