In November 2017, the Government of Canada announced a new capacity-building mission in support of the United Nations. When considering the employment of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) around the world, capacity building currently represents the vast majority of CAF operations. This raises two important questions. Why does the Canadian government favor capacity building operations? What drives the Canadian public support for international operations and does capacity building meet these expectations? This monograph argues that capacity-building missions are uniquely suited to meet the current government's intent and the expectations of Canadians for the use of the Canadian military. By understanding why the government and people favor one type of mission over another, the CAF's leadership can shape military advice on the employment of military forces, drive force generation requirements, and provide a most likely scenario for the development of training, doctrine, and organizational structures. To support this thesis, this monograph examines the government's intent for the CAF as stated in the foreign and defense policies. Research reveals five key objectives for the use of military force overseas: contributing to global stability, strengthening multilateral institutions, reinforcing Canadian-US military relationships, countering global threats, and maintaining a combat credible force. Using academic papers, research polls, and reports on CAF operations, the monograph also examines how Canadians influence government policies through public support in terms of three concerns. Canadians want to understand clear national security links and military objectives. They also judge CAF operations in terms of acceptable costs of risk of casualties combined with the length of the mission. The monograph concludes with why capacity-building best reconcile the Canadian government's intent while maintaining public support.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)