‘Canadian Armed Forces’ rebranding places emphasis on guns, not people

A small but notable change in how the Canadian government refers to our military could signify a rebranding effort for the army, or a gradual shift in the role guns play in our culture.

A decision to refer to the army as the “Canadian Armed Forces” was made recently, shifting from the more ambiguous “Canadian Forces” that had been embraced by former regimes.

A spokesperson for Defence Minister Peter MacKay confirmed for Postmedia News that the name Canadian Armed Forces “is now being used consistently."

This is the second, albeit quieter, military name change under the Harper government, after the official navy and air force titles were changed to include "royal" two years ago.

What is bizarre is that the new, old military names seem to be a return to our past, a reimagining of what it once was and what it was once responsible for.

Yet we all know the military, and the whole of the Department of National Defence, must strive toward the future. And it is. Being armed is just one of the responsibilities the Canadian military has been tasked with.

[ Related: Ottawa gives $20 million to research terrorism and crime ]

There are peacekeeping missions and domestic assistance calls that require no gunplay at all. Even on more hazardous dispatches, diplomacy is integral.

It is not as if MacKay is not aware of this. The Canadian Press reports that some $20 million has been earmarked to fund science-and-technology projects related to terrorism and crime, such as defending against wireless security threats and decontaminating a building following a dirty bomb attack.

These are forward-thinking approaches, integral to addressing the way warfare is waged currently, and in the future. But that $20-million stipend pales in comparison to the $522 million said to be spent on the extended mission in Afghanistan, where the Canadian Army Forces helped train local military.

[ More Brew: Canadian diplomats took ‘minimal role’ in UN gun debate ]

When the "armed" part of the army's name was previously removed by Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien in the 1990s, it was seen as a softening of its image.

So does that mean this rebranding is intent on strengthening that image again? Or perhaps part of what some contend is an ongoing attempt to strengthen the role of guns in Canadian culture?

Perhaps it is notable that Canadian diplomats were recently directed told not to participate in a UN discussion on illegal gun trafficking, lest they step on the rights of Canadian gun owners. Or, perhaps it is not.

Perhaps this is just a natural progression. After all, Canadian Forces and Canadian Armed Forces have always been interchangeable. It is just a matter of which one the government prefers to use.

What we do know is that the guns being wielded will now receive the same amount of attention as the men and women who wield them.