With reports this past week that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will "soon" meet with his cabinet to discuss the War on Terror, and specifically the battle with ISIL, I couldn't help thinking about another cabinet meeting, chaired by his father, Pierre Trudeau, in 1969.

Trudeau had some news for his inner circle that day and it was consistent with a man who could never quite relinquish his anti-American posture nor his fondness for left-wing demagogues. But Trudeau had such an abundance of personality and charisma: Did his foreign policy views really matter?

He found out they did.

Throughout the 1960s the Liberal party was both committed to the Cold War and unabashedly pro-American, so much so that the Kennedy administration actually assisted the Liberals to win the 1963 federal election. So when Trudeau announced to his cabinet in the spring of '69 that he wanted to pull Canada out of NATO, he might as well have proclaimed himself prime minister for life. Liberal ministers who proudly recalled that Canada was a founding member of NATO and a key player in the containment of communism since the organization's inception in 1949 rebelled. Some offered their resignations. Others threatened to go to the press.

When the brouhaha was over, Trudeau realized that he was a leading a party, a caucus, a cabinet and indeed a country that viewed the world differently than he did -- and Canada stayed in the NATO alliance.

Does the current Liberal cabinet (and the country) view the world differently than Justin Trudeau? I can't help believing that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan does and that he is on an inevitable collision course with the prime minister on many defence issues, but most significantly on Canada's role in the fight with ISIL.

Sajjan was a lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian army with deployment time in Afghanistan. He knows first-hand what Islamic extremists are capable of and that armed and fanatical terrorists are not undermined nor defeated by increasing humanitarian aid.

Trudeau believes in lending a helping hand throughout the world. But without concomitant military force, that hand will be cut off. He is actually talking about something called a more "robust" training mission, about as efficacious in fighting ISIL as a more robust cup of coffee.

Canada has already been excluded from a NATO planning meeting this month. The organizers didn't even bother with diplomatic parlance to cloak the reason for not inviting us. U.S. Defence Secretary Ashley Carter said the six invited nations were playing "a significant role" in the fight against ISIL. He further noted the lack of space for "free riders" in the coalition.

Ouch.

It hasn't taken long for Trudeau to diminish Canada's standing on the world stage. As many of us noted, the decision to bring the CF-18s home and to cease bombing missions against ISIL was both a tactical error and strategic blunder.

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion actually had the astounding clumsiness to note that Canada was only delivering two per cent of the airstrikes against ISIL, as if the courage and skill of our RCAF pilots were hardly worth mentioning.

The percentage is hardly worth noting. A coalition is not just about the amount that you contribute but that you are willing to contribute at all. Otherwise, it is all just rhetorical hot air that demonstrates perhaps a longing to try but never a desire to succeed. Canada never had the military capability to resist a Soviet invasion of Western Europe either -- but our willingness to lend our forces to repel any invasion meant our commitment was deeper than talk.

It's not that Stephen Harper left office with an unblemished record on national defence. He adroitly played the shell game of military funding. But he was prepared to put Canadian resources on the line and to publicly state that Canada was committed to defeating ISIL through military means. He fostered no illusions that a few more care packages will face down terrorists who decapitate hostages with the same ease as ordering lunch.

Let's hope there's a reality check at that Liberal caucus.

Other areas of potential conflict between Trudeau and Sajjan

For a man lacking any passion for or understanding of national defence, Justin Trudeau could not have become prime minister at a worse time. He has inherited a barrack room full of mounting problems within the Canadian Armed Forces. They will not go away if he ignores them.

Here are some of the issues that could lead to inevitable conflict between humanitarian aid Trudeau and his military-experienced defence minister, Harjit Sajjan.

Joint Strike Fighter: After the Conservatives purchased C-17 heavy lift aircraft and a replacement for the C-30 Hercules transport plane, capital acquisition within the Department of National Defence devolved to its usual state of paralysis, during which -- during peacetime at least -- can only be described as a logistical and administrative nightmare. Decades are sometimes required to replace major articles of military hardware. Witness the still unresolved story of the Sea King replacement, which has lumbered on now since the Chretien government came to power in 1993 and cancelled the EH-101 contract.

The replacement fighter jet for the CF-18 promises to go the limit, too. Ironically, the purchase of the F-35 JSF was initially an innocuous and apparently non-partisan project initiated by the Liberals. Canada signed on along with Britain, Australia and all three combat-flying branches of the U.S. military. The sincere and admirable notion was for interoperability between four allies who frequently train and deploy with each other. Since then, the F-35 has been criticized by just about everyone who hated the Harper government, including peace groups who wouldn't know a fighter jet from a search-and-rescue helicopter. Harper was able to stall on the project, sensing he would be accused of buying another "Cadillac" for the military and now it's in Justin's lap. A decision is not just overdue, but ridiculously late. The CF-18s (ironically acquired by Trudeau) must be either replaced or mothballed in the next decade the work to do so must start now. Trudeau has already talked about cancelling the F-35 but offered no other alternative. Sajjan will know that that is not a viable option.

Canadian defence spending and NATO: During the Pierre Trudeau years, the Opposition Progressive Conservatives revelled in reminding Canadians that Canada was one of the most penurious members of NATO, spending less than everyone but lowly Luxembourg. Well, it's not much better today and wasn't any better under Stephen Harper; Canada spends less on NATO than only four other members of the alliance. Canada is supposed to be spending two per cent of its GDP on national defence. It agreed to do so two years ago at a NATO summit and for that matter the Conservative government promised to do so over a decade ago. In reality, we are spending less than one per cent and only achieved double that under Brian Mulroney. The pressure from our European and U.S. allies to shoulder our share of the defence burden -- given the terrorists incidents that these countries are experiencing -- is growing increasingly intense and caustic. Trudeau will want to insouciantly simile. Sajjan will press for action.

Rust-out in the Royal Canadian Navy: Again, the Liberal governments of the 1970s left the navy in what was bitterly described as "rust-out" condition. The Canadian Patrol Frigates that began to roll out during the Brian Mulroney years were a massive contribution to revitalizing Canada's maritime forces. But one treatment doesn't guarantee health for life and the navy is today looking at spending billions to replace ships that are rusting out just like the ones four decades ago. The Conservatives issued the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy but only began its implementation with some construction of arctic supply ships. The price tag for a combat-capable navy -- always something a three-ocean country such as Canada should aspire to -- is in the tens of billions of dollars. Trudeau, like his dad, won't flinch from running away from the problem. Sajjan, despite identifying with the army, knows all about the issue because it's a common discussion at the NDHQ water fountain.

"Tooth to tail" ratio: Canadians have been outraged over the over-administration in military since Sam Hughes was the Minister of Militia prior to the Great War. Successive governments have expressed their apparent passion for reducing the number of managers in the Canadian Armed Forces in order to maintain more soldiers, sailors and airmen and purchase the equipment they need. Liberal governments demonstrated an expertise at closing bases during the Chretien years (especially if these were located in ridings that didn't vote for the government -- bye, bye CFB Chilliwack) and the previous Conservative government showed its willingness to consolidate headquarters infrastructure. The planned move to a "single" (believe that when I see it) national defence headquarters in Ottawa's west end is evidence of that. But cutting management? Ever since (once again) Pierre Trudeau fused the Canadian Armed Forced with the Department of National Defence, DND has been overborne by civilian managers, all of whom belong to a very powerful and activist public employees union -- and Justin Trudeau is very beholden to them. Don't expect a bureaucratic shakeup, though Sajjan is aware of the need to do so.

Sometimes history doesn't suture a leader with the most suitable epoch. At least as far as national security issues are concerned, Justin Trudeau would seem to be a man ill-equipped for the task ahead -- unless he can listen to and heed good advice. He will definitely receive that from Harjit Sajjan; it will be up to Trudeau whether he listens or not. As for Sajjan, he must decide whether he can successfully meet the needs of his department, not by being a yes-man for the PM, but by cleverly showcasing funding requirements, building alliances within the cabinet and moving Trudeau into action.

David Krayden is a former Air Force public affairs officer and Parliament Hill communications manager who has worked in print, radio and television journalism. He writes and speaks about Canadian politics.