The Unequal Dialogue reveals how civil-military relations have grown increasingly fraught since the Second World War, as Canadian civil and military society have diverged in opinion on the purpose and membership of the armed forces. From the start of the Cold War, through the nuclear weapons debate, and past the Afghanistan war, government agencies and policy makers - civilians, in other words - have sought to make the armed forces of a small state like Canada relevant in a thermonuclear world, and to ensure that military membership reflects the broader population. The resulting periodic crises over the role and especially the combat capability of the armed forces, as well as over the inclusion of francophones, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals, have produced a perpetual cycle of civilian direction, military resistance, and civilian intervention to enforce change. In this unequal dialogue, the armed services have struggled to define a Canadian profession of arms, while civilians have engaged only to change policy, and always with the last word. In The Unequal Dialogue, Peter Kasurak proposes two fundamental changes to break this deadlock. Political leadership must become more actively and continuously involved in shaping the military, while the military itself must rethink the profession of arms to accord with civil society, rather than emphasizing independence and divergence.