Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775885006994391268

It’s locked or I would have asked him if he truly feels like a NATO member these days.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

JT only ignores meddling if the meddling favours the LPC.

 

[RangerRay]

Even worse when you think that article was written by John Ibbitson, not John Ivison.

Even worse when the Red Star is doing negative editorials on our defence spending.

 

[WinnipegFella]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775885006994391268

It’s locked or I would have asked him if he truly feels like a NATO member these days.

I like to think it's not an accident the Canadian NATO delegation focused on posting civvies instead of soldiers for their photos (minus the band). I'm probably reading too much into it but knowing some of these types of people from my university days, some of whom ended up at NATO and the UN, they view us with such contempt it's not even funny. The soldiers are play things or brutes, only there for the high-minded civilians to direct and lead. Ah, I miss my colleagues from university.

 

[QV]

I don't have qualms with the rest of your post, because ya planning. With the exception the your CSS folks aren't held responsible when the Ops folks fail, you know the old adage, "your lack of planning does not constitute and emergency on my part". Because right now a good portion of our work load is propping up failed G3 type folks who keep fucking up.

As for your quoted bit, and frankly to be short, No.

The RCN has a requirement to be able to provide a sea to shore ratio for all its people regardless of trade. Those shore billets were establish to rotate people through the levels of readiness. I will advise you're looking at this from an Army/Garrison centric position and that does not fit the requirements of the RCN. To be short again, our tempo is much higher than any field unit and along with RCAF Sqns, like LRP, we need to be able to give people time away from the deck plates or we simply burn through folks; in fact its what's compounding the issue the RCN is in now. We've burned out so many people they have clogged up the rotation and it ends up being circle that is self perpetuating.

Also those individuals, not on ships, and fit, are FGing for various other positions and operations; and filling Base responsibilities such as NERT, BASF, Standing Guard, Base Duties ect ect.

Agree with you on the RCN requirement to provide a shore/sea ration. But that means having enough ships and crew to be rotated through sea and shore tasks, not overworked and underfunded/undermaintained as they are now. There still needs to be a deep analysis on what jobs don't need to be done by uniformed personnel, and appropriately billeting those positions with public servants would help the RCN be more and stay more operational.

 

[dapaterson]

I've been saying this for years, especially for CRT/CRTT for techs, it's the exact same course reg and ARes, about a dozen ran every year. Two are in the summer as all ARes courses, but we aren't allowed to put a ARes soldier on a open spot on RegF courses.

There is no prohibition, just various staff obstacles because "I haven't done it before, therefore it might be hard, therefore I will default to no."

 

[YZT580]

The recruiting strategy would have to change. You know, hire young mobile folks with no baggage.

No baggage eh? And how many trips to the local pub do you think it will take before those unencumbered bags of hormones have established a lasting relationship? Whilst hiring singles may be the best source for recruits the plan must entail a way to keep those now skilled individuals on strength for at least 5 years and preferably 10 and that can only be accomplished if you have the housing, the family facilities, good schools, churches etc. in the near vicinity to the posting. And that includes ensuring that off-shore postings don't strand people away from families for 6 months out of the year.

 

[QV]

Ok, YZT580. Are you suggesting the CAF would be better served with a recruit base of 30 and 40 somethings?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Agree with you on the RCN requirement to provide a shore/sea ration. But that means having enough ships and crew to be rotated through sea and shore tasks, not overworked and underfunded/undermaintained as they are now. There still needs to be a deep analysis on what jobs don't need to be done by uniformed personnel, and appropriately billeting those positions with public servants would help the RCN be more and stay more operational.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Cutting any more isn't helping the problem.

All Log base side organizations are already basically civilian orgs with a uniformed command triad.

What we need is to walk that back and expand the uniformed presence.

 

[YZT580]

Ok, YZT580. Are you suggesting the CAF would be better served with a recruit base of 30 and 40 somethings?

not at all. Re-read my post. I agreed that recruiting the unencumbered youth was a good place to start but there has to be provision made to allow those recruits to mature within the services. Getting married and adding family should not trigger a desire to exit the force because the newly acquired family unit is being jeopardized. Senior non-coms, middle rank officers are the working core and if we aren't retaining them we will be unable to field a viable force that can be counted on when the shit hits the proverbial.

 

[QV]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Cutting any more isn't helping the problem.

All Log base side organizations are already basically civilian orgs with a uniformed command triad.

What we need is to walk that back and expand the uniformed presence.

Disagree. I don't see a need for uniforms doing essential non-deployable support work.

The cycle for uniforms should be: rest/recup/individual training, work-ups/collective training, then high readiness/deploy status. Rinse repeat. But you actually need enough people and equipment to properly cycle this without burnout and robbing people from one cycle to the next because you're short.

Not posted into a static log/admin function where we pinch and penny packet force generated sailors/soldiers from because we don't have enough where we need them.

But this would require taking defense seriously and depth of personnel and equipment. Unlikely of any Canadian government or Canada as a whole for that matter.

Just my two cents.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Disagree. I don't see a need for uniforms doing essential non-deployable support work.

What exactly would be an example of non-deployable support work ? Because I think, like others, you are getting units confused with individuals.

The cycle for uniforms should be: rest/recup/individual training, work-ups/collective training, then high readiness/deploy status. Rinse repeat. But you actually need enough people and equipment to properly cycle this without burnout and robbing people from one cycle to the next because you're short.

The solution is not to remove the rest/recoup/individual training positions from the CSS world. That just exacerbates the problem you laid out.

If the problem is too many of the Ops/Combat Arms oriented folks have too many positions outside of their actual role, then address them and that.

But the CSS world operates in peace, at war, behind the lines, on the lines, in Canada, while deployed, static, mobile, on air bases, at sea, in the field, 24/7 and 365. This world does not stop, ever. It really doesn't matter where you employ us we are supporting some operation(s) some where, foreign or domestic.

Not posted into a static log/admin function where we pinch and penny packet force generated sailors/soldiers from because we don't have enough where we need them.

What does static mean to you ? What is your back ground and experience in the CAF ? Meaning what did/do you do as a trade ?

 

[Aper]

Ok, YZT580. Are you suggesting the CAF would be better served with a recruit base of 30 and 40 somethings?

To be honest, I served in the REG force when I was 19 years old for roughly 4 years as Armored.

Today, at 39, i'm joining back the PRes as a MSE Op and I can say this from a personel perspective;

At 39, I am more mature, more experienced and more aware of a lot of things that I wasn't aware of at 19 years old.

At 19 years old, I was going out with my buddies in clubs and bars, drinking and getting wasted only to get back to base at 0100H. Next morning, we did PT at 0700H without a problem. Our priorities back then was having nice cars, going into clubs and getting laid.

At 39, having served 4 years with a tours in A-Stan, a family, a house, and all the responsabilites that comes with life, mentality has changed A LOT. I'm more aware that I need to stay fit, to eat well, to sleep well, to get my shit together, in order to live a good life and to be healthy.

I would, without any doubts, recruit myself at 39 rather that the 19 year-old me.

I understand that you need young people in order for themselves to gain experience and go through all the harsh training the CAF offers, but more experienced guys like me is a must as well.

 

[CountDC]

Essentially, yeah.


Or pay them, or get those operational folks to backfill if needed. I do not subscribe to the belief that Cpl Bloggins FSA needs to be posted to CF School X because it might possibly need someone to work extra innings. You can't pay them when they are not willing to work the overtime. I do agree with the Cpl Bloggins part as with proper planning that should never happen but that leads us to good leadership needed which in some cases is lacking. I had an officer that felt I should be reachable 24/7 for any questions that came up and should jump to answer my phone (it didn't happen).


Yes.... and? Sounds like Staff Officer 101 to me. Yep, now can you get them to actually follow that? I once had a poor young officer show up at my desk because another more senior officer told him to bring something to me for typing as it was my job. I looked at and told him to pound sand because there was no way I was typing it. The document was a university assignment he had to hand in for his degree.


Agreed. Perhaps if our Claims system was not archaic and cumbersome, pers wouldn't be wary of not having an advance. Members could.. you know.... receive their reimbursement after the crisis in a timely manner instead of the latter our claim system is actually pretty good, it's members lack of knowledge and unwillingness to learn anything that is the bigger issue. Everyone can login to claimsx with dwan, there is a resources tab that takes you to a page that has everything needed in order to complete a claim including a claimsx user manual. I have had numerous other trades work for me and within a week they were completing claims with no issues.


So plan for it? Ensure members have kit prior to loading them in a HRU postion? Tried that - Posted to a high readiness unit on 24 hours notice. Was told by clothing stores that because I was navy the army kit would not be issued to me until we were deployed. When we got the message we were supposed to contact the duty supply and they would come in to issue the kit (might take a few hours but he would come in). So somehow I was supposed to do all the admin to deploy our members, help checking our kit, contact the supply staff and wait for them to show up to issue the kit and then put it all together for a deployment. Oh, and 24 hours notice is not always 24 hours, they expect you to be ready at anytime. Even when were notified to be ready as it was down to us or another section deploying they wouldn't issue the kit as we didn't have an actual deploy message. Funny thing about this is that I now have a barrack box and closet full of army kit that I will never need but was issued while at a reserve unit.


We very clearly don't because we very clearly need more personnel to fill operational gaps than the "I fucked up my planning" gaps.

I very swiftly will blame our "DND/CAF Defence Team" bullshit mentality in poisoning the well for CAF members believing a garrison/NCR/shore billet is something to aspire to. Perhaps peoe wouldn't burn out so fast in the Bns, Wings, and Fleets if they had sufficient personnel to do a proper managed readiness cycle. Instead, we use Garrison Support as a means to "give Bloggins a rest." Think I am misunderstanding you on this one. If not garrison support, etc then where do we send them for a rest? Navy you have the ship or you have the shore billet.

The only reason he needs a rest is because there aren't enough folks on the operational side to ensure Bloggins isn't getting double or triple tapped. Again maybe a misunderstanding. Navy side even if the ship is tied up it is not the same as a shore billet as you are constantly running drills while trying to maintain the ship readiness. I would think it would be the same for the army if at a field unit that could deploy on ex or op at any time as opposed to in an office where you can relax a bit more.

Basically to me we need the shore billets to rotate people through for a proper break from the drills, duty watches, sea/field time, etc. There does need to be a complete revamp training of the leadership as too often the lack of proper planning does have a negative impact that shouldn't happen. I do believe that there may be room for some positions to be changed to civilian vice military which may actually force people to plan better as they can no longer fall back on ordering their staff to work overtime to make up for their short comings. I also believe though that we have to be careful with changing the positions as it doesn't always work to the best. I had one posn that came with 4 hats. A year after I left it the posn was removed, 3 hats distributed to civilian positions along with other stuff for them to do. For 10 years I was still contacted by other countries (mainly USA) asking me if I could help them as they couldn't get help anywhere else. Hat 4 required military as it was for a standing honour guard. On the other hand, don't know how all the reserves feel but when I was posted to one back in 2012 or 2013 I was highly disappointed to find out that the civilian positions had been cut from the units as part of the new establishment. I was told not to worry as they had added 2 more Class B positions. I immediately asked if we could switch them back as I would rather have the civilian positions that were cut. We need a balance between the 2 that will benefit everyone.

Another aspect here maybe points of view. To me every "non-operational" position I have filled was in support of operational members.

 

[Furniture]

To be honest, I served in the REG force when I was 19 years old for roughly 4 years as Armored.

Today, at 39, i'm joining back the PRes as a MSE Op and I can say this from a personel perspective;

At 39, I am more mature, more experienced and more aware of a lot of things that I wasn't aware of at 19 years old.

At 19 years old, I was going out with my buddies in clubs and bars, drinking and getting wasted only to get back to base at 0100H. Next morning, we did PT at 0700H without a problem. Our priorities back then was having nice cars, going into clubs and getting laid.

At 39, having served 4 years with a tours in A-Stan, a family, a house, and all the responsabilites that comes with life, mentality has changed A LOT. I'm more aware that I need to stay fit, to eat well, to sleep well, to get my shit together, in order to live a good life and to be healthy.

I would, without any doubts, recruit myself at 39 rather that the 19 year-old me.

I understand that you need young people in order for themselves to gain experience and go through all the harsh training the CAF offers, but more experienced guys like me is a must as well.

The thing is, 19 year old unattached you could go wherever the CAF needed, whenever the CAF needed. 39 year old you is more mature, but you now have other responsibilities that mean the CAF can't just tell you that you're going Wainwright Monday for the next three weeks to teach a course, or that you're headed to Latvia in two weeks for six months because someone over there got hurt.

Part of the burnout happening in the CAF right now is the unattached people are getting handed the crap jobs/postings because a fair portion of the people with families can't/won't do it. It essentially makes unattached people second class members.

 

[Castus]

The thing is, 19 year old unattached you could go wherever the CAF needed, whenever the CAF needed. 39 year old you is more mature, but you now have other responsibilities that mean the CAF can't just tell you that you're going Wainwright Monday for the next three weeks to teach a course, or that you're headed to Latvia in two weeks for six months because someone over there got hurt.

Part of the burnout happening in the CAF right now is the unattached people are getting handed the crap jobs/postings because a fair portion of the people with families can't/won't do it. It essentially makes unattached people second class members.

And honestly - war, particularly high intensity, ground based warfare, is a young man's game. When led by well trained officers & experienced NCOs & WOs, young men are far more able to sustain the tempo & rigours of warfare than those of us in our mid-thirties and beyond. That isn't to say that we don't have something to contribute; maturity, perspective & experience is an absolute requirement for a real Army. However, the core demographic, particularly of soldiers & JNCOs in combat trades, should be young men.

I am absolutely not capable of doing the same kind of business in my current age as I was when I exited battle school in my mid-20s. I might be able to find creative ways to stretch it, but we are in a dangerous scenario when those approaching or at middle age are the typical soldier in the ranks. Therefore, we should be maximising recruitment of the young & aggressive, temper them with experienced superiors and as mentioned here many times, not assume or even desire everyone to serve 25 years. An initial engagement of three to five years is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable for a vigorous Army, whilst also planning & accommodating those who wish to stay beyond and form a partial or full career.

 

[Furniture]

And honestly - war, particularly high intensity, ground based warfare, is a young man's game. When led by well trained officers & experienced NCOs & WOs, young men are far more able to sustain the tempo & rigours of warfare than those of us in our mid-thirties and beyond. That isn't to say that we don't have something to contribute; maturity, perspective & experience is an absolute requirement for a real Army. However, the core demographic, particularly of soldiers & JNCOs in combat trades, should be young men.

I am absolutely not capable of doing the same kind of business in my current age as I was when I exited battle school in my mid-20s. I might be able to find creative ways to stretch it, but we are in a dangerous scenario when those approaching or at middle age are the typical soldier in the ranks. Therefore, we should be maximising recruitment of the young & aggressive, temper them with experienced superiors and as mentioned here many times, not assume or even desire everyone to serve 25 years. An initial engagement of three to five years is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable for a vigorous Army, whilst also planning & accommodating those who wish to stay beyond and form a partial or full career.

In all honesty, I'm less concerned with age (outside the Cbt arms), and more concerned with flexibility/availability.

I think the CAF needs to do more to provide supports to those with families, but the CAF also needs to be better at telling those with very restrictive family situations that they are no longer suited for service in the CAF.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And honestly - war, particularly high intensity, ground based warfare, is a young man's game. When led by well trained officers & experienced NCOs & WOs, young men are far more able to sustain the tempo & rigours of warfare than those of us in our mid-thirties and beyond. That isn't to say that we don't have something to contribute; maturity, perspective & experience is an absolute requirement for a real Army. However, the core demographic, particularly of soldiers & JNCOs in combat trades, should be young men.

E.g.,

"Truly then, it is killing men with kindness not to insist upon physical standards during training which will give them maximum fitness for the extraordinary stresses of campaigning in war."

- SLA Marshall

 

[Castus]

In all honesty, I'm less concerned with age (outside the Cbt arms), and more concerned with flexibility/availability.

I think the CAF needs to do more to provide supports to those with families, but the CAF also needs to be better at telling those with very restrictive family situations that they are no longer suited for service in the CAF.

That's fair, although I do think there is a place for those who have restrictive family situations, namely in staff roles that most do not seek after, but still need to be done. Ottawa is full of them, and whilst Ottawa needs to be pared down, they will still need to be done.

That being said, I am in the Army. The business of Army is either conducting close manoeuvre warfare for those in front line units, or directly supporting it, and therefore the focus must inherently be on the combat arms. There is no other game in town for the Army, and this needs to be stated very clearly by the chain of command to re-orient everyone on what the role of a ground force is.

 

[Aper]

The thing is, 19 year old unattached you could go wherever the CAF needed, whenever the CAF needed. 39 year old you is more mature, but you now have other responsibilities that mean the CAF can't just tell you that you're going Wainwright Monday for the next three weeks to teach a course, or that you're headed to Latvia in two weeks for six months because someone over there got hurt.

Part of the burnout happening in the CAF right now is the unattached people are getting handed the crap jobs/postings because a fair portion of the people with families can't/won't do it. It essentially makes unattached people second class members.

Oh absolutely ! I'm not saying the CAF needs only mature 30+ men (and women) in their ranks, but you do need a certain balance with mature people in the lot.

The major difference that I would like to quote you on is ''REG vs PRES''. I chose PRES exactly for these specific reasons; part-time, non mandatory mutation and non-mandatory deployments.

When I was REG, we had people with obligations and kids, but when CoC told you that you were leaving for a month-long training to Wainwright, family or not, it was ''suck it up, buttercup'' regardless if you had obligations or not. The CAF was your priority, and not your family.

And this is also why I left the Forces after 4 years, because I couldn't imagine myself struggling between a full-time dedicated job in the Forces and having a family.

And being pure honest, I think that being in the Reserve is the best option for a lot of people; you can apply for Class B and Class C jobs, you can give the time you want, you can enjoy serving your country even with having a family and obligations back at home and sharing a full-time civilan job, ect. A lot of people are unaware of this, and spreading the information might actually interest a lot of people that never though of joining the CAF part time.