Canada's New, Liberal, Defence Policy

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Just going to be bit of a contrarian here Bird_Gunner:

I would think that CFB Montreal is a pretty big base quite close to ... well, Montreal; CFB Borden ain't so small and it is well within reach of Toronto to visit with the family, and so would CFB Trenton I would say; It ain't perfect but, hey, seems to me CFB Esquimalt is within reasonable week-end day trip to mama in Vancouver; and on the second tier, lets see CFB Edmonton ... pretty close to Edmonton; CFB Valcartier ... pretty close to Quebec City, and CFB Halifax pretty close to Halifax.

I think we have to start looking for something else than pretending we live only in the boonies all the time as the reason people don't join.

Let me trow a spitball here: Why don't we make TV and internet advertisement blitzes more often. I could be wrong but they seem to work. And when we do blitz them, let's make sure that all the resources needed  for fast processing are lined up at the recruiting centres.

 

[dapaterson]

From the figures I have seen, the recruiting group exceeded its targets last year for the Reg F SIP.  There are challenges in recruiting only a very small number of occupations (and even many which are currently strained have healthy BTL cohorts).

Recruiting capacity is intimately related to CFLRS training capacity; there is then the requirement to align follow-on training to minimize time spent awaiting training.  There have been numerous initiatives in the past to increase recruiting without taking an adequate view of the personnel production system, which resulted in some notoorious cases of people being enrolled, compelting their basic training, and then releasing at the end of their initial engagement without completing any occupational training.

 

[Old Sweat]

  With nine Reg F infantry battalions we have roughly 400 company commanders (majors) in the Regular Force Infantry.

There's a whole lot of culling that could be done at levels above reality that would translate into more PYs for either new capabilities or rounding out existing establishments so it's not the same people constantly being sent away.

This piqued my curiosity, so I dug out my copy of the 1965 Canadian Army Officers List (the last one published) before a common one was introduced. At that time the army strength was in the order of 48,000 all ranks, including 13 infantry battalions each of four companies and an establishment around 850-875.

I then counted the regular force infantry majors, subtracted the four Acting Lieutenant Colonels who were not WSE and added the 27 Captains (Acting Majors) again not WSE. The total was 282 infantry officers wearing a crown on their shoulder straps.

Food for thought? The aim of integration and unification was to reduce overhead and administrative and personnel costs. How well have we done that?

 

[Kirkhill]

This piqued my curiosity, so I dug out my copy of the 1965 Canadian Army Officers List (the last one published) before a common one was introduced. At that time the army strength was in the order of 48,000 all ranks, including 13 infantry battalions each of four companies and an establishment around 850-875.

I then counted the regular force infantry majors, subtracted the four Acting Lieutenant Colonels who were not WSE and added the 27 Captains (Acting Majors) again not WSE. The total was 282 infantry officers wearing a crown on their shoulder straps.

Food for thought? The aim of integration and unification was to reduce overhead and administrative and personnel costs. How well have we done that?

Seeing as how, as I understand it, the OC Cbt Spt Coy was also the Ops O that resulted in DCO, OC Adm, OC CS, 4x OC Rifles = 7  for each of 13 (total of 91) with a supernumerary to battalion ratio of 191:91.

Given McGs comment we are down to 6 Majors for each of 9 battalions then the 91 shrinks to 54.

Same 191:91 ratio should result in 113 supernumeraries for a grand total of 204 Infantry Majors (or roughly half the present day burden, I mean staffing).

 

[dimsum]

I do, however, believe that there is something to be said for there just being a lack of recruits or interest in joining the military in society in general. We have a large number of societal and internal factors working against the military for recruiting, including- lack of bases near major cities (and subsequently persons from Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal being less interested in joining as they cannot return to anywhere near their home areas), a relatively strong economy, and a higher educated public generally less inclined to do many of the types of jobs that the military is hiring for. Heck, society in general is screaming for tradespeople, so why would someone who can be a tradesman from Toronto, work in Toronto, and be his/her own boss want to join the military to do the same job, not be their own boss, and be posted to somewhere like Petawawa or Shilo?

I'm of two minds about this.  OGBD does bring up a good point regarding locations, but what I've seen with the Australian Defence Force is that despite their Army being mostly in large cities (Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide all have garrisons within city limits) and their smaller bases being in decent-sized towns such as Townsville and Darwin, retention is still an issue.  Same goes with the RAN, which is based in Sydney and fairly close to Perth.  This may be a function of the younger generation, and not specifically because of location.

However, I can also see BG45's points as well.  The demographic is changing, and younger people will want to be near cities, if not in them.  Also, I think the more short-term pressing issue for QOL is spousal employment - in places like Greenwood, Wainwright, Shilo, Cold Lake, etc. (and to an extent, Comox) there isn't a whole lot for the spouse to do, esp if he/she is considering leaving a well-paying job (e.g. lawyer) in a city. 

Short of closing and moving bases, which obviously won't work practically (and more importantly, politically), I'm not sure how to solve this problem.  I *guess* that the SAR squadrons could go to something like a x-weeks on, x-weeks off schedule like folks working the oil patch. 

I don't think that being close to family is the issue - it may be for some, but lots of young people are travelling/living away from their parents. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

I would like to meet the supply dept that works days and that's it.  No offense lumber but you just excentuate the extreme lack logistical understanding you "Hard Sea" types have.

God I never thought I'd say it but I miss the Army.

Tsk, tsk.  Not all us Hard Sea types have a lack of appreciation or understanding for how hard the Supply/Logistics Dept. work.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I'm of two minds about this.  OGBD does bring up a good point regarding locations, but what I've seen with the Australian Defence Force is that despite their Army being mostly in large cities (Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide all have garrisons within city limits) and their smaller bases being in decent-sized towns such as Townsville and Darwin, retention is still an issue.  Same goes with the RAN, which is based in Sydney and fairly close to Perth.  This may be a function of the younger generation, and not specifically because of location.

However, I can also see BG45's points as well.  The demographic is changing, and younger people will want to be near cities, if not in them.  Also, I think the more short-term pressing issue for QOL is spousal employment - in places like Greenwood, Wainwright, Shilo, Cold Lake, etc. (and to an extent, Comox) there isn't a whole lot for the spouse to do, esp if he/she is considering leaving a well-paying job (e.g. lawyer) in a city. 

Short of closing and moving bases, which obviously won't work practically (and more importantly, politically), I'm not sure how to solve this problem.  I *guess* that the SAR squadrons could go to something like a x-weeks on, x-weeks off schedule like folks working the oil patch. 

I don't think that being close to family is the issue - it may be for some, but lots of young people are travelling/living away from their parents.

For the younger generation, there are many studies that indicate that many/most of the new generation aren't interested in being tied down into a single career for their entire lives and would prefer more diversity of experiences. The book "Sling and the Stone" discusses this and the need to reform the industrial era career management systems we employ. The suggestion there was that people should be allowed to move to civilian jobs and re-enter the military without the headache currently employed and that the top down hierarchy employed today should be eliminated.

There may be some merit in looking at a remodelling of the MOS system... perhaps career types should be grouped and more flexibility should be given to allow personnel to move freely between trades without career repercussions. For postings- why not adopt a system where people can pick a region or base where they want to stay and allow them to stay instead of arbitrary postings based on nothing more than someones idea of "career development".

For the topic of living near parents I think it depends on how you view it. Many people I know in Toronto from newly landed immigrant families, where family values are still strong, would not consider joining the military as it would require them to move out of their neighbourhoods and away from parents. There are many groups aside from immigrants who would likely prefer to stay in cities vice risk being sent to a place like Shilo or Petawawa.

Also, having bases in Esquimalt and Halifax is great if you want to be in the navy, not so great if you want to be army, etc.

 

[McG]

At a certain point, you also have to recognize that you cannot please everybody.  It does no good to the institution if the HQs and schools are filled with people who have put down roots and refuse to cycle back through pointy-end units to keep co edged with what is happening there.

You want Halifax and you want to be Army?  Maybe time to decide what is more important or to pick an occupation that has employment options in both places.

That aside, I am not yet convinced our manning issues are anything other than our own internal inabilities.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We have our fair share of NCM's that should be shown the door as well...

I think we'd be better off as a smaller, more agile, and better trained/equipped force. Unfortunately I only see "smaller" being on the table of options.

Bring on FRP I guess.

How much smaller does anyone think we can get ???

I dislike terms like 'more agile'.  Those buzz words are, IMO, used without context or definition in how they relate to the subject.  What they do allow is for 'reductions' based on some abstract word used hither and dither.  :2c:

 

[Cloud Cover]

I disagree that we have too many officers at rank of Major or LCDR and below. What we do have is a shortage of NCM's and combat or support units for these people to work in. The RN used to have a system where senior commissioned officers (except Admirals, and there were surprisingly few of those when the RN ruled the seas) were only employed when given a command of a ship or shore installation, or some other shore role worthy of an officer.  When not so employed, they were unemployed but kept on a call up/turn down seniority list. Perhaps it is time for the Canadian army to do the same.
 

 

[blacktriangle]

How much smaller does anyone think we can get ???

I dislike terms like 'more agile'.  Those buzz words are, IMO, used without context or definition in how they relate to the subject.  What they do allow is for 'reductions' based on some abstract word used hither and dither.  :2c:

It would probably take a new defence white paper/coherent defence policy to give a proper answer. It's all dependent on what politicians, bureaucrats, and the public want us to do. I think most would be satisfied with a token force, so we are well on our way there.

I have my own ideas of what "agile" could mean, but I agree that with respect to DND/CAF it will just be a buzz word to facilitate cuts.

 

[dapaterson]

I disagree that we have too many officers at rank of Major or LCDR and below. What we do have is a shortage of NCM's and combat or support units for these people to work in. The RN used to have a system where senior commissioned officers (except Admirals, and there were surprisingly few of those when the RN ruled the seas) were only employed when given a command of a ship or shore installation, or some other shore role worthy of an officer.  When not so employed, they were unemployed but kept on a call up/turn down seniority list. Perhaps it is time for the Canadian army to do the same.
 

If we are to have a CAF of 68K Reg F (current direction), then what proprotion of officers is required to lead and manage that enterprise?  The question then is not "where are the sub-units for them to command" but rather "what are these excess senior officers doing?"

If, for the sake of argument, we assume Majors command groups of 100 personnel, and only one in three majors is so employed (with the remainder working in staff organizations), then the number of majors required is approximately 2000 - or about half the current tally.

Clearly, there will be variations between trades and environments; this is, after all, a very simplified model.  But having double the number suggested by a simplified, crude model suggests that even after refining the model, there is excess and surplus and unnecessary overhead.

Barring a solid policy framework that calls for an oversize officer corps to be ready, at the drop of a hat, to mobilize a much larger force, it is difficult to understand why the CAF requires such a significant officer corps (proportionately, it has grown by 40% since the 1970s).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It would probably take a new defence white paper/coherent defence policy to give a proper answer. It's all dependent on what politicians, bureaucrats, and the public want us to do. I think most would be satisfied with a token force, so we are well on our way there.

I have my own ideas of what "agile" could mean, but I agree that with respect to DND/CAF it will just be a buzz word to facilitate cuts.

Rog that.  I think I misinterpreted the context of your post. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Article Link - Canada Ran Away

‘Canada ran away’: Online jihadists celebrate Trudeau’s win as they anticipate end to airstrikes

TORONTO — Online jihadists are reacting with “elation and a sense of triumph at a perceived defeat of Canada” over last week’s election results as they anticipate the Liberals’ promised end to airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, says a report released Thursday.

The Middle East Media Research Institute study said “known jihadists” and supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were rejoicing at the election of a government committed to halting Canada’s involvement in the international air coalition.

“The reactions generally expressed joy and displayed a triumphalist outlook at this development, including statements such as ‘Canada runs away’ and referring to it as ‘the crumbling of the Crusader alliance,’” said Elliot Zweig, the report’s author.

Canada deployed six CF-18 Hornet fighters to Kuwait last year to take part in U.S.-led airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and later Syria. The terrorist group responded angrily in its propaganda by threatening Canada and trying to incite its followers to stage attacks.

The initial jihadi online reaction to his election and to his promised policies reflects feelings of elation and a sense of triumph at a perceived defeat of Canada and the anti-ISIS coalition.

Prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau campaigned on a pledge to withdraw from the air coalition, although he would continue training Iraqi forces. There have been no Canadian strikes since last Friday, when an ISIL ammunition cache was targeted.

ISIL has made no official statement about the change in government but Zweig said MEMRI, a Washington-based non-profit, had noticed the reaction to the Liberal win as it was monitoring the social media accounts of terrorist groups and their supporters.

“Canada ran away,” read an Arabic-language Twitter post. Another, by Sally Jones, the widow of ISIL fighter Junaid Hussain, read: “Canadian fighter jets to withdraw from fighting ISIS – yeah because they know whats good for them.”

While some online extremists saw it as a sign of the unravelling of the anti-ISIL coalition, others were skeptical. “I highly doubt they will withdraw cause at the end of the day Canada is a u.s. lab (Sic) dog and the u.s. is owned by the yahuud (Jews),” one post read.

“The long-term effect of PM Trudeau’s promised withdrawal of Canadian fighter planes from the bombing campaign against ISIS remains to be seen, both on the ground as well as in terms of terrorists’ online discussions about Canada,” the report read.

“This is particularly true in light of Trudeau’s commitment to continue Canadian efforts in training Kurdish militias. But the initial jihadi online reaction to his election and to his promised policies reflects feelings of elation and a sense of triumph at a perceived defeat of Canada and the anti-ISIS coalition. It also must be borne in mind that although the Canadian leadership has changed, ISIS is still not likely to remove its ongoing focus from Canada.”

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And so we start the rapid decent into the pits of international stature. Why is it that the liberals can never find the balls to stand for the warrior and righteous?

 

[Harrigan]

ISIL online jihadists are now the arbiters of Canada's international stature?  Really?

 

[The Bread Guy]

ISIL online jihadists are now the arbiters of Canada's international stature?  Really?

Agreed.  I give ISIS the level of credibility I gave the Taliban when one of their commanders took credit for Canada leaving Afghanistan - and while some folks hoped Canada would stay longer, not many bemoaned Canada's loss of balls/face then.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

If, for the sake of argument, we assume Majors command groups of 100 personnel, and only one in three majors is so employed (with the remainder working in staff organizations), then the number of majors required is approximately 2000 - or about half the current tally.

The truly telling statistic would be the percentage of those Majors who never commanded a company / squadron / battery, because they were not fit to command....

 

[Kirkhill]

But aren't we getting at something we have touched on before?

The rank structure is based on the same problem that Moses identified.  How do you organize large bodies of people?

So Moses chose able men from all Israel and made them leaders over the people as commanders of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.

Exodus 18:25

That problem remains unchanged.

But what level of "manager" is required to press the button to obliterate the planet? 

Privates squeeze triggers.  Bombardiers pull lanyards. Sergeants (used to) fly aircraft and some fly helicopters.  How difficult is it to push the button?

What level of training/life experience is necessary to make those kinds of decisions / follow those kinds of orders?

The infantry is still faced with Moses problem - man management - but how much of the budget needs to be spent on manpower?

The Americans lead the way in adding buttons and ditching manpower because, in my opinion, they have created a defensive force designed to obliterate any formed force that faces them.  They don't need to persuade or cajole, and they really dislike the idea of occupying.  They don't need a lot of bodies.

They want to destroy formations of bodies, their equipment and their buildings, and shoot down bullets.  All of those are highly technical tasks better performed by machines with a small number of men in the loop.

So how many machines should a Major command?

 

[McG]

So how many machines should a Major command?

You don't command machines, you operate them.
Operating machines is done by NCMs and in some cases by junior officers, either individually or in teams.
Majors are not required where there are not people to command.