- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
As far as my own, personal, experience is concerned: we were (and I believe you, serving members, still are) always mired in Camp 2. Only the country changed from the UK to the US.
The fact was that neither model served us well.
The Brits had (maybe still have) a better ~ far better in my, personal, opinion ~ C2 model, but almost everything else, especially the socialization model, was unsuitable.
The Americans have - my opinion, again - a poor C2 model. Their socialization model might be better now, but when I served (60s, 70s, 80s and 90s) it was, mostly, a failure.
There are, in my view, a handful of principles that can and should guide C2. One of them is understanding the role and functions of command and staff. I'm not sure most of you, the CF, from Gen Lawson down to OS ____ in the recruit school, do understand that. At least that's my impression based on the actions and opinions of many (most?) of the people in the upper levels of the CF, in so far as I can see and hear them.
One principle I, personally, regard as important is clarity. I think the C2 system, especially the chain of command and the system of control must be absolutely clear and unambiguous ~ especially in a real crisis when people are tired, frightened and confused. Clarity often equates to simplicity and we should know that simple things are, usually, robust things and robust things (and systems) work best in war.
One way to ensure clarity is to make sure that everyone knows who gives the orders (commanders) and who does the management of resources (the staff). The simplest way to understand that is by rank. We all understand ranks. Higher rank = authority and responsibility. So, if the division commander, let's say, is a two star and his brigade commanders are colonels then I would argue that the divisional staff should always, without exception, ever, be outranked by the brigade commanders ~ so that there is no possibility, ever, of any confusion about who commands. That means that the principle staff officers in a Div HQ must be LCols (or even lower). (If you think the COS Ops and COS Adm&Log at Div HQ should be Cols (and I do) then I would (and do) argue that the brigade commanders ought to be BGens.) If the principle commandrrs of commands in the CF are VAdms/LGens then the principle staff officers in NDHQ ~ the guys and gals who plan and manage CF combat operations ~ ought to be RAdms/MGens. I think we have failed the clarity (simplicity) test - everywhere.
Edit to add: "most of" I'm sure, I know for a fact, that some people do understand that but I am equally certain that many, too many, do not.
The fact was that neither model served us well.
The Brits had (maybe still have) a better ~ far better in my, personal, opinion ~ C2 model, but almost everything else, especially the socialization model, was unsuitable.
The Americans have - my opinion, again - a poor C2 model. Their socialization model might be better now, but when I served (60s, 70s, 80s and 90s) it was, mostly, a failure.
I worked in the C2 system business for a (blessedly short) while back in the late 1970s. My lasting impression was that our, Canadian, view was the opinion of the senior officer present at any moment, and that opinion was "informed" by his (they were all men in those days) most recent visit to Brussels, London or Washington and was totally unencumbered by anything like research or thought.
There are, in my view, a handful of principles that can and should guide C2. One of them is understanding the role and functions of command and staff. I'm not sure most of you, the CF, from Gen Lawson down to OS ____ in the recruit school, do understand that. At least that's my impression based on the actions and opinions of many (most?) of the people in the upper levels of the CF, in so far as I can see and hear them.
One principle I, personally, regard as important is clarity. I think the C2 system, especially the chain of command and the system of control must be absolutely clear and unambiguous ~ especially in a real crisis when people are tired, frightened and confused. Clarity often equates to simplicity and we should know that simple things are, usually, robust things and robust things (and systems) work best in war.
One way to ensure clarity is to make sure that everyone knows who gives the orders (commanders) and who does the management of resources (the staff). The simplest way to understand that is by rank. We all understand ranks. Higher rank = authority and responsibility. So, if the division commander, let's say, is a two star and his brigade commanders are colonels then I would argue that the divisional staff should always, without exception, ever, be outranked by the brigade commanders ~ so that there is no possibility, ever, of any confusion about who commands. That means that the principle staff officers in a Div HQ must be LCols (or even lower). (If you think the COS Ops and COS Adm&Log at Div HQ should be Cols (and I do) then I would (and do) argue that the brigade commanders ought to be BGens.) If the principle commandrrs of commands in the CF are VAdms/LGens then the principle staff officers in NDHQ ~ the guys and gals who plan and manage CF combat operations ~ ought to be RAdms/MGens. I think we have failed the clarity (simplicity) test - everywhere.
Edit to add: "most of" I'm sure, I know for a fact, that some people do understand that but I am equally certain that many, too many, do not.