The Canadian Army Journal, Vol.7, Number 1

[Infanteer]

C'mon, you know I'm not trying to justify our deficiencies.  You've seen enough of my posts to know I don't agree with many of the ways we do things.

I'm just trying to point out that the things that are constantly cited as the probable cause of our doom have not just suddenly appeared.  Things like kit deficiency, unpreparedness, lack of deployablity, and political will are problems that have always been around, infact, they aren't even unique to Canada - all other militaries have similar issues. 

And yet we are still able to show up and do an admirable job.  The constant problems that arise out of the fallout of civil-military relations can be frustrating and can make things alot harder and/or reduce the total capabilities of our forces, but I fail to see how these constants are suddenly lead to our doom.

 

[Andyboy]

Here is why I say we have crumbled.

Our gov'd pledged our support to the war on terror. Like it or not agree with it or not. What has our contribution to the WOT been? What has been our contribution to wars in the past? Compare and contrast.

If we don't start to rebuild now, when will we?

I in no way intend this as a slight towards the troops that did an outstanding job as always.

 

[Infanteer]

Here is why I say we have crumbled.

Our gov'd pledged our support to the war on terror. Like it or not agree with it or not. What has our contribution to the WOT been? What has been our contribution to wars in the past? Compare and contrast.

If we don't start to rebuild now, when will we?

I in no way intend this as a slight towards the troops that did an outstanding job as always.

I think your confusing public policy and military capability.

When we talk about the "collapse of the CF", we are referring to the ability of the military to do its job.   I've argued that there is no basis for problems arising from an abrupt and chaotic change in manning, equipment, and capability - problems we see now are merely a continuation of the pattern of civil-military relations in Canada.   If this pattern hasn't been the death-knell of the Forces in the past, I don't see how it will now.

In fact, I'd argue the opposite.   We are in many cases better off today.   Consider the fact that our troops are well paid and that they are sent on operations with some top line equipment and attention on the homefront.   Now consider this to 10-15 years ago when our troops were thrown into the maelstrom of the Former Yugoslavia with declining pay, obsolete equipment, antiquated vehicles (that in cases caused casualties) and little or no public knowledge on the fact that we were even in Bosnia/Croatia.   In some areas, we've made significant strides.

You've identified that the Forces have crumbled because we are not dedicated to the War on Terror.

A)   Again, is government non-commitment a sign of the collapse of capability and combat power (and the will to execute it if necessary)?   Look at Korea, we were dragged kicking and screaming into that conflict (and it was mandated by the UN), constantly resisting US requests.   We first contributed three ships and then threw in a Brigade on our own time.   And yet, despite these facts, not only did the Canadian soldiers still perform admirably (We've got Kap'yong to prove it), but far from crumbling from a similar situation, we emerged from the Korean War in what is recognized (by Granatstein, although I agree) as the "Golden Age" of professionalism in the Forces.

B)   Are you sure we're crumbling because of a poor contributions to the War on Terror?   Since the offensive began in Afghanistan in late 2001, we've had large troop contributions to region for 1 combat deployment and 3 deployments in support of ISAF.   As well, the Navy has been on continuous operations in the Persian Gulf.

Although, and I've argued this before, I may be a little disappointed with where the government has dedicated our resources (with a limited contribution, I'd like to see all the chips put on the main effort), I don't think that we can look at abstention from Iraq as copping out on the War on Terror - we've still put in a considerable effort for a small military.

As I underlined before, we've got problems - but I don't think these problems are as crippling as naysayers and "chicken-littles" would like to believe.

 

[Andyboy]

"When we talk about the "collapse of the CF", we are referring to the ability of the military to do its job."

Agreed. I'm saying the military is not capable of doing it's job. The gov't has commited our armed forces to the WOT and our military is unable to make a signifigant contribution to it. Why is it that we are on an "operational pause" in the middle of a war our gov't has commited us to?

Here are a few questions I think are pertinent:

Are we meeting our recruiting goals?
Are we able to train those we recruit?
Are we retaining those we train?
Are we able to meet our operational committments?
What is the largest body of ground forces we can equip and deploy on combat operations? How long can it be sustained?
Are our reserves capable of deploying? If not how long would it take to get them to deployment status?
Most importantly, what is the limiting factor of our deployment on operations, neccessity, operational capacity or  political will (is there something we need to be doing? can we do it? will our gov't commit us to it?)

I'm not really sure what would constitute a "death knell", would everyone just stop showing up to work?  ;D The house has crumbled but it can be rebuilt. We have the know how, we have the requirement all that we are missing is the support of the civilian population in order for them to pressure the gov't to fund out rebuilding efforts. Saying we're doing find does not help, it makes matters worse. People look to us to understand what the situation is, how are we going to get help from the civilian populace when member s are telling them everything is fine.

By the way I was in Croatia ten years ago and I would argue we aren't better off now than we were then. We had three missions on the grounf in the FRY then, Palladium, Harmony and Cavalier. Two Battle Groups and a Logistics BN. We may not have had CADPAT gloves but we had boots on the ground.

 

[Storm]

The house has crumbled but it can be rebuilt. We have the know how, we have the requirement all that we are missing is the support of the civilian population...

Maybe we could ask Habitat for Humanity   :dontpanic:

Saying we're doing find does not help, it makes matters worse. People look to us to understand what the situation is, how are we going to get help from the civilian populace when member s are telling them everything is fine.

In your own words: "people look to us to understand what the situation is." That means we need to be honest with them and not cry wolf unless there actually is one. I agree that the forces are not about to disappear next week. This does not mean that I think everything is fine. Yes there's a lot of help we could get by yelling and screaming that we're dying, but Canadians deserve better than that, and would figure out that we're exaggerating things soon enough. How much help do you think we'd get then, even if we were about to die?

 

[pbi]

"When we talk about the "collapse of the CF", we are referring to the ability of the military to do its job."

Agreed. I'm saying the military is not capable of doing it's job. The gov't has commited our armed forces to the WOT and our military is unable to make a signifigant contribution to it. Why is it that we are on an "operational pause" in the middle of a war our gov't has commited us to?

Here are a few questions I think are pertinent:

Are we meeting our recruiting goals?
Until recently, we were actually enjoying an embarassment of riches in this department for a couple of years, in both Reg and Res, but I have heard that we are now on a downswing again.

Are we able to train those we recruit?
Apparently not-I have heard (and seen posted on this site) horror stories of the huge PAT organizations at Borden. One of our greatest issus, Res and Reg, is the availability of the right officers and (especially) NCOs to run the trg.

Are we retaining those we train?
I think we are having some problems here, but I am not sure exactly what the figures are. However, my impression is that the attrition is not as bad as it was, say, ten or fifteen years ago when you couldn't even say "same as last year" to a Regf rifle coy because not too many would know what that meant.

Are we able to meet our operational committments?

I don't know, but as long as I have served we have never been fully able to do this, and have engaged in various shell games to pretend we could. This doesn't mean it's not an issue: I'd say it  means it's an issue that's been bubbling for years.

What is the largest body of ground forces we can equip and deploy on combat operations?
There are so many variables to this answer that one could almost reply: "Nobody knows" but I think that in a real pinch, given the resources and time, a Brigade Group, but that will soon no longer even be in consideration as we are moving towards focusin on unit-sized TFs.

How long can it be sustained?
Again, there are a whole list of variables here: it's hard to even guess at an answer unless you defined the circumstances a bit better.

Are our reserves capable of deploying?
As individuals, and up to formed composite sub-units, definitely. As units or formations, or as single-unit based subunits? No, but then I assure you that when I joined the Militia in 1974 the situation was far worse. The Reserve capability is much better than it has ever been, and the lvel of op experience is unequalled. The fact is that we do not structure our Reserves in peacetime for unit or formation deployment, and IMHO our military history shows that in peacetime we never have. Without moving to a system approximating the USARNG/USAR I do not see how we could.


If not how long would it take to get them to deployment status?
Again, it depends on what you mean by "deployment status". Individuals and formed sub-units: 90 to 120 days (although we recently launched a formed Res pl to Op ATHENA on way less time than that, due partly to the fact that an increasing number of Res soldiers (esp the vital NCOs) have op experience now. Some individuals in some units are ready to go at alot less than 90 days, depending on who they are and what it is we want them to do. Now, if you are talking about formed units or formations: forget it: we are nowhere near that for a host of reasons. "Mobilization Stage Three" remains a paper dream at the moment.


Most importantly, what is the limiting factor of our deployment on operations, neccessity, operational capacity or political will (is there something we need to be doing? can we do it? will our gov't commit us to it?)

All three, all the time. These factors are always at play for all nations. We're no different In fact, I 'd argue that (for better or worse...) we've been a hell of a lot more active and expeditionary than any other Armed Forces of our size and budget, including combat ops.



By the way I was in Croatia ten years ago and I would argue we aren't better off now than we were then. We had three missions on the grounf in the FRY then, Palladium, Harmony and Cavalier. Two Battle Groups and a Logistics BN. We may not have had CADPAT gloves but we had boots on the ground.


I was commanding a mech rifle company in Croatia in 1994 and I'd challenge you that in a number of areas we are better off now, not the least being a modern capable fighting vehicle ideally suit for those type of ops instead of clapped out old M113s that were not the right piece of kit, were mine-traps and were maintenance intense, especially after we up-armoured them which turned out to be almost too much for their power plants. We are also way ahead in night vision equipment-the other day I visited one of the OPs at Camp Julien and took a look at the gear: we have definitely progressed. The entire suite of personal kit or our soldiers (less a few items that don;t work) is again way better than what we had in 94. We have also learned to deploy the right gear for the job: what I would have given for us to have tanks and arty in Croatia; both of these have been deployed overseas in the last few years. We are not perfect (we are not even good in some areas) but we have gotten better in some key areas. Where I think we may be deteriorating is in individual skills, espcially Inf dismounted combat skills, winter trg (terrible...) etc. As well, I do not know anymore if the average Inf NCO is as good as they were ten years ago: I'm not sure. Any comments from anybody? Cheers

 

[Andyboy]

Well then I guess I was wrong, we're doing just fine and that is the message we should send to the public. Thanks everyone.