# LGEN Leslie: Troops, helicopters, tanks needed



## MarkOttawa (27 Feb 2007)

General insomnia: army boss says military woes keep him awake at night (reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
CP, Feb. 27
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=29bebd39-8040-4caf-bc20-c3cebb180cbc&k=71056



> The commander of the army says Canada's military problems are serious enough that they keep him awake at night, including recruiting troubles and the need for new equipment.
> 
> The comment by Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie to the Senate defence committee on Monday prompted one senator to wonder if the general is getting any sleep at all. Leslie said the need to recruit thousands of new soldiers to expand the army is a problem because many of the people needed to train the recruits are in Afghanistan or training to go to there.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Feb 2007)

> The army is already troubled by attrition which can run as high as 12 per cent a year in the infantry, meaning that to increase the force by 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers requires an annual intake of 5,000 to 6,000.



Try fixing CF recruiting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Feb 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Try fixing CF recruiting.



Before they turn their hands to *recruiting*, Generals Hillier and Leslie better fix the bigger problem: *retention* - see Ruxted on the 3Rs.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Feb 2007)

Had LTGeneral Leslie been a member here he would be sleeping much better at night. For example I will resurrect one of my proposals for making up for lack of trainers. The US Army has used reservists to train recruits. Canada could do the same. Use qualified reservists to replace trainers needed to fill out a rotation or to fill shortages.

I see some advantages one instead of training a reservist NCO to go to Afghanistan use him as a trainer freeing up a regular force soldier that has volunteered to deploy. Reservists are a resource and should be utilized as such. In my own experience I went through AIT at Ft Polk during the summer. A Reserve Training Division took over our training company for a few weeks so our DI's could take vacation. The quality of our training didnt suffer in fact it was seamless.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2007)

Tomahawk: Already using many reservists to augment the training system.  And to augment operations.  There are a finite number of personnel, Regular and Reserve (or, in US parlance, Active Duty and Reserve).


----------



## Flesh.Injected (27 Feb 2007)

Canada's lack of air craft and heavy machinery has been a problem for years. I am in the middle of my enrollment process so I'm doing my part to help fix the recruiting problem. But in my opinion these problems all leads to a lack of military funding.


----------



## KevinB (27 Feb 2007)

Retention is a given issue that needs to be addressed.  I know MANY members of the CF who are leaving - they just dont see it is a life for them anymore for several reasons (most of which where hit by the Ruxted article) - EPS has recruited a number of Patricias...

Recruiting.
  When I went to get back into the CF -- I had my interview on 12 Sept 2001 -- my TOS date was 2March 2002.  This was from a 4b (end of contract) release in 1997 - WTF over?  Nothing had changed (with the exception of me going to UofC for 4 years) - and it took nearly 5 months AFTER my interview to get me back in...

I know several people (Cdn citizens) trying to join the CF who gave up (inc several multilingual inc Arabic ) after it took 11months of waiting.  The fact is good people will get other jobs and wont sit still for an incompetant - or inefficient system.


----------



## Flesh.Injected (27 Feb 2007)

what did you apply to do in the CF?


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2007)

missionstatement
Kevin served in the PPCLI and is a standup guy.
You could do worse than to listen to him.


----------



## KevinB (27 Feb 2007)

GEO - thx 
  MissionStatement -- my point was the CF recruiting system has a lot of problems.

- same trade CT's from res to reg need to be fixed into a less than 30 day issue (in my humble opinion.)


----------



## Kiwi99 (27 Feb 2007)

There are a lot of issues that a commander of the level deals with that many of us could never fathom, but we all have ideas how to make his sleep easier. Here is mine.  He knows what needs to be accomplished, but is running into  problems.

1.   Dinosoars at all levels of the chain that should have retired that are afraid of new equipment that they feel would finally force them into retirement.  I know the DS are going to be all over this statement, but we all know that these people exist, so why deny it.  These people, normally in postions of seniority, deny the fact that we need new kit, and believe that the training scenarios that they encountered in the 70s and 80s are still relevant today.  The old tune sings loudly in the CF;
             " I managed to get by without it, so why do they need it now".

2.   Politics.  Every politician believes that they know more than the soldier, based on their education level and position of authority.  They do not understand what soldiers need and they never will, as they have never put on the uniform. Its an age old problem that will never go away.

3.   Retention and recruiting.  Be honest, do the current CF recruiting ads make you want to run out and sign up?  Admittedly, they are better than 5 years ago, but not by much.  We need boots on the ground wanting to fight the enemy.    Why do people join the military? Excitement, danger and the overwhelming urge to blow xxxx up!  We are at war with soldiers fighting the enemy every day.  You want  a bunch of keen young men and women to go and fight, then attract them with relevant advertising that shows the army for what it is... fighters. And the recruiting process is far to long as well, but someone will disagree with me on that.  Think of a soldier in battleschool that want s out, but only till he is ready and then he will rejoin.  But after 8 months of the release process, he has become disheartened and the CF has lost what may have been a crack troop. With ref to retention, yes, it is a problem.  Why?  Because we do not offer anything in return for our soldiers service.  And don't start going on about pride and honour and all that stuff.  Armies around the world offer retention bonuses for the services of their soldiers.  It works.  Sure it costs money, but why spend thousands of dollars on an investment if you are going to just let it walk away three years later?  Soldiers are just that.  Make the initial investment, and keep feeding into it as it develops.  It sounds a lot like a business, but we have to do what we can to keep these investments.

4.   Buying new kit and weapons.  We cripple ourselves with a process that will take a piece of combat proven equip, spend years doing trials and tests, and then more time ensuring that it gets a contract to be built in Quebec.  Take the clothe the soldier rucksack programme.  7 years to develop a rucksack...maybe people need to be switched up in that dept.

At the end of the day we deal with our own little areas of the CF, and try to make them better.  We all run into problems and deal with them.  Now take those problems you deal with and multiply it by 100.  We have nobody to blame but ourselves for these issues.  See how many people admit to that.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Feb 2007)

If retention is a problem then that can be turned around with bonus money, better pay raises and improving the quality of life.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2007)

With all due respect to tthe General, having an infinite number of tanks, helicopters and troops won't make any difference at all unless and until the bloated overhead in the CF is sorted out. My day to day example is 31 CBG. If the wind, stars and planetts are all in line we could theoretically muster @ 1800 troops. There are 15 "Regimental" headquarters and a further half dozen or so LCol "ACOS" positions at the HQ itself, for a very small and totally unequipped equivalent of a battlegroup.

The problem is replicated at every level above us as well (LFCA, JTFC, CANCOM, EXCOM, NDHQ.......). If we need to get things done, then a pretty drastic shakeout of this level would free up PY's, funds and streamline decision making, all "win win" scenarios for the CF I should think.

My 2 Afghani's


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Feb 2007)

a_majoor: Glad to see you know the difference between the people and the currency .

Now if only our media would stop repeating the nonsense about an "invasion" of Afstan in 2001.  My form letter:

'There was no invasion of Afghanistan.  Before the fall of Kabul to the insurgent Afghan Northern Alliance in November 2001, and the consequent collapse of the Taliban regime, there were no foreign regular
combat formations in Afghanistan.  The Northern Alliance did receive air support and assistance from special forces (both U.S. and British); that however is not an invasion.  Substantial foreign ground combat
forces--including Canadian--only entered the country after the Taliban had been deposed by indigenous Afghan forces.  Those foreign troops entered with the agreement of the Northern Alliance.

Speaking of invading Afghanistan tends to equate actions there with Iraq where there really was an invasion--and implicitly to call into question the legitimacy of actions in Afghanistan.'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2007)

a_majoor:

But that's heresy!  Every Reserve unit needs a LCol to command their 75 soldiers because, well, because, well, you know!

That's about the level of discourse when such topics are broached.  I have no real issue with Reserve CBGs of 2000 or so soldiers commanded by a Colonel; those Colonels in turn should command 4 or 5 Lieutenant Colonels (and maybe a COS in their HQ as well).

But there is still a strong "mobilization" culture in parts of the Army Reserve; that is, the main role of of the Army Reserve is to wait for 1939, have the young men flock to the colours, then go give Jerry a right swift kick in the ass... 4 1/2 years later, or so.  And while that is an element of the role of the Reserve Force it is hardly the be-all and end-all.

However, the old guard are canny, starting letter writing campaigns at the drop of a hat, engaging their MP to prevent any moves that would be "damaging to the community's ability to defend itself" or other such crock.

Sigh... I was getting rady to head off to bed, but now you've got me worked up


----------



## Northern Ranger (28 Feb 2007)

I just find it comforting to know that someone other than I (and all those that have the same problem)  while lying in bed start thinking of all the things that are wrong or need to be improved and then get worked up about those that stop those things from happening.  I ask for no pitty as I get paid for the problems I have and so does the General (and I know he wasn't asking for pity).

3 or 4 glasses of port and some country tunes help me get to sleep, but can only do that 5 nights a week. ;D

Misery loves company


----------



## hank011 (28 Feb 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Before they turn their hands to *recruiting*, Generals Hillier and Leslie better fix the bigger problem: *retention* - see Ruxted on the 3Rs.


I'm not sure they are getting that message through to career managers. There is a concerted effort to force people out by deliberately posting people where they dont want to go. Our career manager admits it freely and proudly.
Is retention really a priority after all?


----------



## c4th (28 Feb 2007)

Problem Retention.  Solution: Money to the soldiers wanted to be retained
Problem Equipment. Solution: More money and a procurement program that takes less than a generation
Problem Recruiting.  Solution: In addition to some of the changes already implemented in 2006 getting recruiters who are both qualified in the trade that are recruiting for and want to actually do the job might be a good place to start. For good measure, throw some money at it.

Not rocket science unless we are taking about replacing the ERYX.

As for the customary digression to the PRes argument of being HQ heavy, I don’t think the General loses any sleep over 15 class A LCols in 31 CBG or anywhere else for that matter.  Could their jobs be done by Majors?  Probably, but the savings would be negligible as they are paid far less then the work they do or would do anyway.  Would having 15 less LCol’s in 31 CBG increase the number of soldiers, particularly deployable soldiers in 31 CBG.  I doubt it, so at the end of the day the General is not getting anymore sleep.  However, reducing staff overhead in order to throw more money at deployable soldiers sounds like a great idea, particularly since I am one.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Feb 2007)

Good point E.R.Campbell.
Retuxed group gives me the willies a little bit but your right about their points on 3Rs

Retention is a huge problem.  Lots of the re guys sounded disgrunteled and said they were done.
I remember back in 2001 a general speaking to us telling us how great recruiting was and how great retention is. The sgt's mcpls and WOs were telling him he was wrong and that the battalion had SO many people quitting after tour and warned him that there was going to be a problem. General looked at the NCOs like they were drunk and stupid and continuted to assure us retention wasnt a problem.

I'd say retention and recruiting go hand in hand.  Keeping older experienced soldiers doesn't mean much if there isn't new soldiers to drive the lavs take the trench or change the oil.

Kev I agree with ya. I firmly believe the CF wouldnt have any recruiting problems if our recruiting wasn't s screwed up. If our recruiters wouldnt make people wait a year to join and if they didn't ty and talk people out of combat arms trades.  I've tried to bring a lot of people into the CF. I've gotten a lot to join but I've also had near a dozen people loose interest because of the hassels and problems with getting in.


----------



## jimmy742 (28 Feb 2007)

And yet, when I was in the service, the numbers entering basic were higher and the time lag between signing on the dotted line and you getting that first haircut was measured in weeks. I signed my papers in September and was in St- Jean three weeks later ( that dates me...) What happened?

It's an interesting comment you make about Generals living in their own reality. We had a general tell us with a straight face that we couldn't get new equipment because we were doing too great a job maintaining the old. We laughed....in private of course. 

As they say, the quality and efficiency of an organization is a reflection of its leadership.


----------



## ArmyRick (28 Feb 2007)

I signed the dotted line and ten days later arrived at Cornwallis. They should find a way to get the process sped up IMO.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2007)

I see I went off on too much of a tangent, although the unburdening of the HQ level will help matters for many of the reasons I mentioned.

What I _SHOULD_ have said is getting vast quantities of military hardware and personnel will not be particularly effective unless there is an efficient command and control mechanism in place to use the tools at hand. The main sticking point of these vast headquarters isn't that they are full of dumb people (they are not), but rather the sheer mass of hands things have to go through to be actioned is like watching a bobsled race run in a course full of syrup. This is hardly a prescription for the sort of C3I (to use an old term) needed for a supple, globally deployable and deployed force dealing with 4GW opponents.

A heavy metal army with Cold War era headquarters will be unable to take full advantage of the possibilities offered, a Goliath advancing against an army of Davids..........


----------



## enfield (28 Feb 2007)

Trust No One said:
			
		

> As for the customary digression to the PRes argument of being HQ heavy, I don’t think the General loses any sleep over 15 class A LCols in 31 CBG or anywhere else for that matter.  Could their jobs be done by Majors?  Probably, but the savings would be negligible as they are paid far less then the work they do or would do anyway.  Would having 15 less LCol’s in 31 CBG increase the number of soldiers, particularly deployable soldiers in 31 CBG.



15 LCols - and their attached RSMs, Adjutants, and (small) staffs - make up a decent sum of money when compared to the annual budgets of most reserve units. My former unit, this training year, averaged 1 full platoon on the weekend Ex's (another platoon worth are in A'Stan). To support that 1 Platoon (or theoretical 2 platoons), the direct chain of command above it contained 1 LCol, 1 CWO, 2 Captains, and 1 MWO, not to mention the Adj, clerks, and RQ and CQ storesmen. Almost every Ex this year had major, often debilitating, restrictions on ammo (live, blank, or sim). 
I don't think anyone on the Armoury Floor would choose a LCol over a truckload of ammo. It may not keep the CLS up at night, but it would help.


----------



## Andyboy (28 Feb 2007)

Kev et al,

I think you guys are right about bloat, inefficiencies, problems with recruiting and retention, and so forth. Not to be a Debbie Downer or anything but don't forget about the DND side of the house. Are these things part of the "Peace Dividend"?

Andrew


----------



## hank011 (1 Mar 2007)

Trust No One said:
			
		

> Problem Retention.  Solution: Money to the soldiers wanted to be retained


I am in that situation right now and I am eyeing that pension as a buffer zone so that I can take a lesser paying job doing something that holds my interest. All the money in the world wouldnt make me put up with being miserable. 
I've watched others get the good jobs and good postings for 20 years...keep your money...send me somewhere cool doing something challenging and I'll stay.


----------



## skydiver (6 Mar 2007)

Greetings..
A Majoor and others..about top heavy units (75 soldiers, a LCol, a CWO, couple of Majors etc)..
Our problem is that it takes a long time to qualify someone up to any leadership position/rank.
We are far better off having more leaders than are required by the number of soldiers than vice versa. If worse comes to worse and you have to ramp something up you maybe can recruit like a demon and fill the empty slots in a unit. If you let go of the extra senior ncos and officers then you can't train/lead the new guys.

Not the best situation but how many of us have seen a unit go from well off (leadership) to hurtin badly because the Reg Force did a sudden intake of compoent transfers. I have seen a unit lose a half dozen MCpls, a couple of Sgts, a WO and a few Capts and Lts in one FY. That hurts when you don't have any more waiting in the wings to take over.


----------



## 3rd Herd (6 Mar 2007)

Back to the topic at hand, Lt. Gen. Lucas on Friday here in Calgary gave a very interesting report on the air side of things. What's been done was mostly the C-17 and the turn around of C-130s from the middle east to help the French out in Africa. Bringing up his wish list has new C-130s on it. Domestically, unmanned drones and their effect at summit conferences past and feature and the up coming Olympics in BC. Further additions to his wish list included "tactical lift helicopters"(Chinooks) and as Afghanistan is experiencing somewhat of an internal conflict the "tactical lift helicopters" are to accompanied by our own "armed recce helicopters". For those on the ground you can stop worrying about those errant A-10 accidents as the Joint Strike fighter will resolve those issues. Lastly the days of those boring patrols over the coast of BC are about to end with the suggestted deployment of the Auroras to the sand box. It seems our allies in using the P-3 and the Nimrods have opened up this door. Interesting in all but, crews, techs, trg, and most of all cash. Has the general been flying too high with a defective oxygen mask?


----------



## Globesmasher (6 Mar 2007)

No, I think the General's O2 supply is good,  ;D  but all these projects and proposals as we all know are going to be really hard to accomplish in more ways than one.

Just bringing the C-17 on-line and planning for delivery of the C-130J as early as fall 2009 and then into 2010 has already resulted in all kinds of manpower issues within the Air Force.  Like all the other services  ..... everybody is short of people, money and infrastructure to absorb new capabilities.  While all the new toys are exciting - it will be chaos (positive chaos mind you) for the next few years.  FWSAR has already been pushed to the right by ACP-S, ACP-T and the Chinook .... to the point that we are now talking about re-engining the Buffalo for more life extension .. and sliding FWSAR to the right.

The CP-140 ops in Afghanistan .... yeah that has been discussed at length for some time now by many and all sides concerned.  There are those who say it is "do-able" and those who are dead set against it.
Check here for a lengthy discussion ...

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54610.0.html

The P-3 and Nimrods routinely offer comm services overhead in many AORs so the role for the CP-140 is certainly feasible - but it is a complex matter of "how to we get there from here?".  I know there are quite a few MP crews who really want to get over there to do the job too.

It's sure tough to see the bright side right now given, like you said, the issues with the crews, techs, trg and the cash.
Very interesting times to be in uniform right now - very interesting.


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Mar 2007)

If the good general was really interested in more reservists, he would start looking to those communities with suitable demographics to support new reserve units and start a few up.  

Cheers,


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2007)

RLJ +1


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (8 Mar 2007)

> Problem Retention.  Solution: Money to the soldiers wanted to be retained
> Problem Equipment. Solution: More money and a procurement program that takes less than a generation
> Problem Recruiting.  Solution: In addition to some of the changes already implemented in 2006 getting recruiters who are both qualified in the trade that are recruiting for and want to actually do the job might be a good place to start. For good measure, throw some money at it.
> 
> Not rocket science unless we are taking about replacing the ERYX.



 Good plan. Problem with this, is it will take another generation to implement this new plan. Paperwork travels just as slow as equipment and personnel procurement in the CF. 

The only realistic solution to this crisis is for Ottawa to give Hillier a blank check and say buy what you need. The forces have become so badly eroded, that anything short of this is going to be a futile attempt at nothing and we'll still get nowhere, or at best what we'll get will be to little and come to late to do anybody any good. We have to a do what "Reagan" did in the 80's with the US military and open the vaults and spend some serious coin. Put some tenders out there with some real money attached to them and a time frame when we need the goods "like Now" not 5, 10 or 20 years from now and let the games begin. Some will say this is a drastic measure and unrealistic, well I say this is a very drastic situation, which will take equally drastic measures to recify.


----------



## geo (8 Mar 2007)

An off the shelf approach to purchasing would certainly patch things up BUT, there is no supplier in the world who can ramp up and deliver goods today for the $hit we are already standing neck deep in...  for one thing, Politicians, Industry & the unions will all be crying about not buying Canadian...

The equipment we have is in short supply and is tied up with training up, ramping up and deployment.  New recruits being enrolled by the busload will show up at their units only to find that the Fleet Management System for essential equipment ... so they get to work with the gear infrequently... and when it gets into their hands... it's been used to the bone & prone to breaking down... thereby reducing the stocks available for training in the 1st place....

And the reserves haven't had a crack at the gear yet.... making their own ramping up for pre deployment that much more difficult (for them to learn AND for the regs to teach)

Short of bringing CD Howe back from the grave, this isn't going to be pretty AND errors are going to be made...


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> *The only realistic solution to this crisis is for Ottawa to give Hillier a blank check and say buy what you need.*


We obviously have different definitions of "realistic."


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (8 Mar 2007)

I get you journeyman, i can hope can't I ;D in the meantime, we have to make sure the supply system has plenty of guntape to keep holding things together until, someone wakes up. 

Why isn't buying of the shelf viable for the long haul? It's been done in the past.
Do we always have to wait for some broken down procurement system that takes 10-15 years to get a piece of equipment. or do we wait and see how many more of our people come home in body bags, before we stop listening to the politically motivated crybaby's and the special interest groups, who cry foul everytime we purchase something that isn't made in Canada or doesn't put money in their pocket. Theres some outstanding equipment out there that we could use today and most of it is already available. A good example is the Leo 2's. Israel has already won 3 wars using of the shelf equipment. And as for training and operational use, I'm sure the generals in Ottawa can sort that out. 

I can name pieces of equipment we purchased of the shelf that we used for years, M113 family, vietnam era throwaway jeeps, the old deuce and a half, all purchased from the US in the 50's, 60's and 70's we used the M113's right up until the mid 90's 35+ years and some are still in use today, the old throwaway vietnam era jeeps we used all through the 70's until we recieved the Iltis in 83. It wasn' until the late 70's early 80's when we asked Bombardier to build the MLVW that we had any Canadian content. So there is absolutely no excuse for not going back to that system, the equipment is there and we need it, so buy it. As for the whiners and crybabies, you don't see them over in Afghanistan being shot at do you. Because i'm sure if you did, we've have all the equipment we needed in a hurry. 

I now know why i got out in the first place. I can see nothing has changed.


----------



## 3rd Herd (8 Mar 2007)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> If the good general was really interested in more reservists, he would start looking to those communities with suitable demographics to support new reserve units and start a few up.
> 
> Cheers,



Red,
it is not only demographics to support and yes I know this is one of your pet project areas. You may though have hit the nail with a redistribution of existing units. I believe the General was caught off guard over the Christmas break by a Militia (Reserve) CO who announced to the General that he had a trained up full coy ready for the next roto and another coy being built up. Now I do doubt however these Coy's will be used in their own ORBAT but will be spread amongst various tasks on the roto. However, though those units that are performing should stay, those that are not could be moved to a geographical location where the multitude of resources could led to an enhancement of said unit.


----------



## redleafjumper (11 Mar 2007)

3rd Herd, I understand and agree with you that it is not only demographics that indicate whether or not a unit is viable in the long term.  However, where I sit I am damn sure that I could put together a full strength company in pretty short order, if given some time for training, the resources and the opportunity to do it.  Every time I see a recruiting ad for the CF, and listen to some statement that we need more soldiers, both regular and reserve I shake my head.  A good part of the available resources are not being considered.


----------



## hank011 (13 Mar 2007)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> A good part of the available resources are not being considered.



I totally agree! As I've said before, we have 65000 in uniform but once you minus the bulk of the Navy, Air Force, Schools and Headquarters we dont have many available bodies for Afghanistan. If the will was there, MOSART would have fixed this problem on the support side. There is no easy answer for the combat arms trades.


----------



## civmick (14 Mar 2007)

here's one answer, though perhaps not an easy one - send some recruiters south to get even 5% of the 9,488 US service personnel discharged under "don't ask don't tell" through FY05 (source New York Times).  Obviously some retraining would be required (the proper way to spell the Queen's English for a start) but if you could get some with hands-on or better yet instructor level experience on US made hardware in current Canadian service...  Might has well have some US service personnel crossing the border who are actually of use to Canada.


----------



## hank011 (15 Mar 2007)

The general impression I get from posts on this forum as well as my colleagues is that there are a whole lot of people ready, willing and able to do a tour but cant get there.  The US doesn't have that problem, everyone goes, but they are running out.
   Perhaps the US should offer Canadian soldiers a chance to join their military. The CF doesn't seem interested in deploying the ones they've got.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2007)

This is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions(§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=84923e36-41a6-4274-9cd0-d0b0bb1bfd3b&p=2 


> Forces battle against retirement
> *Pressure to recruit intensifies as baby-boomers poised to leave*
> 
> David ********, The Ottawa Citizen
> ...



No one ever said it was going to be easy but Gens. Hillier and Leslie and their minions should read Ruxted, here.



[Edit to remove duplicate paragraphs.]


----------

