# 'MBA types' hurt military, commander says



## m410 (22 May 2006)

> Jeff Lee
> Vancouver Sun
> 
> Saturday, May 20, 2006
> ...


----------



## McG (22 May 2006)

Jeff Lee said:
			
		

> The government cancelled the secondary task force because of concerns the military was overstretched and could only meet its Afghanistan commitment but not further demands elsewhere in the world.


Actually, the second task force was cancelled so that the army could conduct training to relieve some of the problems raised in this article.


----------



## GO!!! (22 May 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Actually, the second task force was cancelled so that the army could conduct training to relieve some of the problems raised in this article.



Impressive. 

I would have thought that a LCol might have a particular insight into why the army does what it does at the macro level - where did you get this info?

What trg was so imperative that TF 02/07 had to be cancelled to conduct it?


----------



## orange.paint (22 May 2006)

"And he said Canada will continue to lose valuable, experienced soldiers because it doesn't offer them overseas missions, instead overtasking them with training and teaching jobs that keep them away from their families without giving them the adventure they crave."

Nice to see someone actually understands that most soldiers didn't join to obtain the "20yrs domestic service medal".Sounds like he actually talked to troops and no one was blowing smoke up his arse about "how much a honour it is to stay in the field for 8 months of the year and never deploy."

I can't imagine the frustration of the res guys who quit jobs to get the mat pulled out from under their feet.Must have messed up a lot of personal/business plans on civilian side.

I personally feel horrible in my current situation at the school.Freshly posted here (1 fiscal year) and will not return for a couple more for sure.I have not deployed to Afghanistan as of yet and feel that the opportunity is slowly fading away,and when I do get back to godsland (i.e Petawawa) it will all be over. (Career manager if your reading nod nod wink wink)

I understand the need for experience at the schools.experience is how we learn and influences they way we fight and hopefully live.I have heard the idea of taking people (reg and reserve) who do not wish to deploy, and sending them to these positions to instruct.This works for the members stuck in my situation, but thus greatly affects the new troops coming in.Not deployable,not employable just ain't so anymore.

I need another tour.
rant over.Back to my trench tomorrow.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 May 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Nice to see someone actually understands that most soldiers didn't join to obtain the "20yrs domestic service medal".



That is a short-sighted and cheap way to refer to generations of Cold War soldiers who joined to serve without the prospect of lucrative tours on the horizon.  In one post you insult those who have gone before you and also imply that the only respectable reason to serve is to go overseas.


----------



## big bad john (22 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That is a short-sighted and cheap way to refer to generations of Cold War soldiers who joined to serve without the prospect of lucrative tours on the horizon.  In one post you insult those who have gone before you and also imply that the only respectable reason to serve is to go overseas.


+1


----------



## m410 (22 May 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> What trg was so imperative that TF 02/07 had to be cancelled to conduct it?


Individual training such as SQ and BIQ.  We're over a barrel when it comes to instructors.



> And he said Canada will continue to lose valuable, experienced soldiers because it doesn't offer them overseas missions, instead overtasking them with training and teaching jobs that keep them away from their families without giving them the adventure they crave.


This is Colonel Eyre's particular problem.  His battalion is split with some going to TF 1-07 with the RCR while the rest are presumably heavily tasked with instructor billets.  Which means NCOs away from their families in Wainwright and Gagetown and eager privates and corporals with no mission for the foreseeable future sitting around in Edmonton with no NCOs.  There are morale issues in the company staying behind and a lot of releases likely in the near future.

His point on redundancy is an important one.  There isn't a large overhead of master corporals and sergeants, the instructor ranks.  They need to be in two places at once: in their units leading sections, and at schools teaching recruits.

As far as the B.C. reservists, there were only about 80, not 200, who committed to TF 2-07 before it was cancelled.  There would have been more willing to go but starting at later dates (not many were willing to commit in April 06 for a tour deploying in February 07!).  27 of those 80 have firm positions with C Coy, 3 VP going to TF 1-07.  The rest have guaranteed employment through to this August (many have not taken this).  Everyone knew from the start that 2-07 was shakey and they shouldn't make irrevocable decisions (this was made very clear).  The people with the most problems were the 27 who only found out they were confirmed just before deployment to Dundurn and then only had 1 week after the ex to pack up their things, move out of apartments, etc. and get to Edmonton.  It was fortunate that 2-07 was cancelled when it was instead of months down the road, or it would have become another "Tour Too Far".


----------



## McG (22 May 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I would have thought that a LCol might have a particular insight into why the army does what it does at the macro level - where did you get this info?
> 
> What trg was so imperative that TF 02/07 had to be cancelled to conduct it?


In a conversation with Comd CEFCOM & a member of his staff.  It came out that the second line of operations was cancelled so that the pers could be used to run courses for all of the new recruits that the government intends to hire.  This has been discussed in other threads as well.

. . . but, if it makes you feel better, the lack of quotation marks on that paragraph indicate the statement I referenced to have been the journalist's words.


----------



## m410 (22 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That is a short-sighted and cheap way to refer to generations of Cold War soldiers who joined to serve without the prospect of lucrative tours on the horizon.  In one post you insult those who have gone before you and also imply that the only respectable reason to serve is to go overseas.


-1

He was referring to current soldiers, not past soldiers.  And most current soldiers want, very badly, to carry live bullets in sandy places.


----------



## orange.paint (22 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That is a short-sighted and cheap way to refer to generations of Cold War soldiers who joined to serve without the prospect of lucrative tours on the horizon.  In one post you insult those who have gone before you and also imply that the only respectable reason to serve is to go overseas.



Not to offend our cold war era guys at all.But in these times who would want to remain in Canada keeping the homefires burning while other young men made the sacrifice away from their families and with their lifes.I should have stated "most young guys TODAY don't join to serve 20 years in Canada." 

Also we don't have a enemy threat to our north as it was then either,where defence of Canada was a real threat.But today its deployments that are our armys main focus.I personally don't want to be the guy in this mans army who have never deployed,guess it all comes down to the soldier I guess.

m410,thanks.


----------



## big bad john (22 May 2006)

m410 said:
			
		

> -1
> 
> He was referring to current soldiers, not past soldiers.  And most current soldiers want, very badly, to carry live bullets in sandy places.



As someone who has served for over twenty years in my countries military (Royal Marines) , IMHO a good soldier might 'want' many things, but says yes sir, when he gets his orders and carries them out to the best of his abilities.  I know many very good soldiers who were 'cursed' by being excellent Instructors and Staff Officers, and thus never saw operational taskings.  But they did their jobs well and should not be looked down because they never went on operational taskings.  Such comments should be discouraged strongly in my opinion.  Rant over.


----------



## orange.paint (22 May 2006)

As I was reading in another topic Afghanistan is becoming a recruitment issue.New troops are being drawn in for the adventure and to serve their country in far off lands.Sort of how members joined years ago to beat off the CCCP from attacking their homeland.

Today most instructors have operational experience,thus greatly improving our training system as they have been there.Anyone can read about Afghanistan and learn from fellow troops stories, but until you have had foot on the ground you are still using second hand information.Now having said that many people have completed tours else where and have also brought that to the table.

Today a soldier must be willing to deploy and most are eager in my opinion.Afghanistan now is the Bosnia of the early 1990's.

Are there soldiers today who do not wish to deploy?Who haven't deployed?
Feel free to tell your story if that is the case.


----------



## Gunner (22 May 2006)

> In an interview sharpened by Canada's decision Wednesday to extend its mission to Afghanistan two more years, Lt.-Col. Wayne Eyre, the commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, blamed "MBA types" for gutting experience-generating infantry battalions.



LCol Eyre is one of the best infantry officers I have had the pleasure of serving with.  Having said that, simply sitting on rucksacks rubbing our hands together hoping the federal government will suddenly realize they need to provide the military more money is not a suitable response.  After the Cold War, we lived in this alternate reality for the majority of the 90s and lost valuable time restructuring to the new paradigm (both from a government support perspective and globally).  In essence, the world and Canada continued to move forward, we circled the wagons hoping for the calvary to come over the hill to save us. Are "MBA types" going to solve all of the problems facing the CF/Army?  No of course not, but they can provde different approaches that may solve our current/historical conundrum (too small an army, too many tasks, too little resources, etc, etc).

At the end of the day, "MBA types" don't make decisions, commanders do.

Military guy and MBA student.


----------



## Journeyman (22 May 2006)

m410 said:
			
		

> *...current soldiers want...to carry live bullets in sandy places*


Why would any soldier want to carry rounds in his underwear waistband? It was _always_ sandy there. ;D

The media _has_ been known to spin comments and leave a false impression with readers.....for example, the government has stated that Darfur is not doable because of the CF's personnel shortage. Now, hypothetically, an anti-Harper media could play up, out of context, a comment by a serving battalion commander that Canadian soldiers _want_ to go, but the mean, nasty, perhaps even racist, Conservative government under Harper _refuses_ to send them - - stiffling their desire to be humanitarian peacekeepers ( : ).

If, however, this article correctly represents CO 3VP's views, 180 degrees (or 3200 mils) contrary to government pronouncements, it sounds like Maj Eyres may be responding to his command not including an operational deployment with self-destruction. I wish him well.


----------



## Gunner (22 May 2006)

> If, however, this article correctly represents CO 3VP's views, 180 degrees (or 3200 mils) contrary to government pronouncements, it sounds like Maj Eyres may be responding to his command not including an operational deployment with self-destruction. I wish him well.



I think there is a bit of journalistic emphasis on LCol Eyre's comments. I have no doubt that he, 3PPCLI, LFWA and the army would have all liked to have deployed to Afghanistan, Sudan or Haiti, it's what we join for.  I also have no doubt that LCol Eyre is fully supportive of the elected government.


----------



## paracowboy (22 May 2006)

why not wait and see if he reads this?


----------



## orange.paint (22 May 2006)

Another thing to think about also is the burn out rate,wrecked marriages of the men who have been deployed everytime their time in country has expired.Having a relatively small army we cannot afford to have the career domestic op's guys.We need guys on the ground and as the good Lcol has alluded to there are members stuck in the training system,reservist who have put down all their civilian plans who are desperate to deploy.

Are members in the training system less in terms of soldiers,defiantly not.Maybe a rotation between time in country and fresh members from schools should be looked at more rigorously.There should be no reason people should be signing waivers to return to Afghanistan when many members have not deployed.It's for the health of the members who have been deployed constantly and those who sit and get angry at the system who have put them in a stagnet position.

Having said all this people here in Canada are doing a very important job training our army's youth.Sort of like a guy told me about his grandfather who spent WW2 walking around London as an infanteer with a enfield loaded with no bullets.He wanted to go to the front also but his job was important to the sanity and security of the city.

Someone has to look at the numbers and qualifications of members and switch heavily deployed pers with non deployed pers with the same qualifications.We could easily field many more troops.


----------



## Journeyman (22 May 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I think there is a bit of journalistic emphasis on LCol Eyre's comments.



Which is why I actually _explained_ the first, media-spin, hypothesis; it sounds like the most probable.


----------



## Gunner (22 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> why not wait and see if he reads this?



He may but probably just to see the comments.  i would be surprised if he posted to it for a variety of reasons.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Which is why I actually _explained_ the first, media-spin, hypothesis; it sounds like the most probable.



Roger that, my journeyman friend.


----------



## big bad john (22 May 2006)

Not going on a tour and avoiding a tour are two separate issues.  I personally know of more than one Canadian officer that has never avoided a tour, volunteered for tours, but because of their being 'blessed' as a good or better Staff Officer they have always missed out.  I respect them.  

On the other hand, I feel that it is a slimy individual who repeatedly avoids tours.  We all can have issues that crop up that might occasion us to miss A tour, but I look hard at repeat offenders.  But then, I am always tactful, aren't I.


----------



## eyre (22 May 2006)

paracowboy – thanks for the heads up.  Here's my spin:

This article appears to be a compilation of everything somewhat controversial that was mentioned in a lengthy interview I did focused on 39 CBG soldiers joining C Coy and the training we were conducting.  The context of this interview is reflected in the author’s main piece found here:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bf158b3e-6a01-4596-9e85-d3aca784e110

Several complicated issues were discussed, then edited and re-edited down to, in my opinion, over-simplistic descriptions and in one case, wrong intent.  Firstly and most importantly is criticism of government decisions. One can be unhappy with the immediate results of a decision (especially if one understands the rationale) without being critical of it.  I explained the rationale for the cancellation of TF 2-07 in detail: the shortfall of enablers such as line of communications troops, intelligence, and medical personnel; and the requirement to have somebody train recruit influx with force expansion.  Civil control of the military is a hallmark of democracy – we do what we’re told.  We don’t criticize government decisions.

We discussed in detail the conundrum (I used that term) that we face with force expansion versus retention.  We understandably need to grow, yet at the same time provide the challenge that young soldiers join for.  It’s hard to train others and deploy yourself at the same time.  This will be one of the biggest challenges we as an Army will face over the next decade.  The solution begins now with ‘growing’ as many quality NCOs as we can.

The ‘MBA’ issue arose out of his question regarding why we have to supply a rifle coy to 2 RCR, since they should have three of their own rifle coys.  We discussed the shrinking of infantry bns over the past decade or so.  The 90s were hard on us, and I don’t believe the introduction of business practices (and language) helped in this case.  The ‘elimination of redundancies’ hit the infantry battalions hard in the search to reduce or re-apportion PYs – pioneer and mortar pls are an example.  As a result, with depth / redundancy non-existent, infantry bns are hard-pressed to generate three fully manned, deployable rifle coys.  This adoption of business models in the 1990s was matched by MBAs becoming fashionable.  The hard historical lessons through which our structures evolved took a back seat to efficiency.  I have previously called this the ‘triumph of the MBAs over the military historians’ or of ‘efficiency over effectiveness’.  Some in the US have called out against this as well (see The _Danger of Generals as CEOs: War-Mart_, http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060403&s=risen040306).  Many who were confronted with these decisions will understandably disagree with me, but regardless, in the end, our bns lost strength – a loss we’re really feeling now.  Finally, I’m far from anti-academic and this observation is not directed to individuals who have or are pursuing MBAs (no offence Gunner and 'surprise').  Gunner is right when he says MBAs can offer different approaches to problems - we just have to ensure they are in balance and that we retain a military, not a business culture.

Understandably, I’ve already been called to task on the article.  Soldier on.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 May 2006)

eyre said:
			
		

> Understandably, I’ve already been called to task on the article.  Soldier on.



Speaking of surprises. [not!!]  

Thanks for the additional words. 

w601


----------



## Journeyman (22 May 2006)

Thanks for responding.....and reassuring us that it _wasn't_ a case of self-immolation. Needless to say, in this forum you are indeed preaching to the choir. 

Well-said all......except......


			
				eyre said:
			
		

> *....why we have to supply a rifle coy to 2 RCR, since they should have three of their own rifle coys*.


...we _should_ still have FOUR rifle companies!  (some choirboys are older than others  )


----------



## Gunner (22 May 2006)

> no offence Gunner and 'surprise'



Surprise is a principle of war.   :-[

First time I was ever wrong about something.... very embarrassing.   :-[


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 May 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> As someone who has served for over twenty years in my countries military (Royal Marines) , IMHO a good soldier might 'want' many things, but says yes sir, when he gets his orders and carries them out to the best of his abilities.  I know many very good soldiers who were 'cursed' by being excellent Instructors and Staff Officers, and thus never saw operational taskings.  But they did their jobs well and should not be looked down because they never went on operational taskings.  Such comments should be discouraged strongly in my opinion.  Rant over.



Agree strongly; some of the longest serving - and hardest working - members of our reserve unit have no medals for overseas deployments, but also show up without fail for every parade, every exercise when it is -20 Celsius, or raining, and are out there doing things and leading people.


----------



## Haggis (22 May 2006)

Eyre:

In your battalion, how many of your officers (and, quite possibly, NCO's) have MBA's?  If any, what do they bring to the table (i.e your O Gp) that is directly attributable to the MBA?


----------



## eyre (22 May 2006)

> In your battalion, how many of your officers (and, quite possibly, NCO's) have MBA's?  If any, what do they bring to the table (i.e your O Gp) that is directly attributable to the MBA?



One, and he just graduated.  Nobody in the OGp has an MBA.


----------



## mdh (22 May 2006)

> This article appears to be a compilation of everything somewhat controversial that was mentioned in a lengthy interview



I always avoid "lengthy interviews" - they always turn out badly in my experience (and make sure they're taped).  

cheers, mdh


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 May 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> I always avoid "lengthy interviews" - they always turn out badly in my experience (and make sure they're taped).



Who are you- Brian Mulroney?  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 May 2006)

Not much good comes out of interviews with the media. The issue that is at the root of the problem is the lack of a dedicated staff for the training mission, so the CF robs line units for instructor staff which essentially make a unit undeployable. Perhaps as a stop gap measure qualified NCO's can be drawn from the Pres to serve as instructors so that line units can remain intact or to fill gaps in a deploying unit.


----------



## big bad john (22 May 2006)

It has been my experience never to trust reporters and the media, they always tend to put their own spin on anything no matter how simple or how clear.  Dealing with them is always a tad difficult and messy.  I am sorry that it turned out so for you.


----------



## m410 (22 May 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Not much good comes out of interviews with the media. The big problem that is at the root of the problem is the lack of a dedicated staff for the training mission, so the CF robs line units for instructor staff which essentially make a unit undeployable. Perhaps as a stop gap measure qualified NCO's can be drawn from the Pres to serve as instructors so that line units can remain intact or to fill gaps in a deploying unit.


Start a full time training detachment in Vancouver or Chilliwack staffed by reservists and I'll bet you get a lot of volunteers.  It could teach 2 serials of SQ/BIQ regular force in Sept-Dec and another 2 serials Jan-Apr, then switch to PRes BMQ/SQ/BIQ during the summer.  I would personally sign up for this and I bet we could find a full staff of Vancouver personnel.

Obviously this concept is portable to other regions.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 May 2006)

I find it refreashing to here from serving commanders.  Normally that is reserved to recently retired members.


----------

