# New CDS Gen. Jonathan Vance (split fm CDS spec thread)



## PanaEng (27 Apr 2015)

LGen Vance is it. 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lt-gen-jonathan-vance-appointed-next-chief-of-defence-staff-1.3050238


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Apr 2015)

Good man.  Excellent.


----------



## DavidAkin (17 Jul 2015)

Reporter logging in here folks.

I'm writing a column today for our Sunday papers taking a look back at Gen Lawson's time as CDS and looking ahead to Gen Vance's prospects as CDS.

Opinions about either man gratefully received You may choose to be on the record or on a "not for attribution" basis. Either way, input from those who wear a uniform would be a big help. How to reach me? Message me here, e-mail to david.akin@sunmedia.ca or cell 613 883 7412

Thanks all!


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jul 2015)

Habemus (new) CDS!







> *‘It must stop now’: Canada’s new chief of defence staff vows to end sexual misconduct in the military*
> _Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press | July 17, 2015 2:03 PM ET_
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance, a combat veteran of Afghanistan and the country’s former operations commander, has been sworn in as the chief of defence staff, replacing Gen. Tom Lawson, who is retiring after almost three years in the high-profile post.
> ...



This, from the Commander-in-Chief/GG:


> This is an important day for our Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> The change of command ceremony is a key moment in our military’s history. It signals a passing of the torch from one leader to another.
> 
> ...


CDS bio here.


----------



## DavidAkin (18 Jul 2015)

Thanks to those who responded to my call for comment. Here's the result:

*A warrior for the working day: Vance takes over with high hopes*

The Canadian Armed Forces, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Friday, “have been central to the story of our country.”

It is an arguable point but that argument is for another time and another place.

What is inarguable, though, is that only a few commanders of those armed forces have ever been central to the story of our country.

Harper likes to date the creation of Canada to the War of 1812 and, in that conflict, we have a general, Sir Isaac Brock, who gained extra notoriety for his battlefield death while defending the property of Britain against American invaders. Other historians might look back to that great duel on the Plains of Abraham when the commanders of both the British and French forces —- Wolfe and Montcalm — also died in battle.

But after Wolfe, Montcalm and Brock — what other great Canadian general might make one of the government’s “Heritage Minutes”? Sir Arthur Currie? And … ?

By contrast, the history of our great friend and southern neighbour is shot through with the exploits of generals from Washington to Eisenhower and beyond.

But in a Canada that, at least until Harper became prime minister, likes to think of itself as “the peaceable kingdom”, generals have always been encouraged — sometimes ordered by their political masters — to go about their generalling with as little fuss and public notice as possible. I suspect former prime minister Paul Martin knew he was about to break that mould when he appointed Rick Hillier, a tank commander from Newfoundland, as his top general. ....

Read the rest at http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/defence-2/a-warrior-for-the-working-day-vance-takes-over-with-high-hopes/


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jul 2015)

David

Good to see you back on  the net. Having said that, you have a glitch in this paragraph - two south towers:

His most notable accomplishment may be one that will be invisible to most Canadians but is an important one nonetheless: Getting military and civilian leaders at the Department of National Defence to work as one. The top general and his team work in the south tower at defence headquarters in Ottawa while the deputy minister and his team work in the south. For years, there has been noticeable tension between the “north tower” and the “south tower” with arguments over everything from media relations plans to procurement strategies. Lawson, those on the inside tell me, did much to ease those tensions and this is no small achievement.


----------



## DavidAkin (18 Jul 2015)

Great catch. Fixing now...


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jul 2015)

Great article David.


----------



## GAP (18 Jul 2015)

good article, especially for those not in the military and don't know the main issues....


----------



## mba2011 (18 Jul 2015)

Excellent Article David! Very Well written!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Great article David.



I concur.  Nicely nuanced


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2015)

A good article. 

Although I've only had interactions twice with the CDS I found him to be intelligent, thoughtful and a people person.


----------



## FJAG (19 Jul 2015)

Very well written David. You've captured both the man and the road we've taken to come to this moment in time.

 :cheers:


----------



## Loachman (19 Jul 2015)

Yes, overall, a good article, David.

Could you please correct the name of General Vance's, and ny, old Regiment, though?

It is "The Royal Canadian Regiment" and "The RCR", not "the Royal Canadian Regiment" and "the RCR".

This is a common error, but it is important to get names right.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yes, overall, a good article, David.
> 
> Could you please correct the name of General Vance's, and ny, old Regiment, though?
> 
> ...


Just like "*T*he Canadian Press"  ;D

Seriously, well handled, DA.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jul 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Very well written David. You've captured both the man and the road we've taken to come to this moment in time.




 :ditto: Thanks, David, for that good piece; I especially like the fact that you've captured the _situation_ in and around NDHQ, where, like it or not, Gen Vance will have to fight his battles now.


----------



## DavidAkin (19 Jul 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Could you please correct the name of General Vance's, and ny, old Regiment, though?
> 
> It is "The Royal Canadian Regiment" and "The RCR", not "the Royal Canadian Regiment" and "the RCR".



Fixed. Thanks for flagging.


----------



## dimsum (19 Jul 2015)

Great article.  

Loved the "Emperor Palpatine" photo when Gen Vance is "gesturing" during his speech.   :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jul 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Loved the "Emperor Palpatine" photo when Gen Vance is "gesturing" during his speech.   :nod:



At times I wish I had better photoshop skills....  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2015)

It's refreshing to read some journalism of fact and not of the writer's opinion. Thank you David, well done.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2015)

I'm disappointed that the first issue General Vance spoke to was sexual harassment & assault in the CF and not what's going on with ISIS and the world.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jul 2015)

To be fair, if he hadn't mentioned harassment (notice the media coverage all the new commanders got when they mentioned it), he would have been absolutely crucified. He knew that, and his speech was more for the cameras, than for the troops. I fully expect he'll have other opportunities to highlight the threat ISIS poses, and he's also on record saying ISIS is a bigger threat than Russia is in the Ukraine.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Jul 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed that the first issue General Vance spoke to was sexual harassment & assault in the CF and not what's going on with ISIS and the world.



I think he defused an issue that the media and the political class considered more important than ISIS. He also set the tone for his term as a no nonsense hard ass.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I think he defused an issue that the media and the political class considered more important than ISIS. He also set the tone for his term as a no nonsense hard ***.



Let's hope he is able to relieve those who are somewhat lacking......


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jul 2015)

It's on most if not all CO's agenda and has been for some time.  I just cleared out through the Old Man, he harangued us for 20 minutes solid about this subject and alcohol.  He has been beating everyone about the headband shoulders for some time now.  Basic tone, shape up and change with the organization or FO.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's on most if not all CO's agenda and has been for some time.  I just cleared out through the Old Man, he harangued us for 20 minutes solid about this subject and alcohol.  He has been beating everyone about the headband shoulders for some time now.  Basic tone, shape up and change with the organization or FO.



The days of "he's good in the field or on ship" are gone. In fact they have been gone for sometime.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Jul 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The days of "he's good in the field or on ship" are gone. In fact they have been gone for sometime.



And it was even worse if the individual was turned out like a character in a recruiting commercial. Excellence at foot and arms drill could more than compensate for a shoe-sized IQ and the social skills of a drunken spider monkey.


----------



## dimsum (19 Jul 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Excellence at foot and arms drill could more than compensate for a shoe-sized IQ and *the social skills of a drunken spider monkey.
> *



 :rofl:


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And it was even worse if the individual was turned out like a character in a recruiting commercial. Excellence at foot and arms drill could more than compensate for a shoe-sized IQ and the social skills of a drunken spider monkey.



Now THAT quote is so true. I've seen some characters and not all were good ones.....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Jul 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> for a shoe-sized IQ and the social skills of a drunken spider monkey.



Last time I saw that phrase was on my PER!


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jul 2015)

>the social skills of a drunken spider monkey.

The junior residences at university were a lot of fun, though.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jul 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Last time I saw that phrase was on my PER!



Guess that's better than your potential section saying "N/A".


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jul 2015)

Hmm... the potential section on mine just said :rofl:


----------



## cavalryman (20 Jul 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And it was even worse if the individual was turned out like a character in a recruiting commercial. Excellence at foot and arms drill could more than compensate for a shoe-sized IQ and the social skills of a drunken spider monkey.


Lordy, but that brings back memories.  One of the most smartly turned out NCOs in the battalion when it came to drill and deportment was picked up by the MPs (by accident no less!) for dealing pot.  Needless to say, the ensuing court-martial found the guilty bastard, er... guilty and he was no longer a soldier, let alone an NCO.  The fact that I wrote his PER a few months before he was caught still makes me cringe when I recall his high ranking among his peers - as per the RSM's decree.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> the social skills of a drunken spider monkey.



Well, the navy has taken care of the sobriety of its monkeys.  Foreign ports and the messes are rather dull afairs now so I am told.


----------



## Underway (20 Jul 2015)

Worked under Vance twice in Afghanistan,  the few times I dealt with him he was excellent.  Hope springs eternal, as of now no complaints on the selection...


----------



## observor 69 (20 Jul 2015)

"But Lawson’s time as top general was an undistinguished one, partly due to his own character — he was a poor communicator — but also partly due to the circumstances of the time."

"Some will say Lawson was promoted too quickly. Considered bright but not distinguished in the way it matters in most militaries, insiders say he quickly lost influence within the PMO partly because he lacked the battlefield experience of his two predecessors."

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/defence-2/a-warrior-for-the-working-day-vance-takes-over-with-high-hopes/

Looking back one seriously wonders, is the RCAF by it's very nature incapable of producing an officer with the qualities required of 
a strong CDS?


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> "But Lawson’s time as top general was an undistinguished one, partly due to his own character — he was a poor communicator — but also partly due to the circumstances of the time."
> 
> "Some will say Lawson was promoted too quickly. Considered bright but not distinguished in the way it matters in most militaries, insiders say he quickly lost influence within the PMO partly because he lacked the battlefield experience of his two predecessors."
> 
> ...



Why would you think that exactly, looking back that is?

So the last one was General Henault.  What was the issue with him?


----------



## observor 69 (20 Jul 2015)

Seeing as how I was around when a lot of RCAF officers were CDS I agree with your comment. 
I think Henault was a fine CDS. And when I check  WIKI  and review the CDS who were RCAF they as I recall  were all very solid performers.
Has it only been ten years since Henault retired? I guess he got eclipsed by Hillier and the events of Afghanistan followed by Lawson's low profile tenure.


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Seeing as how I was around when a lot of RCAF officers were CDS I agree with your comment.
> I think Henault was a fine CDS. And when I check  WIKI  and review the CDS who were RCAF they as I recall  were all very solid performers.
> Has it only been ten years since Henault retired? I guess he got eclipsed by Hillier and the events of Afghanistan followed by Lawson's low profile tenure.



The one I could see as being problematic might be General Boyle.  I think it is all case by case.  War time Generals's might be the ones that we immediately think of because that's what the military is meant for.  Gentlemen like General's Hiller and Natynczyk were probably the right fit for that time but one has to wonder how well they would have done in another time, ie peacetime or something like the 90's.

It is that balance of trying to find the right man for the right job at the right time.  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


----------



## observor 69 (20 Jul 2015)

Interesting quote :
Boyle was appointed the Chief of Defence Staff in January 1996, at the relatively young age of 48, being chosen ahead of more senior officers who were expected to be picked for the job.[9] General Lewis MacKenzie later described Boyle's ascension, noting that he was "obviously out of his depth as [Chief of Defence Staff]".
WIKI

Sounds like a familiar theme.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2015)

Boyle lost any respect he would have had from me when he threw his subordinates under the bus and blamed them for things that went wrong.  Compared to Boyle, Lawson was stellar.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Boyle lost any respect he would have had from me when he threw his subordinates under the bus and blamed them for things that went wrong.  Compared to Boyle, Lawson was stellar.



He lost respect of many well before that.  His inspection of an Honour Guard in full DEU while he was in short sleeve order, was a slap in the face to many.  To have not taken a couple of minutes to don a tunic should not have been a problem.   To some it may have been a small thing.  To others it was disrespectful.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> He lost respect of many well before that.  His inspection of an Honour Guard in full DEU while he was in short sleeve order, was a slap in the face to many.  To have not taken a couple of minutes to don a tunic should not have been a problem.   To some it may have been a small thing.  To others it was disrespectful.



There were many things wrong with that man, yes.  The bus throwing was one thing that came to mind.  I will, however, give him a nod on one item.  He did want to try and get a very decent raise in pay accomplished (which would of course benefitted him as well...)  By the time he was done, I thought of him as another type of "boil" that needed to be lanced from the organization.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> He lost respect of many well before that.  His inspection of an Honour Guard in full DEU while he was in short sleeve order, was a slap in the face to many.  To have not taken a couple of minutes to don a tunic should not have been a problem.   To some it may have been a small thing.  To others it was disrespectful.



His CWO should have ensured the CDS was properly turned out unless the CDS chose to ignore his CWO.


----------



## Loachman (20 Jul 2015)

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> Fixed. Thanks for flagging.



I saw that, David. It is appreciated.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jul 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> His CWO should have ensured the CDS was properly turned out unless the CDS chose to ignore his CWO.



So that's what the Command Sargeant Major does.     I often wondered what his job was.  Apparently in the US Army he is also a part time fashion designer.

Back in the bad old days CDS would have had a batman at a fraction of the cost or even a personally employed valet.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> His CWO should have ensured the CDS was properly turned out unless the CDS chose to ignore his CWO.



He would have also had an EA or PA traveling with him, along with the Base Visits Officer........ >


----------



## Loachman (20 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> So the last one was General Henault.  What was the issue with him?



Ray Henault was CO 444 Squadron for the last two of my years there. He was despised by almost everybody. He would contradict his own direction, written as well as verbal, as if he'd never issued it in the first place. He cancelled or cut back valid training activities in favour of photo-op type stuff that would make himself look good. This was his one-and-only Kiowa posting, and he clearly had no knowledge of how we should operate, and he never, to the best of my knowledge, ever participated in a single mission during an exercise. While he would initially come across as a nice, friendly guy ("Bob Newhart"), we quickly learned to watch our backs. Nothing competes with clueless leadership-from-behind coupled with petty vindictiveness.

During the last day or two prior to his outgoing change-of-command parade, the Squadron Sergeant-Major remarked to one of the other Pilots (who had a rubber Mickey Mouse stamp that used to get applied to a lot of Henault's documents) that "I didn't know that everybody hated him so much". I didn't know that it wasn't blatantly obvious.

Indeed, we could feel a huge weight being lifted during those last couple of days.

I spent those evenings sitting on my balcony, enjoying the sun, leisurely sipping Weizenbier, and lovingly honing my sword.

It was very therapeutic, but also, were I to go berserk in the heat (or something) during the parade, I wanted to make sure that I didn't screw anything up.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2015)

Hate to say it, but, most of the decent (Prince John excepted) CDS seem to have been Pongos.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hate to say it, but, most of the decent (Prince John excepted) CDS seem to have been Pongos.




I've served under some excellent Air Force leaders ... unfortunately the two who I regard as "best" were both RAF, not RCAF.

_I think_ that Navy and Army service might offer more opportunities for young officers to test (and be corrected on) and develop their leadership techniques, but I can assure you that, after a long career, I found good and bad in all services. One very senior officer, and a very good leader and manager I hasten to add, told me that the toughest two jobs he ever had were his first tour as a sub lieutenant on a warship and, later, command of a ship; everything else, he said, including multiple stars and plenty of pressure, was easier than those two jobs. I'm inclined to agree with him ... I just wish I had learned the valuable lessons from those jobs faster and better.


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Jul 2015)

Loachman:





> ....leisurely sipping Weizenbier, and lovingly honing my sword.....





> .....but also, were I to go berserk in the heat (or something) during the parade ....


 by charging and skewering MM ....


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I've served under some excellent Air Force leaders ... unfortunately the two who I regard as "best" were both RAF, not RCAF.
> 
> _I think_ that Navy and Army service might offer more opportunities for young officers to test (and be corrected on) and develop their leadership techniques, but I can assure you that, after a long career, I found good and bad in all services. One very senior officer, and a very good leader and manager I hasten to add, told me that the toughest two jobs he ever had were his first tour as a sub lieutenant on a warship and, later, command of a ship; everything else, he said, including multiple stars and plenty of pressure, was easier than those two jobs. I'm inclined to agree with him ... I just wish I had learned the valuable lessons from those jobs faster and better.



I believe that one of the worst jobs in the RCN is to be a Subbie MARS officer.  They're beasted by the CO and XO on down while they are learning the ropes.  More screws are put to them than a poor soul being interrogated by the Spanish Inquisition.  I can agree 2000% it would have been tough.  The same as being the old man.  Lots of weight on the shoulders and they only usually get one crack at the seat as there's too many bums for too few seats so you really have to had earned your way there.  

I have had old men that I would follow into the gates of hell and back, I've also had some I would have gleefully shown the gates if given the chance...


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Jul 2015)

I, like many, most,? combat arms officers absolutely had a blast as a subaltern. I worked hard, always went to the back of the meal line, made sure I was at least as wet and cold and miserable as my troops and kept cheerful during the whole thing. As luck would have it, I had more than my share of really good battery commanders, and one pig who took on a hate for me. That got me posted to HQ 4 CIBG where I got an accelerated promotion to captain after only just under six years of commissioned service.

Maybe my best day ever in my service was when one of my battery commanders, who was being posted, paid for a ton of beer in the wet canteen. He gave the obligatory semi-sincere speech about wishing the troops well and hoping they prospered. At this point, one of the more mouthy troops - he had a SN number for the old hands - shouted "We'll be ok as long as they don't post 'Old Sweat'." The rest of the battery cheered and clapped.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jul 2015)

That's cuz we r brylyant.


----------



## Underway (21 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hate to say it, but, most of the decent (Prince John excepted) CDS seem to have been Pongos.



Because they refuse to choose sailors most of the time.  Anderson was the last and he was in tough due to the Airborne affair.  Really just thrown in to be thrown out.  Maybe its the truth to power issues, sailors in Canadian history have a tendency to stick up for their element more than it healthy....


----------



## Monsoon (22 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Because they refuse to choose sailors most of the time.  Anderson was the last and he was in tough due to the Airborne affair.  Really just thrown in to be thrown out.  Maybe its the truth to power issues, sailors in Canadian history have a tendency to stick up for their element more than it healthy....


I wouldn't read that much into it. Maddison was the navy's most recent real hope for the job, and he went down over the issue of contradicting the Senate _vis-a-vis_ royalization (a waste of a good officer, but it suggests he wouldn't have played well at the political level). McFadden left his job early for personal reasons, the RCN needed another year or two of Norman to dial down the "flag churn" after Maddison and McFadden's short tenures (keep your eye on that space though), and Donaldson, as Vice, flatly declined to be considered for the job when Lawson was picked up. Prior to that, Robertson can't have been seriously on anyone's radar, MacLean's time didn't really align, and anyone who thinks Buck would have been better than Hillier has problems a web forum post isn't going to fix  ;D

The RCN will get a CDS when we produce the right person at the right time. Frankly, the RCAF and CA have played the timing game better than we have.


----------



## Pusser (22 Jul 2015)

I think Bob Davidson would have been an outstanding choice as CDS.  One of, if not the finest naval officer with whom I have ever had the pleasure to serve.

I also think Larry Murray got thrown under the bus by the government.  A truly honourable man, he was at one point essentially CDS, VCDS and DCDS all at the same time, yet they never had the decency to make him a full admiral.  The trouble is that in Canada, if the government is looking for a scapegoat, you'd best not be an admiral named Murray...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Jul 2015)

As I have mentioned before, we had a saying in the mid-eighties where choosing a CDS is concerned:

"If you want good leadership, pick a general; good administration, pick an admiral; good politics, pick an Air Force general."

Retired general Hillier almost choked on his coffee when I told him that one a few years ago and told me: "You have no idea how true that is". I believe that this is a reflection of the element we come from.

There is no doubt in my mind that by its very nature, the army develops in their general officers leadership skills that are at the summum of human leadership. Commanding large formations of soldiers motivated to fight while only glimpsing their "general" from afar occasionally and hearing only a very few of his actual words, if ever, requires no less.

Navies, on the other hand, are extremely complex industrial undertakings. Anyone walking about the Dockyard can see that. Navies were dealing with engineering, naval architecture and worldwide communications/command and control of forces issues when armies were still marching by foot or horses, on their stomach, and carrying their "command" element to make all the decisions locally. Lord Nelson was the hero of Trafalgar, but everyday, he sat at his sea desk with his secretary to work through piles (already) of "correspondence", which even then could have included anything from authorizing a captain to exceed his allowance for local purchase, to suggesting a modification to the design of some part of the ships, to reporting to the Lord admirals on his next plans for pursuit of the enemy. As a result, navies know the importance of good administration (and in my experience, on average, Navy units always came out better than Air Force and Army ones when administrative reviews or inspections are carried out ). 

As for the Air Forces, regardless of the fact that they put together squadrons, wings and groups, it remains that in effect they fight either alone or in small elements, with a distinct divide between the flyers, in their officers world, and the ground support crew living in the non-commissioned world. Thus, they are part of a fragmented type of organization, hence their love of functional command (fighters, transport, patrol, etc. each flying in the same area under different commanders) which is abhorrent to Army and Navy who prefer geographic command. Since little distinguishes one pilot from another, failing a war where you make Ace, their career progression must rely on their interpersonal skills, hence the good "politics", which is used here in its wider human sense than political parties.

This said, I think it accounts for the lack of admirals as CDS. Good administration doesn't get you noticed. It is one of those things that, done right is invisible, and is only remarkable when you screw it up in a big way. Add to that the fact that the Navy is the "silent" service, skill it developed as it knows that it can lose wars, but it cannot win them*, and you have all the ingredients to be passed over regularly even if you have all the skills for CDS.
   
*: Nelson won at Trafalgar, but it was Wellington who beat Napoleon at Waterloo that ended the war. The longest battle of WWII was the Battle of the Atlantic, from day one to day last, but it was the massed armies of the allies that defeated Hitler. The RN quarantined the Falklands and cut off Argentinian supplies, but it was the soldiers and Marines of the U.K. that reconquered them. In each of those cases (and countless more) the Navy won its battle but it didn't defeat the enemy -the Army did. Had the Navy lost those battles, however, the enemy would have won in all cases.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As I have mentioned before, we had a saying in the mid-eighties where choosing a CDS is concerned:
> 
> "If you want good leadership, pick a general; good administration, pick an admiral; good politics, pick an Air Force general."
> 
> ...




But Nelson was the only one doing that. Wellington was (in)famous for his acerbic correspondence with Whitwhall over the _administrivia_ that bedevilled both Navy and Army commanders in the early 19th century.


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Jul 2015)

Good comparative summary outlining the roles and challenges the CDS and the CJCS(USA): copied in accordance with the fair use principles of the Copyright Act, RSC 1985 as amended. 

(From Canadian Global Affairs Institute and the original articles by Stephen Saideman appears in Embassy magazine( http://www.embassynews.ca/opinion/2015/07/22/tough-jobs-ahead-for-new-canada-us-military-chiefs/47409 )

*Tough jobs ahead for new Canada, US military chiefs*

From Embassy, July 22, 2015

The United States and Canada are replacing their military chiefs at about the same time. As each starts their term in office, observers can easily confuse what each can and cannot do. The striking difference is that the US chairman can speak but not act and the Canadian chief can act but cannot speak quite as much.

Let me explain some of the differences and then some of the similarities.

The Canadian chief of defence staff is the commander of the Canadian Armed Forces. He is the ultimate authority, essentially, writing the rules of engagement, firing subordinates if need be, and providing the operational commanders with their missions.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff commands the joint staff—and that is about it. His primary job is to serve as adviser to the president and the secretary of defense. He cannot order around the combatant commanders—the four-star generals and admirals who command all of the US forces in their sector or function.

The CDS is appointed by the prime minister, and Parliament has no role in vetting him. Which means he is only accountable to the prime minister, but is answerable to Parliament. This answerability thing is actually quite limited since advice to cabinet is confidential. So, the CDS can speak about what the Canadian Armed Forces are doing and can do, but not what the CDS told the prime minister about what should be done.

The chairman is appointed by the president but must be confirmed by the Senate. So, he is actually accountable to both the president and to Congress. This means that he can and occasionally must speak more broadly, depending on the questions asked by those in Congress.

How are they similar? Well, I used “he” a lot above since the American and Canadian military chiefs have been male. The time for a female CDS/chairman is coming as more women are getting promoted to higher levels and with more women getting more experience commanding in combat, those numbers should increase even more. Still, not anytime soon.

How else? CDSs and chairmen can range from being forward-leaning to acquiescent. Chairmen Richard Myers and Peter Pace, under Donald Rumsfeld, experienced “mind melds,” where they basically sold out to Rummy’s stances on the issues. _One could use many adjectives to describe the outgoing CDS but forward-leaning is not one of them.
_
The two new leaders, US Marine General Joe Dunford and Canadian Army General Jon Vance, who was sworn in July 17, may or may not be that similar as chiefs (time will tell), but they do have some similar attributes. Both commanded in Afghanistan. Both are generally viewed as relatively blunt and assertive. Both have tough jobs ahead as they face more budgetary constraints in more complex times (the Cold War was more dangerous but far more simple). Both have to deal with messed up procurement processes (a widely shared dynamic among democracies these days). And both are starting their jobs during election season (although the US election is farther away, the campaign is very much underway). Dunford’s boss will certainly change during his term in office, and that might happen to Vance and maybe not.

As each takes over their respective militaries, we need to keep in mind that despite the common title of CHOD (chief of defense, in the NATO parlance), they have somewhat different jobs and definitely different expectations.

The key commonality is that they will lead in interesting times.

Stephen Saideman is the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University. He is a Fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (30 Jul 2015)

How much of a politician does a CDS have to be? When I say politician I mean minding what one says, being mindful of his role on the public stage etc?


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jul 2015)

I saw the boss briefly when I was clearing in through 101 on Monday.  We exchanged pleasantries, was nice to see him again.


----------

