# Has rank been watered down?



## Rearadmiral (26 Jan 2008)

The whole thing about rank seems to have changed in the past 20 years.  I went through BMQ 8641 at Cornwallis and was taught that senior rank people were to be treated with utmost respect.  That served me well right up until I pulled the plug and left for civvie street and back to school.  Actually that served me well on civvie street too, knowing that people deserved my respect.  In my few years in reg force what I was taught served me well: I stood up when an officer came in the room.  I was terrified of the Base CWO.  On the rare occasions that I’d run into the Base CO I’d snap a nervous but sharp salute.  I remember the times when I had to be Duty Private I’d be worried that I’d snag the flag lines or something.  

Fast forward to now and I’ve rejoined as a reservist.  Things seem to be quite different.  And my experience says that it isn’t the fact that it is the reserves, but things have changed.

Last month I had the privilege of being given a tour of one of the frigates.  There were about 20 of us, and as a captain (not navy) my rank was the junior rank on the tour.  The group was 80% reg force and 20% reserve.  The senior officer on the tour was a BGen.  We entered one part of the ship and there was a young OS (no-hook private) sitting there with his feet up.  He didn’t move when we entered – with a BGen.  If that was me in 1987 or so, I’d have been on my feet in record time and been standing to attention.  I commented on this to another guy on the tour and his take was “at least I’d make it look like I was busy.” 

Another example is how RSMs/CSMs/CWOs/MWO and even warrant officers are treated.  I treat everyone from the BMQ recruit to the CO with respect, but I always, ALWAYS extend the highest deference to the WO/MWO/CWO ranks.  I call CWOs ‘sir’ and justify it by being a sign of respect.  Only one CPO1 in Halifax insisted that I drop the sir and call him Chief.  

Here’s a third example: a close personal friend of mine is CO of a regiment with the rank of LCol.  Even if I’m just making a social call I come to attention at his door and wait to be addressed.  Friendship be damned, protocol requires certain things.

Fourth example:  in Ottawa last fall I saluted a Major who I ran across on a public street.  The look on his face was “what the crap is a captain saluting me for?” and then he hesitantly returned the salute.

Fifth example: I was in a reserve unit once last year and the CO, the RSM and I left an office and headed outside to go to another area.  We went through a gaggle of junior rank troops who didn’t even flinch.  20 years ago if I’d have heard the CO and the base CWO were coming by I’d park myself in the crapper for an hour or three.  Failing that, I’d have stood to attention with a sharp salute.  Not today.  No worries it seems.

Look, I’ll admit that I’m a bit of a nut, but I’ll go to my grave thinking (and knowing) that CWOs sit at the right hand of God, so I might as well treat them with that respect now.

Cheers


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Jan 2008)

Got to remember that its the new kinder gentler army.


----------



## blacktriangle (26 Jan 2008)

...and the fact that a lot of officers don't like being saluted all the time, at least in my experiences. I even got a chuckle from an officer once when I saluted him as he passed me, followed by a firm "relax". I agree its good to have a disciplined military, but don't put the blame soley on the junior ranks, we only follow orders after all  ;D

Oh and P.S- all the WO/MWO/CWO's still scare the crap out of me!


----------



## Long in the tooth (26 Jan 2008)

I don't think that there's much change... 30 years ago while in uniform I saluted our DCO who was in civilians.  He was positively embarrassed by it, and said I shouldn't salute him.


----------



## Rearadmiral (26 Jan 2008)

I might get flamed for this, but I think 'kinder and gentler' does have a place.  The physical abuse i endured in 1986 made me a stronger man (actually it made me a man) but I'm not sure that this model works now.  

Ah, crap...  In the time it took me to write the above sentence i realize that I don't believe a word of what i just wrote.  The intense physical and physchological abuse I took in BMQ made me a better person in every sense.  Contrary to what some might think, it hasn't made me violent or abusive.  Quite the contrary, it made me resepctful and kinder.  Yesterday I overheard an elderly woman worrying about slipping in a parking lot whne she stepped out of her car.  I stopped and asked  if she'd allow me to assist her.  That's the kind of respect and confidence that I learned on my 1986 BMQ.  

I don't want to change the topic, but I really believe that military service is the best way a young person can grow as a person.  I'm a living example.


----------



## xo31@711ret (27 Jan 2008)

Hell Sir, I went through in 82 ( 'reired 06) when the CO was the boss but the RSM was God!  ;D Spent most of my time with the army. (first 6 as an RCR, then medic - mostly with front line army units - now doing reserves: supp / class A). My personal experience, never changed myself with front-line army units ( 1RCR, 119 AD Bty Bty; 2RCR) concerning Officers / RSM's / BSM's etc). But I have to agree with you on the civvie side. Some people are amazed when you offer help; just saying hello, or just striking up a conversation. Heck, I was even suggested to apply for a job by one of my young daughter's father to apply for a job at his small company he owned, just because I was x-military at the time (before I had the offer for reserves). Didn't have any experience in that particular line of work, but because of my military experience...but my comprehension of the second language was limited (my fault, not theirs). Makes one feel good that 24+ years of military does help.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Jan 2008)

RearAdmiral - I would have to agree with you - on a certain level.  This "theme" of disrespect, while prevalent throughout the CF, is not the norm everywhere.  You see, we have many senior NCO's who are still capable of applying a little discipline in order to correct minor deficiencies.  Any time I witness a disrespectful attitude outside my chain, I will correct it immediately.  If I witness a questionable action within my chain - it's a one sided conversation in my office - not loud, not rude, but highly effective.  Now, this only works if more and more senior NCO's familiarize themselves with how to PROPERLY apply disciplinary procedures and then incorporate that into their own attitudes.  There does seem to be a more...lackadaisical?? product from our everchanging recruit training facilities, but we do not have to coddle this along on QL3's and first units.  I myself have always been a firm believer that we (purple trades) should be posted to a field unit right out of 3's.  You learn a lot in the field about how you are part of a team.  This is where a little respect is earned, and a lot is devoted - IF the leadership is there.

My career at this point is ruled by one law: (And they went and changed that too....) 4.  Lead by example.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Jan 2008)

P.S:   In your fifth example, the RSM should have been shot!!  I don't know of ANY RSM that doesn't have Xray eyes to see through walls, trees, car doors... super hearing, powers of invisibility AND control of the weather.  If an RSM could witness a "gaggle" while in the presence of a Capt and a Commanding Officer without going into Tasmanian devil mode, then he or she had been taken over by passive aliens and need to have them removed IMMEDIATELY!!!

 :warstory:

And to you RearAdmiral:


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Jan 2008)

I think it is a little slacker today than when I first trained (1977 in Chilliwack) but I find that people respond if you remind them. I find the new CADPAT, which the Army and AIR force now live in, is difficult to see the rank sometimes....especially from the side and the back and the blue colour of the AF rank slip on (very difficult to discern). I'm on IR in Ottawa and have not noticed anyone reluctant to salute in the streets around NDHQ and Coventry (where I work). We all come from an increasingly more informal society in which professionals are encouraging people to treat them as equals and call them by their first name. My wife is a Operating nurse and reports that all the Doctors insist on being referred to by the nurses by first name now. My wife is old school and refuses to do that while on the job...there's just something wrong with "Hey Betty chuck me that retractor will ya?"  "Sure Bill, comin at ya!"


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> You see, we have many senior NCO's who are still capable of applying a little discipline in order to correct minor deficiencies.



As I read through the posts ... this sprung immediately to my mind. If this is becoming "the norm" at some Units -- it is because there are Sergeants and Warrant Officers within that Unit who are not doing their jobs.

It is NOT an Officers task to correct dress, deportment & discipline. Nor is it the RSMs. It is the Sergeants. Sergeant is the first rank level at which a leader finds themselves diassociated socially from their subordinates. There is a reason for that -- because one is now expected to dispense discipline and enforce dress, deportment, protocol.

A Sergeant is the first rank level that has EARNED their way into their respective Mess. Snr NCOs & WOs (Chiefs & POs) remain the only personnel to do this. It is inherent upon them to enforce the standards of behaviour, discipline and deportment. They are the fundamental building blocks to its enforcement and adherance. If there is a problem on the ground level with a Jr NCM that can not be/is not corrected via the actions of the Sgt, it is inherent upon the Sgt to then move away from rank ... and into "appointment". 

An MWO who is, by virtue of appointment, "the CSM" then dispenses corrective measures as he/she deems appropriate.

It should be on the _very_ rare occasion that the CWO who is "appointed the RSM" should be identifying and correcting a disciplinary matter him/herself. Rather, the personnel whom he is correcting should have been marched to that RSMs location by someone of the lower rank. The RSM of a Unit rather should be keeping the traditions, the heritage and the history of the Unit alive, looking after his soldiers and ensuring their well-being. He should only be interrupted from doing this by events of a very serious nature -- it should be the VERY rare occasion that his time should be sullied by someone else's failure to enforce discipline and deportment.

If I were the RSM in the scenario detailed in the original walking through the gaggle, my wrath would have been dispensed to the sergeants who "lead" that gaggle, and it would not have been pretty. Same goes for Officers, if they are finding that personnel subordinate to them are not affording proper respect and protocol -- they need to start shitting on their Sergeants.

And yes, the RSM sits at the right hand of gawd. Two years ago, I stood outside of J7 awaiting the arrival of the Base RSM and the Comd to meet them and escort them to a briefing I was giving in the theatre after they had just met with the Comd LFAA. As I watched the staff cars approach towards J7 from the Officers Mess I watched with horror as a female 2Lt waited for them to stop at the crosswalk to let her cross. They stopped & she proceeds to _saunter_ accross the road, no salute -- nada respect. I knew what my job was at that point in time and I began to run from my spot by the flags at the main entrance down to the next Schools walkway. As I was running, I could see the rear window on the staff car being rolled back up and knew I had made the proper decision. I ran up in front of the 2Lt, gave her a quick salute and said "come with me Ma'am ... the Base RSM would like to speak with you." The look of horror on her face as she realized what she had just "not" done is indescribeable.

When she and I got back to the main entrance and the staff car, the RSM was already standing outside waiting for us (note that the windows of the staff car had been opened up a couple inchs again so they could take in the festivities about to occur) and we both came to attention before him. I got it first (being that I was the lower rank -- a Sgt). "*#@$% XXXXX if you need to run faster to ensure that you don't run accross my grass, you damn well do it, but you will stay the %$#^& off my grass!! Do you understand? "Yes Sir." "Good then, that's costing you one." "Thank you Sir."

"2Lt XXXXXX ... $%(*&()*^^&%#$ (&*&%$%#)_O )(*&%$#@ with the Comd inside!!! Do you understand?" "Yes Sir." "Good that'll cost you one."
"Yes Sir." "Not so quick, that's one from me ... but you owe the Sgt one because she's doing one for you --- so that's two understood?" "Yes Sir."
"Get on your way then."

And off, she went. The driver then exited, opened the door to allow the Comd out as appropriate. I gave him his salute and we carried on into the building. Life went on. I'll presume that the 2 Lt will never make the same mistake again. I have been known to walk/run across the grass since.


----------



## Desert Fox (27 Jan 2008)

I do agree with a lot of what has been said. Some points one can not refute, ie the slack and idle OS on the frigate (maybe its a navy thing? ;D). 

The point raised with regards to a "kinder gentler army" I think touches part of the issue. The demographic of the people in the forces today has changed greatly. What I mean by this in particular is the level of education, and life experience prior to enrollment. In days past, the typical recruit was young navie, fairly uneducated, limited in life experience and other job skills. Today this does not hold as true. 

Yes, there are still those who fit this tradtional mold (nothing  wrong with that) however at the same time you now have older recruits joining (ie into the 20's rather then teens) as a result these people have lived life in some capacity, held a job, received higher education, etc and as a result have expereinced life out side of the military culture. This does two things. First it makes them aware of how the rest of society functions, and secondly it gets them accustomed to the norms of regular society. Hence why the bash and crash culture has been scaled back. You can't merely scream and shout at an educated 20-somthing year old who can get a higher paying job with better work conditions civi side. (Crash and bash has its time and place, I'm refering to a continous fear/terror motivation technique)

"Kinder & Gentler" is lothed by some, probably those who are hell bent on "being hard".  Frankly a more accurate way of describing what the military is aiming at is am organization where fear is no longer the primary form of motivation, having been replaced by mutual respect, and a professional working enviroment. In some ways this has been taken too far, and we are in some ways to "touchy feely". Some the above examples are painly disgusting. Not trying to make excuses for that, some of those people need a good smack of Old School. ;D Troops undergoing basic training are one thing, a trained solider doing his day to day job is another. 

RANT ENDS OVER


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that we are experiencing a HUGE increase in the amount of Sergeants who lack "TI" and experience.

The CF is beginning to "grow" again after decades of neglect. The repercussions of our 90s downsizing are now being felt we attempt to regrow and rebuild at the same time that the "experience" that actually remained in the CF during the same 'skinny' time period all become pensionable and begin to retire.

There is a huge gap of leadership and experience in that midsection (the midsection being the years we did not recruit, but downsized) which is causing personnel to be promoted at the "ready" stage and way too early simply because the rank levels must be filled. 

Some of those "ready"s will ante up and do the job well -- others are not. 

We are now reaping that which was sown for us during the 90s.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jan 2008)

I was going to say we've had an sudden uinflux of SNCO's with combat experience and officers as well - who have learned that build a combat unit and fighting together in todays day and age has made them understand that some things from the military tradiations are not as important as others...

 I can remember when we where not allowed to call other ranks by their first name, and then when the RSM allowed "one up one down" for first names.  

However I do agree that the preformance commented by the intial poster was quite shoddy.


----------



## axeman (27 Jan 2008)

As a long time NCO who has seen the large scale swing in the way the CF administers dress ,deportment, and discipline ,I admit sometimes the kinder gentler approach doesn't work.While we are able to recruit more ppl with a higher education we are also getting the "it's a job attitude".ii have also done a re-muster to the dim side as i call the navy its not all dark .It's weird with its "SENIORITY"that they sorry we have many traditions  don't salute while on-board  crossing the line ceremony . etc .Many things that made some units able to recruit and draw a large amount of driven ppl has changed. ESPRIT DE CORP has changed .Values as a whole have changed within the CF and the rest of civilization , unfortunately its being shown  by some of the markers you have indicated . Respect doesn't always mean saluting the person but it does mean saluting the rank . I know I've taken flak over my OLD SCHOOL  attitude some days but the job gets done and then ill worry about ruffled feathers later.  Another semi old timer understands that too  but some of the new guys don't , I hope by discussing the large scale swing"When i joined  human rights were coming into the CF." type stuff.iI can instill the values if you can show them occasionally it takes more the a surly SIR to respect a officer / snr NCM. you have to come to a position of attention, deport your self as you'd like to be respected IF you ever made that level of rank . The crap if got for my attitudeabout coming to the position of attention and yes PO  no PO etc comes across as b@glicker sometimes but  If I screw up it makes the dressing down much easier because then its not my attitude but poor performance that comes to scrutiny. If I was in the ship and a B Gen came into any space I know I would of been upright and tight  as opposed to boots off the deck  knees in the breeze. But i know my attitude is of a small proportion in the Navy SIGH ....    MY 2 CENTS AS I SEE IT .


----------



## Gunner98 (27 Jan 2008)

Army Vern says, "It is NOT an Officers task to correct dress, deportment & discipline. Nor is it the RSMs."

Never pass a fault is a useful motto for all that wear the uniform, not just the RCR.  We all must pay attention to detail and know the appropriate means to have the fault addressed.  This may require immediate correction or later addressing by the individual's supervisor.

If the Capt, RSM and CO passed the gaggle, a private conversation initiated by the Capt to the RSM and/or CO should have taken place before the day was over.  With the Capt asking the RSM and/or CO how the situation should have been addressed or if it would be.

Discipline is a standard by which a unit judges itself.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I think it has a lot to do with the fact that we are experiencing a HUGE increase in the amount of Sergeants who lack "TI" and experience.
> 
> The CF is beginning to "grow" again after decades of neglect. The repercussions of our 90s downsizing are now being felt we attempt to regrow and rebuild at the same time that the "experience" that actually remained in the CF during the same 'skinny' time period all become pensionable and begin to retire.
> 
> ...



Bang on Vern - I hope that we can all realize this someday.  Leadership through experience and by example is good advice for all.  We hope that we don't end up with poor leaders bred from the stock we are seeing today, only because WE dropped the ball.

Servitum Nulli Secundus!!


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (27 Jan 2008)

Well I don't know about the "new army" but I can remember in the late 70''s early 80's if you did not salute and officer, you were in serious doodoo. Officers were instructed by the DCO to report any insubordination as such to the DSM and then as we all know s*** rolls down hill and since you were at the bottom, well you got really smelly, if you get my drift.

I can remember doing 20 x-tra's for not saluting a Major in germany, for the next 20 fridays I was driving drunks home from the messes. Did I learn my lesson, very much so. Another time I was taken aside by my Pl WO when I screwed up and read the riot act and given another 10 x-tra's for having a bit of mud on the heel of my combat boots on morning pde.

Wo's back then we're usually in their mid to late 40's, or even 50's. Until about 93 I had never seen a WO below the age of 40, it just wasn't the exception at least not in the RCR. As a matter of fact the first younger WO that I knew came from the Patricia's. Even Sgt's weren't usually below the age of 35. Myself for instance, I've had been a Cpl my whole career, but in the RCR back then it wasn't out of the norm to see career Cpl's. 

As one poster mentioned, not coming to ramrod attention when a Bgen enters the room, well we would have been thrown in the guard shack for a month for insubordination like that. Nowadays it just seems normal...

I agree with Vern that with the damage done in the 90's, we are now trying to catch up, but what will be the consequences...


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jan 2008)

It's nothing new.  When I returned from Germany to Chilliwack in '92, I was clearing in at the BOR, in my DEU, complete with all my old 4CMBG trinkets.  I had been a Cpl for 8 years by then.  Leaving via the back doors, I met a bunch of TQ3 students.  A female Capt was approaching, and I snapped off a high five.  The TQ 0's all did the "ooooh, look, is that an F-18?" thing and ignored her.  I waited 'til she was out of earshot, then asked who the course senior was.  A smug looking little prick stepped up, and I read him line, chapter, and verse.  His response?  "Who the fuck are you?  You're just a Corporal."  I asked who their Crse NCOs were, and the 2i/c happened to be a good friend of mine.  We spoke about it later, and I basically got "What would you like me to do about it?"  I was gobsmacked, but the writing was clearly on the wall.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jan 2008)

Oooo goody, let's talk about how hard core the "old army" was.  We, the soft soldiers of today's Army who never had the benefit of getting kicked in the face by an NCO, will get on with the war.... :



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> A Sergeant is the first rank level that has EARNED their way into their respective Mess. Snr NCOs & WOs (Chiefs & POs) remain the only personnel to do this.



I'm starting to get sick of this statement the more I hear it (Sorry Vern, it's not you, it's just this is a pet-peeve of mine).  First, I earned my way into the Junior Ranks Mess by signing on the line and becoming soldier (not many Canadians do that) and I earned my trip to the frumpy, at times lame, Officer's Mess through a couple years of hard work.  If I kicked around the ranks longer, I probably would have earned the right to go to the SNCOs Mess (Another pet peeve of mine, is not a Warrant Officer a Non-Commissioned Officer by the fact that they do not have a commission?  I suspect this is another CF Myth perpetuated).  I've seen alot of waisters ranked Sergeant and above - the type who have slipped through the system; what the hell have they earned?  If simply kicking around and collecting green welfare is what we consider "EARNING" the right to a mess, then by all means feel happy for that.  Everyone EARNS their right to sit in their mess - time served is irrelevent.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Jan 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I asked who their Crse NCOs were, and the 2i/c happened to be a good friend of mine.  We spoke about it later, and I basically got "What would you like me to do about it?"  I was gobsmacked, but the writing was clearly on the wall.



Yeah, I got that same response in Borden a few years ago.  I was exiting the kitchen when I noticed a recruit standing in the road out front actually dressing himself.  I called out and asked him to join me back inside.  With his jacket wide open and beret nowhere to be seen, I asked him why he felt it necessary to do this outside.  I was a MCpl at the time.  He simply replied, "Why? Are you even from here?"  I was mortified.  "Who is your platoon commander and what is you name, recruit??" I got fake names.  What could I do?  I new the TrgO over at the school and was promptly told - "Don't screw with the recruits - you are not part of the training environment here in Borden."  Wow.  Now THERE'S leadership!!  I was scared @$%$less of CPL's when I was TQ3 qualified and posted to Petawawa, MCpl's were people I would speak only when spoken to or by permission of my Cpl.  

Yes, things have changed.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Jan 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oooo goody, let's talk about how hard core the "old army" was.  We, the soft soldiers of today's Army who never had the benefit of getting kicked in the face by an NCO, will get on with the war.... :
> 
> I'm starting to get sick of this statement the more I hear it (Sorry Vern, it's not you, it's just this is a pet-peeve of mine).  First, I earned my way into the Junior Ranks Mess by signing on the line and becoming soldier (not many Canadians do that) and I earned my trip to the frumpy, at times lame, Officer's Mess through a couple years of hard work.  If I kicked around the ranks longer, I probably would have earned the right to go to the SNCOs Mess (Another pet peeve of mine, _*is not a Warrant Officer a Non-Commissioned Officer by the fact that they do not have a commission*_?  I suspect this is another CF Myth perpetuated).  I've seen alot of waisters ranked Sergeant and above - the type who have slipped through the system; what the hell have they earned?  If simply kicking around and collecting green welfare is what we consider "EARNING" the right to a mess, then by all means feel happy for that.  Everyone EARNS their right to sit in their mess - time served is irrelevent.



Emphasis added.

Ref:  QR&O 1.02 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch001_e.asp#1.02)



> "non-commissioned member" means any person, other than an officer, who is enrolled in, or who pursuant to law is attached or seconded otherwise than as an officer to, the Canadian Forces; (militaire du rang)*
> 
> "non-commissioned officer" means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal; (sous-officier)



So - Warrant Officers are _not_ NCOs - but they _are_ NCMs (but NOT Sr NCMs - there is no such designation).


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jan 2008)

Thanks for setting that one straight Roy.  Although the logic seems silly - anyone without a Commission would be, by nature, Non-Commissioned, no?  But that's semantics - my original statements on the mess and the old school Army still stand.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Jan 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Thanks for setting that one straight Roy.  Although the logic seems silly - anyone without a Commission would be, by nature, Non-Commissioned, no?  But that's semantics - my original statements on the mess and the old school Army still stand.



"NCM" was the politically correct replacement for the old term "men", as in, "The Officers and Men of the Regiment".

I tend to agree with you regarding the old school Army, and changing times.  HOWEVER - I think we do need to keep those things from the old school Army that still work now, and not just through out everything just because it's "old school".  Exactly what things may be worth keeping is a decision to be made by today's leadership.  There are dinosaurs out there, no one disputes that.  There are also those Warrants and Sr Offrs who have changed with the times and learned the lessons of today's environment, all the while keeping the values instilled in them by the old school Army - THEY are the effective leaders today.

As for messes - as one who "earned his way" into the Sr NCOs and WOs Mess - I don't have a problem with the term.  I'm also aware that the Mess is becoming much less relevant to today's soldiers - lots of reasons for it.   From what I've seen on civvie street there's a strong movement of young folk AWAY from the "party hardy" attitudes that prevailed when I was a teenager in the 70s.  I know that's not what you read in the paper - but good kids (the majority, in my experience) don't tend to be "newsworthy".  So, perhaps the incoming generation is less interested in the Mess - and that's not necessarily bad.

As for the original post on this thread - yes, I tend to agree that today's soldiers are less respectful and "parade square disciplined" - but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing (NOR am I sure that it's a good thing, either).  All I know is that these guys who don't pay proper respects in Garrison are acquitting themselves extremely well on the Battlefield.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jan 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with you regarding the old school Army, and changing times.  HOWEVER - I think we do need to keep those things from the old school Army that still work now, and not just through out everything just because it's "old school"....
> As for the original post on this thread - yes, I tend to agree that today's soldiers are less respectful and "parade square disciplined" - but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing (NOR am I sure that it's a good thing, either).  All I know is that these guys who don't pay proper respects in Garrison are acquitting themselves extremely well on the Battlefield.



Agreed.  But I don't see this as really being a problem today.  I am in a training institution right now and the recruits march about and pay proper respects.  The CSM is good at kicking their ass if they don't and his NCO's as well if they don't enforce the rules and everybody from OC down is pretty good at ensuring that standards are maintained (it is the job of everyone, not just Sergeants and Master Corporals).  I really don't see this as a problem.

We may not be as spit and polished, but we also don't have nightly fights and broken furniture at bars.  We may be a little less relaxed in garrison, but we don't have guys going to the field pissed drunk either.  Times change and so does society.  The professional Army of today is a different beast from the professional one of yesterday.


----------



## Gunner (27 Jan 2008)

> Oooo goody, let's talk about how hard core the "old army" was.  We, the soft soldiers of today's Army who never had the benefit of getting kicked in the face by an NCO, will get on with the war....



As someone who lived through some of the "good ol' days" (started in 1985 as a private), they weren't always that good.  I've spent almost 16 months in Afghanistan and the problems were never about how "hard core" the army was or wasn't.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Jan 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> We may not be as spit and polished, but we also don't have nightly fights and broken furniture at bars.  We may be a little less relaxed in garrison, but we don't have guys going to the field pissed drunk either.  ...



You don't know what you're missing.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Jan 2008)

Gunner said:
			
		

> As someone who lived through some of the "good ol' days" (started in 1985 as a private), they weren't always that good.  I've spent almost 16 months in Afghanistan and the problems were never about how "hard core" the army was or wasn't.



As someone who started as a Private in 1977 I whole-heartedly agree that the "good ol' days" weren't ALWAYS that good.  On the other hand - they weren't ALWAYS that bad, either.

I've spent over 5 years on various missions - from Iran, Iraq, Bosnia, Croatia, to Afghanistan - and you're right, the problems were never about how "hard core" the Army was or wasn't - as I recall, most of the problems were of the "what the f**k do we do NOW?!" variety.  Like today's soldiers, we generally acquitted ourselves very well.


----------



## Dog (27 Jan 2008)

I'd like to chime in, as a lowly Sapper, if I may...

I've gone on Ex's and been told, "We won't screw with you if we don't need to." As long as the task set before us is properly and timely done, then we are given some slack, because when you spend all day busting your ass in the field and you do a job well, you've earned some slack. 

Maybe it's an engineer thing, I don't know, but it seems to me, that when your job encompasses as much dangerous crap as an Engineers, (ie, explosives, heavy equip, chainsaws, power tools) it makes sense to adopt a more relaxed attitude to ranks. Stress can kill you, and working with people senior to me, is added stress if I'm worrying about whether or not I should be constantly checking ranks, and maybe coming to attention, maybe not...it's a distraction that doesn't do anyone any good. Working in the field carries over to garrison a bit, but we get the job done, and respect the senior ranks; as they respect us, if we've demonstrated that we deserve it. If we mess up, we know it. 

And in garrison? When stress isn't in a position to kill anyone, things tighten up a bit, but everyone knows, from the lowest guy to the highest guy, that we are going back out eventually, and we all have to work together to get the job done. *Courtesy* is paid to the Rank, regardless of who wears it... but *Respect* is earned by the man who wears the rank. I think that is a damn good policy, and if you whine and bitch about troops not respecting you, look in the mirror; because it's that guys fault. 

Maybe it's part of being a muddy, bloody engineer... I'm not sure. But it seems the other combat trades I've had exposure to, operate the same way. 

And maybe this whole debate isn't about respect, maybe it's about courtesy...


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Jan 2008)

Dog said:
			
		

> ...
> And in garrison? When stress isn't in a position to kill anyone, things tighten up a bit, but everyone knows, from the lowest guy to the highest guy, that we are going back out eventually, and we all have to work together to get the job done. *Courtesy* is paid to the Rank, regardless of who wears it... but *Respect* is earned by the man who wears the rank. I think that is a damn good policy, and if you whine and bitch about troops not respecting you, look in the mirror; because it's that guys fault.
> ...



Red colouring added.

Bingo - you figured it out.  You appear to have the attitude required to have a brilliant career - best of luck to you.


----------



## Gunner (27 Jan 2008)

Roy, I agree they weren't always bad but ... we have moved forward for the better.  Better equipped, more operationally focussed, more operationally experienced, better soldiers, etc, etc.  Have we lost some of the "spit and polish", yep, but it has been a good trade off.   Are we perfect? Not at all.



> Like today's soldiers, we generally acquitted ourselves very well.



Man for man, I'd take a Canadian soldier over just about any other nationality based on my experiences in Europe, Africa and Asia.  We have nothing to be ashamed of and we certainly do not play second fiddle to any other nation.


----------



## RHC_2_MP (27 Jan 2008)

+1 Dog


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Army Vern says, "It is NOT an Officers task to correct dress, deportment & discipline. Nor is it the RSMs."
> 
> Never pass a fault is a useful motto for all that wear the uniform, not just the RCR.  We all must pay attention to detail and know the appropriate means to have the fault addressed.  This may require immediate correction or later addressing by the individual's supervisor.
> 
> ...



I agree. I guess the point of my post was that situations that occur such as this show a distinct lact of leadership at the lowest levels.

Sgts are aware when RSM and Comds will be visiting their lines. The Sergeant should be reinforcing what the appropriate showing of respect is before that visit occurs. My troops are well aware what to do if they should be hanging around for a smoke or whatever and a superior rank should wander into the vicinty, they are also well aware that their ass should go from seated to standing at attention at their desk when appropriate. They are also fully aware of the reprecussions of their non-action of such should it ever occur and I catch wind of it.

Failure of personnel to react appropraitely when an RSM or Comd walks through the smoking area indicates that a sergeant somewhere has not been correcting faults.

We have a little thing happening here now due to the huge volumes of absolute idiots who feel it appropriate to enter the mall/grocery store etc and then immediately remove their headdress. As briefed by the RSM ... when this is observed ... the nearest Sergeant/WO/MWO in the vicinty who could observe the idiot without the headdress and failed to correct it, will be getting some extras along with the idiot himself/herself. Seems fair to me. It is my job to correct such things, and when/if I should fail to do so ... it is my job to take the shit that goes along with my failure to act because I should not be correcting these types of things only because the RSM/CO is around -- I should be doing it all the time.


----------



## Hawk (27 Jan 2008)

Vern, I'm in agreement with you. The others had almost changed my mind, but in reality it all went against my old school learning (1960's - I really mean OLD SCHOOL). Maybe things are different, nowadays, and maybe in some circumstances they should be - I don't know so won't judge.

In early 1980, I met, for the first time, my Dad's cousin - an RSM, at my parents' home. Dad introduced me, and I responded with "Nice to meet you Sir". Then he told me to call him XXXX, and offered his hand.  Permission was given, and we were free to act as cousins. If I hadn't done it that way - Dad (ex-Army) would have had my head! It was expected, on a military and personal level.

To me it speaks as much to manners as respect. Any of you with a civillian job and boss - as an experiment "accidently" call them sir. When I did it my boss's smile lit up his office - and he was a micro-managing nitwit, that I didn't much respect.


Hawk


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

Hawk said:
			
		

> Vern, I'm in agreement with you. The others had almost changed my mind, but in reality it all went against my old school learning (1960's - I really mean OLD SCHOOL). Maybe things are different, nowadays, and maybe in some circumstances they should be - I don't know so won't judge.



I don't know where the "old school" comments are coming from in this thread quite frankly because I've certainly not called for a return to them. Nor has anyone else that I can see. What I have seen is a comparison of how the proper paying of courtesy, and attitudes towards it, has been changing over the past decade or so.

But, the rules and regulations regarding the proper paying of compliments to Officers and protocol regarding courtesy have not changed in that decade. So what's the difference? 

The difference is in discipline. Times have indeed changed. I joined on 12 Jan 88. I have been the beneficiary of much change in the CF, a heck of a lot of it for the better. I do not, have not, will not ever put out a call for a return to the "old days." Quite frankly, when someone mentions how something used to be in the "old days" -- ie my saying that troops KNEW what to do and just did it -- seems to have garnered some attention in that "the old days are over and we are moving on."

Why, these days, whenever anyone mentions something about the "old days" must that be immediately construed as "the old days are gone, this is the "new CF" by someone of the more recent generation of soldiers? This is indeed the new CF, but the rules haven't changed regarding courtesy. Those rules are old ... so why aren't they being enforced?? That is an inherent aspect of a leaders duty. It boils down to discipline. Discipline is the foundation block of the CF. It's fundamental.

As I6 posted earlier, we have a large volume of combat arms types with combat experience who are redefining the face of the CF and the meaning of Camraderie and Teamwork within their groups. This is all good. We have to adapt with changing times. There is ZERO wrong with that. But, I'd also wager that in those combat arms Unit and smaller teams of which I6 spoke --- there isn't a single Pte who would have remained with his feet on the desk, or his smoke hanging out of his mouth with his arms hanging lackadasicly at his sides while the RSM and CO walked by. That is because discipline is still being enforced. Leaders are leading. Getting along with ones peers, needing to know them intimately due to life and death situations one may be placed into is fundamental to mission success, but so is discipline. In Kev's example -- I'd move that those personnel have found the happy balance, thus morale, performance and discipline is excellent.

The same can not be said for an office or sea enviornment where a Pte or OS seems to think that it is acceptable to lounge around with his feet on the desk when the big boss walks in. Even on civvie street --- one would usually find their ass fired for such a transgression. I fully expect that within the CF, even the new CF, we would expect better and more appropriate behaviour than that. Believing _that_ has nothing to do with being old school -- rather it's just manners.

Here's my take ... if a Pte or OS is comfortable remaining with his feet up on the desk and believes that is a proper paying of courtesy to the RSM or Comd; that it is acceptable to behave in such a manner towards those pers, then I can only imagine what that Pte/OS feels is appropriate behaviour towards a MCpl or a Sgt. It does not a pretty picture make.


----------



## Hawk (27 Jan 2008)

With a huge sigh of relief, I stand corrected, Vern. Thank you.


Hawk


----------



## KevinB (27 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Here's my take ... if a Pte or OS is comfortable remaining with his feet up on the desk and believes that is a proper paying of courtesy to the RSM or Comd; that it is acceptable to behave in such a manner towards those pers, then I can only imagine what that Pte/OS feels is appropriate behaviour towards a MCpl or a Sgt. It does not a pretty picture make.



My take would be the Pte or OS should then be comfortable with someone kicking out the chair.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> My take would be the Pte or OS should then be comfortable with someone kicking out the chair.



Absolutely what should have occured.


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Jan 2008)

Just a point...

During training this weekend, I had a chance to eat with PLQ course and recognized one Cpl I know that should never of been put on the course due to lack of experience/TI, attitude and confidence. You would all likely agree if you knew the individual in question. I guess the reserves are just lacking in qualified instructors, but with an attitude like this person, I don't put to much faith in the respect level that those trained by them will display. 

Suffice to say, they passed...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Jan 2008)

axeman said:
			
		

> sorry we have many traditions  don't salute while on-board  crossing the line ceremony . etc .



Navy doesn't salute on board for the same historical reason you don't salute in the field (on the deck of a ship under attack you signal to the snipers in the rigging who the officers are)...that's not a lack of discipline....crossing the line ceremeony is an ancient tradition of mariners all over the world. the army has their smokers and their equivalent shenanigans (although political correctness has done much to kill a lot of them) which built esprit de corps etc. 
the Navy and the Air Force have different requirements for discipline than the Army....skill in working as a combat team in an Ops Room....working as a team to fix aircraft or work on a Maritime Patrol aircraft to get a much different job done than that required of an Infanteer or a Tank crew.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (27 Jan 2008)

Im curious... why would you salute/pay respect to an officer/SNCO that you dont respect?

(Bear with me, I'm leading into a point over the course of a few posts)


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Im curious... why would you salute/pay respect to an officer/SNCO that you dont respect?
> 
> (Bear with me, I'm leading into a point over the course of a few posts)



What??

You are not saluting the person -- you are saluting the Queen's Commission. Period. Paying appropriate courtesy compliments to the RANK does not equal "respecting" the individual who is sporting "The Queen's Commission."

You already know that though.

Respect is earned. Respect is an individualistic trait irregardless of rank. One either earns it or they don't.

Courtesy shown to an "appointment" or "Commission" is EXPECTED. It is NOT based upon personal and individual characteristics. 

Take your point regarding RESPECT to a thread about RESPECT. This isn't it.

Lesson one: and back in the "old days" everyone knew the difference between the two. Do NOT confuse them.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (27 Jan 2008)

So you'd never, and you never have had a problem with saluting CIC? Afterall, they're comissioned.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> So you'd never, and you never have had a problem with saluting CIC? Afterall, they're comissioned.



No, I have not. They are Commissioned. That is the courtesy that their Commission warrants they receive. I have ZERO problems with that.

And, just so we are quite clear, in my line of work I have had the pleasure to work with and get to know many CiC Officers. 95% of them have also earned my FULL respect. 

Are you insinuating that I should not be respectful of someone simply because they happen to be CiC?? If that's your outlook on life my friend ... and who is deserving of respect or not ... I'd wager you don't enjoy much of it (ie garnering respect) yourself. Like I said, RESPECT is earned by individuals. It's not based on rank, status, position, component.

That, by you, has got to be one of the most stupid statements that I have seen made on this site. Ever. It doesn't go too far either in building up any respect that I have for you ... or your opinion either -- rather the opposite.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Jan 2008)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> So you'd never, and you never have had a problem with saluting CIC? Afterall, they're comissioned.



Nope - but some of them have had a problem accepting and returning those salutes - they didn't quite "get it" - they were straightened out, by me, in a private area away from the Cadets.

You're bordering on trolling here, Forgotten_Hero - and approaching the area of becoming a Forgotten_Zero.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (27 Jan 2008)

Funny how you've already attacked me as if what I said was reflecting my own opinion on the issue. Like I said, bear with me as I get to my point.

I know plenty of people, new _and_ old, who DO have problems saluting CIC, and when asked why, they say its because they dont consider them soldiers/they dont respect them/ whatever the case is. Perhaps the problem with the new army stems, in part, from the attitudes of some in the old army? When a new troop hears an old WO or whatever rank explain to him that he didnt salute the CIC officer because he doesnt respect them or doesnt "consider" them officers, I'm willing to bet that the troop does begin to associate saluting with respect for the individual/position they occupy, rather than the rank. This opinion *has* been prevalent among the people I've worked with, and I did expect to find some people on these forums who do have problems saluting CIC officers, so I thought this would be a good way to get my point across.

As for whether I have hurt your "building" of respect for me, I really dont give a damn. Respect me or disrespect me all you want based on a couple lines on a message board, I've got better things to do than censor myself in order to satisfy you.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Jan 2008)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Funny how you've already attacked me as if what I said was reflecting my own opinion on the issue. Like I said, bear with me as I get to my point.



No one has "attacked" you.



			
				Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> I know plenty of people, new _and_ old, who DO have problems saluting CIC, and when asked why, they say its because they dont consider them soldiers/they dont respect them/ whatever the case is. Perhaps the problem with the new army stems, in part, from the attitudes of some in the old army? When a new troop hears an old WO or whatever rank explain to him that he didnt salute the CIC officer because he doesnt respect them or doesnt "consider" them officers, I'm willing to bet that the troop does begin to associate saluting with respect for the individual/position they occupy, rather than the rank. This opinion *has* been prevalent among the people I've worked with, and I did expect to find some people on these forums who do have problems saluting CIC officers, so I thought this would be a good way to get my point across.



I AM, for the purposes of this particular discussion - "Old Army" - I'm surprised to learn that you think "we" would have a problem regarding CIC Officers - the attitude you outline _seems_ to be more prevalent in the "New Army", members of which _seem_ to feel entitled to interpret rules and regulations as they see fit.



			
				Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> As for whether I have hurt your "building" of respect for me, I really dont give a damn. Respect me or disrespect me all you want based on a couple lines on a message board, I've got better things to do than censor myself in order to satisfy you.



Don't worry about whether I respect you or not - I don't really give a damn one way or the other, nor should you.  But as long as we're on the subject, your protestations on the matter speak volumes.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2008)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Funny how you've already attacked me as if what I said was reflecting my own opinion on the issue. Like I said, bear with me as I get to my point.
> 
> I know plenty of people, new _and_ old, who DO have problems saluting CIC, and when asked why, they say its because they dont consider them soldiers/they dont respect them/ whatever the case is. Perhaps the problem with the new army stems, in part, from the attitudes of some in the old army? When a new troop hears an old WO or whatever rank explain to him that he didnt salute the CIC officer because he doesnt respect them or doesnt "consider" them officers, I'm willing to bet that the troop does begin to associate saluting with respect for the individual/position they occupy, rather than the rank. This opinion *has* been prevalent among the people I've worked with, and I did expect to find some people on these forums who do have problems saluting CIC officers, so I thought this would be a good way to get my point across.
> 
> As for whether I have hurt your "building" of respect for me, I really dont give a damn. Respect me or disrespect me all you want based on a couple lines on a message board, I've got better things to do than censor myself in order to satisfy you.



Good then. I also suspect your post is bullshit. If you've got a point then make the damn thing already.

Throwing out your below one-liner with a note that "I'll be making a point over the next couple of posts" is absolute garbage.

And, I'd also wager that your remarks about "old timers" and this being a prevelant attitude amongst the "old timer" people you've worked with is also bullshit. I'll tell you this much, I've been around for 20 years now -- and I've corrected an awful lot of individuals who've failed to salute as appropriate. HINT: they WERE NOT Sgts and WOs. They still aren't, nor are they "old timers". Rather, saluting those who wear the "Commission" without whining about the individual who wears it, is standard for us/them "old timers."


----------



## aesop081 (27 Jan 2008)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> As for whether I have hurt your "building" of respect for me, I really dont give a damn. Respect me or disrespect me all you want based on a couple lines on a message board, I've got better things to do than censor myself in order to satisfy you.



Whatever you point was, i sure lost track of it now. In fact, i dont think you ever had one. You were more likely looking to stir the proverbial poo.


----------



## benny88 (28 Jan 2008)

I realize I'm very inexperienced, although I think that makes my weighing-in here relevant because I've only ever known the "new" CF. I'm shocked at many of the stories in these posts, I think the Instructors on my IAP less than a year ago did a fine job of making me and my platoon scared ****less. They never laid a hand on us, or used racist/sexist language, so maybe that has changed since the old days, but that didn't stop them from giving what I think of as appropriate "guidance." In short, they seemed to be thinking along the same lines as many of the posters on this thread.
          I remember a particular time in my 2nd or 3rd week when I was at the front of my formed platoon and called a passing PO "Sergeant" (He was in CADPAT...damn tactical slip ons and name tapes.) and was monumentally jacked up in front of my whole platoon. Pleasant? Nope. Lesson learned? Heck yes. Another time, as we were lined up waiting to swipe out for weekend leave, a Chief PO patrolled the line, threatening the raining down of fire and brimstone. The instructors at CFLRS were very serious and professional, and had my full respect (and my undivided attention.)
         The opinion of an OCdt means about squat, but I felt I had to jump in to defend a training system that I think is pretty effective. Well, at least effective enough to make me shudder at the thought of being caught with my feet up by a BGen.


----------



## Roy Harding (28 Jan 2008)

benny88 said:
			
		

> I realize I'm very inexperienced, although I think that makes my weighing-in here relevant because I've only ever known the "new" CF. I'm shocked at many of the stories in these posts, I think the Instructors on my IAP less than a year ago did a fine job of making me and my platoon scared ****less. They never laid a hand on us, or used racist/sexist language, so maybe that has changed since the old days, but that didn't stop them from giving what I think of as appropriate "guidance." In short, they seemed to be thinking along the same lines as many of the posters on this thread.
> I remember a particular time in my 2nd or 3rd week when I was at the front of my formed platoon and called a passing PO "Sergeant" (He was in CADPAT...damn tactical slip ons and name tapes.) and was monumentally jacked up in front of my whole platoon. Pleasant? Nope. Lesson learned? Heck yes. Another time, as we were lined up waiting to swipe out for weekend leave, a Chief PO patrolled the line, threatening the raining down of fire and brimstone. The instructors at CFLRS were very serious and professional, and had my full respect (and my undivided attention.)
> The opinion of an OCdt means about squat, but I felt I had to jump in to defend a training system that I think is pretty effective. Well, at least effective enough to make me shudder at the thought of being caught with my feet up by a BGen.



I think you're right - and I think I said so (or at least attempted to) in earlier posts.

The "raining down of fire and brimstone" is generally thought of as "Old Army" - and it's one of the things that I don't think needs to be got rid of.  The absence of physical abuse, racism and sexism I whole heartedly applaud.

I think we're in agreement, benny88 - we're just having a problem agreeing on that.


----------



## benny88 (28 Jan 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I think we're in agreement, benny88 - we're just having a problem agreeing on that.



   No, I didn't mean to accuse people from the "Old School" or you in particular of advocating racist or sexist remarks at recruits or OCdts, nor do I think anyone had called into question the integrity of the training system. I just didn't want people who may not know any better to read this thread and think that we recieve inadequate training.

   We're agreed  8)


----------



## Roy Harding (28 Jan 2008)

benny88 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> We're agreed  8)



Kewl  8)


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jan 2008)

Troops will pretty much do what the CO and RSM want them to do. If the CoC enforces the saluting thing and leads by example, and they should, it will happen. As you know, take a look at any section/ platoon or equivalent and how it's functioning and you can pretty well tell how the CoC functions, or not.

"If you can't get them to salute when they should salute and wear the clothes you tell them to wear, how are you going to get them to die for their country?" Patton


----------



## Roy Harding (28 Jan 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Troops will pretty much do what the CO and RSM want them to do. If the CoC enforces the saluting thing and leads by example, and they should, it will happen. As you know, take a look at any section/ platoon or equivalent and how it's functioning and you can pretty well tell how the CoC functions, or not.
> 
> "If you can't get them to salute when they should salute and wear the clothes you tell them to wear, how are you going to get them to die for their country?" Patton



You (and Patton) are quite right.

It is, I think, the METHOD of getting them to "salute when they should salute and wear the clothes you tell them to wear" that is being examined here.

On the other hand - I've been out to lunch before.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jan 2008)

I couldn't resist posting this old story about 'Chesty' Puller, a famous US Marine. It's an example of one method that seemed to work:

Chesty is loved by enlisted men for his constant actions to improve their lot. Puller insisted upon good equipment and discipline; once he came upon a second lieutenant who had ordered an enlisted man to salute him 100 times for missing a salute. Chesty told the Lieutenant: "You were absolutely correct in making him salute you 100 times Lieutenant, but you know that an officer must return every salute he receives. Now return them all." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesty_Puller


----------



## Roy Harding (28 Jan 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I couldn't resist posting this old story about 'Chesty' Puller, a famous US Marine. It's an example of one method that seemed to work:
> 
> Chesty is loved by enlisted men for his constant actions to improve their lot. Puller insisted upon good equipment and discipline; once he came upon a second lieutenant who had ordered an enlisted man to salute him 100 times for missing a salute. Chesty told the Lieutenant: "You were absolutely correct in making him salute you 100 times Lieutenant, but you know that an officer must return every salute he receives. Now return them all." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesty_Puller



 :rofl:

I've always loved "Chester Puller" stories - now I have another one to treasure.


----------



## Sig_Des (28 Jan 2008)

The not saluting someone whom you don't respect argument bugs me. Fact is this:

There is a huge difference between HAVING respect for someone, and SHOWING respect (or respects) to someone, or something.

You don't have to have respect for someone, yet you must still be able to show respect. We will all come across those in a senior position to us that we do not have a personal respect for, however you still must show respect to them. It's one of the those many army things that you don't have to like, you just have to do it.

I was raised as an army brat, and from when I joined, it was reinforced. You will always show respect. Wether this be through speech, action, or salute.

I'm also a firm believer in solving issues at the lowest level.

Someone doesn't pay compliments in a saluting area, someone who knows better goes and corrects the problem. If they tell you to fornicate your hat, well, they'll probably wear it, but you made that attempt to correct the fault.

As far as Popnfresh's call that he knows someone who shouldn't be on their PLQ. Do you know the whole story? They're probably on for a reason. Not your place to question it.


----------



## JBoyd (28 Jan 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I couldn't resist posting this old story about 'Chesty' Puller, a famous US Marine. It's an example of one method that seemed to work:
> 
> Chesty is loved by enlisted men for his constant actions to improve their lot. Puller insisted upon good equipment and discipline; once he came upon a second lieutenant who had ordered an enlisted man to salute him 100 times for missing a salute. Chesty told the Lieutenant: "You were absolutely correct in making him salute you 100 times Lieutenant, but you know that an officer must return every salute he receives. Now return them all." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesty_Puller



Never heard of him, but he sounds like someone I could learn from. While reading his wiki page I found this under the above excerpt:

While on duty in Hawaii and inspecting the armory, Puller fined himself for discharging a weapon in an unsafe manner.

Now that IMO is a ironclad sense of self-discipline.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jan 2008)

Here's a good piece of film to illustrate the issue, and a solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKYFqj9QZhk


----------



## Furniture (28 Jan 2008)

That video is great. Few things bother me more than people who are to lazy, or insubordinate to be bothered paying respects. Saluting is not hard and I'm sure we all had to pass a test on it in week four of BMQ.


----------



## Gunner98 (28 Jan 2008)

You do not salute the officer, you are saluting the embodiment of the Queen's Commission.  If the Officer is not fulfilling his tasks as detailed therein, then his chain of command should be informed and act accordingly.  Respect is earned over time and an officer should not be judged on one incident and then disrespected solely on the folklore associated with that moment in time.  Every General was once a naive Junior Officer, even Generals Patton and Puller.


----------



## ex-Sup (28 Jan 2008)

Well I’ve read the posts here with some interest and thought I’d weigh in with a civie perspective. As someone who sees and has seen a lot of youth before they get out into the employment world (like the CF), I’d argue that the issue is not just in the CF, it’s a societal issue. Most, if not all the people in my profession will tell you that there has been a steady erosion of respect for authority over the past 10 to 15 years. I left high school in ’92 and I can definitely say that things have changed a lot. This is not to say that there is an issue with all the kids, but there is a big difference from when I went through. This is not my opinion either; from reading the posts here and speaking to people in the community, there is a noticeable difference.

There is a general apathy or malaise in many kids towards work, authority and society. When I went to high school, I would not even dream of treating or relating to my teachers the way that I have been. We are not longer authority figures to many of them; some of them think we are their buddies or just this person they have to see for 75 minutes each day. Unfortunately much of that disrespect comes from their home environment. From my and many of my colleagues’ experience, there are some parents out there who do not want to take on or deal with the difficult issues of being a parent. One incident stands out for me as a prime example; my wife is a math teacher and she had called home regarding this student who was being a pain and was not completing his work. The parent replied plainly that he was having a difficult time getting through to his son; rather than take a firm stand, he chose to just let his son do his own thing. The famous quote was “I can be the (excuse the term) asshole parent or the nice parent and I don’t want to be the asshole!” Well, no wonder he acts the way that he does; no one corrects him. If a teacher called home when I was in school, I wouldn’t have even gone home because I knew that my old man would have crucified me. Kids are not getting on the right path because there are parents out there that want to be friends instead of parents. How can they learn to respect authority if they never learned in at home?

Maybe this post is a bit off track, but I think it goes to the heart of the entire issue. I can remember being a 17 yo recruit and being scared s$%tless every time I walked by someone I didn’t know out of fear that I wouldn’t see their rank and salute or acknowledge them. You’re not going to get that reaction from some young people today.
Just my $0.02.


----------



## benny88 (28 Jan 2008)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> a civie perspective.



   Interesting, and definitely very relevant from a teacher.


----------



## IntlBr (28 Jan 2008)

It seems to me that a lot of people here are equating "fear" of a rank (and any possible repercussions associated with it) to "respect" of a rank.

Is that the kind of setting soldiers should operate in?  Fear of their leaders?


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jan 2008)

IntlBr said:
			
		

> Is that the kind of setting soldiers should operate in?  Fear of their leaders?


*YES*

 >

(just kidding)


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

IntlBr said:
			
		

> It seems to me that a lot of people here are equating "fear" of a rank (and any possible repercussions associated with it) to "respect" of a rank.
> 
> Is that the kind of setting soldiers should operate in?  Fear of their leaders?



My troops are not afraid of me. But, they damn well know the reprecussions of not showing proper compliments etc.

And fear of those extras that they know will come --- tends to ensure that they do follow those rules. 

IF my troops wreak those extras (and by definition -- my giving them to them --) they have NO ONE to blame but themselves for they are indeed aware of the rules. Despite my having zero problems doleing out extras when required -- I have pers asking to come work for me. Leadership, discipline and it's enforcement does not equal "Mean, scary, old school WO."

Nice attempt to try to spin this into being a "fear" mongering leader order of business, but it sure as hell isn't.

Fear of not following the rules does NOT equal fear of one's Leadership.


----------



## IntlBr (28 Jan 2008)

Sorry Vern - wasn't trying to spin anything.

People were explicitly saying that they used to be afraid of walking by someone of a higher rank.

I think there is a distinct difference between me putting a spin on the thread, and me observing a trend in posting.


----------



## benny88 (28 Jan 2008)

Intlbr,

    I can't speak for everyone, but what I met from my posts was not that I am deathly afraid of my superiors, only that sometimes they can make me a bit nervous, which makes me stand straighter and salute sharper. I don't think the CF operates on a culture of fear.


----------



## IntlBr (28 Jan 2008)

From my limited experience, I don't think it does either - but it just struck me that people were saying unless you were afraid of your leaders, they weren't doing their jobs.

The new CF is also an a lot more enlightened CF in many, many ways.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

IntlBr said:
			
		

> From my limited experience, I don't think it does either - but it just struck me that people were saying unless you were afraid of your leaders, they weren't doing their jobs.
> 
> The new CF is also an a lot more enlightened CF in many, many ways.



Who said that?? And where in this thread??

I've got 20 years and 14 days in -- and I've never heard the statement "if you aren't afraid of your leaders they aren't doing their job" before. Never, not on this forum, nor while at work. And by the way -- I consider myself part of the New CF. It was a mere year after my Basic course that running in combat boots etc stopped due to human rights etc etc. Us "old timers" with 20 years in are NEW CF --- perhaps some young 'uns out there will understand that one day. It was those of us who are getting ready to retire in a couple of years who broke down those damn walls (such as the blanket party yadda yadda yadda) for you!! We are part of the Balkans _and_ Afghanistan generation, how's that for enlightenment?

One fears the reprecussions of failing to do their duty. That's good in this outfit!! It's called discipline!! Sometimes -- your fellow soldiers lives may depend on your doing that Duty --- and their lives may be lost if you fail to do that duty and instill that discipline.

Saluting and showing proper respect to anothers rank (not necessarily the individual) is very _basic_ discipline.


----------



## Dog (28 Jan 2008)

C'mon Vern, the implication is there in many posts... it doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out for it to be there. That's a tone that I'm getting as well from a few people on this thread. 

 Roy, Infanteer, Gunner, and I-6/Kevin (among others) seem to be on the opposite side of the fence in this particular idea of the "old ways" being better, and since I can't confirm or deny I'll take their word for it, since I know that the experiences being brought back from Afghanistan are bringing a lot of change to the way business is being done in my trade, just as the infantry was morphing into a different (desert-dwelling?) beast when I left it. I'm not going to say one way or the other, but I will say that there is a time and place for everything. And yes, saluting and proper dress/deportment is definitely a factor that has it's place, just today I gave a troop some shit for having his hands in his pockets while walking in a public parking lot.... that being said...

*Fearing* the repercussions of failing to do your duty is exactly what IntBr mentioned in his first thread. And that is NOT discipline, it's fear, and doing your job because your afraid of what might happen if you don't do it; That IS a culture of fear, and on a battlefield, that's stupid, because then you are just going to go whichever way scares you less... and unless we are Soviets in WWII, that would make us a pretty gutless army. Which we are NOT.

 Discipline is doing the job because goddammit, it's your job, and it needs to get done, because others are depending on you. Not; "I'd better do it or the scary Warrant will get mad at me.". Discipline is following the rules, because you are supposed to for good reasons other than because you are afraid of getting jacked up by a superior.  I'm not saying fear isn't a good training tool, but it shouldn't be a component of the everyday job... just my 2 cents. No need to pay any attention if you think I'm completely out to lunch.

As for not being allowed to be run in combat boots (among other things) yeah, thank goodness THAT _"never"_ happens anymore  ^-^


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

You are now saying that they want a return to the "GOOD old days" because they've said that the RSM sat at the right hand of Gawd etc??

Roy has posted the exact opposite quite frankly ... that the change is for the better, but that not all the "old" ways of doing business need to go out the window.

I am sick top death of young ones in the CF these days reverting to "dinosaur" and "old timer" comments every time someone who happens to have some TI states that times have changed, and that the paying of courtesy used to be better than it is now, etc etc. That means they want to see a disciplined and professional acting force -- it doesn't mean that they condone shit, abuse, and fear. Rather, quite the opposite in my case. If YOU earn it (shit) -- you'll get it, and it works the very same way for 'rewards.' I'm actually quite fair about that.

Sadly ... that's a fact. It has nothing to do with being Mean Old Timers and pining for yesteryear -- it's about enforcing BASIC discipline, which -- whether one likes it or not -- is _still_ what makes or breaks a soldier in the combat enviornment.

NO ONE in this thread has hinted that we go back to the old days of unwarranted shit & abuse. No one. Nor have they inferred it. And I'm sick and tired of the young 'uns rallying the call of "old timers" and "times have changed" whenever anyone asks why rules and regulations that STILL exist are not being enforced, especially ones so basic and easy to accomplish and uphold as saluting. What seems to be the problem?

There is ZERO wrong with the rules regarding the paying of compliments to one's Commission, so why is there such a call as to throw out the "this is the new CF" label and "times have changed" arguement?

I could see that arguement if we were calling for a return to blanket parties (and if you look really close at this VERY thread --- you'll find those Old timers you've mentioned above expressly said NO to that), but that's not what's happening here. We are asking what is so gawd-damned difficult with todays soldiers saluting a CO when they walk by or at least getting their feet off the damned desk when he walks into their office (even on civvie street one would be FIRED for an act like this -- and this IS the CF where discipline is tantamount to success)? And, as of yet -- despite their protestations of this being the "new CF" -- not a single young 'un has posted a satisfactory answer to that question. Not a one.


Oh, BTW -- did you miss this?



> I can't speak for everyone, but what I met from my posts was not that I am deathly afraid of my superiors, only that sometimes they can make me a bit nervous, which makes me stand straighter and salute sharper. I don't think the CF operates on a culture of fear.



Nor do I operate on a culture of fear. If I earn my extras -- I do them. Just like my troops do. There's nothing wrong with that. And that's not "scared fearless".  :


----------



## Dog (28 Jan 2008)

I'm not advocating a return to the "old ways of unwarranted shit and abuse" at all! I've experienced unwarranted shit and abuse, and having shit thrown at me, doing push-ups in a patch of grass that the NCO's just threw a bunch of broken beer bottles, and broken glass into, and being cursed at for no reason and getting cocked (in "illegal" ways) because someone thought it was their job to be a prick, for no other reason than there was nothing better to do... if you say it doesn't happen anymore, you don't know what you are talking about. It damn well does, (not often, as far as I know) and it sucks.
I'm saying the *opposite* "to bring back" that crap. I'm saying that fear has no place in a field unit... heck, I'm saying what I just posted, two posts up, and it had nothing to do with bringing back the "old" army at all.


edited for grammar, and clarity... I hope.


----------



## Dog (28 Jan 2008)

And not *once* have I ever defending being a lazy-ass and not saluting anyone who deserves it, read farther back and you'll see that I stated my position on Courtesies and Respect very clearly. 

Exactly NO-ONE has advocated it at all... 

As for you saying fear equals discipline, I quote: "One fears the reprecussions of failing to do their duty. That's good in this outfit!! It's called discipline!!"

I disagreed in my last post, and I stated my reasons for it.

Maybe we're on the same side, and the typing is getting in the way, either way, I'm out for the night.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jan 2008)

Dog said:
			
		

> I'm not advocating a return to the "old ways of unwarranted shit and abuse" at all! I've experienced unwarranted shit and abuse, and having shit thrown at me, doing push-ups in a patch of grass that the NCO's just threw a bunch of broken beer bottles, and broken glass into, and being cursed at for no reason and getting cocked (in "illegal" ways) because someone thought it was their job to be a prick, for no other reason than there was nothing better to do... if you say it doesn't happen anymore, you don't know what you are talking about. It damn well does, (not often, as far as I know) and it sucks.
> I'm saying the *opposite* "to bring back" that crap. I'm saying that fear has no place in a field unit... heck, I'm saying what I just posted, two posts up, and it had nothing to do with bringing back the "old" army at all.
> 
> 
> edited for grammar, and clarity... I hope.



I never said that YOU did.

YOU said that others did, and there's not a single POST in here where I find a single person advocating a return to "those" days, nor even inferring it.



> C'mon Vern, *the implication is there in many posts*...* it doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out for it to be there. That's a tone that I'm getting as well from a few people on this thread. *



Which THEY never did at all.


----------



## axeman (28 Jan 2008)

I used the term old days and they way it used to be . BUT I never said it has to return to the old ways, I used the term to show the way it was. The way it is now i can take a day off if the 9Delta is sick and so are the kids . that would not of happened. IN THE OLD DAYS.  but we are talking about the way it is now . it was merely a comparison now vs then . i like now .BTW my 2 cents


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2008)

Dog said:
			
		

> I'm not advocating a return to the "old ways of unwarranted shit and abuse" at all! I've experienced unwarranted shit and abuse, and having shit thrown at me, doing push-ups in a patch of grass that the NCO's just threw a bunch of broken beer bottles, and broken glass into, and *being cursed at for no reason * and getting cocked (in "illegal" ways) because someone thought it was their job to be a prick, for no other reason than there was nothing better to do... if you say it doesn't happen anymore, you don't know what you are talking about. It damn well does, (not often, as far as I know) and it sucks.



 :crybaby:

The whole post but the bold part in perticular


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2008)

Dog said:
			
		

> Exactly NO-ONE has advocated it at all...
> 
> As for you saying fear equals discipline, I quote: "One fears the reprecussions of failing to do their duty. That's good in this outfit!! It's called discipline!!"



"Fears the reprecussions" (ie the extras) does NOT equal fearing for one's safety etc. I've said that before too.  : I sure as hell didn't say "fear equals discipline", but nice of you to throw that into my mouth. I said one feared the reprercussions of their inappropraite actions. Period. They didn't act inappropriately, because they KNEW there'd be extras involved if they didn't. Do you get it yet? Acting appropriately (because you knew there'd be extras if you didn't) ... is _BEING_ disciplined at it's lowest level.

And, as for this bit --- 



			
				Dog said:
			
		

> I've experienced unwarranted shit and abuse, and having shit thrown at me, *doing push-ups in a patch of grass that the NCO's just threw a bunch of broken beer bottles, and broken glass into*, and being cursed at for no reason and getting cocked (in *"illegal"* ways) because someone thought it was their job to be a prick, for no other reason than there was nothing better to do... if you say it doesn't happen anymore, you don't know what you are talking about. It damn well does, (not often, as far as I know) and it sucks.
> I'm saying the *opposite* "to bring back" that crap. I'm saying that fear has no place in a field unit... heck, I'm saying what I just posted, two posts up, and it had nothing to do with bringing back the "old" army at all.
> 
> edited for grammar, and clarity... I hope.




You'd never see me say it doesn't happen. But, you will see me saying that it shouldn't. So WTF did you do about it? Need advice and counsel?? ... send me an email at work tomorrow -- I happen to be an HA, an HI, and an EAP Rep. Yeah ... I'm such a fucking dinosaur, so old army it's ... just "scary."  :


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2008)

axeman said:
			
		

> I used the term old days and they way it used to be . BUT I never said it has to return to the old ways, I used the term to show the way it was. The way it is now i can take a day off if the 9Delta is sick and so are the kids . that would not of happened. IN THE OLD DAYS.  but we are talking about the way it is now . it was merely a comparison now vs then . i like now .BTW my 2 cents



Don't worry. NONE of us has called for a return to the old days.


----------



## GUNS (29 Jan 2008)

I was not planning to comment on this topic but "into the breech" :warstory:

I am a firm believer in recognizing a superior rank. Wither it being a corporal or a colonel. It has nothing to do with fear but with respect.
Having been part of the CF's "Cold War Army"(60's/70's), I guess I fall into the "old days generation".

The " old days" were as most have mentioned. In today's eyes they would have been considered cruel and unjust punishment.  For us guys that served during that era, it was just the way things were. For me, the daily "dressing-down" went in one ear and out the other. My biggest problem was trying to keep a straight face. 

I was caught with my hands in my pant pockets by the Base RSM, he marched me directly to the Base tailor and had them sew up my pockets. I am sure there are hundreds of such stories from " old days" soldiers. Did I think I was unjustly treated, no. Did the punishment fit the infraction, at the time, yes. I could have been given weekend mess duty cleaning garbage buckets in a hot steamy room.

The "old days" never affected my out look on life. I never disliked anyone who " dressed me down" , they were doing their job. I can not speak for others of my military era but I never gave my treatment in those days a second thought. 

The CF of the present will be different from the CF of the future as it is different from the CF of the past. If I knew then what I know know, changes may have been made. Today we use the past to make changes for the present which will make changes to the future. Even in the present, there are situations when how things were done in " the old days" should apply.


----------



## Gunner98 (29 Jan 2008)

A tangent - but a look at Corporal Punishment of Children shows that "old days" thinking isn't so old.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a defense to assault that justifies violence against children by teachers and parents in the name of correction. It became part of our Criminal Code in 1892 and has allowed severe spanking, slapping and striking with belts and other objects.

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. R.S.C., 1985, c .C-4 

In November 1998, the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law sought a declaration in Ontario that section 43 violates sections 7 (security of the person), 12 (cruel and unusual punishment), and 15 (equality) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it conflicts with Canadas obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Section 43 is a limited defence; it provides that a parent, teacher or person acting in the place of a parent is justified in using force to correct a child that is under his or her care, provided that the force used is reasonable in all the circumstances.

The federal government defended against the Charter challenge and was supported by the Canadian Teachers Federation and the Coalition for Family Autonomy (Focus on the Family, the Canadian Family Action Coalition, the Home School Legal Defence Association of Canada, and REAL Women of Canada). The Canadian Foundations position was supported by the Ontario Association of Childrens Aid Societies.

In its decision of July 5, 2000, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the constitutionality of section 43 and found that it was consistent with Canadas obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
On January 15, 2002, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts decision and dismissed the appeal. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard the appeal on June 6, 2003 and reserved judgment. 

On January 30, 2004. The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether s.43 of the Criminal Code of Canada is unconstitutional. Section 43 provides that a parent, teacher or person acting in the place of a parent is justified in using force to correct a child that is under his or her care provided that the force used is reasonable in all of the circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Canada decided that section 43 of the Criminal Code is constitutional; it found that section 43 does not violate a childs rights to security of the person and equality, and is not cruel and unusual punishment. More specifically, the Supreme Court held that section 43 ensures that the criminal law applies to any use of force that harms a child, but does not apply where the use of force is part of a genuine effort to educate the child, poses no reasonable risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling, and is reasonable under the circumstances.June 2005

Responding to human rights complaints brought against five countries, the European Committee of Social Rights has confirmed (June 2005) that supreme court judgments in Italy and Portugal do prohibit all corporal punishment of children. This means that more than a third (16 of 46) member states of the Council of Europe now give children equal protection under their assault laws.

In addition to Italy and Portugal, the other countries where children have equal protection are: Sweden (1979), Finland (1983), Norway (1987), Austria (1989), Cyprus (1994), Denmark (1997), Latvia (1998), Croatia (1999), Bulgaria (2000), Germany (2000), Iceland (2003), Hungary (2004), Romania (2004) and Ukraine (2004). 

U.N. Committee of the Rights of the Child 42nd Session ( June 2006 )
General Comment No. 8: The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment


Sources:
www.repeal43.org/  
www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Corporal_punishment_S_McDonald_CBU_25NOV05.aspx
www.canadiancrc.com/Child_Abuse/Supreme_Court_Case_Spanking.aspx
www.endcorporalpunishment.org


----------



## time expired (29 Jan 2008)

Fear is the way society works friends,this is nothing that is 
excursive to the military,we obey the rules because we fear
the consequences,from Dad,the Sergeant Major,or the
Police.The idea that we all would do the right thing if all
controls were removed is one of those myths that got
started in 60s and has been plaguing our society ever since.
Take away the external pressures of discipline,respect enforced
by hierarchies and people act purely in self interest,just like
pre school children. 
 I joined the Canadian Army in 1958 so I think I am qualified
to have an opinion about the Old Army system.Was I scared
of my NCOs?,damn right I was,not because of fear of physical
abuse,unlike the originator of this thread,who claimed to have
been physically abused in basic in the 1980s,I was never physically
abused,physically challenged maybe but never abused.My fear
was based on the fact that the NCOs could make my life so
very difficult and uncomfortable the it was in my self interest
play by the Armies rules.
                           Regards


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Jan 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> I joined the Canadian Army in 1958 so I think I am qualified to have an opinion about the Old Army system.Was I scared
> of my NCOs?,damn right I was,not because of fear of physical abuse,unlike the originator of this thread,who *claimed* to have
> been physically abused in basic in the 1980s,I was never physically abused,physically challenged maybe but never abused.My fear
> was based on the fact that the NCOs could make my life so very difficult and uncomfortable the it was in my self interest
> play by the Armies rules.


 (Note: Emphasis mine)

I agree with you.  I went through Basic in 1986 as well, serial 8645, and we were never physically or mentally abused.  As a matter of fact, we had a Master Seaman apologize to us for calling us stupid during drill class.  The way I always looked at stuff like that was that if it offended you, then it probably applied to you.    We feared our NCOs because they *could* (and did) make our lives heck!


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Jan 2008)

See??? Isn't everyone just saying the same thing but in different words?  Look, re-read Vern's second last post.  My son doesn't get up for school every morning because he really wants to.  He has been _taught_ that there will be consequences for his actions - positively or negatively depending on his actions - and he has been _taught_ that I will always stick to the consequences, ergo he gets out of bed on time because he knows the consequences of not getting out of bed.  Is my son afraid of me?  I think not.  Does he do a thing because he is afraid of what will happen, what allowance he will lose of or what chore he will have to do?  More than likely.  This is discipline.  

Discipline doesn't just happen, it's taught.  And yes, it could be called a fear by some, or how about a dislike?  I would highly dislike it if I were charged and fined $1000.00.  Therefore I will not do the thing that MAY get me charged and take $1000.00 from my pay, or cause me to have to march over to the HQ building every 2 hours in a different uniform for 14 days (remember that one Vern??) I would dislike that.

I guess the bottom line for me anyway is not fear of my leaders or even fear of the consequences but fear that my leader will stick to the consequences.  Younger soldiers today - not all, but definitely a good lot - have been taught the reverse.  "Don't worry, my WO won't do anything - he's on his retirement slump" or "I've screamed harassment so many times now that my Sgt don't even look twice at me" Yes, our generation is partially to blame, but the pendulum swings both ways.  

It may be broke people, but we CAN fix it - properly - just by being an excellent leader.  Remember, my son respects me, not because he fears me but because I respect him back.


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Jan 2008)

ALL discipline is self-imposed.

The leaders amongst us just make the choices available more apparent.


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Jan 2008)

Ok, how about this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline

Discipline, disciplinarian, disciple...

Quite a concept, but I like the way it's put here.


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Jan 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Ok, how about this...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline
> 
> ...



That is a well articulated spin on the concept.  I'm in general agreement with it.


----------



## Hawk (29 Jan 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> ALL discipline is self-imposed.
> 
> The leaders amongst us just make the choices available more apparent.



I sure wish I'd thought of that when I was raising my son. He wasn't a discipline problem, but being a very bright, creative child, we did have our moments!


Hawk


----------



## time expired (29 Jan 2008)

Incidentally,a point I missed in my last post.Old Army ended with Intergration,
Unification and the abolishment of the L/Cpl. rank.Everything since is New Army
and as I read this thread it is clear to me that one has very little to do with the
other.Why the L/Cpl.rank?,well actually it was an appointment given by the
authority of the unit CO and could be just as quickly removed by him.The newly
appointed L/Cpl.learned that he had to separate himself from his former comrades
and somehow gain their respect,not an easy task.Some tried to do this by charging
everyone in sight for every minor infraction he saw.This was not a good strategy as
it tended to create a lot off unnecessary paperwork and generally pi%&ed the
CSM off,however it did establish the dangerous reputation of the rank.A better
way to succeed in this rank was to set a good example to your former peers in all
departments of military conduct,dress,deportment etc.This, plus the occasional
charge,to keep everyone on their toes was the route to the CPLs Mess, a  very select
and desirable place in those days.
The establishment  of the M/Cpl rank at Unification seemed to be something of an
afterthought, that fact and the requirement to get promoted under the, then new, PER
seemed to bring a completely new type of Jnr.NCO very much a "getting along by
going along"type of guy and that seemed to move slowly upward through the entire
rank system and that, to me, has lead to where we are today.
There are of course other contributing factors to the malaise evident in some of the
posts on this thread,the PER system as originally constituted,poorly applied Human
Rights legislation,to name a couple.My solution,bring back the L/Cpl. 
                                        Regards


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Jan 2008)

As long as we're quibbling here, and picking the flyshit out of the pepper - MCpl IS an appointment - not a rank.

Check it out:  http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch003_e.asp#3.08



> 3.08 – MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
> 
> (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dog (30 Jan 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :crybaby:
> 
> The whole post but the bold part in perticular



I give up trying to make my point, but there it is Vern, you say it shouldn't happen anymore, and I firmly agree. Others think I'm whining and crying out to the sky about how oh-so-unjust it all is, and throw the crybaby symbol out there in a single post.  If the opinions here differ this much about respect, how can we possible hope to conclude this entire thread to anyones satisfaction?

And so ends my involvment in this thread.


----------



## armyvern (30 Jan 2008)

Dog said:
			
		

> And so ends my involvment in this thread.



And, eerily you've yet to answer my question "what did you do about it?"

There's one thing I hate in this outfit -- it's the people that love to bitch, but won't get off their butts to do anything to make the difference. And, I think that was his point. If it's caused as much agony and heartache as you say to you ... and it's worth whining about -- then *do* something about it. I already offered you my assistance. What more do you need?


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (30 Jan 2008)

Just thought i'd chime in,

I totally agreed with what someone said about crash and bash they called it, that you cant just expect to use the same technique you used on a different demographic.  you have many people coming in with education and life experience, (20-30 yrs old), and they are not going to tolerate NOT being treated like a person.

Don't get me wrong, i got yelled at and sworn at in BMQ and i only did mine 2-3 years ago, but there was 1 sgt, who did it particularly well, he didn't just berate you for the fun of it, like i hear many NCO's did in the OLD DAYS, he showed you your mistake, told you what to do to rectify, and said he did not want to see it again, didn't go hooting and hollering he treated us like adults/people, and thats what they need to do.  The days of 95% of recruits being 16-19 who need to be taught how to shave, and who are used to being torn a strip for anything and everything are gone.

About the saluting, well in the Naval example, what part of the ship were you on?? were you in one of the messes? i'm guessing so, if the OS was just relaxing, he had probably just been on watch or something, and was in the mess relaxing.  1. You don't really do drill on ship, unless you have a parade on the quarter/sweep deck, inside the ship you don't do drill.  2. As previously mentioned you don't salute on a ship, except for sunset, colours (if you are by the Jack or ensign), crossing the brow, or if you are reporting directly to an officer because you were piped.  I have to say though, i don't know anyone from OS to CPO who would have tolerated feet up on table.

Sorry to say but that is one thing the Army needs to learn, that the Air force and definitely the Navy, are not run like the Army, so you can't come into the Navy world and just complain about how things are there, things are different we all know that.  That being said, Officer = commission = salute, no matter what....from 2Lt/Acting S/LT all the way to Admiral/General.  the only time i don't salute officers is if i am wearing my tuque, then i check my arms with a courteous Sir/Ma'am.

As to the comment about the CPO1 not liking to be called Sir, well that's because that's not the proper term used...the proper term is Chief, in the Navy Sir is for Officers only, you calling a CPO1, Sir, is akin to someone coming on your base and calling a CMO/CWO,  Chief.  You are not disrespecting him by calling him Chief.


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jan 2008)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> the only time i don't salute officers is if i am wearing my tuque, then i check my arms with a courteous Sir/Ma'am.



Wow, maybe we are really falling apart.  I was taught that if you are wearing headdress of *any* type, you salute.  The only time you would check arms is if you are NOT wearing headdress.

To rectify my earlier post, when I said we "feared" our NCOs in Basic (and later).  I didn't mean fear as in being afraid, I meant fear of having to face the consequences (extras, charge) if you ****ed up.  I had nothing but respect for my superiors.  At present, I still respect my superiors but in a very few cases, I can respect only the rank.


----------



## Steel Badger (30 Jan 2008)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> .  the only time i don't salute officers is if i am wearing my tuque, then i check my arms with a courteous Sir/Ma'am.



Do you still doff your civvie cap if your pass an officer while in mufti? Lots of folks seem to have forgotten that as well.


----------



## Sig_Des (30 Jan 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Wow, maybe we are really falling apart.  I was taught that if you are wearing headdress of *any* type, you salute.  The only time you would check arms is if you are NOT wearing headdress.



Same, and still do.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Jan 2008)

The toque thing is funny I had an NCM at Gagetown tell me he was taught the same thing. I was walking off base one day and he sauntered by in CADPAT and toque. When I asked him about saluting he told me he was taught not to salute with a toque on. I told him he was mistaken...he snapped off a high five...I returned it and we carried on....but where are they teaching this?? at St Jean??


----------



## aesop081 (31 Jan 2008)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> but where are they teaching this?? at St Jean??




I dont know. I went through there in 93 and we saluted everything that casts a shadow no matter what we were wearing just to be safe !!!


----------



## time expired (31 Jan 2008)

ROY,That is of course correct,M/Cpl. is still an appointment,however
the appointment is made at the very top and there seems to be no
sense that the new M/Cpl. needs to make any changes in his attitude 
or performance to maintain his new rank.Instead this new M/Cpl.keeps
the same relationship with his Cpl.buddies,after all they are in the same
mess,but can now risk calling Sgts.by their first names.In short this
appointment has in effect become a promotion and the M/Cpls.is now 
quite secure, only a major crime can jeopardise his position.The L/Cpl.
however was under constant pressure to maintain a high level of 
performance as his CO could take away this appointment at any time,
in fact L/Cpls reverted back to private on posting,usually with a strong
reccommendation for promotion if he was any good.Is this important?,
I think so,as it teaches the young soldier the separation between the
ranks also that good leadership techniques will command respect.
It seems to me on reading some of these posts that that something is 
broken and I also get the impression that some of the younger members
feel we suffered under a brutal" kadavergerhorsam" system in the 
Old Army,this could no be further from the truth.One thing that always
stood out in the Cold War Canadian Army was the initiative and flexability
of Canadian soldier in comparison with our major NATO partners,this is
not obtained through brutal discipline and blind obedience
                                             Regards


----------



## benny88 (31 Jan 2008)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> where are they teaching this?? at St Jean??



   Well quite a few courses are run during the summer, I know I never had a chance to wear any of my winter gear, so that could explain it. But I guess it wouldn't explain that he was TAUGHT not to salute in a toque.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> we saluted everything that casts a shadow no matter what we were wearing just to be safe !!!


  ;D  Somethings will never change at CFLRS.


----------



## Gunner98 (31 Jan 2008)

A policy on toque and saluting *is not* mentioned in the CFLRS SOPs, see: DWAN http://elrfc.saint-jean.mil.ca/fichiers/index.cfm?no_lang=31&no_menu=6&no_smenu=68&no_ssmenu=128


----------



## bran (3 Oct 2008)

This might sound like a really dumb question, but what is an RSM?


----------



## HItorMiss (3 Oct 2008)

RSM=Regimental Sargent Major which is an appointment

The rank one must attain to hold said appointment is Chief Warrant Officer


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Oct 2008)

ONT said:
			
		

> This might sound like a really dumb question, but what is an RSM?



You are a Pte with 4 RCR who is apparantly interested in, or attempting to, apply to CSOR and you don't know what an RSM is??

Something doesn't add up.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Oct 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> RSM=Regimental Sargent Major which is an appointment
> 
> The rank one must attain to hold said appointment is Chief Warrant Officer



I've also seen, rarely, a MWO fill the RSM position ( The Armour School had a MWO A/RSM back in '94 or so when I was there).


----------



## HItorMiss (3 Oct 2008)

Alright I will clarify LOL

You can be an Acting RSM and be a MWO, however to actually properly fill the position by the CF TO&E as in permanately you must be a CWO


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2008)

One must always be careful as to how the term "RSM" is used.  In the majority of cases a RSM holds the rank of CWO, but not all CWOs hold the appointment of RSM.

There is also another title of "RSM" that all CF members, no matter their rank, even officers, aspire to; and that is "Retired Service Member".

So be careful how you go about using the term in conversation and correspondence.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is also another title of "RSM" that all CF members, no matter their rank, even officers, aspire to; and that is "Retired Service Member".



You really DO learn something new every day - never heard this term before today.  I guess I get to live the dream of being THIS kind of RSM now - thanks!   ;D


----------



## dapaterson (3 Oct 2008)

RSM = appointment
CWO = rank

Simple enough.


----------



## bran (3 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You are a Pte with 4 RCR who is apparantly interested in, or attempting to, apply to CSOR and you don't know what an RSM is??
> 
> Something doesn't add up.



I'm a Pte recruit with 4 RCR, I've only been in for less then a month without BMQ. That's why I was asking what an RSM is so I can gain some knowledge.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2008)

ONT said:
			
		

> I'm a Pte recruit with 4 RCR, I've only been in for less then a month without BMQ. That's why I was asking what an RSM is so I can gain some knowledge.




'And with that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   TOPIC  CLOSED !



With a little bit of effort in using the SEARCH function this would have been answered pages ago.


----------

