# Canadian Operation Joint Command (CJOC) stand up



## opcougar (26 May 2012)

So the long awaited amalgamation of the commands bar SOF will take effect this September. It is to be headed by an LGen, with 3 MGens as subs and 4 CWOs. The intent is to remove duplication of efforts, and to better respond to ops home and abroad

This will see a 25% in pers at startop


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2012)

opcougar said:
			
		

> So the long awaited amalgamation of the commands bar SOF will take effect this September. It is to be headed by an LGen, with 3 MGens as subs and 4 CWOs. The intent is to remove duplication of efforts, and to better respond to ops home and abroad
> 
> This will see a 25% in pers at startop




Out of curiosity; why 4 CWO's?  Isn't that quadruplication of efforts?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (27 May 2012)

Around par for the course.  Have you seen how many CWO positions we have in Afghanistan?  Check the career listings for OUTCAN/CWO from EMAA.


----------



## McG (27 May 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity; why 4 CWO's?  Isn't that quadruplication of efforts?


The Generals leading each of the three .COMs will be reduced in rank by one and a new posn will be added on top to look after _bind_ them.  Clearly, the guy with The One Ring will also need a CWO.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 May 2012)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Around par for the course.  Have you seen how many CWO positions we have in Afghanistan?



Which is a bad thing when they start getting bored....


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Generals leading each of the three .COMs will be reduced in rank by one and a new posn will be added on top to look after _bind_ them.  Clearly, the guy with The One Ring will also need a CWO.



My point is that there will be three (3) too many "Chiefs".  The guy with The One Ring will have his "Chief", but all the others are subordinate.  They will all start looking like Bandsmen with the amount of fluff they will all be wearing on their sleeves above their rank.


----------



## Infanteer (27 May 2012)

I'd argue that a 3*/Tier 2 CWO with a 2* Deputy and a 1* COS would be sufficient enough.  This command structure can run 1 Can Div, which should be transferred from the Army and probably renamed, since the overt Army heritage was bad branding for a joint HQ.  The Army, Navy and Air Force can plug into a renamed 1 Can Div (Canadian Expeditionary Force?) just like the Marines plug stuff into standing MAGTF headquarters.

I've read the Force Employment Concept for 1 Can Div and it is quite good.  It probably nullifies any need for all these 2*s....


----------



## opcougar (28 May 2012)

The question now ......what is the new command badge going to look like?

LGEN S.A. BEARE WILL BE APPOINTED COMMANDER CANADIAN JOINT OPERATIONS COMMAND IN OTTAWA


----------



## PuckChaser (28 May 2012)

opcougar said:
			
		

> The question now ......what is the new command badge going to look like?



I'm sure there's a tiger team of 3 Colonels and a few CWOs figuring that out right now.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm sure there's a tiger team of 3 Colonels and a few CWOs figuring that out right now.



Here's a suggestion (thanks to Duck Amuck!)


----------



## Journeyman (28 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm sure there's a tiger team of 3 Colonels and a few CWOs figuring that out right now.


With the potential for further budget/PY cuts, they may be inclined to curry favour by integrating the Calian logo.


----------



## bridges (3 Oct 2012)

Reproduced (in part) under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.  This grab is from the Star-Phoenix but it appeared in papers across the country.
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Canadian+Forces+shake+command/7329154/story.html



> As the CF discovered during its decade in Afghanistan, to keep the guns and more arriving during a time of war requires a complex logistics capability. That is why the vital ingredient in the new CJOC structure is CANOSCOM.



Well, _one_ of the vital ingredients.




> ...Having one command instead of three will considerably reduce the number of officers in Ottawa, freeing them for duty with regiments and air force and navy squadrons across the country....


  

...I wonder.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2012)

I think one of the better exchanges (with my edit) is:





> One of the potentially hot files on Beare's desk is the possibility of western military intervention in Syria. This has been much discussed in the media, although arguably *much* less so by world or Canadian leaders.
> 
> "We're not anticipating a direction to conduct a particular mission," Beare said.



"Syria?"     " : No"


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (3 Oct 2012)

Change of Command is Friday.  It affects me in a frustratingly distant way.  Like when someone leaves a broom in the middle of nowhere and you somehow find and trip over it.  It's not a direct effect, but an effect nonetheless.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Oct 2012)

Gotta love it.  Hillier creates the .COMs 6 or so years ago, to make things more "efficient", and here we are amalgamating them, to create efficiency.  :facepalm:


----------



## Infanteer (4 Oct 2012)

...amalgamating them into an organization that strangely mirrors the DCDS Group that they replaced.... :facepalm:

To be fair to Gen Hillier, the .COMs were a mutated off-shoot of his original idea.  It's amazing how bureaucratic friction can delay and change the commander's direction.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Oct 2012)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Gotta love it.  Hillier creates the .COMs 6 or so years ago, to make things more "efficient", and here we are amalgamating them, to create efficiency.  :facepalm:



Sounds like a total business integration solution is being achieved, viz:

Question: Why did the chicken cross the road? 

Buddha: 
Asking this question denies your own chicken nature. 

Colonel Sanders: 
Hmmm, I missed one! 

Consulting Company: 

Deregulation of the chicken's side of the road was threatening its dominant market position. The chicken was faced with significant challenges to create and develop the competencies required for the newly competitive market. Our consultant, in a partnering relationship with the client, helped the chicken by rethinking its physical distribution strategy and implementation processes. 

Using the Poultry Integration Model (PIM), our consultant helped the chicken use its skills, methodologies, knowledge, capital and experiences to align the chicken's people, processes and technology in support of its overall strategy within a Program Management framework. 

We convened a diverse cross-spectrum of road analysts and best chickens along with our consultants with deep skills in the transportation industry to engage in a two-day itinerary of meetings in order to leverage their personal knowledge capital, both tacit and explicit, and to enable them to synergize with each other in order to achieve the implicit goals of delivering and successfully architecting and implementing an enterprise-wide value framework across the continuum of poultry cross-median processes. 

The meeting was held in a park-like setting, enabling and creating an impactful environment which was strategically based, industry-focused, and built upon a consistent, clear, and unified market message and aligned with the chicken's mission, vision, and core values. This was conducive towards the creation of a total business integration solution. 

We helped the chicken change to become more successful.


----------



## brihard (4 Oct 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Question: Why did the chicken cross the road?
> 
> Consulting Company:



Jesus... My head hurts, yet I  know some people actually produce reports like that and others use them. Ugh.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Oct 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Sounds like a total business integration solution is being achieved, viz:
> 
> Question: Why did the chicken cross the road?
> 
> ...



And are you the Budda, the Colonel, or the consultant?


----------



## bridges (4 Oct 2012)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Gotta love it.  Hillier creates the .COMs 6 or so years ago, to make things more "efficient", and here we are amalgamating them, to create efficiency.  :facepalm:



It was ever thus.  Reminds me of this old chestnut:

"...we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."
-NOT Petronius.    

Over in the IM/IT world, all computer and IM-related functions are being shifted to the new SSC, for GoC depts... in order to create efficiency!  So far the effects on service have been *marvellous*.  :   But I digress.  

Best of luck to CJOC as they adjust to the new structure.


----------



## eurowing (4 Oct 2012)

I think I will miss laughing at CANSOFCOM (Cans Of Come).  I know, it was immature, but funny.

BTW, an Albertan would answer, The Chicken crossed the road to show the Prairie Dog it could be done.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Oct 2012)

CANSOFCOM ain't goin' anywhere.


----------



## eurowing (4 Oct 2012)

I missed that! Thanks.


----------



## GAP (4 Oct 2012)

eurowing said:
			
		

> I think I will miss laughing at CANSOFCOM (Cans Of Come).  I know, it was immature, but funny.
> 
> BTW, an Albertan would answer, The Chicken crossed the road to show the Prairie Dog it could be done.



Well, those prairie dogs be dumber than posts anyway.......


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Oct 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And are you the Budda, the Colonel, or the consultant?



What do you think would be the best answer to that question?  ;D

(You guessed it, the consultant)


----------

