# Commentary  "Why No One Should Join the Canadian Forces"



## upandatom (21 Jan 2015)

Came across this article, Some of it I can see as being true. I did not know about the limit of 49 rounds per soldier, but that seems a bit exaggerated. 

I understand the need to cut back, and save, but when we spend just as much money on our military as Spain? What does that say? As Afghanistan proved we are a very effective fighting force, even with our budgetary constraints ( I know our budget was pudgy and round from 2002-2012, even then we spent a fraction of what other countries do) 

I recently had a VA appointment, and the woman seemed appalled that VA would ever make a mistake, or that they are following a timely and due diligent process etc, and that it had nothing to do with VA, it was the CAFs fault that it was so backlogged. 

I have heard the negative and the positive about Huff Post, not sure how to read this one. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bruce-moncur/canadian-forces_b_6407088.html


Why No One Should Join the Canadian Forces

A Defence Department report recently tabled in the House of Commons "showed a shortfall of nearly 900 regular force members and 4,500 part-time reservists at the end of March due to higher than forecasted attrition and other factors." 

To put that into perspective the 5,400 less troops equates to 135 less platoons. Or 45 less companies or even 15 less battalions. Which means the Canadian forces is down 3.75 brigades, or almost two full divisions. It has gotten so bad that the Canadian forces has lowered their physical fitness standard and some soldiers are put through fitness camp before they go on basic training. 

So what is the root cause of this? I think there are three major flaws that are contributing to this downward spiral. The reason that the Canadian Forces is having such a hard time retaining and recruiting troops is because of budget cuts, the state of the equipment, and the knowledge that if you are injured on the job you will not be properly taken care of by Veterans Affairs. 

A soldier that serves in the Princess Patricia's Light Infantry (PPCLI), one of the most revered and respected infantry units of the past century, has told me that they are allocated only 49 rounds for the entire training year due to budget cuts. The PPCLI's service in World War I and II and Korea and thereafter is what legends are made of. Yet now they train with less than 50 bullets a year. 

In the beginning of World War I the German Army was impressed by the amount of lead the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was able to put downrange. The reason for this is because of repetition, practicing with your rifle on the ranges for years. With only 49 rounds a year the soldier's ability to clear stoppages, change magazines, shoot accurately is diminished greatly. The repetition needed to confidently operate a C7 is reduced with the inability to practice with bullets. In essence the budget cuts done to the infantry units has handicapped one of our greatest units. 

Another unit that has paved the way for Canadian freedom and democracy is that of the Royal Canadian Regiment or the RCR. 1 and 3 RCR are posted to Petawawa, Ontario. 1RCR was a mechanized infantry unit until recently when it began training as a light infantry unit again. This was not a tactical decision but a budgetary one. The maintenance and upkeep of the LAVIII vehicles is too much for the unit and has caused their fleet to be grounded. If you go to the base you can see the LAVS sitting there under piles of snow. Recent wars have shown that mechanized infantry has been proven to be essential to modern warfare. 

To my knowledge there were no Canadian units that deployed to Kandahar in a light infantry role. This is just like the lack of ammunition to train with. The ability to be an effective force is conducive to being able to operate with the equipment required to do ones job. If the soldiers are not able to use the LAVs then their confidence in operating them is reduced and the overall effectiveness is greatly diminished. 

As bad as it is for the regular force the budgetary cuts are even worse for the reservists. At one point reservists were making up to 30-40 per cent of the numbers deploying to Afghanistan. Since then the life of a reservist has been reduced to make-believe bullets and shoe-string budget exercises. 

The Essex and Kent Regiment just had a change of command parade and could not form three ranks. The level of frustration has reached such a point that in years since the Afghan mission's conclusion that the E&K has had to endure the loss of key leadership soldiers that represent over 15 tours of experience. To be fair the economic woes of the Windsor area can be seen as a factor into this, but the inability to replace the numbers lost does not. "Those who would follow them into uniform are being stymied by a woefully inept recruiting system where it takes an average of 166 days to be processed." 

The budgetary cuts have come swift and fast in June of 2014 another round of cuts were announced where, "Only the navy said it could absorb a four per cent cut, while both the air force and army warned even that reduction would have dramatic impacts on their respective capabilities not just today, but for the next two or more years." 

Canada spends 1 per cent of its GDP on defence spending , just slightly ahead of financially-troubled Spain, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Lithuania, and Latvia. The Harper government, which styles itself a hawk on military spending, found itself in the unusual position of resisting pressure from allies to boost defence spending. 

The budgetary cuts easily plays into the next reason that the Canadian Forces can't maintain a fighting force of 68, 000. The dilapidated state of the equipment is no secret. The submarines that don't float or sink. The naval vessels that need to be towed home. Or the plane parts being taken out of museums. 

The F-18s are 40 years old -- a full two generations removed from being relevant. The Sea King Helicopters that require 100 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. It seems that more Sea Kings are falling out of the sky lately than Geese in the month of October. 

Thus the lack of training and the poor state of our equipment would leave anyone to surmise that the probability of taking casualties is greatly increased. Then you would suppose that Veterans Affairs would have to compensate for this. Every Canadian knows that this is not the case. The Department of Veterans Affairs Canada is mired in a quagmire of incompetence at epic proportions. From the 1.13 billion in lapsed funds, to the suicides that surpass the death toll of the Afghan mission . The Auditor General's report or the 1,000 less employees in the department since 2009. The bonuses to the management for laying off VAC employees, and the failure to fill the mental health positions. The insurance company mentality that the department has adopted presenting itself as a faceless organization when dealing with those maimed fighting for its country. The closed VAC offices, or the 200 million in spending that will not be spent in six years as the press conference stated but rather 50 years instead . The most recent tactics adopted by the department is accusing ex-soldiers of exaggerating their injuries. 

This all under the watch of Minster Julian Fantino, who is late to meetings with veterans begging for their local VAC offices to stay open and then angrily walks out on them. Even the wives of soldiers suffering from PTSD are not safe from his scorn. Those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice are not even safe from the budget cuts, the state of the headstones of the fallen fail to meet the standard that Canadians hold true. The current state of Veterans Affairs has caused soldiers to rely on the charity and good will of organizations like the Royal Canadian Legion, True Patriot Love, and Wounded Warriors. Just as the Auditor General's report was released rather than being at a three-day conference about PTSD attended by all of the leading experts from across the country the minister is in Italy laying wreaths. His actions so close to an election year has seen the PMO's office replace Fantino with Erin O'Toole. As a former veteran himself O'Toole will have to walk a tight rope between towing the party line and the friendships forged in his time in the military. His 12 years in the Canadian Forces as part of a Brotherhood of Warriors, Forged in battle Baptized by fire Quenched in tears is on the line. 

The blog "Canada Eighteen Sixty-Seven" by Benjamin Berman says that to top it all off the words of Sir Robert Borden established a verbal contract with Canada's veterans, vowing that a grateful nation will provide adequate care and support to those who served, while forever honouring those who gave the greatest sacrifice. This solemn promise still echoes today across the war graves of the fallen; from France to Korea, from Bosnia to Afghanistan. However, the Conservative government rejects this social contract with veterans. 
The current government does not believe there is a moral obligation to those who answered the call of duty and fought in Canada's name. Berman writes: 

"In fact, it has tasked federal lawyers with openly challenging this idea in the courts. Six disabled Afghan war veterans have filed a lawsuit against Stephen Harper's Conservative government, in an attempt to reverse the decision to replace lifelong pensions for injured soldiers with a one-time payment. 

In response, Harper sent in federal lawyers to get the case tossed out by arguing that there is no special obligation to those who've fought for Canada, and that it's 'unfair' to bind the Harper government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister. The lawyers have stated in the courts that, as far as the Conservative government is concerned, the social covenant to care for injured veterans, as explained by former Prime Minister Borden, was simply 'political speech' and 'not meant to be taken seriously'. Essentially, Stephen Harper is exhausting all efforts on the taxpayer's dime to prevent these six injured veterans from having their day in court." 



It is clear that anyone wanting to join the military must heed the current state of its affairs. While the prime minister calls out Russia and asks Canadians to pray for the soldiers fighting ISIS then cuts to the military suggest his foreign affairs strategy is all bark and no bite. 

The lack of training that goes into our forces would give Gladwell fits. The soldiers are fed up and leaving in droves. How can any Canadian organization possibly think it can retain its work force without guaranteeing them that they will be taken care of if injured? Advice to any perspective enlistee that they explore all other options first. Only as a last ditch effort should you consider joining the Canadian Forces. 

If you so choose to wear the same uniform that so many great men and women did generations before it would behoove you to not be a hero for the sake of you and your family's wellbeing. The decade of darkness has given way to the generation of disgrace.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jan 2015)

Google the author's name to put his comments in perspective. Among other things, a story in September 2014 indicated he was seeking the NDP nomination for a local Federal seat in the Windsor area.


----------



## upandatom (21 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Google the author's name to put his comments in perspective. Among other things, a story in September 2014 indicated he was seeking the NDP nomination for a local Federal seat in the Windsor area.



Would make sense, it just seems more often then naught the CAF is used as a political tool. (Case in point Mulclair and Trudeau hammering the PM in response to troops coming under fire and returning fire in Iraq)


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jan 2015)

Johnson: "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea." 

http://www.samueljohnson.com/soldiers.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jan 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Came across this article, Some of it I can see as being true. I did not know about the limit of 49 rounds per soldier, but that seems a bit exaggerated.



It is.

49 rounds is the number of bullets that someone has to shoot a PWT level 3.    (Highest possible score of 49)
Generally someone should shoot PWT 1 & 2 before PWT3, which of course requires more bullets each.   Even when a unit skips PWT1&2  and goes right to  level 3 soldiers still need 20-30 rounds indented per soldier to zero their rifle. 49 rounds per soldier per year is an exaggeration. 


I do agree people are leaving in droves.  It feels like we get twice as many new officers in than new privates every year.


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Jan 2015)

I am sure if you dredge the archives here from the late 90's early 2000s, there are similar articles. In fact it always seems to be the same themes recurring over and over.


----------



## Lightguns (21 Jan 2015)

Look at the rest of his "stories".  He hates the military, I get it.  He did not get all his entitlements, I get that too.  He has a platform to endlessly promote that he has a cross to bear.  Get that too.  He will make a great NDP MP, lousy rep for the local voters, but a great NDP MP.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I do agree people are leaving in droves.  It feels like we get twice as many new officers in than new privates every year.



It has been a common theme for decades, that people leave in droves after a deployment or period of operations.   There are several reasons that have been shown for this phenomenon.  One reason is that some have planned on leaving the CAF, but remained in long enough to do a deployment and earn a little more money to further their goals after Release.  One other reason would be the persons who joined for the adventure, and released when they did not find the adventure they dreamed of; or the opportunity for that adventure disappeared.   Some joined for patriotic reasons, to fight for their country, and when the war/conflict was over they returned to their civilian occupation or studies.  Some have been in the demographic group that has reached CRA.  Some have fulfilled their dream and will leave at the end of their Terms of Service.   People leaving the CAF is not news.  

Recruiting problems, however, is a concern and a whole different topic.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jan 2015)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Look at the rest of his "stories".  He hates the military, I get it.  He did not get all his entitlements, I get that too.  He has a platform to endlessly promote that he has a cross to bear.  Get that too.  He will make a great NDP MP, lousy rep for the local voters, but a great NDP MP.



Based on this article, I'm pretty sure he'd make a lousy MP for any party...


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Jan 2015)

His Bio on Huff-Post read: 



> Bruce Moncur was born in Windsor, Ontario, and *joined the military reserves in high school, during the summer of 2001. In 2006, he suffered severe injuries during Operation Medusa in a "friendly fire" incident between Canadian and American troops. After undergoing two brain surgeries and extensive rehabilitation, Moncur was released from the Canadian Forces.* He recently completed his Bachelor of Arts degree in History at the University of Windsor.



I would say he at least deserves to be heard.  And I don't necessarily disagree with his underlying theme.  The GOC is ignoring military and veteran needs.


----------



## Occam (21 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Google the author's name to put his comments in perspective. Among other things, a story in September 2014 indicated he was seeking the NDP nomination for a local Federal seat in the Windsor area.



I'm not sure how to take that.  Is the fact that he was seeking an NDP nomination a bad thing?  From my perspective as a veteran, our best friend right now is Peter Stoffer, an NDP MP.  You can only bang your head against the Tory brick wall so many times before you realize that they're not getting it, things are getting worse instead of better, and that it might be time to try something different.

The CAF has long said that its best recruiters are its members and former members.  This former member isn't steering any bright-eyed young men and women towards a CAF career anymore, and I know a lot of friends who are of the same mind.  



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> His Bio on Huff-Post read:
> 
> I would say he at least deserves to be heard.  And I don't necessarily disagree with his underlying theme.  The GOC is ignoring military and veteran needs.



I would agree wholeheartedly.  And for perspective, I'm a long time Tory voter.  Not next time.  No sirree Bob.  Not sure where the X will go, but I know where it's not going.


----------



## upandatom (21 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It has been a common theme for decades, that people leave in droves after a deployment or period of operations.   There are several reasons that have been shown for this phenomenon.  One reason is that some have planned on leaving the CAF, but remained in long enough to do a deployment and earn a little more money to further their goals after Release.  One other reason would be the persons who joined for the adventure, and released when they did not find the adventure they dreamed of; or the opportunity for that adventure disappeared.   Some joined for patriotic reasons, to fight for their country, and when the war/conflict was over they returned to their civilian occupation or studies.  Some have been in the demographic group that has reached CRA.  Some have fulfilled their dream and will leave at the end of their Terms of Service.   People leaving the CAF is not news.
> 
> Recruiting problems, however, is a concern and a whole different topic.



People leaving the CAF is not the news, its more of the amount of people. 


			
				Occam said:
			
		

> The CAF has long said that its best recruiters are its members and former members.  This former member isn't steering any bright-eyed young men and women towards a CAF career anymore, and I know a lot of friends who are of the same mind.



Full agree with that as I am seeing more and more people asking themselves why. 

The thing is, how do we fix this?


----------



## cryco (21 Jan 2015)

Someone should create a documentary with some inside help showing the current state of equipment and training materials, along with military personnel morale and broadcast it to the world. 
Twist the PM's arm (through embarrassment) into freeing up some more money for the CAF. Money goes along way to improving things.


----------



## blackberet17 (21 Jan 2015)

> Someone should create a documentary with some inside help showing the current state of equipment and training materials, along with military personnel morale and broadcast it to the world.
> Twist the PM's arm (through embarrassment) into freeing up some more money for the CAF. Money goes along way to improving things.



Egads.

While a good idea in effect, to pursue new equipment, etc., it will do nothing for recruitment in the short nor near-term.


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Jan 2015)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Egads.
> 
> While a good idea in effect, to pursue new equipment, etc., it will do nothing for recruitment in the short nor near-term.



However it does more for retention, though I would argue we need the money in training and our spare parts budget, nothing makes a person more frustrated and want to leave then not being able to do the job you signed up to do.


----------



## jeffb (21 Jan 2015)

I'm not sure how much others feel this but it does worry me what will happen if I am ever seriously injured. I am not confident that I would be taken care of. There are grains of truth in this article to me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jan 2015)

jeffb said:
			
		

> There are grains of truth in this article to me.



Perhaps, but the lack of credible, solid data/facts coupled with the exaggeration, drama and misleading info leads me to give it a rating of  :blah:.

A few big points (IMO) that a lot of people seem to miss or ignore is that if we are "under-spending" on defence, the average Canadian citizen (1) doesn't know (2) doesn't care and (3) would complain the very second we started spending 2% GDP on it.

So, from where I am sitting, it seems like a _"heads you lose, tails I win"_ situation between the NDP/Liberals and the GOC/PM Harper.  And its not the GOC calling it in the air...


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jan 2015)

cryco said:
			
		

> Someone should create a documentary with some inside help showing the current state of equipment and training materials, along with military personnel morale and broadcast it to the world.
> Twist the PM's arm (through embarrassment) into freeing up some more money for the CAF. Money goes along way to improving things.



Won't work. There is very little, verging on nil, support for increasing defence spending in the Canadian public. DND and the CAF are also on very shaky ground as they have shown very little capacity for sound fiscal and programme management, not to mention suffering from bureaucratic bloat and over-ranking. I suggest the embarrassing fiascos in major capital programs - F35, FWSAR, all sorts of vehicles and ship building - of a few years back did little to convince the PM that defence funding was being wisely spent.  

And there is little to convince me that either of the other two major parties would be anymore sympathetic or likely to increase funding. From what I can gather, the priorities are: NDP - national childcare; and Liberals - infrastructure. Both are potential vote getters, which defence spending is not.


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Won't work. There is very little, verging on nil, support for increasing defence spending in the Canadian public. DND and the CAF are also on very shaky ground as they have shown very little capacity for sound fiscal and programme management, not to mention suffering from bureaucratic bloat and over-ranking. I suggest the embarrassing fiascos in major capital programs - F35, FWSAR, all sorts of vehicles and ship building - of a few years back did little to convince the PM that defence funding was being wisely spent.
> 
> And there is little to convince me that either of the other two major parties would be anymore sympathetic or likely to increase funding. From what I can gather, the priorities are: NDP - national childcare; and Liberals - infrastructure. Both are potential vote getters, which defence spending is not.



defense spending would only gain votes if it meant 1 thing, jobs, if a project that could be managed properly came around that say created thousands of jobs across the country votes would be coming in for party X. We don't have that kind of built up defense industry though.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Jan 2015)

> .... Princess Patricia's Light Infantry (PPCLI),
> ... the Royal Canadian Regiment or the RCR. ...
> ...The Essex and Kent Regiment




Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI)
The Royal Canadian Regiment (The RCR)
The Essex and Kent Scottish (EK Scot)

He could have at least tried to get the names right, it's not like we keep those secret from anyone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Won't work. There is very little, verging on nil, support for increasing defence spending in the Canadian public. DND and the CAF are also on very shaky ground as they have shown very little capacity for sound fiscal and programme management, not to mention suffering from bureaucratic bloat and over-ranking. I suggest the embarrassing fiascos in major capital programs - F35, FWSAR, all sorts of vehicles and ship building - of a few years back did little to convince the PM that defence funding was being wisely spent.
> 
> And there is little to convince me that either of the other two major parties would be anymore sympathetic or likely to increase funding. From what I can gather, the priorities are: NDP - national childcare; and Liberals - infrastructure. Both are potential vote getters, which defence spending is not.




Old Sweat is spot on.

First: despite all the yellow ribbons and red t-shirts, Canadians' "support" for the troops, while a mile wide, is less than an inch deep. This is deeply rooted in our own and our British political heritage. Occasional bursts of jingoism do not constitute "faith" in the Canadian Forces ... and, _in my opinion_, that is a good tradition ... we ought to think beyond the easy solutions offered my the man on the white horse.

Second: see this; I am pretty sure it is as true today as it was when I wrote it.

DND, especially NDHQ, needs a thorough house cleaning - think Hercules and the Augean Stables. The place is too full of too much human detritus, most of it sitting in large, corner offices.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jan 2015)

cryco said:
			
		

> Someone should create a documentary with some inside help showing the current state of equipment and training materials, along with military personnel morale and broadcast it to the world.
> Twist the PM's arm (through embarrassment) into freeing up some more money for the CAF. Money goes along way to improving things.



Be careful what you wish for....

If you did make such a movie, and compared it to a similar program made in the 90s, I'm betting that today would look pretty good in comparison.


----------



## Tibbson (21 Jan 2015)

The "article" reads more like someone went through some of the baseless gripes and half truths we get around here and mashed them into a few paragraphs to get their name out there.


----------



## Tibbson (21 Jan 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how to take that.  Is the fact that he was seeking an NDP nomination a bad thing?  From my perspective as a veteran, our best friend right now is Peter Stoffer, an NDP MP.



Agreed, Stoffer is a great advocate for military issues and vets.  I think he may be even more effective in what he is trying to achieve and the causes he is trying to support if he was a member of any other party though.  I used to have a lot of time for Ed Broadbent too but I never liked his party.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Jan 2015)

I know Peter personally.  He used to be my member until the 2006 election when Martin changed the electoral boundaries to the present day configuration.  I now belong to that other Peter from Pictau.  Although I wouldn't vote for the NDP, I did vote for Peter as the person not the party member.  If he was still my MP he would continue to get my vote.  I like his integrity.


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Jan 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Agreed, Stoffer is a great advocate for military issues and vets.  I think he may be even more effective in what he is trying to achieve and the causes he is trying to support if he was a member of any other party though.  I used to have a lot of time for Ed Broadbent too but I never liked his party.



I think he would make a good MND, and stand up for and clean up DND, but it's a question of if the NDP got into power would they let him be effective by giving him the budget and the power to do what is needed. Which i don't believe the NDP would.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I think he would make a good MND, and stand up for and clean up DND, but it's a question of if the NDP got into power would they let him be effective by giving him the budget and the power to do what is needed. Which i don't believe the NDP would.



I think you're completely wrong. Do you honestly think the NDP would allow Stoffer to clean up all the union types that need to be fired to fix DND? They'd be biting the hand that feeds them. In fact, they'd hire more PS workers to boost the union dues that end up as party donations.


----------



## BorisK (21 Jan 2015)

Exactly what I needed to read on the day I completed my swearing in ceremony.  

I'm looking at it this way... Even if it my experience in the CF does prove to be less than enjoyable due to the reasons outlined in the article, someone has to do it, so I will do my best to do so with pride regardless of the difficulties.

I must say though, how we spend less than Spain... I am confused.  

Oh well, let the journey begin.


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Jan 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think you're completely wrong. Do you honestly think the NDP would allow Stoffer to clean up all the union types that need to be fired to fix DND? They'd be biting the hand that feeds them. In fact, they'd hire more PS workers to boost the union dues that end up as party donations.



That is what I meant, Stoffer the MP would be great, its the party he is attached to that is the problem


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> That is what I meant, Stoffer the MP would be great, its the party he is attached to that is the problem



Maybe, but if he's such a great advocate for the vets, where's the private member's bill to amend the NVC or create a new one? Make the other parties vote against it and set the precedent. Until I see actual action, he's just grasping at something he feels he can embarrass the government on, and now that he's done it for so long he can't give it up.


----------



## Tibbson (21 Jan 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The place is too full of too much human detritus, most of it sitting in large, corner offices.



Shared corner cubicles is more like it.  At least it is from my shared desk space.


----------



## Tibbson (21 Jan 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe, but if he's such a great advocate for the vets, where's the private member's bill to amend the NVC or create a new one? Make the other parties vote against it and set the precedent. Until I see actual action, he's just grasping at something he feels he can embarrass the government on, and now that he's done it for so long he can't give it up.



A private members bill would get him, maybe, a page 2 headline in his hometown newspaper and wouldn't get past first reading.  It won't set any precedent other then confirm most private members bills are a waste of time unless they are in lockstep with the flavour of the day minor subject.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2015)

Its all how its presented. Big press conference, lots of vets hanging around. You under-estimate the media's willingness to take jabs at Harper at any cost.


----------



## Occam (21 Jan 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think you're completely wrong. Do you honestly think the NDP would allow Stoffer to clean up all the union types that need to be fired to fix DND? They'd be biting the hand that feeds them. In fact, they'd hire more PS workers to boost the union dues that end up as party donations.



Two comments on that:  

One, more workers is not necessarily a bad thing.  The workers don't set policy.  Most union people aren't in a position to set budgets, policy, etc.  I'm in a section of five positions where only three are filled - and the work of five still has to get done.  As a result, the work that does get done falls under the old "fast, good or cheap - pick two" rule.

Two, the people who are in the positions to set policy are EX classification, and I don't believe they're unionized.  You can start there.   ;D


----------



## TCM621 (21 Jan 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Be careful what you wish for....
> 
> If you did make such a movie, and compared it to a similar program made in the 90s, I'm betting that today would look pretty good in comparison.


Where they screwed up in the 90s, was that they let people choose if they wanted out or not. We are still paying for that. They guys that have to go aren't going great to volunteer. 

If your department takes 12 years to get a backpack out to (most) of the army and problems are found with in weeks, people need to be fired. If your department. If you are unable to spend a huge part your budget, someone needs to be fired. Either in your department because they can't get their shit together or in the department that is causing you grief. We all know of people, be they military or civilian, who are universally known as hindrances to getting the job done and have been for years. We need, as an organization, be able to get rid of them. Sometimes, it is just a lateral move but we should not accept long term incompetence just because they belong to a union  or the trade is red.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jan 2015)

BorisK said:
			
		

> Exactly what I needed to read on the day I completed my swearing in ceremony.
> 
> I'm looking at it this way... Even if it my experience in the CF does prove to be less than enjoyable due to the reasons outlined in the article, someone has to do it, so I will do my best to do so with pride regardless of the difficulties.
> 
> ...



Don't let one article, especially that one, take away from your 1st day in the CAF, or detract from your commitment of being 'in the service' - the service of Canada, our Government, and our other bosses' - the Canadian public.  Maybe a lot of them don't actually know, or some care, how we do what we do.  None of that takes away from how important it is that we 'serve'.

Congrats on the swearing in, by the way.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Jan 2015)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I am sure if you dredge the archives here from the late 90's early 2000s, there are similar articles. In fact it always seems to be the same themes recurring over and over.



Or even further. Go back to the mid-70's when we had no blanks and had to go around shouting, "bullets, bullets, bullets" instead.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Jan 2015)

The simple truth is that the Government, any government, gives the CF only so much real support as the pubic wants. I'm not talking the flashy commercials and rah-rah speeches. I mean real dollars and cents support. The true blame for underfunding accrues not to the government, but rather to the governed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jan 2015)

>Since then the life of a reservist has been reduced to make-believe bullets and shoe-string budget exercises. 

So things are no different than when I joined (Militia) in 1983 (and probably no different from the perspective of many who joined the Militia a few years earlier or later).  Yet we did join, and some of us stuck with it for a longish while, through years of notional bullets and notional trucks and notional platoons and "voluntary" Class A paysheets and notional who-knows-what-else.

Vote Liberal.  Maybe they can find another contract to cancel to burn $478 million dollars ($694 million inflation adjusted from 1993 to 2014).  Notional bullets for all.


----------



## blacktriangle (21 Jan 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The simple truth is that the Government, any government, gives the CF only so much real support as the pubic wants. I'm not talking the flashy commercials and rah-rah speeches. I mean real dollars and cents support. The true blame for underfunding accrues not to the government, but rather to the governed.



Hold a national referendum on defence then, with three options:

1. Canadian Armed Forces disbanded, replaced by an enhanced CCG. 

2. Contract defence out to the United States or NATO

3. Properly fund, train, and equip the CAF. Long term budget of 2% of GDP. 


Let Canadians choose what they want. My gut tells me it would be option #1. Canadians don't truly want a capable military, but we are too proud to rely entirely on the US. Canadians at most want a token force. We can contract out the supply runs for boots and blankets.


----------



## YZT580 (21 Jan 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> A private members bill would get him, maybe, a page 2 headline in his hometown newspaper and wouldn't get past first reading.  It won't set any precedent other then confirm most private members bills are a waste of time unless they are in lockstep with the flavour of the day minor subject.


y

If he is sincere about his beliefs he should present his bill anyways.  It is called put up or shut up.  When it fails, and it will, interview with the local radio station regarding his failure and why, make changes to his bill and then present it again and again.  Far more likely to have an affect than the mouthing off that passes for politics now and at least it will demonstrate that he believes what he is saying.  That is good for votes too.  A sincere polit. is a rare commodity these days.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jan 2015)

For the record, I personally know Bruce. I've stood beside him on parades and drank with him on occasion. I am part of the organization he founded, the Afghanistan Veterans Association of Canada. Do I agree with his politics? Anyone who has read my opinions here knows the obvious answer to that. However, politics aside, Bruce is a genuine and sincere individual. He does not make things up.

Bruce had part of his brain shot away in Afghanistan and VAC fucked him. Period. Gave him a five figure cheque in the low thirties, IIRC, and told him to hit the road. There's no support for us in Windsor. Harper closed our office. Now we deal with London, by phone, if you can get through. The only people that reached out to help him were Joe Comartin and Brian Masse, both NDP MPs in Windsor. Personally, I don't care for either of them. However, if they were able to give Bruce a national voice so he can advocate on our behalf, I congratulate them.

Slightly off topic, I have also seen more than enough times where there was only enough ammo to qualify the actual PWT 3 scenario. The only reason we had extra was because not everyone showed for the shoot. That is not bullshit, as some would imply, but a fact.

Bruce does not deserve some of the derision that's been stated or implied here.

I'll slightly modify the old saw. Unless you've walked a mile in his shoes and know the man's circumstances personally, you should STFU. 

My  :2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jan 2015)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI)
> The Royal Canadian Regiment (The RCR)
> The Essex and Kent Scottish (EK Scot)
> 
> He could have at least tried to get the names right, it's not like we keep those secret from anyone.



You mean the press should have tried to get the names right. Trust me, he knows the actual full names of those Regiments.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jan 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Based on this article, I'm pretty sure he'd make a lousy MP for any party...



And that's how most Canadians vote. From biased media articles and sheer ignorance of the personal qualities of the candidate and what they stand for.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jan 2015)

Sorry RG, but that does not fly. Bruce was not interviewed- he claims authorship of the op-Ed piece. Therefore, he is responsible for accuracy of the information within the article.  He has some valid points that are buried under a mountain of junk statements that even basic research would have fixed.

I am sorry that he was both wounded and treated badly by VAC. Perhaps, he should have spoke about what he knows- which is to say what happened to him personally. That would have made a compelling article.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Jan 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sorry RG, but that does not fly. Bruce was not interviewed- he claims authorship of the op-Ed piece. Therefore, he is responsible for accuracy of the information within the article.  He has some valid points that are buried under a mountain of junk statements that even basic research would have fixed.
> 
> I am sorry that he was both wounded and treated badly by VAC. Perhaps, he should have spoke about what he knows- which is to say what happened to him personally. That would have made a compelling article.



This article sounds more like a ***** fest at the junior ranks mess than a serious opinion piece.  Too bad, it had potential.


----------



## Happy Guy (22 Jan 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The simple truth is that the Government, any government, gives the CF only so much real support as the pubic wants. I'm not talking the flashy commercials and rah-rah speeches. I mean real dollars and cents support. The true blame for underfunding accrues not to the government, but rather to the governed.


I agree and disagree to this comment.
The current government works off public sentiment in order to keep its popular support - concur.
The current government is not supporting veterans as shown by the current VA administration, policies and funding.  There is popular support for Vets but the government is ignoring this.  The new Minister, DM and COS have not made any announcements for positive change.


----------



## upandatom (22 Jan 2015)

BorisK said:
			
		

> Exactly what I needed to read on the day I completed my swearing in ceremony.
> 
> I'm looking at it this way... Even if it my experience in the CF does prove to be less than enjoyable due to the reasons outlined in the article, someone has to do it, so I will do my best to do so with pride regardless of the difficulties.
> 
> ...



Agree with Eye, I had a great go the first  3/4 of my Career, Time and place, some people have great rides, some dont, its how the cards play for you.


----------



## ballz (22 Jan 2015)

For what it's worth, I have troops OTing, not renewing their contract, or outright VRing to my left right and centre, and this article states almost word for word what they have said, and what my current troops are saying.

And I can tell you one thing that is not fiction, that 1 RCR indeed had no LAVs at one point and were doing all training dismounted, and 2 RCR has been in the same boat on a few occasions. In fact, I would argue we have been in that boat for about 1.5 years, less a few occasions.

Personally, I think some of the people in this thread are drinking way too much of the Kool-aid to automatically attack the author.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (22 Jan 2015)

As someone intending to go Regular Force Infantry I'm still willing to take my years of life and work experience into the CAF. I feel that the author of the article is essentially telling others to give up on the military, whereas I believe now is when the best and brightest this country has to offer should be filling the ranks. I am worried that those who have experience aren't all gonna be there to pass that on to NCM and Junior Officer's


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> As someone intending to go Regular Force Infantry I'm still willing to take my years of life and work experience into the CAF. I feel that the author of the article is essentially telling others to give up on the military, whereas I believe now is when the best and brightest this country has to offer should be filling the ranks. I am worried that those who have experience aren't all gonna be there to pass that on to NCM and Junior Officer's



The military is like any other job.  There will be high points and low points.  There are always those who will think that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, and often leave to find out it is not.  One thing that the military, especially the Combat Arms, provides more than any other occupation is lifelong camaraderie.  Like any career, it will be what YOU make it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I have troops OTing, not renewing their contract, or outright VRing to my left right and centre, and this article states almost word for word what they have said, and what my current troops are saying.
> 
> And I can tell you one thing that is not fiction, that 1 RCR indeed had no LAVs at one point and were doing all training dismounted, and 2 RCR has been in the same boat on a few occasions. In fact, I would argue we have been in that boat for about 1.5 years, less a few occasions.
> 
> Personally, I think some of the people in this thread are drinking way too much of the Kool-aid to automatically attack the author.



Like I said, the article had potential but buddy blew it with his partisan political BS.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (22 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The military is like any other job.  There will be high points and low points.  There are always those who will think that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, and often leave to find out it is not.  One thing that the military, especially the Combat Arms, provides more than any other occupation is lifelong camaraderie.  Like any career, it will be what YOU make it.



Definitely and with Suncor cutting 1000+ jobs along with the continuing drop in oil prices I suspect plenty of former CF members will want to return. I do take issue with the author saying joining the CAF should be a last resort; myself and many others I have met have work experience and life experience and are willing to give up the benefits of a civilian job to join. I like to think its the people in the CAF, not the equipment, that make this organization what it is


----------



## TCM621 (22 Jan 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sorry RG, but that does not fly. Bruce was not interviewed- he claims authorship of the op-Ed piece. Therefore, he is responsible for accuracy of the information within the article.  He has some valid points that are buried under a mountain of junk statements that even basic research would have fixed.
> 
> I am sorry that he was both wounded and treated badly by VAC. Perhaps, he should have spoke about what he knows- which is to say what happened to him personally. That would have made a compelling article.


Editors change stuff all the time without asking the author.  It could have been the case here?


----------



## Occam (22 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Like I said, the article had potential but buddy blew it with his partisan political BS.



http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bruce-moncur/remembrance-day-veterans_b_4220830.html

You have to admit, after going through that, and then getting treated the way he did - do you know _anyone_ who wouldn't be partisan by then?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jan 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bruce-moncur/remembrance-day-veterans_b_4220830.html
> 
> You have to admit, after going through that, and then getting treated the way he did - do you know _anyone_ who wouldn't be partisan by then?



A valid point; however, he let his emotions get in the way of his argument.  He also alienated a large portion of his peers that probably would have substantiated his claims had he used a different tone.  He won't last long in politics behaving like that.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> A valid point; however, he let his emotions get in the way of his argument.  He also alienated a large portion of his peers that probably would have substantiated his claims had he used a different tone.  He won't last long in politics behaving like that.



Who of his peers has he alienated ?


----------



## Happy Guy (23 Jan 2015)

It depends - raw emotions or passion can draw people to your side if done correctly.  Judging from what he has written about his injuries and the terrible response from Veteran Affairs I think that I would have acted the same.  I doubt that many people would be able distance themselves from their emotions after this.
Moral outrage is what he wants to solicit from the public in order to fuel support for his campaign.  I feel sorry for what has happened to him and I support his fight against Veterans Affairs but I do not subscribe to NDP's policies.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Like I said, the article had potential but buddy blew it with his partisan political BS.


The best propaganda political statements are always based on a kernel of truth  >

What he's been through _does_ suck - big time - but if he wants to be part of _any_ party political machine (and it's openly disclosed in the op-ed piece), then anything he writes is going to be seen through that lens.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jan 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Who of his peers has he alienated ?



Read some of the comments on Huffpost, bunch of folks calling him out for inaccuracies.  Of course he also had the usual suspects supporting him.  He had the potential to be seen as an actual advocate for veterans, instead he will be seen as an NDP stooge.  He is a reservist corporal with extremely limited knowledge of the inner workings of the institution.  In other words, he is a faux expert and an even worse one than Scott Taylor, who at least has built up some shred of credibility.

What do I think is funny about this?  Is this really the best the NDP can muster?  Liberals hired the former Commander of the Canadian Army and this is what they give us?


----------



## Teager (23 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Read some of the comments on Huffpost, bunch of folks calling him out for inaccuracies.  Of course he also had the usual suspects supporting him.  He had the potential to be seen as an actual advocate for veterans, instead he will be seen as an NDP stooge.  He is a reservist corporal with extremely limited knowledge of the inner workings of the institution.  In other words, he is a faux expert and an even worse one than Scott Taylor, who at least has built up some shred of credibility.
> 
> What do I think is funny about this?  Is this really the best the NDP can muster?  Liberals hired the former Commander of the Canadian Army and this is what they give us?



So because he is lower ranking and a reservist somehow means he has a very limited knowledge of the institution? Hmm so what does that make every politician who has never served in the military  but runs then? The article also focuses on VAC which Bruce has a large knowledge of. Sorry but to judge someone on rank and pull the reservist card is utter bs especially when you don"t know everything about someone. I don't believe I have seen on this forum an article that has been posted and written by the media or former military members that someone isn't calling some sort of bs on.

I guess everyone is there own expert.


----------



## blackberet17 (23 Jan 2015)

Teager said:
			
		

> The article also focuses on VAC which Bruce has a large knowledge of.



I would disagree on the above: he has knowledge only within the scope of his OWN dealings with VAC. He knows of what fell within his arcs, which would not account for a "large" knowledge thereof.

I've been working for VAC for almost ten years, and would never claim to have a large knowledge of the Department. There are many doors here, with many programs and benefits, some I have not worked in yet in said ten years.

My CAF knowledge is also limited to what I have gleaned in my five years of service (to date). Ergo, not large either.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jan 2015)

Teager said:
			
		

> So because he is lower ranking and a reservist somehow means he has a very limited knowledge of the institution? Hmm so what does that make every politician who has never served in the military  but runs then?



Yep, it does.  As for your second question, it makes them politicians.  



> The article also focuses on VAC which Bruce has a large knowledge of. Sorry but to judge someone on rank and pull the reservist card is utter bs especially when you don"t know everything about someone. I don't believe I have seen on this forum an article that has been posted and written by the media or former military members that someone isn't calling some sort of bs on.



He should have stayed in his lane then and commented on Veterans Affairs itself.  Instead he throws out a bunch of cheap shots at the CF, most of which are easily disproven or blatantly untrue.    

I feel bad about how he was treated by VAC but take that up with them, don't drag our organization through the mud just to promote your own agenda.  

This guy is now a charlatan in my eyes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Yep, it does.  As for your second question, it makes them politicians.
> 
> He should have stayed in his lane then and commented on Veterans Affairs itself.  Instead he throws out a bunch of cheap shots at the CF, most of which are easily disproven or blatantly untrue.
> 
> ...



You're entitled to your opinion of course, I'll not try change that. Bruce is also entitled to his.

To me he's an injured brother that is trying to overcome immense physical and mental problems and odds. He is moving on and trying to make a difference, whether you agree with his methods and reasoning or not. That's all fair ball and he gets my utmost support for it.

However, what I won't tolerate, opinions aside, are assholes that call him names and treat him with the utmost disrespect and animosity for his beliefs. That includes those that want to banter about his grammar or forgetting detail and names. Lose part of your brain and see how you make out.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Yep, it does.  As for your second question, it makes them politicians.
> 
> He should have stayed in his lane then and commented on Veterans Affairs itself.  Instead he throws out a bunch of cheap shots at the CF, most of which are easily disproven or blatantly untrue.
> 
> ...



I see it differently.  He didn't take shots at the CAF and its members IMHO.  He took shots that the GOC for its conduct as the control and employment mechanism which governs the CAF.  

I don't feel he shone a poor light on those of us in the CAF.


----------



## TCM621 (23 Jan 2015)

Teager said:
			
		

> So because he is lower ranking and a reservist somehow means he has a very limited knowledge of the institution? Hmm so what does that make every politician who has never served in the military  but runs then? The article also focuses on VAC which Bruce has a large knowledge of. Sorry but to judge someone on rank and pull the reservist card is utter bs especially when you don"t know everything about someone. I don't believe I have seen on this forum an article that has been posted and written by the media or former military members that someone isn't calling some sort of bs on.
> 
> I guess everyone is there own expert.


Some people have reflexive need to discredit people say bad things about the military. They see people who bring up points like this as the enemy who hate the military. Look at my post history, I have said some pretty critical things about the way we do business. However, I really do love this institution and will probably only leave when they show my old butt the door. Speaking out for change can be done from a place of hope rather than just sour grapes.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jan 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're entitled to your opinion of course, I'll not try change that. Bruce is also entitled to his.
> 
> To me he's an injured brother that is trying to overcome immense physical and mental problems and odds. He is moving on and trying to make a difference, whether you agree with his methods and reasoning or not. That's all fair ball and he gets my utmost support for it.
> 
> However, what I won't tolerate, opinions aside, are assholes that call him names and treat him with the utmost disrespect and animosity for his beliefs. That includes those that want to banter about his grammar or forgetting detail and names. Lose part of your brain and see how you make out.



I do feel bad for him for what he went through, however, he has presented an argument which has stretched the truth in some instances and blatantly lied in others.  He has used deception to further an agenda, that is the very definition of a charlatan which is why I called him one.

Contrast this, with a guy like Major Mark Campbell who sticks to the facts, uses the proper channels i.e. the legal system, and is probably going to make a far larger difference for Veterans.  Now that is a man I can stand behind.



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Some people have reflexive need to discredit people say bad things about the military. They see people who bring up points like this as the enemy who hate the military. Look at my post history, I have said some pretty critical things about the way we do business. However, I really do love this institution and will probably only leave when they show my old butt the door. Speaking out for change can be done from a place of hope rather than just sour grapes.



See my above post, I don't have problems with anyone speaking up but speak to facts, not to half truths and false-argumentations.  In other words, act like the professional soldier you are trained to be.


----------



## upandatom (23 Jan 2015)

I have read the article several times. Yes it is along the lines of being a very This is my political agenda piece"

But I dont recall him Making the CAF members look like poor soldiers, more of the opposite of doing their jobs the best they can despite funding. 

More of the GoC is taking away critical components with budgetary restraints. 

Thats how I see it.


And yes, VAC needs a kick in the ass too.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jan 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I see it differently.  He didn't take shots at the CAF and its members IMHO.  He took shots that the GOC for its conduct as the control and employment mechanism which governs the CAF.
> 
> I don't feel he shone a poor light on those of us in the CAF.



I just went back and re-read the article and read it twice just to make sure I got the gist of what he was saying.  

Your absolutely right that he didn't take a cheap shot at the CAF specifically and I will retract my above comment, ref "cheap shots"

However, he still presented a series of false arguments and half-truths so I stand by what I said about him being a charlatan.

Again, contrast his "Opinion Piece" with a guy like Major Mark Campbell's who sticks to facts and uses the legal system to fight the good fight.  Now that is a man I can stand behind.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> What do I think is funny about this?  Is this really the best the NDP can muster?  Liberals hired the former Commander of the Canadian Army and this is what they give us?



Whom the Liberals have trotted out doesn't impress me any more than this man does you.  Mr. Leslie, is lame and I honestly shudder at the thought of the Dauphin getting in and having him as his MND.  Makes my skin crawl, the thought does.


----------



## Occam (23 Jan 2015)

The alternatives to what we have right now don't particularly impress me, either.  I'll be the guy in the voting booth holding his nose, while thinking "Change > Status quo" the whole time.  I'm ready to give someone else a shot...not sure who, but that'll depend on what unfolds before the election.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2015)

I'm buggered if I know what to do for once in an election.  I don't really like any of the choices put before me.  It may come down to the lessor of the three evils.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jan 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Whom the Liberals have trotted out doesn't impress me any more than this man does you.  Mr. Leslie, is lame and I honestly shudder at the thought of the Dauphin getting in and having him as his MND.  Makes my skin crawl, the thought does.



The man doesn't impress me at all, it's more so his credentials which carry a certain amount of credibility and weight when he speaks.  

Politicians are all cut from the same cloth regardless of what party they are from or platform they support.  They will say and do whatever they need to in order to get elected.  I don't like any of them as they lack honor, however, they are unfortunately a necessary evil.  

I am interested to see what will happen to DND if Leslie gets elected and is appointed MND.  Probably be similar to when Gordon O'Connor was MND i.e. "I don't need to listen to my advisers, I used to be a General, I know best!"


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm buggered if I know what to do for once in an election.  I don't really like any of the choices put before me.  It may come down to the lessor of the three evils.



Imagine if the whole nation decided NOT TO VOTE.   >


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2015)

I have no doubt that he would be running roughshod over everyone and then some.  God, how I hate that guy.  Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see him fall flat on his face so hard he knocks out his chicklets.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Imagine if the whole nation decided NOT TO VOTE.   >


That thought has crossed my mind as a serious option.


----------



## upandatom (23 Jan 2015)

Whole nation not voting would never happen. 

As a nation the only thing we riot and protest it seems is hockey losses and celebratory riots for hockey victories. That's the organizational capacity we have when it comes to nation wide events.


----------



## blackberet17 (23 Jan 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That thought has crossed my mind as a serious option.



While voter apathy is low, it is not THAT low


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jan 2015)

Mine damn near is.


----------



## blackberet17 (23 Jan 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Mine damn near is.



Recce Hugs!

 ;D


----------



## cavalryman (23 Jan 2015)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Recce Hugs!
> 
> ;D


Is that PO part of Rear Area Security  ;D


----------



## YZT580 (23 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I am interested to see what will happen to DND if Leslie gets elected and is appointed MND.  Probably be similar to when Gordon O'Connor was MND i.e. "I don't need to listen to my advisers, I used to be a General, I know best!"


 I sincerely and earnestly pray that you never get the chance


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jan 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> I sincerely and earnestly pray that you never get the chance



Why?  I like watching MAD TV  ;D


----------



## Marauder (23 Jan 2015)

While I utterly disagree with Bruce on his choice of political affiliates (it's hard to express just how deep the unions and Red socialism run in Windsor, though) I will back him to the wall to speak out, especially on his horseshit treatment from VAC after being catastrophically injured in service to this country. The fact that he can walk and speak again, let alone be part of a meeting with a Minister, to discuss the issue of the regional VAC office closures, is a huge victory and testament to his grit. He always loved his brother and sisters in green, but given his treatment by the CF and VAC in the aftermath of his being injured, I can understand his antipathy and deep disappointment towards both institutions.

One other note; we went through QL2/3 at the same time (different training platoons), and put up CPL and walked the gauntlet around the same time. I was still with the unit when he got strafed by the A-10 over in the sand. A lot (a lot) of our cohort ended up in a diaspora across a multitude of MOSIDs, commands, units, and ranks. If you want to think some toon two hook doesn't have primary sources for what goes on across the breadth of DND, feel free, but it's entirely possible you are only telling yourself the story you want to hear.


----------



## brihard (23 Jan 2015)

EDT: No, you know what, I've got a strong and harsh opinion, but nothing is made better by further putting it out than I already have. To any who read what I had posted, I'll stand by it, but after cooling off on this for a few days I feel better about not going after a fellow vet - however strongly I disagree - than I do by throwing my unnecessary two cents in.

I disagree with him strongly and have spoken harshly of this elsewhere. As a person and a vet, I wish him well and I really should shut myself down at that. As I think on it, that's more important.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jan 2015)

Marauder said:
			
		

> While I utterly disagree with Bruce on his choice of political affiliates (it's hard to express just how deep the unions and Red socialism run in Windsor, though) I will back him to the wall to speak out, especially on his horseshit treatment from VAC after being catastrophically injured in service to this country. The fact that he can walk and speak again, let alone be part of a meeting with a Minister, to discuss the issue of the regional VAC office closures, is a huge victory and testament to his grit. He always loved his brother and sisters in green, but given his treatment by the CF and VAC in the aftermath of his being injured, I can understand his antipathy and deep disappointment towards both institutions.
> 
> One other note; we went through QL2/3 at the same time (different training platoons), and put up CPL and walked the gauntlet around the same time. I was still with the unit when he got strafed by the A-10 over in the sand. A lot (a lot) of our cohort ended up in a diaspora across a multitude of MOSIDs, commands, units, and ranks. If you want to think some toon two hook doesn't have primary sources for what goes on across the breadth of DND, feel free, but it's entirely possible you are only telling yourself the story you want to hear.



Marauder, I would support and follow Mr. Moncur to the end of the earth if he presented an argument that was backed up with facts.  Instead, he presents a series of half truths and false argumentations in order to further his own political career.  It has nothing to do with telling myself the story I want to hear.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2015)

Marauder said:
			
		

> While I utterly disagree with Bruce on his choice of political affiliates (it's hard to express just how deep the unions and Red socialism run in Windsor, though) I will back him to the wall to speak out, especially on his horseshit treatment from VAC after being catastrophically injured in service to this country. The fact that he can walk and speak again, let alone be part of a meeting with a Minister, to discuss the issue of the regional VAC office closures, is a huge victory and testament to his grit. He always loved his brother and sisters in green, but given his treatment by the CF and VAC in the aftermath of his being injured, I can understand his antipathy and deep disappointment towards both institutions.
> 
> One other note; we went through QL2/3 at the same time (different training platoons), and put up CPL and walked the gauntlet around the same time. I was still with the unit when he got strafed by the A-10 over in the sand. A lot (a lot) of our cohort ended up in a diaspora across a multitude of MOSIDs, commands, units, and ranks. If you want to think some toon two hook doesn't have primary sources for what goes on across the breadth of DND, feel free, but it's entirely possible you are only telling yourself the story you want to hear.



 :goodpost:

Great post Marauder. Let me know the next time you're coming to town and we can go do some shooting and drink some beer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2015)

Perhaps if I can highlight a few of the things that I took issue with, it might be easier to see where some of us were not as supportive as others after reading the article.



> It has gotten so bad that the Canadian forces has lowered their physical fitness standard



We went from EXPRES to FORCE.  There was no lowering of PT standards.



> The submarines that don't float or sink.



I don't think that is a fair statement towards those in our Submarine Service, despite the problems of the past decade.  Take a look at Page 2 of the Trident, June 2008. 



> The F-18s are 40 years old -- a full two generations removed from being relevant.



I will let some links do the talking here.  

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3



> It seems that more Sea Kings are falling out of the sky lately than Geese in the month of October.



While there have been some Seakings that have landed away from homeplate, is this not a little over the top?


And lastly, these are the ones that I took strong exception to.  While maybe not intended to be, these are *against* the CAF directly the way I read them.  They certainly aren't flattering by any means and if the author intended to make the finger point at the government and VAC, the final summary sees those of us still in uniform at the end of the pointed finger, IMO.



> *Advice to any perspective enlistee that they explore all other options first. Only as a last ditch effort should you consider joining the Canadian Forces*.





> If you so choose to wear the same uniform that so many great men and women did generations before it would behoove you to not be a hero for the sake of you and your family's wellbeing. The decade of darkness has given way to the generation of disgrace.



Not sure how that last part was intended to come across, but...I guess we'll never know.  I for one, don't consider this generation of serving CAF members 'a generation of disgrace'.  Maybe I am reading it in the wrong context.

I believe there is such a thing as the wrong way to convey the right message, and that seems to be what happened here.

*Last Point* - where does the finger REALLY need to be pointed as to the state of the CAF;  to our government, or to the people who elect it???  If they really cared about the CAF and things happening outside our borders, then the government might listen to that message.  I think the government is listening to the message of Joe and Jane Taxpayer and they aren't talking about "more support to the military".   :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2015)

Marauder said:
			
		

> If you want to think some toon two hook doesn't have primary sources for what goes on across the breadth of DND, feel free, but it's entirely possible you are only telling yourself the story you want to hear.



It's also entirely possible the info of these 'primary sources from across the breadth of DND" are providing partial, or even inaccurate, information.  And that maybe, sometimes, an author is only hearing what he/she wants to hear.  In this case, it seemed to be all "Henny Penny/Doom and gloom".  While I agree there is some doom and gloom, it certainly isn't all 100% FUBAR.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jan 2015)

I got into a debate about this story off-line so figured I'd see how my views fare here too.  

Starting off with a bit of a side bar. Maybe not so much here but in a few places I frequent there seems to be a view that the opinions CF members who are injured (especially Afghanistan) somehow hold more weight in debates.  I had a good friend who was injured in the same attack the author was who has had a pretty shitty go and pretty shitty treatment from the CF. We've talked about it a few times and it's really left me disheartened.  I don't think his views on the CF, outside of being injured, are anymore astute than anyone elses.

I also know someone else who was injured in this attack who seems to think it gives him not only incredible insight to all things CF related but that his opinion, as an injured vet, is way more important and enlightened than everyone else.  He's quite obnoxious to listen to.


Moving on to this story I agree with some of the points and disagree with others.

First I think it's a stupid opinion that people shouldn't join the CF because of the reasons he mentioned.  His big angle (or one of them) is that we don't have enough people so he suggests people furthermore shouldn't join the CF?   Sure.

We get more than 49 rounds per soldier.  49 rounds wouldn't even be enough to qualify a soldier for the specific level of training they're talking about (PWT3).  There is other mandatory live fire shoots that soldiers are required to do in order for officers and units to get the yearly checks in the box.    The biggest problem with ammo is that there is a disconnect between how much ammo we request to do training and how many soldiers are available for the training.  Ordering enough ammo for 120 soldiers and having less than 20 show up for the range just turns it into administrative BS with jiggling the ammo around.  There's still a mentality that we have to use whatever ammo we have, even if it's wasting it, in order to get more ammo next year.

The LAVs, well ya. Maintenance costs a lot.   If troops were out in LAVs every day week after week month after month then they'd just turn around and bitch and complain that they're working too much- and we'd be treated to stories about over worked soldiers.

In wainwright LAVs were driving around with no soldiers in the back because we don't have enough soldiers to put in the back. 

No units deployed to Afghanistan in a light infantry role? Wrong of course.   I don't think people realize how vehicle intensive "light infantry" can be either. 

Not enough soldiers for parades in reserve units? that's nothing new.  A friend of mine was just telling me they went on a weekend exercise with the reserves and only had 4 soldiers.  They also had a LT-Col, Maj, 2 Captains,  CWO, MWO, WO, and 2 Sgts.
Brigade ex's are just as bad, and soldiers get treated even worse.
On the other side of troops getting treated like shit some troops, namely Afghan vets, some  get a prima-donna complex and feel most if not all reserve training is below them.   Weekend doing basic winter warfare? Pfft, they want to apply for close protection, CJIRU, PSYOP courses or go on a jammy enemy force weekend tasking with their tour chest rigs and live large.

Poor equipment I agree with 100%.   No winter boots. Constantly out of clothing sizes. Tons of short falls.  But we will still charge someone for wearing a toque with no gloves on.


Going to Afghanistan I was never worried about how I would be treated if I was injured, I had unshakable faith.  Now in light of how vets are treated?  Deploying into a war zone would be a huge worry for me because I'm not confident the CF or VA would take care of me.


I'm not sure what the authors angle is. I think he's accurate with some observations, inaccurate with others.   NOT joining the Canadian forces isn't a way to defend our freedom or even prove a point.  I wouldn't vote for someone who's platform is to essentially leave Canada without a military.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jan 2015)

> Ir'm not sure what the authors angle is. I think he's accurate with some observations, inaccurate with others.   NOT joining the Canadian forces isn't a way to defend our freedom or even prove a point.  I wouldn't vote for someone who's platform is to essentially leave Canada without a military.



It's the inaccuracies that I am concerned about.  As you say, some people who are Vets think that somehow qualifies them as an expert on all things military related and gives them carte blanche to run their mouths about anything and anyone.  I don't claim to be an expert, rather I stick with what I know and what is backed up by verifiable information.  If Mr. Moncur truly believes what he wrote than I challenge him to refute anything I or anyone else has said against his article.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jan 2015)

One of the first things I noticed clicking on the link in the OP was how he identifies himself.  Former soldier.  Obviously there's nothing wrong with that but in my opinion most non-military people will automatically think okay he knows what he's talking about and be a subject matter expert if you will.  I'd imagine civilians will be predisposed to not question his "facts" such as the 49 rounds a year.   By the time inaccuracies have been pointed out, referenced and corrected people have already spent their 15 seconds raging over a story, not doing any research, making a quick inflamatory comment and then moving on to the next story to get outraged about for 15 seconds.


What really stood out to me was that he has a BA in history which mean's he's educated and knows how to conduct research. He's not a dummy.   I've wrote an article for a news paper and by the time it made it to print I couldn't even recognize my own work, it was edited and changed into something totally different.  The same thing as all of us go through with writing PDRs and PERs. (Hand over my heart I had to modify one of my soldiers PERs 24 times).    It's just a guess but I'm inclined to think that this guys story was edited, edited and edited some more so much that inaccuracies popped up and were expanded on.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jan 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> One of the first things I noticed clicking on the link in the OP was how he identifies himself.  Former soldier.  Obviously there's nothing wrong with that but in my opinion most non-military people will automatically think okay he knows what he's talking about and be a subject matter expert if you will.  I'd imagine civilians will be predisposed to not question his "facts" such as the 49 rounds a year.   By the time inaccuracies have been pointed out, referenced and corrected people have already spent their 15 seconds raging over a story, not doing any research, making a quick inflamatory comment and then moving on to the next story to get outraged about for 15 seconds.
> 
> 
> What really stood out to me was that he has a BA in history which mean's he's educated and knows how to conduct research. He's not a dummy.   I've wrote an article for a news paper and by the time it made it to print I couldn't even recognize my own work, it was edited and changed into something totally different.  The same thing as all of us go through with writing PDRs and PERs. (Hand over my heart I had to modify one of my soldiers PERs 24 times).    It's just a guess but I'm inclined to think that this guys story was edited, edited and edited some more so much that inaccuracies popped up and were expanded on.



This may be but he is still ultimately responsible for anything that is put out with his name attached to it.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> This may be but he is still ultimately responsible for anything that is put out with his name attached to it.



As someone who has been published (and paid for it) on several occasions, I am left with the impression that the piece was not edited very much, if at all. 

As an example, what is the author trying to say in the following passage? It contains several contradictory themes.



> Another unit that has paved the way for Canadian freedom and democracy is that of the Royal Canadian Regiment or the RCR. 1 and 3 RCR are posted to Petawawa, Ontario. 1RCR was a mechanized infantry unit until recently when it began training as a light infantry unit again. This was not a tactical decision but a budgetary one. The maintenance and upkeep of the LAVIII vehicles is too much for the unit and has caused their fleet to be grounded. If you go to the base you can see the LAVS sitting there under piles of snow. Recent wars have shown that mechanized infantry has been proven to be essential to modern warfare.
> 
> To my knowledge there were no Canadian units that deployed to Kandahar in a light infantry role. This is just like the lack of ammunition to train with. The ability to be an effective force is conducive to being able to operate with the equipment required to do ones job. If the soldiers are not able to use the LAVs then their confidence in operating them is reduced and the overall effectiveness is greatly diminished. [Unquote]


----------



## Monsoon (24 Jan 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What really stood out to me was that he has a BA in history which mean's he's educated and knows how to conduct research. He's not a dummy.   I've wrote an article for a news paper and by the time it made it to print I couldn't even recognize my own work, it was edited and changed into something totally different.  The same thing as all of us go through with writing PDRs and PERs. (Hand over my heart I had to modify one of my soldiers PERs 24 times).    It's just a guess but I'm inclined to think that this guys story was edited, edited and edited some more so much that inaccuracies popped up and were expanded on.


HufPo is a essentially a blog service; they screen the people they let host blogs there to a degree, but there is no editing of content to speak of. You're right that the writer is no fool and that he has both the experience and tools needed to write a factual article. In this case he chose not to use them, and decided instead to write a deliberately disingenuous piece intended to misinform the general public and tarnish the image of the CAF for political reasons. If he was once a private, he's now entirely a politician; he should be treated as such.


----------



## cryco (24 Jan 2015)

So as someone on the outside trying to get in, I should take his article with a grain of salt?
No truth to his words? Mostly true? Is the CAF undermanned? Underfunded? Under-equipped? Treats their wounded and vets poorly?


----------



## stealthylizard (24 Jan 2015)

As far as the "49 rounds a year" bit goes, I wouldn't doubt it. When I graduated Infantry DP1 in Sept 08, to the time I deployed to Afghanistan in Sept 09, I had fired just enough live rounds to zero my C-7 prior to it being bagged and shipped overseas.  Even blank rounds wasn't much better.  Less than 2 mags fired during work-up training.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jan 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> As far as the "49 rounds a year" bit goes, I wouldn't doubt it. When I graduated Infantry DP1 in Sept 08, to the time I deployed to Afghanistan in Sept 09, I had fired just enough live rounds to zero my C-7 prior to it being bagged and shipped overseas.  Even blank rounds wasn't much better.  Less than 2 mags fired during work-up training.



You deployed to Afghanistan as an infantry soldier in a rifle company without doing live fire pairs, section, platoon and company attacks in training?
You never trained live fire room and house clearing, or taking out a trench?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jan 2015)

cryco said:
			
		

> So as someone on the outside trying to get in, I should take his article with a grain of salt?
> No truth to his words? Mostly true? Is the CAF undermanned? Underfunded? Under-equipped? Treats their wounded and vets poorly?



Listen, there is no question that Bruce Moncur was hard done by and I am sorry for what happened to him.  However, what he has presented in his blog is a misinformation piece.  He is a member of the NDP and is towing the party line now as he is one of their candidates.  I'm not saying take what he is saying with a grain of salt, rather understand where he is coming from and maybe contrast that with some stuff you have read here and then formulate your own opinion.

The military is a large organization and for every person you hear saying it sucked and I never want to be part of that organization again, you'll get another person saying it was awesome and the best time of their life.

Only you can decide if you think it's the right fit for you.


----------



## stealthylizard (24 Jan 2015)

> You deployed to Afghanistan as an infantry soldier in a rifle company without doing live fire pairs, section, platoon and company attacks in training?
> You never trained live fire room and house clearing, or taking out a trench?



I was deployed as part of Tpt, with Admin Coy. I never took part in any live fire training during work up training.  I got to do some of that fun stuff after I returned to Canada, when I was posted back to 3VP. I didn't even have IPSWQ until after I came back.

Edit: I had the pleasure of helping set up and clean up the ranges for the other companies after their live fire training was completed.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Listen, there is no question that Bruce Moncur was hard done by and I am sorry for what happened to him.  However, what he has presented in his blog is a misinformation piece.  He is a member of the NDP and is towing the party line now as he is one of their candidates.  I'm not saying take what he is saying with a grain of salt, rather understand where he is coming from and maybe contrast that with some stuff you have read here and then formulate your own opinion.
> 
> The military is a large organization and for every person you hear saying it sucked and I never want to be part of that organization again, you'll get another person saying it was awesome and the best time of their life.
> 
> Only you can decide if you think it's the right fit for you.



This is a pretty good way to sum the debate in this thread up.  I'm watching soldiers in this Army shooting monthly, doing cool things and generally keeping up to speed in what they are supposed to.  Is everything perfect?  Nope.  Is everyone happy?  Nope - but nobody ever is.  Mileage may vary, but it could be a lot worse.  The original author is not doing anyone any favours by saying "no one should join the Canadian Forces".


----------



## cryco (24 Jan 2015)

Ok, so that's what I think as well from all the reading I've done here.
The thread about using museum parts for repairs, and the reserve recruit that didn't get boots issued are not the norm. I understand that.
I've also read that some of our jets and copters are generations old, they banned alcohol on ships and some coys have idiots as leaders (through their actions, but that happens everywhere).
 But there are too many people on here that have had great experiences, seem to be able to help out folks as long as they do some research and can write properly and you ALWAYS help each other out by quoting CANFORGENs (whatever that is) and regulations to get through some sticky situations.
Lots of heated opinions which show  that you are passionate about the CAF and make me want to know more.
So, yea, it's a little unsettling to read something like that because it's sad to know that the bloated powers that be (only saying what i've read) don't see what's going on, or just don't do shit about it. Won't stop me from  trying to get in.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jan 2015)

I have had some of the very best times of my life in the military.  But, I have also had some of the most wretched times of my life here too.  Hopefully the good outweighs the bad at the end of the run.  I'm sure that most everyone else here can say more or less the same.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jan 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have had some of the very best times of my life in the military.  But, I have also had some of the most wretched times of my life here too.  Hopefully the good outweighs the bad at the end of the run.  I'm sure that most everyone else here can say more or less the same.


That goes for me as well.

One thing I have to say is that the CF is light years ahead of most organizations for family support for those who have had a family member fall.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> That goes for me as well.
> 
> One thing I have to say is that the CF is light years ahead of most organizations for family support for those who have had a family member fall.



I suppose it's been a sad necessity that most everyone else has not had to develop.  I do hope, Hamish, that they were there enough for you and your wife when you lost Mike.  I can't think, however, of any other organization that would have enabled you to journey to KAF and visit as you did when I met you.  

I have partaken in the return of the fallen from getting the Chapel ready for the visitation, to the Ramp Ceremony both in KAF and at Mirage to lastly accompanying 6 members home to Trenton where they were given to their respective families.  It all was done with the greatest love and respect for the fallen members and families.  I shall never forget those moments and they are, both, the best and worst of times that I have experienced in my career.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew, and others et al,

You're all absolutely right. I let my emotions get the better of me. It was definitely over the top and totally undeserved for RoyalDrew. I was wrong to call his professionalism and loyalty into question. Every person here is entitled to their opinion and I should not have let my friendship with the author of the article cloud my judgment. Again, I apologize without condition. 

I'll top my mea culpa with a self imposed sanction and will remain on listening silence for awhile.

rg


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jan 2015)

My favourite quote:

Q: "Why did you join the infantry?"

A: "Because I get the blow things up and kill people"

That is all  :nod:


----------



## TCM621 (25 Jan 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> RoyalDrew, and others et al,
> 
> You're all absolutely right. I let my emotions get the better of me. It was definitely over the top and totally undeserved for RoyalDrew. I was wrong to call his professionalism and loyalty into question. Every person here is entitled to their opinion and I should not have let my friendship with the author of the article cloud my judgment. Again, I apologize without condition.
> 
> ...


Good post. At the end of the day we are all part of the same family and we all want what's best for that family. We can sometimes get a little heated when some of these discussions hit close to home.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jan 2015)

cryco said:
			
		

> Ok, so that's what I think as well from all the reading I've done here.
> The thread about using museum parts for repairs, and the reserve recruit that didn't get boots issued are not the norm. I understand that.
> I've also read that some of our jets and copters are generations old, they banned alcohol on ships and some coys have idiots as leaders (through their actions, but that happens everywhere).
> But there are too many people on here that have had great experiences, seem to be able to help out folks as long as they do some research and can write properly and you ALWAYS help each other out by quoting CANFORGENs (whatever that is) and regulations to get through some sticky situations.
> ...



Infanteer's point about "your mileage may vary" is incredibly true, and relevant to anyone's consideration to join the military.  There are all sorts of shortfalls in the CAF, ranging from equipment to policies to personal support levels, and it is absolutely understandable that someone who has had more difficulties, frictions or frustrations during their service should wish to express their discontent with, at the end of the day, the organization that they chose, in good faith, to serve within.

As do others, I have a great deal of empathy for Mr. Moncur.  He served in good faith and was horribly injured and he was right to expect that he be cared for appropriately.  I give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he was not looked after in the manner that he and others would reasonably expect to be.  It gives cause for one, either still serving or thinking about joining, to consider whether they would be looked after if they were injured.

That said, several serving members have pointed out inconsistencies with, and/or explanations for issues that Mr. Moncur uses to dissuade those who may be considering a career or even a short period of service in the CAF.  In the air force, the C-17 Globemaster, C-130J Hercules and CH-147F Chinook represent brand new, very capable additions to CAF equipment.  Leopard 2 tanks and LAV 6.0 for the Army.  Navy a bit longer lead time, but Canadian Surface Combatant coming as with (arguably problematic) AOPS, etc..., so it's not al doom and gloom for (large) equipment.

It would be nice to see personal support match the equipment-related investment, as it seems this is an area that the Government has some work to do.  Does this make the CAF a "stay away at all costs" proposition?  IMO no, but as others have said, your mileage may vary.  Wishing you all the best with your career, no matter how long it may last.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## JS2218 (25 Jan 2015)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> HufPo is a essentially a blog service; they screen the people they let host blogs there to a degree, but there is no editing of content to speak of.



This should be clarified. There is the "news" part of the Huffington Post, where paid reporters report on the news. There is *also* the "blog" part of the Huffington Post, where unpaid, selected people can publish blogs with their opinions. Usually opinion bloggers are not allowed to cross into reporting "news" and vice versa.

The author of this piece is obviously expressing an "opinion," but by using his credentials could be mistaken by the public as someone knowledgeable (a SME, as someone said earlier). Such is the risk of today's electronic news agencies.


----------



## Scott (25 Jan 2015)

Posts concerning one guy being an asshole to another have been removed. I did this and if you have an issue with that then PM me. 

It's been sorted between the parties.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (25 Jan 2015)

Given how many people are trying to get into the CAF I doubt this article will have any bearing on one's decision whether or not to join up. All it does is spread misinformation about the CAF and gives ammunition for those that hate the thought of themselves or their family members joining the military. I remember two summers ago when the RCN had ville de Quebec here along with a ship from the US Coast Guard in Toronto one of the guys in front of me in the line to get in had no idea we HAD a Navy. I'm sure any journalist worth their salt knows how little the Canadian public knows about our military and this author doesn't help it


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jan 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Given how many people are trying to get into the CAF I doubt this article will have any bearing on one's decision whether or not to join up. All it does is spread misinformation about the CAF and gives ammunition for those that hate the thought of themselves or their family members joining the military. I remember two summers ago when the RCN had ville de Quebec here along with a ship from the US Coast Guard in Toronto one of the guys in front of me in the line to get in had no idea we HAD a Navy. I'm sure any journalist worth their salt knows how little the Canadian public knows about our military and this author doesn't help it



Based on how I managed to attract women at one point on my (single) life, the best way to get people to want to do something is to tell them NOT to  ;D


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (25 Jan 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Based on how I managed to attract women at one point on my (single) life, the best way to get people to want to do something is to tell them NOT to  ;D



If I went by that logic I'd be trying to join as an Infantry Officer   Although there is nothing wrong with that


----------

