# Tigers - Extinct, on "Death Watch", or ... ?



## bossi (20 Apr 2005)

I'm launching this one to counter-attack the "blahs" (and waking at 0230 hrs ...).

On one hand, "we live in interesting times" ... to quote an intriguing curse.
However, as I watch "office chameleons" around me start mindlessly reciting buzz words as they rush to get on board the Army Transformation gravy train ... I wonder ... now that the Army is finally starting to come around to my way of thinking ... how do we discern, and separate the opportunists from those who truly "get it"?

We're still infected by some of the institutional dry rot that has set in over a period of ... decades.
There are still people lurking in the system who are the epitomy of what LCol Nicholson was attacking when he penned "Where Have All The Tigers Gone?" http://members.tripod.com/RegimentalRogue/papers/oldtiger.htm

Just the other day, I was disgusted to walk by the barber and overhear a familiar voice talking about "take home pay" ... only to discover there was nobody in the barber's chair, and this particular oxygen thief was just sitting there during duty hours, expounding upon ... something I doubt was particularly useful to "the war effort" ...

Thus, I wonder what ethos we are encouraging (not ethics - I mean the warrior ethos).
For example, I look around me and wonder ...

At one point, I found myself musing about changes I'd make to the PER system - specifically, when I was writing a character reference recently I found myself penning the words "I trust this man with my life" and it hit me - when was the last time you saw that on a PER (i.e. instead of mind-numbing pap such as "sold more cookies for United Way" or the ever popular "punched his ticket by pretending to improve himself by taking a correspondence course" ...)?

It's not "all about me", but ... I'll use my example simply because it's not hypothetical.
I don't drink and drive.  I haven't pulled the charade of pretending to transfer to a unit outside of Toronto in order to qualify for PLD.  I take a genuine interest in the morale and well-being of those around me (even if they aren't my subordinates for PER purposes ...).  I'm qualified cbt tm comd and MCSC, apparently somebody in Kabul thought I did a good job on Roto 0, but ... I ended up unemployed while others continued their uninterrupted contracts (even though they're unable to even do the BFT ...).  Even more entertaining, I can document so many examples of suggestions that were dismissed derisively by office chameleons ... but then were adopted by higher-ups (i.e. Tigers) - but, does anybody ever stop and note these failures of supposed "streamers" ... ?  Sadly, no.

And so, I wonder ... what are we encouraging?

I'm not particularly well-read, but some things are like that Kylie Minogue song "Can't Get You Out Of My Head" (chuckle) - in this instance, a passage from Jack English's "On Infantry" when he spoke of "Auftragstaktik" (unfortunately my hard copy is buried somewhere, but again I can thank the Regimental Rogue for this thoroughness ...).
http://members.tripod.com/RegimentalRogue/papers/auftrags.htm

Sure - there's a time and a place for everything, and there's a difference between questioning and challenging authority, but ... QR&O's actually state that when there's a conflict in loyalty, the nod goes to the higher (i.e. loyalty to the Army is supposed to trump slavish loyalties to middle managers who are actually disloyal to our ethos itself ... which kinda reminds me of the Star Trek episode when Kirk says "everything I say is a lie", but ... I digress ...).

And so, I'd appreciate hearing from you.
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of ... debate.


----------



## Haggis (20 Apr 2005)

Being that I have been alternatively described as:

- a Tiger;
- a Gorilla;
- a Dinosaur;
- a relic;
- an anachronism; and 
- "weathered";

I'm really curious to see where this will go.

Personally I don't think Tigers are extinct yet, but they are an endangered species.  Some (not all) the language used in the Defence Policy Statement of yesterday gives me hope that the CF may attempt re-population of it's Tigers, hopefully at the expense of some sheep.

Tigers bred in captivity (HQ's) are no match for their wild bred (field) comrades.  In fact, one cannot captive breed a Tiger and expect it to survive in the wild.  Even Tigers who are born wild and then placed in (posted to) captivity will lose some of their ability to hunt and lead.  The longer they remain in captivity, the worse this becomes until the Tiger is no longer a predator but a CADPAT clad house cat, lazing about in the warm sunshine in front of a 17th floor window, purring contentedly until the time comes for it to persistently hamper it's owner in a vain attempt for recognition and affection. (Cat owners will understand this.)

All Tigers can still be trained to do tricks (such as platoon attacks, battle runs, opposed crossings, raids, NEO etc.). But any Tiger who does not practise their tricks will soon forget how to do them.  I believe you can teach a captive bred Tiger to do the same tricks but they, too, must practise and practise again.

Tigers must also be properly fed.  The healthiest Tigers survive on a diet of fun, challenge and adrenaline.  How much of this diet is supplied to captive Tigers who exist in a cage (cubicle) surrounded by donut fed sheep, old goats, snakes and hippos?  Not much.

Tigers must also be disciplined.  That way they don't attack without provocation and are not a hazard for their handlers (superiors) to be around.  As a result, a competent tiger will not only know how and where to hunt, but when.  Captive bred Tigers could be more apt to go beyond the boundaries set by their handlers as the experience of the hunt and kill is more of a novelty to them than to wild Tigers.

Lastly, handlers must realize that working with Tigers is a dangerous profession.  Eventually you will get clawed, and it's not going to be entirely the Tiger's fault.

The place to breed and train Tigers is in the wild.

(With apologies to National Geographic...)


----------



## 54/102 CEF (20 Apr 2005)

If we look at this from the point of view of a Bell Curve

There are a group of the sample to the left of the centre line - who should be shown the door - no questions asked - NOW

There are a group to the far right who should be promoted - NOW

There is a group in the middle at Col rank and above - who should give up their BS performance pay to prove they still think objectively about soldiering - NOW. 

Next year we repeat that exercise. I think its in place south of the border.

Make 30% of the forces very short term - 3 years max - only 5% move forward at all ranks. I understand that this would upset a lot of cosy relationships. This will rapidly get a lot of people into civvy life who have had a very enjoyable time with the Forces and can act as the 5th column to support more resources. Its also lays a strong bed for a future mass call-up - or a continued need for manpower.

Now you're going to get natural selection rather than "The loyal tribesman does not like change ....... ". Change can only happen when a government faces mass threats - eg - German Army on the Cap Griz Nez across from Dover. We are not in that posn so - this is a new script with a few of the same old actors. I'm talking all services vs just the part before the .CA on this website.

Car dealers do this every month. :threat:


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Apr 2005)

Excellent topic.

I wonder though if this is a greater reflection of a shift to apathy and mediocrity of Canadian society as a whole?


----------



## 54/102 CEF (20 Apr 2005)

Its in the area of social science that concerns threats to the country and how how the country see's threats or refuses to see them

In brief -- post modern means "a rules based world" --- Canada and Europe vs. An accountability based world "USA" see http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v2.2/04_peters.html

Attached is an extract from Gen Rick Evraire (R 22eR) - he's an Ottawa native who is (in my opinion) the Vingt Deux version of Lew Mackenzie. He finished his military service as the Cdn Mil Rep to Nato (I believe) a few years back...

anyway here is what he had to say

RICHARD GWYN RECENTLY SPOKE OF THE CULTURAL DIVIDE THAT SEPARATES CANADA AND THE USA. THAT SAME DIVIDE OR BOUNDARY EXISTS BETWEEN THE USA AND EUROPE. ENVIRONICS RESEARCH DATA, NOW AVAILABLE IN MICHAEL ADAMS' BOOK â Å“FIRE AND ICEâ ?, AND QUOTED BY RICHARD GWYN, MAKES THE INTERESTING POINT THAT CANADA, LIKE EUROPE, IS A POST-MODERN SECULAR SOCIETY, WHILE THE USA IS A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS SOCIETY. WHILE POST-MODERN SOCIETIES ACCEPT RELATIVE MORALS, THE INTRINSIC GOODNESS OF MAN, AND AN UNLIMTED EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS, THE USA THINKS IN ABSOLUTES OF GOOD AND EVIL, JUDGEMENT AND FINITE TIME. THESE DIFFERING MINDSETS PROVIDE CONFLICTING HYPOTHESES, AND THE DELINIATION IS GETTING MORE PRONOUNCED BETWEEN EUROPEAN NATO, AND USA. MIGHT THESE DIFFERENCES 
NEGATIVELY IMPACT RELATIONS, TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE ALLIANCE? 

Full speech here http://www.cda-cdai.ca/presentations/natos_new_frontiers.htm

Canada is marching down an all for one and one for all route of conflict resolution vs USA who reserves the right to act unilaterally.

To link back to our man Bossi's original post

The Ration Thieves he describes have concluded that there is no threat to themselves due to the lack of "unilateralism" and hence they see slack jawed performance as the norm on which they may never be called. Unfortunately our Pyramid structure produces a small amount of trained soldiers and a large amount of strap hangers - the real tail wagging the dog not being in the supply chain - but probably looking across the cubicle at you.

Until they see a threat - expect more of the same.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Apr 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Make 30% of the forces very short term - 3 years max - only 5% move forward at all ranks. I understand that this would upset a lot of cosy relationships. This will rapidly get a lot of people into civvy life who have had a very enjoyable time with the Forces and can act as the 5th column to support more resources. Its also lays a strong bed for a future mass call-up - or a continued need for manpower.
> 
> Now you're going to get natural selection rather than "The loyal tribesman does not like change ....... ". Change can only happen when a government faces mass threats - eg - German Army on the Cap Griz Nez across from Dover. We are not in that posn so - this is a new script with a few of the same old actors. I'm talking all services vs just the part before the .CA on this website.
> 
> Car dealers do this every month. :threat:



    BAD idea.  If you do that to a peacetime army, it'll turn into a competition to see how many people you can fuck over in order to keep your job.  In the end, the ones who get to stay, and get promoted, wouldn't be the ones who are most competent for the job; rather, they'd be the ones who are best at playing the politics game.  You're right that it's a form of natural selection....but the result of that selection isn't something I'd want to see.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (20 Apr 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> BAD idea.   If you do that to a peacetime army, it'll turn into a competition to see how many people you can **** over in order to keep your job.



Hey! Sort of sounds like the real world  

Now I ain't no Human Resources person but 

Note I only wrote 30% - not a mass of 60,000 -- and you would keep 40,000 in the steady state

Whatever the number who only serve 3 years - it obviously has to be consistent with maintaining the fighting units at the level they need to be at to do their mandated missions over the next few years. We can't get into a situation where we only train parade square soldiers and demobilise them -- in the context of you may not get them back for reserve duty after - like they do in Israeal or USA - or even keep them eligible for re-activation.

But I do think we should allow very many to serve for a short time. Gets lots of trained soldiers - and you are not career manning them. 

If they are in the top 5% by all means. If they are not - tell them its a lottery and they takes their chances.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Apr 2005)

"Make 30% of the forces very short term - 3 years max - only 5% move forward at all ranks. I understand that this would upset a lot of cosy relationships. This will rapidly get a lot of people into civvy life who have had a very enjoyable time with the Forces and can act as the 5th column to support more resources. Its also lays a strong bed for a future mass call-up - or a continued need for manpower."

Sounds great..."F*ck off, we don't need you, up or out.....err wait a sec...we DO need you, please come back."   Why not just institute National Service?  Would achieve the same goal...IMHO, of course

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## TCBF (20 Apr 2005)

"Excellent topic.  wonder though if this is a greater reflection of a shift to apathy and mediocrity of Canadian society as a whole?"

Good point.  Now, we all agree that our society does not want the "Profession of Arms" to mirror ALL of society's attributes, right?

Tom


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Good point.  Now, we all agree that our society does not want the "Profession of Arms" to mirror ALL of society's attributes, right?



Agreed, we don't need to propagate aspects such as misogyny, bigotry, prejudice and narrow-mindedness that seem to exist in some groups within Canadian society.


----------



## TCBF (20 Apr 2005)

I was thinking of criminal attributes, and certain sections of DSM IV, but the ones you have listed may be the ones that stand out the most in the public's eye.  Guilty until proven innocent, in many cases.


----------



## Haggis (20 Apr 2005)

The challenge of fighting and winning the Three Block War can only be entrusted to Tigers or those led by Tigers. Why?  Because one of those blocks contains snakes, another hyenas and the third has it's own variety of predatory cat.  Both snakes and hyenas will give Tigers a wide berth as a provoked Tiger can easily kill either.  Since Tigers are the most ferocious and largest feline predators, other lesser species (like those found on Block 3) will get out of Dodge at the apporach of a Tiger.

It takes Tigers to train Tigers.  Does a Tiger become as powerful as it is by emulating a meerkat?  No.  It's role model and mentor is another Tiger.

I hope my analogy is getting across.  If I'm starting to sound like Jeff Corwin, feel free to stop me.


----------



## Slim (20 Apr 2005)

If this parallel analogy thing keeps going someone is bound to think that we're starting a thread on the Mutual Of Omaha's Wild Kingdom (Boosicus lounges in a chair, sipping some sort of exotic drink and "talks" to the readers while, in the background, Mike O'Leary and the rest tussle with some sort of predatory wild animal doing its level best to eat them all )

To be realistic, tigers are no longer welcome in the CF and this has been going on for quite some time now (probably longer than I've been around...'86)

I remember one officer saying to another with a horrified look on her face "oh my God...Is that a RIFLE!?...Uhhggg, get it out of here" upon my entrance to their cushy little domain for one reason or another, FNC1 in proudly hand. 

That incident happened in Meaford in '86, to show you all how far back this attitude goes.

I would love nothing better than to see the "watering down" of the CF come to a screeching halt, dump the riffraff and get on with the business of learning how to warfight, rather than this silly "twilight" world that the CF currently inhabits, where soldiers aren't quite soldiers and expected to act not-quite like soldiers, but more like heavily armed police (closest parallell I could think of)

In order to do all of the other jobs that our wishy-washy govt of the day expects our military to do (effectively) we must train for the worst possible scenario...If it doesn't come to pass...Great, We'll still have a well-trained army. If it does then we'll be prepared.

Currently we are not...There aren't near enough tigers in our woods!

Rant off.

Slim


----------



## pbi (21 Apr 2005)

> Tigers bred in captivity (HQ's) are no match for their wild bred (field) comrades.  In fact, one cannot captive breed a Tiger and expect it to survive in the wild



Which is why it is so vital to maintain the system of rotating people from field units to HQs and back for as long as their rank level permits. We still make mistakes even _with_ that system: I shudder to think what we would be like without it.

Cheers.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (21 Apr 2005)

As long as many of our upper echelon personnel think that serving in a field unit is only required to get their ticket punched, we will have a problem.  

The term is actively used, primarily by those in our HQ.

So, how do we solve the problem?  

In actuality, once a person is promoted to field rank, he will never serve as a force commander again.  Granted, he may serve as LFC commander, but that is not really a force command position.  

If we take the old WWII field rank positions, a Brigadier would command a Brigade, a MGen would command a Division, a LGen would command a Corps, and a Gen would command an Army.

Using that example, no person in our Armed Forces would rise above the rank of MGen, unless that person was promoted to CDS, then they would become a LGen.  By using that structure as well, the bloated Corp of senior officers would become drastically reduced, along with their staffs.  No one I know of in their right minds agree that we need in excess of 75 field grade officers in an Armed Forces of our size.

Reduce the size and number of our various HQ would, I think, have the added benefit of increasing the size of the "teeth" of the forces, and would go a long way to keeping some of our better officers in positions in the Units.

We have to change the mindset that service in a Unit is to get ones ticket punched.  We have to instill the idea that one serves in a HQ to get their ticket punched, instead.  Otherwise, I fear, we are doomed to carry on as we are.........


----------



## pbi (21 Apr 2005)

Most Regtl officers I ever met wanted to stay in battalion as long as they possibly could. Most officers I served with in HQs would rather have been back in battalion/regt as soon as possible. I know that the blatant "ticket punchers" you refer to exist-I have served under one or two-but I am equally certain that they are in a minority. Unfortunately we allow too many officers to burrow into comfy little nests in places like NDHQ and stay there forever, becoming more and more estranged from the realities of the "real Army", thus greatly engendering that culture clash that tends to exist between Ottawa and the rest of us. A healthy rotation between field units (in which I include Bde HQs) and higher HQs is an important part of the overall strength of a military. The cross pollination is vital.

Cheers.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (21 Apr 2005)

Thanks for pointing that out.  I was very general in my statement, and I shouldn't have been.  

However, I do get a wee bit irate when a LCol is posted in to a Unit as a Commanding Officer from Kingston or Ottawa, and talks about getting his "ticket punched" so he can get posted back and promoted.  Sometimes its even worse when he doesn't talk about it, but his attitude and performance demonstrates the exact same mentality.  It's a slap to the Unit, and all of those serving in that Unit.

I have also met a good deal of very fine officers, ones who considered a posting to Ottawa as worse than being sent to purgatory.  

Bit, even if the "ticket punchers" are in the minority, there are still too many of them.

As an aside, a different flaw I notice is the far too rapid promotion of young Lieutenants.  Most never do spend what I would consider the minimum of two years as a platoon or troop leader.  They always seem to be yanked out after a year or so, and sent on to other jobs.  It seems like the attitude is that a Captain cannot command a troop or platoon, so once a promotion is close, out he goes.  I am willing to wager that at least one platoon/troop per Squadron/Company is being led by a WO, not a commissioned officer.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Apr 2005)

To keep the focus purely operational - you have to have the same system they have in the NHL 

Can't skate no more ---- OUT!


----------



## pronto (21 Apr 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> To keep the focus purely operational - you have to have the same system they have in the NHL
> 
> Can't skate no more ---- OUT!


Isn't it can't skate no more - be a coach, assistant coach, owner, assistant GM, GM, scout, player rep, owner rep, old timer, etc.

 :


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Most Regtl officers I ever met wanted to stay in battalion as long as they possibly could. Most officers I served with in HQs would rather have been back in battalion/regt as soon as possible.
> 
> ...
> 
> Cheers.



In part, at least, it â â€œ the desire to stay on regimental duty â â€œ reflected a _myth_ which the whole Canadian Army, like the whole Canadian nation, accepted as _truth_.  The _myth_, dating from about 1915, was that all staff officers were worthless, upper class slackers who hung around lavish, warm, dry headquarters in French chateaus, â Å“_drinking the pay of a company of men_â ? and so on.

That was, almost certainly, true of about 95% of the French staff and a good 50% of the British staff but, in so far as the Canadian Corps under Byng was concerned, it was crap.  But it was too good not to accept because the _myth_ excused failures inside Canadian brigades and units and in the national command in Ottawa.

(Oddly the World War I _myth_ was more applicable, for Canadians, in World War II when we had too many headquarters filled to overflowing with too many people â â€œ many being the scions of _good_, well connected families.)

Of course there are lazy, self satisfied senior officers â â€œ too many; there are also too many lazy self satisfied junior officers, senior NCOs, junior NCOs and soldiers in the ranks of field units.  Let us (or you, actually, no one listens to me any more â â€œ not that they did 15 years ago, either) by all means weed out the slackers and second raters and ticket punchers â â€œ from everywhere, from every headquarters, and every base and every ship, battalion and squadron, too.


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2005)

Folks, we CAN save the Tigers!



			
				pronto said:
			
		

> Isn't it can't skate no more - be a coach, assistant coach, owner, assistant GM, GM, scout, player rep, owner rep, old timer, etc.
> 
> :



And it should be.  Not everyone can be on the sharp end.  Those who cannot remain there can be used to develop others who can.  Those who will  not even go, then I say "Out".

After Vietnam, the United States lost a lot of Tigers, too.  They saved theirs by keeping some of the best older ones and using the old ones to usher in a new breed of younger and smarter Tigers, the same ones who formed the US Army of today.  Now I'm not saying we should use their methods, but I am saying we should study their approach.

Much has been said about ticket punching and it's a fact of life in any professional field.  Plumbers, doctors, cops and engineers all have tickets to punch for advancement within their fields.

Let's make our tickets more expensive.  Lets take the time to be more objective during PER season.  Review the PER from the subordinate's perspective (would I follow this person?).  For senior appointments, institute a Peer Review.

The problem of Tiger depopulation is not an Army problem.  It's a CF problem.  Every element has and needs Tigers, be they in a cockpit, a trench or a boarding party.

In another thread someone brought up the old Warrior Program.  Great idea; poorly instituted.  Make it bi-annual and CF wide.  Provide a common-to-all test based on GMK subjects:  weapons handling; NBCD; Fitness and First Aid.  Bring back the Combat Readiness Evaluation.   Make both less onerous and resource intensive for units to admiister ad members to pass. (but pass they MUST!).  Test smarter, then get on with the good training.

Provide different assessment factors for the Navy and Air Force.  In short, remind EVERYONE what it means to be in uniform; what their military and operational obligations are as soldiers, sailors or air force members.  Break the uniformed civil servant mindset that permeates our higher HQs.

Going back to the US approach, every Marine is a Marine first and a tradesperson second.  We have lost sight of that in a major way.

Be a Tiger. Do what you can to save another Tiger.  It's not too late! (sniff) :'(


----------



## pbi (24 Apr 2005)

> However, I do get a wee bit irate when a LCol is posted in to a Unit as a Commanding Officer from Kingston or Ottawa, and talks about getting his "ticket punched" so he can get posted back and promoted.



I agree with you 100%-this is disgusting, sick and completely unprofessional. I worked for a guy like this, and most of his officers quickly saw through him. My Regtl days are sadly behind me now,   but whenever I am in one of the Battalions I always tell them:" Enjoy every minute of Regtl duty: when it's over, it's over". Of course, a lot don't really appreciate that till they're stuck in some numpty job somewhere.



> course there are lazy, self satisfied senior officers â â€œ too many; there are also too many lazy self satisfied junior officers, senior NCOs, junior NCOs and soldiers in the ranks of field units.   Let us (or you, actually, no one listens to me any more â â€œ not that they did 15 years ago, either) by all means weed out the slackers and second raters and ticket punchers â â€œ from everywhere, from every headquarters, and every base and every ship, battalion and squadron, too.



Excellent point. It seems axiomatic that we love to hate the HQ above us. In our Bde, for example, while the relations between us staff wienies and the folks in the units vary from fair to occasionally great, we still have a few units who very clearly regard us as "The Enemy", and think that anybody who is in an HQ is really just a 9 to 3 slacker who doesn't want to do the real work down in the unit. If the bold, self-sacrificing heroes don't kick those Brigade wankers in the ass every now and then--well: My God--they just wouldn't do any work, would they? Sadly, I find this outdated attitude more prevalent in the Army Reserve where for years the old Militia District HQs were dumping grounds for people that the units didn't want. Nobody cared about the MDHQs, and most of what they said was disregarded by the units. I still run into deep-seated suspicion, derision and skepticism from a few of our units. Interestingly, this tends to come from our least successful units.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Apr 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> I agree with you 100%-this is disgusting, sick and completely unprofessional.



I think this is a universal, enduring military truth - Rick Atkinson recalls hearing it on the ground with the 101st Airborne in the invasion of Iraq; one level up is usually missing the point while two levels up is a complete mess.   The Brigade HQ's would constantly feel that Division wasn't responsive to their situation on the ground and that Corps was a gongshow.   Meanwhile, at 101st Div HQ, the general feeling was that the Corps was dragging its ass and that Army (CENTCOM) was some sort of asylum for Generals with nothing to do....


----------



## rifleman (9 May 2008)

This is an old topic but as I search for the article "where have the tigers gone" I came across it. I know better than to rant but....


Rant over ....The chameleons are still here. They say things like "yeah I know you are right but what can we do about it" - er Sir, work at changing it?
"The Sgt has been here for a year longer so the new Sgt can't get a higher score" - er Sir, the fact the the first Sgt is a bag of shite might be a reason for it.
"You have to pick the battles you can win" - er Sir, aren't we suppose to set the conditions so that we can win the battles we HAVE to fight?
"Finished all his OPMEs, sold girl guide cookies and became bilingual" - er, Sir I guess I'll be calling him Sir come the promotion Board
...Rant Out.

edited to add one more "yeah he is incompetant, but he'll get promoted soon and you won't have to deal with him"

They are like roaches, how the heck do you kill them?


----------

