# Op Attention Danger Pay Reductions?



## DirtyDog (9 Apr 2013)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/09/afghanistan-soldiers-danger-pay.html

I'm seeing a lot of grief about this out there but I can't say I necessarily disagree.  Doing it in the middle of a rotation though is, odd, at best.

Who decides this anyway?  Treasury Board?  Forgive my ignorance.  Is there a formula for calculating which level it is?


----------



## McG (10 Apr 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Doing it in the middle of a rotation though is, odd, at best.


Why?  If it has been decided that a lower rate is now warranted, would you think the current tour should continue to be paid higher out of some sense of charity?  If it is not being earned it should not be paid.  And, what would be the message to the next rotation when this charity is slammed shut in their faces?



			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Who decides this anyway?  Treasury Board?  Forgive my ignorance.  Is there a formula for calculating which level it is?


Yes and yes.


----------



## DirtyDog (10 Apr 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> Why?  If it has been decided that a lower rate is now warranted, would you think the current tour should continue to be paid higher out of some sense of charity?  If it is not being earned it should not be paid.  And, what would be the message to the next rotation when this charity is slammed shut in their faces?
> Yes and yes.


It just seems in poor taste to all of a sudden tell guys 'Oh by the way, we decided we were paying you too much" right in the middle of it.  I agree with the decision to reduce, just not the timing of it.  How long has the danger level been reduced?  Should we start clawing back compensation from previous rotos?

What is the formula.  I'm not trying to pick apart this decision, I'm just curious.


----------



## brihard (10 Apr 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> It just seems in poor taste to all of a sudden tell guys 'Oh by the way, we decided we were paying you too much" right in the middle of it.  I agree with the decision to reduce, just not the timing of it.  How long has the danger level been reduced?  Should we start clawing back compensation from previous rotos?
> 
> What is the formula.  I'm not trying to pick apart this decision, I'm just curious.



Since there will always be people whose times in theatre overlap, the only fair way is to simply do it effective a given date. Otherwise people who get paid out for the rest of the tour would be making more than new arrivals who face the exact same conditions yet have a lower rate.


----------



## McG (10 Apr 2013)

The pers in country should have know since late Jan or Feb.  This is not all of a sudden to them.


----------



## DirtyDog (10 Apr 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> The pers in country should have know since late Jan or Feb.  This is not all of a sudden to them.


I'm sort of guessing that too.  The news story is pretty sparse on facts.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Apr 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/09/afghanistan-soldiers-danger-pay.html
> 
> I'm seeing a lot of grief about this out there but I can't say I necessarily disagree.  Doing it in the middle of a rotation though is, odd, at best.



It's not odd, when one considers April is the start of the new Fiscal Year for the Government.


----------



## dimsum (10 Apr 2013)

RHC_2_MP said:
			
		

> Should have known since February, sure we were told on February 7th that they were going to, not only, cut the allowances, but they were going to be retroactive to the 1st.  The only thing that prevented that 900+ person slap to the face at that time, was a formal protest by CJOC.  The CoC in theatre, is very clear for every briefing, the situation in Kabul is getting worse, not better.  Our "hardship" hasn't improved since the previous rotation, whom received a level 4 for both, risk and hardship but which now sit at 3 and 2, respectively.  So we are all left wondering, with our lives at risk every day. Why is our time and our hides worth less than those that have come and gone before us?  It doesn't take a finance god to see that the timing for such a decision seems suspect, given the direction provided by the government to slash the budget.  I just wish the slice wasn't felt directly on the backs of us, who are lucky enough to be deployed right now...



Part of this may have been to align with the OUTCAN folks who were/are in Kandahar and Helmand, who weren't receiving any tax relief, HA or RA due to....I'm not sure what.  That was a bit of a slap in the face, although granted it was a little easier to skip a handful of people than 1000.

I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork to justify why things weren't any easier in KAF a few months ago than in OP ATHENA.  The committee that sorts this stuff out meets every quarter and would have just published their recommendations.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Apr 2013)

Roto 1 was warned that this may be coming. Guess it took until half-way through Roto 2 to kick in. Way to kill the morale of deployed troops.


----------



## Jungle (10 Apr 2013)

RHC_2_MP said:
			
		

> So we are all left wondering, with our lives at risk every day. Why is our time and our hides worth less than those that have come and gone before us?



Slow down there  : You guys are running a training center, you don't have to "close with and destroy the enemy" out there.
It's not about the worth of your hides, it's about the level of risk it is in.


----------



## Cansky (10 Apr 2013)

And Roto 3 was warned in March that they were dropping and that it would drop again during the upcoming tour too.  Should be no big surprise to any soldier that attends the briefs.  Hence the reason they are told time and time again don't spend the money until you have it in your bank account.


----------



## Teager (10 Apr 2013)

For the threat only the pers on the ground can actualy say if things are "safer" It seems we are torn between two things either it is actualy safer thus a reduction or simply cut backs. Hey the government has to come up with another $30 million for the Brookfield blunder.


----------



## technophile (10 Apr 2013)

Was bound to happen. I have been saying this for a couple years as KAF and to a much greater degree Kabul has morphed into a " vacation destination" for politicians and civil servants. 

I know of a civie accountant from CJOC who went for a few weeks to help with some budget stuff. Really ? Couldn't that be emailed to be looked over in Ottawa ?  Last time i was there we spent more time entertaining"visitors" with blinky lights and shiny stuff than operations.


----------



## acen (10 Apr 2013)

I think I know the civvie accountant from CJOC that you are referring to Technophile, he is a personal friend and needless to say I joked with him that the CF was sending civvie number crunchers into a war zone whereas I, a reservist, could not get a spot on tour. He's even fired a 777, been inside a Leo, and taken a stroll in a LAVIII, none of which I have been exposed to in my almost 7 years as a reservist in an infantry regiment and many brigade/area exercises.


----------



## brihard (10 Apr 2013)

acen said:
			
		

> I think I know the civvie accountant from CJOC that you are referring to Technophile, he is a personal friend and needless to say I joked with him that the CF was sending civvie number crunchers into a war zone whereas I, a reservist, could not get a spot on tour. He's even fired a 777, been inside a Leo, and taken a stroll in a LAVIII, none of which I have been exposed to in my almost 7 years as a reservist in an infantry regiment and many brigade/area exercises.



Even in Kandahar it was a constant fight to fend off 'combat tourists' - both uniformed and civilian - when we were doing convoy ops...


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Even in Kandahar it was a constant fight to fend off 'combat tourists' - both uniformed and civilian - when we were doing convoy ops...



Except for the time you got to drive around gorgeous twin 18 year old country singers.
Wait that was me  ;D


----------



## brihard (10 Apr 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Except for the time you got to drive around gorgeous twin 18 year old country singers.
> Wait that was me  ;D



I've been picking my brain for months now trying to remember why I actually quietly hate you. Pretty sure that was it. Thanks!


----------



## Sig_Des (10 Apr 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Except for the time you got to drive around gorgeous twin 18 year old country singers.
> Wait that was me  ;D



That's BS. You know who we got? Half of Glass Tiger.


----------



## RHC_2_MP (10 Apr 2013)

Deleted by member


----------



## agc (10 Apr 2013)

CBC just tweeted "@CBCAlerts: DND ordered to reverse plan to cut danger pay for soldiers  . $500 cut proposed because Afghanistan seen as safer #cdnpoli"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Apr 2013)

Interesting


----------



## brihard (10 Apr 2013)

RHC_2_MP said:
			
		

> This isn't the difference from Kandahar to Kabul, this reassessment is from; Kabul one year ago, to Kabul today.  One year ago, the same committee decided that Op ATTENTION was a 4 risk and 4 hardship.  Nothing has changed in terms of the hardship on the camps within Kabul, but we are receiving constant intelligence reports regarding the daily threats and the highest levels of command in Afghanistan have made it very clear the threat situation is worse than when it had been previously assessed.  I would not be angry with a lower reassessment if it accurately reflected the situation.  In this case, it is just the opposite, but they are still reducing the allowances.



Then perhaps the earlier assessments were incorrect.

A couple years now of paying pretty close attention to the news suggests that Kabul is not even close to as dangerous as Kandahar. Now, while the plural of 'anecdote' is never 'data' and my observations consequently aren't scientific, I'd be very skeptical towards any claim that inside the wire training work in Kabul comes close to the same degree of hazard as nearly anything in Kandahar.

I'm only concerned with, objectively, how the CURRENT hazards in Kabul stack up against the norms by which risk and hardship are assessed. Not how they compare to Kabul a year ago, nor to Kandahar, nor to Sudan or DRC, but on their own what is actually merited according to the objective criteria we've been using for a long time now.

$133 of the drop is risk. $333 is hardship. How are living conditions in Kabul? How are the accommodations, amenities, food? How much contact with home do the troops get? How's the climate and environment?

This looks to me to be a classic case of the media going on a crusade to crap on the government without doing proper research.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Apr 2013)

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/04/10/pol-soliders-danger-pay-afghanistan.html


----------



## brihard (10 Apr 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/04/10/pol-soliders-danger-pay-afghanistan.html



Interesting. I would take that to mean that hardship will remain at 4 too.


----------



## AirDet (10 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> This looks to me to be a classic case of the media going on a crusade to crap on the government without doing proper research.



Totally argee! The media look for any excuse to malign the Canadian Gov't. That's why they're called the "Liberal Media".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Apr 2013)

This is a non-issue IMO and If people are complaining about losing money, that's fine, I will happily take their job.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Apr 2013)

But DND _will_ cut the budget.

Just don't touch the Snowbirds.....or the Parliament Hill Changing of the Guard.....or the Kabul Cash Cow (especially with all the A/WSE Colonels that are lining up now that they're safely inside the wire).

And with the CDS saying there's no HQ fat to trim, I guess that just leaves the field force.  


Here's your hari-kiri knives, boys -- start trimin'    :not-again:


[/cynicism]


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2013)

Apparently the _centre_ has ordered a rethink. Maybe the prime minister is finally getting a bit tired of having his explicit direction, to identify the HQ fat and cut it, ignored.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (10 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Even in Kandahar it was a constant fight to fend off 'combat tourists' - both uniformed and civilian - when we were doing convoy ops...


Preaching to the choir.  As you said, both uniformed and civillian, and in my experience the ones in uniform were worse because they had a sense of entitlement to be outside the wire trying to do my job and the job of my soldiers.

Now you got me fired up, time for another smoke and I just had one 45 seconds ago.


----------



## brihard (10 Apr 2013)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Preaching to the choir.  As you said, both uniformed and civillian, and in my experience the ones in uniform were worse because they had a sense of entitlement to be outside the wire trying to do my job and the job of my soldiers.
> 
> Now you got me fired up, time for another smoke and I just had one 45 seconds ago.



Yeah, if memory serves I'm pretty sure we did convoys together. Keeping people out of our RGs was easy enough, but for some reason some folks had the idea that any clown could right seat your trucks... Never mind how badly us trunk monkeys were spread out on a long halt...


----------



## dapaterson (10 Apr 2013)

This has nothing to do with HQ fat; it has everything to do with a defined process to conduct periodic reviews of the risk and hardship on deployed operations - that old question, integral to military thought - "Has anything changed"?

Given that incremental costs associated with deployed operations are generally flow through funding to DND, cutting these allowances saves DND zero money.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Apr 2013)

It seems the PMO has reversed the reduction.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Apr 2013)

Now we can get back to arguing about clerks and infanteers making the same allowences?  ;D


----------



## Harris (10 Apr 2013)

Don't forget inside vs outside the wire.  >


----------



## UnwiseCritic (10 Apr 2013)

As much as I agree that there should be a reduction in the level of danger allocated to the canadians serving in op attention, would I want to see them make less money? Only if it meant putting the money back into the military on stuff that we need. Not if it goes to some save the whales project that is just a political stunt. However the Canadian military makes ridiculous amounts of money compared to most people overseas, including people currently fighting. And most of us would go overseas with or without the extra pay. So I don't think there is much to complain or worry about.

And I currently have to agree with royaldrew.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Apr 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It seems the PMO has reversed the reduction.


Not quite yet (although a <corrected, in French> message has been sent) - highlights mine....


> A planned cut to the danger pay of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is under review after the prime minister's office intervened.
> 
> National Defence officials recently scaled down the risk level for the armed forces serving in the war-torn country — and subsequent hardship pay by a reported $500 a month.
> 
> *Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman Andrew MacDougall said Wednesday the government asked the officials to head back to the drawing board and "consider all the factors" before imposing the pay chop* ....


QMI/Sun Media, 10 Apr 13



> A plan to reduce danger pay for Canadian troops in Afghanistan is now under review by the Harper government.
> 
> The stipend was reportedly facing a cut of more than 30 per cent, which would have meant nearly $500 a month less for roughly 920 soldiers based in Kabul, who are training Afghan forces.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 10 Apr 13



> .... *the Prime Minister's Office on Wednesday said it would reverse the decision, which it said originated with bureaucrats.
> 
> "For your information, it is an interministerial panel of civil servants that made this decision, and we are going to reverse their decision," a PMO spokesman said in French in an email to Radio-Canada.
> 
> In a later email to CBC News, PMO spokeswoman Julie Vaux said, "Officials make these decisions based on a number of considerations. Government has asked officials to re-examine this decision."*A similar statement was also issued in French ....


CBC.ca, 10 Apr 13


----------



## McG (10 Apr 2013)

The French announcement about reversing and the English announcement about revisiting are two very different messages.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Apr 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> The French announcement about reversing and the English announcement about revisiting are two very different messages.


Indeed - it sounds like the French message was corrected to match the English one.


----------



## DAA (10 Apr 2013)

On a side note, if you look only at the subject heading of those messages issed by DCBA you will see the subject header of "Inter-Departmental Hardship and Risk Committee......".

The CF/DND just doesn't arbitrarily change Risk and Hardship levels on a whim.  There is a review process involved and includes OGD's and what a review process it is.   Been there, done it, got the t-shirt and hated all 38 pages of it.

Rates go down and then a possible reversal in the works?  The periodic review must going through some scrutiny......


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> $333 is hardship. How are living conditions in Kabul? How are the accommodations, amenities, food? How much contact with home do the troops get? How's the climate and environment?



Depends where you're at. The guys in KAF got the same hardship as the guys in MSG for ATHENA, did they not? Just the same as Phoenix is better than Alamo which is better Blackhorse. Just because Phoenix has a Burger King and a Pizza Hut, does that turn down the hardship for the troops in Alamo with nothing but a DFAC and a plywood gym?

To me, its a money saving move from people who have never been to Kabul and nothing more.


----------



## DirtyDog (10 Apr 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Even in Kandahar it was a constant fight to fend off 'combat tourists' - both uniformed and civilian - when we were doing convoy ops...


No issues out in a COP, ACP, OP or Laager.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Apr 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> To me, its a money saving move from people who have never been to Kabul and nothing more.



As previously stated, allowances are not paid out of DND/CF's baseline funding.  They get extra money to pay those costs; any reductions don't result in DND/CF having any extra money.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Apr 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As previously stated, allowances are not paid out of DND/CF's baseline funding.  They get extra money to pay those costs; any reductions don't result in DND/CF having any extra money.



I didn't mean to imply that DND was going to see any savings from this, but the Treasury Board and federal government at large will, in a time where they are scraping to save every penny.


----------



## McG (15 Apr 2013)

> *Tories chafe at call to cut danger pay
> Bureaucrats urge reduction to troops in Kabul*
> Murray Brewster
> Calgary Herald
> ...


There is no “agreed-upon salary, including risk benefits.”  The government tells what it is going to pay and cautions that these allowances may change if the situation changes.  Anyone who depends on operational allowances to look after their family is seriously mismanaging personal finances.

As much as I think it would be great for guys to keep collecting these allowances, I worry about what precedent might be getting set.  What will happen the next time we launch a BG into a shooting mission where troops are living in mud without access to social media and taking casualties?  How long before someone starts questioning about only making the same bonus as their tour in Casa Kabul?

Level IV risk allowance is for when death or catastrophic injury are probable (more likely than not, someone is going to die) while Level III is for when death or catastrophic injury are possible (we don’t expect anyone to die, but we won’t be surprised if it happens).  If one looks at all the BGs sent to Kandahar, 2002 and 2006 – 2011, all levels of leadership were openly, bluntly telling the troops “some of you are going to die.”  The message wasn’t sugar coated, and it was the same message shared with the families.  If one looks at the message being told to troops preparing for Kabul, it has always been quite different.  It is possible that the worst day in Kabul could be as catastrophic as the worst we saw in Kandahar – but that is unlikely.  While the danger is acknowledge in Kabul, the message is that we reasonably hope to bring everybody home safe.  It seems to me that the risk level could have been dropped the moment the last BG element rolled inside the wire of KAF for the last time.  Instead of complaining that the adjustment is happening now, guys should be thanking their luck that they continued to collect the extra money as long as they did.

… and this difference in risk is not the $500 being tossed about by the media; it is about $166.  That is not a bad drop considering the meat grinder for which Level IV compensates.  Arguably, the real shame is that there was not (and is not) a level higher than IV to recognize the attrition we might expect in a more conventional fight.

A similar be thankful argument could be made on the matter of hardship (~ $333 reduction) if one looks at the arrival of TF ORION in Kandahar when whole companies shared common 500 pers tents, there were half the fast food outlets on the boardwalk, no Timmies, no wireless networks, etc; outside of KAF (where most of the BG found itself most of the time) there were no FOBs with laundry, internet, phones or potable water.  Even then there was speculation that the hardship was at the tipping point of going to Level III.  It should not be surprising that the more comfortable Kabul (with all its amenities and nobody living in leaguers) has found its way to Level II.


----------



## Jammer (15 Apr 2013)

OK,

Let me enlighten you to a number of things. I'll address them in reply to some of your comments:

"As much as I think it would be great for guys to keep collecting these allowances, I worry about what precedent might be getting set.  What will happen the next time we launch a BG into a shooting mission where troops are living in mud without access to social media and taking casualties?  How long before someone starts questioning about only making the same bonus as their tour in Casa Kabul?"

Casa Kabul: True, I wasn't sleeping in a ditch or under a tarp on my last tour (Op Attention R1), but it was not as you describe. Kabul is still a dangerous place to move around in. 
 Please elaborate based on your experience in Kabul.

"all levels of leadership were openly, bluntly telling the troops “some of you are going to die.”  The message wasn’t sugar coated, and it was the same message shared with the families."

Really? 
That message was never communicated by any level of leadership to soldiers or thier families during my tours in '06 and '07, including me as a junior leader at the time. That would have been grossly irresponsible if it had occurred, but I have never heard of it happening.

Please share where you got that info.

"It is possible that the worst day in Kabul could be as catastrophic as the worst we saw in Kandahar – but that is unlikely."

Based on what? 
Having responded to many "events" in Kandahar, I submit that the destruction in Kabul of a Rhino bus with more than 13 ISAF killed due to an SVBIED is a bad day. 

Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to sit back and thumb your nose at those deployed and say they don't deserve the allowances, but I can sure as hell tell you based on five tours totalling 1066 days in theater since 2003 they're not getting nearly enough.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> "all levels of leadership were openly, bluntly telling the troops “some of you are going to die.”  The message wasn’t sugar coated, and it was the same message shared with the families."
> 
> Really?
> That message was never communicated by any level of leadership to soldiers or thier families during my tours in '06 and '07, including me as a junior leader at the time. That would have been grossly irresponsible if it had occurred, but I have never heard of it happening.



Jammer

I can't remember if you were with us in '94 or not, but the CO of the BG caused everyone's jaws to drop when he blurted out those very words to the BG and later that night to their families.  As recceguy can attest, it was just one of the first of many downers for us who served in "Charge Bat".


----------



## Jammer (15 Apr 2013)

I remember that pde well. Most of us took it as nonsense considering from who it was coming from...lol.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Jammer
> 
> I can't remember if you were with us in '94 or not, but the CO of the BG caused everyone's jaws to drop when he blurted out those very words to the BG and later that night to their families.  As recceguy can attest, it was just one of the first of many downers for us who served in "Charge Bat".



Something to the effect "Take a look around, some of these guys will be coming home in boxes". IIRC, it was during his parade speech when all the families and dignitaries were seated in the bleachers. Yep, set the course for the bad juju that carried on through the entire deployment at CANCHARGEBAT.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Apr 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Something to the effect "Take a look around, some of these guys will be coming home in boxes". IIRC, it was during his parade speech when all the families and dignitaries were seated in the bleachers. Yep, set the course for the bad juju that carried on through the entire deployment at CANCHARGEBAT.



Someone should have smacked him for that....which BG was that?


----------



## Towards_the_gap (15 Apr 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> OK,
> 
> Let me enlighten you to a number of things. I'll address them in reply to some of your comments:
> 
> ...



I think the point people are trying to make in regards to Kabul/the north being a 'less dangerous place' is not the hazard itself (SVBIED's, green on blues etc) but rather the risks, or chance, of those hazards happening to personnel in country.

I think you will find the stats back this up, how many casualties did we sustain in the summer of 2012 vice summer of 2010? How often do Op Attention personnel (less those on FP) actually leave the wire? How often are Op Attention personnel put in a position where they could be whacked?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I think the point people are trying to make in regards to Kabul/the north being a 'less dangerous place' is not the hazard itself (SVBIED's, green on blues etc) but rather the risks, or chance, of those hazards happening to personnel in country.
> 
> I think you will find the stats back this up, how many casualties did we sustain in the summer of 2012 vice summer of 2010? How often do Op Attention personnel (less those on FP) actually leave the wire? How often are Op Attention personnel put in a position where they could be whacked?



Not really that great an argument.  If fewer are going out, there are fewer chances of someone being "whacked".  That still does not negate the possibilities of someone being there trying to "whack" you to the same extent that they would down South.  The danger is the same.  The statistics are smaller because the numbers of pers there are also smaller.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Apr 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> How often do Op Attention personnel (less those on FP) actually leave the wire? How often are Op Attention personnel put in a position where they could be whacked?



First question: Daily basis, Second question: Daily basis. Green on blue is a massive threat that we can't ignore, walking through KMTC with nothing but a pistol is not my idea of safe.


----------



## McG (15 Apr 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Casa Kabul: True, I wasn't sleeping in a ditch or under a tarp on my last tour (Op Attention R1), but it was not as you describe. Kabul is still a dangerous place to move around in.


I have not denied that the mission in Kabul is a dangerous place. It is less dangerous than the mission in Panjwaii, Kapyong, or Normandy.  Dangerous does not mean benefits should go straight to the level intended for most dangerous.

Also, lets not try the emotionally dishonest argument that full hardship should be paid because there is danger – hardship and danger/risk are two different allowances.  The reduction to the danger/risk allowance was reasonably small.



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> Casa Kabul: True, I wasn't sleeping in a ditch or under a tarp on my last tour (Op Attention R1) …


So, you would agree that a person who is living under a tarp without modern amenities should be at a higher rate of hardship?

All else being equal, would you not also agree that a mission to seek & engage in close combat should be paid a higher rate of risk than a mission with the intent of avoiding combat?



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> ... I can sure as hell tell you based on five tours totalling 1066 days in theater since 2003 they're not getting nearly enough.


Okay, so I will assume your objection is not the risk level associated with the mission but rather your objection is that the dollar value associated with each respective risk level is inadequate.  Might that be right?



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> Really?
> That message was never communicated by any level of leadership to soldiers or thier families during my tours in '06 and '07, including me as a junior leader at the time. That would have been grossly irresponsible if it had occurred, but I have never heard of it happening.
> 
> Please share where you got that info.


I have this info from having deployed in same time as you.  I even recall your TAV in that first half of ‘06.  Maybe Kingston did not talk about it but the BGs heard the message, though it was given with more tact than the above mentioned allusion to boxes.  Grossly irresponsible?  We knew where we were going and the fight that we were looking for.  Grossly irresponsible would have been allowing pers to believe things were better and not preparing them for the inevitable.



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> Based on what?
> Having responded to many "events" in Kandahar, I submit that the destruction in Kabul of a Rhino bus with more than 13 ISAF killed due to an SVBIED is a bad day.


You are proving my point.  The magnitude of that potential worst case incident matches Kandahar – the probability (or expected frequency) is much less.  Risk pay accounts for both.



			
				Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> How often do Op Attention personnel (less those on FP) actually leave the wire?


There are pers doing daily commutes.


----------



## fake penguin (16 Apr 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> First question: Daily basis, Second question: Daily basis. Green on blue is a massive threat that we can't ignore, walking through KMTC with nothing but a pistol is not my idea of safe.



I always thought Canadian troops were staying inside the wire in Kabul the whole time while training the ANA. And what's a FP?


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Apr 2013)

Force Protection


----------



## McG (16 Apr 2013)

Kabul is not one monolithic camp.  There are several locations and pers must move between them.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (16 Apr 2013)

I think you'll agree MCG that commuting is one thing, and actively leaving the wire to look for bad guys is another thing, which is where I was going with the _Hazard_ *X* _Risk_ idea. Is anyone on Attention going out 'to close with and destroy the enemy' as someone wrote earlier?


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Apr 2013)

fake penguin said:
			
		

> I always thought Canadian troops were staying inside the wire in Kabul the whole time while training the ANA. And what's a FP?



Everyday I had to leave my camp to go into the ANA training center to mentor my counterparts, and I counted that as leaving the wire. It was worse late tour after I left when my coworkers had to move via vehicle convoy on a daily basis to get to their mentees.


----------



## little jim (16 Apr 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I think you'll agree MCG that commuting is one thing, and actively leaving the wire to look for bad guys is another thing, which is where I was going with the _Hazard_ *X* _Risk_ idea. Is anyone on Attention going out 'to close with and destroy the enemy' as someone wrote earlier?



I would offer that no, no one on Op ATTENTION is going out "to close with and destroy the enemy."  The ANSF are doing that now and their casualty figures reflect it.

If someone did some digging into the casualty figures for the last year you will see we still take a lot (well outside of Kabul) of IED causalities and those don't typically care if you are commuting or not.

One of the biggest killers of coalition forces right now is not offensive operations or IEDs.  Its Inside the Wire attacks.  Look at the deaths over the past 12 months.  How many times has the enemy breached the perimeter of a FOB - all through the SW, S and E; in one case blowing away a 60m section of the double stacked hesco that formed the perimeter.  Look at what is happening with inside the wire attacks - an SOF, ANA, ANP and Conventional patrol shot by a vehicle mounted machine gun by a member of the ground force during the patrol briefing, 3x Australians killed in their sleep in their FOB, 4x Americans killed in their OP by the ANSF they were working with, some Brits engaged on their FOB while playing their weekly soccer match.   Just over a week ago we had three soldiers killed along with 2x US civilians (one a Dept of State female) killed in a complex attack when they had just left the PRT on the way to a book donation event at a school.  They were not out to close with and destroy.

The enemy has changed.  They understand the way to hurt us is to not only get the story in the western press through insider attacks but that it also can be seen to drive a wedge between the coalition forces and the ANSF we are supporting.

Think about it - every time you read about one of those bombings at a ministry in Kabul there is more than likely a number of ISAF troops in that building mentoring and advising their Afghan Counterparts.

The environment we are operating in has changed and it does not appear that Ottawa let alone some people on the ground grasp this.  

Vent over.  Thanks for the release.


----------



## G11 (16 Apr 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Everyday I had to leave my camp to go into the ANA training center to mentor my counterparts, and I counted that as leaving the wire. It was worse late tour after I left when my coworkers had to move via vehicle convoy on a daily basis to get to their mentees.



Just an add on to this:

The KMTC/CFC training area is outside the boundaries of ANA installations (minus some observation posts) and includes three villages in the immediate vicinity. It is not uncommon to have to deal with the local populace during ranges/training events. Obviously this is not the same situation as OP ATHENA however it is important to take into account that Canadian troops train in unsecured (in the sense this is not a FOB/controlled access) areas daily.


----------



## Jammer (16 Apr 2013)

There are elements of CCTM-A that move about Kabul and it's environs everyday...not just commuting to and from, but on tasks. Those movements are not just because we wanted to see the sights. They are tightly controlled and tracked, as well as dictated by the threat level...'nuff said on that.

In that case should we adopt a sliding scale such as the US whereby you only get "danger pay" if you leave the wire...(whatever that means now). Kind of like "casual LDA" for CTC Schools even though they meet the criteria for full LDA and are in the feild more than some units on full LDA.


----------



## DirtyDog (16 Apr 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> There is no “agreed-upon salary, including risk benefits.”  The government tells what it is going to pay and cautions that these allowances may change if the situation changes.  Anyone who depends on operational allowances to look after their family is seriously mismanaging personal finances.
> 
> As much as I think it would be great for guys to keep collecting these allowances, I worry about what precedent might be getting set.  What will happen the next time we launch a BG into a shooting mission where troops are living in mud without access to social media and taking casualties?  How long before someone starts questioning about only making the same bonus as their tour in Casa Kabul?
> 
> ...


Yep.  Pretty sure the stats don't lie.


----------



## DAA (17 Apr 2013)

Well, if I am reading things correctly, the reductions have been postponed and will apparently now come into effect on 1 Aug 13.   (Op Attention, Op Calumet, Op Jade and Op Proteus)


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Apr 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> Well, if I am reading things correctly, the reductions have been postponed and will apparently now come into effect on 1 Aug 13.   (Op Attention, Op Calumet, Op Jade and Op Proteus)



Guess we can foresee resurrecting this thread then.


----------



## McG (18 Apr 2013)

> *Danger comes with territory
> Is DND cutting combat pay really that extreme?*
> Peter Worthington
> The Toronto Sun
> ...


Some odd ideas here.  I know DND often carries on knowing it can wait out a minister, but linking that here seems a little over the top.  I also doubt the level of risk or hardship pay in Afghanistan will have much impact on retention in Canada.


----------



## Jammer (18 Apr 2013)

I'm a little disappointed with Mr Worthington on this one.

He's a little out of his depth and sounding like "when I was in we made do with bully beef and toilet water". Times change...


----------



## George Wallace (18 Apr 2013)

Seldom do I find Peter Worthington at opposite ends of my points of view, but this article borders on that.  I looked at it and found so many "Red Herrings" in his article, that it is only worthy of being dismissed as a "No News Day Filler".


----------



## UnwiseCritic (18 Apr 2013)

I don't think danger pay is the reason the attrition rate is 25%. But I actually do agree with some of the statements he makes.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Apr 2013)

The attrition rate is nowhere near 25%.  I do not know what figures were used to draw those conclusions, but they are incorrect.

I suspect (perhaps) they looked at numbers which included all releases from the CF - Reg, P Res, Ranger, COATS and Sup Res.  Since, to trigger a pension, people must be released, even when transferring, an individual going from the Reg F to the P Res and then leaving the P Res would be counted as two releases; similarly, joining the Sup Res from the Reg F invovles a release and a re-enrol.

Whatever the reason, the "25% attrition" is not happening; Worthington should check facts before writing.


----------



## kratz (18 Apr 2013)

I was at a town hall briefing last night. 

Part of the presentation mentioned the attrition rates for the past 10 years and compared RegF vs PRes.

RegF for past 10 years is steady at 5%, despite increased recruiting levels in the middle of the graph.

PRes for past 10 years is steady at 17%,  despite increased recruiting levels in the middle of the graph.

So as dapaterson mentioned, it's nowhere near 25% for any one group.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Apr 2013)

Perhaps instead of taking an average, they added and then rounded up to the nearest nickel.






5% + 17% +fudge factor = 25%


----------



## DAA (18 Apr 2013)

Some of that information is just oh so wrong!!!

# 1 - a horrendous attrition rate of 25% a year in a military totalling 60,000 -  Last time I checked our manning levels were capped at 78,000

# 2 - He notes that more than 98,000 individuals have left the Armed Forces between 2006 and 2011  -  so 6 years and 98,000 leaving, based on a misinformed "military totalling 60,000" would actually equal an attrition rate of.....believe it or not.....27.2%

But the implications of such an extreme rate of attrition would mean that we would need to hire well over 10,000 people a year, just to maintain a decent level of effective strength.

Oh and on a side note, 98,000 over a 6 year period means that the CF is over burdened with Cpls and Lt's......who is running the show?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> Oh and on a side note, 98,000 over a 6 year period means that the CF is over burdened with Cpls and Lt's......who is running the show?









 ;D


----------



## CombatDoc (18 Apr 2013)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I'm a little disappointed with Mr Worthington on this one.
> 
> He's a little out of his depth and sounding like "when I was in we made do with bully beef and toilet water". Times change...


Agreed, and Col (Ret'd) Drapeau is his usual informative self.  As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Apr 2013)

CDS statement, dated 25 April 2013:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4741


Chief Of The Defence Staff Statement On Hardship And Risk Allowances
NR - 13.120 - April 25, 2013

Ottawa - “As the Chief of the Defence staff, I am grateful for the unwavering support that has been shown by Canadians and the Government of Canada for our sailors, soldiers, airmen and airwomen while they are deployed on operations at home and abroad.  That support is heartening and it inspires Canadian Armed Forces members to represent their country with deep pride while carrying out the missions assigned to them. 

“There has been considerable attention in recent weeks to the allowances paid to deployed Canadian Armed Forces members while on operations. These allowances seek to offset austere living conditions and inherent dangers in theatres of operation.  I am writing to ensure that events associated with these allowances are well understood by all Canadians, Canadian Armed Forces personnel and their families. 

“Canadians should understand that recent changes to allowance levels for our deployed men and women have originated from within the Canadian Armed Forces.  Specifically, a committee – chaired by a Brigadier-General and comprised mainly of uniformed Canadian Armed Forces members – establisheslevels based on input from each of the deployed task forces and advice from subject matter experts such as medical, operations and intelligence advisors.  This body operates at arms-length from the Government of Canada and the senior leadership of the Department of National Defence, and is guided by principles of fairness and impartiality. 

“The latest committee meeting that occurred in January determined that the hardship and risk levels for four international missions should decrease based on an analysis of changing conditions in designated theatres of operation.  While our committee followed current regulations in formulating its recommendations, the Government of Canada and the Minister of National Defence intervened to ensure fairness to Canadian men and women deployed on operations by delaying the implementation of the amended allowances. 

“More recently, an administrative error that has resulted in pay recovery action for a number of Canadian Armed Forces members who were inadvertently overpaid while deployed to Afghanistan has also generated considerable attention.  Although frustrating to military members and leaders when these oversights do occur, corrective action is always taken to ensure the proper stewardship of public funds in accordance with predetermined compensation rates.  Again, this is receiving careful attention to ensure that it is applied in a reasonable way. 

“The Canadian Armed Forces are committed to frequently reviewing our processes to ensure fair, honest and timely rates of Hardship and Risk compensation are allocated to Canadian Armed Forces members deployed on operations. In summary, all changes to allowance levels in recent months have been generated within the Canadian Armed Forces, within established administrative protocols.” 

General Tom Lawson 
Chief of the Defence Staff


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Apr 2013)

What he said, IMO, was that the PM and MND caved in to public and media pressure.


----------



## DAA (26 Apr 2013)

From what I have seen in the news......everything points to the fact that for the people in Masir-el-Sherif, it all boiled down to an "administrative error".  As the quarterly announcement regarding amendments to the "Hardship and Risk Allowance" levels were published and announced, it leads me to the following possible scenario's/assumptions:

a.  the announcement was not received by those who needed to receive it (ie; whoever is responsible for updating CCPS rate tables;  or
b.  the amended rates were not amended within the CCPS application (same as above); or
c.  the CoC failed to notify the responsible parties in theatre (ie; Pay Clerks), that those people were employed within that specific area; or
d.  the responsible parties (ie; Clerks) in or out of theatre did not implement the changes in CCPS when notified.

At the end of the day, the MND has to seek TBS approval to "write off" the debt/mistake and I don't see that happening.

I wouldn't want to be any of the above.......which leads me to my next thought.....how did anyone find out about this?


----------



## little jim (28 Apr 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Chief Of The Defence Staff Statement On Hardship And Risk Allowances
> NR - 13.120 - April 25, 2013
> 
> 
> ...



The DHRC has also changed its business rules in November of 2012 to make things easier for future rotations.  The new guidence is that operations cannot apply for hardship and risk allowances until 60 days from end of mission/rotation.  While it makes sense in terms of providing an accurate depiction of the hardship involved and risks associated with any deployment there is the additional lost opportunity cost for deployed members as well as the admin burden of trying to recoup taxes paid.  Made even more fun if your tour is over two fiscal years.

Expect nothing when you deploy and you will never be surprised.


----------

