# The Canadian Army Journal, Vol.7, Number 1



## Infanteer (19 Sep 2004)

The _Doctrine and Training Bulletin_ has renamed itself as the _Canadian Army Journal_.  This periodical is the launching pad for dissemination of new ideas for soldiers in the Army.  I would encourage soldiers to read any articles that may interest them and provide some of their own thoughts in response.

This thread can be a starting point for anyone who wishes to share those thoughts.

Here is the link to the online version of the Canadian Army Journal:

http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/adtb/vol_7/CAJ_vol7.1_e.pdf

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Sep 2004)

"This periodical is the launching pad for dissemination of new ideas for soldiers in the Army."  I think you should take out solders and insert officers.  I have only seen one article written by a NCM make the pages.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Sep 2004)

Nonsense, Sergeant Arthur Majoor makes frequent contributions to the journal; I've seen a few articles by Master Corporals and Corporals as well.  And by the term soldiers I meant men and women of the profession of arms, regardless of rank.


----------



## pbi (19 Sep 2004)

CFL has a good point, though. Many Regular Army WOs/NCOs have excellent ideas that would benefit the Army, but they are very reluctant to publish. I have tried unsuccessfully over the years to get some of these guys to put this good thinking down on paper, but no luck. I'm not 100% sure why this is, but I have a feeling that a number of WOs/NCOs see professional writing as "officer sh*t" and stay clear of it. Some would say they do not have time, and others would be uncomfortable with the reaction in their mess.

This is a great pity because *nobody * has more valuable experience than our Regular Army WOs NCOs and much of it is not being captured. As well, there is a whole different perspective from "The Other Side of The Fence" that IMHO officers would do well to read. If the _AJ_ is "officers only", IMHO we are all the poorer for it.

I encourage any WO/NCO who reads this site to publish, and to encourage others too. By the current CF definition (see _Duty with Honour_) WOs/NCOs are part of the profession of arms. Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Sep 2004)

Infanteer I didn't say I read every article published.


----------



## Acorn (20 Sep 2004)

PBI, my experience is similar. Many NCOs/WOs regard the literary aspects of the profession of arms as "officers' country." I take the reaction to the new ILQ as a good example. Many Sgts and WOs of my acquaintance regard the requirement to write a paper on one battle or another to be the sort of academic bumf that should be confined to universities and staff colleges (and thus, officers). NCOs/WOs are regarded as the implementers of ideas, not generators. The old story of the colonel evaluating a young officer candidate comes to mind:

"The Col asks the OCdt how he would ensure that the flag-pole was erected buy the designated time. The young officer-to-be makes a bunch of calculations, manpower assessments, and time/task evaluations and eventually has the pole erected. The colonel then points out the proper way: "Sgt, I want a flag-pole here by 0600 tomorrow morning."

Of course, at 0600, the flag-pole was there as ordered.

The parable aside, it is clear that NCOs/WOs have something to offer the profession of arms beyond the simple technical implementation of the will of the officer. That being said, we still have some hurdles to overcome.

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2004)

Good points guys; though SNCO's and OR's offer participation from time to time in the more theoretical aspects of the profession of arms (such as the Army Journal), it is an exception rather then a rule.  Perhaps this is a sign that our military culture has not yet unlocked the full potential of the NCO Corps.  We are an Army of the information age, not one of the industrial era, where NCO's were confined to dress, deportment, discipline, and technical proficiency.  By having his "boots to the ground" for a good portion of a 20 year career, a SNCO should have lots to provide in terms of experience and ideas.

The next logical question is, how do we unlock this potential?  Obviously, instilling this aspect of the profession of arms into NCO's will take a different approach then the one commonly applied to Officers, as we need these leaders in the units and training the private soldiers.  My first guess would be to start with professional development courses for NCO's at every level of promotion (MCpl - Sgt - WO - MWO - CWO).  Something like a 3-4 week course that approaches professional development from the standpoint of a solid military education.  NCO's would be presented with material and be asked to write on their experiences in the military, allowing them to put to use to all their field time and their technical expertise; this could later be elevated to more detailed writing geared towards lower level staff, planning, and ideas on proposals that the NCO's have had direct experience with.  Hopefully, this course could be taught by other SNCO's to reduce the notion that this would be "officer shit pressed onto the NCO Corps".

Anyone else have any ideas.


----------



## pbi (20 Sep 2004)

Infanteer: I certainly believe in encouraging our WOs/NCOs to write, but just to play devil's advocate here, I wonder about "forcing" them to do it. I also wonder about the side-effects of a career system that might demand more written work than field work from our NCOs and could begin to skew the  priorities of WOs/NCOs away from practical experience. We must take vrey great care not to turn off nor disadvantage the excellent field leader NCO who has no wish to write.

Having expressed that concern, I think that there are three ways we might initially go at it, barring a more formalized approach:

a) encourage it from the top: the CLS and RSM of the Army, on down through the chain of command and the RSM net;

b) stress that writing is not a way for WOs/NCOs to "prove" themselves to officers but rather a way for them to teach and improve the whole Army, including officers;

c) perhaps have a writing award (a good one, not a cheesy one....) that can only be won  by CWO and below. Bring the winner to Ottawa to get the award, publicize it, etc. At first, I bet these guys will get the sh*t ribbed out of them in the Mess, but in time it might catch on.

I am in full agreement that we can do more with our NCOs. This AM I watched a very sharp young USMC Sgt First Class who was essentially running the entire JOC night shift here at Bagram, incl officer D/Os.  Very self-confident and squared away. I know our guys could do this too. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2004)

> Infanteer: I certainly believe in encouraging our WOs/NCOs to write, but just to play devil's advocate here, I wonder about "forcing" them to do it. I also wonder about the side-effects of a career system that might demand more written work than field work from our NCOs and could begin to skew the   priorities of WOs/NCOs away from practical experience. We must take vrey great care not to turn off nor disadvantage the excellent field leader NCO who has no wish to write.



True, that is why it is essential to keep the classroom environment to a minimum as we aren't training Staff Officers here.   However, I think we must promote the idea that one of the parts of being a professional is thinking about and advancing ideas on ones profession.   All that they've experienced may go to waste if they cannot pass it on to others.   That is why I advocated utilizing the personal experiences of an NCO as a good place to encourage writing for professional development; making them go to books and check reference material will just turn it into a task.

I like your ideas, they act as a form of peer promotion (good job, you know your shit) vice superior officer coercion (write me a paper, Sgt).

Perhaps the best way to encourage NCO's to contribute to the professional dialogue; implement their ideas to some degree.   That will show them that others are listening to their unique point of view and that we value what the NCO Corps has to contribute.   Perhaps, the next time the military has a decision to make, issue a call for proposals from the NCO Corps on what they feel is the best way to provide things.   A panel of SME's will evaluate all entries and provide face to face feedback on their ideas; even better, perhaps all who submitted could be included on the judging, allowing them to hold their ideas up to the proposals of their peers.   The winner will be included to some degree in the final decision making progress of whatever is being done.   Who knows, maybe if such a thing is done you'll have a couple dozen NCO's screaming to do something that wasn't clearly evident from the vantage point of the decision maker; now we're networking here.

Here is, in my opinion, a good example of what a soldier from the Ranks can contribute in terms of professional writing; and it happens to be from our very own KevinB.

http://nightoperations.com/Doc/Infantry-Rifle-Carbine1.pdf

Anyways, just some thoughts from the wayside....


----------



## a23trucker (20 Sep 2004)

There is no question that the NCM's can provide intelligent input, I've witnessed it here many times.
 I only wish that I'd have as many good conversations in some officer's messes..... :
It may be the formal style that scares away some (including officers), They may think they would have difficulty presenting their thoughts in a suitable format. They may only be familiar with writing or communicating in an informal or point format. 
Maybe the Journal could accept Ideas/outlines, then have a staff writer flush it out, return for proof, and once acceptable submit it with " BY MCpl XXX with YYY"
Maybe one way might be to take some of the questions posed in this forum and present them as topics for discussion on a page in the journal.
Cheers 
AM


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Sep 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> This AM I watched a very sharp young USMC Sgt First Class who was essentially running the entire JOC night shift here at Bagram, incl officer D/Os.   Very self-confident and squared away. I know our guys could do this too. Cheers.



Sorry to nitpick, but we don't have the rank of Sergeant First Class in the Marines.  Sergeant First Class is a US Army rank which is on the E7 pay grade.  The Marine equivalent is Gunnery Sergeant.

Cheers!

Matt


----------



## pbi (20 Sep 2004)

Doh! I realized that when I re-read the post this AM. Thanks Matt. Cheers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Sep 2004)

Or perhaps we should challenge the Jr and Sr NCOs who post here so clearly and precisely to subnit an article or two?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (24 Sep 2004)

I had LCol. Fleury, former editor of the CAJ approach CASR about publishing my Leopard CAT article
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-leo.htm
However it was decided that since the article had already been given a goodly amount of exposure to CF/DND pers. through its online form, it was decided not to publish it and instead give space to someone with an article that didn't have the exposure already.   I didn't have a problem with that at all, as I'd prefer to see the CAJ as a source of new ideas that deserve recognition and discussion, rather than reprints from elsewhere (such as my CAT article).

*Note*  Had I read the post through, I'd have seen that Infanteer beat me with the reference to Kevin Boland's article.

KevinB has written quite extensively online through the www.nightoperations.com website and has an outstanding article on the shortcomings of the C7A2 and a proposed C7A3:
http://www.nightoperations.com/C-7_A2.htm   If I am not mistaken this article was published in the Infantry Journal?

I think what may spur NCMs to write more would be formal acknowledgement of their professional writing works.   If some type of recognition were put into PERs for promotion purposes for having articles written and disseminated.   Those that are ambitious and want to seek higher leadership positions would have a system of encouragement to spread their knowledge and ideas throughout the community to help produce a better end-state of the Forces.

I'm glad to have forums such as CASR, the CAJ and this one to discuss matters relating to the profession of arms in Canada.   What I think would be a huge improvement is if the Infantry, Armour and other respective branch/corps publications were more widely available online.   A couple years ago I approached the editors of the Infantry and Armoured journals to see if I could obtain a private subscription to each respective publication., but they don't offer such (at least at that time) and their very future existence was expressed in terms of doubt due to lack of funds for their operation.   If funds are that tight, it would seem to make great sense of publishing them online, as an electronic version would be far cheaper than the print version to create and maintain.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Sep 2004)

> Or perhaps we should challenge the Jr and Sr NCOs who post here so clearly and precisely to subnit an article or two?



I've had a few ideas for papers that are in the formulation phase (ie: various notes and scattered papers and thoughts).  I've been meaning to collect them into a thesis and argument, but my problem is that my energy shifts so often between different areas that things never take off.

Perhaps I'll take up your challenge and commit myself to following through on my chaos of ideas.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Sep 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'll take up your challenge and commit myself to following through on my chaos of ideas.



And perhaps I will take up my own challenge as I seem to have lots of extra time on my hands these days...


----------



## onecat (24 Sep 2004)

I haven't been in the army long enough to really talk about this subject in great detail.  But I do know that more and more of our culture is geared to going to university or collage and also applied to NCM's as well. Having gained this experience in school either before they join or during is going to help  SNCO's and WO's apply this knowledge in Journals like this.  A lot has changed in the last 20 years, and Canadian culture has changed as greater importance is placed being able to express your ideas on paper.  It's skill that needs to learned just as any other, and could be that current gen of SNCO's isn't as comfortable in this skill as their fellow Officers are.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2004)

Just on a personal note, what motivated me to write in the first place was an event at a conference. The "round table" discussed many interesting and innovative ideas, and we were working on a summary to present to the main body of the conference, when the "dinosaur attack" came. One by one, the interesting and innovative ideas were struck from our final summary, and the end result was: "things are fine the way they are, we need to keep doing things the same way, only more so..."

I did not agree, and wrote my dissent when I got home. The conference organizer included it in the conference report, and I have been going ever since.

Everyone needs a way to express themselves, writing articles for the ADTB/CAJ is mine. These boards are probably better for many people because they are faster, give reasonably quick feedback and allow a degree on anonymity. (Less chance of repercussions). If CAJ retooled a bit to allow faster publishing (monthly vs quarterly), and the idea that publishing has negative consequences was firmly squashed, then you might see more NCO's and OR's submitting articles for publication.


----------



## Andyboy (16 Nov 2004)

I have trouble believing that as a reservist my ideas are taken seriously. Optimist by nature, pessimist by experience.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Nov 2004)

You won't know untill you write it and submit.
And as a sidenote I think if you knew the background of some of the "heavy hitters" here on army.ca, you would find thats not the case,[though I will add] as much as years past.


----------



## Andyboy (16 Nov 2004)

I understand and agree, I'm not making a statement about the Reg/Reserve thing, I'm just disillusioned and skeptical. Plus I'm beginning to think our armed Forces are going the way of the Dodo bird.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2004)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> Plus I'm beginning to think our armed Forces are going the way of the Dodo bird.



As much as I'd hate to start this argument again, if the military has went through 100 years of being in the back seat, why would things start to crumble now?  We're doing just fine.


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Nov 2004)

For those of us who are worried about peoples reaction, try posting your ideas here. See what the reaction will be and then maybe go forth with submitting your article.
PBI, where does one submit an article for publication by the Canadian Army Journal?


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Nov 2004)

From this summer's edition:

All contributions and correspondence should be sent to the Managing Editor, as follows:

The Managing Editor
The Canadian Army Journal
Land Force Doctrine and Training System
PO Box 17000, Station Forces
Kingston, ON, K7K 7B4

Fax: (613) 541-5903

(The e-mail address provided was to an officer who is no longer with LFDTS. I will seek an updated point of contact.)


----------



## pbi (16 Nov 2004)

My advice: Just Do It.

If the editors don't like it, they won't publish it without sending it back for re-work. If they do like it (and it seems to me that they are a pretty open-minded bunch.....) they will publish it. If you don't have the time or the resources to do a fully-researched article, letters are also welcomed. And, I am equally sure that any half-decent piece by a WO/NCO would make it, if only because they are so rare. If you've got something to say, say it. Cheers.


----------



## Andyboy (17 Nov 2004)

Infanteer,

I didn't mean to suggest we were going to crumble, I meant to suggest that sometime in the not to distant future the people of Canada are going to have to decide if the want an armed forces at all. I would suggest that many if not most do not. 

"We're doing just fine." Do you really believe that?


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2004)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> "We're doing just fine." Do you really believe that?



Find me a peacetime Army (although it would be hard to define the last 15 years as "peaceful")...okay, find me an unmobilized Army that has everything in running order.   Hell, even American soldiers complain about equipment and manning levels.

I'm by no means a starry-eyed optimist - I come here and complain for a reason - but I refuse to believe the "Nostradamus's" who like to predict imminent doom for the Canadian Military (Which they've been doing throughout the 20th century).   Like Nostradamus's adherents, they're constantly reinterpreting things and moving the date for destruction ahead.

War and conflict are, like human nature, fickle and constantly shifting phenomenon.   As such, a military always seems to be playing catch-up.


----------



## pbi (17 Nov 2004)

> I would suggest that many if not most do not.



I wonder what you base this on. All that I have seen over the last year or so (in the media, in the public, and in the many informative posts on this site) suggest to me that this is not correct. Cheers.


----------



## Andyboy (18 Nov 2004)

I guess this thread has been officially hijacked! Sorry everyone, sorry.

I do not believe that the army is going to crumble, I believe it already has. I guess it depends on you definition. Our gov't says they are committed to fighting and winning the war on terror and yet what have we contributed? I don't for a second doubt the skill and honor that our soldiers sailor and airmen have brought but in reality we have not contributed to the war in a meaningful way, in my opinion. Consider for a moment our contribution to the Second World War or Korea and compare it to our efforts today. Now consider what the spending priorities are for the federal gov't. Our country is slipping into insignifigance and our military already has. This is my opinion. 

In short why do we have a military? Is our military capable of doing what it is supposed to do?

The reason why I think Canadians don't care about the military one way or the other is that I have yet to see any evidence that they do. Occasional public displays of interest are one thing but a societal interest in the defence of the values we supposedly hold dear is another.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Nov 2004)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> The reason why I think Canadians don't care about the military one way or the other is that I have yet to see any evidence that they do. Occasional public displays of interest are one thing but a societal interest in the defence of the values we supposedly hold dear is another.



How does such an interest get displayed - outside of torchlight rallies in Nuremburg, I mean?  I think that intersest is there in many people, there is just no outlet to display it away from Rememberance Day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2004)

I don't think it is a question of not caring.   Rather, it is a question of not caring *enough* about national defence _relative_ to other issues like health care, debt repayment, child care, equalization, education, EI, tax relief, etc, etc, etc ...

As I understand the polling which has been done by all the major parties increases in defence spending are welcomed if big, *Big IF* they do not take anything away from any other higher priority programme â â€œ and *all* social programmes have a higher priority amongst Canadians â â€œ or require a tax increase.

This is the dilemma â â€œ Canadians do not want the military to be seriously under-funded but they are unwilling to move defence spending up the priority list from the bottom section which it shares with ballet companies and symphony orchestras.

I have, recently, had occasion to read/listen/watch the news in a couple of 'markets' where there is a big military audience and where military matters are 'current' â â€œ deployments and equipment issues.   The papers and newscasts are full of:

1.	Child care â â€œ there is a major offensive underway, led by the child care 'industry' which is seeking about the same amount as we now spend on national defence;

2.	Equalization formulas â â€œ more billions; and

3.	Relations with the US.

Yes, the national _commentariat_ is drumming up support for the military but I am not convinced that the very broad, very general support which does exist is getting any 'deeper' â â€œ especially when it means going deeper into taxpayers' pockets.

I am glad to see the Army Journal _name_ return and I am impressed with the quality of contributions.   I hope that the Army Journal will serve a secondary role of informing the _opinion makers_ in Canada and, as a tertiary _benefit_ remind those _opinion makers_ that soldiers are a thoughtful, literate bunch.


----------



## Andyboy (18 Nov 2004)

How about voting as a way to show support for the military? How about calls to the gov't to increase spending? I have yet to see any of that, combined with what seems like a growing pacifist sentiment in Canada i dont' see much support for, or interest in our military. I live in toronto mind you so maybe it exists and I just don't see it. 

I think ROJ nailed it fairly well. I don't believe Canadians see the value of a strong military, and they might ne right. Of course maybe they don't make the connection between sovereignity and the military either. I dont' have anything concrete to back this up, it's just a general feeling I get.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> I do not believe that the army is going to crumble, I believe it already has. I guess it depends on you definition. Our gov't says they are committed to fighting and winning the war on terror and yet what have we contributed? I don't for a second doubt the skill and honor that our soldiers sailor and airmen have brought but in reality we have not contributed to the war in a meaningful way, in my opinion. Consider for a moment our contribution to the Second World War or Korea and compare it to our efforts today. Now consider what the spending priorities are for the federal gov't. Our country is slipping into insignifigance and our military already has. This is my opinion.



Just crumbled now?  How about at the beginning of WWII in which MacKenzie King tried to stay out of the war and merely supply pilots and material?  It took sometime to get the Canadians fully behind the effort to stop Hitler.  What about in the 1950's when we were dragged tooth-and-nail into the Korean War, the politicians looked for every available out they could (the quip about "three tokens" comes to mind)?  What about the 1970's and 1980's when we were relegated to a rear-area role in the defence of Europe?  What about the 1990's when we couldn't significantly contribute to the Gulf War and when Soft Power combined with budget roll-backs had has stretched to the limit?  It's the War on Terror that has suddenly brought along the demise of our military?

There has always been a discord between defence policy and a general perception of national interests.  It seems to be something that we Canadians excel at, but it's never really "destroyed" the ability of the professional military to do its job and do it admirably well.

I am not sure that we soldiers will ever be happy with what direction the government lays out for us, but I don't think that this fact is going to lead us to shrivel up and die.  We've been able to march to that tune for 100 years now, and I think we are more then capable of continuing to do that.


----------



## Andyboy (18 Nov 2004)

Yes just now. 1 hour ago to be exact. Don't be so silly, you can do better than that. Of course we have gone through this in the past and no doubt will again in the future that doesn't make it OK. I said the army had crumbled already, I didn't say it couldn't be rebuilt. I just don't believe we are "doing just fine" and I don't think you do either. 

You didn't answer the questions I posed, What is our military meant to do and can they do it? Just be cause our mili


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

I don't know what your judging "crumbled" by.

The fact that we can't properly equip and deploy a formation on our own?

We've never been able to do that.


----------



## Acorn (18 Nov 2004)

Never? OK, not since Korea, but last time I checked a bde was a formation.

Of course, you may mean "on our own" to mean completely so. That's true, but we could still deploy a formation. We cannot do so anymore, can we?

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

Yes, I mean "On our own".

Are Army has always deployed as part of a larger effort, usually transported by,supplied by, and commanded by our Allies.  This seems to be one of our big problems now; it's nothing new.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Nov 2004)

Infanteer is right, we have never in history fielded an independent brigade without utilizing transport assets of either Britain or the United States.  That is nothing new in history, so why the bandwagon military-supporters now suddenly feel it is "shameful" is beyond me.  

And is another reason not to be pissing the Americans off with thoughtless comments ala Ms. Parrish, who I put in the same league as Lady Astor as far as insensitivity and desire to tell her to STFU goes.

EDIT - this just in - didn't notice before  - the Right Honourable Ms.  Parrish was booted from caucus.  Hallelujah.


----------



## Storm (18 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know what your judging "crumbled" by.
> 
> The fact that we can't properly equip and deploy a formation on our own?
> 
> We've never been able to do that.



This begs an interesting question: can something crumble down that was never really built up in the first place? Outside of (and at times during) serious all out global war, our forces have always been underfunded/manned/appreciated as far as I can tell. Ok, so maybe the second story had a date with a wrecking ball, but the foundation is still intact. We just need to use our few bricks to reinforce the first floor rather than trying to build flimsy second and third story additions. (ok, enough of the structural analogy)

There is no doubt in my mind that we will, regrettably, be a very small force relative to our population and economy - not to mention landmass - well into the forseeable future. The question is not how much more we can get, but how we can gain the best quality out of what we actually have, since quantity just ain't in the cards. In some places we're on the right track, while in others we're deep in the woods and someone lost the compass.

In my admittedly relatively inexperienced opinion, a big problem is expecting big army capabilities at a small army price; demanding more than what we're realistically geared to do. We need to toss the aspirations, define our roles based on reality, and then stick to them (the biggest problem is getting politicians and Canadians in general - some of those in uniform even - to grasp and accept the reality of the situation). 

And yes, I am aware that this is big talk for me seeing how much I like to daydream of new bases and such that just won't happen   ;D


Re Astor and Parrish: one says people are out of touch with the world; the other says people are idiots and should be hated. Amazing how well they describe themselves. Who votes for these twits?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Nov 2004)

Just because it has been that way in the past doesn't mean we have to accept it so willingly in the here and now.

"Mr. Right Honourable Infanteer why is our military so dependent on its allies?"

"Well Miss Reporter we've always been that way and I see no problem with the status quo."


----------



## Infanteer (19 Nov 2004)

C'mon, you know I'm not trying to justify our deficiencies.  You've seen enough of my posts to know I don't agree with many of the ways we do things.

I'm just trying to point out that the things that are constantly cited as the probable cause of our doom have not just suddenly appeared.  Things like kit deficiency, unpreparedness, lack of deployablity, and political will are problems that have always been around, infact, they aren't even unique to Canada - all other militaries have similar issues.  

And yet we are still able to show up and do an admirable job.  The constant problems that arise out of the fallout of civil-military relations can be frustrating and can make things alot harder and/or reduce the total capabilities of our forces, but I fail to see how these constants are suddenly lead to our doom.


----------



## Andyboy (19 Nov 2004)

Here is why I say we have crumbled.

Our gov'd pledged our support to the war on terror. Like it or not agree with it or not. What has our contribution to the WOT been? What has been our contribution to wars in the past? Compare and contrast.

If we don't start to rebuild now, when will we? 

I in no way intend this as a slight towards the troops that did an outstanding job as always.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Nov 2004)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> Here is why I say we have crumbled.
> 
> Our gov'd pledged our support to the war on terror. Like it or not agree with it or not. What has our contribution to the WOT been? What has been our contribution to wars in the past? Compare and contrast.
> 
> ...



I think your confusing public policy and military capability.

When we talk about the "collapse of the CF", we are referring to the ability of the military to do its job.   I've argued that there is no basis for problems arising from an abrupt and chaotic change in manning, equipment, and capability - problems we see now are merely a continuation of the pattern of civil-military relations in Canada.   If this pattern hasn't been the death-knell of the Forces in the past, I don't see how it will now.

In fact, I'd argue the opposite.   We are in many cases better off today.   Consider the fact that our troops are well paid and that they are sent on operations with some top line equipment and attention on the homefront.   Now consider this to 10-15 years ago when our troops were thrown into the maelstrom of the Former Yugoslavia with declining pay, obsolete equipment, antiquated vehicles (that in cases caused casualties) and little or no public knowledge on the fact that we were even in Bosnia/Croatia.   In some areas, we've made significant strides.

You've identified that the Forces have crumbled because we are not dedicated to the War on Terror.

A)   Again, is government non-commitment a sign of the collapse of capability and combat power (and the will to execute it if necessary)?   Look at Korea, we were dragged kicking and screaming into that conflict (and it was mandated by the UN), constantly resisting US requests.   We first contributed three ships and then threw in a Brigade on our own time.   And yet, despite these facts, not only did the Canadian soldiers still perform admirably (We've got Kap'yong to prove it), but far from crumbling from a similar situation, we emerged from the Korean War in what is recognized (by Granatstein, although I agree) as the "Golden Age" of professionalism in the Forces.

B)   Are you sure we're crumbling because of a poor contributions to the War on Terror?   Since the offensive began in Afghanistan in late 2001, we've had large troop contributions to region for 1 combat deployment and 3 deployments in support of ISAF.   As well, the Navy has been on continuous operations in the Persian Gulf.

Although, and I've argued this before, I may be a little disappointed with where the government has dedicated our resources (with a limited contribution, I'd like to see all the chips put on the main effort), I don't think that we can look at abstention from Iraq as copping out on the War on Terror - we've still put in a considerable effort for a small military.

As I underlined before, we've got problems - but I don't think these problems are as crippling as naysayers and "chicken-littles" would like to believe.


----------



## Andyboy (19 Nov 2004)

"When we talk about the "collapse of the CF", we are referring to the ability of the military to do its job."

Agreed. I'm saying the military is not capable of doing it's job. The gov't has commited our armed forces to the WOT and our military is unable to make a signifigant contribution to it. Why is it that we are on an "operational pause" in the middle of a war our gov't has commited us to? 

Here are a few questions I think are pertinent:

Are we meeting our recruiting goals?
Are we able to train those we recruit?
Are we retaining those we train?
Are we able to meet our operational committments?
What is the largest body of ground forces we can equip and deploy on combat operations? How long can it be sustained?
Are our reserves capable of deploying? If not how long would it take to get them to deployment status? 
Most importantly, what is the limiting factor of our deployment on operations, neccessity, operational capacity or  political will (is there something we need to be doing? can we do it? will our gov't commit us to it?)

I'm not really sure what would constitute a "death knell", would everyone just stop showing up to work?  ;D The house has crumbled but it can be rebuilt. We have the know how, we have the requirement all that we are missing is the support of the civilian population in order for them to pressure the gov't to fund out rebuilding efforts. Saying we're doing find does not help, it makes matters worse. People look to us to understand what the situation is, how are we going to get help from the civilian populace when member s are telling them everything is fine. 

By the way I was in Croatia ten years ago and I would argue we aren't better off now than we were then. We had three missions on the grounf in the FRY then, Palladium, Harmony and Cavalier. Two Battle Groups and a Logistics BN. We may not have had CADPAT gloves but we had boots on the ground.


----------



## Storm (19 Nov 2004)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> The house has crumbled but it can be rebuilt. We have the know how, we have the requirement all that we are missing is the support of the civilian population...



Maybe we could ask Habitat for Humanity   :dontpanic:



			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> Saying we're doing find does not help, it makes matters worse. People look to us to understand what the situation is, how are we going to get help from the civilian populace when member s are telling them everything is fine.




In your own words: "people look to us to understand what the situation is." That means we need to be honest with them and not cry wolf unless there actually is one. I agree that the forces are not about to disappear next week. This does not mean that I think everything is fine. Yes there's a lot of help we could get by yelling and screaming that we're dying, but Canadians deserve better than that, and would figure out that we're exaggerating things soon enough. How much help do you think we'd get then, even if we were about to die?


----------



## pbi (19 Nov 2004)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> "When we talk about the "collapse of the CF", we are referring to the ability of the military to do its job."
> 
> Agreed. I'm saying the military is not capable of doing it's job. The gov't has commited our armed forces to the WOT and our military is unable to make a signifigant contribution to it. Why is it that we are on an "operational pause" in the middle of a war our gov't has commited us to?
> 
> ...


----------



## Andyboy (20 Nov 2004)

Well then I guess I was wrong, we're doing just fine and that is the message we should send to the public. Thanks everyone.


----------

