# Go beyond your local experience...



## King Arthur

Hi everyone,  I have just spent 2 hours reading through very interesting comments posted here, but also through some that need to be addressed.  This is why I joined this forum.  I used to be a member of CadetWorld and stopped because too many people were more interested in getting into arguments rather than looking at the facts.  I simply grew tired of immature members and their rantings about the good old times... So far, this forum gives me hope! ;D

Let me introduce myself. This year, I celebrate 30 years with the Cadet Organisations, including 22 as a CIC.  I just finished my second term as a CO, this first with Air Cadets and the latest with Army Cadets. 

The two  topics that get me the most fired-up are about the weakness of the Army Cadet Program and the comments about the CIC.

To me, the CIC is one of the most efficient and most imaginative Branch of the CF.  No we are not trained to the same level than the RegF and it is OK this way, we have an expertise that is unique.  Instead of looking at the CIC as the weakest branch of the CF, I would ask people to look at us as the most dynamic and most professional Youth Leader Branch in the World.  My colleagues of the RegF and the ResF should take pride in having us acclaimed throughout the country as we provide a service that is unique.  OK, not all CIC members possess the same level of professionalism, but the same can certainly be said of the rest of the CF.  I am extremely proud of my uniform and my badge becasue I know that what I, and all my colleagues, do impacts directly and foreer on the lives of thousands of youth and their communities

Many of the comments I read about the CIC are ill-informed and cast a shadow on a group because of the acts of a few. The fact that you might have had a bad experience with a CIC should not allow you to pass judgement on the rest of us. I am from Quebec and the same applies to people outside Quebec making general statements about the entire population of Quebec when they pass judgements about the separatists.  

As for the Army Cadet Program and the fact that it is not enough Army, or that it used ot be more Army oriented...  I suggest that people stop living in the past because it prevents you from enjoying what is there just before your eyes.  The Army cadet LHQ program is but a small portion of what constitutes the Cadet Experience.  People should not focus on what they can not do, but rather be looking at the program for the enormous potential it offers.  I took a corps back in 1999 and left it with 130 cadets 2 months ago despite using the same program that so many people claim to be so boring...  It is not the program that makes it interesting, programs are just words on paper.  It is how you  implement the program that makes a difference.  

The difference between a very good corps and less efficient lies in the imagination of its staff and its willingness to push the envelope.  You know, I have been teaching leadership for 20 years now and the one statement that can define a good leader is that LEADERSHIP is not delegated, it must be taken.  The difference between a good Corps CO and another one is the desire to LEAD and make a difference. The CCo is full of imaginative and extraordinary CO and CIC.  Their willingness to take the programs and make it fun for the cadets is what setes them apart. The Army Cadet Program is only as good as the implementation that is put inplace LOCALLY by the LHQ staff. This is why you have corps that keep struggling and other that are striving. Instead of blaming the changes in the programs I would suggest that youo look at this from another angle.  The mandatory program only represents a portion of what can be taught locally, the rest is left to the LHQ staff to decide. The fact that patrolling is no longer in the mandated program does not prevent the local corps from adding it as a locally directed topic.  

Sorry for this long message, I will be back occasionally when I have 15 minutes.  In the mean time, I wish you all a joyful and sunny summer.


----------



## catalyst

Well put!


----------



## chalk1

I must say I agree with some of this, however there are other perspectives that aren't being explored here.

I will agree that there is excellent training available, and that those who complain about the type of training have not yet taken on the task of challenging themselves to advanced training/exhanges. As well, LHQ training can be fun and exciting in a safe environment without having to bleed substantial moolah - as you've said, just use some imagination.

I will also agree that there are some excellent CIC officers out there, and that the "lesser quality" members give the rest a negative reputation. This can also be said about the Reg force, however the incidents of incompetence in the CIC are far greater then those of the Regs. This is not based merely on regional experience, as I have trained three times at a national level and each time something has occurred to diminish my view of the cadet organisation. I have always been a proud, loyal member of the Royal Canadian Army Cadets. My first two years were spent in Air cadets, and I always remembered a speech given to me by my camp CO in 2000. In this speech, he asked each of us what we thought was the most important quality of a leader. After we each gave our response, he said that he believed that integrity was the most important, saying that integrity is "doing the right thing, even when no one is looking." I stay true to this, however recent events as a staff cadet show me that this obviously does not apply to senior members of the CIC who are completely detached from the troops. This is my last summer as a cadet; I have until December before aging out and joining the Reg force. Prior to this incident, I had considered joining the CIC after I age out and becoming another one of what I thought were virtuous leaders. After this summer's incident, I am completely disgusted at the CCM and the ability to misuse the CHAP program for political/competitive reasons.

I apologise for using this forum to complain, as there are a few solid officers in the CIC. I merely wished to express my current state of absolute disgust for the program.


----------



## catalyst

Just out of curiosity, what happened?


----------



## Infanteer

King Arthur,

I would challenge your opinions on the role of the CIC within the Canadian Forces.  I would state the opposite; their inclusion within the Officer Corps detracts from the level of professionalism of the Military Officer.  The military officer is first and foremost a member of his profession, a unique body within his country that possesses highly specialized characteristics.  As Huntington identified, the Military Officer's professional body is defined by its unique expertise, its responsibility, and its "organic unity and consciousness of themselves as a group apart...."  All the customs our military possesses such as the salute, the deference of higher rank, and total authority of command are built around the existence of this professionalism; for some reason the CIC has had these aspects grafted over their organization.  When one walks into a hospital, one can immediately determine the doctor as unique, part of his professional body.  When one sees a military officer, one shouldn't have to try and discern whether he is a true professional or a dressed up bureaucrat or a youth group leader.

The professional Officer is one dedicated to the "direction, operation, and control of violence on behalf of the state."  I don't see this in the job description of the CIC.

Don't get me wrong, this shouldn't be a slight on the duties a member of the CIC performs.  I feel you and your fellow leaders perform a very valuable role within today's society.  I'd rather see CIC's leading their cadets in programs that promote confidence, civic responsibility, and the ability to work together then having these kids spending all day in front of a TV or out getting into trouble.  There is a place for the group of well-intentioned civilians such as the CIC; out of interest, those of the Military profession may choose to be part of this group in their offtime.  However, to associate the CIC and the Cadets with an the military and those who lead it is a distraction at best.

Other then that, welcome aboard King Arthur.  Hope you stick around to help out on the Cadet Forum.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## elscotto937

I would say that the CIC officer's profession is as a youth leader. I can agree with that, and I think that their time should be specifically dedicated to leading youth and developling themselves as youth leaders. For there is a tremendous requirement for the cadet organization in Canada, and for there most part the CIC lead this organization well. Where the CIC stray way from professional development is as military officers. And that is where the system has dropped the ball. CIC officers, labeled as commissioned military officers, with less training than a recruit in the first 3 weeks at basic, and with a pat on the back, he's out the door to some small community no with possibly other military presence, to make the first military impression our young people will ever see. Now I ask you is that officer a professional commissioned officer, I don't believe so. The training that the military gives the CIC does not provide them with enough of the building blocks to become a professional officer, and gives them minimum, if any supervision to develop as such. For instance, take most reserve units in Canada, the are dispersed throughout Canada, much the same as the Cadet units, but with the reserve units the officers that return from much more indepth training have a maximum of supervision in order to ensure that they develop a professional military officers. Senior officer, RSS staff and Snr NCOs are all thier to develop this officer.... The CIC have none of this, if they are lucky they will have a CO of King Arthur's experience to mentor them, but most do not, irregardless, the do not have the military training to build upon. Take the CIC out off the CF, and the small amount of time that was meant for military training can be rededicated to youth leadership skills. 

Scott


----------



## Franko

Good points King Arthur.....

The sad fact is that there are a few bad apples in the CIC that detract from the remaining professionals in the cadet world. The main point I think is that there is a HUGE diference between the Regular or Reserve Officer training as compared to what CIC candidates have to go through in order to recieve their commision and promotion.

Again...a comparison of apples to oranges.

The CIC, in my humble opinion, is a great organisation....doing what it can with what little it is given.

"The difference between a very good corps and less efficient lies in the imagination of its staff and its willingness to push the envelope."

Agreed....however, some like to take the easy way out, and the cadets suffer for it. I'd love to see more CIC staff take the reins and run their corps to promote Esprite de Corps and get some fresh blood in....

Unfortunatly there are too many "bad apples" ruining it for the kids.

Regards


----------



## Excolis

hold on a sec scott.  you must be basing this on bad examples from where you are from.  i do agree that there are some officers in the cic that are there because they have to be or because htere kid is a cadet.  those people for the most part (not all of them) take no pride in themselves or the uniform.  as for the CIC having no other roles in the military community, that is not true at all. in Windsor  our Military institute has 4 member on the executive committee, the presidednt, treasure, and two directors.  the Internationarmed forces Commitee has 5 members of the cic the executive.  i am a member on both committees, and i have been lucky to have senior officers look at us the same way they would look at any other commissioned offcer.  i myself along with a few other cic officers, go to dinners in the states for the USMC, ANG, ect.  you need to look at these officers and see them as professional officers.  if there is some officer out there that looks like a bag of hammers, and is not meeting the highest of standards, you should tell one of your officers, and have them go and nicely say to the Officer, that they should do something to make themselves look better infront of there troops...  most of the time it is lack of knowledge on the officers behalf  and they will change how they look.  they just need a little help.   thats just my insight.  everyone can change how they do things.. they just need to be pointed in the right direction


----------



## elscotto937

Hopefully Airborne soon,
                     Granted I'm baseing my opinions on only two regions, Atlantic and Ontario, and only 2 of the elements Air and Army. That being said I have no first hand knowledge of a Navy CIC Officer outwest. I'm not personnally attacking the CIC officers individually, most of them do the best with what they are given, like Franko said. Thier intensions are good, but in order to wear the uniform of the Canadian Forces and hold a commision they require more training. This training most come at some expense, what is going to break, the time spent with the cadets or thier training as youth leaders.
   And only because you mention it, are you going to the dinners in the states are members of the CIC or your Military Institute. Because what would CIC officers have in common with warfighters, unless these people you were meeting with were leaders of some USMC cadet leaders.  Your inclusion in the military institute was based on your military experience, or could a civilian join. 
 And you do mention bringing up the problem to the individual and helping them sort themselves out and this has been tried, but as I said often there is no one around to sort them out in the public's eye. The problem is that most of the CIC officers that required sorting out, believe that they are real officers, and in the end do nothing to correct themselves.


----------



## Infanteer

Regardless of the quality of a majority of CIC officers (which seems to be constantly argued upon), it is irrelevant to the nature of the CIC organization belonging to the Officer Corps of a Military Force.  A CIC does not train and work to achieve professional excellence in the direction, control and management of violence on behalf of the state; therefore their inclusion within the ranks of a professional institution is unwarranted.


----------



## Bean

Good day all;

I've seen this topic far too often in the past, and am afraid I'll continue to see it much into the future as well.   I must take exception to the fact that there are several opinoons expressed here in the vien that CIC officers are not real officers.   If we look into the purist definition, I can concede that CIC officers are non-combatants, and therefore are not to be regarded as equal in all skills required of military leadership, however nor are most of our medical personnel, administrative personnel, or many among other support trades.   Having returned to the CIC (I've been in the Pres and CIC, and even done time at NDHQ) I can atest to the professionalism of many of my cadet colleagues.   Perhaps we are the exception to the rule at this point, and perhaps there are changes needed but here is the normal profile of a CIC officer as I have had privledge to see it.

Many of the officers currently enroled (age 35 and younger) have completed or are completing their university education, along with some additional Professional Military education.   Myself, I have just completed my degree from RMC and most of the other officers at the unit I will be working in are either enrolled in or have complete the OPME program as well.   Each member brings with them countless real world experiences, while these may not all be in the form of tactical expertise, professionalism in any craft which may serve the national good is uselful within a military reserve.   Many bring with them prior military experience, in fact of my last CIC course 21 out of 30 of us came fit with more that 5 - 10 years of Pres or Reg Force experience.

Collectively, yes the CIC can be tagged as alot of things.   There were in years gone by rampant rapid promotions of LHQ officers or fast tracking of specialized staff to address retention issues.   This is not as often the case anymore.   Like most trades in the CF MOC qualification takes quite a bit of time, training and experience.   If the unit makes their officers follow the rules, it will take a CIC 5 years to complete MOC qulaification (i.e. promotion to Captain), and until this time they are still in training like any other CF officer.   CIC officers must train to perform, and gain experience in EVERY facet of the CCM in order to reach this stage effectively.   Granted, this is not consistently applied, but it is getting better.

There is a full movement of younger CIC officers who expect to meet the same standards as their PRes and Reg Force bretheren.   While we are not firmly held to those same standards, and not fully assessed on them, this is a flaw in the general programme administration.   A problem that hopefully the on-going occupational review will address.   As we are seeing the legacy staff with more than 20+ years in the CIC exit the organization, this younger breed will gain prominence, and is making a better effort to fit into the changing military ethos in Canada.   It may soon be time for the CIC to play a larger role, and perhaps this is the catalyst group to make that happen.

Let us not berate a community who strives to improve the future state of our military and our country by training its youth, with the disdain of the past.   Let us support this community and help it find its place within the broader CF.   With peace support missions on-going, it may soon be time to see CIC officers in the communities of far off lands instilling in youth of other countries the same attributes we instill in our own.   A wild idea, but it may be one whose time has come.

So I guess that beyond postulating about other potential roles I'll leave with a thought.   In most reserve units between 60 and 75% of the time spent by officers at the LHQ is in training and not applying the trade for which they were hired.   The CIC applies the trade they have been hired to perform everytime they put on the uniform and step into the community.   In my experience, you can ask a CIC officer to teach almost anything, and given time to familiarize on it, they will do an outstanding job.   The CIC officers primary function in most cases is to conduct training, of any type, in multple venues.   This too may be a better place for them to fit in the broader CF, and better utilize our combatant resources to complete that work.

We all know that the CIC are not warfighters, but they are professionals with the skills to perform a difficult job, in often less than ideal circumstances.   And if that's not making a contribution to the CF, then I've missed the point during my 13 years as a member of the CF.

I look forward to responses.


----------



## Bean

Since my first post I've received a few e-mails directly with varying positions.  The majority of response focus on the issue of CIC officers not receiving tactical or combat arm based training. Can't argue that, its not there, but the trade does not at this time require it.  However, the other issue is that the CIC are not able to attend the same training, even if they so desire it.  I  would love to be able to send new officer cadets to the same training as the remainder of the CF, where I am sure they would no worse than any other member, but it is not at this time possible.  If attending a specific course makes one a real officer, and not their professional appearance, performance of their duties, and measured skill in their trade, then I agree the CIC are not professionals, but I don't believe this to be the case.


----------



## elscotto937

Bean, agreed that CIC officers provide a service and are a major contributor to the youth of Canada. The only contribution to the CF that they would make for be as indirect recruiters. Any no one would argue that MOs and JAGs are warfighters, but their services directly support warfighting, Peace Support Ops and training for such endevours. And as far as looking like a soldier, if that's all it took then, Clint Eastwood was a great Marine, because he looked and acted like one in Heart Break Ridge.


----------



## Excolis

Scott, 

     the last time i read my scroll it read the same as any "real" officer as you see it.  my involvment in the Military Institute and the Internation armed forces committe are both because of my CIC experience.  i am there as an officer.  and all the war fighters you call it see me the same as they would see any other commissioned officer.  and yes i have gone to the states and met many people/officers in the marine corps, ANG ect.....    it really strikes a nerve  when all cic get bashed and looked down on because people think they are less deserving of a commission.  i have known many officers in the res that are worse than mmost cic officers...   you dont see us looking down on them...


----------



## elscotto937

Good or Bad, Reservists have at least been given training that will take them to a standard, they have the building blocks to develop under guidence. The CIC have not being given this training nor are the required to meet a standard, for progression through the ranks. If you were to combine all the training that would take you to Captain and expand upon it, and require that all CIC officers successfully pass this training before they can get commission then, because they do not need a commission to supervise Cadets. That would provide the CIC with a modicum of credibility. 

Or...

You could say that the CIC only exist so that Reservist Loggies have someone to bash, ok I'm kidding about that...


----------



## Excolis

lol, you are lucky i have a thick skin lol....  nono  i think that cic are to res as res are to reg.  we do have a standard to meet, and it is very unfortunate that not more meet that standard.  there are some cc out there that could stand next to reg force officers and the troops wouldn't know the difference.  it is all about presence.


----------



## elscotto937

Hopefully Airborne Soon,
 Put you pride on the back shelf for a second and tell me what you think of having CIC officers complete all the crse to take them to Capt, before they can get a commission (ignore the pay issue for right now). Because for the most part CIC officer training would take them about 3 or 4 years to complete, if they really worked at it (i.e. Had the time). And the Majority of the CIC are it it for about 7-8 years (based on my personal experience) which would make it benificial for them to wait for promotion.  Being held at OCdt would not restrict them from conducted supervision of cadets and duties within the corps/sqn. That way it would deflect any of the pers who join the CIC to be an officer the quick and easy way..Acting as sort of a filter...An a greater percentage of those who join would not be pers who could not get into the Regular or PRes, but rather those who which to do a community service, which creates more of a professional force.
Sorry, if I was a little harsh earlier, I was remembering a few run-ins with some CIC/CIL officers that were less than perfect, surprisingly my ratio of good to bad CIC officers that I have met is roughly 1 to 1.


----------



## Excolis

no problem, i hve a tough skin, and i do agree that the training could be a little different...  i will not fight you there.  and by doing what you say, it will stop some of the power trip 23 year old capt's.... for all the CIC out there do not get me wrong i stand proud behind the capbadge  that we wear.  scott you have some valid points,oh and again dont worry about being harsh, if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen right.  

cheers


----------



## elscotto937

I was once a CIL Officer, and I believe I was well on my way to becoming one of those power-tripping 23 year old Capts, but I stopped short and joined the Regular force instead. And realistically, I prefer to bash army reservists, because most of them wear skirts and have funny hats.. And the saying that I have when someone talks about what they experienced with the reserves (mostly bad)...Is the rule that if you are a professional in you civilian life, then you are more than likely act to be a professional soldier. Maybe the same could be said about the CIC. It's not really going to change, and we can complain about the training all we like but the truth is there are quite a few idiots out there, and although they maybe evenly distributed in all elements, the seem to thive and fester in the CIC. In your unit is the regular force LO active, or do they have a PRes Unit Rep doing the job?


----------



## Excolis

LO????     in our area we have no reg force community it is all reserve.  we train and work with our affiliated unit as much as possible to gain knowledge from them.  i am lucky to work wiith a corps that has smart officers, that portray a good example of oficers.  our unit is known for that.  but i have seen first hand from my courses i have been on, what there is out there. and i think the standard should be raised.... where are you stationed scott?


brad


----------



## elscotto937

Brad, I'm up in Petawawa...

So you you don't have a designated Liason Officer?


----------



## Infanteer

> it is all about presence.



If that is what you think being a member of the military profession is all about, then their is no point debating the matter.  I'll leave you to your platoon of 15 year olds.

As for the crux of the argument, Scott937 has basically covered arguments related to the characteristics of a professional body.  Even ancillary positions, like Logistics and Medical Officers, are a essential part of the profession; the movement of supplies and the care for the wounded are essential parts of the application and management of organized violence on behalf of the state.  You may see Officers from some trades argue that they are not soldiers but clerks/mechanics/whatever and thus are distinct from the fighting troops; I would look to that mindset as a detraction from the military profession that needs to be fixed and thus not a good reason to exclude volunteers from a youth organization within the ranks.

As well, I would suggest some research into the development of the professional Officer Corps, starting with Scharnhorst's reforms 200 years ago, to gain a better understanding of the position I am arguing from.


----------



## Excolis

you obviously didnt read all the threads, and should before writting something and making yourself look stupid...   what i ment by that comment, is reffering to how the cic portray themself..  not "just wat it is all about"   read before you post


----------



## Infanteer

Hopefully whatever,

You obviously are not following the line of my arguement.  All you have been basing your membership to the Military Profession upon is your membership to a few Armed Forces associations as an "officer" and due to the fact that you have attended a few dinners and chatted up American officers while "maintaining a presence" (ie: not looking like an idiot).  Other than that, you've given no serious answer for how the CIC fits into the military profession.  Has your membership within the CIC made you a contributing member to the body of professionals who specialize in the command of troops to fight and sustain the land battle? Where, in any part of your role within your CIC, does the Army's doctrine and mission come into play?  As I said before, you probably don't understand the concepts behind either the military profession or that snazzy Scroll someone decided to give you.


----------



## combat_medic

Having spent full time Class B contracts dealing with CIC officers, I would very much disagree that the inherant problems with cadet officers are a "few bad apples" with the exception of less than a half dozen, I wouldn't trust any of them to lead a parade, let alone a real soldier. Many I spoke to mentioned that the reason they were in the CIC is because they failed the physical, written or medical tests to get into the CF, and since the CIC has none of those requirements, they went there by default. I had 18 year-old 2Lts in the CIC who were trying to order me to tell them confidential medical information. I had Captains refuse to help me in a medical emergency, and instead made a 12 year-old kid lift a stretcher. I had Majors who tried to deny medical treatment to their own cadets, and other Majors who completely ignored sick chits because they disagreed with our treatment. 

I also saw a course of CIC OCdts who completed their few weekends of training, and were handed a commission when they couldn't even stand at attention properly. Do you think these are the kind of people who are garnering respect for your organization?

Within this sea of incompetance, there were a few shining gems who seemed to actually know their job and tried very hard at it. They were by FAR the exception, rather than the rule. People wonder why the opinion of the CIC is so poor? Take a good hard look; a CIC officer gets a commission in 8 days and yet it takes 8 weeks for a reserve NCM just to complete basic training. Not only is this not in the same arena, we're not even playing the same sport. IS it any surprise that the CIC is treated with contempt? Do you honestly expect to get the respect and compliments from the soldiers who have spend months or years earning their single hook? Are you really surprised that these same soldiers hold you, your commission, your training, and your organization with a measure of contempt? The Reg force is to the Reserves what the CIC is to the Boy Scouts. The CIC are not trained to be soldiers, they are youth leaders. 

I am in complete agreement with Infanteer with regards to the CIC taking something away from the remainder of the Officer Corps. Either make CIC officers soldiers and give them equivalent training to the reserves (of which they profess to be part), or remove them from the military. Between an 18 year old with a CIC commission in his hand, and a brand new private who just got off basic training, I'll take the private, hands down.


----------



## Excolis

i am sorry you guys have had horror storied with the cic.   i agree that they need to be trained a lot differently.... and a standard met... but there still are that few as you said... to bad there aren't more of them


----------



## Jarnhamar

H.A.S, you seem pretty keen on the military.  Why don't you join the reserves or regular force? Why not leave the cadets and join the army?


----------



## elscotto937

Ghost that is a good question, not just specifically to H.A.S, but in general. Why would someone keen on the military, young, and who could meet the standards want to look after cadets, when they could be doing some pretty interesting stuff and leading soldiers. I know for myself, I spent 9 months in the CIL because, I wanted to fly and they gave me the oportunity, but I didn't supervise cadets or work in a Corps. In addition, I enrolled myself, back in the days before the CFRCs were involved. But I was just spinning my wheels until I could get into the army.


----------



## Excolis

the only reason i dont leave na d join the reservers or regs, is because my career is to good to give up.    if anything ever happened to my job, i would transfer for sure.   believe me i would love to be reg force, but right now, making a contribution is the only thing i can do.  and me trying to make the best cadets, so that when they jump over to the reserves, you get a better product, i think that is better than doing nothing at all.  for the reg force and reserve to grow, there has to be an interest in the CF, and i am trying my best to spark an interest in as many young canadians as i can


----------



## catalyst

Very well put, HAS. I think that is an excellent answer.  Thats what I told my friend (he's in the reserves), he was complaining about the cadets and I told him that well, if I join cadets I'll make 'em better for when they get to his unit.


HAS


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thats a really good answer HAS.


----------



## THEARMYGUY

Scott

There is a standard for the CIC to achieve the rank of Capt.  You need to be in for 5 years and time must be spent at all previous ranks based on training and courses taken.  The candidates must also PASS courses provided for their TRAINING so that they can move through the ranks.  Positions at LHQ training centers must also be available.  I don't see why you continue to compare CIC with Reserve or Reg.  They are not the same and likely never will be.  As a CIC officer I have little interest in combat.  I need to be trained to handle KIDS.  If you think supervising adults is tough then you need to go on a few Cadet exercises!!  Youth are the future.  Yes we(CIC) officers do make great recruiters and you can see the elements that we use to encourage enrollment to the CF.  However you really need to look at the big picture here.  We exist to train youth, not to fight, but to be better youth.  That is our mandate.  We take pride in what we do.  I have never looked down upon any officer in the CIC.  I don't think that a group of dedicated people who use a lot of their spare time to train youth need to be looked down on.   My opinions are based on my own experiences in the CIC.  I'm 29 and I'm an Lt.  I have been with the CIC since 1996 and I was a Cadet for 6 1/2 years.  Leadership is the key to success.  I will do my best to lead even if it's not in battle.  That is why I teach kids for the CF as a member of the CIC. 


CHEERS

THE ARMY GUY


----------



## Excolis

i am not alone anymore,  thanks army guy....


----------



## King Arthur

Well.welll... That's what happens when you go on vacation... I missed all this good debating! 

I have witnessed CIC bashing for many years now and at all levels and it all boils down to the same thing: a lack of understanding of our challenges and mission, but more importantly a lack of recognition for what we contribute to the Canadian Forces and Canada.   The Canadian Forces are not only responsible to fight wars, but also have a domestic mission to help communities throughout our country.   I cannot imagine a more noble and interesting mission that the one I have as a CIC...   I am a proud representative of the CF and I am responsible for training better citizens (30% of which later join the CF by the way... with a solid background in leadership, drill, IT, map and compass, GPS, etc.).   The role of an army is also to prevent war and ensure the protection of its communities. We do this very well mind you.   

It would be interesting for a change to see our colleagues from other branches of the CF recognize our great contribution to Canada instead of focusing on what we do not have (and do not need..). I learned to use a rifle when I did my BOQ and never used it after that...   The day that the CIC is called upon to provide direct support to the RegF, we will receive the appropriate training for our mission, just as other member of the CF receive prior to their mission.

The CIC receive the specialized training that it needs to conduct its specialized mission, there is nothing wrong with that.   We are not full-time soldiers because we have civilian jobs and it is a question of choice.   Stop comparing us with the RegF or even with the Militia because this is what we are not.   We are Youth leaders that have been appointed by the Canadian Government to do a job and we do it well.   If you want to compare us to the Boy Scouts or Minor Hockey Coaches, be it, but at least be honest enough to acknowledge that we do a superior job and that what we do is not necessarily that easy.   It takes a special kind of individual to willingly chose to take care of teenagers and we are this type individuals.   I am proud of my colleagues of the RegF and the ResF for their particular training and capability, maybe it is time for you to be proud of us and give us credit.

The vast majority of CIC are dedicated and professional individuals that deserve to be recognized. We have young members that need to mature and grow, but this is our challenge to handle. Are we members of the military profession - Yes.   Do we have the same qualifications - Thankfully NO because this is not what we need.   Are we good at what we are doing - You bet we are!


----------



## THEARMYGUY

Well I would have to say that sums up the way I feel about the CIC as well.  Thanks for the comment King.  Glad to have you back from vacation.  I may be new here, but I have been with the CIC for a while now and I have seen both sides of the coin.  I was a young and cocky ex cadet.  Then I learned that you need to put into the unit what you want to get out of it.  From that point on I have been true to myself and to the unit and CIC.   I take pride in what I do.  My rank was not just handed to me after BOQ.  I spent 2 years at the rank of Ocdt and I'm now an Lt.  The system is not what it could be, however it is at least a good stab at it.  I hope that we can enact the changes together that will take the CIC and the CF in the right direction for the future.  I really think that we have to do what we can with what we have for now but we can try to fix problems as they occur and we can send word to the top of our chain of command to fix things beyond our control.  That is how the army is supposed to work isn't it???  Good luck to you in your area.  I will do what I can here in the EOA.

Cheers!!! 

The Army Guy


----------



## Simpleton

THE ARMY GUY said:
			
		

> ...   I will do what I can here in the EOA.
> 
> Cheers!!!
> 
> The Army Guy



Umm, what is an EOA?


----------



## Bean

EOA - Eastern Ontario Area

Good post King.  Having played in both sides (PRes and CIC) I have seen the good and the bad from both houses.  As long as everyone can remember that the role is clearly defined for each component of the Res Force, and this includes our role as mandated by the VCDS, there should be no argument.  We exist to manage a program for the CF and you are right that we generally do it well.  This is not to say that perhaps there could be improvements with some of our younger officers, and I believe we should be asked to meet the same physical and education standards as the PRes, as this will allow us to achieve our mission more effectively.  If the goals of the program are clear, we should have the best staff available to carry out that mission.  

I have been lucky to get support from local Reg force and PRes pers quite often, mostly ex-cadets from all facets of the CCM, and they understand the unique nature of the mission and the benefits of the program.  What the masses need to remember is to not broad brush the CIC based on specific individuals.  As with any other officer or NCM, you must evaluate the man, his skills, and how he handles the situations he is in. 

Like others, I have gone back to the cadet world because my civilian career does not afford me the time or flexibility to continue making a full contribution to the PRes.  So I have taken what I learned there as an Oficer and NCM and can now use that experience to build up Canada's youth.  I am simply contributing to the long term mission of the CF in a different way.

There have been a number of statements in recent parts of this thread that I think should be cleared up.  A CIC oficer does not get their commission in 8 days.  It is true that the CIC BOQ is 10 days in duration, but these are targeted and focussed days of training.  When an Offcier arrives at their BOQ they are expected to already posses much of the knowledge that would normally be taught to recruits of other components of the Reserve Force in the first few weeks of their training.  They are expected to write and pass 4 performance checks the first day on a number of items that are provided as self study.  The approach is to limit time in the classroom due to budgetary restriction, and little else.  It would be ideal if these officers could be in class to learn the same skills just like everyone else, but they program has found another way to do it.  Also, simply passing BOQ does not mean the officer will receive their commission.  They must gain experience in all facets of the operation of their unit (LHQ, TC, etc.) and receive recommendations from both the Unit Commanding Offcier (their direct supervisor) and the civilian side of the organization.  A junior officer who has not perfromed well will not be promoted quickly.  On average most CIC officers spend at least 2 years as an Officer Cadet, in my expereince.  As for promotion beyond that, yes there are courses, yes you need to do more time with a unit or training center, but ultimately you must spend time developing cadets.

I guess that's all I have for the moment, but should I think of anything else I'll post it.


----------



## primer

The Army Guy said:
			
		

> Well I would have to say that sums up the way I feel about the CIC as well.   Thanks for the comment King.   Glad to have you back from vacation.   I may be new here, but I have been with the CIC for a while now and I have seen both sides of the coin.   I was a young and cocky ex cadet.   Then I learned that you need to put into the unit what you want to get out of it.   From that point on I have been true to myself and to the unit and CIC.     I take pride in what I do.   My rank was not just handed to me after BOQ.   I spent 2 years at the rank of Ocdt and I'm now an Lt.   The system is not what it could be, however it is at least a good stab at it.   I hope that we can enact the changes together that will take the CIC and the CF in the right direction for the future.   I really think that we have to do what we can with what we have for now but we can try to fix problems as they occur and we can send word to the top of our chain of command to fix things beyond our control.   That is how the army is supposed to work isn't it???   Good luck to you in your area.   I will do what I can here in the EOA.
> 
> Cheers!!!
> 
> The Army Guy



Well being in the CIC for the past Ten years I have seen the changes with younger officers I have seent he 23 Year old Capts and have seen the 60 year old OCdts,all with the same goals. To work with youth the future of our great country that is CANADA


----------



## Infanteer

Welcome back King Arther:



> The CIC receive the specialized training that it needs to conduct its specialized mission, there is nothing wrong with that.  We are not full-time soldiers because we have civilian jobs and it is a question of choice.



I never disputed that.  I didn't want to my arguement to focus on less then stellar examples of CIC Officers, because that is outside of the issue.  Yes, you conduct a specialized mission.  However, it is a mission that is unrelated to the profession of arms.



> Stop comparing us with the RegF or even with the Militia because this is what we are not.  We are Youth leaders that have been appointed by the Canadian Government to do a job and we do it well.



Exactly, I do not wish to compare you Reg Force or Reserve Officers, because that is what you are not.  For this reason, it is unnecessary to include you with the commissioned Ranks, as all it does is confuse and obfuscate the profession.



> If you want to compare us to the Boy Scouts or Minor Hockey Coaches, be it, but at least be honest enough to acknowledge that we do a superior job and that what we do is not necessarily that easy.  It takes a special kind of individual to willingly chose to take care of teenagers and we are this type individuals.  I am proud of my colleagues of the RegF and the ResF for their particular training and capability, maybe it is time for you to be proud of us and give us credit.



I wouldn't go that far.  There are some exceptional Coaches, Boy Scout Leaders, and members of community groups/religious groups that do an excellent job at leading the youth of our Country.  Don't try and pretend that because you wear a uniform that you do a superior job.  I will give credit where credit is due, however, I do not see any reason to extend that credit into incorporating your position as a youth leader into the Officer Corps with its inherent authority and responsibilities.



> The vast majority of CIC are dedicated and professional individuals that deserve to be recognized. We have young members that need to mature and grow, but this is our challenge to handle. Are we members of the military profession - Yes.  Do we have the same qualifications - Thankfully NO because this is not what we need.  Are we good at what we are doing - You bet we are!



You are not part of the military profession, the profession of arms.  If you have a different view on what the profession of arms is, I would be interested to hear it, as I am getting the suspicion that you all feel being a member of the profession of arms entails putting on an officer's stripes and getting saluted from 14 year olds.


----------



## THEARMYGUY

OK.  So I would just like to add that as a CIC officer, I don't think that I am different from any other youth group leader, or more superior.  I believe that we as a group do a good job and are trained well enough to meet or exceed the standard set by NDHQ and D Cadets.  Our job can be applied to other aspects of life however we are not military members in the combat arms.  We do a job.  That job has little to do with arms.  Do we think that being a member of the military profession entitles us to wear strips and be saluted by 14 year old's?  Only if we earned those stripes!!  Here I speak for myself and others will disagree or agree as they might.  It is not my place to decide weather or not we should have the same or similar training as our Pres or RegF counterparts.  I for one would enjoy the challenge of some type of arms training.  I'm not so sure the parents of todays cadets would be happy with it though.  This may be one of the reasons that we don't get the same training.  Parents are becoming more apprehensive of "combat" style programmes.  Teen shootings and other violent teen acts have hurt the cadet movement, and made it harder for us to train cadets in any kind of combat roll.  "War games" have been renamed "Night Navigation Training".  These are just a few of the differences that split the PRes and RegF from the CIC.  We are not the same, as I said before.  We likely never will be.

Cheers!! 

The Army Guy


----------



## Jarnhamar

Theirs obviously many good CIC officers out there that do amazing jobs. From gung hoe young cadets who want to stay involved with cadets after their 18 to older reserve and regular force soldiers who enjoy the uniform, working with cadets, living at a relaxed pace, whatever.

In the CF you hardly hear about the good deeds performed by soldiers but the minute someone does something bad, it's all over the front page. I think the same mentality holds true for CIC officers.  We don't hear about the good officers, only the ones who try to pull rank in order to change the channel in the common room at the shacks or the CIC Officers that see themselves as in infantry officers and try to teach/lead their platoon as such.

Their shouldn't be this big pressure for cadets to join the army . Cadets/CIC needs good people just like the reserves/regs do. I think the problem is that some cadets and CIC officers want what they do to be like the army but without the commitment, discipline or hard work.(Like a certain someone I can think of whom it looks like quit the reserves after not being allowed to ware whatever they want) 
It's an easy way around going to basic, putting time in.   This isn't the attitude of all CIC officers but this particular attitude found in some CIC officers is what gives the over all group a bad name to many.

I'd agree with the comment that making CIC members "Officers" it creates a lot of confusion.


----------



## THEARMYGUY

I have to agree with ghost on the fact that very few good deeds get noticed in the CF.  The fact that we all share "the shame" that others place upon us in the CIC is a tough pill to swallow with that in mind.  I try my best as do many other CIC members.  I don't think that being an "officer" is confusing however.  We wear a different hat badge from everyone else.  We wear different shoulder titles as well.  Just as any other branch of the forces we are different and our training is different.  I hate getting painted with the same brush as "the few who ruin it for the many".  I will just continue on and do my best.  Others will say what they say.  I hope that we can all try to get past preconceived notions of what a CIC member is, and just get to work with what we do best.  Lets train and be trained.  Do what you can for the CF and for Canada.  No matter how small your effort, we can all make a difference in our own way.

Cheers!! 

The Army Guy


----------



## elscotto937

Army Guy... the CIC have a place and the CCM is very good organization for the youth of Canada, but you don't call cadets...Soldiers, So you can't really think that CIC Officers are military officers. What do you (CIC) do to assist Infanteer to close with and destroy the enemy, I know what I do...

Don't get confused, I'm not saying that the CIC are bad people or incompetent boobs (every organization has those). On the contrary the vast majority are don't selfless act by developing Canada's youth. Now if tommorow the Boy scouts were made a federal institution and put under the direction of the CF, would you commission the leaders? If your answer is yes then were are arguing apples and oranges, and I will quit.

Finally, now that most of the contributers to this thread have finished patting themselves on the back, I whole-heartedly resent the fact that you (the CIC) believe that you stand alone in the CCM, and believe that you are the only ones to supervise and give up free time to the cadet movement... there are plenty of soldiers and civilians that do this without the pay and opportunity for summer employment. I wouldn't be so nieve to beileve all CIC have not been in the PRes or RegF, so don't do the reverse.


----------



## THEARMYGUY

Scott

Firstly I agree with your point about the CIC not calling "cadets" "soldiers".  They are not soldiers and are therefor not referred to as such.  Secondly I do think that if Boy Scouts( which is now called Scouts Canada because now it's co-ed) came under the direction of the CF then yes I would make the leaders commissioned officers.  That is however only if the Scouts adopted the CF rank structure as the cadets have.  Officers are in a roll of supervision and leadership.  Sound like a leader to me.  And finally, just because we don't kill or save people does not mean that we are not worthy of being officers in the CF.  My job( appointed by her majesty the Queen) is no less important than that of any other person in our fair country.  I develop in youth the potential for good leadership, physical fitness and an interest in the CF.  Youth are the future and I count on them to be "soldiers" in that future.  Some will be anyway.  I don't wish to be compared to PRes or RegF.  I don't do the same job they do.  They are good at what they do and so am I.  Remember, anyone can be an officer.  Call a bank sometime.  The message will say "an officer will be with you shortly.  Go to the Salvation Army.  They are also officers.  I think we are dealing with apples and oranges here and I just want to drop the entire comparison.  We all are going to feel the way we do and that's that.  One more quick note.  I had no intention of excluding the other members of the  CF and civi life who help out in the CCM.  I was one of them.  We get great support from not only PRes and RegF but our parent and civi volunteers.  I think that they are a large part of the movement and yes, they don't get payed, and most don't have employment opportunities with the CF or the unit.

In the CCM of today and yesterday the volunteers are the grease that keeps the wheels of the future moving.

Kudos to all of those( members and civilians) who take the time to help any youth organization.  They are selfless and caring in a way that many people will never understand.

Cheers!! 

The Army Guy


----------



## sgt_mandal

Very well said, sir.


----------



## Excolis

well said.. well said...


----------



## Infanteer

> Secondly I do think that if Boy Scouts( which is now called Scouts Canada because now it's co-ed) came under the direction of the CF then yes I would make the leaders commissioned officers.  That is however only if the Scouts adopted the CF rank structure as the cadets have.



Seeing how you said "[cadets] are not soldiers and are therefor not referred to as such" and then go on to advocate this, I really question if you understand the history and the nature of the rank structure in a military force?  Why would the boy scouts need rank (for that matter, why do the cadets need it)?  Is there any lawful commands and duties that a 14 year "Master Corporal" is responsible to carry out according to the QR&O?



> Officers are in a roll of supervision and leadership.  Sound like a leader to me.  And finally, just because we don't kill or save people does not mean that we are not worthy of being officers in the CF.



So, I don't treat patients nor am I properly trained to, but I am still worthy of calling myself a Doctor?  Do you understand the nature of the military profession to which you claim you are entitled to be a part of?



> My job( appointed by her majesty the Queen) is no less important than that of any other person in our fair country.  I develop in youth the potential for good leadership, physical fitness and an interest in the CF.  Youth are the future and I count on them to be "soldiers" in that future.  Some will be anyway.



So should we commission high school teachers as well, since they fall under your definition of an "officer"?



> I don't wish to be compared to PRes or RegF.  I don't do the same job they do.



So you say you are not a professional soldier, nor do you do anything that professional soldiers do, but somehow you are still a member of the military profession?  Which is it?



> They are good at what they do and so am I.



I never disputed that fact, as it is irrelevant to my argument.  I could care less if the CIC's were turning out Olympic athletes, I fail to see how they fit into the profession of arms.



> Remember, anyone can be an officer.  Call a bank sometime.  The message will say "an officer will be with you shortly.  Go to the Salvation Army.  They are also officers.



Well, that is a pretty professional statement.  I am sure that members of the Officer Corps, with their specialized body of knowledge, their multiple deployments in command of soldiers, and their relevent military education and Staff College would appreciate the fact that you've downgraded their devotion to the profession of arms to a pencil pusher at the RBC or some charity worker down at the Sally Anne.

You are really helping to prove my point.



> I think we are dealing with apples and oranges here and I just want to drop the entire comparison.  We all are going to feel the way we do and that's that.



Bottom line is, some of the CIC have started a thread trying to state the rational for them being a professional equivalent to the military officers of the CF because you share a Queen's Commission.  I've argued against this claim, and to date, I've yet to get a serious rebuttal to my arguments.  Rather then attempt to seriously address the facts of the points Scott and I have presented on military professionalism, you have merely committed yourself to back-patting and talking about how dedicated you are, much to the cheers of your Cadet "comrades-in-arms."  Well it may sound nice, you haven't really answered my question on your relevance to the Army and how it should make you a member of the professional Officer Corps

So, perhaps I'll ask my question again.  Do you feel my argument for the military profession (and backed by serious historians and professional soldiers) is out to lunch and that you, the CIC, have somehow redefined the status of the profession of arms?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Call a bank sometime.  The message will say "an officer will be with you shortly.  Go to the Salvation Army.  They are also officers.



They don't hold the Queen's commission.  I should think the difference in terminology would be obvious even to an 8 year old, but apparently not.

I worked for Scotiabank for two years; two of the secretaries at our trust company were retitled "officers" - the ex-Regular Air Force sergeant I worked with and I had a good laugh over it - so did the secretaries, come to think of it.  It was a benefit without having to give them a raise.  And just goes to show how cheaply the word is used.  Like Infanteer says, you prove his point.  If you are trying to equate the status of CIC officers with bank tellers and secretaries, I must say, you're very convincing.


----------



## Excolis

everyone needs to grow up and just learn to live with the fact that CIC officers are commissioned officers.  and if you have a bad experience with a CIC officer.  you should have your troop officer/platoon comander whoever, go to the CO of the cadet unit and let them know what they are doing wrong,  believe me it will better those officers.  if you keep letting things happen that make CIC look bad nothing will change.  i know many PRes officers that dont know anything, and sometimes i tell them what they are doing wrong.  once someone knows what they are doing wrong they will change it to make it right.


----------



## THEARMYGUY

To all who choose to listen.

I am willing to concede that the CIC is not a branch of the CF that would be considered members of the profession of arms(as you put it).  We are not combat trained.  We as a body are trainers of youth.  I am not here to say that we should or should not be commissioned officers in the CF.  I am simply stating that we do a job in a leadership roll.  As the cadets uses the rank structure to maintain balance in the unit, so do we at the officer level.  If you think thats wrong and lends a bad impression to the CF then that is your opinion.

It is not my intention to compare officers of the RegF or Pres to bank tellers or Salvation members.  I am simply stating that they too carry the name. I was also not comparing the CIC to the aforementioned organizations.  It was great the way you guys did that though!!  The CIC is not intended as a fighting force.  We simply teach youth.  I don't think I would make high school teachers CF officers as they do not all promote an interest in the CF.  We really don't need to pat each other on the back and I think that I have said enough on this thread.  By the way I think most cadets would be thrilled to be 14 years old and be a M/Cpl.  Cadets are not bound by QR&O's as they are not members of the CF.  One final thought that the rest of you can punt around:  Why don't we just get the CIC to go through regular training like all other officers??  Sure some of you will say that the CIC would not be up to the task.  Why not make a go at it though?  All new CIC officers could take the training required by the CF that any other officer would take.  Just one small problem.  Many of the officers that went to go CIC would stay RegF or PRes.  So where do we go from here??

The rest of you can duke it out from here.  I've had enough of this one.

Cheers!! 

The Army Guy


----------



## combat_medic

"Why don't we just get the CIC to go through regular training like all other officers?"

I think that was part of the point. Having to salute a teenager who got a commission after 10 training days is part of the reason there is so much disrespect for the CIC. Every other officer, both Reg and Res and required to undergo basic officer training, not to mention are required to adhere to certain physical, intellectual, and medical standards. They are also required to hold a post secondary degree, and yet people can get into the CIC without so much as a high school education, carrying an extra 100lbs of body fat, and with medical conditions as severe as diabetes and epilepsy. 

However, if the CIC were held to the same standards of the remainder of the CF, and of the Officer Corps, and were required to attend the same level of training, then, I believe, a lot of that gulf would be eliminated. If you know the 2Lt you're saluting got beasted for X many weeks by some Infantry Sgt in Gagetown, you're going to have a lot more respect for him than knowing he spend 10 days on his arse in a classroom, instructed by another CIC guy.

Saying that you're worthy of a commission simply because you're in a leadership role is a fallacy. A reserve MCpl is just as much of a leader, is responsible for administrating and training young troops (who are often old enough to be cadets themselves), and has FAR more training than a CIC officer, and yet is not entitled to a commission. Cadet NCOs are also in positions of leadership and training, and yet anyone would balk at the suggestion of handing some pimply-faced kid the Queen's Commission. 

As Infanteer stated, no matter whether you're in the Infantry or you're in the rear echelon, all soldiers are just that; SOLDIERS. We are all in the profession of arms, and our job is either to close with and destroy the enemy, or support those who are doing it. A civilian recruiter generates and promotes just as much interest in the CF as you do, and yet they aren't expecting a commission. 

If the CIC were prepared to get all the prerequisites of joining the CF, underwent the same training, and were held to the same standard as every other person who puts on the uniform, then they would be a lot more deserving of their commission than they are presently, and I think the vast majority of people woudl have a lot less problem with them being commissioned members of the CF.

Either become civilian youth leaders, or become commissioned officers, the same as all the other Officer Corps... you can't maintain the status quo and expect to get the respect of those people who spent years of training to earn a single chevron.


----------



## Infanteer

> everyone needs to grow up and just learn to live with the fact that CIC officers are commissioned officers.



If you didn't notice, this was a civil discussion, but nice way to try and deflect the argument.

As well, if we just decided to "live with the fact" there wouldn't be much to discuss around here.



> and if you have a bad experience with a CIC officer.  you should have your troop officer/platoon comander whoever, go to the CO of the cadet unit and let them know what they are doing wrong,  believe me it will better those officers.  if you keep letting things happen that make CIC look bad nothing will change.  i know many PRes officers that dont know anything, and sometimes i tell them what they are doing wrong.  once someone knows what they are doing wrong they will change it to make it right.



Four pages and you have still been unable to grasp the thesis of my argument?  Have you even been reading anything I write?!?  As I've said in every post I've written, the performance of CIC officers has nothing to do with the issue.
----



> Why don't we just get the CIC to go through regular training like all other officers??  Sure some of you will say that the CIC would not be up to the task.  Why not make a go at it though?  All new CIC officers could take the training required by the CF that any other officer would take.  Just one small problem.  Many of the officers that went to go CIC would stay RegF or PRes.  So where do we go from here??



This would probably do well to eliminate some of the "chaff" that slips through the cracks, but does it get to the root of the issue?  What does a CIC officer fully trained to Common Army Phase standards (Phase II) do now.  He/she is trained, but does not contribute to the profession nor work within it.  As well, I've asserted before that being a member of a Professional Officer Corps is much more then simply receiving training in tactics and techniques related to small unit command.  There is a myriad of other factors which define the profession (education, actual leadership, etc, etc).  Is it worth putting all this effort into professionalizing CIC officers only to have them return to a position that many of you seem to do quite well with the 10-20 days of training you receive?

I would say that if you were going to professionalize the CIC, then you would have to do more to transform the Cadets as a body that is someway associated with the profession of arms.  However, due to current social trends, existing international legislation that Canada has signed to, and a plethora of other issues, I can see the chances of this happening at about zero.


----------



## sgt_mandal

I'm just curious of one thing, If any of you, who dispise the CIC, saw them in uniform while you were in uniform, would you salute them?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

sgt_mandal said:
			
		

> I'm just curious of one thing, If any of you, who dispise the CIC, saw them in uniform while you were in uniform, would you salute them?



I don't despise the CIC so I probably shouldn't answer, but I can probably speak for some of my colleagues when I say, no, we would not salute them, we would salute the Queen's commission....


----------



## Excolis

just to let all of you know, the training for CIC officers is undergoing a major change.  they are implimenting a new standard where therewill be physical fitness, Appt test, and more training.  so it will not be 10 days to get your commission.    we will also be given a proper MOC.  so now the CIC trade will show up on trade lists.  they are trying there best to make the CIC more "army" and also by doing this they are giving us as CIC officers better training.

and on another note, if you just salute us because you have no respect for us and just the commision,  do you feel the same way about padres?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

hopefully airborne soon said:
			
		

> and on another note, if you just salute us because you have no respect for us and just the commision,



Don't put words in anyone's mouth.  Remember what Winters said in Episode 8 of Band of Brothers...."Captain Sobel, we salute the rank, not the man...."


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I don't recall seeing CIC officers deployed with us nor do I recall a CIC officer winning a Victoria Cross at Dieppe.... While I am not a religious person I respect the service they provide the CF.


----------



## Infanteer

> I'm just curious of one thing, If any of you, who dispise the CIC, saw them in uniform while you were in uniform, would you salute them?



Just to let you know Mandel, I don't state anywhere in my posts that I despise CIC's.   Obviously, there are many CIC's who are very good at what they do and provide a valuable service to their communities; I am simply arguing for the need to commission them as I believe it is against the interests of the professional Officer Corps to be granting superfluous commissions.

As for saluting them, as a professional soldier of course I would.   When I walk by a CIC, I usually notice the Officer rank rather then trying to pick out if they have a CIC unit tag or a Cadet capbadge, so I salute them like I'd salute any other Officer I came upon while in uniform.

---



> just to let all of you know, the training for CIC officers is undergoing a major change.  they are implimenting a new standard where therewill be physical fitness, Appt test, and more training.  so it will not be 10 days to get your commission.    we will also be given a proper MOC.  so now the CIC trade will show up on trade lists.  they are trying there best to make the CIC more "army" and also by doing this they are giving us as CIC officers better training.



Again, I already brought that up; if you ever want to "be airborne" you should start paying attention to details.  Look at my last post; is this really going to make a difference in a professional sense?



> and on another note, if you just salute us because you have no respect for us and just the commision,  do you feel the same way about padres?



Although I would question the need to commission our Padres I respect their place within the profession of arms.  Since they hold a commission I, again as a professional soldier, would of course salute them.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

One might argure that chaplains "earned" their right to be commissioned - during WW II they were granted Honourary status only.  After Foote got the Victoria Cross - and he was by no means the only example of a physically brave chaplain - I suspect things were destined to change.

Of course, Infanteer, you could extend your logic to doctors, military lawyers, even CFRC personnel, couldn't you?


----------



## Infanteer

I believe commissioned Medical personnel command troops in the field in Field Ambs and Hospitals, so I would say they are rightfully commissioned and part of the profession of arms; I would consider dealing with battlefiled casualties to be a very specialized field of knowledge that supports winning the land battle.  Recruiting is a additional task of both officers and the ranks, just as training recruits is, so there is no such thing as a "CFRC personnel"; they are members of the profession performing an ancillary duty that is vital to the health of the military.  

However, command of troops is not the only qualifier of belonging to troops.  I think you could include Military Lawyers because they deal with Military Law, which would fit under Huntington's definition as they are dealing with a unique sub-set of skills that is pertinent to the culture of the military.  Perhaps I'll have to go back to Huntington and the others I've read to further define the nature of belonging to the profession.

I remember seeing on your German Army site that the Germans had some sort of distinctive commission for officers who performed vital support tasks but were not involved in the command of troops in battle.  Can you confirm this?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I remember seeing on your German Army site that the Germans had some sort of distinctive commission for officers who performed vital support tasks but were not involved in the command of troops in battle.  Can you confirm this?



Mmmm, good point.  The Beamten (civilian officials) and Sonderführer were two classes of "officer" in the German military that possessed certain skill sets, such as pharmacist, lawyer, remount official, paymaster, doctor, dentist, veterinarian, interpreter, construction engineers,  etc.

To quote my own website:



> As of 26 August 1939, NCOs and men with special linguistic or technical skills, but lacking in necessary military training, were permitted to be promoted to NCO or officer supervisory status as Specialist Officers.  They wore standard military uniforms (excepting as detailed below), and did have officer's rank (without an actual commission) and authority (but only within the area covered by their occupation) excepting those graded equivalent to NCOs.



Interesting concept, though in Canada, we've always prided ourselves on the ability to cross-discipline.  I think the Germans may have specialized a bit too much.  (Oho, so you're a contruction engineer, eh?  Well, you'll never command troops, then!)   Not sure who "commanded" their medical battalions - probably the Beamten/Sonderführer as his authority extended only to those under his command.

They wore a very military looking uniform (identical to the Army, with the exception of collar devices, shoulder straps, and the colour of the piping on their hats) - I don't know if they were saluted or not, but bear in mind, the Germans saluted NCOs too, if they were superior in rank.



> I think you could include Military Lawyers because they deal with Military Law, which would fit under Huntington's definition as they are dealing with a unique sub-set of skills that is pertinent to the culture of the military.  Perhaps I'll have to go back to Huntington and the others I've read to further define the nature of belonging to the profession.



So how is it that the CIC _don't_ deal with a "unique sub-set of skills that is pertinent to the culture of the military?" to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.


----------



## Excolis

ex dragoon...     back in the world wars some cadet corps recived battle honours... No 9 cadet corps in london has some as a matter of fact. adn are you saying by bettering the youth of tomorrow, and getting them interested in the CF, is not of value to the CF?


----------



## combat_medic

hopefully airborne soon said:
			
		

> adn are you saying by bettering the youth of tomorrow, and getting them interested in the CF, is not of value to the CF?



I don't think anyone was questioning the value of the cadet organization as a whole. But as was stated, high school teachers are just as responsible for bettering the youth of tomorrow, and NCM CFRC staff generate just as much interest in the CF, but you don't see either group claiming to be entitled to the Queen's Commission because they lead kids.

If I run a paintball/airsoft league that is run in a quasi-military style, and serves to promote interest in the CF, does that mean I can be commissioned as well?

If you GENUINELY want respect for the commission you hold so dear, you need to find a better reason for it to be handed to you other than "we lead kids and make them interested in the CF." Otherwise, anyone who is in the same position as you should be entitled to the same rank and priveledges. This extends to boy scout leaders, high school teachers and the like.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I usually stay out of the cadet forum as I have no experience so if this question has been asked allready just kick me where I belong.

Just one question for those CIC  "officers", would you honestly still do this if tomorrow Infanteer got his way and your commissions were revoked?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

hopefully airborne soon said:
			
		

> ex dragoon...        back in the world wars some cadet corps recived battle honours... No 9 cadet corps in london has some as a matter of fact.



Source?  This is certainly news to me, where can I read more about it?


----------



## Excolis

not at all...   the only difference in our training and the training of your officers is the battle portions... other than that we learn the military side of things.   on our JOLC (Junior Officers Leadership Course)   we had reg force WO from the RCR ex CAR.   we are not just trainied by CIC... all i have to say is that i am lucky i love down here and dont have a hard time with any of the PRes.


----------



## Excolis

i would still do this tomorrow... for sure..... and as for the battle honours, they are hanging in the oficers mess in london or st thomas, i forget where they were... i will find out for you...


----------



## Michael OLeary

hopefully airborne soon said:
			
		

> ex dragoon...        back in the world wars some cadet corps recived battle honours... No 9 cadet corps in london has some as a matter of fact.



[quote author=Michaerl Dorosh]
Source?   This is certainly news to me, where can I read more about it?[/quote]


I'd like to see more information on this as well. I've seen most General Orders and Canadian Army Orders authorizing Battle Honours for the First and Second World Wars, and I haven't seen any "awarded" to Cadet Corps.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I don't recall seeing CIC officers deployed with us nor do I recall a CIC officer winning a Victoria Cross at Dieppe.... While I am not a religious person I respect the service they provide the CF.





> ex dragoon...     back in the world wars some cadet corps recived battle honours... No 9 cadet corps in london has some as a matter of fact. adn are you saying by bettering the youth of tomorrow, and getting them interested in the CF, is not of value to the CF?



Not saying it never happened but i too would like to hear more on this. Where in my above statement did I ever question the value of the cadet movement to to the CF? Being a former cadet myself I also know how big a role being a member of cadets nurtured my interest in the CF. Please read more carefully.


----------



## muskrat89

http://www.regiments.org/regiments/na-canada/corps/RCACC.htm

From the site above:



> Note: battle honours are not awarded to this corps.



Not sure if the source is reliable enough though...


----------



## combat_medic

"the only difference in our training and the training of your officers is the battle portions"

HARDLY! Are you claiming that you are required to hold a post-secondary degree, pass the physical, medical and written test in order to get in, then spend 8 weeks (I think that's the length of the BOTC... feel free to correct me) in Gagetown being instructed on everything related to the military with the exception of combat training? Then it would be equivalent of the Padres officer training; exactly the same, but tempered for non-combattants. 

I was personally witness to the 10-day weekend, classroom courses given to CIC officers in order to get their commission. Watching their grad parade, they were incapable of doing drill, were all wearing their webbing improperly, and actually had the audacity to jack us up for not saluting them (them being all OCdts). They didn't go to the field, and the only supposed fieldcraft they partook in was a basic instruction on webbing, and how it is worn. This is not even in the same playing field as the basic officer course, or even basic training. Showing up at 8am in short sleeve order and sitting in a classroom all day is a FAR cry from being beasted from 0530 to 2300 every day for 6 weeks.

Also, having worked at a cadet camp MIR, I can personally attest to the abhorant state of health of a VERY large percentage of CIC officers; many of whom have medical conditions so severe that they would be barred from the CF if they were not in the cadet movement. Many could not even march with their platoon from point A to point B without getting winded. Some were so grossly overweight that special chairs without arms had to be ordered for them in order for them to sit down. I've seen teenagers who were high school dropouts who were commissioned CIC officers, and some who not only couldn't type a proper memo, but also managed to mispell "Memorandum" and "Lieutenant" - his own rank. Can you honestly claim that this kid is being held to the same standard, in everything but combat training, as the remainder of the officer corps?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Very good post Combat Medic.
I'm going to salute a CIC officer just like i'll salute a company commander who i'd bend over backwards for just like i'd salute a 2nd LT with his head up his ass. When someone says you salute the rank not the person it's not an insult or a dig, it's just the truth. Saluting isn't a popularity thing. NCO's/NCM's salute officers and thats that.

The reasons i've seen argue why CIC officers "should" get a commission are pretty shaky. 
Likewise as mentioned, the standard for being a CIC officer is much much lower than that of the regular force or reserves. Considering them the same just without the battle training? Hardly.


----------



## King Arthur

Several comments caught my attention over the past few days and I would like to address them...

1.   There IS a minimum education level to be held to join the CIC just as there is to become any officer of the CF.   If you dig a little deeper than the vague references or assumptions, you will discover that the CIC is one of the branches of the CF with the highest level of education.   You would not believe the number of BA, Masters and Doctorates held by CIC, so get off your horses about our education. If many CIC do not hold a BA or College degree yet, it might be because they are students, have you thought about that?

2.   As far as not being in good shape... take a good ans serious look around you and you will find that an increasing portion of the RegF and Militia is getting fatter and fatter... just as is the case with the rest of the North American Population.   Back to my original posting.. go beyond your local experience before labelling the CIC... I work with full time RegF and Reservists that are in much worse shape than the CIC working here... so again.. get off your horses...

3.   The word* Officer * comes from the latin _officium_, which means public service.   Trust me I am a qualified linguist...   This means that the word is not used solely for members of the Armed Services, but also for lawyers, judges, clerks, ranking officers or special Orders, police OFFICERS, etc. The CIC is one of several branches of officers from the CF because this is the mandate that we have received from the Chief of Defence Staff.   Yep.. the same CDS that tells you what you need to train for to become specialists in your specific fields.   Our training is defined in accordance with what we need to know to condut our mission. My experience with RegF and Militia members bitching about the CIC tends to focus on the frustration that you guys feel because we do not train for the same things that you do.... Gusss what... So what?   It does not take away from your knowledge or efficiency.   We are trained to do what we are asked to deliver.   If the CIC was ever asked to change their training (as it will occur), we will adapt.   We will be more qualified, but our mission will remain the same. And guess what? We will still find people to complain that we are overly trained to do our mission and that the CF should not be spending so much money on training us because this money should go towards the _real thing_ you know, you guys...

4.   Before making false satements about the CIC or assuming, or generalizing based on your local experience, I would suggest that you dig deeper and know what you are talking about.   The CIC is composed of excellent leaders that have nothing to envy wrt leading troops.   We are not of the combat arms and we do not need to be, period. If called upon to support RegF and Militia in times of crisis, we will learn what needs to be done (because we are do darn well flexible and easy learner.... 

5. Also, before labelling my entire Branch because of the acts of a few immature young officers, I would look at the history of the CF and analyse who has been doing the most hazing and such wonderful actions that reflect so well on the entire Canadian Forces... Every family has its own black sheep, tat does not mean that all are the same. 

6.   BTW, and FYI, a CIC went to Bosnia last year on a tour of duty... he came back without having caused the failure of its mission... how about that for a surprise?   He went because he possessed a skilled acquired through his civilian education... He was an asset.

7.   You know... you may lead a horse to water...


----------



## King Arthur

Another thing...

Why do YOU guys get your commission? I am curious to know if you really know or if you are just jealous of our nicer frames...

I get my commission because I meet the requirements bestowed upon me to qualify. Does that make me less qualified than you. NO.   It makes me less qualified to do your job, but should I prevent members of the RegF or Militia to serve with a cadet unit because you have not acquired the same level of professional expertise that I received to lead the Youth of Canada? If I follow your logic, you are not qualified to supervise cadets because you are killing machines trained to go to war.

Something to think about.   Give credit where credit is due and stop thinking about the CIC as a dumb bunch of kids trying to play soldiers. We are professionals and good at what we do.

As for patting ourselves in the back... we have to do it because you wont....


----------



## combat_medic

Let's address a few things

1. just as many reserve NCMs I serve with have BAs LLBs, PhDs or other advanced degrees. However, as with the CIC, it is not a requirement, nor is a complete high school education. 

2. There are people in the military who are out of shape, and there are people in the CIC who are in shape. The difference is that the Reg and Res staff are required to pass physical and medical tests to get in, and to stay in, whereas the CIC do not. I've seen severely insulin-dependant diabetics who were in the CIC. They would have been thrown out of the Mo for it. 

3. A corrections officer, loan officer at a bank, CEO, CFO or other person who uses the title "officer" is not a holder of the Queen's Commission, and not entitled to be saluted by members of the CF. Also, considering the vast amount of funding that the cadet movement receives annually, and the extreme shortage of funding and supplies throughout the CF, are you really surprised that people think your funding and position is superfluous? Are you going to outfit troops with full ceremonial dress uniforms when they don't have enough funding for combats and ammunition? The cadet movement is a "nice to have" and not a necessity. Yes, the CDS mandates it, and yes we have to do what he says. That point wasn't up for debate. 

4. My "false assumptions" and "local experience" are based on multiple taskings throughout 4 different provinces, with army, naval, and air cadets over the course of close to 10 years, having encountered hundreds of CIC officers, and thousands of cadets. No, you aren't combat arms, but you're not combat service support, combat support, or even soldiers. The kind of administration and training that would be required to take a CIC officer and even put him in a CSS position as an augmentee would be just slightly lower than taking a civilian off the street. You're right, it's not the same job... at all. Soldiers vs. youth leaders. It's not only not in the same field, it's not even the same sport. 

5. Of the probably 200 CIC officers I have encountered, less than about 10 were worth the paper their commission was written on. They were not all immature and young, but they were all arrogant and relatively useless. Yes, perhaps the 200 I have encountered were ALL the exception rather than the rule... but somehow I doubt it. I'd say that's a pretty good sampling, and a pretty widespread cross-section of ages, residences and experiences with which to form an opinion. 

6. Civilians accompany troops on tour as well, and they typically don't cause a failure of the missions. That doesn't mean they're competant soldiers either.

7. People in glass houses....


----------



## Michael Dorosh

So combat_medic and infanteer - what is it you object to?   It does go beyond the saluting, yes?   

If it is funding, I don't see any harm in funding what is essentially a citizenship program; certainly that is not out of place by falling under the auspieces of the Federal Government.

The militia support to our cadet corps has seemed to be oriented around senior NCOs in recent years, with some Cpls and MCpls in the last 15 to 20 years also - this is of course in addition to the CIC instructors.

Are you concerned about the quality of the CIC instructors?   

Not sure I understand your basic objections by this point but admit to being too exhausted to scan back over the last five pages to reread all the comments.

While I will agree that there are some so-called "useless articles" I've encountered in my brief contacts with the corps, and slightly less brief cadet "career", I never really found any reason to question the entire basis of the CIC foundation.

So far I can identify these basic objections:

a) "real" soldiers have to salute the CIC
b) CIC funding takes money away from the funding of "real" soldiers
c) the status of our officer class (for lack of better term) is lessened by the presence of the CIC

Certainly these are all debatable (as we have seen), though the CIC don't seem to be presenting a good fight in my opinion, other than "the CDS says so".     Perhaps the problem is that the results are rather intangible, and hard evidence would be difficult to present.


----------



## King Arthur

You will never agree that we are worth the same uniform or the same commission because you deeply believe that you are superior to the CIC because you had to suffer through hell during basic training and you can shoot a rifle.   There are no arguments that could be put forth to have you change your mind and I am sorry about that because we are worth it.

As for the money that the CCO receives, I think we have hit the heart of your frustration...   Considering that there are 70,000 people involved in this nation-wide organisation, I would say that it is very well used for the benefit that Canada gets out of it.

Funny how people that are short on arguments always bring that wonderful glass-house back...


----------



## King Arthur

The CIC dont seem to be presenting a good fight...

Hummmmm.... What is it that we should be arguing. That we are worth our commission or our uniform?  As far I am concerned, I have yet to read something to prove that we are not worth it.  Jealousy, envy, assumptions, etc. but no real argument to prove that we need to go through basic training with you to do our job.  We are commissioned members of the CF and according to the standards in place we are deserving.  I will certainly not argue the points made by ill-informed individuals.


----------



## NavyGrunt

Its actually got nothing to do with "superiority". It is the fact that you "commision" and rank and uniform hold you out as military and you are not. You do not require a commission, nor do you require a military rank. Maybe the uniform to foster interest in the CF. Mind you the boy scouts of America don't wear military esque uniforms.And my cousins who joined the Marines all caught the bug while they were boy scouts. So even the uniform thing to me is not needed.

As a side note on Cadets/child soldiers and shooting weapons. The last EX I was on had the Civil Air Guard there(American air cadets) and on the last day the cadets were allowed to shoot the .50 cal machine gun and M16's. Not just once. they were going through mag after mag and box after box ammo. I was a little jealous.


----------



## King Arthur

We are not military?  Could it be that the CDS has been paying the CIC as officers of the CF for so long without knowing what he was talking about?  C'mon people, we are not SOLDIERS, but we are OFFICERS of the CF whether you like it or not. 

You do not require a commission or a uniform to go to war my friends, sadly...  we could be training civilians to do the same job that you are doing, the proof is that you were civilians before joining.  You then acquired the skills to do your jobs - just as we do.


----------



## combat_medic

The argument is not whether or not you have to do basic training to complete your job, but rather does your job merit the Queen's Commission. Do you honestly feel that a overweight, diabetic, teenaged, high-school dropout who has partaken in 10 days classroom training has earned that commission?

You find myself and Infanteer ill-informed? Other than a decade of experience and first hand knowledge of hundreds of CIC officers, how much better informed would you have us be? You seem to call people mis-informed simply when they disagree with your own standpoint. And yet, when asked directly why you should be commission, the best answer you, or anyone else has been able to generate has been "because we lead youth, and generate interest in the CF." When presented with arguments about similar youth leaders who are not commissioned, all that was expressed as a defense was "the CDS says so, and you have to listen." Not one person has produced a viable, intelligent reason for CIC officers to be commissioned officers in the CF.

Talk about leading a horse to water! If you thought I was short on arguments than perhaps you should have re-read the 6 previous paragraphs I had written. 

And no, you're not military. By your own admission, and in your own words you are a "youth organization."


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Aaron White said:
			
		

> .And my cousins who joined the Marines all caught the bug while they were boy scouts.



So why do they have the Young Marines, then?


----------



## NavyGrunt

Who knows. Im saying that MY cousins got it from the boy scouts. Since your an expert on youth organizations maybe you can tell us if those young marine leaders have a commision. I know that the Civil Air Guard leaders were not.


----------



## King Arthur

Do you honestly feel that a overweight, diabetic, teenaged, high-school dropout who has partaken in 10 days classroom training has earned that commission? Nope.. but you are wrong in saying that these guys are teenagers, high-school drop-outs... They are not, and this is exactly why I resent having people like you generalizing.   

Do we earn our commission after ten days of training, no. You should educate yourself before making false statements like this one.

I have 30 years of experience and have seen thousands of CIC, and worked with RegF and Militia on a full-time and part-time basis.   I do not question your capability to assess your branch, do not question my capability to assess mine. 

I earned my commission based on my   experience and my qualification, it is that simple.   I do not question whether your course is long enough or hard enough or whether they teach you all the right things? Have the same courtesy for my branch.


----------



## King Arthur

combat_medic said:
			
		

> The argument is not whether or not you have to do basic training to complete your job, but rather does your job merit the Queen's Commission.
> 
> Do you honestly feel that a overweight, diabetic, teenaged, high-school dropout who has partaken in 10 days classroom training has earned that commission?
> 
> And no, you're not military. By your own admission, and in your own words you are a "youth organization."



OK I am confused here... what is it that you resent and make you lose sleep here...

1. that you feel my jod does not deserve a commission;
2. that we enroll young people; or
3. that I am a member of the CF whether you like it or not...

I am not the one having difficulties building a case here... you are shooting left and right buddy...


----------



## NavyGrunt

King Arthur said:
			
		

> I have 30 years of experience and have seen thousands of CIC, and worked with RegF and Militia on a full-time and part-time basis.   I do not question your capability to assess your* branch*, do not question my capability to assess mine.
> 
> I earned my commission based on my   experience and my qualification, it is that simple.   I do not question whether your course is long enough or hard enough or whether they teach you all the right things? Have the same courtesy for my *branch.*



I believe you mean either component or element "sir".


----------



## King Arthur

Sure... element

The CIC is a Branch composed of three elements (army, sea and air)


----------



## combat_medic

"you are wrong in saying that these guys are teenagers, high-school drop-outs"

Then perhaps you should say that to the teenaged, high school dropout 19 year old CIC officer that I worked with. It wasn't a generalization, it was an example. It wasn't even hypothetical - this kid is out there teaching cadets and hasn't even completed a GED, and can't complete a single push-up. 

And no, you aren't instantly handed a commissioning scroll the moment you complete day 10 of the training, but that is all the formalized training that is required (unless that course has been changed in the past few years). Nor does a brand new JNCO immediately get his leaf after he gets his course, but that's also all the formalized training he requires. 

"I earned my commission based on my  experience and my qualification"

So, you deem yourself worthy of a commission when the kid in my example, having completed the exact same training as yourself is unworthy? Care to qualify that?


----------



## King Arthur

See.. there you go againg... using one example of bad apple to paint a dark cloud over the CIC.  This is ONE out of 5500, get over yourself and look at the vast majority who are outstanding leaders and officers.

BTW... who hires these guys?  Yep... not the CIC, the RegF working at the recruiting centres.  Do not blame the CIC for things over which we have little control.


----------



## combat_medic

King Arthur: Loss of sleep is hardly an issue. This is a matter of intelligent debate; a fact which seems to be eluding you, since you are taking every example and question as a personal affront rather than responding with more intelligent debate. 

The issues I have with the CIC are the following;

1. A drain of time and funding from the remainder of the CF
2. Having no medical, intellectual, educational or physical standards for entry when even the lowliest reserve private has to complete them
3. Having people in uniform and holding a commission who are less trained and skilled than that same reserve private, and yet, whom the private is required to salute

Also, it's not the fault of the RegF recruiting Pers that the CIC has such low recruiting standards. He doesn't make the standards; he just signs them over.


----------



## King Arthur

Let's make this interesting and maybe you will help me understand. I am really really open-minded, trust me.

Tell me then, what do you think would be the minimal training required of the CIC to do their job?


----------



## combat_medic

"the vast majority who are outstanding leaders and officers."

Like I said, maybe 10 out of 200+. Perhaps my standards and expectations of both leaders and officers is higher than your own, but I would hardly consider 5% to be 'the vast majority'.


----------



## King Arthur

And you guys call this bashing of the CIC intelligent discussion?  I have more mature and more intelligent discussions with some of my senior cadets who are at least willing to accept that their might be more in life than their own experience.


----------



## King Arthur

The skills and abilities required of the CIC are different than what is required of a doctor, a dentist, a padre or one of your officers. You judge us in accordance with what is required of your officers. We judge different styles of leadership...   I have seen several RegF officers break their teeth trying to handle cadets and it does not make them bad officers, it simply makes them the wrong individuals for the job at hand. that is it.


----------



## NavyGrunt

King Arthur said:
			
		

> Let's make this interesting and maybe you will help me understand. I am really really open-minded, trust me.
> 
> Tell me then, what do you think would be the minimal training required of the CIC to do their job?



I'm sure your current training is sufficient. However the Commission. From the QUEEN is not required. As a youth organization you don't need it. You are NOT MILITARY I couldnt care less where you get your funding. If we went to war the CIC would not be on the lines or the sea. So they are not requring the QUEENS commssion to be leaders of the QUEENS loyal troops.

All we want is for you to JUSTIFY you having a commission.Open our eyes. Cause from where I am you don't need it.


----------



## Infanteer

King Arthur and everyone else.

Well, if everyone wants to argue about the competency of the CIC, then I am going to withdraw from the debate, because there is no point in doing it.   As I have tried to say time and time again, and which no one seems to be understanding, is that *the abilities and competencies of the CIC have nothing to do with my argument on the nature of the military profession.*   Any attempt to bring it up is simply leading the argument away from the core issue.

Rather, myself and Scott have asserted that the CIC should not be part of the professional Officer Corps because they have no duties or responsibilities to the nature that defines that professional body.   

I do no make this argument out of spite, jealousy or lack of knowledge of what the CIC actually does.   I do it for the interest in the future and the level of expertise of our leaders in the profession of arms.   A sports coach can be a great leader of young athletes and do much to promote their health and fitness, yet we do not grant him the status of a Medical Doctor because he is not part of the medical profession.   The same is applicable to the military profession.   

In 7 pages, I have not seen any concerted effort to address my claims.   I even made an attempt to further the argument by providing the path to a solution that would meet the boundaries of the profession of arms, but that didn't work either.   I'll restate my original argument for the sake of saving this thread as it is rapidly approaching the "useless" file.

_I would challenge your opinions on the role of the CIC within the Canadian Forces.   I would state the opposite; their inclusion within the Officer Corps detracts from the level of professionalism of the Military Officer.   The military officer is first and foremost a member of his profession, a unique body within his country that possesses highly specialized characteristics.   As Huntington identified, the Military Officer's professional body is defined by its unique expertise, its responsibility, and its "organic unity and consciousness of themselves as a group apart...."   All the customs our military possesses such as the salute, the deference of higher rank, and total authority of command are built around the existence of this professionalism; for some reason the CIC has had these aspects grafted over their organization.   When one walks into a hospital, one can immediately determine the doctor as unique, part of his professional body.   When one sees a military officer, one shouldn't have to try and discern whether he is a true professional or a dressed up bureaucrat or a youth group leader.

The professional Officer is one dedicated to the "direction, operation, and control of violence on behalf of the state."   I don't see this in the job description of the CIC. 

Infanteer_


----------



## NavyGrunt

King Arthur said:
			
		

> The skills and abilities required of the CIC are different than what is required of a doctor, a dentist, a padre or one of your officers. You judge us in accordance with what is required of your officers. We judge different styles of leadership...   I have seen several RegF officers break their teeth trying to handle cadets and it does not make them bad officers, it simply makes them the wrong individuals for the job at hand. that is it.



As far as I know these trades all do BOTC......because if they are going to be in conatct with soldiers and sailors/airmen and lead them and command respect they need to at least go through the shit once. Unlike the CIC


----------



## NavyGrunt

Infanteer said:
			
		

> King Arthur and everyone else.
> 
> Well, if everyone wants to argue about the competency of the CIC, then I am going to withdraw from the debate, because there is no point in doing it.   As I have tried to say time and time again, and which no one seems to be understanding, is that *the abilities and competencies of the CIC have nothing to do with my argument on the nature of the military profession.*   Any attempt to bring it up is simply leading the argument away from the core issue.
> 
> Rather, myself and Scott have asserted that the CIC should not be part of the professional Officer Corps because they have no duties or responsibilities to the nature that defines that professional body.
> 
> I do no make this argument out of spite, jealousy or lack of knowledge of what the CIC actually does.   I do it for the interest in the future and the level of expertise of our leaders in the profession of arms.   A sports coach can be a great leader of young athletes and do much to promote their health and fitness, yet we do not grant him the status of a Medical Doctor because he is not part of the medical profession.   The same is applicable to the military profession.
> 
> In 7 pages, I have not seen any concerted effort to address my claims.   I even made an attempt to further the argument by providing the path to a solution that would meet the boundaries of the profession of arms, but that didn't work either.   I'll restate my original argument for the sake of saving this thread as it is rapidly approaching the "useless" file.
> 
> _I would challenge your opinions on the role of the CIC within the Canadian Forces.   I would state the opposite; their inclusion within the Officer Corps detracts from the level of professionalism of the Military Officer.   The military officer is first and foremost a member of his profession, a unique body within his country that possesses highly specialized characteristics.   As Huntington identified, the Military Officer's professional body is defined by its unique expertise, its responsibility, and its "organic unity and consciousness of themselves as a group apart...."   All the customs our military possesses such as the salute, the deference of higher rank, and total authority of command are built around the existence of this professionalism; for some reason the CIC has had these aspects grafted over their organization.   When one walks into a hospital, one can immediately determine the doctor as unique, part of his professional body.   When one sees a military officer, one shouldn't have to try and discern whether he is a true professional or a dressed up bureaucrat or a youth group leader.
> 
> The professional Officer is one dedicated to the "direction, operation, and control of violence on behalf of the state."   I don't see this in the job description of the CIC.
> 
> Infanteer_



See really if you are being objective King Arthur you'll see that Infanteer spells it right out here. You cant argue with the mans logic.


----------



## King Arthur

OK... Prince Phillip is our Commander in Chief, the Queen signs my commission, the Governor Geeral is our Colonel in Chief...

There is a tradition to the cadets that you guys fail to realize because you are focusing on what you see today.   Cadets were there 100 years ago and fought wars.   Our organization earned its recognition through combat before turning into a Youth Organization.   Therefore we have a tradition that should be accounted for.

I deserve a Queen's Commission because as an officer of the CF I am regulated by the QR&Os, because this is what is issued to officers whoo have completed their training, I do not believe that I need to say more.


----------



## combat_medic

I stated that my experience with the CIC has been almost entirely negative. This comes from time serving with hundreds of such officers in multiple provinces across the country. If you consider this to be an insult to the CIC, then maybe the problem should be addressed with the 190 or so who were not competant leaders or officers. It's not an insult, it's a statement of fact. When I said that many officers couldn't even march alongside their troops without getting winded, that was also a fact. When I mentioned numerous medical, confidentiality and safety violations made by CIC officers to my face, that is also factual. When I talked about CIC officers with medical problems severe enough to bar them for life from the CF, that is also a fact. 

If I were a Battalion Commander and someone told me that they dealt separately with 200 of my troops, and nearly 95% of them were incompetant and dangerous, I wouldn't be yelling at the person who told me, I would be addressing it with my troops. Personally, I would consider it a far greater insult that these people were in my Battalion, not that others were telling me so. 

"I deserve a Queen's Commission because as an officer of the CF I am regulated by the QR&Os, because this is what is issued to officers whoo have completed their training, I do not believe that I need to say more."

And yet still you have not addressed why you are deserving of it when the overweight teenager in my example was not, even though he and yourself have completed the same training. Come to think of it, you have not been able to provide any actual defense of why you should be commissioned at all, other than "because the CF says so."


----------



## King Arthur

I believe I have provided enough reasons, but you need to open your mind to hear them... I am as deserving as any other officer of the CF because I meet the requisites that lead me to earn it.  I would gladly respond to Infanteer's reasoning but I need to go to the gym... I have a few pounds to lose... you know...

Infanteer, I promise that I will take the time and make the effort to analyse what you posted.  This is interesting and I am open for a good discussion on this.  Thank you.


----------



## Infanteer

> Infanteer, I promise that I will take the time and make the effort to analyse what you posted.  This is interesting and I am open for a good discussion on this.  Thank you.



Thank you sir.  If you feel the need to, send it to me through a Private Message, as there is simply way to much static chatter on this thread and I am exasperated with trying to constantly bring it back on topic.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Matsu

I am new to this site. The funny part about it is one of my cadets sent this link to me saying "Ma'am there's this funny fight on this forum about the CIC". So he sent me this link and I started to read, read about all your complaints and all of your woes with the program. Your 'discussion' about the justification of the CIC being commission has been quite informative and frustrating. For the past 7 years I've been in the program I've heard the same complaints from my friends who are in the reserves. 

I do understand the frustrations of combat medic because I do believe some of his arguments about the CIC officers not being fit when one of the aims of the cadet movement is to promote physical fitness. The CIC officers do have to be cleared by the local head office and I do know that my paperwork will be detained because of my poor eyesight. Do I feel that such a justification is adequate to restrict me from a program I believe in? No. Am I in better physical shape than some officers yes. There is no justification for living a poor lifestyle, but not everyone has the same goals in life. Some people slow down when they are older and physical fitness is sent to the back burner when 'more important' issues such as financial or marital issues arise.

Re: the comments about CIC officers being drop-outs I find it interesting that the comment has come up considering quite a few friends of mine looked into joining the reserves after high school because they felt that was their calling. Combat medic before you go around assuming that CIC officers are just drop-outs perhaps you should look into your own corps and find out how many of them have only completed a high school degree. Furthermore, in earlier years it was acceptable not to have a further education. Times have changed and it is now â Å“frownedâ ? upon not to have a secondary education. I have a friend who is a great man who only completed high school and is now an officer due to real life experience. somethings can't be taught in the classroom but I think you already know that.

Now, re: the fact that privates have to salute CIC officers. They are given a commission yes. Some amongst them don't deserve it yes. But if friends of yours really have such a problem with it then why didn't they go and become officers instead of choosing the path they took, being a private? Re: the fact that CIC officers won't be sent to the front line is true. They are not trained in combat. Would they ever be called upon by DND to help out? YES. I has happened, in particular the events leading up to the big Y2K. I know that the officers from my squadron were told that they might be called upon. Y2K passed without a hitch and it was fine. Personally where I'm from we did NOT salute Officer Cadets until they received their 2Lt. But I do agree that you salute the rank and not the person.

Re: the lack of funding for the rank forces vs the CIC. There are many things wrong with the military and there is a lot of money that is wasted on petty things. DND does not have a lot of money that is easily dispersed to the various branches of the military. Some things confuse me with military methods but I can't say anything because I lack the full knowledge to comment on such things. The Cadet program is free to all youths, yes. Uniforms are provided at no costs...but aren't uniforms issued to everyone at no cost?!   EVERYONE is complaining about a lack of funding and it's visible on any base or at any unit. Sometimes we are all just SOL and we have to deal with it. 

Finally this is a long reply to a long discussion that is open to ANYone to read including the cadets so I'm going to lead by example and leave you guys to your petty arguments. Judging from the way you've all been bickering I know you'll all set such a beautiful example for anyone who doesn't know anything about the military. Nevertheless, as any organisation the military is no exception to its share of problems. If anyone comes up with a new and inventive way of dealing with such problems might as well keep it to yourself because no one is subject to the ideals of change as everything is played on tradition. Thank you and may you all have a FIT life so we can all pass the physical tests people have been discussing.


----------



## elscotto937

Wow, reading the last few pages was taxing, so I will answer in roughly point on the points that concern me, because I don't think we are going to agree.

Battle Honours: Please document and explain

CIC on Operations: Who is this guy and what did they need him for, oh wait did the Serbs start a VRS cadet corps... Seriously what are the details, and why...

Combat_Medic: Were the 10 worthwhile CIC former Reg or Res members?

Qualification: Meeting the requirement to enter the CF does mean that you deserve the commission, Now King Arthur you mentioned that you were in the Res before, what made you decide to leave and become a CIC officer. 

Officership: For too many of the CIC, it is the backdoor to the CF and you get to call yourself an officer.. I have heard too many times in this thread people say " we (CIC) are commissioned officers so get used to it" If you knew what it meant to be a officer then you could make a qualifed statement that you are officers, untill you have experienced dealing with soldiers and knowing the privledge of command, those type of comments fall on deaf ears. 

Bad experiences: I have had my share of bad experiences with CIC officers, I have had some very good experiences...but that is not the issue. I would disscuss these in a PM if someone was interested.

Option: What is they gave the CIC uniforms and ranks that were similar to the CF, but they were actually just uniformed supervisors of a federally funded para-military Organizarion, with no official ties to the CF or thier rank structure. The cadets would consider them officers, but the CF would not. It might hurt the CIC's pride but there is nothing that would prevent them from doing thier job of supervising youth. 

Comments?

Scott


----------



## Inch

Alright, I've been reading this thread from the beginning with the discussion flip flopping with what being an officer in the profession of arms entails. 

I'm quite disturbed at the thought of a CIC officer thinking they're my peer in the profession of arms, I wake up every morning and put on a uniform, how can a CIC officer that puts on a uniform one evening a week and maybe 6 weeks during the summer consider themselves to be professional officers or members of the military profession? Professional officers take 14 weeks of basic training covering things like Geneva Conventions, Task procedure, leadership, drill, military law, and on and on the list goes.   The course could actually be longer, there's a bunch of self study that you do after you're done work for the day.   All of this info is req to be a professional officer, yet CIC basic is about 1/10 the length. 14 weeks and a Baccalaureate degree is required to receive a commission, if you don't have a Bachelor's degree, you have to finish phase training to get your commission.   A pilot with no Bachelor's degree must be trained to wings standard before receiving their commission, let's do the math here - 14 weeks of BOTC, 9 months of French (all reg force officer's must have a valid second language profile), 2-3 months of primary flying training, 6-8 months of basic flying training and 4-6 months of advanced flying training. Provided there's no delays, and there's always delays, a reg force pilot will get their commission in about 2.5-3 years. Same commission? I think not. Army and Navy training are similar time frames. 

Now once you're trained, you've got Officer Professional military education (OPMEs) that cover Military Law, defense management, military history, politics, leadership and ethics, and technology in history. All of which are required to go to Major, plus AirForce Officer Basic (a 10 week course) and AirForce Officer Advanced (not sure how long but is in the range of a few months) and also Staff school. The Army and Navy have similar courses.   All this stuff applies to every officer, specific MOC training and upgrading is on top of all this.   Is all this stuff required for a CIC officer? No, of course not, but I would have to say that it is required to be considered a Professional Officer, since according to Webster's Dictionary, a profession is: _4 a : a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive  academic preparation b : a principal calling, vocation, or employment c : the whole body of persons engaged in a calling _ 
You guys do it part time, 10 days is not long and intensive and it's not your principal employment.

So, considering the time and effort I have put into my profession as an officer, I'm a little aggravated by a CIC officer receiving the same commission without doing a quarter of the work I have. The NCMs on the board know this, and that's why there's the resentment there towards CICs from both NCMs and Officers. A Queen's commission is not required to do your job, not even from a command and control standpoint, other youth organizations don't have commissioned officers and control isn't an issue.

As for me, once I've put in my 35yrs as a professional officer, I'll be joining the CIC as well to help out the professionals of tomorrow, getting a third bar for my CD won't hurt either.   

Cheers


----------



## combat_medic

Scott: Some of them were, yes, but not all of them.


----------



## sgt_mandal

Inch said:
			
		

> ............will get their commission in about 2.5-3 years. Same commission? I think not.........



I don't think any of our officers in our Sqn have taken less than 2 years or close to that time to get their commision.


----------



## Infanteer

> so I'm going to lead by example and leave you guys to your petty arguments. Judging from the way you've all been bickering I know you'll all set such a beautiful example for anyone who doesn't know anything about the military.



Well, since you feel discussion related to professional nature of the military is a "petty argument", you obviously you don't understand the nature of the profession of arms enough to participate, so by all means, lead yourself out the door and take a hike, because we can do without your smart-ass, know-it-all remarks.

*Inch*, excellent post; really sheds light on what I've tried to highlight on the specialized body of knowledge that is inherent in the profession of arms.



As for a solution, I was kind of hoping that someone in the CIC would pick up on the dilemma that Scott and I presented oh so long ago, but to date, only King Arthur has acknowledged it with promise of a reply.

My idea, along the same lines that Scott proposed, would be to remove the Cadet organization from the military all together.   This separation would not be wholesale, some links should be maintained in order to promote interest and educate the youth of Canada about their Professional Military Force.
The program could be merged with other youth groups to form a "Canadian Youth Corps" that is geared to the notions of patriotism and the responsibility of becoming a citizen.   I believe that removing the program from the military can allow it to broaden its interests and its scope more; I'd like to see the program look towards excelling its members in fields such as athletics, arts, academics and leadership.   The Canadian Youth Corps can have its own system of rank for both its members and its supervisors in order to inculcate the notions of achievement and responsibility.   This organization's end goal is to produce young men and women who are willing to make positive commitments to the civil society of Canada; part of this would entail orientations with the branches of the CF when they are about 16 or so as military service should be displayed as a form of social responsibility by this organization (as opposed to other groups in Canada who would do away with us).

This organization would demand a dedicated group of people to lead the youth of Canada, a group of people drawn from various areas of society that can contribute their unique skills to the leadership of the organization.   They would need to be dynamic individuals in order to attract the interest of the youth, lest the organization be seen as a "lame" thing and see its membership decline due to peer pressure.   It demands no less then what is required of a good CIC; however, it gives them credit for the position they are entitled to fulfill, that of a youth leader in the "Canadian Youth Corps."   It would be a position that was just as important as the military with respect to the vitality of Canada (what is the point of the soldier defending a nation that fails internally?), but would accept the fact that mentoring children and managing the application of force on behalf of the state are two distinct functions.

I'd rather see a 14 year old member of this hypothetical Organization come on these forums and ask about how their local government works or talk about an athletic program in which they did well instead of seeing them yap about the new webbing they just bought or how they are going to be a bad-ass paratrooper when they turn 17.


----------



## Inch

sgt_mandal said:
			
		

> I don't think any of our officers in our Sqn have taken less than 2 years or close to that time to get their commision.



mandal, that 2.5-3 years is full time, everyday not just an evening a week and illustrates the difference between being a professional officer and not.

Cheers

Thanks Infanteer, thought I'd lend a hand, I hope it helps.


----------



## King Arthur

*2.5-3 years is full time, everyday not just an evening a week and illustrates the difference between being a professional officer and not.*

Using this argument, you get rid of all officers of the CF that are not RegF... What do you make of the PRes/Militia officers...


----------



## King Arthur

CIC on Operations: Who is this guy and what did they need him for, oh wait did the Serbs start a VRS cadet corps... Seriously what are the details, and why... *A psychologist, you know some people need those qualifications acquired outside of the profession of arms to take care of the proression of arms...[/b]

Meeting the requirement to enter the CF does mean that you deserve the commission - Of course not, but meeting the requirement to complete your training and the basic experience does

 Now King Arthur you mentioned that you were in the Res before (never said that... I AM a reservist just like all CICs), . 

Officership: For too many of the CIC, it is the backdoor to the CF ( you are assuming and generalizing... It is like me saying that people join your profession because they are too dumb or afraid to pursue a civilian education).

Bad experiences: I have had my share of bad experiences with CIC officers, I have had some very good experiences...but that is not the issue. . I have had more than my share of bad experiences with other elements, groups, branches of the RegF and PRes and you do not see me ask for their disappearance!

Option: What is they gave the CIC uniforms and ranks that were similar to the CF, but they were actually just uniformed supervisors of a federally funded para-military Organizarion, with no official ties to the CF or thier rank structure. The cadets would consider them officers, but the CF would not. It might hurt the CIC's pride but there is nothing that would prevent them from doing thier job of supervising youth. What if they gave YOU a t-shirt and a baseball cap and made you a militia unit with no ties to the CF, police officers maybe? It might hurt your pride but there is nothing that would preent you from doing your job of killing ennemies... It is not the uniform that make you who you are, it is what you bring to the team.


*


----------



## King Arthur

Inch said:
			
		

> I'm quite disturbed at the thought of a CIC officer thinking they're my peer in the profession of arms, I wake up every morning and put on a uniform, how can a CIC officer that puts on a uniform one evening a week and maybe 6 weeks during the summer consider themselves to be professional officers or members of the military profession? Same commission? I think not. You guys do it part time, 10 days is not long and intensive and it's not your principal employment. So, considering the time and effort I have put into my profession as an officer, I'm a little aggravated by a CIC officer receiving the same commission without doing a quarter of the work I have. A Queen's commission is not required to do your job, not even from a command and control standpoint, other youth organizations don't have commissioned officers and control isn't an issue.



OK, again, does that mean that you would get rid of the PRes/Militia officers because they meet only once a week and train intensely over the summer? These guys also have a full-time civilian employment, just like the CIC. This does not make them  less important or deserving of their commission. This is a very weak argument, especially in the CF where the reservists play such an imortant role and will become increasingly important...  There are hundreds of CIC that wake up every morning and put their uniform on and go to work full-time in the HQs of the CF. They manage an organisation that had nearly 70,000 members, including the cadets and their supervisors.  This is more than the CF! We move and train 26,000 people during summers, which is more than the CF... We represent the CF in 1130 large and small communities...

On average a CIC works in support of the cadet units over 130 evenings/days per year, which is much more than the militia when you think about it... CICs are paid crumbles (22 days per year) for what they contribute in time and efforts when you consider the sum of work they do - In fact the CF could not afford to pay the CIC for all it contributes to the Canadian Society or even to the CF in terms of visibility and recruiting.  How often have you seen a member of the local Militia Regiment volunteer 4-5 times the days he his paid in addition to his mandatory parades to ensure that his unit thrives and excels... rarely... CICs are dedicated and passionate individuals that portray the CF in a very positive light across Canada and abroad, a fact that all the colonels and generals I have worked for have gladly admitted.  We bring something to the CF, something that no one else does.  Instead of seeing us as taking something from you, maybe you should see our contribution as a positive addition to the officer corps.

A Queen's commission is not required to do your job either... it is a piece of paper.  What is required is that you get the proper training to do your job in the field that you selected.  You and I get the training that is required to do our jobs.

Guess what, CIC Officers are also commissioned so that they can be put in charge of units and manage the financial, material and human resources allocated by the Canadian Forces.  We are accountable to the CF and the GOC for what we do.


----------



## King Arthur

Infanteer said:
			
		

> My idea, along the same lines that Scott proposed, would be to remove the Cadet organization from the military all together.   This separation would not be wholesale, some links should be maintained in order to promote interest and educate the youth of Canada about their Professional Military Force.
> The program could be merged with other youth groups to form a "Canadian Youth Corps" that is geared to the notions of patriotism and the responsibility of becoming a citizen.   I'd like to see the program look towards excelling its members in fields such as athletics and leadership.   The Canadian Youth Corps can have its own system of rank for both its members and its supervisors in order to inculcate the notions of achievement and responsibility.   This organization's end goal is to produce young men and women who are willing to make positive commitments to the civil society of Canada; part of this would entail orientations with the branches of the CF when they are about 16 or so as military service should be displayed as a form of social responsibility by this organization (as opposed to other groups in Canada who would do away with us).
> 
> This organization would demand a dedicated group of people to lead the youth of Canada, a group of people drawn from various areas of society that can contribute their unique skills to the leadership of the organization.   They would need to be dynamic individuals in order to attract the interest of the youth.  .



That almost describes the CCO of today to the letter! 

FYI, the CCO is composed of three distinct organisations that were, in fact, merged as you suggested above, to become the CCO.  The Army Cadets, The Sea Cadets and the Air Cadets were separate entities that prepared people for battle...


----------



## King Arthur

Matsu said:
			
		

> Re: the fact that CIC officers won't be sent to the front line is true. They are not trained in combat. Would they ever be called upon by DND to help out? YES. I has happened, in particular the events leading up to the big Y2K. I know that the officers from my squadron were told that they might be called upon. Y2K passed without a hitch and it was fine.



Excellent point.   I am one of those CIC who was ask not to take vacation and get ready for Y2K... DND's mission far exceeds overseas missions and the preparation for war.  DND has a crucial domestic mission to serve and protect the citizens of Canada. Over the years and on several occasions, the CIC has been called upon to supplement the PRes and RegF in times of national crisis.  Good examples are the Saguenay Floods where hundreds of CIC were responsible for the emergency facilities and distributed goods to the victims.   The same for the Red River floods of a few years ago...   The best example in my mind was the Ice Storm in Quebec where large numbers of CIC were called upon to help victims and manage shelters.   How about the OKA crisis?   The Public Affairs Officer for the Canadian Forces was and still is a CIC. At a time where the CF is stretching its human resources to the limt by getting involved in more and more overseas mission, someone has to be there to take care of domestic problems, and it just happens that the CIC possesses a flexibility and an availabity that makes them a great resource in support of the RegF and the PRes.   We are present across Canada, even in smaller communities where we hae been called upon to search for missing people or manage shelter for victims of fires or other such tragedies.   As you see, we are more than Youth Leaders for the CF - we are a resource.

Maybe there lies a beginning of answer as to why we should be considered members of the CF...


----------



## elscotto937

King Arthur said:
			
		

> *A psychologist, you know some people need those qualifications acquired outside of the profession of arms to take care of the proression of arms...[/b]
> 
> *


*

So it had really nothing to do with his training and experience as a CIC officer, in fact couldn't a civi do exactly the same job. Was it palladium what Roto.



			
				King Arthur said:
			
		


			What if they gave YOU a t-shirt and a baseball cap and made you a militia unit with no ties to the CF, police officers maybe? It might hurt your pride but there is nothing that would preent you from doing your job of killing ennemies... It is not the uniform that make you who you are, it is what you bring to the team[/color].
		
Click to expand...

*
We work with the Armed Forces of Canada, which requires formal authorityto manage an armed force. You work with youth, you do not exercise command over soldiers in the CF, nor do you need to. I was trying to propose an option that might work, but your response was just not in the sprit of a good debate.

And King Arthur, I apologize for thinking that you were inthe PRes, but did you not mention that you worked with the Reserves and did sometime at NDHQ, I may have been mistaken..

Infanteer, well stated proposel.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

To Infanteer and Scott, I must take issue with your arguments, all King Arther et al are trying to say is its not their fault that the standards they require are so low and therefore they are deserving of a commision.


----------



## Excolis

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1390/cic.html

i am still looking for more on the battle honours, but this says little about cadets history.  i know the cadet corps in london has battle honours for the fenian raids.  i know some corps found themselves fighting in WW1 also.  i am still looking, be patient.

cheers


----------



## King Arthur

Scott937 said:
			
		

> So it had really nothing to do with his training and experience as a CIC officer, in fact couldn't a civi do exactly the same job. Was it palladium what Roto.



CF doctors, dentists, padres, drivers, divers, etc could do their jobs without them being in the CF, are you suggesting that they are not worthy of being members of the CF?  The CF does not train computer specialists and still they employ hundreds of them... are you suggesting that only those people that are trained on a specialty that is specific to the CF should be considered? 

I do not who if it was palladium or who roto is.. sorry  :


----------



## Inch

King Arthur said:
			
		

> *2.5-3 years is full time, everyday not just an evening a week and illustrates the difference between being a professional officer and not.*
> 
> Using this argument, you get rid of all officers of the CF that are not RegF... What do you make of the PRes/Militia officers...



Actually PRes officers do reg force phase training in most cases, and their training is such that they're able to augment Reg force units.   A PRes infantry officer can be plunked right into a reg force unit with minimal difficulty.   The same can't be said for CICs.

A commission is most definitely req for my job, I am a professional officer in the Canadian Forces first and a pilot second.   I won't be flying helos forever, I will move on to bigger things. As a professional officer, just like any other professional, I continue to train and enhance my knowledge in the military officer profession and I will continue to do so for the rest of my career. Can the same be said for CIC officers? 

PAFO is actually a trade, MOC 66A to be exact. So if this CIC you know or heard of was doing the job, it was an acting position.

I'm not knocking what the CIC do, you have not however given any good reasons why CICs should be considered professional officers and by virtue of that fact, I don't consider you my peers just because you have the same commission as I do.

By the way, the "just a piece of paper" comment about the commission further illustrates just how easy it is for CICs to get one, I've never heard a Reg force officer make a statement like that.    If you think 130 evenings/weekends is a big thing, try doing it for over 300 days a year, then I would consider you a professional officer and not just a part timer. Your "full time civilian" employment is your profession, being a Canadian Forces Officer is not.

Cheers


----------



## King Arthur

Do not distort what I said.  The Commission is a worthy piece of paper, but still a piece of paper. I am still proud of mine and display it in my office, but this is not what makes me what I am.  I have heard several officers of the RegF talk about their scroll as just a piece of paper, so do not patronize me please.

Your are in fact knocking what the CIC do, and I have given you several good reasons why CICs should be considered professional officers.  You do not want to us as your peers because you are too narrow minded to admit that not all officers require the same level of training.  The CIC training does not stop at their BOQ, it continues for several years and it is focused on their specialty.

I never said that being an officer is my job, although I have more experience as a full-time employee with the CF than you will get in the next 15 years.  OK... you work 300 days a year and I only volunteer 130... then let's get rid of the militia because your argument will also be that they work less than you and me.  

I do not mind a good discussion and arguments, but get educated correctly about us before commenting and stop using arguments that only aim at tring to prove your superiority over the CIC instead of understanding what we are all about.  People using arguments like yours create conflicts and have been responsible for tension between CIC and other elements for many years now.


----------



## Inch

Get educated? Please, that's what my point has been all along, I am educated in the profession of arms. I'm not talking about trades training, I'm talking about training as a professional officer.   We all have a common base and that's the 14 weeks of basic, doctrine and professional development.   Are Infantry officers trained to my level, no but I am also not trained to their level.   You're talking MOC training, I'm talking about the professional officer development, we all go to the same staff school, regardless of MOC.   

You keep bringing the reserves into this argument and although this may be an unpopular statement, they are not professional soldiers/officers either.   I research and buy stocks, does that make me a professional stock broker? Not by any stretch of the imagination.   Being professional (the adjective) and being a professional (the noun) are two different things.   A professional is called such because they do it day in and day out, the CIC and reserves are not the same.   When a reservist goes on tour, they cease being a reservist and become a regular, thus making them a professional soldier/officer.

I am not trying to prove my superiority or that I even am superior over the CIC, I'm simply stating that a professional does their job everyday, not just evenings and weekends. I am a professional officer and a professional pilot, that's what I do everyday so don't insult me by saying that a CIC officer volunteering 130 evenings/day a year is at the same level of professional development.


----------



## King Arthur

Get educated? Please, that's what my point has been all along, I am educated in the profession of arms. Get educated about the CIC is what I said...

You keep bringing the reserves into this argument and although this may be an unpopular statement, they are not professional soldiers/officers either.   Wow, now we are getting somewhere... to the top of your hill where it must be very lonely with your professional friends.

 A professional is called such because they do it day in and day out, the CIC and reserves are not the same.  The CIC is responsible for their members 365 days a year. They are a corps of officers that have a specific purpose. 

I'm simply stating that a professional does their job everyday, not just evenings and weekends. This is a false assumption that distorts your reasoning, a professional does his job when he needs to do his job. You are a member of a profession with a specific set of skills, so am I and my colleagues.
I am a professional officer and a professional pilot, that's what I do everyday so don't insult me by saying that a CIC officer volunteering 130 evenings/day a year is at the same level of professional development. I could not care less if you are insulted.   A CIC is not at the same level of professional development, and it not be to become skilled and professional and so are not the Reserves.  

See, the problem lies greatly in that you are trying to put the RegF on a pedestal by itself to ruleon the rest of the CF as if only you guys knew the gospel. Open your horizons a little bit and try to come to grips with the fact that the corps of CF officers is composed of more than the RegF and that we all have specific and different jobs to do, all of which we are good at and all of which are complementary within the context of the CF missions and responsibilities.


----------



## Inch

Yes, my hill will be very lonely with the other 50+ thousand full time professionals that I have the privilege of calling my peers. I've made my point, I understand your's but you don't seem to want to understand mine. I digress.

Cheers


----------



## Inch

Another point about reservists. You guys are valuable assets to the CF, you fill holes that need to be filled and make our jobs a lot easier having reliable, qualified and professional minded people avail to help. Kudos.


----------



## King Arthur

Inch said:
			
		

> Another point about reservists. You guys are valuable assets to the CF, you fill holes that need to be filled and make our jobs a lot easier having reliable, qualified and professional minded people avail to help. Kudos.



See... that was not so difficult.  BZ to you guys too, you make us proud and serve a good role models for our cadets.


----------



## King Arthur

Inch said:
			
		

> Yes, my hill will be very lonely with the other 50+ thousand full time professionals that I have the privilege of calling my peers. I've made my point, I understand your's but you don't seem to want to understand mine. I digress.



Oh but I do understand yours, really... I simply do not agree with the basis upon which you elaborate your reasoning.  My approach is inclusive and yours is divisive. What the CIC wants and deserves is respect from their colleagues of the CF and I have yet to read or hear one solid argument that would make it right to speak of my branch and colleague CICs in the way some do. The moment that you will realize what great benefits we bring to the CF team, you will stop seeing us as a nuisance and a bunch of no-good, uneducated, undeserving, spoiled and illeterate kids. It is that simple.


----------



## Infanteer

> You keep bringing the reserves into this argument and although this may be an unpopular statement, they are not professional soldiers/officers either.



Actually Inch, I find myself agreeing with you on that statement.   Huntington stated this in his thesis, and I tend to agree with it.   Although reservist officers can be very compentent at the tactical level and in the techniques of soldiering, positions at the operational level and above is pretty much unavailable to the reservist officer as he does not have the time to dedicate himself to all the aspects of the profession.   They are, in all aspects, amateurs rather then professionals, where the term _professionals_ in this sense means member of the profession of arms as opposed to carrying out ones duties in a _professional_ manner.   Reservist or reg force, every soldier in Canada is a highly trained volunteer which puts their abilities over that of a poor conscript.

Huntington never really made room for Enlisted soldiers and NCO's within the profession of arms, rather they were tradesmen and fell under a different category of systems and abilities.

King Arthur

I don't feel my proposal describes the Cadets very well as the first sentence states that the organization would be removed from the military altogether.   Obviously, the Cadets would be a different organization if this was done.



> My approach is inclusive and yours is divisive. What the CIC wants and deserves is respect from their colleagues of the CF and I have yet to read or hear one solid argument that would make it right to speak of my branch and colleague CICs in the way some do.



I've yet to see a convincing counter argument to the notion of the "military profession" as I have described based on the works of Huntington and others.   This is a notion based upon 200 years of evolution of the profession of arms that started with the Reforms of Scharnhorst and his _Militarische Gesellschaft_ during the Napoleonic Wars.   The system that these reformers built was emulated by the militaries of *every* industrialized nation at some point up to 1918 and is the foundation of military excellence.   In my research on the subject of the military profession and my own experience in the military (both Reg and Reserve), I've yet to see "Cadet Officer" or "Youth Group Leader" pop up as a relevent topic, therefore I see any claims of the CIC belonging to the profession as so defined as unnecessary and distracting to the profession.

Until you can provide my with reasons why this definition is unsound and that the CIC should be included, I am going to avoid discussing the issue of Cadet Officers, because it is obvious that none of them either understand or wish to attempt to address the underlying premise of the military profession.


----------



## Excolis

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1390/cic.html

just posting this again incase noone seen it among all the fighting..   

cheers


----------



## muskrat89

*sigh* Infanteer (and Inch, Scott, etc.) I see (and agree with) your point. In my opinion, though - you are trying to make a theoretical argument to some folks for whom this is an emotional issue.

I would expect that if you walked into the Volunteer Firehall in Digby, NS or Balfour, BC and proclaimed that they weren't true members of the profession of firefighters - that it would fall on deaf ears. It would probably make them dig in their heels, get defensive, and reject any logic that you wanted to offer up. It would not help to cite how the science of firefighting has evolved in the past 200 years, to the professional (fulltime) firefighters of today.

To the CIL Officers - The St.John Ambulance and Volunteer Fire Departments both have rank structures. They both have (often) youth Divisions. They both contribute greatly to their Communities. They both will certainly get called upon in the event of a National Disaster. They do not have a CF Affiliation. That being the only _theoretical_ difference, why do they (CIL) need a Queen's Commission? I think that is the main point being made. Not an attack on your own value or performance. I think, ultimately, it is simply a rhetorical question to which you are answering emotionally, instead of rhetorically.

By the way, my father was a (non-professional) RSM, and had 27 years or so in. My mother was a CIL Officer, and a Cadets Corps CO.


----------



## Infanteer

> I ask why not? Is leading a corps of youth not the same as leading a corps of 'soldiers' (parttime/fulltime?)?



 ???
Your kidding, right?


----------



## muskrat89

Matsu - did you read any of what I wrote? I acknowledged your position, while reiterating that Infanteer et al *were not questioning your value or ability*, but were, rhetorically speaking -  pondering your NEED for a Royal Commission.... in order to do your job...

I was the best TSM that the Regiment had ever seen, and if anyone deserved a new truck, it was me. That being said, someone decided that I didn't NEED a new truck.

5 pages of posturing, and I even come in and explain it in farmer-speak, and you guys still don't get the argument..... :

Inch, Infanteer, Scott... back to you...    ;D


----------



## catalyst

This is a very interesting argument. I'm still finalizing my take on the argument. I don't think I know enough about the CIC to make an informed decision. I am a leader of one of those 'youth groups; that people keep mentioning. However I do not appreciate the following comment:

"CHAP is one example that people who know the "old school" ways have begun calling cadets Girl Guides and Boy Scouts. "

Um, excuse me? Cadets were and never will be Girl Guides. Stop compairing after-chap-cadets with our organization.  These are two different DISTINCT organizations. I find it insulting.


----------



## Matsu

I deleted my last comment b/c I felt it was being taken the wrong way. Muskrat my last comment was not intended for you and yes thank you I understand your farmer-speak as you say. Oh, and I'm sorry you didn't get your new truck...but what does that have to do with the CIC?!? Did they some how prevent you from getting it?! Re: whether or not CIC officers should get their commission...I haven't posted anything b/c I am as of yet undecided. I am thinking of learning more about the CIC and I am also learning a great deal from all of these postings which I find interesting.

*Why do officers get commission?* Be it in the CIC or in the reg force. It was mentioned that a CIC officer could not lead soldiers, I ask why not? Is leading a corps of youth not the same as leading a corps of 'soldiers'? Are CIC officers that incompetent in your views? Would then a reg officer be unable to lead/direct a corps of youth? If one cannot work with the other are they incompetent enough to be removed from the forces? It would be interesting to ask this question to my friends who do both...I think I'll ask them the next time I'm at mess.And no I'm not kidding b/c I've seen it happen but in some people's opinion it can't happen so I'll get back to all of you on that one later. 

Re: the Girl Guide/Boy Scout comment, I also don't like the comment but it has been said multiple times. We are distinct and I'm not saying that we aren't. CHAP is a great program and I believe in it. I am one to correct my mistakes, therefore, I will not speak for others. As someone who came into the cadet program on the cusp I have had an interesting experience learning from both sides of the fence. But I'll allow the others to express their own views of the CHAP program on their own.

Oh re: battalion honours for some cadet corps I remember someone mentioning to me that it was due to the reg res corps that they are affiliated with. I know that some army cadet corps get to wear different barrettes. *shrugs* not sure if it'll help

Frankly, all in all you can say whatever you want about me. I'm open to constructive criticism. As long as I make my cadets proud to be who they are and have my peers respect the hard work that I do all your opinions of me don't matter.

   I salute ALL who serve...Lest We Forget...If you love your freedom, Thank a Vet.


----------



## Simpleton

Inch said:
			
		

> You keep bringing the reserves into this argument and although this may be an unpopular statement, they are not professional soldiers/officers either.   I research and buy stocks, does that make me a professional stock broker? Not by any stretch of the imagination.   Being professional (the adjective) and being a professional (the noun) are two different things.   A professional is called such because they do it day in and day out, the CIC and reserves are not the same.   When a reservist goes on tour, they cease being a reservist and become a regular, thus making them a professional soldier/officer.



The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes 'professional' thus:

professional (-sho-) _a. & n._ *1.* _a._ of, belonging to, connected with a profession, (_professional men, etiquette, jealousy_); ~ _politician, agitator_, etc., (making a trade of politics etc.); ~ _boxer, golfer, boxing, golf_, etc., (for monetary reward; opp. _amateur_); hence ~LY adv. *2.* _n_. professional person, esp. professional golfer etc. 

And professionalism: (-sho-) _n._ qualities or typcial features of a profession or professionals; so ~IZE

From that definition I would conclude that reservists are professionals.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

i guess I have a different definition to professional then most other people. A professional soldier to me is someone who has dedicated their lives to the CF and could be considered on duty 24/7, it has nothing to do with ability or competence IMO. I know some professional military that are not as competent in their jobs but they do it 24/7.


----------



## Excolis

All members of the CF are "on duty 24/7" technically CIC are too.  after hte whole restucture of the CIC (about 1.5 years it will be completly implimented) we will be part of the Primary reserve with a legit MOC.  As of right now, the CIC and the rangers are the only two portions of the CF that do not have proper MOC.  As a CIC officer i can transfer to the PRes and keep my commission, so can i ask if i do that would you have more respect for me then?   Ex-Dragoon i forget, was it you that wanted the info in cadets with battle honours?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

H.A.S. myself and several others were curious about it.


----------



## Infanteer

> The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes 'professional' thus:



Too vague.  If you look at the first page, you'll see the definition of the profession that I give which is derived from Huntington's The Soldier and the State and is much more pretenant to the discussion.


----------



## winchable

Have you had your argument responded to yet infanteer?

I think Infanteer makes an excellent point regarding the CIC's commissions, without touching the issue of CIC competence and insulting anyone really.
Or Perhaps I've missed it?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Again speaking as a complete outsider, wouldn't the solution be for the CIC officers to complete the same training and KEEP the same standards as the "professional" officers?
Then the respect would be "earned" by anybodys standerds, no?


----------



## combat_medic

Che: No, no one has actually responded to Infanteer's argument. There have been a lot of hurt feelings, and people trying to justify their own hard work, but no one as yet has constructed a logical, intelligent argument to explain the requirement of the CIC to be commissioned.

Oh, and for those who think that leading children is the same as leading soldiers in battle; you obviously have no experience doing either or you wouldn't have made such a completely idiotic and ignorant statement. Also, as a former member of the Girl Guides, I can tell you first hand that it is VERY similar to the cadets. I learned fieldcraft in guiding that I'm still applying to my military career, and was often more advanced than the training I received in the military. Just because you don't like the comparison, doesn't make it inaccurate. 

hopefully airborne soon: no, not all members of the CF are on duty 24/7. Unless you're a class B or C reservist, you are not on duty unless you have signed a pay sheet. As a member of the CF, I would expect you would have known that.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

hopefully airborne soon said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon i forget, was it you that wanted the info in cadets with battle honours?



I was the first one to ask, and Michael O'Leary - our resident expert on battle honours - was interested also.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

H.A.S.

Now I think the whole forum is interested, so please post it here when[if] you find them.
Thanks


----------



## chalk1

Wow. I thought this would`ve died a while ago. Quite an interesting debate going on here, and a lot of thin skin. Much of this arguing is being done by the older, wiser heads in the CF who are members of this fine forum, yet has anyone considered the perspective of the cadet?

We have here CIC members debating with members of other branches of the CF. CIC officers are arguing that their task is also as difficult, yet the other members of the CF disagree, stating that the CIC does nothing to "help win the land battle".  Now, a comparison has already been done on the two, but this is just what I have thought as a cadet, as well as what I have received as feedback from cadets Ive led on various training exercises/functions. A cadet`s first encounter with an officer is usually through the cadet organisation, which is led by officers who have relatively little military training. Of what I have seen, most have absolutely NO concept of the role of an officer is as well as that of an NCO, nor any feel for the relationship that is supposed to be there between the 2 ( CSM and coy OC, etc). This results in a senior cadet, who is already burdened with homework in high school, possibly a part-time job, being used merely as a mouthpiece for drill. I can't say how often Ive been to inter-corps activities and have seen officers yelling at their cadets. To you ladies and gents in the other branches: How often do you even see your officers? How often do they have to yell, or for that matter, how often do they micro-manage by stealing the job of their cadets/NCO's? These kids we lead are very impressionable, and this causes a fundamental impact on their thoughts of leadership.

Comparing this with the...oh, I don't know...Infantry officer, who has the most stressfull job on the planet, is in top shape physically and mentally and can handle an immense amount of stress while simultaneously fighting through to the objective and keeping his troop's welfare in mind. I must say that the best officers who have trained me as well as Ive worked under to train others, are either volunteers from the Regs and PRes or have been CFR'd after retiring from the CF. The type of training they have under their belts allow them to develop their cadets to higher standards in all areas of cadet training. To those who state that the CIC do a fine job as it is now, you can`t object to the oppurtunity to make better cadets by improving yourself.Perhaps more challenging training for CIC officers to develop their leadership under harsher conditions and truly learn the ethic of self-sacrifice for the sake of your team and your troops is the answer. (Id really like to put in a quote here from Starship Troopers from the beginning of the chapter at Camp Currie...Infanteer knows what Im talking about, but seeing as he's quoted that book enough I shall refrain from doing so ).

 Anytime I have led cadets as a cadet NCO under leadership by an officer with previous "real" military experience the sentiment I have felt from my cadets and peers is one of a heartfelt earned respect for the officer.


----------



## Jarnhamar

So far the main question (As far as i see) which is being asked is, 
Do CIC officers require a commission from the queen to perform their duties.

Between the arguments and counter arguments I would say those saying NO have the strongest argument by far.   

I don't see a requirement for the CIC to be commissioned officers. Those arguing the CIC play a vital role in the CF haven't won me over with their arguments.



> As a CIC officer i can transfer to the PRes and keep my commission, so can i ask if i do that would you have more respect for me then?


If you asked me this I would say no i wouldn't have more respect for you. I'd have the same respect for you as a person in the cadets as i do with you in the reserves.   Would i respect your authority as a higher rank than me with 8 years in the reserves OR than a warrant with 20 years in? Yup, thats how the army works. Your an "officer" so in that situation you and your experience commanding civilian children would out rank me. (I think you can read between the lines at the irony a little).    Would I respect you as a leader? hell no. Honestly who would? Your comming from a youth organization and plopping yourselves in the army (or reserves whatever).   You could argue that you always were in the army because you have a commission but we all know it's not the same thing.    You'd lack the time in, training, I'd argue mentality and most of all you haven't pr oven yourself.   Proving yourself is a pretty big thing. Even a reserve private or corporal transferring to the regular force WHOM doesn't do the battle school over again has a huge disadvantage because his or her peers will feel the soldier hasn't proven themselves yet.

As was pointed out, there is not a high standard when it comes to being in the CIC.   Physical fitness, medical disabilities and education. No one is trying to use this as a slam against the CIC (i don't think) it's just that a high standard is NOT required for what the CIC does. JUST it;s being argued a commission from the queen is NOT required for what the CIC do.

As to our guest who thinks leading children is like leading soldiers, that comment doesn't really deserve a reply. I think your honking your own horn a little if you think leading the former qualifies you for leading the latter.


----------



## winchable

I am still waiting for a valid response to infanteers argument.
He is by no means slamming the CIC from what I can see, and their personalities, physical fitness standards and even their ability to lead was not a part of his discourse.

This whole topic is circular until someone addresses his ideas and quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing repetitive arguments.
I'd urge the proponents of CIC commissions to speak now with a reasonable response or this thread will go the way of those which came before!
So I'll ask again, either someone point me to the response to infanteers argument, provide one, or the almighty's hand shall smiteth the thread.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Quote
As a CIC officer i can transfer to the PRes and keep my commission, so can i ask if i do that would you have more respect for me then?

I thought you guys were arguing you were PRes, why would you have to transfer to it. You may be able to transfer to a PRes Unit, if they would take you, unproven and untrained.
So say you do. Are you saying you can come straight in, say as a Lt, and lead the troop on the next ex? Do you know the job? Or how bout if your a Capt, you going to come straight to the ex and be the BC? I think not. You don't have the training, and that's the crux. We can't afford to pay someone for being dead weight. While the Queen's Commision is to be respected, respect for the individual is earned. Don't try bite off more than you can chew. Maybe you could come in and be a PAFFO or something harmless like that. (Apologies to the PAFFO's out there)


----------



## big_castor

The uniform and the commission are the tangible symbols of the interest that the CF has in the cadet program.   Period.   That's why we defend it â â€œ because we think the Cadet program is an asset to the CF and that members of the CF should be involved in it.   Nothing more, nothing else.

Debating the technical definition of an Officer or of a professional has nothing to do with it.   Counting the number of idiot on each side of the fence is not the issue.   The cadet program and the CIC provide a specific environment with specifics relations between individuals and a set of values that are unique.   It attracts a certain number of kids and adults because of that special environment and because of the links to the CF.      

Having us has full fledged members of the CF is an opportunity to set a higher standard.     We can emulate.   Officers and senior NCM's can share their experience with us and help us get better.   I do my job correctly and I ask a the same of my staff because I can ask myself : is this what could be expected of an officer ?

I'm well aware of the usual faults of our Branch and of it's members and I'm sorry that some of you had generally negative experiences with the CIC.   But the only thing I really ask of the Reg and Reserve   (both officers and NCM) that I meet is : treat me with at least the minimum amount of respect required.   If your job is to support me or my unit, do so with professionalism.   If I have nothing to do with you, I wont even bother you.   We are all, unless things change, members of the same organisation and should act accordingly.


----------



## Inch

Sqn CO, that's about the best explanation that I've heard and I fully respect it. A request for Cadet Liason Officers has just come down the chain and I'm thinking of doing it to, as you said, help the CICs get better and to enhance their knowledge and abilities. A worthwhile investment of my time I would hope.

Cheers.


----------



## Excolis

recceguy>>  not at all, i am just saying you can.  you can transfer in as a 2Lt and have to take all the training required to do the job you are getting into.  i am not saying nor have i ever said i could jump in and do the same job as your officers do.  I just get pissy when there is a cloud over the CIC because of a few bad apples.  i know a few ofthem in Windsor, but there are quite a few good officers in our city as well.  i guess it is all on your experiences with the cic.....


----------



## beach_bum

hopefully airborne soon said:
			
		

> As a CIC officer i can transfer to the PRes and keep my commission, so can i ask if i do that would you have more respect for me then?



Actually, a CIC officer can not  transfer to the PRes or to the Reg F.  If a CIC officer wanted to become an Officer in a PRes unit, they would have to apply like any one else.  They would have to go to CFRC and write the CFAT, do a med, ERC, interview and also the PT test.  Because they do not have to write the CFAT, do the PT test or meet the same medical standards that everyone else does, they can not  transfer.  It is in the books.  I am on leave until next Tuesday, but if you would like, I can find the Reference for this.


----------



## King Arthur

I am almost sorry I got this thread started and I got involved.  I was getting used to ingore people that did not take the time to learn about the CIC before making harsh statements.

As long as RegF try to gauge our value as officers against the training they receive or even our capability to do their jobs, this will go nowhere.  Our value as officers must not be defined by our ability to lead troops in combat, but rather by our ability and qualification to deliver the mandate that was issued to us by the CDS and the Canadian Government. We do not possess the same level of expertise that you guys have and we do not need it, the same can be said of you.  

As I said in a previous posting, the CF's mission goes way beyond getting ready for war.  The CIC has been created to support one of the domestic aims of the CF.  Yep... we provide a service and we are trained to do it properly  and commissionned by the Queen.  

Being that some think that I have a thin skin and am too emotional, I will withdraw for this discussion and go back to fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon me by my superiors. 

The minute that I feel that people get their noses out of books and take the time to look at the evolution of the CF and its mandates, I will return and contribute.  Nothing against a god reading once in a while, but not when the book is thrown at me.  None of us (you and me) need a commission to do his job as I stated earlier, what we need is to be competent and good at it. 

Cheers! 

Good luck everyone with your careers!


----------



## muskrat89

This has to be the most exasparating thread in which I have ever participated. For the umpteenth time, to everyone except Squadron CO:

NO ONE IS QUESTIONING YOUR VALUE
NO ONE IS QUESTIONING YOUR MISSION
NO ONE IS QUESTIONING YOUR DEDICATION
NO ONE IS WONDERING WHAT YOU DO
NO ONE IS PONDERING YOUR EFFECTIVENESS
NO ONE IS DOUBTING YOUR PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES

WE WANT TO KNOW WHY A CIL OFFICER NEEDS A ROYAL COMMISSION TO EFFECTIVELY DO THEIR TASK.

Is that really so hard to fathom?????      Squadron CO finally gave a reasonable answer. Thanks, Sir

This is utterly ridiculous     :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Personally, I've had enough of this, it pales to the ridiculous.


*!!!!!!! STAT !!!!!!!*​


----------



## Scott

Lock?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Your wish is my command oh hairy kilted one!


----------

