# An Ongoing Military Identity Crisis



## Swingline1984 (27 Nov 2010)

A brief history lesson on the CF via Conrad Black including an interesting spin on how to market force expansion to the public:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/ongoing+military+identity+crisis/3893013/story.html


----------



## Greymatters (27 Nov 2010)

It all sounded good until he said that the expanded forces should draw from the ranks of the unemployed.  While there are willing workers in the unemployment line, I dont believe that the vast majority of them are suitable for military service.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> It all sounded good until he said that the expanded forces should draw from the ranks of the unemployed.  While there are willing workers in the unemployment line, I dont believe that the vast majority of them are suitable for military service.



Brings back memories of Cyprus.  One morning on Canada AM a NDP candidate in a discussion on our ending our commitment to Cyprus came out and stated that all we had to do was land a plane in Toronto and load it with the unemployed and homeless and send them over to do Peacekeeping.  I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at his naivete.  Wonder if this is the same guy?


----------



## Loachman (27 Nov 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> It all sounded good until he said that the expanded forces should draw from the ranks of the unemployed.  While there are willing workers in the unemployment line, I dont believe that the vast majority of them are suitable for military service.



He did say "directly or indirectly". I interprete "indirectly" to mean that we take a lot of people from the ranks of the employed, which are then back-filled from the ranks of the unemployed.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Nov 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> He did say "directly or indirectly". I interprete "indirectly" to mean that we take a lot of people from the ranks of the employed, which are then back-filled from the ranks of the unemployed.



Does something different happen when other competitive hiring practices take place?  Is he suggesting this is new and, somehow, interesting because of that?  Send that man a _Captain Obvious_ action figure.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Brings back memories of Cyprus.  One morning on Canada AM a NDP candidate in a discussion on our ending our commitment to Cyprus came out and stated that all we had to do was land a plane in Toronto and load it with the unemployed and homeless and send them over to do Peacekeeping.  I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at his naivete.  *Wonder if this is the same guy?*



Conrad Black?  An NDP Candidate?

Methinks not.


----------



## IBM (27 Nov 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Conrad Black?  An NDP Candidate?
> 
> Methinks not.



IMO both Conrad and the NDP guy are both your typical civvies who have no clue what's involved with wearing the uniform, and therefore just talking out of their rear ends.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Nov 2010)

IBM said:
			
		

> IMO both Conrad and the NDP guy are both your typical civvies who have no clue what's involved with wearing the uniform, and therefore just talking out of their rear ends.



Wearing a uniform has nothing whatsoever to do with determining the means (or the size of the means) that will be used to attain national security ends.  Sadly, while Mr Conrad's analysis started out strong, he failed to identify the strategic objectives that would be served by a larger military, and merely went straight to the PIDOOMA figure of doubling our existing force.  It was a bit like reading some of the posts here...


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Nov 2010)

Warriors need enemies to define themselves. Not nebulous government policies or elitist ex-cons op ed pieces. I sometimes miss the kill a Commie for mommy days. Much better enemy than the current one IMO. Trying to stomp a swarm sand fleas is just not the same as that great old Russian bear. A military with no enemy is a waste of resources. Policing is better left to police. Armies need to be good at blowing sh!^ up and hurting people IMO. I'd be interested to hearing the opinion of the more informed minds here.

Defining ourselves means defining our enemies and threats.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2010)

The problem with solving the nation's "unemployment" by filling up the military with them, is that you have now turned the military into another form of EI or Welfare.  This does not work.


----------



## Greymatters (27 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The problem with solving the nation's "unemployment" by filling up the military with them, is that you have now turned the military into another form of EI or Welfare.  This does not work.



'The problem' isnt getting the nations unwashed unemployed into a uniform - its that those of 'higher' education think that all of us who are (or were) already employed in the current CF are equally unskilled, unschooled, and unsuccessful, thus the nations unemployed masses would fit right in with us...


----------



## gun runner (28 Nov 2010)

Those of higher education are in my opinion not suitable for the work that is done in the trenches by us..the common soldier. They are much better off in hospitals,stitching us back together, or in Government..tellings us what we are doing,or where we are going next,etc..etc. Leave the trooping to the troops. As for the unemployed placed into the ranks of the CF..weren't we all unemployed before we joined? I know I was. That is what the aptitude testing is for isn`t it! My :2c:. Ubique


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2010)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Those of higher education are in my opinion not suitable for the work that is done in the trenches by us..the common soldier. They are much better off in hospitals,stitching us back together, or in Government..tellings us what we are doing,or where we are going next,etc..etc. Leave the trooping to the troops. As for the unemployed placed into the ranks of the CF..weren't we all unemployed before we joined? I know I was. That is what the aptitude testing is for isn`t it! My :2c:. Ubique



Unfortunately, this is not true.  Greymatters point seems to be quite accurate, and lost on you as well.  Members of the CF on a whole have very high educations when compared to other militaries.  We also have 'older' soldiers, for the most part, when compared to other militaries.  This gives up us soldiers who often use their initiative more often, and show signs of maturity often not displayed elsewhere.  

As for them being better placed in hospitals and government, well, many are currently serving to save lives in hospitls and many move into politics later in their lives.  

Unemployed.  Yes we were 'unemployed', but some of us chose not to be after we graduated.  Thanks, anyway, for perpetuating the myth.  Greymatters' points are indeed facing a long uphill fight.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (28 Nov 2010)

IBM said:
			
		

> IMO both Conrad and the NDP guy are both your typical civvies who have no clue what's involved with wearing the uniform, and therefore just talking out of their rear ends.



Actually, if I remember correctly, I believe Black has spent time studying military history and at one time he was also into miniature wargaming. And, again if my memory serves me, he was at one time a Honorary Colonel with one of the Ottawa militia regiments. I know that doesn't make him a military expert, but at the same time he's not necessary totally ignorant of military matters.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Wearing a uniform has nothing whatsoever to do with determining the means (or the size of the means) that will be used to attain national security ends.  Sadly, while Mr Conrad's analysis started out strong, he failed to identify the strategic objectives that would be served by a larger military, and merely went straight to the PIDOOMA figure of doubling our existing force.  It was a bit like reading some of the posts here...



The reason that he cut to chase, so-to-speak, may be because he was running out of space. You can only write so much in a paper.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Nov 2010)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Those of higher education are in my opinion not suitable for the work that is done in the trenches by us..the common soldier.


Wow, I guess I'm sufficiently uneducated, or at least adequately stupid, not to work in hospitals or government. I'm pretty lucky the Infantry took me.


Perhaps Kenora has a problem with too much intellect in their fighting trenches Cadet community? :


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2010)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Those of higher education are in my opinion not suitable for the work that is done in the trenches by us..the common soldier. They are much better off in hospitals,stitching us back together, or in Government..tellings us what we are doing,or where we are going next,etc..etc. Leave the trooping to the troops.


To state the blindingly obvious:  Way to offend the "common soldiers" who, indeed, have LOADS of education - in some cases, more than the officer types.

And from my limited experience in government (or life, for that matter), more education =/= (necessarily) more common sense.


----------



## IBM (28 Nov 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, if I remember correctly, I believe Black has spent time studying military history and at one time he was also into miniature wargaming. And, again if my memory serves me, he was at one time a Honorary Colonel with one of the Ottawa militia regiments. *I know that doesn't make him a military expert,* but at the same time he's not necessary totally ignorant of military matters.
> 
> The reason that he cut to chase, so-to-speak, may be because he was running out of space. You can only write so much in a paper.



I realize that Black may not be totally ignorant on the topic, but my point was exactly how much faith can you put in someone's thoughts on a topic who is NOT a subject-matter expert on it? Would you take cooking tips from Don Cherry? Or bets on who will win the Cup from Martha Stewart?

If you are not a SME on a topic, then in my book you opinion on the topic has as much weight as the rest of John Q. Public. Same rule applies to myself; if I'm not an SME then my own thoughts really isn't worth that as someone who is.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Nov 2010)

I agree, but my point is that very few military personnel are experts on what the appropriate size of our military is, given that the size and capability MUST be linked to our National Security Strategy, which must in turn serve the nation's vital interests.  These must be determined by our elected officials and their advisors, few of whom are uniformed.  Mr Black has, in the past, had the ear of various elected officials in the capacity of informal advisor, and so his opinion matters, even if it is not wholly thought through.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Nov 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I agree, but my point is that very few military personnel are experts on what the appropriate size of our military is, given that the size and capability MUST be linked to our National Security Strategy, which must in turn serve the nation's vital interests.  These must be determined by our elected officials and their advisors, few of whom are uniformed.  Mr Black has, in the past, had the ear of various elected officials in the capacity of informal advisor, and so his opinion matters, even if it is not wholly thought through.




However, very very few of our elected officials or even their advisors actually know what they are talking about when it comes to National Security Strategy.  They are however very good at knowing what size of a military will make our allied commitments happy and at the same time not upset the general public too much, all while keeping expenses as low as possible.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Nov 2010)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Those of higher education are in my opinion not suitable for the work that is done in the trenches by us..the common soldier.



And yes, I agree with George here, this type of talk tends to propogate the myth that your average CF NCM is a by-blow squaddie trying to ape their betters...


----------



## Haggis (29 Nov 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Mr Black has, in the past, had the ear of various elected officials in the capacity of informal advisor, and so his opinion matters, even if it is not wholly thought through.



Don't discount his military experience gained while Honourary Colonel of the GGFG.


----------



## nairna (29 Nov 2010)

What does everyone think of this line?  

"The most effective economic stimulus is advanced military-based research, and this should be pursued, especially in aerospace and shipbuilding."


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Nov 2010)

I for one applaud CB for suggesting and championing a larger military.  It is refreshing to see someone from the MSM do so.  

As for the unemployed as a possible source of recruits, it would not be totally without merit.  At one time some young men were given the option of jail or the military.  Granted some of them were indeed rotten to the core and continued to be so amongst us.  Others, however, turned their lives around, stuck it out and were very successful Soldiers.  I am sure there are those amongst us who have encountered some of these people, I know I have.  Many young people today would benefit from having a positive start in adulthood with learing self sufficiency, discipline and some trades skills among other things that come from some time in the Forces.  Not to mention the obvious benefits from having a regular pay coming in, they might even get to like the idea and keep amongst the ranks of the employed if not the CF.


----------



## Sapplicant (29 Nov 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> It all sounded good until he said that the expanded forces should draw from the ranks of the unemployed.  While there are willing workers in the unemployment line, I dont believe that the vast majority of them are suitable for military service.




Please elaborate. Are you referring to the welfare bum types who haven't worked in years, or the underemployed, such as myself? Some people who draw poggie only do so in the winter, when there's just not enough work for everyone who lives here. 

Once springtime rolls around, and the snowbanks start growing Timmies cups and cigarette butts, people like myself and the vast majority of people around here I know, are chomping at the bit to get back outside and work up a storm. I hope that these are not the people you are referring to, because I'd like to think that most of my fellow outdoorsmen/farmhands would do great in the Forces, and are more than suitable for service.


----------



## EMEGUY421 (23 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Please elaborate. Are you referring to the welfare bum types who haven't worked in years, or the underemployed, such as myself? Some people who draw poggie only do so in the winter, when there's just not enough work for everyone who lives here.
> 
> Once springtime rolls around, and the snowbanks start growing Timmies cups and cigarette butts, people like myself and the vast majority of people around here I know, are chomping at the bit to get back outside and work up a storm. I hope that these are not the people you are referring to, because I'd like to think that most of my fellow outdoorsmen/farmhands would do great in the Forces, and are more than suitable for service.




 I appreciate your elaboration.  If you are saying that you would like to end your seasonal work 'cycle',  then join the CF.  We are always recruiting.  The 'bums' you refer to are more than happy dragging themselves through a life that is at best a struggle to survive, and who are more often than not rebellious towards the very people who make attempts to correct the situation.  They would not appreciate the world offered and most would not pass the enrollment criteria just to spite the process.

 I may be wrong and will gladly admit so, but this is what I have observed in my years.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Dec 2010)

EMEGUY421 said:
			
		

> We are always recruiting.



Perhaps you should read this thread to get a better understanding of the current recruiting situation:

Trades OPEN / Closed ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should read this thread to get a better understanding of the current recruiting situation:
> 
> Trades OPEN / Closed ?



Seems to be a recurring theme. Weighing in with an opinion without the pertinent background reading.


----------



## PanaEng (23 Dec 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> To state the blindingly obvious:  Way to offend the "common soldiers" who, indeed, have LOADS of education - in some cases, more than the officer types.
> 
> And from my limited experience in government (or life, for that matter), more education =/= (necessarily) more common sense.


Absolutely!
Just looking at the guys in my troop:

over 75% are going to University or college
a few of them are doing their masters and I think one just started phd
a couple of Cpl's have their PEng
of those not going to school, only one needs the reserves to supplement his income - the rest are either professionals or otherwise employed by gov (  ;D ) and are still with our unit for the fun of it   
Not sure if this is representative of the reserve units in general, but I'm pretty happy with the level and breadth of knowledge in our unit.

as for the paper, yes, good to see, but his focus should have  been to explain why we need a bigger military instead of how to get bigger. (as previously mentioned)

cheers


----------



## FutureQYR (19 Feb 2011)

I don't like the idea of working with people who are purely in a career for the money, which is what 80% of the people you find in the unemployment line would be joining for. In my experience (PRes and civvie side) they lack initiative, are generaly the last people to start a job, and the first people to be out the door at the end of the day.  
I think I would much rather see the money the DND would spend to hire a whole bunch of cannon fodder go towards its regular recruitment numberd and further training the troops it already has. Oh, and maybe speed up my CT... :nod:


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2011)

YoungQYR said:
			
		

> In my experience (PRes and civvie side) they lack initiative, are generaly the last people to start a job, and the first people to be out the door at the end of the day.



And in my experience they are the people least afraid to get dirty and get the job done because they know what a dollar is worth and dont think shitty jobs are "beneath them" because thats "not what they joined for". They are not the ones during basic training saying " i joined to serve my country not clean toilets"............people join for lots of reasons and money is one of them. That does not make them worse soldiers.


----------



## Shamrock (19 Feb 2011)

YoungQYR said:
			
		

> I don't like the idea of working with people who are purely in a career for the money, which is what 80% of the people you find in the unemployment line would be joining for. In my experience (PRes and civvie side) they lack initiative, are generaly the last people to start a job, and the first people to be out the door at the end of the day.
> I think I would much rather see the money the DND would spend to hire a whole bunch of cannon fodder go towards its regular recruitment numberd and further training the troops it already has. Oh, and maybe speed up my CT... :nod:



In my experience, made up statistics are a bullshit means of thinly veiling personal prejudice.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2011)

YoungQYR said:
			
		

> I think I would much rather see the money the DND would spend to *hire a whole bunch of cannon fodder* go towards its regular recruitment numberd and further training the troops it already has. Oh, and maybe speed up my CT... :nod:


Apart from making little sense here, way to take a good dig at people not even in the CF yet.  How do _you_ like under-informed generalities about people from Toronto?  Same, same....


----------



## FutureQYR (19 Feb 2011)

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> In my experience, made up statistics are a bullshit means of thinly veiling personal prejudice.



Hard to hold prejudice against myself, that is being that I am a night Janitor working for $10.50 an hour at 60 hours a week. 

But, maybe I should have phrased it better.  By actively recruiting from employment lines (a place I have found myself more than once) you are going to find yourself hiring alot of people who at the moment see an opportunity to make money, get out of a rough patch, and a year down the road decide its not for them/theres more opportunity civve side. Not everyone, but alot. 

Does it not make more sense that in seeking to maintain a professional army one should hire people who seek to be professional, not just a steady paycheck?


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2011)

YoungQYR said:
			
		

> Does it not make more sense that in seeking to maintain a professional army one should hire people who seek to be professional, not just a steady paycheck?



Anyone who does their job 100% will do. I dont give a crap why they are here. I have seen my share of slackers that came in for various reasons.


----------



## FutureQYR (19 Feb 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Apart from making little sense here, way to take a good dig at people not even in the CF yet.  How do _you_ like under-informed generalities about people from Toronto?  Same, same....



Not being from Toronto, I could care less.  

"A dig at people not even in the CF yet". Its not as if Im standing at the door of CFRC Toronto pointing out people I feel are less 'well off' and telling staff to turn them away. 

I think I was misunderstood. Im NOT saying that people who use the unemployment line are any more or less lazy than a person in a financially stable situation, Im saying people who start a career based on salary are going to be significantly less passionate about that job. 

What im saying doesnt even only apply to the Forces. The same could be said about Police. If you were a Cop, would you want to be working with another Officer who was in it for the check rather than the feeling he/she recieved from a good day of serving his/her community?


----------



## FutureQYR (19 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Anyone who does their job 100% will do. I dont give a crap why they are here. I have seen my share of slackers that came in for various reasons.



Well, I guess thats why were discussing the topic. Differing opinions...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Feb 2011)

I'm with CDN Aviator; in a long (35+ years) career I met a lot of people who joined for a lot f reasons. What mattered, to me, was why some stayed and some didn't. Some of the best soldiers I ever knew joined for reasons quite unrelated to patriotism or military professionalism and all that; some of the people I was most happy to see out the door joined because they wanted to be professional soldiers or serve their country or some such thing.

Me? I joined as an act of adolescent rebellion. I'm not sure who was more shocked, me or the army, when I turned out to be an OK soldier. The army, for me, was "fun" and, when offered the chance, I re-engaged and then agreed to give officer training a try; the army remained, mostly, "fun" for all 35+ years. I'm glad I joined and I'm glad I stayed in; I'm glad the army wasn't worried about my motives for joining.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2011)

YoungQYR said:
			
		

> Im saying people who start a career based on salary are going to be significantly less passionate about that job.



People who join for more abstract resons than money are often disapointed by their careers ( "this isnt what i joined for...blah blah blah") and leave the forces. People who join for money stick around as long as the pay keeps comming..........

We can play this game all night if you want but in the end, there are pros and cons for both and "it takes all kinds".......


----------



## FutureQYR (19 Feb 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm with CDN Aviator; in a long (35+ years) career I met a lot of people who joined for a lot f reasons. What mattered, to me, was why some stayed and some didn't. Some of the best soldiers I ever knew joined for reasons quite unrelated to patriotism or military professionalism and all that; some of the people I was most happy to see out the door joined because they wanted to be professional soldiers or serve their country or some such thing.
> 
> Me? I joined as an act of adolescent rebellion. I'm not sure who was more shocked, me or the army, when I turned out to be an OK soldier. The army, for me, was "fun" and, when offered the chance, I re-engaged and then agreed to give officer training a try; the army remained, mostly, "fun" for all 35+ years. I'm glad I joined and I'm glad I stayed in; I'm glad the army wasn't worried about my motives for joining.





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> People who join for more abstract resons than money are often disapointed by their careers ( "this isnt what i joined for...blah blah blah") and leave the forces. People who join for money stick around as long as the pay keeps comming..........
> 
> We can play this game all night if you want but in the end, there are pros and cons for both and "it takes all kinds".......



I suppose your both right.  :

Good to see people interested in discusion rather than jumping down peoples throat when they state their opinion.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2011)

YoungQYR said:
			
		

> Good to see people interested in discusion rather than jumping down peoples throat when they state their opinion.



Disagreeing with you is not "jumping down people's throat". Maybe you should try to defend your position by doing more than repeating the same thing in every post.

In my experience ( 18+ years reg force in 2 different trades, resume available on request....), your opinion is off-base. Show me why you are right !


----------



## mariomike (19 Feb 2011)

YoungQYR said:
			
		

> If you were a Cop, would you want to be working with another Officer who was in it for the check rather than the feeling he/she recieved from a good day of serving his/her community?



It used to be guys from the neighborhoods. There were residency requirements years ago. Before the unions made it an issue. It was considered essential for Emergency Services to live close to their stations and live as part of the community. Now, two-thirds of Toronto Police recruits come from communities outside the city. Whether that makes them any more or less loyal to the communities they serve is not for me to say.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2011)

YoungQYR said:
			
		

> If you were a Cop, would you want to be working with another Officer who was in it for the check rather than the feeling he/she recieved from a good day of serving his/her community?



Someone who joined for money can not feel satisfaction from helping others ? I did not realise it was mutualy exclusive.


----------



## FutureQYR (19 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Disagreeing with you is not "jumping down people's throat". Maybe you should try to defend your position by doing more than repeating the same thing in every post.
> 
> In my experience ( 18+ years reg force in 2 different trades, resume available on request....), your opinion is off-base. Show me why you are right !



Not to be rude, but one sentence posts made by several people, essentially saying im somehow being prejudice are not constructive, nor do they add to the 'conversation'. Had these people taken the time to review the full thread, read my opinion CAREFULLY, taken time too think about why I might think this, beyond the the coppout 'your prejudice', and then posted their respective opinions, I wouldn't have had to repeat myself 2-3 times.

Its part of the reason I seldom post on this site, rather I just read. Too many people are keen on giving their quick two cents without spending the time to allow anyone to explain themselves, and why they think what they do. You were an obvious exception.

But like I said, I respect your opinion. Obviously we've had different experiences, but that doesn't change the fact that I see merit in both arguements.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2011)

When i joined, i thought that people who joined for money were the scum of the earth. I joined for all those wave-the-flag-hoorah-kill-them-all reasons. Over the years, i came to look at things differently. I'm not saying you will change too and i'm not saying that you need more TI, just wanted you to know where i was comming from.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2011)

YoungQYR said:
			
		

> Not to be rude, but one sentence posts made by several people,



So why did you shose to quote myself and ERC when you made that comment ?

You even took the time to add  :  to your "i gues you are both right" comment.........


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Feb 2011)

Enough gentlemen.  Try to find an actual thread topic to discuss.

Army.ca Staff


----------

