Army Reserve Restructuring

[ueo]

Easy win.

Anyone in the MRES will be able to own restricted firearms.

Good incentive to sign up. Fills your want to have a hardened target. And we have a ready list of restricted gun owners.

Ah the Swiss model....

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm unconvinced it's a "net benefit". Fundamentally, what we have is a movement of time use from higher-valued to lower-valued. I would have individuals who volunteer to serve pay the cost (by using vacation time) so that employers (and ultimately customers and taxpayers) aren't paying the cost. Trying to argue "net benefit" is difficult to impossible and isn't really the tack to take.

Big picture, I'm also unconvinced the cost of the Res F has been worth what it has provided in Reg F augmentation for the past 40 years, going back to and beyond the old "flyover" billets for fall ex in Germany. I've heard the "invaluable, critical" assessments all through FRY and Afghanistan, but I doubt any of the assessors were thinking in terms of Bastiat's seen/unseen. One of the alternatives to the funded, not-very-employable Res F we have is a more-funded Reg F. And then would the Res F still be needed for anything short of "total war"?

I've always been emotionally sympathetic to the "net benefit" view, but not intellectually. I've not seen anyone crunch numbers to "prove" these propositions one way or the other. But the high-to-low value use of time is undeniable.

Military leave provisions in law for everyone might be a necessary component of re-working the Res F to be more valuable. That can be true, and it can also be true that it's a net cost. As I perpetually write, mobilization of resources is inefficient. Make the case for the necessity, but mostly* don't try to argue that any costs are saved.

*The significant exceptional principle: a military force that successfully deters conflict is cheaper than one that does not.

I'd argue the Army is the one component that should be 90% reserves and 10% regular.

Massive focus on reservists with the regular component focused on maintenance and logistics to keep the lights on.

Having said that the part-time components would need strong legislation around job protection and required individual required commitments.

 

[lenaitch]

Maybe the whole idea falls into the category of 'it sounds like a good idea', but there needs to be more flesh on the bones. I'm still hung up on the staffing/bureaucracy needed to track, manage and train a couple-hundred thousand on a regular basis. From what I hear, the CAF struggles to do that with what it has now.

People volunteer either for their particular community and/or an area of interest.. If I was a volunteer fire fighter in my town but it was a condition that I was subject to go fill sandbags somewhere, maybe not, and who answers the calls back home?

If annual 'training' is local, can the armouries (if they exist) handle it. If centralized to bases, is travel time and cost included in the fire days?

Ya, I can drive, or use a chainsaw, or operate a backhoe. To who's standard? Do I bring my own? Is it paid for?

Paid time off for service is mostly governed by provincial labour law, which would seem to need a comprehensive federal-provincial agreement. We're really good at that. If activated, do I have to go? What's a reasonable reason to decline? Who decides and manages that? Most employers these days might have one employee who is an emergent or 'call away' volunteer. What's the impact when you add a couple hundred thousand to that mix needed for a non-local problem?

So many questions and we are fencing in the dark.