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.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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.

IIRC that is the 'Continental European' model, designed for conscripted armies.

 

[mariomike]

Other than two weeks LWP for PRes training every summer, unless there was a war on, we weren't going anywhere with the military.

The roof collapse in Elliot Lake, Ice Storm etc. Calls that, we go in our muni uniforms, with our muni iservice. Not the military.

Even during wartime, holding a job in an essential civilian occupation can be grounds for military exemption.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

You have me thinking that this whole exercise may be more locally focused.

As you say we are fencing in the dark but even then we can sometimes discern solids and voids.

What if this is about posse comitatus, the ancient practice of raising every able-bodied man (and woman) in the community (county), also known as the militia, to assist the sheriff? We are used to thinking of posse comitatus as an American concept but its latin name gives away its mediaeval origins. In time of crisis the Shire Reeve was authorized to raise the people of the Shire and deputize them.

Britain preferred this system to the maintenance of a standing army. They eventually acceded to a small standing army and the establishment of an active militia, volunteers willing to train regularly and serve locally in a crisis, and a sedentary militia, everyone else.

America followed British practice but codified posse comitatus, the act of calling out the militia, or a portion of it, and deputizing it to assist the Sheriff.

....

In Canada we have drfted a long way from our militia and an engaged ctizenry. We now rely on a permanently established police force and a permanently established standing army, both of which have their roots in the militia and both of which are too small to handle crises. They are sized for the routine. When a crisis does come up then the civil police rely on the standing army for assistance.

But what if the standing army is engaged, as seems likely, or the crisis is too big, or is a rapidly developing locally devastating event that precludes the option of bringing in outside forces and the locals have to rely on themselves?

I could see this as a means for re-engaging the citizenry in a militia, as originally understood, so that the "sheriff" can deputize suitable volunteers known to her for aid to the civil power under something like posse comitatus.

The key element in any crisis is knowing what resources you have available to you and that they are organized.

If they are trained, that is a plus, but not a requirement.

This could cover off the State role of the National Guard. The Federal role is something else again and something that, probably, properly is the preserve of the primary reserve.

...

By the way, the original Rangers were members of the local population, the militia, that were permanently deputised and paid to serve the needs of their community while continuing with their civilian lives. Pretty much like our northern Rangers.

 

[Kirkhill]

The militia system also explains the difference between the administrative Captain and the tactical Captain.
The administrative Captain acted in the role of adjutant, maintaining the district rolls and keeping track of everybody and their status and availability. He could be responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of prople.

Tactical Captains could be found within that body to lead for the duration. They might only lead 50 men.

 

[Kilted]

The real issue is communicating all that efficiently. Even here, people think we’ll be fighting ww3 with 5 day trained public servants with diabetes and perfume allergies.

I mean, who's actually wearing perfume in combat?

 

[Kilted]

25,000 St John's Ambulance
20,000 Red Cross
20, 000 SAR volunteers
90,000, volunteer firefighters
How many thousands of Citizens on patrol and block watch volunteers.
How about accessing the Corps of Commissionaires for another 20,000 or so.

Perhaps some of these (all of these could be registered with the MRES)

9000 CATSA
Security Guards?

There is avery large pool of potential registrants.

St John Ambulance. John the Baptist never owned an ambulance.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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?

Assume: 200,000 on the list at steady state; 50 available weeks in the year; annual 5-day camp required. Thus 4,000 per week; assume platoons of 50. Thus 80 platoons per week. Reduce the re-cert to every 5 years, thus 16 platoons per week.

Re-set the conditions for whatever is actually proposed. Is the output number practical?

If the model is one-time training only, see also "skill fade".

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?

I was pondering on the question as to how a 5-day wonder would be employable in ways that a reservist 5 days into basic training is not. At one point long ago, and thankfully only for a few months, there was an almost complete prohibition on using soldiers partway through (weekend) basic for anything. More reasonable restrictions were subsequently set. The permissions did not include operating equipment, let alone heavy equipment.

 

[FJAG]

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.

I'd debate the numbers (more to 25% RegF-75% ARes) and some of the RegF responsibilities (a light quick reaction force) but agree with the concept.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'd debate the numbers (more to 25% RegF-75% ARes) and some of the RegF responsibilities (a light quick reaction force) but agree with the concept.

CANSOFCOM is your QRF but they aren't Army as they are now their own command.

I don't think Canada will stomach or is interested in sustained ground combat anymore. I think our Army should be focused on Continental and Territorial defence with a special emphasis on the north and coastal work.

SOF the RCN and RCAF would be doing the expeditionary work.

 

[Kirkhill]

CANSOFCOM is your QRF but they aren't Army as they are now their own command.

I don't think Canada will stomach or is interested in sustained ground combat anymore. I think our Army should be focused on Continental and Territorial defence with a special emphasis on the north and coastal work.

SOF the RCN and RCAF would be doing the expeditionary work.

Are they still independent? I thought I saw some mention of them being brought under CJOC.

And I think you could grow the Expeditionary force a bit more. I think our folks could stomach Light Infantry and a Mech Brigade as long as the casualties weren't too high. Enough to get highways of heroes parades but not enough so that they know anyone.

 

[FJAG]

I obviously disagree.

CANSOFCOM is your QRF but they aren't Army as they are now their own command.

CANSOFCOM is a QRF, not the QRF.

I don't think Canada will stomach or is interested in sustained ground combat anymore. I think our Army should be focused on Continental and Territorial defence with a special emphasis on the north and coastal work.

They are stomaching Latvia as a deterrent force which by its very nature implies a sustained combat role. I've said it many times before; if you want to have an economic role to play in Europe (or other desirable places) then you have to be seen to be sharing their defence burden. Being seen entails a sizeable force. IMHO, a multinational brigade is a bare minimum.

SOF the RCN and RCAF would be doing the expeditionary work.

None of which provide the impact that you are looking for. I'll go much farther, Canada is a nation of much land and much coastline and is subject to direct attack by missiles launched from ships at sea and now from land bases in Russia. Coastal and anti-air defence of the homeland is primarily a navy and air force responsibility. I certainly agree that the army has a role to play there to bolster and thicken the coastal and anti-air defences, but that isn't their exclusive role.

 

[Baz]

I'd debate the numbers (more to 25% RegF-75% ARes) and some of the RegF responsibilities (a light quick reaction force) but agree with the concept.

I think there also has to be some type of RegF capability in the Mechanized fight. It's hard to teach the Reserves something you don't do yourselves.

Possibly a Brigade, but spread across the three current bases. They would:

• develop the core expertise
• do basic and advanced FG
• act as enemy force during Reserve concentrations (so you know you're training against a "competent foe")
• man the units deploying to places like Latvia prior to partial mobilization taking place
• create the manning for "RSS"
• provide a bridge capability (possibly for pre-positioned equipment) while the reserves to final organization and deployment, then return to train follow on forces

 

[Halifax Tar]

Are they still independent? I thought I saw some mention of them being brought under CJOC.

Still not the command of the CA. Agreeing there is definite cross over.

And I think you could grow the Expeditionary force a bit more. I think our folks could stomach Light Infantry and a Mech Brigade as long as the casualties weren't too high. Enough to get highways of heroes parades but not enough so that they know anyone.

So a low intensity conflict like Afg or peacekeeping operations, ya I think Canada could stomach that. But I don't think Canadians care enough about Latvia to lose 3K of their sons and daughters there.

I obviously disagree.

CANSOFCOM is a QRF, not the QRF.

Sure. I disagree.

They are stomaching Latvia as a deterrent force which by its very nature implies a sustained combat role. I've said it many times before; if you want to have an economic role to play in Europe (or other desirable places) then you have to be seen to be sharing their defence burden. Being seen entails a sizeable force. IMHO, a multinational brigade is a bare minimum.

The Latvia BG isnt fighting anyone nor do I think it will. Its an execution to substantiate an existence IMHO.

I have no interest in Europe other than financial. We don't need Europe, they need us. They should be left to their own devices.

None of which provide the impact that you are looking for. I'll go much farther, Canada is a nation of much land and much coastline and is subject to direct attack by missiles launched from ships at sea and now from land bases in Russia. Coastal and anti-air defence of the homeland is primarily a navy and air force responsibility. I certainly agree that the army has a role to play there to bolster and thicken the coastal and anti-air defences, but that isn't their exclusive role.

You could have stopped at I disagree, we've been down this road before.