Army Reserve Restructuring

[Kirkhill]

I tend to see "planning" as an enduring doctrine that shapes: how we approach the various concepts of operations at any given time; how we teach and practice those concepts; how we organize or structure the force to give effect to the concepts and procedures; how we equip the force with materiel; and how we prepare our soldiers to actually fight and lead our forces.

One needs an overarching doctrine for the defence of Canada as a whole within which the specific doctrines for each domain are nested.

With utmost respect to those who think otherwise, we do not have a comprehensive doctrine at any level. What we have are varying massive budgets for personnel which limit the size of the force and create perpetual vying for allocated PYs in each domain. In addition there are budgets which limit both capital equipment procurement and operating expenses. This results in uncoordinated capability preservation rather than continuous, focused growth as the world's situation changes.

Much of this comes from the varying governments who have different spending priorities but also because of lack of cooperation between DND and GAC as to what the national security objectives ought to be.

It's interesting watching the States right now. Ever since WW2 the US has had a clear understanding that in order to escape the isolationism of the interwar years and to develop a hard power to oppose the spread of communism it needed a strong military, widely deployed to transfer its national security policy that brought other nations in line with the US's own needs. That came at a price. Trumpian strategy appears to call for retrenchment to the Americas cloaked in a mantle of having other countries pay for their own defence. That's flashy on the surface for the American voting horde, but completely glosses over the fact that the US will accordingly lose much of the influence they had bought in the world with its military. The various elements of the recent Iran debacle are a clear demonstration of both the limits of its military as well influence (not dissimilar from Russia's Ukrainian debacle but at least the US hasn't been sanctioned yet)

A national, enduring defence doctrine matters. It can't be left to just the whims of the priorities of changing governments nor the vision, or lack thereof, of the musical chairs leadership in NDHQ/CAF. Maybe with the commitments to the NATO 3.5/1.5% that can happen - but there is always another Trudeau or Harper around the corner.

I agree on the planning, and that word doctrine which I approach with ambivalence. My concern is that doctrine often hardens to dogma and becomes a constraint.

I am a big fan of planning. It costs very little.
I am not a big fan of plans. They can create a false sense of confidence and security.

Plaaning allows the planner to see the situation, whole and entire, and become familiar with threats and liabilities, assets and capabilities. That is necessary when the planner is engaged by an opponent with their own plan.

The hard part is deciding how many resources should be set aside for contingency plannig to counter the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

The sooner accountants get on board with contingency planning the better.

...

WRT the US.

Yes the US bought itself a great deal of influence through its defen(s)e expenditures over the decades,

But.

It ran out of money.
It ran out of willing taxpayers and soldiers.
It ran out of influence.

Other countries stopped paying attention to warnings provided.
They stopped acting in support.
They actively opposed US policy in all manner of issues.
They exploited US funded institutions to oppose the US.

At which point some began to ask if Marvin the Paranoid Android wasn't right all along.

"What's the use?"

 

[Kirkhill]

AI question of the day.

If Marvin met Eeyore which would commit suicide first?

Neither would; both are far too apathetic, lethargic, and profoundly unmotivated to actually go through with it.

Eeyore's trademark pessimism is rooted in mild depression, which means he is simply resigned to his sad fate, often expecting the worst. Marvin the Paranoid Android is perpetually suffering from an acute clinical depression of the mind, yet his overarching character flaw is that he is forced to live for billions of years, enduring existence solely because he is too miserable and deeply intelligent to do anything else.

If they met, they would likely sit together, complain about how terrible the universe is, and continue existing in total, uninterrupted misery.

...

 

[FJAG]

I agree on the planning, and that word doctrine which I approach with ambivalence. My concern is that doctrine often hardens to dogma and becomes a constraint.

I see planning as a subset of doctrine. Doctrine needn't be or ought to be calcified. Micro matters such as organization and materiel can grow and change with the times and technology without a revision of doctrine. Overarching macro elements should be a guide and not a constraint. They too must develop as the world situation develops.

It ran out of money.

Their budget is bigger than ever. Last year it was US$850 billion. For 2026 the administration put forward a budget of roughly US$1.5 trillion. My guess is it will pass because it heavily leans toward industrial production which always sits well with the Foghorn Leghorns in Congress.

It ran out of willing taxpayers and soldiers.

No to the first - most Americans believe in a strong defence as much more important than social programs (albeit they have folks sucking on that sweet, sweet, government handout teat). We'll see about soldiers. This year the army met 102% of its recruiting goal. The navy exceeded theirs by 8%. Recruiting across the board is at a 15-year high.

It ran out of influence.

That's a self-inflicted wound.

 

[dapaterson]

Divisions should not be planning their own permanent infrastructure, their own TO&E, their own doctrine.

On the other hand, doctrine cells should not be twenty year sinecures for officers not to be trusted with troops who refuse to let the real world intrude and protect that fourth line company.

 

[FJAG]

Divisions should not be planning their own permanent infrastructure, their own TO&E, their own doctrine.

Fully agree

On the other hand, doctrine cells should not be twenty year sinecures for officers not to be trusted with troops who refuse to let the real world intrude and protect that fourth line company.

You obviously have someone in mind.

The CAF is between a rock and a hard place when stability comes from low competence but high competence is transient and therefore creates a lack of stability.

 

[Kirkhill]

I see planning as a subset of doctrine. Doctrine needn't be or ought to be calcified. Micro matters such as organization and materiel can grow and change with the times and technology without a revision of doctrine. Overarching macro elements should be a guide and not a constraint. They too must develop as the world situation develops.

Their budget is bigger than ever. Last year it was US$850 billion. For 2026 the administration put forward a budget of roughly US$1.5 trillion. My guess is it will pass because it heavily leans toward industrial production which always sits well with the Foghorn Leghorns in Congress.

No to the first - most Americans believe in a strong defence as much more important than social programs (albeit they have folks sucking on that sweet, sweet, government handout teat). We'll see about soldiers. This year the army met 102% of its recruiting goal. The navy exceeded theirs by 8%. Recruiting across the board is at a 15-year high.

That's a self-inflicted wound.

Not a self inflicted wound.

Everybody eventually seeks to stand on their own feet. They leave home and make their own decisions. Mum and Dad are left in the rear view mirror.

 

[PrairieFella]

I see planning as a subset of doctrine. Doctrine needn't be or ought to be calcified. Micro matters such as organization and materiel can grow and change with the times and technology without a revision of doctrine. Overarching macro elements should be a guide and not a constraint. They too must develop as the world situation develops.

Their budget is bigger than ever. Last year it was US$850 billion. For 2026 the administration put forward a budget of roughly US$1.5 trillion. My guess is it will pass because it heavily leans toward industrial production which always sits well with the Foghorn Leghorns in Congress.

Thats largely robbing Peter to pay Paul. They cannot afford this. No country can. Its financial suicide in a generations time.

 

[dapaterson]

You obviously have someone in mind.

Bold of you to use the singular.