BGen Ménard relieved of Afganistan Comd & other fall-outs

[armyvern]

Agreed.  He wasn't found guilty of being a person who couldn't make timely decisions under the presence of an armed enemy, or that he couldn't stomach the tedious war-like environment.  If garda thinks he can be an asset, why bash him or them?  He got a little too close to a subordinate and got caught, doesn't make him a bad assest, it makes him a person who was caught in a position he wasn't supposed to be in. No more, no less.

Good on him for finding work where he was, obviously, very good at. Less the improper conduct with the people who worked for him.

A person who willfully placed himself into that position knowing it was against the regulations. Who probably had soldiers under his command charged with that offense even as he laid back doing same himself. He also encouraged  his partner to lie to impede the course of justice; both of which speak to his lack of "integrity" ... the basis of Garda's 'mantra'.

I have no issues with anyone questioning Garda's employment of him in their midst given their very own stated mantra.

I find that Naval Officers who remove themselves from proceedings against subordinates who have 'searched inappriorpriate content while at work' because they stated they had done same thing, have about 500% more integrity, honour and respect than someone who believes that rules are made for the much-lesser many than himself and, that when found to be breaching those regulations, that lying to cover it up is either honourable or acceptable.

:

As a potential employer, his actions would tell me that his priority is strictly himself. Classic narcissism.

His later actions also indicate to me that had he experienced his ND while NOT with the CDS ... no action would have occured. He had no choice but to report himself precisely because of the company he was keeping when it occured. I give him NO credit on that front.

 

[GK .Dundas]

A person who willfully placed himself into that position knowing it was against the regulations. Who probably had soldiers under his command charged with that offense even as he laid back doing same himself. He also encouraged  his partner to lie to impede the course of justice; both of which speak to his lack of "integrity" ... the basis of Garda's 'mantra'.

I have no issues with anyone questioning Garda's employment of him in their midst given their very own stated mantra.

I find that Naval Officers who remove themselves from proceedings against subordinates who have 'searched inappriorpriate content while at work' because they stated they had done same thing, have about 500% more integrity, honour and respect than someone who believes that rules are made for the much-lesser many than himself and, that when found to be breaching those regulations, that lying to cover it up is either honourable or acceptable.

:

As a potential employer, his actions would tell me that his priority is strictly himself. Classic narcissism.

His later actions also indicate to me that had he experienced his ND while NOT with the CDS ... no action would have occured. He had no choice but to report himself precisely because of the company he was keeping when it occured. I give him NO credit on that front.

I  work for Garda I have to really wonder what was going thru some body's head when they hired this guy .....Colour me absolutely disgusted .

 

[Jungle]

Not to rub salt in the wound, but he also mishandled a weapon around his boss, putting other soldiers at risk:
http://www.thetelegram.com/Arts---Life/World/2010-05-25/article-1439058/Top-general-in-Afghanistan-found-guilty-in-court-martial-for-inadvertent-shot/1
True, he manned up to the offense.  Nonetheless, it would be interesting to hear more about what he does for Garda.

He once told a few of us that he could follow up to 3 conversations at the same time... apparently he can't follow one (with his boss) and clear his weapon !!

 

[Rifleman62]

He once told a few of us that he could follow up to 3 conversations at the same time..

in French.

 

[The Bread Guy]

True enough, but he's not the only soldier to have been charged with an ND. He just so happened to be a field commander at the time.

Some would say leaders should be held to a higher standard than the employees because they should know better.  Sorta like how this guy looks even worse doing what he did than one of his subordinates would have if they did the same thing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

in French.

Excellent. I'll expect to see him installed as a Senator then. ;D

 

[Jungle]

in French.

: He spent some time as an exchange officer with the British Army, so I suspect his english is better then your french...

 

[Rifleman62]

I bet it is.

Why would a senior officer even say " ... he could follow up to 3 conversations at the same time.." to subordinates, or anyone?

 

[OldSolduer]

I would tend to agree that leaders (MCpl and up) need to be held to a higher standard. If I, as a DSM of an infantry unit has an ND what does that say as about me, and more importantly, the unit?

 

[The Bread Guy]

I would tend to agree that leaders (MCpl and up) need to be held to a higher standard. If I, as a DSM of an infantry unit has an ND what does that say as about me, and more importantly, the unit?

Not to mention making it harder (morally, anyway) for you to whale on counsel a soldier about doing the same.

 

[armyvern]

Not to mention making it harder (morally, anyway) for you to whale on counsel a soldier about doing the same.

Especially so when one is a deployed Commander in an international Theatre of Operations. That means that the  Operation Athena Theatre Standing Orders (TSOs) that cover this offense and make it 'chargeable' in that very theatre were issued and put into effect as a direct order on the authority of the signature of the very guy breaking his own damn issued orders. How swell is that?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I would tend to agree that leaders (MCpl and up) need to be held to a higher standard. If I, as a DSM of an infantry unit has an ND what does that say as about me, and more importantly, the unit?

I feel an ND and an inappropriate relationship is quite different.

Primarily NDs are unintentional.
For example you as a DSM shouldn't have an ND because you're a veteran Infantry NCO probably with a lot of hands on time with a weapon.  But how often do you have a rifle in your hands as of late? you're probably not doing many recce patrols.  That's not an excuse for NDs but it does make it likelier to happen.

A general? Man sometimes those guys don't even seem to know how to dress themselves. We've all seen generals addressing troops and their uniforms screwed up in one way or another and their throng of officers are too scared to say anything until a private in the crowd tells the guy his boots aren't bloused and he's got a button undone.  Putting a rifle in the hands of a general?  I find that's pretty much the same as shoving a loaded weapon into the hands of a civi.
Scary.

On the other hand, he willfully made a choice to break a pretty significant rule.  All the charges he's presided over through out his career, I don't know. If he had charged me with something relating to ethics and behavior I'd try some sort of redress for it.

 

[fraserdw]

Agreed there is no reason why a General Officer commanding needs a carbine but he is one of the few who actually chose to carry on.  So I assume he felt he was qualified.

 

[armyvern]

Agreed there is no reason why a General Officer commanding needs a carbine but he is one of the few who actually chose to carry on.  So I assume he felt he was qualified.

Yep, probably wrote his qualification off or waived it himself too.  :

IIRC, a great many of us here questioned the fact that he was in possession of one when word of his ND first hit the fan. I don't know why he had it, but that was mistake number 3 (which actually was his first 'known' mistake) - his choice too. A comedy of errors and offenses all of his own making.


Like the niggling little insistence he had on wearing his beret (always) with his cap badge over his left ear as if he was a citizen of the country of France instead of a Canadian soldier in contravention of our dress regs. Something he did routinely as a habit, publically and officially ... without nary a word being said to him.  Yes, excellent leadership by example there. No one sorted that out either.

 

[a_majoor]

The only reason he should be carrying a rifle or carbine is if he was in the field, so not to draw extra attention to himself (which I believe was the case; wasn't he either coming or going on an visit to the field?). He failed to pay attention, had an ND and was dealt with appropriately. The ND should be treated as a separate issue.

His other history should be a matter of concern for his new employer, but since they don't seem to have an issue there isn't really not much we can do (except perhaps avoid dealing with the company in the future).

 

[The Bread Guy]

The only reason he should be carrying a rifle or carbine is if he was in the field, so not to draw extra attention to himself (which I believe was the case; wasn't he either coming or going on an visit to the field?). He failed to pay attention, had an ND and was dealt with appropriately. The ND should be treated as a separate issue.

If that's the case, was the CDS, who I understand was with him, carrying a long arm?

 

[GAP]

His other history should be a matter of concern for his new employer, but since they don't seem to have an issue there isn't really not much we can do (except perhaps avoid dealing with the company in the future).

I don't necessarily see why that would be a concern to his new employer.....he played around....yes

Does the new employer have the same fraternization rules as the CF....I don't think so.

They lieing about it..........well..........yeah.  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

If that's the case, was the CDS, who I understand was with him, carrying a long arm?

I understood the question to be why should he carry a long arm, rather than should he have been carrying one?

In any event his employer should be aware of his history, and apparently don't see any issues, so it really doesn't matter what we say or do.

 

[dapaterson]

In any event his employer should be aware of his history, and apparently don't see any issues, so it really doesn't matter what we say or do.

But... but... We're Teh Internet!

 

[Edward Campbell]

But... but... We're Teh Internet!

Would this be a suitable time to mention spelling?