Michael Dorosh said:
Well, I need to revise my statement then. Instead of "unless you have managerial experience under your belt you are in no position to generalize", change to "even with your managerial experience, you are in no position to generalize."
Not sure what the link was supposed to prove. Your arguments do not follow. You posted a litany of major equipment purchases and then used the one officer (whom you admit "was only doing his job") as evidence that DND as a whole doesn't have its priorities in order.
What you fail to realize is that DND doesn't control the money. You could fire the good major tomorrow and still wouldn't save enough money to refit a single jet fighter or purchase a single new helicopter.
Frankly, the gnashing of teeth about Ottawa and its "culture" - which you seem to know so much about - is getting tiresome and old.
I'd much prefer that DND move too far in one direction (suggesting that the use of uniforms in calendars is inappropriate) rather than the other (perhaps a fuzzy DND mascot to show up at all major league baseball, hockey and football events, Dead Peacekeeper trading cards, CADPAT uniforms for prison chain gangs working on major highways....the mind boggles).
As for pissing and moaning about life in the CF, I'll confine my complaints to areas I've actually served in, and send them properly up the chain of command. The rest I'll leave in the hands of those who know better.
So your contention is that unless you're CF or CF veteran, regardless of management or business education or experience, you have no right to make critical
observations, assessments, etc.?
Let me blunt and say that is totally absurd.
Do you complain about your computer? Have you ever built one? How about your car? Your house?
In regards my listing major equipment programs as evidence NDHQ doesn't have its priorities straight, I stand by that contention.
In all those programs NDHQ spent a small fortune on teams of individuals to research the project prior to budget funding was ever allocated.
Look at CADRE specifically. How much was spent? If it gets cancelled what's our ROI?
KEY POINT:
"How could that money have been better spent if NDHQ was structured to only research funded projects?"
CASR did a great analysis of this specific problem in November of 2003.
I'll post it as per the Australian Report:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-advisory1-1.htm
And in regards to the Australian Report which you ignored, it's focus is on measuring ROI for the taxpayer in context of
a deliverable effective fighting force. Have you looked at Defence Department Financials lately? They are a mess and
provide zero clarity on what is actually being accomplished with the budget provided.
So you can continue to take personal shots at me (note the lack of an apology for the unwashed cretin comment) if it really
makes you feel better, but in doing so you merely demonstrate a complete lack of class, decorum and more importantly objectivity
which I was expecting.
I hope for a less vitriolic response next time around....
Matthew.