Canada doesn’t matter to the rest of the world - and it’s our own fault

[WLSC]

I can’t wait for someone to consider crew to be derogatory as it conveys belonging to a vehicle or system.

Or when the Senior Crew becomes the SCrew

 

[OldSolduer]

That would require them to think. Looking at the articles, there was not a lot of thought put into them.

Someone needs to "counsel" said editorial staff and authors to a few facts.
Its called the Canadian Armed Forces for a reason. Its not the CF, or the Canadian Environmental Force or the Canadian Transformation Force - its the Canadian Armed Forces and they when ordered visit death and destruction on the enemies of our nation. Get this through your heads. If you can't wrap your thick head around the fact that NOT EVERYBODY LIKES US and that some would like to kill or subjugate us all, you don't belong here.

Put your pink tutu on and leave, please.

 

[Fabius]

Unfortunately I don’t think that the CMJ staff and the authors of the latest edition’s articles are the sole problem, they are merely an obvious indicator of a large trend that is both wide and deep.
The line of thinking in the articles while obviously unacceptable and outright destructive in many ways to most here, I believe has a significant level of support across ranks within the CAF, the department and the GoC as well as the public.

It is likely not a majority but it is sufficient mass to keep driving the agenda forward.

 

[dimsum]

Unfortunately I don’t think that the CMJ staff and the authors of the latest edition’s articles are the sole problem, they are merely an obvious indicator of a large trend that is both wide and deep.
The line of thinking in the articles while obviously unacceptable and outright destructive in many ways to most here, I believe has a significant level of support across ranks within the CAF, the department and the GoC as well as the public.

It is likely not a majority but it is sufficient mass to keep driving the agenda forward.

I personally don’t have an issue with the articles. But lumping them all here, now, to take up an entire issue is not ideal.

Putting 1-2 articles per issue would be fine, along with the other stuff that should belong there. Is there usually at least 1 article per service?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Unfortunately I don’t think that the CMJ staff and the authors of the latest edition’s articles are the sole problem, they are merely an obvious indicator of a large trend that is both wide and deep.
The line of thinking in the articles while obviously unacceptable and outright destructive in many ways to most here, I believe has a significant level of support across ranks within the CAF, the department and the GoC as well as the public.

It is likely not a majority but it is sufficient mass to keep driving the agenda forward.

Does it "Actually" have support or is the CAF just suffering from Groupthink?

 

[Fabius]

Likely group think I would guess but somehow we got to that point, perhaps through enough people being true supporters to impose enough social costs to objecting.

In terms of the articles and the overall content of the ideas, I am led to wonder if formal logic and critical thinking concepts such as perceptual construction, probabilities, subjective validation, influence of expectancy etc. are still taught anywhere.

 

[dimsum]

Does it "Actually" have support or is the CAF just suffering from Groupthink?

Maybe. However, and yes this is Devil’s Advocate, I believe that those topics should be explored academically, like in the CMJ.

I don’t recall where, but there was a comment either here or on Reddit that essentially said that US military members are encouraged to publicly publish articles that seem to contradict official policy, but we are discouraged to do so. Maybe I’m part of that groupthink, but I believe in the efforts of CPCC, because I know folks who have been marginalized because of the “old ways”, and the effects it had (and still has) on them years later.


Side note: I’m reading a book right now about the US military culture shift (coincidentally called “Military Culture Shift”) and it got me thinking about this topic. The US only really started supporting military families (as in schools, spousal support, etc) in the 1970s or so, after the draft was abolished. Prior to that, the service member was what the govt cared about, and as long as they were healthy and got paid, that was that.

Even then, it was somewhat controversial and, in today‘s words, “woke” to do so. Not specifically through lens of race, but social inequalities like the “stay at home mom”, etc. These days, removing said support would be considered neglecting soldiers’ welfare.

I was thinking that if some US Army person wrote “we should build the infrastructure and supports for member’s families” in 1965 and put it in the US Army Journal (if that’s a thing), the reaction might be similar to some of the ones about the CMJ now - not meeting the war fighting aims, too much money, etc.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Maybe. However, and yes this is Devil’s Advocate, I believe that those topics should be explored academically, like in the CMJ.

I don’t recall where, but there was a comment either here or on Reddit that essentially said that US military members are encouraged to publicly publish articles that seem to contradict official policy, but we are discouraged to do so. Maybe I’m part of that groupthink, but I believe in the efforts of CPCC, because I know folks who have been marginalized because of the “old ways”, and the effects it had (and still has) on them years later.


Side note: I’m reading a book right now about the US military culture shift (coincidentally called “Military Culture Shift”) and it got me thinking about this topic. The US only really started supporting military families (as in schools, spousal support, etc) in the 1970s or so, after the draft was abolished. Prior to that, the service member was what the govt cared about, and as long as they were healthy and got paid, that was that.

Even then, it was somewhat controversial and, in today‘s words, “woke” to do so. Not specifically through lens of race, but social inequalities like the “stay at home mom”, etc. These days, removing said support would be considered neglecting soldiers’ welfare.

I was thinking that if some US Army person wrote “we should build the infrastructure and supports for member’s families” in 1965 and put it in the US Army Journal (if that’s a thing), the reaction might be similar to some of the ones about the CMJ now - not meeting the war fighting aims, too much money, etc.

The problem here is not so much the topics being discussed, it is that the CMJ published 13 articles in one go from a bunch of academics- most of whom have not spent one day in uniform and (clearly) haven’t got the first clue about what a military force is a actually for. Had the articles been written by members of the CAF, discussing the same issues and printed in language that was accessible to the average member of the CAF, there would have been value. As it is, this is a complete and utter “know your audience” fail. It is also a massive failure in our ability, as a Profession of Arms, to discuss professional matters in a forum that matters to us, the professionals.

 

[Kirkhill]

I personally don’t have an issue with the articles. But lumping them all here, now, to take up an entire issue is not ideal.

Putting 1-2 articles per issue would be fine, along with the other stuff that should belong there. Is there usually at least 1 article per service?

Can we expect a CMJ issue devoted to the counter-point? Or is it merely asserting dogma?

 

[daftandbarmy]

The problem here is not so much the topics being discussed, it is that the CMJ published 13 articles in one go from a bunch of academics- most of whom have not spent one day in uniform and (clearly) haven’t got the first clue about what a military force is a actually for. Had the articles been written by members of the CAF, discussing the same issues and printed in language that was accessible to the average member of the CAF, there would have been value. As it is, this is a complete and utter “know your audience” fail. It is also a massive failure in our ability, as a Profession of Arms, to discuss professional matters in a forum that matters to us, the professionals.

If only more than a few dozen people, under 50 years of age, actually read the CMJ/CAJ...

 

[QV]

The CAF should ask Ukraine how all of these concepts are helping them in the fight of their lives.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If only more than a few dozen people, under 50 years of age, actually read the CMJ/CAJ...

Isn’t that also a problem?

Where are we, as professionals, discussing our profession in a serious manner (aside from Army.ca, of course)?

We need a place where a Cpl or a Col can feel comfortable publishing a well reasoned, well researched article on a topic of military importance, then we as professionals debate that article (again, other than at Army.ca).

CMJ seems to have completely jumped the shark and is unlikely to soon regain its credibility.

 

[KevinB]

Can we expect a CMJ issue devoted to the counter-point? Or is it merely asserting dogma?

You know the answer to that already.

CMJ to me is a joke at this point. It used to have decent articles, but is now so out of touch it’s just a waste of time to read.

@SeaKingTacco has a fantastic point. If the Editors of CMJ want an article dealing with culture change, perhaps they should have approached a serving member to get their thoughts. As opposed to preaching from an ivory tower coming from the coal face a letter from an OC or CO would have been much better received- unless the goal is simply to print hot air for the sake of printing, and if that is the case, then CMJ should be shuttered and the costs of it saved.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Isn’t that also a problem?

Where are we, as professionals, discussing our profession in a serious manner (aside from Army.ca, of course)?

We need a place where a Cpl or a Col can feel comfortable publishing a well reasoned, well researched article on a topic of military importance, then we as professionals debate that article (again, other than at Army.ca).

CMJ seems to have completely jumped the shark and is unlikely to soon regain its credibility.

Social media has the advantage of avoiding traditional censorship and overt efforts to pollute free discourse with externally imposed political agenda.

Maybe there's a need for a more formal online forum for that kind of stuff these days... starting with something at Army.ca might not be a bad idea.

 

[Quirky]

The CAF should ask Ukraine how all of these concepts are helping them in the fight of their lives.

All these peace-time concepts go out the window when your enemy attacks your country. If Canada was under attack, would these equal-rights progressives take-up arms or head for the border leaving the 18-50 year old males to die.

 

[Booter]

The CAF should ask Ukraine how all of these concepts are helping them in the fight of their lives.

That really is the crux- these folks honestly believe they will discover a composition of people and ideas that will make war safe and nonviolent and inclusive. They may scoff if that is suggested but the only fights they pick or follow through on are these internal culture things. External threats to these segments of the population be damned. If isis executes homosexuals it’s not anything to do about but bluster and shame. Action is not what they do.

It is entirely the result of being too “safe” and uninvolved to the point where we believe our own nonsense because we don’t get a bloody nose.

 

[FSTO]

A little off track but has some connection to this discussion. On today's Canadaland Shortcuts the guest recounts her experience at her citizenship ceremony (she immigrated from the USA) where the judge spent a lot of time telling the new citizens how bad Canada was (is?). "Welcome to Canada! Its a fucking horrible place!"

#953 Burning Down the Jewish Deli Is Not Kosher

Canada’s major newspapers take a stance on antisemitic attacks happening in Toronto.

www.canadaland.com

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Maybe. However, and yes this is Devil’s Advocate, I believe that those topics should be explored academically, like in the CMJ.

I don’t recall where, but there was a comment either here or on Reddit that essentially said that US military members are encouraged to publicly publish articles that seem to contradict official policy, but we are discouraged to do so. Maybe I’m part of that groupthink, but I believe in the efforts of CPCC, because I know folks who have been marginalized because of the “old ways”, and the effects it had (and still has) on them years later.


Side note: I’m reading a book right now about the US military culture shift (coincidentally called “Military Culture Shift”) and it got me thinking about this topic. The US only really started supporting military families (as in schools, spousal support, etc) in the 1970s or so, after the draft was abolished. Prior to that, the service member was what the govt cared about, and as long as they were healthy and got paid, that was that.

Even then, it was somewhat controversial and, in today‘s words, “woke” to do so. Not specifically through lens of race, but social inequalities like the “stay at home mom”, etc. These days, removing said support would be considered neglecting soldiers’ welfare.

I was thinking that if some US Army person wrote “we should build the infrastructure and supports for member’s families” in 1965 and put it in the US Army Journal (if that’s a thing), the reaction might be similar to some of the ones about the CMJ now - not meeting the war fighting aims, too much money, etc.

I agree that a couple of articles would be fine. I also take umbrage with the content of a few of the articles.

This one in particular ground my gears, even more so because it feels like a thinly veiled attack disguised as scholarly work:

Canadian Military Journal

www.journal.forces.gc.ca

Yes Tammy,

As you wrote yourself, 89.2% of the CAF are White and a large portion are from rural Canada.

The article then goes in to a long monologue about the inherent institutional whiteness of the CAF and interviews a series of members who are from "marginalized" groups about all the ways they don't fit in to the Armed Forces and felt their background limited them.

It provided no actual solutions to this problem other than arguing that this whiteness was somehow bad for the organization and oppresses the marginalized groups in subtle ways.


Now there are a couple of tried and tested methods other Military's have used in the past to navigate these difficulties:

1. Segregation - Regiments based on Racial & Ethnic Lines which is the British way of doing business and how they structured their Regiments.
2. Development of Camaraderie & high levels Esprit de Corps to generate high levels of Morale - like the French Foreign Legion or the US Armed Forces.

The first is not something we want to emulate. The second is most definitely our preferred COA.

I'll tell you what doesn't work and what we are currently doing: Eroding cohesion & morale.

All the CAF is doing currently is pissing everyone off equally. What's even more funny is this entire destruction of the institution was born out of the Me Too Movement which led to the Sexual Misconduct Scandals that has now morphed in to the systemic destruction and attack on "everything". Every person/group with a grievance has seen an opportunity and has pounced on this.

If you look at surveys conducted and the current recruitment/retention crisis, it's all grounded in low morale and low collective cohesion.

The Americans have developed a far more successful model than we have, based on their history and past experiences. You aren't black, asian, white, indian, french, english, japanese, etc.... you're American and you are going to do things the American way.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The CAF should ask Ukraine how all of these concepts are helping them in the fight of their lives.

Well that's simple, they steep themselves in Ultra-Nationalism with a sprinkling of White Supremacy for good measure.

 

[CountDC]

Likewise, 30 day, 20 year VR in 2016 from a red trade, being posted into a red position with no backfill. (Took RCAF +4 months to prepare the next incumbent.)

Closest thing to an exit interview, two weeks before terminal leave:

• CO (casually walking by, getting a coffee): "How about if we post you to Comox?"
• Me: "Kinda late to offer that now, don't you think, Sir?"
• Next day, CO (casually walking by again): "WCOMD has asked you to write a Briefing Note on how we can get the AES Op trade back into good health. We need it before you depart."

... I think they're still waiting for my BN.

Guess they never heard of the slump.

sounds like my units challenge trying to get a CQ posted in, last two have given their notice right after getting posted in.

Worked at a unit with similar problem holding onto support staff. Pers prior and after me retired. I threatened to unless posted and did get moved.