Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[Jarnhamar]

I was wondering if the reporting structure might be part of the problem in how they respond to overall housing issues on a base?

Landlords in Ontario can't arbitrary increase rent $150 a month; it appears that CFHA can.

 

[McG]

3.5% = 3x ARes Maintenance Battalions.

Maybe. Or maybe it is 2x Reg F Maintenance Battalions that are geo responsible for Canada West and Canada East.
... but this is getting us back to the level we should be discussing.

 

[FJAG]

How do you do obligatory service on a class A reservist ?

DAOD 5049-1 covers obligatory service. Basically it all starts with the recruitment form and the Statement of Understanding tied to reasonable terms of service (IMHO that's a 2.5 day weekend once a month for ten months (Sept to Jun) and a two week exercise period in August)

There also needs to be a legislative change that moves s294 - Failure to Attend Parade - to the CSD and change s 60(1)(c) so that failure to attend a designated period of obligatory service (and mandatory training - a slightly different concept in my construct) becomes subject to the CSD.

Hence why I think some trades, technical I am really looking at you, shouldn't be offered in the reserves.

I don't doubt that there may be different consideration for some hard RCN and RCAF trades, but most of the army trades are pretty easy actually. They're a bit like learning to ride a bicycle.

I think CSS soldiers need more than a weekend ex to keep up skill fade.

I agree with that, however, if you put people through a community college and they get their civilian ticket then in all probability most of the ones that you train will be practicing in a related field in their civilian life. That is the direction that the system ought to be geared to. You also have the two-week annual summer training cycle which ought to be designed specifically to work on both individual skills refresher and collective training.

Don't misunderstand me. I appreciate the issues related to having a two-week mandatory training event, but a) I think its possible - look at the ARNG, and b) it's vital that the ARes breaks the concept of "attend when you feel like it" for core training. If it doesn't create a habit of attendance it will forever be marginally useful.

I think ARes Svc Bns should be mainly full time organizations providing real time tactical and garrison sustainment to their supported units. Fever dream, I know.

I don't.

I believe they need to have a set number of full-timers as specified above but you do not need a large full-time maintenance company in an ARes svc bn and an ARes maint bn as most would have very little to do. That's based largely on the fact that ARes equipment (even if fully supplied) gets very little usage compared to RegF equipment and therefore needs less maintenance.

You know my views about 30/70 hybrid formations. IMHO, a 30/70 unit maint platoon; bde maint coy; and div maint bn is probably adequate as a starting point to provide both the servicing requirements of their respective organizations' equipment as well as the leadership and continuing training of their ARes elements. Obviously, time would tell and some adjustments in those ratios might be necessary with experience. If the bdes are predominantly ARes then the ratio would probably be much lower - maybe 10/90.

 

[FJAG]

Maybe. Or maybe it is 2x Reg F Maintenance Battalions that are geo responsible for Canada West and Canada East.
... but this is getting us back to the level we should be discussing.

That really addresses the question of how the army should handle the distribution of numbers and the distribution of workflow as between their field organizations and their fixed base support structures. That, to a large extent, is the allocation of the 3.5% field force vs 1.5% infrastructure funding.

I haven't seen the details of what appears to be a 3 div model (1 x RegF; 1 x ARes and 1 x whatever that's supposed to be) but the simple solution ought to be that whatever is considered a deployable force (whether expeditionary or domestically) ought to have its own organic deployable CSS structure so that it can deploy without robbing the base support structure)

We are left with the question of 7 Div's real role. Does it deploy in combat teams or battle groups or brigade groups or as a division? Does it provide theatre level expeditionary support to 6 div? Is there a possibility it may deploy as a follow on force or provide casualty replacement for the expeditionary force? Or does it just revert to the current dog's breakfast of individual augmentation and participation in ad hoc theatre support structures?

It ought to be a question of not merely moving the yardsticks but establishing what and where the actual goalpost are? My fear is the entire question is being ignored or, at best, minimized.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We are left with the question of 7 Div's real role. Does it deploy in combat teams or battle groups or brigade groups or as a division? Does it provide theatre level expeditionary support to 6 div? Is there a possibility it may deploy as a follow on force or provide casualty replacement for the expeditionary force? Or does it just revert to the current dog's breakfast of individual augmentation and participation in ad hoc theatre support structures?

My guess is that 'beg the Reg F for support' might be high on the to do list

 

[Maxman1]

That's generally the same for the Reg force. An MMT will do basic, then their QL3. Posted to their first job, complete a QL4 OJT package. And are then nominated and waiting to be course loaded on a QL5. That will take 3 - 4 years from enrollment.

QL6 is currently our last trades course and required to be a substantive PO2. So much further down the line.

Or are is your point more about CFLTC course scheduling ?

I don't know about Navy, but all the Army supply techs I've talked to complain about being stuck at Private Basic for four years because the courses are run at the same time, so they can only do one a year.

 

[FJAG]

My guess is that 'beg the Reg F for support' might be high on the to do list

My hope is that once the RegF has sated itself in bloating out 6 Div with extra PYs and equipment, that it has a 2% and 3.5% Phase II and Phase III plan to transform the ARes and 7 Div.

During my time I've watched the army go from RegF CIBGs to CbtGps and airborne regiments to CMBGs to 1 Div and back to CMBGs (albeit with a light inf bn) and a CCSB with virtually no improvement. meanwhile the ARes has gone from Militia Commands and Militia Groups to Militia Areas and Districts to Land Force Areas and Districts to Land Force Areas and CBGs and finally to Divisions and CBGs. None of those transformations has resulted in a demonstrably improved ARes albeit the ARes did provide value during the limited war that Afghanistan was. The problem is that the army has limited vision beyond a very small contribution by the ARes to the RegF establishment.

Excuse me if I don't consider the proposed reorganization to be anything other than another deck chair reshuffle. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It makes very little difference that the repetition is being done cyclically rather than sequentially.

The army is effectively heading back to 1968-1991 MilDists but under a single, not multiple, Militia Area if not 1954-1968 Militia Groups under a single, not multiple, Militia Command. Just wait for it - I expect some intermediate regional headquarters as between 7 Div HQ and its various CBGs will spring up.

I'm frustrated beyond measure that this insanity is being allowed to continue and that anyone even remotely considers this progress. Yes. I hold out hope that there is a deeper plan when more money comes down the pipes, but quite frankly that hope is just me being insane.

 

[Kirkhill]

Schooling is useless without the practical application afterword's. I can teach an MMT how to MIGO all day long at CFLTC, but if they go back to their unit and end up folding MOD tentage for the next 2 years that time has been wasted and skill fade has set in hard.

I think the truth is some trades are just too technical to be done on a part time basis, really less than part time if the member stays class A. I would put that more as occasional. Wartime... In wartime our whole Log/ADMIN train will be proven to be ridiculously bureaucratic and cumbersome and will be forcefully adjusted. That's my prediction.

If we want Svc Bns full of civi side mechanics who will devote their off hours to fixing our stuff we better be ready to pay up, and not dick them around. Even then I'm not sure you're going to get many. If I was a parts guy at MacPhee Ford I wouldn't want my reserve job to be MMT.

I think Blackadder had it right upthread.

My suggestion would be to implement something similar to "Military Technician" programs in the US militaries.

https://www.usar.army.mil/News/News-Display/Article/2391353/miltechs-play-critical-role-to-ensure-unit-readiness/

MilTechs (or ARTs in the USAFR, ) are "dual status" civilian employees whose terms of employment require them to be active members of the Reserve or National Guard. Their Monday to Friday job is on civilian salary (including typical civil service benefits including retirement) even though they can wear uniform while at work. When they attend the scheduled Reserve or NG activities of their unit (one wkend a month, two week annual training, deployments, etc) they are paid in the same manner as all the other Reserves or Guardsmen. There is a connection between their technician job and the rank/position they hold in the military. They fill many different positions including maintenance and hold ranks from pte/spec up to general officers. Many years ago, I was at a mess dinner at Travis AFB where the guest of honor was the Chief of Air Reserves (MGen) who was an ART. At one time my now-ex (she was USAF Reserve) was interviewed for a position as the commanding officer of a mortuary affairs unit that they were trying to establish on the West Coast; one of the requirements was that she had to go reserve technician.

The kit needs to be maintained with or without people using/abusing it. So the establishment needs to be there to ensure that when the kit is issued for use it is in useable condition. In "Garrison" those people can be either uniformed or civvy. It doesn't really matter.

The question is, when the kit takes the field who accompanies it? Any volunteers? Any mechanics willing to soldier?

 

[Kirkhill]

I kind of feel that we are covering ground previously covered by The Treasury's Commissariat, The Royal Waggon Trains and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

There has always been a civilian-military interface. It has never been a well-defined line.

It seems reasonable to me that a "reserve" force of predominantly civilians that are only called out in extremis will have very different needs than an a Permanent Active force that is using their kit on a daily basis and may be required to drag it with them to Tokyo.

 

[Kirkhill]

My hope is that once the RegF has sated itself in bloating out 6 Div with extra PYs and equipment, that it has a 2% and 3.5% Phase II and Phase III plan to transform the ARes and 7 Div.

During my time I've watched the army go from RegF CIBGs to CbtGps and airborne regiments to CMBGs to 1 Div and back to CMBGs (albeit with a light inf bn) and a CCSB with virtually no improvement. meanwhile the ARes has gone from Militia Commands and Militia Groups to Militia Areas and Districts to Land Force Areas and Districts to Land Force Areas and CBGs and finally to Divisions and CBGs. None of those transformations has resulted in a demonstrably improved ARes albeit the ARes did provide value during the limited war that Afghanistan was. The problem is that the army has limited vision beyond a very small contribution by the ARes to the RegF establishment.

Excuse me if I don't consider the proposed reorganization to be anything other than another deck chair reshuffle. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It makes very little difference that the repetition is being done cyclically rather than sequentially.

The army is effectively heading back to 1968-1991 MilDists but under a single, not multiple, Militia Area if not 1954-1968 Militia Groups under a single, not multiple, Militia Command. Just wait for it - I expect some intermediate regional headquarters as between 7 Div HQ and its various CBGs will spring up.

I'm frustrated beyond measure that this insanity is being allowed to continue and that anyone even remotely considers this progress. Yes. I hold out hope that there is a deeper plan when more money comes down the pipes, but quite frankly that hope is just me being insane.

And that is where I see things differently.

I don't consider the notion of Areas and Districts a problem. It is not a bug. It is a feature.

It is only a bug if you consider the "militia" to be only a provider of expeditionary Divisions.
It is a feature if you consider it to be the Canadian version of the service supplied in the States by their National Guard.

The National Guard, first and foremost, has domestic, regional responsibilities. Its members, and capabilities can be put at the disposal of the national government in support of the Federal Army. But they never lose their domestic connection.

What you are looking for is the Army Reserve. A different animal.

Cheers.

 

[mariomike]

In "Garrison" those people can be either uniformed or civvy. It doesn't really matter.

The question is, when the kit takes the field who accompanies it? Any volunteers? Any mechanics willing to soldier?

Of the EVTs I worked with, I can't picture many wishing to spend a few more hours turning wrenches at an armoury garage after their regular work day at the departmental garage.

On the other hand, some might be up for a bit of soldiering on weekend field exercises.

As for military leave, that would only be authorized by the employer "during declared war."

Unless "voluntold" by The Government of Canada, I suspect most would consider their financial bottom line before volunteering for Class C.

 

[mariomike]

It seems reasonable to me that a "reserve" force of predominantly civilians that are only called out in extremis will have very different needs than an a Permanent Active force that is using their kit on a daily basis and may be required to drag it with them to Tokyo.

Wouldn't have to drag me to Japan.

Sailors came on a thirty-month tour of duty. If they liked it, if they fitted the pattern of things, they could extend and stay on and retire and die there.

 

[KevinB]

The difference for the Air Res is they can do up to 14 days a month Class A working on a RegF Sqn's hangar floor or in the air, and regularly do that. So it makes sense for them to have more technical trades in the reserves. They are essentially part time, in the same way that someone who's working at Tim's or Home Depot is. Another way to look at it is, most of the Air Res is people who are almost retired, but not fully retired.

That sort of training and employment model doesn't translate well to the A Res or Nav Res.

I don’t see why it cannot be translated across.

To me it makes sense for the AR Res and NAV Res to be able to run as many courses with the regular force as possible.
Why can’t folks be placed on class B or C for courses?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don't know about Navy, but all the Army supply techs I've talked to complain about being stuck at Private Basic for four years because the courses are run at the same time, so they can only do one a year.

So that's CFLTC scheduling then. I would put ARes MMTs on a combat storesman course and call that a Army reserve QL3.

I bet it comes down to a lack of instructors during the summer. They have a hard time getting reservists to come in and take those taskings.

 

[FJAG]

And that is where I see things differently.

I don't consider the notion of Areas and Districts a problem. It is not a bug. It is a feature.

It is only a bug if you consider the "militia" to be only a provider of expeditionary Divisions.
It is a feature if you consider it to be the Canadian version of the service supplied in the States by their National Guard.

The National Guard, first and foremost, has domestic, regional responsibilities. Its members, and capabilities can be put at the disposal of the national government in support of the Federal Army. But they never lose their domestic connection.

What you are looking for is the Army Reserve. A different animal.

Cheers.

With respect, I think you have it absolutely wrong here.

The US federal government provides the mass of the funding for the ARNG. It is organized into warfighting establishments up to and including divisions and with a balance of manoeuvre units/formations and CS and CSS ones. In some cases ARNG brigades are subordinate to Active Army formations. Yes. The ARNG does have a peacetime domestic responsibility to the state, but first and foremost ARNG units are organized, trained and equipped for warfighting in an expeditionary role.

USAR units are generally not much different from ARNG organizations except that they do not include manoeuvre arms but are predominantly CS and CSS organizations which are designed to be mobilized to augment expeditionary corps and divisional formations. They have no state responsibility.

Areas and Districts are not a problem so long as your vision for their mobilization does not go beyond the battalion level. Currently in Canada we do not mobilize at all and we augment only to roughly the platoon level at most. So Areas and districts are not a problem in the limited, short-sighted manner we use reserves now.

My point is that the Canadian army cannot afford the luxury of the impotent reserve force structures of the past. Canada needs additional brigade level headquarters that are capable of expeditionary deployment. District and area headquarters are a waste of potential. They can only do half of the job that a formation level headquarters ought to be capable of doing (i.e. administering and training and they do the latter poorly.) They are not organized or equipped to lead and command in the field, whether that is the expeditionary field or the domestic field. And, unless you are a perpetual believer in a Pollyanna world, you will need additional deployable manoeuvre, CS and CSS headquarters sooner or later.

 

[dapaterson]

The difference for the Air Res is they can do up to 14 days a month Class A working on a RegF Sqn's hangar floor or in the air, and regularly do that. So it makes sense for them to have more technical trades in the reserves. They are essentially part time, in the same way that someone who's working at Tim's or Home Depot is. Another way to look at it is, most of the Air Res is people who are almost retired, but not fully retired.

That sort of training and employment model doesn't translate well to the A Res or Nav Res.

Someone working 14 days a month is working 70% of full time for less than 50% of full time pay. That is a foundational problem.

The RCAF is abusing their part time personnel and, by calling them "reserve" is misstating what they represent - a reserve should be able to surge, but a group already committed at 70% or more does not represent a capability that can surge or grow.

 

[Kirkhill]

With respect, I think you have it absolutely wrong here.

The US federal government provides the mass of the funding for the ARNG. It is organized into warfighting establishments up to and including divisions and with a balance of manoeuvre units/formations and CS and CSS ones. In some cases ARNG brigades are subordinate to Active Army formations. Yes. The ARNG does have a peacetime domestic responsibility to the state, but first and foremost ARNG units are organized, trained and equipped for warfighting in an expeditionary role.

USAR units are generally not much different from ARNG organizations except that they do not include manoeuvre arms but are predominantly CS and CSS organizations which are designed to be mobilized to augment expeditionary corps and divisional formations. They have no state responsibility.

Areas and Districts are not a problem so long as your vision for their mobilization does not go beyond the battalion level. Currently in Canada we do not mobilize at all and we augment only to roughly the platoon level at most. So Areas and districts are not a problem in the limited, short-sighted manner we use reserves now.

My point is that the Canadian army cannot afford the luxury of the impotent reserve force structures of the past. Canada needs additional brigade level headquarters that are capable of expeditionary deployment. District and area headquarters are a waste of potential. They can only do half of the job that a formation level headquarters ought to be capable of doing (i.e. administering and training and they do the latter poorly.) They are not organized or equipped to lead and command in the field, whether that is the expeditionary field or the domestic field. And, unless you are a perpetual believer in a Pollyanna world, you will need additional deployable manoeuvre, CS and CSS headquarters sooner or later.

Ask the State Governors what the primary role of their National Guard is and I would suggest you get a different answer.

The bargain made with the Federal Government is that the States will put their people under Federal Command in exchange for supplying them with functional equipment and useful training.

The Federal Government is a creature of the States. Civil Wars notwithstanding.

I know people who still refer to that period of unpleasantness as the War for States Rights.

The States, with their militias, rangers and regulators, predate the United States and the Continental Army (which disbanded in 1783).

....

U.S. Senator Charles W. F. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard and the chair of the Committee on the Militia, sponsored the 1903 Dick Act towards the end of the 57th U.S. Congress. Under this legislation, passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the states were given federal funding and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend twenty four drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

It required the states to divide their militias into two sections. The law recommended the title "National Guard" for the first section, known as the organized militia, and "Reserve Militia" for all others.

During World War I, Congress passed the National Defense Act of 1916, which required the use of the term "National Guard" for the state militias and further regulated them. Congress also authorized the states to maintain Home Guards, which were reserve forces outside the National Guards deployed by the federal government.

In 1933, with the passage of the National Guard Mobilization Act, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States, a newly created federal reserve force. The National Defense Act of 1947 created the Air Force as a separate branch of the Armed Forces and concurrently created the Air National Guard of the United States as one of its reserve components, mirroring the Army's structure.

National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So the Guardsmen on the Federal Payroll serve two masters. They are part of their state National Guard AS WELL AS being part of the National Guard of the United States.

...

In addition the States have the authority to raise State Defense Forces and to organize the "unorganized militia".

State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities. All state National Guard personnel (to include the National Guard of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands) can be federalized under the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933 with the creation of the National Guard of the United States. This provides the basis for integrating units and personnel of the Army National Guard into the U.S. Army and, since 1947, units and personnel of the Air National Guard into the U.S. Air Force.

"Can be federalized" implies to me that they are not "federal" unless and until the necessary paperwork is completed. Until that time they are State resources.

The federal government recognizes state defense forces, as per the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force are not exempt from service in the armed forces (i.e., they are not excluded from the draft). Under 32 USC § 109(e), "A person may not become a member of a defense force ... if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces."

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 19 states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, have active forces with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as ground units, but air and naval units also exist. Depending on the state, they may be variously named as state military, state military force, state guard, state militia, or state military reserve.

Every state defense force is also the command authority for the "unorganized militia", which is defined as every able bodied male between the age of 17 and 45 who is not already serving in some capacity within the armed forces or National Guard. The original concept of the unorganized militia being a citizen army which could be raised immediately in times of extreme national emergency. In the modern day military, the unorganized militia is considered obsolete with very few exceptions. One of the only recognized instances where unorganized militia members wear uniforms and actively perform military duties is the Virginia Militia which actively employs officers amongst the various military schools in the state of Virginia.

My view -

Group A

The "unorganized militia" is the military age population of each individual state.
The "organized militia" are the State Defense Forces

Group B

The State National Guard is the active portion of the militia on the State payroll
The National Guard of the United States are those members of the State National Guard that have agreed to be federalized when called.

Group C

The US Army is a separate standing professional force employed by the Federal Government
The US Army Reserves is a body of civilians, many of them ex-military, who have agreed to join the colours when called.

In my view, again, the Canadian Army is trying to pack all those groups into one organization and it isn't working.

The Canadian Rangers create an interesting interface between the domestic, regional requirements and the standing expeditionary force that could be better exploited.


....

Section 502 is the primary statute that authorizes the National Guard to operate in “Title 32 status,” one of the three different duty statuses in which members of the Guard may serve at any given moment.

In “State Active Duty status,” Guard personnel carry out a state-defined mission, under state command and control, and with state funding and benefits.

By contrast, in “Title 10 status,” the Guard has been “called into federal service,” or “federalized,” by the president. When federalized, Guard forces carry out federal missions under federal command and control, and with federal funding and benefits.

Title 32 status occupies a middle ground between State Active Duty and Title 10 status, featuring both federal and state involvement. In this hybrid status,

the Guard remains under state command and control but

can perform federal missions,

is paid with federal funds, and

receives federal benefits.

Crucially, because Guard personnel in Title 32 status are under state control, they have not been federalized and are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. That means they are not barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.

Although Title 32 status was originally conceived to allow the federal government to foot the bill for the extensive training requirements that Congress requires each state and territory’s National Guard to fulfill, the purposes for which it may be used have expanded over time. Today, § 502(f) allows the Guard to carry out a wide range of nontraining, operational missions in Title 32 status. But the authority that the law provides has its limits.

The President’s Power to Call Out the National Guard Is Not a Blank Check

Domestic deployment under the law has its limits, and for good reason.

www.brennancenter.org

The Guard is a creature of the State on loan to the Federal Government.

It is recruited by the Adjutant-General of each state.

 

[childs56]

DAOD 5049-1 covers obligatory service. Basically it all starts with the recruitment form and the Statement of Understanding tied to reasonable terms of service (IMHO that's a 2.5 day weekend once a month for ten months (Sept to Jun) and a two week exercise period in August)

There also needs to be a legislative change that moves s294 - Failure to Attend Parade - to the CSD and change s 60(1)(c) so that failure to attend a designated period of obligatory service (and mandatory training - a slightly different concept in my construct) becomes subject to the CSD.

I don't doubt that there may be different consideration for some hard RCN and RCAF trades, but most of the army trades are pretty easy actually. They're a bit like learning to ride a bicycle.

I agree with that, however, if you put people through a community college and they get their civilian ticket then in all probability most of the ones that you train will be practicing in a related field in their civilian life. That is the direction that the system ought to be geared to. You also have the two-week annual summer training cycle which ought to be designed specifically to work on both individual skills refresher and collective training.

Don't misunderstand me. I appreciate the issues related to having a two-week mandatory training event, but a) I think its possible - look at the ARNG, and b) it's vital that the ARes breaks the concept of "attend when you feel like it" for core training. If it doesn't create a habit of attendance it will forever be marginally useful.

I don't.

I believe they need to have a set number of full-timers as specified above but you do not need a large full-time maintenance company in an ARes svc bn and an ARes maint bn as most would have very little to do. That's based largely on the fact that ARes equipment (even if fully supplied) gets very little usage compared to RegF equipment and therefore needs less maintenance.

You know my views about 30/70 hybrid formations. IMHO, a 30/70 unit maint platoon; bde maint coy; and div maint bn is probably adequate as a starting point to provide both the servicing requirements of their respective organizations' equipment as well as the leadership and continuing training of their ARes elements. Obviously, time would tell and some adjustments in those ratios might be necessary with experience. If the bdes are predominantly ARes then the ratio would probably be much lower - maybe 10/90.

Changes to the CSD and legislation should only be done after the equipment and proper training courses and allocation are changed to allow the proper training and equipping of Soldier, Sailors and Airmen. DND can come after a Reservist and force them to attend their one Weekend a month training. With out functioning equipment and or a sleeping bag makes it kind of hard to enforce.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to my last

Inside WMD

m.mil.wa.gov

The Washington Military Department’s mission is to minimize the impact of emergencies and disasters on people, property, environment, and the economy of Washington State at the region; provide trained and ready forces for state and federal missions; and provide structured alternative education opportunities for at risk youth.

The Washington State Guard is an all-volunteer unit organized under the Military Department of the State of Washington. Its members come from all walks of life. They normally serve without remuneration and meet monthly, or more often as needed, within organized units stationed at strategic locations throughout the State.

The mission of the Washington State Guard is to provide organized units that are equipped and trained in the protection of life or property and the preservation of peace, order and public safety under competent orders of State authorities.

The Washington State Guard serves at the direction of the state’s Adjutant General. It is always ready to provide trained personnel to support civil government authority, provide for the protection and preservation of life or property during natural or manmade disasters or civil emergencies, and rapidly and effectively respond to search, rescue, or recovery operations. Additionally, the members of the Washington State Guard effectively execute State Homeland Defense missions and participate as active members and contributing citizens of our local communities.

The Washington National Guard is made up of more than 8,000 citizen soldiers and airmen who are dedicated to our mission of safeguarding lives, property and the economy of Washington State. First organized in 1855, the Washington National Guard has a long history of serving our communities.

Our men and women are Washington residents who are invested in their communities and care deeply for the people we serve. We are your neighbors, co-workers, friends and family members. We come from different towns, professions and backgrounds but come together for a common goal to serve those who need our help – across our state, nation and world.

At the call of the Governor, the Washington National Guard will mobilize and deploy during times of state emergency to augment local jurisdictions and responders in their efforts to protect lives and property. The Washington National Guard is also subject to the call of the United States President to serve as part of the total U.S. Military.

 

[Kirkhill]

State of Washington Job Opportunities | Work that Matters

www.governmentjobs.com

USAJOBS - Search

Washington Military Department - State Payroll

Grounds and Maintenance Custodian - Full Time Permanent - $3167 to $4194 monthly
Engineering Aid (Building Maintenance) - Full Time Permanent - $4517 to $6077 monthly
Training and Readiness Co-Ordinator (LE and Security) - Full Time Permanent - $3752 to $5011 monthly

Washington Military Department - Air National Guard

Heavy Mobile Equipment Mechanic at Fairchild AFB, Washington - Indefinite Appointment Full Time - Starting at $29.22 per hour (WG10)

Etc.