Canadian military’s template for perfect recruits outdated: Vance

[PuckChaser]

We need some long, hard decisions about what needs to be in a CAF uniform, and what does not.  PW handling and base / wing security (especially when deployed)?  Uniformed.  PMQ patch patrols?  Perhaps not so necessary.  I'd argue that the problem with MPs is that we badged them...

It almost sounds like we needed to do a complete defense review, digging into the empires and sacred cows to see if what they were doing was really needed.

 

[Kat Stevens]

It almost sounds like we needed to do a complete defense review, digging into the empires and sacred cows to see if what they were doing was really needed.

Ooo! Ooo! A White Paper! We need a Wite Paper! That’ll sort it all out.  :

 

[garb811]

We need some long, hard decisions about what needs to be in a CAF uniform, and what does not.  PW handling and base / wing security (especially when deployed)?  Uniformed.  PMQ patch patrols?  Perhaps not so necessary.  I'd argue that the problem with MPs is that we badged them...

So...tell me.  When is it you think it was MP were "badged" then?  op:

 

[Navy_Pete]

So make a cyber warfare specialist a civilian "contractor" job.  For cyber warfare the military only needs a seat at the table.  Perhaps at the head of the table but cyber is going to require a system that is more akin to the SAR job than with traditional warfare, where all the players sit together at a table.  Cybersecurity might rotate to who takes lead depending on the situation.  CSIS, RCMP, CAF etc...

Out of curiosity, are there legal considerations to cyber wrt policing actions vs out of country stuff?  Thinking like when we do fisheries patrols, the navy is basically just a carrier for the DFO officers, or other times where we do something similar for the RCMP doing some policing actions in Canadian TTW.

I.E. if someone is engaged in some kind of computer shenanigans inside Canada, that would be a domestic policing issue, but if it's a foreign power messing with Canadian IT, that's something else (with offensive Canadian cyberwarfare against another nation would be clearly in CAF).

Not really sure they exist, but almost need cyber ROE, or just simplify the legislation to consolidate it in one branch. Personally think that this should be best lead by a civilian geek squad that aren't restricted by the general requirements of the universality of service, and can instead get the biggest brains they can find and employ at whatever pay scale is suitable for that area.  No reason their overall direction couldn't fall under something like CEFCOM but if we're too structured it won't work. There are probably lots of people that could never get through basic that would be proud to be given a chance to serve their country in this kind of capacity if given the chance.

As an aside, don't think the CDS really said anything, and was just making the kind of pleasing noises without meaning that comes out of the talking heads at events like this. No disrespect meant, but have been around enough of these events now to know that the key speeches are for show, and if anything meaningful happens, it's at the sidelines over coffee. Unless there is a lot of work done and policies dropping to coincide with it (like the SSE) they are deliberately not saying anything new.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So make a cyber warfare specialist a civilian "contractor" job.  For cyber warfare the military only needs a seat at the table.  Perhaps at the head of the table but cyber is going to require a system that is more akin to the SAR job than with traditional warfare, where all the players sit together at a table.  Cybersecurity might rotate to who takes lead depending on the situation.  CSIS, RCMP, CAF etc...

So what do we do if we need to order our civvy 'geek squad' to destroy enemy countries and people and things?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

So make a cyber warfare specialist a civilian "contractor" job.  For cyber warfare the military only needs a seat at the table.  Perhaps at the head of the table but cyber is going to require a system that is more akin to the SAR job than with traditional warfare, where all the players sit together at a table.  Cybersecurity might rotate to who takes lead depending on the situation.  CSIS, RCMP, CAF etc...

D Cyber talked about this at last year's Cyber Symposium in Kingston.

We did this for ages in the Blue Force side. Defensive posture can be done by anyone on the Public payroll. Red Force, offensive Cyber is an act of war. Anyone other than a uniformed military member acting on behalf of a state actor would be considered a terrorist or criminal under LOAC.

Thus the needs for uniformed Cyber Operators.

 

[Underway]

D Cyber talked about this at last year's Cyber Symposium in Kingston.

We did this for ages in the Blue Force side. Defensive posture can be done by anyone on the Public payroll. Red Force, offensive Cyber is an act of war. Anyone other than a uniformed military member acting on behalf of a state actor would be considered a terrorist or criminal under LOAC.

Thus the needs for uniformed Cyber Operators.

I disagree.  Intelligence services can do this as well.  Also define offensive cyber.  Planting a virus?  Phishing? etc... if that's the case we have been at war with China and Russia for years.

So what do we do if we need to order our civvy 'geek squad' to destroy enemy countries and people and things?

You tell them to.  There is no reason they can't be bound by similar standards in the application of cyber force.

Contractors (aka security companies aka mercenaries) with guns destroy things all the time in enemy countries.  It's not a stretch to do it with civilians.  It's not like the Russians are not contracting out to criminal groups or the Chinese don't have entire buildings full of civilian dressed cyber operators.  Not to mention civilian suited CSIS types can do plenty of damage to stuff should that be required.  There is an entire wing of the NSA who do this stuff.

Its the wild west out there.  The rules are still being written.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You tell them to.  There is no reason they can't be bound by similar standards in the application of cyber force.

But if we can't jack them up for not wearing their berets properly, what's the point

 

[Underway]

But if we can't jack them up for not wearing their berets properly, what's the point

More likely their carpal tunnel wrist guard is not proper issue.

 

[stellarpanther]

This thread seems to have turned to some people thinking that the CDS is mostly looking at cyber when considering making changes however, I've been told by a couple of higher ups that he is considering making changes to several trades.  He is looking at a lot of things that will help with retention. 
If you talk to some of the medical folks, they are already saying that most people are not being medically released in the last year.  The expression I've heard is "employable but not deployable".

 

[PuckChaser]

Cyber's just the low hanging fruit to use for examples, but I've heard the CDS use the same terminology.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The expression I've heard is "employable but not deployable".

And so we begin the process of further dividing those 'outside the wire' from those 'inside the wire.'

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=stellar panther] .  The expression I've heard is "employable but not deployable".
[/quote]

Essentially I can do 2-3 times the amount of work, seeing my family 2-3 times less so that someone else who's being paid to do a job but not actually able to do the job when it counts can keep their job and see their family more.

I like it. Sound sounds like that will fix the retention issues

 

[Halifax Tar]

Essentially I can do 2-3 times the amount of work, seeing my family 2-3 times less so that someone else who's being paid to do a job but not actually able to do the job when it counts can keep their job and see their family more.

I like it. Sound sounds like that will fix the retention issues

That's essentially the state the RCN is in now