- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Have to give credit to Hillier so far....
Very impressive indeed.
Matthew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050605.wmili0605/BNStory/National/
Military Begins Major Overhall
Sunday, June 5, 2005 Updated at 3:24 PM EDT
Canadian Press
Ottawa â †Canada's military command structure is about to be turned upside down so the Armed Forces can deal more quickly with natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.
In the biggest restructuring in four decades, Gen. Rick Hillier has ordered a transformation that will see control of domestic military assets turned over to integrated regional centres, known as Canada Command.
Since the mid-1960s, the army, navy and air force have worked together to a certain extent. But each section has independent control over ground forces, ships, aircraft and other equipment.
Mr. Hillier, the chief of defence staff, wants the command structure to be more â Å“top down,â ? with regional commanders in control of all military personnel and hardware.
â Å“They'll now come under an integrated commander at a regional level,â ? said a spokeswoman for Mr. Hillier.
â Å“So we don't have army only and air force only and navy only and they each have their separate stove pipes up to Ottawa,â ? Maj. Rita Lepage said.
â Å“You can see how much quicker you can respond . . . when you've got one person owning air and sea and land elements.â ?
The military also wants certain equipment assigned to specific units. As an example, the JTF2 â †Canada's elite commando unit â †might want full control over aircraft that could see the unit deploy faster, instead of having to wait for approvals from the air force to use a plane.
â Å“It's an evolution that's necessary,â ? says Brig.-Gen. Daniel Gosselin, named chief of staff over the Canadian Forces Transformation Team.
â Å“The command and control structure that we have, because of its nature, might not be responsive enough if something happens,â ? Mr. Gosselin said in an interview.
â Å“(Hillier) doesn't want to take a chance that something happens and we are not prepared at a level that we need to be prepared,â ? Mr. Gosselin added.
â Å“It's consistent with the level of preparedness that we're trying to (achieve) in the post-9/11 era.
â Å“It has to do with the domestic situation from a disaster point of view. But it has to do also with . . . potential crises related to an airliner or some other kind of (terrorist attack) situation.â ?
Britain and Australia adopted similar changes during the last two years. The Americans are restructuring as well, although their plans have faced budget hurdles in Washington.
Canadian top brass began preliminary work on the overhaul last week. Four teams have responsibility for specific areas where reforms are needed.
For example, the first will recommend how to change the military's command structure, both for domestic and international operations. Another is looking at how to better recruit, train and deploy people.
The Paul Martin government has said it wants to increase the size of the military by 8,000 people during the next five years.
They'll be needed if the overhaul is to work. Getting the military to move faster â †the goal for some units being deployment within 10 days â †means you need more people, Mr. Gosselin said.
â Å“This is very high readiness,â ? he says.
â Å“When you increase readiness, it's taxing. It's fairly demanding in terms of people, in terms of the training you have to do, how you prepare.â ?
Two other teams are reviewing what new equipment the Forces need, and how to better work with other government departments and non-governmental agencies. Their work is expected to take longer, perhaps up to five years.
A main priority of the restructuring should be to streamline the military, cut the size of defence headquarters and not to simply create another chain of command, says one military analyst.
â Å“We are very top heavy in terms of our command structure,â ? says David Rudd, director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.
â Å“If they do that, the money that can be saved . . . can be thrown back into the organization and hopefully pay for a lot more privates and corporals,â ? Mr. Rudd said.
â Å“It would be absolutely unconscionable for us to emerge from this process with even more people at headquarters. That must be avoided at all cost.â ?
Very impressive indeed.
Matthew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050605.wmili0605/BNStory/National/
Military Begins Major Overhall
Sunday, June 5, 2005 Updated at 3:24 PM EDT
Canadian Press
Ottawa â †Canada's military command structure is about to be turned upside down so the Armed Forces can deal more quickly with natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.
In the biggest restructuring in four decades, Gen. Rick Hillier has ordered a transformation that will see control of domestic military assets turned over to integrated regional centres, known as Canada Command.
Since the mid-1960s, the army, navy and air force have worked together to a certain extent. But each section has independent control over ground forces, ships, aircraft and other equipment.
Mr. Hillier, the chief of defence staff, wants the command structure to be more â Å“top down,â ? with regional commanders in control of all military personnel and hardware.
â Å“They'll now come under an integrated commander at a regional level,â ? said a spokeswoman for Mr. Hillier.
â Å“So we don't have army only and air force only and navy only and they each have their separate stove pipes up to Ottawa,â ? Maj. Rita Lepage said.
â Å“You can see how much quicker you can respond . . . when you've got one person owning air and sea and land elements.â ?
The military also wants certain equipment assigned to specific units. As an example, the JTF2 â †Canada's elite commando unit â †might want full control over aircraft that could see the unit deploy faster, instead of having to wait for approvals from the air force to use a plane.
â Å“It's an evolution that's necessary,â ? says Brig.-Gen. Daniel Gosselin, named chief of staff over the Canadian Forces Transformation Team.
â Å“The command and control structure that we have, because of its nature, might not be responsive enough if something happens,â ? Mr. Gosselin said in an interview.
â Å“(Hillier) doesn't want to take a chance that something happens and we are not prepared at a level that we need to be prepared,â ? Mr. Gosselin added.
â Å“It's consistent with the level of preparedness that we're trying to (achieve) in the post-9/11 era.
â Å“It has to do with the domestic situation from a disaster point of view. But it has to do also with . . . potential crises related to an airliner or some other kind of (terrorist attack) situation.â ?
Britain and Australia adopted similar changes during the last two years. The Americans are restructuring as well, although their plans have faced budget hurdles in Washington.
Canadian top brass began preliminary work on the overhaul last week. Four teams have responsibility for specific areas where reforms are needed.
For example, the first will recommend how to change the military's command structure, both for domestic and international operations. Another is looking at how to better recruit, train and deploy people.
The Paul Martin government has said it wants to increase the size of the military by 8,000 people during the next five years.
They'll be needed if the overhaul is to work. Getting the military to move faster â †the goal for some units being deployment within 10 days â †means you need more people, Mr. Gosselin said.
â Å“This is very high readiness,â ? he says.
â Å“When you increase readiness, it's taxing. It's fairly demanding in terms of people, in terms of the training you have to do, how you prepare.â ?
Two other teams are reviewing what new equipment the Forces need, and how to better work with other government departments and non-governmental agencies. Their work is expected to take longer, perhaps up to five years.
A main priority of the restructuring should be to streamline the military, cut the size of defence headquarters and not to simply create another chain of command, says one military analyst.
â Å“We are very top heavy in terms of our command structure,â ? says David Rudd, director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.
â Å“If they do that, the money that can be saved . . . can be thrown back into the organization and hopefully pay for a lot more privates and corporals,â ? Mr. Rudd said.
â Å“It would be absolutely unconscionable for us to emerge from this process with even more people at headquarters. That must be avoided at all cost.â ?
