Dividing the CF from the DND

[Canuck725]

Hey guys, wondering if you could throw in some pros and cons about the idea of seperating CFHQ from NDHQ.
Cheers

 

[FredDaHead]

Uhm, considering DND is the civilian part reponsible for the CF, how can you completely separate the two?

I think the answer lies in reconstruction of the procedures and structure related to the CF, both on the civilian and military sides. But that's not just in Canada. Every civilian organisation governing military operations seems, at least to my outside-looking-in eye, skewed, too political, and completely irresponsible, particularly when it comes to the military's needs.

 

[Neill McKay]

Hey guys, wondering if you could throw in some pros and cons about the idea of seperating CFHQ from NDHQ.

I don't know that it would be worthwhile to have separate a CFHQ and NDHQ, but there might be some merit in separating the civilian and military functions.  Right now, in NDHQ, we have a mixture of civilian and military personnel at several levels (e.g. some Assistant Deputy Ministers and civil servants, others are officers).  A more traditional structure would have a CFHQ staffed entirely by CF members (with the exception of civilian support staff such as clerks, etc.) and headed by the CDS, and a civilian arm of the Department staffed by civil servants and headed by the Deputy Minister.  That might clear up a lot of the concern over the supposed politicization of the senior officer ranks, and eliminate the need for a CF/civil service equivalence (often cited as one of the reasons we have as many flag and general officers as we do, given the relatively small size of the Forces).

 

[paracowboy]

personally, I think we should get rid of all civilians mixed in with the CF, and replace them with, oh...I dunno... maybe soldiers? Somebody I could count on to watch my back and return fire. Somebody who can't go on strike and cripple the military overnight? This goes all the way up to the clown show in Ottawa.
But, hey, that's just me.

And before somebody asks where we'd get the troops, that's a different rant entirely.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't know that it would be worthwhile to have separate a CFHQ and NDHQ, but there might be some merit in separating the civilian and military functions.   Right now, in NDHQ, we have a mixture of civilian and military personnel at several levels (e.g. some Assistant Deputy Ministers and civil servants, others are officers).   A more traditional structure would have a CFHQ staffed entirely by CF members (with the exception of civilian support staff such as clerks, etc.) and headed by the CDS, and a civilian arm of the Department staffed by civil servants and headed by the Deputy Minister.   That might clear up a lot of the concern over the supposed politicization of the senior officer ranks, and eliminate the need for a CF/civil service equivalence (often cited as one of the reasons we have as many flag and general officers as we do, given the relatively small size of the Forces).

Wierd, that's how it was before Ronald MacDonald screwed things up....

 

[TCBF]

Is this leading back into the gruesome arguments about how - back in 1969 or so - the professional officer corps sold their collective soul to the devil by becoming civil servants to avail themselves of the perks of high pay and easy lateral intra-departmental transfers on retirement?

Just curious.

Tom

 

[paracowboy]

Is this leading back into the gruesome arguments about how - back in 1969 or so - the professional officer corps sold their collective soul to the devil by becoming civil servants to avail themselves of the perks of high pay and easy lateral intra-departmental transfers on retirement?

Just curious.

Tom

well, probably not NOW. Way to ruin a potentially fun rant thread, and suck the wind from my sails!

;D

 

[Neill McKay]

Wierd, that's how it was before Ronald MacDonald screwed things up....

One nail, squarely hit on the head!

 

[Reccesoldier]

We have a rather Burkean Bureaucracy in the CF. It does as it is ordered to do, the civil service doesn't call the shots nor does the military. If you're looking at NDHQ as the problem you're about 1Km south east of your target.

 

[Infanteer]

We have a rather Burkean Bureaucracy in the CF. It does as it is ordered to do, the civil service doesn't call the shots nor does the military. If you're looking at NDHQ as the problem you're about 1Km south east of your target.

Isn't this what we want though?  I'm not sure that we wish a bureaucrat or a general to be making the decisions of National Defence - these belong (rightfully) in the hands of Cabinet and Parliament.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Isn't this what we want though?  I'm not sure that we wish a bureaucrat or a general to be making the decisions of National Defence - these belong (rightfully) in the hands of Cabinet and Parliament.

That was my point exactly. The Civil service does quite a lot for the CF. It takes care of exactly what it should, the bureaucracy. It makes sure the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted, the minutae of policy is followed and implimented.

Why would we want to separate the two, even if only physically, when they have to interact so often in order to accomplish the mission properly.

 

[paracowboy]

Because we have allowed the military to become a bureacracy. Wrong, a corporation. We have managers and supervisors, not leaders. We need a clear and distinct separation of the two. That is how it was originally designed.

 

[Neill McKay]

That was my point exactly. The Civil service does quite a lot for the CF. It takes care of exactly what it should, the bureaucracy. It makes sure the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted, the minutae of policy is followed and implimented.

Why would we want to separate the two, even if only physically, when they have to interact so often in order to accomplish the mission properly.

Every other armed force in the world seems to get along fine with that dvision.  Not saying that we should always do as others do, but in this case it might be a good plan.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Every other armed force in the world seems to get along fine with that dvision.  Not saying that we should always do as others do, but in this case it might be a good plan.

You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. The military and civil service are separate pieces of the same organization. The civil service is like the CF's CSS. they handle a good deal of the things that we do not have time/energy/resources to do on our own. When a unit goes into the field it doesn't bring third line maintenance facilities with it. When our leadership plans a military operation they deal with the pointy end, the civil servants deal with the paperwork of a non-military nature. They provide services for us, not in spite of us.

I'm not so sure that "every other armed force" has the separation that the topic post suggests. here's a quote from the American deputy undersecratary for defence, given while dedicating a hall in the pentagon to civil servants.

"They provide technical, managerial, financial, professional expertise to America's oldest, largest, and arguably busiest and most successful government enterprise, the Department of Defense."

Bureaucracy in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's got quite a nasty connotation attached to it but I would suggest that the separation of the CF and sivil service would create an unneccessary duplication of work and draw more front line soldiers away from the pointy end where they are needed the most.

 

[Infanteer]

Bureaucracy in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's got quite a nasty connotation attached to it but I would suggest that the separation of the CF and sivil service would create an unneccessary duplication of work and draw more front line soldiers away from the pointy end where they are needed the most.

Interesting, and I think you have a valid point.   The gut reaction has been to say "Split the NDHQ and the CFHQ"; most of the literature I've seen seems to advocate this arguement.

However, Dr David Bercuson came at the debate with the notion that, after over two decades, we may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we were to split NDHQ.  Discussions with others who have been in the environment have also pointed this out.  Here is Bercuson's piece from a letter to the Minister - although it is 8 years old, I think the fundmental issues (National Command) are still valid today.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/minister/eng/Bercuson/Berc4E.htm

1) What to do about NDHQ has remained a contentious issue for almost two and a half decades. There are without doubt tens and maybe hundreds of feet of shelf space at the Directorate of History and Heritage on Holly Lane groaning under the weight of all the documents generated by all those who have looked into whether or not the currently structured NDHQ works or doesn't work. There is neither the space nor the time here to attempt yet another study which, in any case, will simply add to the groaning of the shelves.

And yet, something must be done to change things at NDHQ. A quick and dramatic alteration of at least part of the NDHQ structure, or the way the currently structured NDHQ does business, is absolutely necessary to restore morale in the ranks of the Canadian Forces and to reassure Canada's soldiers, sailors and airpersons, that the professional and considered military advice of their leaders is, at all times, flowing directly to the cabinet where ultimate decisions are made about budgets, deployments, personnel policy, etc.

2) Over the years a large number of suggestions have been advanced concerning what to do about NDHQ. Many advocate its abolition and replacement by separate civilian and military structures. That would probably throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater because there can be no doubt that some things at NDHQ are working well. The best evidence of that is the now ongoing MCCRT process which is almost "making wine out of water" and doing so largely because the civilian and military sides are working well together.

What then is the solution? It may be best at this juncture to embark on a less radical course with respect to restructuring NDHQ than might have been the case a few years ago. Some suggestions:

i) Ensure that both the public and the military see and understand that operational military advice flows upward w/o any "blending" with civilian views.

ii) Strengthen the strategic planning ability of the Canadian Forces, centred in the office of the VCDS. Connect the VCDS with proposed War College to ensure that strategic advice generated there flows to the VCDS on a regular basis.

iii) Ensure that ADM(POL) and the strategic planners at VCDS meet regularly and work to develop a central set of contingency plans and, when necessary, operational plans, that combine policy and strategy.

iv) Review every existing requirement for a joint CDS-DM signature and eliminate most of them.

v) The same step should be taken with regard to co-chairing formal meetings.

vi) Clarify the internal lines of communication within NDHQ.

vii) Create two superstructures to be added to NDHQ: Canadian Forces Head Quarters (CFHQ); Office of the Deputy Minister (ODM). Leave all those joint units which are functioning well within the main NDHQ. Put strategic planning (VCDS) into CFHQ and ADM(POL) into ODM. Eliminate ADM(PER) and career managers and place promotions within CFHQ. Generally speaking, functions that are directly connected with the recruitment, training, deploying of troops should fall within CFHQ, while functions concerned with maintenance of infrastructure, budget, procurement, policy planning, and ongoing liaison with SCONDVA and the Auditor General should fall within ODM.

Ex:

MND

[CFHQ ] <------------> [ ODM ]


[ /\ <----- NDHQ -----> /\ ]

Recommendation #22
Whatever structure is finally decided upon for NDHQ, it must be regularly tested in war simulation exercises designed to ensure that it will work in a limited conventional war. That is the ultimate test of a military headquarters.

 

[Neill McKay]

You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. The military and civil service are separate pieces of the same organization. The civil service is like the CF's CSS. they handle a good deal of the things that we do not have time/energy/resources to do on our own. When a unit goes into the field it doesn't bring third line maintenance facilities with it. When our leadership plans a military operation they deal with the pointy end, the civil servants deal with the paperwork of a non-military nature. They provide services for us, not in spite of us.

I'm not so sure that "every other armed force" has the separation that the topic post suggests. here's a quote from the American deputy undersecratary for defence, given while dedicating a hall in the pentagon to civil servants.

Bureaucracy in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's got quite a nasty connotation attached to it but I would suggest that the separation of the CF and sivil service would create an unneccessary duplication of work and draw more front line soldiers away from the pointy end where they are needed the most.

My concern isn't so much with members at the pointy-end level, but with the interlacing of military and civilian members at the highest levels.  I certainly don't dispute the need for a civilian bureaucracy in DND, or civilian staffers at various levels (even my old naval reserve division had a civlian admin clerk in the ship's office, to no-one's detriment).  But I remain to be convinced that they should be thought of as being almost interchangeable at the Deputy Minister/ADM level.  Officers are officers and bureaucrats are bureaucrats, and I believe the two require different skills and characteristics.  I don't think other countries' armed forces have quite the level of integration at that level that we do.

(However, the irony of my argument isn't entirely lost on me, as I'm both an officer [reserve] and a provincial bureaucrat [on civvy street]!)