Good points. Thanks.
How does the CAF address the NIMBY factor for #1? Canadians don’t mind someone coming to shovel them out of a snow storm, or bag sand for their flooding property, or help fight a fire near them, but those big noisy bases with loud equipment and planes and stuff? Those bases would also take up prime land that Canadians would rather see used for more housing, etc.
2 - agreed. Base not bad out the gate, but non-officer specialist/technology doesn’t seem to get the same support as say doctors, dentists, lawyers and pilots. Agree a compensation structure needs to be more wide-sweeping.
3 - a classic negative feedback loop, worsening as the loss increases. The ‘do more with less’ is a classic own goal, but much is the CAF’s own doing with the ‘can do’ attitude. That said, I remember the Navy’s “we’re going to stop sailing for a bit” and the government screamed blue murder that ‘we give you money, you bloody well sail!’ without appreciating the need to recover out of a vicious cycle. Folks are quick to point to this attempt to reconstitute as a transactional betrayer to the Canadian taxpayer, but that’s a pretty myopic view. Perhaps a less drastic ‘we stop sailing tomorrow for X months!” and more a “there’s only so much depth, so we’ll prioritize
Like this until we have more people…”
4 - a fundamental issue of a nation treating its military like civil servants who happen to have a slightly different dress code. The whole “but we HAVE to charge military families the same for housing as civilians are paying, it wouldn’t be fair otherwise!” thing, yet paying lip service to the other side of the two-way street covenant of looking…no…caring for our service personnel and families. Not sure Canada/Canadians are actually ready to see their service members treated much more specially than them.
Thanks for your thoughts, ThaMattHan.