Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[daftandbarmy]

Just thought I'd drop this here. It's a bit of confirmation bias in line with my thoughts on urban units/brigades which would allow members to serve their career in one area with any postings restricted to within the area. I was quite surprised at the expense of personnel moves within the US Army in comparison to other budget items. I presume the Canadian army has similar challenges not to mention the human turbulence costs.

The problem, of course, is promising soldiers that they can have families and otherwise 'normal' lives.

We'd do far batter to hire people for 6 to 8 years, ride them like rented mules, then pay them off and place them onto a reserve list for reactivation as required.

Turning the CAF into a uniformed arm of the public service, if that is the idea, is a huge mistake.

 

[FJAG]

The problem, of course, is promising soldiers that they can have families and otherwise 'normal' lives.

For a time there as a subbie I felt that we should all be better off if we were warrior monks. That could have worked but then they were shoving teachers and nurses at us in the officers' mess and well ...

We'd do far batter to hire people for 6 to 8 years, ride them like rented mules, then pay them off and place them onto a reserve list for reactivation as required.

I joined under a nine-year short service commission. Then Hellyer made it so that we all made captain automatically so long as we didn't piss in our Corn Flakes and even before that magic moment came we were all converted to indefinite engagements unless we absolutely insisted to stay SSCs. And - ta da - we were lifers.

Turning the CAF into a uniformed arm of the public service, if that is the idea, is a huge mistake.

Yup. That's what happened. I was there to watch it happening all around me. We could all feel it happening. There were even a lot of folks who were in favour of it happening.

I actually think that it's not that hard to deliver on "normal" lives if there were two terms of service for people entering the RegF.

It starts with the 30/70 concept so that you can form hybrid brigades in places places like Toronto, London, Montreal, Quebec City, even Ottawa (amongst others).

Restricted terms of service would allow a recruit to select a geographic area of service for their career. It would provide the opportunity to rise as high as colonel or CWO 9possibly higher in some places) without ever leaving the region. Postings would be confined to within the brigade's area. They would be required to attend exercises or operational tours outside their regions, but members would have the option to decline career courses or promotion offers outside the specified geographic area. Think of the restricted terms of service like a long-term Class B contract where the individual can be moved around to other jobs in the region and where he has to go on exercises and on operations outside of the region when ordered to. Nonetheless it provides tremendous family advantages.

Unrestricted terms of service would be like we have now. It would have certain perks like enhanced career course and promotion opportunities.

During the course of their career, individuals could apply to change from one terms of service to the other, if positions are available and the service approves.

That's the outline sketch.

 

[OldSolduer]

Yup. That's what happened. I was there to watch it happening all around me. We could all feel it happening. There were even a lot of folks who were in favour of it happening.

I agree - the corporate CAF versus the CAF that had focus on its primary function. The language officers were using was a reflection of the distaste the civilian governments have for the military, except of course when it suits them for political gain.

We don't "kill" people - we "neutralize" them. We don't shoot down enemy aircraft - we "interdict". We don't "sink" ships" - in fact I am not sure what we do with ships.

General Hillier really ruffled feathers amongst some bureaucrats (military ones too) they wet their knickers at his saying terrorists were scumbags and needed to be killed. He was right.

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem, of course, is promising soldiers that they can have families and otherwise 'normal' lives.

We'd do far batter to hire people for 6 to 8 years, ride them like rented mules, then pay them off and place them onto a reserve list for reactivation as required.

Turning the CAF into a uniformed arm of the public service, if that is the idea, is a huge mistake.

Which, in my mind, inevitably leads to a Militia Army culturally distinct from the Ordnance. Sandhurst vs Woolwich if you like (Greenwich is an extension of Woolwich).

The Navy and the Air Force are engaged full time and the kit they go to war with is the same kit they are operating the day before.

The Army can put bodies on the shelf and withdraw them in time of need. But they have to put the training and maintenance effort in to ensure that those bodies on the shelf are sharp and not rusty.

The other key element is Ordnance needs to ensure that they have warehouses full of munitions for the Navy, Air Force and Army to employ "come the day".

 

[OldSolduer]

I agree - the corporate CAF versus the CAF that had focus on its primary function. The language officers were using was a reflection of the distaste the civilian governments have for the military, except of course when it suits them for political gain.

We don't "kill" people - we "neutralize" them. We don't shoot down enemy aircraft - we "interdict". We don't "sink" ships" - in fact I am not sure what we do with ships.

General Hillier really ruffled feathers amongst some bureaucrats (military ones too) they wet their knickers at his saying terrorists were scumbags and needed to be killed. He was right.

I read an article many years ago called "Where Have All the TIgers Gone?"

It dealt with this very subject - it was observed young officers were discussing retirement plans, stock portfolios and RRSPs instead of how to wage death and destruction upon enemies of the nation. Well, those enemies are still here, and still active.

 

[PrairieFella]

I read an article many years ago called "Where Have All the TIgers Gone?"

It dealt with this very subject - it was observed young officers were discussing retirement plans, stock portfolios and RRSPs instead of how to wage death and destruction upon enemies of the nation. Well, those enemies are still here, and still active.

That's bound to happen when you don't have an enemy for a decade. After Afghanistan and before the Ukraine War we had adversaries or rivals, not necessarily enemies. Since Putin unleashed his savagery on Europe, a lot of conversation and training scenarios now seem to be about popping Russkis. Comes and goes in waves I suppose.

 

[FJAG]

I read an article many years ago called "Where Have All the TIgers Gone?"

It dealt with this very subject - it was observed young officers were discussing retirement plans, stock portfolios and RRSPs instead of how to wage death and destruction upon enemies of the nation. Well, those enemies are still here, and still active.

That's bound to happen when you don't have an enemy for a decade. After Afghanistan and before the Ukraine War we had adversaries or rivals, not necessarily enemies. Since Putin unleashed his savagery on Europe, a lot of conversation and training scenarios now seem to be about popping Russkis. Comes and goes in waves I suppose.

Actually, the paper was written by Col DA Nicholson around the time of unification/integration. There used to be a copy and a rebuttal in the Regimental Rogue, but I'm having trouble with that web site at the moment. It seems down. Not sure if there is another way to access it.

@OldSolduer is quite right. It wasn't anything like the mere decade of no operations like post Afghanistan. It was written at what was still a very hot Cold War and really discussed the change in the profession of arms in Canada's army that started turning much of the officer corps into a green civil service and civilianizing the military. Officers became inward looking, nurturing their own careers instead of outward looking and nurturing their troops.

Not everybody saw it Col Nicholson's way.

We have a thread that discussed some of this Canadian Army Officer Training in War which starts with a quote from Gen Kip Kirby (my bde commander in Pet in the mid seventies) that reinforces that war time systems aren't all they are cracked up to be either.

Personally I think that there have always been tigers and sheep in the officer corps. What has changed perhaps over the years is the ratio of one to the other and how the system values each of them.