Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan chosen as next chief of the defence staff

First!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carignan-new-chief-defence-1.7249581

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Is that you, Cathy Newman? How can you possibly have read that from his post?

Well...

Maybe time to give someone from the engineering or support trades branch a kick at CDS? If I can dumb a complex engineering issue down to a 7 year old level to brief an operator,

The CDS is an operator...as are an uncomfortable and unfortunate percentage of Senior Officer....and the poster seems to thinks that all operators need a 7 year old level explanation to understand a "complex engineering issue"...so I guess that is where I got the first part.

The second part was an effort to establish the experiential background that led to that characterization of ALL operators, and hence MOST senior Officers as requiring "complex engineering issues" to be explained to them in at the level of a 7 year old.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I attended one of her culture change town halls. She was even less interested in being there than I was. Which is no small feat. I was rather impressed by her openess to convey her bordem and not feed us feigned interest.

The CWO on the other hand - full culture change echo chamber. I recall him pretty much attacking people for asking questions he didn't like. Really channeled his inner 'you shut your mouth when you're talking to me'.

 

[KevinB]

I met her once. Admittedly, I did not speak to her long enough to form much of an opinion one way or the other. If the goal is to champion culture change directly from the top, then this is clearly a lead by example opportunity.

Yes - and about those 360 reviews...

 

[ballz]

Well...

The CDS has been an operator-type for a long-ass time, and many people will say it has to be because someone from a support trade couldn't possibly understand all the complexities of combat, war, strategy, etc. And they'll point to that one guy whose name escapes me that was CDS as a Loggie I believe, as though that one anecdote is a valid characterization of all support-types.

Navy_Pete was getting ahead of that tired old rebuttal by suggesting they can be advised on such matters by operator-types who know those things well enough to advise on them to someone who may have difficulty understanding them. If that offends you so much, well, enjoy some of your own medicine? Your own "tribe" has been essentially suggesting the same thing about support trades since Christ walked with the dinosaurs.

There's a very large gap between "an operator" that Navy_Pete may have been referring to and "ALL" operators or a particular CDS.

There are some operators (and supporters...), including of the Senior Officer ranks, for whom I would have preferred be replaced by a 7 year old. But that has negligible bearing on my relatively positive impression of Eyre.

In saying that, his three Master's degrees might as well be from a cereal box for the amount of stock I place in all those programs from institutions designed specifically to churn out credentials so that the chosen people in said institutions can get promoted. An undergrad in physics, however, is no laughing matter...

 

[Kilted]

Is that story about Iraq actually true?

Story about Iraq?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Did you just say that the current CDS, with a degree in Physics, multiple Masters degrees, and a piercing intellect, would need you to dumb down your micro-issue to the 7 year old level so he would understand it? How many times have you briefed him, other CsDS, or VsCDS in the last two decades your profile suggest that you have spent in the NCR?

Sat in on a few that helped prepare, and was still a few levels of detail above what went to cabinet, or answers to Parliament.
Haven't met a GOFO yet that isn't very smart and able to take in a lot of info, just that it gets broken down to basics with enough meat for them to at least be aware of it.

There was usually a fairly large bunch of info behind it but I don't expect BGHs to get down into the references that are behind the briefing notes that roll into simplified briefing decks. At a certain point when it rolls through numerous levels with decades of relevant experience before it gets to the BGHs they have to trust that the vetting has worked, and the summary (of a summary of a summary) is reasonably accurate.

Why shouldn't something that is very specific be 'dumbed down' and summarized for a decision/info brief? Other people's routine, daily work that I've never seen before would similarly need to be 'dumbed down' if they were explaining it to me. Not meant as an insult, just a turn of phrase, and the 'X for dummies' books are actually really good and reasonably comprehensive introductions into things.

Those are generally better than the products I've seen go to TBS, which I've seen get twisted and spun through different departments that changed wording on things they didn't understand so it 'sounded better' but actually made it factually inaccurate.

And an edit to add; yes, I fully expect if, for some reason, I had to brief something on the niche area I specialize in now to the CDS/VCDS, it would be 'dumbed down' to a BLUF, a few slides, and some simple diagrams and maybe a flashy video. If that offends you, not sure what to say. I could talk about it in excruciating depth for hours, but they A) don't care and B) have shit to do.

Good staff work is figuring out how to make put together a complex issue into a 10 minute window and get direction. It's far harder than a big info dump and takes a lot longer. But no one expects a pilot to give direction on section attacks, a gunner to give direction on naval warfare, etc, and it's not like people in support trades don't get operational exposure or experience.

 

[OldSolduer]

Story about Iraq?

I have that question too. I had read it but I would like some clarification.

 

[FJAG]

The CDS has been an operator-type for a long-ass time, and many people will say it has to be because someone from a support trade couldn't possibly understand all the complexities of combat, war, strategy, etc. And they'll point to that one guy whose name escapes me that was CDS as a Loggie I believe, as though that one anecdote is a valid characterization of all support-types.

I don't want to dump on loggies (particulalry that one) but when it comes to combat engineers, I'd like to point out that they, along with gunners, were once classed as part of the combat arms alongside the infantry and armoured corps. At some point that changed to combat support and so be it. Combat support is quite different from combat service support.

Combat engineer officers, like gunners, are heavily wrapped up in taking training alongside their infantry and armoured cohorts such as the the combat team commanders course and all army command and staff training. They may not have the same experience in the intricacies of running a tank squadron or infantry company but certainly have no problems comprehending the concepts of a combat arms battalions, brigade staff functions and the operation of brigades as a whole.

One could argue that by virtue of the fact that combat engineers and gunners really operate at support of the whole brigade level, they may have a better comprehension of operator-type issues at these higher levels than some others.

Let the backlash commence.

 

[OldSolduer]

One could argue that by virtue of the fact that combat engineers and gunners really operate at support of the whole brigade level, they may have a better comprehension of operator-type issues at these higher levels than some others.

Let the backlash commence.

None from me - there was a Gunner major (our BC) I worked alongside and the gunners have to have a grip on what everyone in the battalion is doing - not just A Coy or Recce or whoever. Just an old infantry guy's opinion though.

 

[MilEME09]

I have that question too. I had read it but I would like some clarification.

From what I heard from multiple people she tried to leave before any of her troops.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Are you on glue?

If any operator coming from the army, navy, air force or special forces side can be responsible for operations of all 4 streams, why can't non-operators that got to the same level do the same?

They all get shoveled through the same staff colleges, do various feeder jobs in different out of trade streams to get to that pool. I mean, a few pilots have done it, so how hard can it be to figure out what other elements do?

At the end of the day, they are leading the CAF and interfacing with politicians, not making tactical decisions. so best fit doesn't have to be from an operator trade necessarily. That's why there are elemental Commanders, and levels of operators down to the tactical level below them. If you go by the reconstitution letter, the CDS's biggest priority right now is rebuilding people capacity and regenerating capabability, which is a very purple issue and not something that being an operator gives you any real special skill set with.

The ceiling is a fair bit lower for the non-operator trades as GOFOs, but I've met a few that tapped out and went on to succeed at bigger/better things that seem to have all the qualities we get from the various CDSs I've seen over my career (and some have been pretty big duds). It's already a pretty small pool of candidates, so not really sure why there is any good reason to limit it to operators by tradition.

 

[OldSolduer]

From what I heard from multiple people she tried to leave before any of her troops.

That’s what I read. I need some context,

Was it in the middle of some shit going down?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If any operator coming from the army, navy, air force or special forces side can be responsible for operations of all 4 streams, why can't non-operators that got to the same level do the same?

They all get shoveled through the same staff colleges, do various feeder jobs in different out of trade streams to get to that pool. I mean, a few pilots have done it, so how hard can it be to figure out what other elements do?

At the end of the day, they are leading the CAF and interfacing with politicians, not making tactical decisions. so best fit doesn't have to be from an operator trade necessarily. That's why there are elemental Commanders, and levels of operators down to the tactical level below them. If you go by the reconstitution letter, the CDS's biggest priority right now is rebuilding people capacity and regenerating capabability, which is a very purple issue and not something that being an operator gives you any real special skill set with.

The ceiling is a fair bit lower for the non-operator trades as GOFOs, but I've met a few that tapped out and went on to succeed at bigger/better things that seem to have all the qualities we get from the various CDSs I've seen over my career (and some have been pretty big duds). It's already a pretty small pool of candidates, so not really sure why there is any good reason to limit it to operators by tradition.

That is not what I was referring to.

To clarify- I was challenging your assertion that every VCDS over the past 7 years has been rock solid.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That is not what I was referring to.

To clarify- I was challenging your assertion that every VCDS over the past 7 years has been rock solid.

Ah, seen, that wasn't my intention; but got stuck way down in the weeds for the last 3-4 years, so wasn't really paying attention to who was VCDS over that time. In some cases you never really hear about them either way, which is still better than a CDS like Vance, but can't think of one that was fired in disgrace. Low bar I guess?

I could use a break from 'transformational leadership' for a while though; hard to rebuild when the direction and priorities are all over the place. A lot of that seems to be the GoC though; regardless of the cuts, continuing attrition etc they continue to demand us to do even more on all fronts while adding extra restricitons/requirements/impediments, which hasn't be working for a while now, but just haven't had a major incident to hammer the point home. If they weren't shamed by us being so rusted out that we couldn't muster up working equipment for Ukraine, or all the other shortfalls, not sure if anything will change until there is a major tradgedy that was fully predictable.

 

[ytz]

Haven't met a GOFO yet that isn't very smart and able to take in a lot of info, just that it gets broken down to basics with enough meat for them to at least be aware of it.

A lot of them are smart. But I notice a distinct difference from American GOFOs, from my short time in the US. And I do think the emphasis that Americans place on education (particularly STEM) and the more intense competition (relatively harder to make flag ranks) creates a better product. And it's obvious to me in the way they talk, brief, etc. I also think this impacts their technological fluency and risk appetite with new tech. Their regular foreign postings to hot spots usually comes with linguistic and cultural competencies which are rare among our GOFOs.

 

[KevinB]

A lot of them are smart. But I notice a distinct difference from American GOFOs, from my short time in the US. And I do think the emphasis that Americans place on education (particularly STEM) and the more intense competition (relatively harder to make flag ranks) creates a better product. And it's obvious to me in the way they talk, brief, etc. I also think this impacts their technological fluency and risk appetite with new tech. Their regular foreign postings to hot spots usually comes with linguistic and cultural competencies which are rare among our GOFOs.

We have duds down here too, we just hide them better.

 

[OldSolduer]

We have duds down here too, we just hide them better.

You have lots of places to hide them too. Here not so many....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well...


The CDS is an operator...as are an uncomfortable and unfortunate percentage of Senior Officer....and the poster seems to thinks that all operators need a 7 year old level explanation to understand a "complex engineering issue"...so I guess that is where I got the first part.

The second part was an effort to establish the experiential background that led to that characterization of ALL operators, and hence MOST senior Officers as requiring "complex engineering issues" to be explained to them in at the level of a 7 year old.

The problem, as I saw it, was a few (I need to emphasize that word "few") operators who decided that the engineering degree they earned 25 years previously suddenly qualified them to come to the big league meetings and challenge the work of teams of expert engineers, military and civilian, on issues like appropriate and applicable standards or RAMD. All they really did was embarrass their more sensible brethren.

 

[Jarnhamar]

We have duds down here too, we just hide them better.

Swept under a rug.

 

[ueo]

From what I heard from multiple people she tried to leave before any of her troops.

Any real sources, not the old "i heard it..." please.