No more rifles on drill/grad parade?

[btrudy]

Societies attitudes towards work is shifting, the requirements of the CAF are intensifying not decreasing however.

Education and training is how you adapt recruits to the CAFs requirements because otherwise they will not be capable of doing so. Right now we are in a weird place societally where we argue for ‘collective’ rights yet try to treat everything and everyone as a individual. The CAF doesn’t need a bunch of individuals, we need people to act as a collective. To foster a group identity.

This is why you are supposed to get broken down on basic and brought back up to the standards and requirements we need. I would argue that a military culture is more needed now than ever due to how little patriotism, pride, and honour exists in our society at the moment.

Warfare hasn’t changed. At the end of the day Ukraine looks a lot like Korea or WWII just with a bit fancier kit. ‘Outdated’ is a buzzword used by those who in many cases don’t know what they are talking about. Part of the problem is people struggle with why we do things because we have failed to explain them properly.

We aren't going to change society's attitudes towards work. Those are shifting away from something compatible with the traditional military model, and, well, we need to work with the populace we've got because we can't recruit from other countries, or other eras.

It's borderline insulting IMHO to claim that society has little honor or pride compared to what it used to. Was there honor in a society which routinely systematically suppressed the rights and well being of women, BIPOC folks, LGBT folks, etc? Where the military routinely covers up misconduct of members? Hell no. Society has a lot of pride and honor, they're just shifting the focus of said pride and honor. And sure, they're less patriotic. Which, again, pointing to the gross misdeeds of the state and people in positions of power, can you actually blame them?

Trying to pretend that people aren't individuals and shouldn't be treated as such isn't a model that will work anymore. Hell, it hasn't really worked in the past either.

We need people to work as a team, but we need to accept that that requires motivating people, not pretending like we can "break them down" into some mindless robot in basic training. Because even if that worked (spoiler alert, it doesn't), we don't actually want mindless robots. We want people who can think for themselves and react accordingly within the scope of their authority to changing circumstances.

Anyways, as for your assertion that warfare hasn't changed, I frankly think that is probably the most asinine statement I've seen in months.

It takes far less resources (time, money equipment) for a Bn of infantry to execute a Trooping the Colour parade than it does a full level 5 BTS BG attack.

This is a false dichotomy and I'm pretty sure you damned well know it. If you can't run a full Battle Group level attack on a regular basis, you could instead do something smaller in scale that actually practices functional warfighting skills, instead of the useless marching up and down the parade square style stuff. If we're going to pretend like one poster said that everything from saluting to fleet maneuvers count as "drill", we can still differentiate between drills that practice stuff that matters and drill that practices stuff that doesn't.


Practice some damned section attacks, do a fireex or a hazmat spill, etc. Do something useful instead of something whose sole purpose is ceremonial.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We didn’t get sent packing, we chose to leave, a very distinct difference. If anyone believes the Afghanis had anywhere near peer capability or forced us out they are delusional.

Its more than Afghanistan. How about the Russian Afghan War ?

Vietnam is a great example. The rise of ISIS. The Battle of Mogadishu. Hell how about 1842 Retreat from Kandahar ?

My point is ones proficiency on the parade square is a tell tale sign of absolutely nothing.

If your argument as to why we should do less drill is because a bunch of irregular militias who routinely commit war crimes don’t then, clearly drill is a good thing for a nation which holds its military to a professional standard.

My argument is that parade square drill is not necessary to produce a competent fighting force. Its a traditional facet, I will give you that. But it adds nothing of value to the production of fighting forces outside of carrying on traditional practices and the pomp and ceremony of days of yore.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Soldiering isn't "work" or "employment". I suppose that once you're doing field training or deployed, you're immersed in a way that is incomparable to 9-5. It's a lifestyle.

The recruiting target for volunteer soldiers is properly the fraction of people intererested in soldiering, not society-as-a-whole. That fraction undoubtedly crosses cultural boundaries, but within most cultures some kind of soldiering tradition exists. The goal of "diverse" recruiting ought to be focused attraction of those people, vice everyone. We already know that the characteristics of the institution have been tested and refined over centuries and ought not be meddled with lightly (let alone ignorantly - Chesterton's Fence applies); we already know that the institution tends to drift towards civil service behaviour during long intervals of relative peace. If some cultures have attributes that align more closely with the attributes of soldiering than other cultures, accept the fact, exploit it, and move on.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Soldiering isn't "work" or "employment". I suppose that once you're doing field training or deployed, you're immersed in a way that is incomparable to 9-5. It's a lifestyle.

The recruiting target for volunteer soldiers is properly the fraction of people intererested in soldiering, not society-as-a-whole. That fraction undoubtedly crosses cultural boundaries, but within most cultures some kind of soldiering tradition exists. The goal of "diverse" recruiting ought to be focused attraction of those people, vice everyone. We already know that the characteristics of the institution have been tested and refined over centuries and ought not be meddled with lightly (let alone ignorantly - Chesterton's Fence applies); we already know that the institution tends to drift towards civil service behaviour during long intervals of relative peace. If some cultures have attributes that align more closely with the attributes of soldiering than other cultures, accept the fact, exploit it, and move on.

This is for you...

If you're (mostly) a Canadian red neck

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In some cases drill is the practical alternative to war between two nuclear powers. Who hate each other.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In some cases drill is the practical alternative to war between two nuclear powers. Who hate each other.

I think Monty Python did a whole shtick on this...

 

[rmc_wannabe]

This is a false dichotomy and I'm pretty sure you damned well know it. If you can't run a full Battle Group level attack on a regular basis, you could instead do something smaller in scale that actually practices functional warfighting skills, instead of the useless marching up and down the parade square style stuff.

If we're going to pretend like one poster said that everything from saluting to fleet maneuvers count as "drill", we can still differentiate between drills that practice stuff that matters and drill that practices stuff that doesn't.


Practice some damned section attacks, do a fireex or a hazmat spill, etc. Do something useful instead of something whose sole purpose is ceremonial.

Not a false dichotomy, as I have lived both. We do section, platoon, and Coy drills, TTP rehearsals, ROC Drills, in addition to BG attacks. The difference is that it's also resource heavy and takes the kind of cohesion, discipline, and understanding of individual responsibilities factoring into collective effort I mention before. That is first taught and reinforced on the parade square.

You have tipped your hand numerous times on this forum about your disdain for drill and ceremonial stuff. I will take a lesson in the effectiveness of Drill and Ceremonial in a Battlegroup setting from many on this forum, you are not one of them.

 

[btrudy]

Soldiering isn't "work" or "employment". I suppose that once you're doing field training or deployed, you're immersed in a way that is incomparable to 9-5. It's a lifestyle.

You can say that. But if the vast majority of the people who we're trying to recruit and retain think differently, that doesn't make it so.

The institution needs to adapt to changing social norms. And one of those strongest shifts is the growing focus that people are placing on work life balance.

I do not consider employment in the CAF to be a lifestyle. It is what I do in order to enable my lifestyle. People can insist otherwise until they're blue in the face, but that doesn't change things.

The recruiting target for volunteer soldiers is properly the fraction of people intererested in soldiering, not society-as-a-whole. That fraction undoubtedly crosses cultural boundaries, but within most cultures some kind of soldiering tradition exists.

And, again, a refusal to adapt how we do the job, a refusal to change how we do things in light of changing social norms only decreases that fraction.

We need to expand that fraction by making serving in the CAF more appealing to the population we've got.

The goal of "diverse" recruiting ought to be focused attraction of those people, vice everyone. We already know that the characteristics of the institution have been tested and refined over centuries and ought not be meddled with lightly (let alone ignorantly - Chesterton's Fence applies); we already know that the institution tends to drift towards civil service behaviour during long intervals of relative peace. If some cultures have attributes that align more closely with the attributes of soldiering than other cultures, accept the fact, exploit it, and move on.

And you don't seem to be outright stating it, but do seem to be at least hinting at focusing on certain demographic groups which have in the past been viewed as our "core demographic". Straight white rural men perhaps?

But, well, not only are those groups a shrinking portion of the population, they're also less inclined to be drinking the Kool-Aide like everyone else.

A refusal to adapt how we work in the face of changing situations will lead to disaster in recruiting and retention just as much as it would in any other aspect of warfare.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You can say that. But if the vast majority of the people who we're trying to recruit and retain think differently, that doesn't make it so.

The fact that the government chooses to go after people not particularly predisposed to soldiering does not change the facts of life of soldiering. The institution can change things that rationally ought be changed, but changing the nature of warfare and warfighting is a bit like trying to command the tides. Misrepresentation of the life simply means people will be recruited and trained at great expense, and will leave as soon as possible after disillusionment sets in and/or they figure they've maxed out whatever training and experience they wanted to exploit.

By now it should be obvious that chasing people who don't already want a "product" by catering to their values doesn't do much to capture market share and does drive away some old customers. The phenomenon is observable and observed in military recruitment, and marketing. "We approve of your obeisance; don't you dare change back or we'll punish you; no, we don't want to drink your beer/join your team."

 

[captloadie]

changing the nature of warfare and warfighting is a bit like trying to command the tides.

But the nature of warfare and warfighting has evolved, as has the equipment that is being used. There will always be examples where soldiers come eye to eye with the enemy, or line up across an empty plain and march forward to attack, but those are the exceptions that make the rule.

Much of today's warfare is fought at a distance, using ever more complex weapon systems that need more intelligent individuals to operate. With that intelligence, comes an individual who naturally will ask why. We don't recruit, nor can we get through the training system, individuals who would have a hard time making it through grade 10, who are just happy to take orders and blindly do what they are told for the sake of a decent pay check.

Drill as a concept, getting back to the subject at hand, that is important. It does teach working in concert, following orders at precise times, even comradery. What that drill entails though is where the argument lies.

 

[btrudy]

The fact that the government chooses to go after people not particularly predisposed to soldiering does not change the facts of life of soldiering. The institution can change things that rationally ought be changed, but changing the nature of warfare and warfighting is a bit like trying to command the tides. Misrepresentation of the life simply means people will be recruited and trained at great expense, and will leave as soon as possible after disillusionment sets in and/or they figure they've maxed out whatever training and experience they wanted to exploit.

By now it should be obvious that chasing people who don't already want a "product" by catering to their values doesn't do much to capture market share and does drive away some old customers. The phenomenon is observable and observed in military recruitment, and marketing. "We approve of your obeisance; don't you dare change back or we'll punish you; no, we don't want to drink your beer/join your team."

The institution may have limited control over the facts of life of warfare, but let's face it, that's not what's causing us to be bleeding people.


What the institution does have a lot of control over is how it functions when not on operations. Refusal to do so is only going to further exacerbate our already critical retention issues.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You can say that. But if the vast majority of the people who we're trying to recruit and retain think differently, that doesn't make it so.

The institution needs to adapt to changing social norms. And one of those strongest shifts is the growing focus that people are placing on work life balance.

I do not consider employment in the CAF to be a lifestyle. It is what I do in order to enable my lifestyle. People can insist otherwise until they're blue in the face, but that doesn't change things.



And, again, a refusal to adapt how we do the job, a refusal to change how we do things in light of changing social norms only decreases that fraction.

We need to expand that fraction by making serving in the CAF more appealing to the population we've got.


And you don't seem to be outright stating it, but do seem to be at least hinting at focusing on certain demographic groups which have in the past been viewed as our "core demographic". Straight white rural men perhaps?

But, well, not only are those groups a shrinking portion of the population, they're also less inclined to be drinking the Kool-Aide like everyone else.

A refusal to adapt how we work in the face of changing situations will lead to disaster in recruiting and retention just as much as it would in any other aspect of warfare.

All industries are suffering recruiting and retention challenges. Anything that takes people away from the urban core is suffering. The problem is the unreal expectations being taught to them in school and the focus on post secondary degrees over trades. The level of disappointment and shock when a lot of these kids hit the work world is because they have no idea what it is like and reality does not meet what they were taught. The employers are also not overly impressed with the majority of skillsets or work ethic most kids have coming into the job market now.

Like it or not the vast majority of ground combat will be done by males and since white males are still the majority demographic, so yes we should be focusing on them. No one gives a sh*t anymore if they are gay or not. Gays only make up roughly 3% of the population and spending time pandering to that demographic is a waste of resources. The message is "Your not special, we don't care and we not interested in who you sleep with as long as they are not in your chain of command" We be far better off putting those resources to recruiting from the First Nations and Indian community as they represent 5% and 7% and both have a history of providing top notch soldiers.
The generation coming up, can already see that your generation is completely bonkers and more and more kids are looking to find a way to avoid the path your generation went.

 

[CountDC]

To be honest I used to encourage my kids to join. No longer.

I used to encourage others to join and have several members that can blame me for convincing them. No longer.

If someone asks me I will tell them go to university and join the reserves. 4 years FTSE with a decent pay plus $2k a year for education with zero obligation. Take that experience with the degree and get a civilian job.

Look at all the changes that have been made over the last what 10 years that have not accomplished anything to increase recruiting yet we will continue to try. I think it is time to have another look at retention and the value it provided as word of mouth recruiting. If me encouraging people produced at least 4 new members isn't that better than me not encouraging them to join so they stay away?

To me drill is best taught on basic to help everyone learn to work together as a team while following commands. Putting it off to later delays that aspect of the military and maintains the "I am what is important" aspect instead of the "they are what is important" aspect that should be more important in the military. Sacrifice for our peers is important in the military. Putting it off may get the same benefit down the road but let's be real - when is that going to happen? Don't see admins sending their people out to learn drill vice getting people's claims or pay done. Added to trade courses? Don't see that working out. Same with all the other trades considering so many are short people already who really wants to let someone go to learn drill. Maybe if they make it a mandatory career course for progression such as the PLQ they may have luck. Training does take priority (at least to me). Come to think of it I have seen where units didn't want to send their people on Trade/PLQ courses as they "needed" them. Brings me back to - do the drill on basic when no one else has any input or control so you can.

 

[Infanteer]

Thank you for your service.

 

[btrudy]

To me drill is best taught on basic to help everyone learn to work together as a team while following commands. Putting it off to later delays that aspect of the military and maintains the "I am what is important" aspect instead of the "they are what is important" aspect that should be more important in the military. Sacrifice for our peers is important in the military. Putting it off may get the same benefit down the road but let's be real - when is that going to happen? Don't see admins sending their people out to learn drill vice getting people's claims or pay done. Added to trade courses? Don't see that working out. Same with all the other trades considering so many are short people already who really wants to let someone go to learn drill. Maybe if they make it a mandatory career course for progression such as the PLQ they may have luck. Training does take priority (at least to me). Come to think of it I have seen where units didn't want to send their people on Trade/PLQ courses as they "needed" them. Brings me back to - do the drill on basic when no one else has any input or control so you can.

So... to sum up. You think that we need to teach a lot of drill in basic because otherwise no one is going to think it's important enough to bother teaching it at all.


Might I suggest that probably just means that it isn't actually important and we could probably do without it?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

So... to sum up. You think that we need to teach a lot of drill in basic because otherwise no one is going to think it's important enough to bother teaching it at all.


Might I suggest that probably just means that it isn't actually important and we could probably do without it?

Might I suggest that your post history paints you as an antiestablishment, anti-tradition, anti-anything but the 9-5, type person who is unbending in their position? It's hard to listen to in multiple threads that our forces would be better off if we were showing up and doing the job, without maintaining any differing features from the Public Service.

You have posted at length about ridding the CAF of dress uniforms, messes, drill, parades, literally everything that differentiates us from an armed rabble with guns. If the Ukrainians, who are balls deep in the thick of it, can maintain the ability to perform drill in Kyiv, we can too.

If you want to sail without the Pomp and Circumstance, the Coast Guard is hiring.

 

[Furniture]

I spent the summer of 1997 marching up and down the square on a six week Drill and Ceremonial course with Army Cadets at Camp Argonaut in Gagetown. I also volunteered for the guard when I was in Halifax as a shift-worker and exempt from the job, and yet even I question the necessity of anything beyond basic drill in BMQ. I love drill, but I question the value of it beyond ceremony, and moving groups of people from point A to point B in an orderly fashion.

I don't for one second buy that doing a crisp present arms has any bearing on one's ability to follow orders in a combat team attack. I think our obsession with dress silliness stems from an over emphasis on drill and ceremony in some circles... Just because training is cheap, does not mean it is an effective use of time.

Unless one is posted to a unit that regularly does drill, anything taught on BMQ will need to be re-taught when it is required for a parade/ceremony anyway. None of it is that hard, so why waste time on BMQ with it, when we can push people through faster, and get them trained to actually do the real jobs we need done to keep the CAF functioning?

Lastly, maybe it's time we stopped pretending the CAF was a single entity, and recognized that technical, support, and combat trades have different requirements, and maybe push for training that makes the best versions of each type of member. If the infantry is convinced that marching up and down the square makes better infantry soldiers, make it part of battle school. If the support trades think drill is detracting from learning how to fix pay issues, and manage warehouses, they should do less of it...

 

[dapaterson]

If you spend all your time marching up and down the parade square you won't have time to check your pay statement or bank account so you'll never notice the pay problems.

 

[Furniture]

If you spend all your time marching up and down the parade square you won't have time to check your pay statement or bank account so you'll never notice the pay problems.

Modern problems require ancient solutions...

 

[OldSolduer]

I've written a few thoughts down - I will post later this evening I hope.

AND NO I didn't use a hammer and chisel.....