- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I think it would be better served to offer incentives upon successful completion then to open up to some young gun who may think is the best thing since sliced bread.
PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019
- Thread starter sgtdixon
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 230
Earlier in the thread I seen talk of the 13km ruck march being canceled on some courses. Heck why is there no talk about the canceling of the 25 mile (40 km) ruck march.
On my TQ 3 inf. course in the winter of 78/79 in London with 1 RCR it was a one shot deal. Pass the march or fail the course (one try only). 60 of us started together in Cornwallis destine for 1 RCR. By the end of TQ 3 there was less than 30 of us left (with a few add at the start of TQ 3).
Failure rates in this range are not cost effective so standards suffer. After over 6 months of training and less than 50 % moved on to the Regiment.
Best Wishes
On my TQ 3 inf. course in the winter of 78/79 in London with 1 RCR it was a one shot deal. Pass the march or fail the course (one try only). 60 of us started together in Cornwallis destine for 1 RCR. By the end of TQ 3 there was less than 30 of us left (with a few add at the start of TQ 3).
Failure rates in this range are not cost effective so standards suffer. After over 6 months of training and less than 50 % moved on to the Regiment.
Best Wishes
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
X Royal I concur. In 1982(am I one of the dinosaurs?) our course started with just over 40 people at the PPCLI battleschool. After the required 4 months of belt fed c*ck and running and humping and no sleep and more belt fed c*ck our course graduated 22 people. The training was challenging and STRESSFUL and I found that at the end what the battalion got was troops that could immediately work within the battalion as a rifleman or C2 gunner. The point that I think some people are missing is that training should be hard, it should be stressful. If you are deploying overseas and your first exposure to stress is when you start taking incoming rounds, you will not know how to deal with the situation.
I don't blame todays troops for the decline in standards or the lack of meaningful training, I blame the upper eschelon for not making things challenging! Most troops if they are joining the infantry join to be challenged, to be pushed hard, and to find their own personal limitations! it hasn't happened yet, BUT, when someone gets killed because of a troops inability to cope with a situation, or a troop making a fatal mistake, maybe then we will take a look and start bringing back the type of training that troops really want!
PS Out of the 22 people that finished my battleschool course 14 of us ended up in the airborne regiment and if I remember correctly 4 or 5 passed their pathfinder course!
I don't blame todays troops for the decline in standards or the lack of meaningful training, I blame the upper eschelon for not making things challenging! Most troops if they are joining the infantry join to be challenged, to be pushed hard, and to find their own personal limitations! it hasn't happened yet, BUT, when someone gets killed because of a troops inability to cope with a situation, or a troop making a fatal mistake, maybe then we will take a look and start bringing back the type of training that troops really want!
PS Out of the 22 people that finished my battleschool course 14 of us ended up in the airborne regiment and if I remember correctly 4 or 5 passed their pathfinder course!
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,279
- Points
- 1,110
I was the Trg O at one of our Training Centres three years ago (1999 to 2002) and our pass rate for QL3 Infantry was around 70% when you accounted for recourses (some guys took two or three tries to pass). For one year it was as low as 60% and on some serials it was at 50%. I only throw this out there to give some perspective. I don't know what the SQ/BIQ is like, but the recent QL3 Infantry course was a demanding course that put the candidates through their paces. I'm not saying thall we can't make training more interesting and challenging. As an Armoured guy I'll bow out of this thread now.
Cheers,
2B
p.s. Making our training focus soley on cities is a sure-fire way to ensure that our next conflict will be in the mountains, the jungle or the desert.
Cheers,
2B
p.s. Making our training focus soley on cities is a sure-fire way to ensure that our next conflict will be in the mountains, the jungle or the desert.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
2Bravo said:
Bingo! The lessons of the last conflict are merely a remotely assoiciated launch-pad for the next. A wise man has spoken, and we would all do well to heed what he says.
Yes, some trends are more prevalent than others (eg. the likelihood of urban ops). But at the end of the day, in late 2001 who thought that within the next year Canadian Army infantry would be fighting at 10,000' (plus) elevation and relying upon Basic Mountain Ops skills? Warfare in the Contemporary Operating Environment (COE) has a particularly nasty way of rising up and biting you in the arse. Which only leads me to believe that the suitable soldier is one who has been trained on and/or exposed to the broadest possible range of operating environments. Yes, I am predisposed based on my personal experience. But, that experience continues to strike me as being relevant - particularly for an Army as small as ours. We need to train and prepare for the widest possible range of operating environments - something that we are not doing particularly well at this point.
But of course, that's just my personal view.
As always, just my $.02
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Very good points raised here, especially regarding "fighting the last war" and failure/pass rates.
I was employed at WATC a few years back teaching on an SQ crse (augmentee), and the feeling I (and others) got was that quantity of soldiers "produced" was more important than quality, and I'm sure that more than a few (crap) soldiers got through the system under that mentality than should have. I remember the "good old" days policy of course staff arbitrarily picking a number of people to fail (say, 8 out of a course of 24) and would go out of their way to make their prediction come true if less than their "quota" were going to fail on their own merits. Both modes of thinking are dead wrong.
Some people just aren't cut out to be a soldier (or sailor, or airman, etc), and it isn't every Canadians birthright to serve in the defence of their country. Only those good enough, dedicated enough, and highly trained enough should have that honour, but the social scientists, politicians, and other eggheads don't always get that, and the "politicians in uniform" are too afraid to tell their civilian masters that they are wrong.
I sense a "sea change" taking place within the CF with the current CDS (who happens to be Armour Corps.....) putting an emphasis on being a soldier first (sounds like he might be poking his nose into this forum from time to time and listening to what the disgruntled peeps here are saying.......). A lot of the problems of the past years have been the CF becoming a corporation, not a fighting force, with boys in blue and squids (and ineffectual land types) being in positions at the top based on the time-honoured, but weak, tradition of green, black, blue rotation at the top dogs spot. I'm hoping that real changes will be made, but I'm jaded and cynical enough to realize that any great (or piss-poor) idea/policy/doctrine only lasts roughly two years (ie somebodies time in position), and then somebody else tries to make their mark, only to have the cycle repeated. I hope that his successor(s) are like-minded an carry on what I see to be mostly positive changes.
As to fighting the last war, at the Armour School, there has been an emphasis on trg students in the full spectrum of battle (or whatever the catch phrase is this week...), and while I agree in principle (as it gets us away from fighting WWIII in the Fulda Gap, and the peacekeeper mode of thinking), too many people have been brainwashed by one example from any given conflict (i.e. it has to be done exactly like Op Apollo, or Op Athena, or Kosovo, or Medak Pocket, or Cyprus, or.......) rather than trying to use a little bit of everything to make it work (or to use the tired phrase: thinking outside of the box). The biggest fight (myself included) is to get away from our comfort zone, and to try different things, not the same old-same old that have been drilled into us "just because". If something works; great. But that doesn't mean there isn't a slightly different/better way to do it. On the other hand, change for the sake of change (or getting ones name into the Infantry/Armour/Artillery/Engineer Journal....) doesn't help matters either, causing great confusion and frustration when things are always changing, and you need to be glued to the DIN to keep up with the lastest change to any given doctrine, tactic, drill, TTP (SOP), etc.
Personally, I had to get "old school" on some of the troops in my Sqn during a rucksack march this morning. I blew a gasket when some of the disgruntled CFL's (even though most of the them don't have enough TI to even know what the "missing Somalia documents" reference means....) wouldn't move quick enough when given the "ruck up", doddled when told to close up, and whinged when told to STFU because they felt the pace was too fast, their ruck was too heavy, they had sand in their uterus, etc. And to top it all off, some of these Nancy-boys went running straight to our SSM after I made a comment about some of them probably being trained by an Air Force cook named Sally (our RMS clerk is air element, and they felt she was offended) and how, that after I tuned them in and felt better about it (got it off my chest), I wouldn't have to go home and beat my wife and kids (i.e. I wouldn't take out my work issues on my family...). Rather than sucking it up and "being a soldier", some of the more recent generations of soldiers feel that they can jump 10 chains of command and try to bring down anybody that so much as throws a sideways glance at them by crying "harrassment" and hoping that will scare NCO's (and officers) into backing off, or saying "you can't talk to me like that!! I know my rights!!". How about knowing one's responsibilities...... I am responsible to train soldiers to fight, and to be ready to fight anytime, anywhere. And I am responsible to my bosses (the Cdn taxpayer) to be ready myself for the same. Too bad that doesn't get taught in St Jean (gets in the way of the sensitivity trg).....
Anyway, sorry to crash the green (and maroon) beanie party with my black hat, but a perspective from the "mounted" side probably doesn't hurt from time to time......
Al
I was employed at WATC a few years back teaching on an SQ crse (augmentee), and the feeling I (and others) got was that quantity of soldiers "produced" was more important than quality, and I'm sure that more than a few (crap) soldiers got through the system under that mentality than should have. I remember the "good old" days policy of course staff arbitrarily picking a number of people to fail (say, 8 out of a course of 24) and would go out of their way to make their prediction come true if less than their "quota" were going to fail on their own merits. Both modes of thinking are dead wrong.
Some people just aren't cut out to be a soldier (or sailor, or airman, etc), and it isn't every Canadians birthright to serve in the defence of their country. Only those good enough, dedicated enough, and highly trained enough should have that honour, but the social scientists, politicians, and other eggheads don't always get that, and the "politicians in uniform" are too afraid to tell their civilian masters that they are wrong.
I sense a "sea change" taking place within the CF with the current CDS (who happens to be Armour Corps.....) putting an emphasis on being a soldier first (sounds like he might be poking his nose into this forum from time to time and listening to what the disgruntled peeps here are saying.......). A lot of the problems of the past years have been the CF becoming a corporation, not a fighting force, with boys in blue and squids (and ineffectual land types) being in positions at the top based on the time-honoured, but weak, tradition of green, black, blue rotation at the top dogs spot. I'm hoping that real changes will be made, but I'm jaded and cynical enough to realize that any great (or piss-poor) idea/policy/doctrine only lasts roughly two years (ie somebodies time in position), and then somebody else tries to make their mark, only to have the cycle repeated. I hope that his successor(s) are like-minded an carry on what I see to be mostly positive changes.
As to fighting the last war, at the Armour School, there has been an emphasis on trg students in the full spectrum of battle (or whatever the catch phrase is this week...), and while I agree in principle (as it gets us away from fighting WWIII in the Fulda Gap, and the peacekeeper mode of thinking), too many people have been brainwashed by one example from any given conflict (i.e. it has to be done exactly like Op Apollo, or Op Athena, or Kosovo, or Medak Pocket, or Cyprus, or.......) rather than trying to use a little bit of everything to make it work (or to use the tired phrase: thinking outside of the box). The biggest fight (myself included) is to get away from our comfort zone, and to try different things, not the same old-same old that have been drilled into us "just because". If something works; great. But that doesn't mean there isn't a slightly different/better way to do it. On the other hand, change for the sake of change (or getting ones name into the Infantry/Armour/Artillery/Engineer Journal....) doesn't help matters either, causing great confusion and frustration when things are always changing, and you need to be glued to the DIN to keep up with the lastest change to any given doctrine, tactic, drill, TTP (SOP), etc.
Personally, I had to get "old school" on some of the troops in my Sqn during a rucksack march this morning. I blew a gasket when some of the disgruntled CFL's (even though most of the them don't have enough TI to even know what the "missing Somalia documents" reference means....) wouldn't move quick enough when given the "ruck up", doddled when told to close up, and whinged when told to STFU because they felt the pace was too fast, their ruck was too heavy, they had sand in their uterus, etc. And to top it all off, some of these Nancy-boys went running straight to our SSM after I made a comment about some of them probably being trained by an Air Force cook named Sally (our RMS clerk is air element, and they felt she was offended) and how, that after I tuned them in and felt better about it (got it off my chest), I wouldn't have to go home and beat my wife and kids (i.e. I wouldn't take out my work issues on my family...). Rather than sucking it up and "being a soldier", some of the more recent generations of soldiers feel that they can jump 10 chains of command and try to bring down anybody that so much as throws a sideways glance at them by crying "harrassment" and hoping that will scare NCO's (and officers) into backing off, or saying "you can't talk to me like that!! I know my rights!!". How about knowing one's responsibilities...... I am responsible to train soldiers to fight, and to be ready to fight anytime, anywhere. And I am responsible to my bosses (the Cdn taxpayer) to be ready myself for the same. Too bad that doesn't get taught in St Jean (gets in the way of the sensitivity trg).....
Anyway, sorry to crash the green (and maroon) beanie party with my black hat, but a perspective from the "mounted" side probably doesn't hurt from time to time......
Al
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,346
- Points
- 1,010
Its amazing. I am seeing how a 5 KM march is a big deal. Good sweet monkey, in 2 VP we would knock off 5 KM in a morning of PT in like 50 minutes and most troops were barely sweating unless it was egg frying hot outside.
We need about 60% of the old school brought back (The good and productive stuff).
We need about 60% of the old school brought back (The good and productive stuff).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
This is, I'm afraid, very true. In my opinion, we have generated a great number of people (at all ranks, not just CFLs...) who believe that throwing in a grievance, or a harrassment complaint is a good way to "get back" at the system or the superiors they don't like, to avoid the consequences of their own actions (I have been directly involved in one of these...sickening) or to otherwise advance their own personal agendas (I've dealt with a couple of these recently, too). The hours, days and weeks of time that are sucked up by these investigations, tying up leaders with spurious or ill-motivated complaints , is just criminal. We have reinforced the " blame/entitlement" mentality in a bunch of our people, instead of reinforcing behaviour that accepts responsibility, focuses on mission and duty, and encourages mental toughness. I agree that we certainly went through a period of abuse during which people may have been afraid to speak out, but in the time-honoured fashion of the military we have swung too far out the other way and gone overboard. Good leaders need to be confident to lead without the fear of a knife in the back from some disgruntled whiner who probably should have got out years ago. We all need the focus and mental resiliency to deal with the real ops situations the world will throw at us, as well as the stresses and strains that are part of training a fit, capable Army not a welfare service.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Infanteer said:
First, referesh and re-instill in leaders that in our Army and under the law of Canada they have the power to give orders, to demand a standard, and to enforce that standard. Subordinates are required to follow these orders (as long as they are legal and comprehensible) or be prepared to face the consequences. Leaders must not be afraid to lead, nor feel that they cannot deal with troublesome, unproductive and destructive individuals because the system is loaded against them. If these things are not happening there is no useful military anyway;
Second, work as hard as we can on instilling leadership by example, amongst officers and WOs/NCOs. That includes making right, honest and justifiable decisions, then being prepared to stick by them. I always tell anybody who will listen that if a leader makes logical and right decisions, based on what he knows to be correct and fair, and can look himself in the mirror about his decision, he probably has little to fear from any grievance and even less from any harrassment complaint. It is when leaders make stupid, corrupt or indefensible decisions that they lay themselves open to attack and are likely to find their decisions overruled;
Third-train everybody for war. Everybody.; and
Take every opportunty that we can to emphasize and reward soldierly virtues: courage, teamwork, dedication, sacrifice, mission before self, etc. In fact I think we are getting much, much better at this than when I joined in 1974: then it required an act of God to get anybody recognized for anything.
How's that for a start?
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Again, some very good points coming out in a productive manner. Someone will come in and rain on the parade....
I didn't want to pick on the CFL's (neccesarily), but what has really gotten my goat lately is the fact that we have a lot of young impressionable soldiers in our unit as of late, and the mutterings from the rabble have been too much for me to handle, so I felt the need to straighten some of the "corporal-colonels" out (you know the type: they complain about everything; think they could do any given job 10 times better than their superiors; show zero loyalty to anyone, up or down the chain; and when put in charge of something, ultimately act exactly like the people they say they despise: they micro-manage, exhibit no initiative, have no "balls" and then delegate and disappear.)
I think the part that sickens me more than anything else is that a lot of the good guys (at every rank level) are the ones getting out, as they are tired of the crap (over worked, not recognized for achievements, BS political-huggykissy-jamtart mentality within many levels of CF, etc) and move onto something bette. And then the CF finds it neccesary to reward mediocrity by creating a near union-like culture, with jobs for life for all, with little threat of any but the biggest shit-pump to be booted or reduced in rank, and too many dregs of society stay in because there are very few jobs paying close to $50000 (or more....) per year for the level of education the average soldier/sailor/airman has. I have watched more than a few good soldiers OT (or release) because they realize that their leaders are incompetent and/or unethical and/or unprofessional, and wouldn't work 2 minutes past 1600hrs to further the soldier's career, because, hey!!! Happy Hour is waiting, and so can that PER/memo/leave pass that needs to get actioned today........
It's sad for me to admit that one of the biggest problems with the CF (my corner of it, anyway) is that the NCO corps has dropped the ball, and allowed things to slide too close to the brink. The malaise is incredible.... Too many people look the other way, rather than sorting things out (and use the excuse of harrasment, or apathy, to cover their laziness....). People's work ethic doesn't seem to be what it once was either, and whether that is society becoming lazier, or people not caring anymore, I'm not sure.....
Touching on what 2332Piper mentioned, there certainly seems to be the attitude of: the Army has to change to suit my particular whim/desire/cultural belief/etc. I like to say: You joined the Army, not the other way around. If you can't conform to the "machine", you have no part to play in it. I have seen (and heard of) far too many cases of people not having a clue of what being a soldier is about (smoking during PT, wearing piercings in uniform, insubordination) not to lay some of the blame on the training system: somebody isn't doing their job, and more than likely they are filling these young guys (and girls) heads full of the crap that we're seeing: "do what you want, when you want. Then if anybody says anything, cry harrassment!!!" I have seen some of the people in the trg system (I am part of it......) and "they" aren't always putting the right man in the right job (probably the biggest understatement I have ever made). It seems that too often they purge the units of their deadwood, and where does said deadwood end up: in a school or trg center. They should offer some incentive to make it so that only the brightest and best are employed in those jobs, for only a short stint (3 or 4 years at most) so that it's not "garbage in-garbage out".
One issue that really does need to be addressed (IMO) is the basic leadership principle of Lead by Example. I one can't follow that basic tenent, one shouldn't be in a leadership position. Unfortunately, it seems that as soon as some people reach a position like that, they use it as an excuse to flout the rules, as though they are too good to do what they expect their subordinates to do. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury...... And like many vicious circles, the disgruntled grasp onto the first poor example they see from a superior, and use that as an excuse to do the same. They rarely look to the good example (the fit, keen, punctual MCpl or Sgt or Capt). They look at the bone idle, fat, tardy MCpl, Sgt, Capt, etc and use them as justification to be the same. And on some levels, I can't really blame them, as that is held up as the standard that they are expected to achieve (see my comment above ref jobs for life......). The 60%, minimal standard has become the accepted norm......
Anyway, I'm all worked up now thinking about all the shit-pumps out there, so I have to sign off, or I'll not get anything accomplished......
Al
I didn't want to pick on the CFL's (neccesarily), but what has really gotten my goat lately is the fact that we have a lot of young impressionable soldiers in our unit as of late, and the mutterings from the rabble have been too much for me to handle, so I felt the need to straighten some of the "corporal-colonels" out (you know the type: they complain about everything; think they could do any given job 10 times better than their superiors; show zero loyalty to anyone, up or down the chain; and when put in charge of something, ultimately act exactly like the people they say they despise: they micro-manage, exhibit no initiative, have no "balls" and then delegate and disappear.)
I think the part that sickens me more than anything else is that a lot of the good guys (at every rank level) are the ones getting out, as they are tired of the crap (over worked, not recognized for achievements, BS political-huggykissy-jamtart mentality within many levels of CF, etc) and move onto something bette. And then the CF finds it neccesary to reward mediocrity by creating a near union-like culture, with jobs for life for all, with little threat of any but the biggest shit-pump to be booted or reduced in rank, and too many dregs of society stay in because there are very few jobs paying close to $50000 (or more....) per year for the level of education the average soldier/sailor/airman has. I have watched more than a few good soldiers OT (or release) because they realize that their leaders are incompetent and/or unethical and/or unprofessional, and wouldn't work 2 minutes past 1600hrs to further the soldier's career, because, hey!!! Happy Hour is waiting, and so can that PER/memo/leave pass that needs to get actioned today........
It's sad for me to admit that one of the biggest problems with the CF (my corner of it, anyway) is that the NCO corps has dropped the ball, and allowed things to slide too close to the brink. The malaise is incredible.... Too many people look the other way, rather than sorting things out (and use the excuse of harrasment, or apathy, to cover their laziness....). People's work ethic doesn't seem to be what it once was either, and whether that is society becoming lazier, or people not caring anymore, I'm not sure.....
Touching on what 2332Piper mentioned, there certainly seems to be the attitude of: the Army has to change to suit my particular whim/desire/cultural belief/etc. I like to say: You joined the Army, not the other way around. If you can't conform to the "machine", you have no part to play in it. I have seen (and heard of) far too many cases of people not having a clue of what being a soldier is about (smoking during PT, wearing piercings in uniform, insubordination) not to lay some of the blame on the training system: somebody isn't doing their job, and more than likely they are filling these young guys (and girls) heads full of the crap that we're seeing: "do what you want, when you want. Then if anybody says anything, cry harrassment!!!" I have seen some of the people in the trg system (I am part of it......) and "they" aren't always putting the right man in the right job (probably the biggest understatement I have ever made). It seems that too often they purge the units of their deadwood, and where does said deadwood end up: in a school or trg center. They should offer some incentive to make it so that only the brightest and best are employed in those jobs, for only a short stint (3 or 4 years at most) so that it's not "garbage in-garbage out".
One issue that really does need to be addressed (IMO) is the basic leadership principle of Lead by Example. I one can't follow that basic tenent, one shouldn't be in a leadership position. Unfortunately, it seems that as soon as some people reach a position like that, they use it as an excuse to flout the rules, as though they are too good to do what they expect their subordinates to do. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury...... And like many vicious circles, the disgruntled grasp onto the first poor example they see from a superior, and use that as an excuse to do the same. They rarely look to the good example (the fit, keen, punctual MCpl or Sgt or Capt). They look at the bone idle, fat, tardy MCpl, Sgt, Capt, etc and use them as justification to be the same. And on some levels, I can't really blame them, as that is held up as the standard that they are expected to achieve (see my comment above ref jobs for life......). The 60%, minimal standard has become the accepted norm......
Anyway, I'm all worked up now thinking about all the shit-pumps out there, so I have to sign off, or I'll not get anything accomplished......
Al
C
CH1
Guest
Hey guys & Gals
Lots of good ideas, but how do you get them up the mast? I have stuck my dotted line on the block so many times it feels like the 401 @ rush hour. Might partly explain why I probably hold the longest time in a single Commisioned off rank. Even though I am on the skids now, I would still like to the system repaired every way possible back to a reasonable semblence.
A few of the other OT's probably remember this stat; 140 Generals & 135 tanks. The system has been skewed by a lot of dead weight bodies & regulations. If some how these ideas can be run up the flag pole, & the politicos made to understand the why & importance of the issues, & spurred to action, then you will have a fighting chance.
At this point I feel like I stand a better chance of blowing a fortified bunker with a firecracker, than trying to get the system to change.
It is interesting watching some of the Senate hearings into defense policy. Most bodies appearing before the Senate commitee say the system is rusted, decayed & broken. What they do not say is how to fix it. Tommy Banks has asked why it takes 10 years of study before a minor change occurs.
Funny it seems; lots of stuttering & red faces.
Due to inflation I'm down to about 1 1/2 cents
Cheers
Lots of good ideas, but how do you get them up the mast? I have stuck my dotted line on the block so many times it feels like the 401 @ rush hour. Might partly explain why I probably hold the longest time in a single Commisioned off rank. Even though I am on the skids now, I would still like to the system repaired every way possible back to a reasonable semblence.
A few of the other OT's probably remember this stat; 140 Generals & 135 tanks. The system has been skewed by a lot of dead weight bodies & regulations. If some how these ideas can be run up the flag pole, & the politicos made to understand the why & importance of the issues, & spurred to action, then you will have a fighting chance.
At this point I feel like I stand a better chance of blowing a fortified bunker with a firecracker, than trying to get the system to change.
It is interesting watching some of the Senate hearings into defense policy. Most bodies appearing before the Senate commitee say the system is rusted, decayed & broken. What they do not say is how to fix it. Tommy Banks has asked why it takes 10 years of study before a minor change occurs.
Funny it seems; lots of stuttering & red faces.
Due to inflation I'm down to about 1 1/2 cents
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
For what its worth - this problem is not unique to the Military. In effect, you just described, to a "T", my Company. As much as I hate the mantra "It's society" - I believe the symptoms you describe are societal....
C
CH1
Guest
A point I would like to address is the comments about Sr NCO's dropping the ball & looking the other way. This also extends to the Officers Cadre as well.
Having "been there done that", part of it is the carreer killing effect. If you are close to your pension, do you want to jepordise it? Or do you want to stagnate in a rank for the duration, while every one that comes close, thinks you are a leper? There is probably more reasons than bullets to this question.
As a Sr NCO, I was forgiven for my indiscretions. My career died 2 years after Commision, for taking the high moral ground. If you enjoy the backwaters, & some really crappy assignments, buck the system, try to get some meaningful changes made.
Moral of the story: watch were you walk, the pile you just stepped in is gonna stink.
Cheers
Having "been there done that", part of it is the carreer killing effect. If you are close to your pension, do you want to jepordise it? Or do you want to stagnate in a rank for the duration, while every one that comes close, thinks you are a leper? There is probably more reasons than bullets to this question.
As a Sr NCO, I was forgiven for my indiscretions. My career died 2 years after Commision, for taking the high moral ground. If you enjoy the backwaters, & some really crappy assignments, buck the system, try to get some meaningful changes made.
Moral of the story: watch were you walk, the pile you just stepped in is gonna stink.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 10,346
- Points
- 1,260
muskrat89 said:
Well, some organizational theories I've read into call this the "bureaucratic model" of social organization - big flaws include little accountability (it is X's job!), unresponsiveness (I'll have to pass this up, I can't sign off on it), and the left hand and the right hand pulling in opposite directions. The DND (and, by extention, NDHQ) seem to be perfect examples of a "bureaucratic system". Wartime helps to cut away alot of it, but the root of the system is still there - read about the fiasco that was Communications Zone (COMZ) for the Americans for the 1944/1945 march on Germany (hint, its a obscure topic, so look at 369 here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-7.html)
This is why I am so intrigued by military authors who look to "post-bureaucratic models" - a paradigm shift in this manner would have spin offs that would affect the military in profound ways in so many different areas. We've started some progress, which may provide a fruitful stepping stone to further transformation (mission command and "networks" - the antithesis of the bureaucratic pyramid).
Cheers,
Infanteer
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Having "been there done that", part of it is the carreer killing effect. If you are close to your pension, do you want to jepordise it? Or do you want to stagnate in a rank for the duration, while every one that comes close, thinks you are a leper? There is probably more reasons than bullets to this question.
Far from wanting to criticize an old soldier, this is the crux of the problem: the system wants people to be in fear of their career and in particular their pension. The Communists use(d) fear to great effect: having people think that everyone is spying on them, always watching your back. It reminds me of when I went through Basic and TQ3 ('88): they drummed into us to watch out for the dreaded SIU. "Anyone on this course could be SIU: trust no one!!!!" So, like typical mindless drones, we watched our back, and once, while in a cab here in glorious Gagetown, the cabbie was asking us typical questions like "what trade are you? What unit, etc...." Odds are, he was a military guy moonlighting to pay child support, or whatever. My buddy did the "shhhhh!!!!!!" And "spelled out" SIU with his fingers. Kinda comical now, but he really believed this guy was SIU, just because.....
I suppose, once upon a time, I had high hopes for my career, but those dreams, like my youthful idealism, are long gone. IF I retire as a WO, I will be happy, but in many ways I'd rather top out at Sgt, so I don't have to feel like I have to become a "company man" once I hit the dizzying heights of WO. In fact, 20 years (instead of the 25-ish that I have been toying with as of late) is beginning to look better and better every day now (I'm pushing 18yrs). And to think, I thought I'd be a "lifer" when I joined....... Therein lies the irony: the system, which should be encouraging those that want to stay in and soldier on, usually frustrates these people by aiding and abetting the idle, and encouraging career climbers, who will never think about looking after the welfare of their soldiers - only their own goals. I've had a few too many of both (idle and careerists) in the not so distant past to make me realize that things may get better, but not soon enough for the damage to already be inflicted on my generation. Hopefully when I talk to soldiers in 10-15 years from now, the Sitrep will be better, but I have never been know to be an optismist (wish into one hand, and shit into the other.... see which one fills up faster...).....
Al
Far from wanting to criticize an old soldier, this is the crux of the problem: the system wants people to be in fear of their career and in particular their pension. The Communists use(d) fear to great effect: having people think that everyone is spying on them, always watching your back. It reminds me of when I went through Basic and TQ3 ('88): they drummed into us to watch out for the dreaded SIU. "Anyone on this course could be SIU: trust no one!!!!" So, like typical mindless drones, we watched our back, and once, while in a cab here in glorious Gagetown, the cabbie was asking us typical questions like "what trade are you? What unit, etc...." Odds are, he was a military guy moonlighting to pay child support, or whatever. My buddy did the "shhhhh!!!!!!" And "spelled out" SIU with his fingers. Kinda comical now, but he really believed this guy was SIU, just because.....
I suppose, once upon a time, I had high hopes for my career, but those dreams, like my youthful idealism, are long gone. IF I retire as a WO, I will be happy, but in many ways I'd rather top out at Sgt, so I don't have to feel like I have to become a "company man" once I hit the dizzying heights of WO. In fact, 20 years (instead of the 25-ish that I have been toying with as of late) is beginning to look better and better every day now (I'm pushing 18yrs). And to think, I thought I'd be a "lifer" when I joined....... Therein lies the irony: the system, which should be encouraging those that want to stay in and soldier on, usually frustrates these people by aiding and abetting the idle, and encouraging career climbers, who will never think about looking after the welfare of their soldiers - only their own goals. I've had a few too many of both (idle and careerists) in the not so distant past to make me realize that things may get better, but not soon enough for the damage to already be inflicted on my generation. Hopefully when I talk to soldiers in 10-15 years from now, the Sitrep will be better, but I have never been know to be an optismist (wish into one hand, and shit into the other.... see which one fills up faster...).....
Al
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
We would always make sure they were in front.....so we could see the enemy's fire. ;D
Are there still private discussions out back for the ones that missed the "Pecking Order 101" class ? :-X
Are there still private discussions out back for the ones that missed the "Pecking Order 101" class ? :-X
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Allan Luomala said:
What would it take to change the welfare of their soldiers under a prime goal to climb up? Being an officer (and wanting to go up) and soldiering on by making sure the soldiers' welfare under him is ok shouldn't oppose after all.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
In a black and white world, I would agree with you. However, we live in a grey world. When some people are confronted with the option of a) take a stand on behalf of a soldier at the expense of their career or b) only do as much as neccesary without "rocking the boat" to minimise damage to themselves, the answer is invariably "b". If you can prove me wrong, do so, but I have seen option "b" played out far more than option "a" over my career. It's not right, it just is.......
Al
- Status
Similar threads
