I have noted that this thread includes Robson‘s editorial, but not the piece written by Capstick that he attempts to counter. Here is the text of Capstick‘s article:
PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2002.07.11
BYLINE: Mike Capstick
SOURCE: Citizen Special
HEADLINE: The army must evolve to stay relevant
The ongoing study of the Canadian Army‘s regimental system has generated critical commentary in newspapers across the country. Some basic facts and context are needed to understand why the army has initiated this project.
The study is part of a larger effort to ensure that the army‘s organizational culture -- the way that we do things on a day-to-day basis -- improves our operational capability and performance. This larger effort comprises a wide range of studies, and will consider all aspects of our current personnel and administrative policies.
Armies are about soldiers. The Canadian soldier lives and fights in the regimental system and it is the duty of the army leadership to make sure that it is strong enough to withstand the demands of combat in this new century. The aim is clear. As military professionals, we owe it to Canadians to provide them with an army that is ready to meet those challenges.
Recent reports and commentary in several Canadian papers, including Nigel Hannaford‘s column on this page, presume that there is a hidden agenda -- the abolition of the regimental system itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. The commander of the army, Lt.- Gen. Mike Jeffery, has called the regimental system "a fundamental foundation of the army." Clearly, the army‘s leaders understand the value of the regimental system.
The regimental system is the central organizing concept of the army, but it is not a monolith. It operates differently in each of our regular infantry regiments and in our numerous reserve regiments. In simple terms, it is an administrative structure that serves as the custodian of unit battle honours and history. In Canada, regiments usually consist of three or more major combat units or battalions; soldiers generally serve in the same regiment for most of their career. Even when employed in a staff position or, for example, at an army school, soldiers retain their regimental affiliation and membership. At its most basic level, the regiment is the focus of a soldier‘s identity and membership is for life.
Although the current system has a historical record of success, it would be professionally irresponsible to live in the past. On the very few occasions that the army has failed to live up to its reputation, aspects of the regimental system were at least partially to blame.
The regiment is often compared to the family. Not only is this an accurate analogy when applied to the strengths of both institutions, it‘s also accurate in terms of weaknesses and failures. Like families, regiments sometimes exhibit dysfunctional tendencies. This study will attempt to identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the system, eliminate the weaknesses and build on the strengths.
The regimental system is, in essence, a living, breathing thing that has evolved over time. It grew from the British tradition and it‘s roots and rituals can be traced to the Victorian era. The system matured in a time when the country was far more culturally homogeneous than it is today and when the stratified class system of the era was replicated in the regimental messes. In short, it came of age in a society that no longer exists.
As uncomfortable as this simple truth may be to some, there are aspects of the regimental system that will have to be adapted to ensure its continued utility as the basic building block of the 21st century army.
At the heart of the regimental system is the moral contract between the soldier, his or her leaders and the nation itself. Fundamental to this contract are the concepts of "unlimited liability" and the obligation to use lethal force in the defence of the nation. These are heavy burdens for any young man or woman and, implicit in this moral contract, is the understanding that "if anything happens, the regiment will look after you." Combat in Afghanistan and dangerous operations in Africa and the Balkans have reminded us of the vital importance of this covenant.
A major focus of this study will be an examination of what the regimental system says it does, compared to what it really does in terms of this understanding. There have been times in the past decade when both the central personnel systems and the regiments have failed to live up to their side of the bargain. One of our main objectives is to ensure these failures are not repeated.
The regimental system has served Canada and its army well. Self-examination is always uncomfortable. It also takes courage and determination. This study will explore our basic assumptions, question our underlying beliefs and, perhaps, result in important changes. At the same time, the nature of warfare and the military profession have seen seismic shifts in the past decade. It was a lot easier when we knew who the enemy was, where they were and how they would fight. Because the regimental system is so fundamental to the way that the Canadian Army operates, and is the foundation of our very identity as soldiers, failure to scrutinize it would be an abrogation of our professional responsibilities to the army and to Canada.
Colonel Mike Capstick is the army staff‘s project director of land personnel strategy. He commanded the 3rd and 1st Regiments, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in Shilo, Man. and in Cyprus, and the Canadian NATO Contingent in Bosnia in 1997.
