Short-service Army

[canuck101]

I just read a interesting article in the Ottawa Citizen talking about short service terms.  The article is written by a journalist who talked to John English a retired Lt. Col who spent 37 years in the military.  To summarize the article he says that we should move all the generals into the field so the can connect with the troops and command from the front.

  Troops and officers would not serve 20 or 30 years and would be  replaced with a short-service force where the longest period most soldiers would be in uniform would be around five years.  He says that the majority of the cost of the 13 billion dollar budget goes to salaries and benefits.  There would still be a small hand picked officer corp and the best non-commissioned officers would handle training.

The article came from the Tug Of War Series.

 

[NavyGrunt]

could you explain the proposal a little better- Im not catching what your laying down.Sorry if Im just slow.... :-\

 

[ark]

could you explain the proposal a little better- Im not catching what your laying down.Sorry if Im just slow.... :-\

I think he is referring to this article

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/soundoff/story.html?id=134bf61c-f187-4104-96b0-22f26c674265

 

[NavyGrunt]

Okay I've read the article and I'm not denying his credentials but that idea is ridiculous. We would never be able to fight again. We'd be a country with outa  standing military? You can learn everything about combat in 5 years? Is there a place in the world where this is being done? This is a man of extremes- comparing Canadian soldiers to Nazi germans because of the actions of a few? I wouldnt give this much thought- however Im surre someone will jump in and tell me how stupid I am..... :

 

[Jungle]

There would still be a small hand picked officer corp and the best non-commissioned officers would handle training.

How does someone become one the "best non-commissioned officers" in 5 years ??? It takes +/-10 years to make Sgt (in the RegF) then you can start looking at who is good and who stops progressing.
That system is the best way to de-professionnalize the Army.

 

[devil39]

How does someone become one the "best non-commissioned officers" in 5 years ??? It takes +/-10 years to make Sgt (in the RegF) then you can start looking at who is good and who stops progressing.
That system is the best way to de-professionnalize the Army.

I tend to agree.   This would seem to make our current level of professionalism much harder to achieve.   I am usually a big fan of what LCol English has to say.

Off the top of my head, the only way I could see this working would be to run some sort of "up or out" system, where the member gets a new and longer contract with each promotion.   Promotion to Cpl for the top 30% gets another BE.   Promotion to MCpl within the next 3 years gets an IE, etc.   (I haven't done the math so don't pick me apart for my numbers!)   I don't really like this set up, but in might work.

You would want to give Pte soldiers released at the end of the initial tour an opportunity to sign up for another contract as a Pte, space permitting.

With Officers, Capt would be promoted more on ability than time and would result in another contract.   Real potential for Major could get you an IE.

A shortage of money can certainly lead one into considering some desperate measures.

Why mess with what works I ask?

 

[pbi]

What rubbish, Jack English...what unmitigated rubbish! This interview, if it quotes him correctly, proves beyond any shadow of doubt that just because you have a bunch of time in (YEARS AGO.....) and have written some books, is no guarantee whatsoever of wisdom, common sense, or the ability to exert enough self-control to restrain oneself from making silly, ill-considered commentary in order to attract attention.

Almost every paragraph is an overflowing crock of ****.   I could do a line-by-line, but anybody who has spent any time at all in the military will do the same thing themselves as they read it. You could blindfold somebody and have them point to any spot in the article and they would have about an 80% chance of hitting utter nonsense every time. IMHO,almost nothing in his list of ideas for "reform" would work.

I have no idea what he imagines he is basing his analysis on: as Jungle, Aaron, canuck and others have so astutely pointed out, this inane concept, if applied, would destroy us a professional army, and scupper one of the very few things we have going for us: the high quality and experience of our people, especially our WOs/NCOs.

Note how the article refers to the unhappy generals: Ooooh-those big bad generals with the big hats with all the brass and the big sunglasses, who call everybody "Son". "Everybody" knows they don't know anything, right? If the generals are against it, well.... it can only be because its really a good idea, right? Notice they don't reflect the comments of any WOs/NCOs in here, or anybody at the "working level",since these people would blow this idea out of the water.

If Jack English is serious, he has lost my respect and I seriously question his judgement. Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

Weird.   I consider English's writing to be some of the best out there.   I find it ironic, considering the fact that most of his writing concerns increasing the level of professionalization of the Army, that he advocates eliminating any notion of professionalism what so ever.

Maybe I can give him credit for thinking outside of the box, but I think he's forgotten what the hell the box looked like in the first place.   Maybe he's going senile in his old age, with the potential of turning a fine career and a solid literary background into a "frothing from the mouth, get the generals" David Hackworth type.

He has questioned generals and admirals who jump to lucrative defence industry jobs soon after they retire. He dubbed the 1996 mission to Zaire as an "amateurish Canadian attempt to lead a multinational UN relief expedition."

So, this is a reason to eliminate a the professional nature of our Forces?

The largest cost to the military, making up half of the $13-billion defence budget, are the salaries and benefits paid to those in uniform. Despite complaints about salaries, soldiers make a decent wage, with corporals earning around $48,000 a year. Add a pension and the bill is substantial. Money that should be going to defend the country is set aside for payroll, notes Lt.-Col. English.

Umm, last I checked, wars were fought by people.   Battle is most heavily influenced by the human dynamic (see my sig line quote).   What does he advocate doing, replacing us with cheap robots?

Of course pay is going to be the highest portion of the budget; it is humans that fight wars.

"We're spending $13 billion every year and it's the same old thing. India has a $13-billion budget and gets about the fifth biggest navy in the world and one of the largest armies. Of course it comes down to this business of personnel-related costs."

The same Army that got rolled over by the Chinese?   Comparing the military forces (and defence budgets) of Canada and India is a pretty weak analogy.

His solution is a short-service army. Up to 50,000 men and women would volunteer for an 18-month stint -- six months for training, one year serving overseas. The hitch could be for two or three years but no longer than that. After the short service soldier could serve part-time in the militia. A hand-picked officer corps would run the force and the best non-commissioned officers would handle training.

And any notion of corporate knowledge and the profession of arms would go where?

The military would have to accept that the citizen soldier is not perfect. He or she would be a reflection of Canadian society. For defending the country and serving on overseas operations, six months training would be fine, says Lt.-Col. English.

Funny, considering he spent the first half of his book The Canadian Army in Normandy arguing against this very idea; amateurism.



Maybe his next book should be titled Lament for Col English: Canadian Military Thought Goes AWOL.

 

[pbi]

Infanteer: well said. You've taken the time to do the line-by-line that I was too lazy (or PO'd) to do. You have exposed some of the more ridiculous aspects of what he has said. I still have to wonder if he was actually serious with this drivel, or was just trying to get a rise out of The Establishment (ie: NDHQ).

"50,000 volunteers.....?" Ummm, right.  We work hard to get people now, with what we pay them. And why the hell should a Cpl make any less than a firefighter or police constable? It has taken years to get CF pay scales to the level they are at now, and Jacky boy would have us roll back the clock. Perhaps we should pay him the same royalties he would have gotten 30 years ago, and see how he likes that... (Oooops--sorry--that was petty.. > )

Cheers.

 

[RCD]

Read between the lines guys.His logic does make sense in the long run
When we had the (Forces Reduction Plan) offer to us.
iIt was intended to weed out the 20 plus year's people.
what we got was a shock of reality.instead the ones who took it the plan where the middle ones(5to20
) ,the backbone of the forces an offer to the combat trades only once, to many took it.
If youthink of Student Summer Employment Plan where the top 3rd was only kept.
Yes this can be done.

 

[Infanteer]

Sure it can be done, it's done all over the world.  It's called a conscript army.

It's almost universally recognized that professional capability and time/experience are one and the same.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

As most others have pointed out, this is an inane idea, unworkable in either the short term or the long term.  Unless, of course, we go back to the '30's, where the reg force's only reason for existance was to train the reserves.  Even then, the idea has flaws.

One has to wonder where this idiotic idea came from?  It's almost like advocating a conscript army like Norway's, but without the conscription.  Wierd.

 

[Roy1]

The responses to this article are a tad discouraging. It seems that thinking outside of the box is in short supply in Canada.

The Canadian military is on a one way trip to oblivion. And its going to require a hell of a lot more than money to save it.

OK, a lot of you don't like some of the specifics of Jack English's proposals. But the essence of what he says is correct. The CF is WAY too top heavy and the army is increasingly only a second echelon force. It cannot deploy anywhere on its own and it is incapable of sustaining anything more than a battlegroup overseas. The CF is composed of 22% officers. The equivalent in the US Marine Corps is less than 12%!

As for the idea of short enlistments: The Israeli army operates on the basis of three (compulsory) enlistments. NCOs are picked from the ranks after a year or two (as are officers for that matter). The French Foreign Legion operates on the basis of five year enlistments with NCOs picked from the ranks after only a few years. Obviously experienced NCOs receive incentives to reenlist.

Surely there is SOMETHING that Canada can learn from others.

 

[Brad Sallows]

One bad idea doesn't necessarily invalidate his earlier work.  English wouldn't be the first historian to have a solid body of work behind him and then take an odd turn.

 

[T.I.M.]

For a quick fact check, Canada spends $13 billion Canadian on the military, India spends $13 billion American - actually over $14 billion these days - which is nearly $18 billion Canadian.

Still, that isn't to say Canada spends all its money wisely, but I find the Indian comparison a little strange given the vast differences between the two nations in everything from society to strategic situation.  Usually people compare Canada to Australia for these kind of things, since we're almost sister countries similar concerns and history.

 

[Armymedic]

Sure it can be done, it's done all over the world. It's called a conscript army.

It's almost universally recognized that professional capability and time/experience are one and the same.

When I read this article, I imagine a much more defined example of this kind of army he speaks of....


The Red Army, of the former USSR.

need I say more?

 

[Booya McNasty]

I do like the idea of an 18 month contract.

Have it for the kids who want to make a few bucks out of highschool, see the world, etc.  We already have a contract that is similar right now - it's for the reserves when they go on tour.  I think the 18 month contract would work for some missions, Bosnia or Cypress for example, but it would be disasterous for others Rwanda or Afghanistan.

I also like what he says about cutting the crap from NDHQ.

For the record, I disagree with just about everything else he says.  Interesting article though.

 

[Infanteer]

The responses to this article are a tad discouraging. It seems that thinking outside of the box is in short supply in Canada.

Like I said, there is "thinking outside of the box" (ie: interesting approaches to further professionalizing our Army) and there is "forgetting what the box looks like" (ie: destroying the professional Army in an attempt to lower personal costs).

If you're trying to label the Army.ca members here as unoriginal and dogmatic, I think you've neglected to read a majority of the good posts here in the last year or so.

The Canadian military is on a one way trip to oblivion. And its going to require a hell of a lot more than money to save it.

They've been saying the same thing forever - "A Canadian submarine catches fire, this military if finished".  However, we seem to keep on doing our job with what we have.

You just seem to be regurgitating things that guys like David Bercuson and Jack Granatstein like to say.  Here is an idea, why don't you thing "outside of the box" and give us something more substantial then "the military is on a one way trip to oblivion" and (this is the key) provide an idea for a solution.

OK, a lot of you don't like some of the specifics of Jack English's proposals. But the essence of what he says is correct. The CF is WAY too top heavy and the army is increasingly only a second echelon force. It cannot deploy anywhere on its own and it is incapable of sustaining anything more than a battlegroup overseas. The CF is composed of 22% officers. The equivalent in the US Marine Corps is less than 12%!

...and this is different from when?  We've always required our big-brother Army (whether it be British or American) to move us,sustain us, and command us from the our first forray into the expeditionary world in South Africa.  If we haven't been rendered irrelevant in the last 100 years or so, why would this all the sudden spell our doom.

As for the officer percentage, I agree with you; I've argued that point many times on this page - but you have to really develop a plan for a proposal like that.  Simply cutting the Officer Corps from 25% to 12% would most likely leave the CF headless and really incapable.  Institutional change and transformation is also required.

As for the idea of short enlistments: The Israeli army operates on the basis of three (compulsory) enlistments. NCOs are picked from the ranks after a year or two (as are officers for that matter). The French Foreign Legion operates on the basis of five year enlistments with NCOs picked from the ranks after only a few years. Obviously experienced NCOs receive incentives to reenlist.

Surely there is SOMETHING that Canada can learn from others.

Neither of these examples are really relevent for the CF.  The Israeli system is compulsory - we don't have the guaranteed influx of short term conscripts.  The FFL is a special case all together, and usually relies on foreigners with other reasons for serving.

The professional nature of the Canadian military demands that we aim for career soldiers.  As such, we should build our notion of career progression, NCO development, and Officer selection around the notion of the professional career.  This is a concept English has apparently thrown out the door, much to the consternation of his earlier (excellent) writing.

If you want to read an excellent thread of selection from the Canadian perspective, check this one out:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18201.0.html

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Pretty much everything about this proposal is a bad idea.   We have enough trouble as it is attracting recruits- how much more trouble would we have if we suddenly said to the Canadian public:

"Join the CF.   We will give you only three short months of training, send you to manage a really complex situation in (insert third world country of your choice here) for 6 months, led by officers and NCOs with only marginally more experience then you, bring you back to Canada for 6 months and then have you repeat the experience someplace else. In the meantime, 1/3 of your platoon/troop/ship/sqn mates have changed out as they are released from the military and you get a new draft of barely trained mates to look after, because YOU are now one of the experienced soldiers.   At the end of three years, 90% of you will be tossed back on the street without a second thought.   Thanks from a grateful nation."

Look, if people just want a quick look at the military and not sign up for life- they can under our current system.   Just do a BE and move along. I don't see what gutting our Snr NCO corps and experienced Capts/Majs is going to do to help the situation.

As for that other old chestnut about disfunctional NDHQ- Maybe NDHQ could be greatly improved.   Or maybe not. It is the standard thing to trot out when someone thinks there is something wrong with the CF "we have to fix NDHQ!".   Fine.   How?   Please- post detailed plans on how you would restructure ADM (MAT), ADM HR Mil, the VCDS group, Medgroup, the DCDS group, etc, etc WITHOUT downloading more work onto the line units.   I'm not saying that it can't be done, but if we are going to offer criticism, offer a fix.

Cheers

 

[Infanteer]

How?  Please- post detailed plans on how you would restructure ADM (MAT), ADM HR Mil, the VCDS group, Medgroup, the DCDS group, etc, etc WITHOUT downloading more work onto the line units.  I'm not saying that it can't be done, but if we are going to offer criticism, offer a fix.

Good point Tacco.  As I mentioned earlier, "If you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem..." or something to that effect.  We should strive to make all of our criticism "constructive".