• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Military is on Crutches-Article

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
9,243
Points
1,260
I ripped this from another page.  It appears as if Gen Jeffery is standing up to Liberal abuse.  Is this a sign of moral courage in the higher ranks?!?
***
Military 'hobbling around on crutches'
Jeff Lee
Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, February 13, 2002

The military in B.C. is facing a $1-million shortfall this year, in part because of increased security and recruitment costs after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York.

But that shortfall is just a fraction of the problem facing the Canadian Armed Forces as it strains to meet increasing demands for overseas missions without more money from Ottawa, a brigade commander from Vancouver said Tuesday.

"We are past the point of eating into the muscle of the military. I'd say we've amputated a few limbs and we're hobbling around on crutches right now," Colonel Paul Crober, leader of 39 Canadian Brigade Group, said in an interview.

Crober said that at his level, where he is responsible for a force of about 1,500 people -- mainly reservists -- he can't even muster the funds to hold a single major exercise.

Crober said his brigade has currently overspent its $13-million budget by more than $1.5 million, but expects to trim that deficit back to about $1 million by the end of March.

Increased security measures installed post-Sept. 11 were the brigade's largest new cost. It also spent more on unexpected training.

More than 200 people signed up for reserve service in the province's 14 units since September. While the brigade was instructed to accept the new recruits, it didn't have the extra $10,000-per-soldier it costs to give them basic training, he said.

The military encountered "credible threats" to its facilities and staff following the terrorist attacks in New York, resulting in heightened security and the closing off of unrestricted access to all military installations. In one case, officers discovered a bomb made out of propane tanks outside the Bessborough Armoury on West 11th Avenue in Vancouver. A police bomb squad safely disarmed the device.

Across the country, the military's financial picture is also bleak, said Crober.

"The regular army is incapable of putting up a single battle group. There is not one regular army unit in this country that is up to strength, and we have to rob other companies and reserve units in order to do our job," he said.

Crober's critical comments come as the Chief of Land Staff, Lieutenant-General Mike Jeffery, is holding a two-day army council meeting in Vancouver. They follow on an interview in which Brigadier-General Ivan Fenton, commander of Land Forces Western Area, said he doesn't have enough soldiers for second peacekeeping tour of Bosnia next year.

Adding to that chorus of voices Tuesday was another high-ranking officer, Major-General Ed Fitch, who is responsible for overseeing a renewal of Canada's reserve forces. Fitch, a former commanding officer of the now-closed army base at Chilliwack, said the military is not able to sustain its current reserve forces and will need another $142 million by the end of 2005 in order just to stabilize them.

Fitch said the nation doesn't even have a mobilization plan that can spell out how the army is supposed to meet its growing international commitments, let alone be prepared for a major conflict.

"It is a balance between tasks and resources and we are not able to balance that right now. You've got an army on starvation rations. The fat is gone," Fitch said.

The frank comments of Crober, Fitch and Fenton are a result of Jeffery's decision to remove gags on his subordinates after the federal Liberal government's decision not to put more money into stabilizing the army.

The officers said the change reflects Jeffery's view that they should candidly answer questions from the public about the state of Armed Forces. In the past, officers have shied away from the topic, not wanted to embarrass the government.

jefflee@pacpress.southam.ca

? Copyright 2002 Vancouver Sun
 
THey are being ALLOWED to say , what they SHOULD be saying :(
 
About time. I know all the crap about loyality but it is a two way street. It‘s good to see the big guys telling the trueth and, hopefully the public will put pressure on the government. Canada as a whole will benefit. Right on!
 
Loyalty is a two way street. It‘s about time the snr offr‘s start talking. It is at least half the military‘s fault if things are that bad. Always saying "everything‘s fine, sir" is only good for your own carreer, especially if you‘re ready to step on other‘s heads to make it to the top. Now there are 3 things that may happen to these gentlemen:

1. The govt will ignore their statements (unlikely)
2. The govt will listen and make changes (unlikely)
3. The govt will fire these arrogant "military industry lobbyists" (likely)

Lord Dundonald, a British General who was Commander of the Cdn Militia around 1900, wrote that the Liberal govt was using the Militia for political and economic purposes, giving away contracts to members of the party etc... sounds familiar ? Well, Lord Dundonald was fired !!! So all this is nothing new to the Cdn Military, where we are making history daily !!!
 
You bet it‘s good to see people speaking out but it makes me sick to think that nothing will be done. By trying to portray Canada as a loving/non agressive nation and using stupid rhetoric like a "whining miltary industrial lobby" as an excuse for not providing proper funding our government has all of the justification it needs to keep on going as it does. They have to get it through their heads that having a small, well equiped and funded armed forces is not a "militaristic" notion, it‘s common sense. Perhaps if we had mandatory service for two years regardless of social class our "elite" "intellectuals" who end up running the country would appreciate things a little more. I also put a post on the general discussion section regarding recruiting, check it out and see if you have any advice or info.

Thanks
 
http://www.army.forces.ca/LF/sps/sps5_e.htm

Just picked it up from LFRR forum

Now here is a leader I want to follow.
 
This web site is run by retired Gen.‘s,Col.‘s etc of the U.S. Force‘s.

http://www.militarycorruption.com/

It‘s interesting to read how they deal with the Government and present problem‘s in the U.S Force‘s compared to with our retired Officer‘s.

A realy good thread about the Anthrax Vaccine and who own‘s the facility and the latest new‘s about what is does to you!And other antic‘s of how the U.S. Military is treating it‘s people.

Also lot‘s of good link‘s.
 
I think it‘s important to point out that officers speaking the facts in a public forum is in no way, shape of form "disloyal" to anyone.

Let‘s be clear.

Army officers are supposed to be professionals, in the classical sense. Professionals are obligated to give sound, expert, fact-based advice to their clients. In the case of Canada‘s military profession, the client is our society -- the people, and their governments.

Almost all officers are "professionals" -- not just the CDS. My doctor gives me advice I don‘t want to hear all the time: "eat less fat, get more exercise." She doesn‘t rely on the President of the Canadian Medical Association to advise me. Nor does she say "Fat‘s OK, just sit your fat *** on the couch" -- when she realizes that‘s what I‘m going to do regardless of her medical opinion.

For too long, officers have overlooked this obligation, and the profession of arms in Canada has suffered for this abrogation.

An officer‘s professional duty is to advise his/her client: the people.

These officers are, finally, returning to professional values and giving sound counsel.

Nothing will change tomorrow because of what they said. However, if more follow their lead, then we may well see the beginning of meaningful change.

Let‘s praise those who speak and shun those too afraid to stand up.
 
Is the client the government or the people?

I would suggest that the officer‘s obligation is to the government. While the government represents the people, the officer has no direct responsibility to citizens.

Indeed, the officer should avoid speaking on matters of politics since the armed forces of a democracy is supposed to be neutral. Ethically, however, a prfoessional will not allow his words to be used in a misleading manner.

In short, while an officer has an obligation to provide the government valid information, and an ethical responsibility not to allow the people to be misled about their armed forces, the officer cannot be seen to be playing politics. For example, after one has provided advice, and that advice has been ignored, should one "take it to the people" or should one get on with the task at hand? I think we would all expect our subordinates to get on with the task at hand.

This can be a difficult line to toe for serving officers. I am not suggesting that they should echo the Minister‘s affirmations that all is well, but they do have to be careful not to contradict him. Correcting the record of what they have said is one thing, but a public battle is another.
 
rceme-rat has a point, but that doesn‘t diminish the obligation of officers to make their views known to their superiors, in private.

Nonetheless, given only that forum for their views (ie standing at attention in their superiors‘ office), there is much room for abuse. We have all seen it; I‘ve experienced it personally, albeit at a low level. We had a CWO who made it known he was the final authority on all that was good and holy, and there was nothing anyone could do about it - this was before the days of the Ombudsman, etc.

If the system is rotten, its up to all of us to fix it. It‘s a tricky one, given the oaths we have taken.

I am sure Hitler‘s officers and men felt the same way, come to think of it.
 
Back
Top