Top soldier hopes Forces can reduce overhead, increase efficiency

[TimBit]

Oh! Timbit, don't get me started. Your post emphasizes all that is WRONG with the current system. Where to start?

Ok I guess I should have added that my post was for discussion purpose  I don't necessarily support the situation, I was playing the devil's advocate. That being said, I disagree on a few things you said.

Posts "alternatively occupied by civvies and military": Why do they exist? Either a post exist to fulfil a military purpose, in which case it is to be manned by a uniformed member, or it fulfils a civilian oversight of the military purpose, in which case it ought to be manned by a civil servant at all time. In the first instance, the soldier reports to the CDS, not a civilian, in the later case, the civil servant reports to the Deputy-Minister.

I'm afraid it's not that clear cut. Areas like legal advice, financial planning, intelligence, CF property and land management, defence policy, operations policy, CF and DND security, etc... are much more integrated than that. For example, if someone is working on the future Arctic Security Environment and what it involves for DND in terms of capabilities, should that be a civvy job or a military one? What about WMD's? Most experts in the field are civvies but then they normally do not go on inspections, and therefore many teams are mil-civ integrated. Where do you draw the line b/w Ministerial finances and CF finances?

Drawing a definite line b/w civvy and military jobs here at NDHQ would not only be extremely difficult in about 15-20% of cases, but would also involve reneging permanently on the capability to place uniformed personnel in some positions to influence things a certain way.

"Pay rates were locked in comparison with civilian's pay": Read my original post: That is exactly the "de-locking" I talk about: It serves no specific military purpose. Have a military pay scale that has nothing to do with the civilian one (I am not aware of other nations where they lock one to the other, but I may  be wrong here), then let uniformed personnel fulfill their task at whatever rank they happen to have  as long as they are capable of the job. I, for one, could not care less about my rank when carrying my job as a ship driver: Be it Lt, Lcdr or Cdr, I would do the job and be happy to do it.

Ok. But once you de-lock the structure (but that's not gonna happen) you still have a structure. You're not paid on performance. So you have to tag ranks for certain jobs. Otherwise, hey keep everyone a private no matter the job! Much cheaper. !?! Even driving a ship is like that... the Lt(N) does not get to be responsible for fighting and managing the ship, because he would be underpaid. So we recognize the responsibilities added and promote the person and pay them better! What I'm saying, is that every organization in the world which has a large structure has titles and pay grades linked to job descriptions. Thinking we could just skip that is wishful thinking.

"The whole career structure of officers ...": YES! The purpose of a military is to FIGHT, not to provide career progression. If a  lieutenant is doing a good job but does not possess the qualities required for promotion to next rank: let him be. Find a way to use his good skills as a LT.

Come on, I was not saying the purpose of the CF is to provide you with a career. I am saying that the career structure is there to make sure that you do possess those skills before promotion, by the largest exposure possible to 1. your trade 2. your element 3. the CF and 4. the Department. From where I sit, I would say that the system SEEMS to work. Most of the Colonels I work with are pretty switched on and aware of the big picture. Of course, not EVERYONE needs to be promoted. Fine Captain? Good! I never said the contrary. But then, don't put him in a job above his capabilities, which should be reflected officially in his/her rank.

"Are you ready, as a LCol, ... , to become a director": Yes. Why not? Even as a Major or, dare I say it a Captain. It is not the rank that makes the director, its the intellectual capacity as a staff officer and the amount of higher level of strategy and military management (in the noble sense of the term) knowledge. Some general officers do not possess it while some lowly ranked officers do. There is a way to develop it and identify it quickly: A continental european style General Staff: identify early on the officers with the intellectual abilities for HQ staff work and advance them quickly through junior command tours and advanced schooling in military affairs (grand strategy, plans, intelligence, etc.) so they may fill these HQ "elated" positions as staff  and senior staff and become the collective repository of military professional knowledge and national  defence plans.

Again, if people have the capability, they are promoted, then they get the job. Otherwise, how does a CM who oversee 500-20000 knows that this guy, a mcpl, is no good, but that one, is fantastic and can do a cpo2 job. He/she bases that on the rank. Finally, I would say that the "European General Staff model" is what the career progression you slammed in the last para tries to do: line-staff-line-staff-line-staff. Prussian model adopted pretty much everywhere in the world, including here.

Again, not trying to defend the system or say it's infallible, just discussing some issues posed by reform. Food for thought...  ;D

I will confess here that I am a follower of Major John Hasek.[/quote]

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was told, many years ago, by a senior official who was, back circa 1963, 'present at the creation' that the DND position was that a Cdr/LCol/Wg Cdr was the "first level executive" rank, equivalent to a director in the public service. Somehow, during a very complex process, the DND position was ignored and we became "equal" at one level to higher, possibly because the military had appointments called "director" that were occupied by Capts/Cols/Gp Capts but that were equivalent to directors general in the public service.

Is a pre-command Cdr/LCol ready to be a director? My opinion, having been one (a director): Yes, without doubt, in 99% of cases.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As to the ways to both "degrease" headquarters and save money, here is an easy solution (which I have offered before): De-link the military and civilian "pay-and-grade" scales that was imposed on us during the years of "civilianization" of the military under unification. Then, you can give officers in HQ's the appropriate ranks.

For instance (and I may become a traitor here to my navy), with the small flotillas we maintain on each coast, a Commodore would be sufficient rank for each coast's command, which would make CMS' rank that of rear-admiral. Similar downgrades would be appropriate for the other elements too. This would then permit us to cap the "specialist" top dogs to a reasonable rank (considering how few people they  "lead", why do we need general ranked officers as top JAG, Padre, Surgeon or Provost Marshall ???), say as four ringers max , better as three ringers in some cases.

Lordy, next thing you know you'll be suggesting is that you don't have to be a MARS officer to command a ship, or a pilot to run a squadron/wing! 

 

[TimBit]

I was told, many years ago, by a senior official who was, back circa 1963, 'present at the creation' that the DND position was that a Cdr/LCol/Wg Cdr was the "first level executive" rank, equivalent to a director in the public service. Somehow, during a very complex process, the DND position was ignored and we became "equal" at one level to higher, possibly because the military had appointments called "director" that were occupied by Capts/Cols/Gp Capts but that were equivalent to directors general in the public service.

Is a pre-command Cdr/LCol ready to be a director? My opinion, having been one (a director): Yes, without doubt, in 99% of cases.

Personnally I think so too. However I also think it would be even better if that LCol had been given a bit more exposure to political issues and strategic policy. Personnally I work with both Directors and Deputy Directors here and I see a difference on that front. Others might differ.

 

[GAP]

Lordy, next thing you know you'll be suggesting is that you don't have to be a MARS officer to command a ship, or a pilot to run a squadron/wing! 

Well, how difficult can it be...?

Boats....pointy end to where you want to go.....

Aircraft....don't hit birds, and things, keep it off the ground (includes mountains)....

;D

 

[Infanteer]

You are partly correct Infanteer. My mistake on who answers to whom: they both do answer to the Secretary of the Navy. However, you are incorrect on the CJCS. He has no operational authority over any of the three departments (Navy, Army or Airforce). The CJCS job is co-ordination but he is not an operational commander. Each of the departments retains its operational independence.

True - I had to look that one up - as I said I wasn't too sure on the operational relationship.  Fact of the matter remains the same; the Commandant of the USMC has no military boss - he reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy.

As for your stuff on ranks, totally in agreement.  IMO, our whole personnel system needs to be looked at to determine if a system designed for a Cold War standing military is suitable for a 21st century expeditionary force with new human and resource dynamics.

I'd say if you're going to do anything it would be to be more selective in junior rank progression.  It's basically (at least in the Army) one big sieve to Major.  A "General Staff" (which could be something as simple as an* beside a MOSID and a special career managment section that reports directly to the CDS) may be a start.

 

[Old Sweat]

I'd say if you're going to do anything it would be to be more selective in junior rank progression.  It's basically (at least in the Army) one big sieve to Major.  A "General Staff" (which could be something as simple as an* beside a MOSID and a special career managment section that reports directly to the CDS) may be a start.

In the Canadian Army, when I was still trying to learn how to spell lieutenant, once an officer passed staff college, and got the magic symbol PSC after his name on the seniority list, his file went from his Corps Director's career manager to a centralized manager. He was then on a separate and much quicker promotion stream.

 

[vonGarvin]

IMO, our whole personnel system needs to be looked at to determine if a system designed for a Cold War standing military is suitable for a 21st century expeditionary force with new human and resource dynamics.

I disagree that our system was designed for the Cold War.  Looking back (and around), our system evolved from what we had in the 40's, the 30's, the 20's....

I know, I know, "Cold War" is a bad term.  But let's face it, for fighting off the Soviets in a 24/7 high intensity "scenario", we had much smaller staffs juggling much larger balls.  And they did it well.  Now we have more HQs doing God-Only-Knows for what is essentially two battalions' worth of troops deployed in Afghanistan. 

In a word: fail.

 

[Infanteer]

Now Army Staff college (AOC) has a 100% attendance rate and there are no entrance requirements (there are check-in-the-box prereqs).  Guess it goes back to the question someone asked before - it the purpose of the Land Force Command and Staff College to provide a venturi for the Army's Officer Corps or is it simply to provide all officers with an understanding of the OPP?

I disagree that our system was designed for the Cold War.  Looking back (and around), our system evolved from what we had in the 40's, the 30's, the 20's....

I know, I know, "Cold War" is a bad term.  But let's face it, for fighting off the Soviets in a 24/7 high intensity "scenario", we had much smaller staffs juggling much larger balls.  And they did it well.  Now we have more HQs doing God-Only-Knows for what is essentially two battalions' worth of troops deployed in Afghanistan. 

In a word: fail.

No.  A "30's" system would feature a small permanent force designed to train the Militia and assist with mobilization.

A Cold War system is one that features a peace-time force built around formations that sees a large majority of NCMs sticking around in branch-pure units while officers rotate in-and-out to gain "depth and experience".  In theory, units were to be ready to fight in "element pure" battles as part of an Alliance.  Managed readiness was a bit of a wrench into this, and as anyone who's been a part of the mounting stage for expeditionary operations knows, the military hasn't really come to grips with it.

If "managed readiness" is a valid concept (which, IMHO, it is) why isn't the system to manage units extended to personnel?

 

[vonGarvin]

Now Army Staff college (AOC) has a 100% attendance rate and there are no entrance requirements (there are check-in-the-box prereqs).  Guess it goes back to the question someone asked before - it the purpose of the Land Force Command and Staff College to provide a venturi for the Army's Officer Corps or is it simply to provide all officers with an understanding of the OPP?

If it's to provide all officers with an understanding of the OPP, I could do that in 2 x 40 min lessons.  I agree with you in your frustrations about it.  I was on course with many who were simply "pushed along", and the combat arms fellas (armoured and infantry officers) were held to a higher standard.  I mean, an HCA on my course got a "B", but a person from the combat arms with his understanding of "stuff" got less.  And don't get me started on the grading!!!  :threat:

 

[dapaterson]

plsc = pretty lousy staff course


The lowering of the quality bar for "trained staff officers" seems to lead to an increased demand - if we can't get it in quality, we'll make up for it in quantity.


Interesting to note that the president of Treasury Board, Mr Day, is letting parts of the public service identify areas for savings, and permitting public servants to pocket 10% of the first year savings, up to $10K.  DND is not on the list, though.  Perhaps there's fear that rather than proposals to save resources, people would submits lists of names...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Rejoining this conversation, let me first state that we should not confuse what is taught at staff college and the educational requirements of a "staff" officer at the national HQ under a "general staff" system.

Our staff college teaches a variety of things from military writing, problem solving to the fundamentals of our OPP, with a bit of military history and leadership studies thrown in (at least last time I saw the curriculum), which is fine training for officers that may so far have written more in field note books, message pads and OOW logs than in anything else. However, they are not immersed in advanced military studies and research in grand strategy and the body politics that you would get, for instance at the Frunze Academy or that someone like Gen. Guderian would have studied and reflected on when he came up with the concepts of Blitzkrieg that are still the basis of armoured combat today. That is the type of studies and training required for a European style General Staff system, which I regret to say, TIMBIT, we do not have.

Old Sweat, having checked with friends who have served on promotion boards as secretary, I can tell you that there is no separate/faster stream for officers with their PSC annotation, it does, however give them numerous "brownie" points that do get them promoted apparently ahead of more deserving officers or officer with longer service that do not have the designation.

Infanteer: here is a good recognition possibility for members of the General staff that I think you may like: Upon being accepted into it, an officer would sport a red stripe down each sides of her CF trousers. Good looking and immediately visible to all.

As for the current structure at NDHQ, it is not a continuation of our past system from the 20's, 30's, or even from the cold war.

At the beginning of the cold war and at the peak of Canada's military "peacetime" manning in the late 50's, we had three headquarters for the three national institutions that were the RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF (Yes - the military forces are a national institution - not a department - which is why the CDS properly reports to the Commander-in-chief: the G.G.-in-council (i.e. the PM), not to the Minister of Defence), then, at the Department of defence, you had  both the then much smaller Minister's civilian staff and the Chiefs of staffs committee and other similar joint committees. After the Glassco commission and the resulting unification, all of this was merged into a single NDHQ and a huge inflation in both side of the house (military and civilian) occurred concurrently with the blurring of the lines between military and civilian area of responsibilities. Mr. Glassco must be turning in his grave knowing that the "efficient" structure he caused to be created is now three times bigger than the "inefficient" one he rejected even though it administers less than half the military forces we had then.

Quote from Timibit:

"I'm afraid it's not that clear cut. Areas like legal advice, financial planning, intelligence, CF property and land management, defence policy, operations policy, CF and DND security, etc... are much more integrated than that. For example, if someone is working on the future Arctic Security Environment and what it involves for DND in terms of capabilities, should that be a civvy job or a military one? What about WMD's? Most experts in the field are civvies but then they normally do not go on inspections, and therefore many teams are mil-civ integrated. Where do you draw the line b/w Ministerial finances and CF finances?

Drawing a definite line b/w civvy and military jobs here at NDHQ would not only be extremely difficult in about 15-20% of cases, but would also involve reneging permanently on the capability to place uniformed personnel in some positions to influence things a certain way. "

Don't get me wrong: I did not say that there is no requirement for civilian advice or input on certain aspects and vice versa, just that each position in itself should be one or the other accordingly. Let us review the ones you mention:

Legal advice: Advice on military law and laws of war ought to be provided to the CDS by uniformed personnel only. This is JAGS area of expertise - period. Advice on other legal aspects, such as property law, torts, labour, etc. should come from civilian lawyers. However, all departments need this type of advice and, usually, get it from the Dep. of justice: why should we be different?

Financial planning: To the extent that the CDS has decisional power over the financial decision, all of his staff that are themselves in a position to make decisions should be uniformed personnel. Civilian specialists may be employed in non-decision making roles.

Intelligence: I have no doubt that Military Intelligence is to be provided to the various military commanders through military officers. Expert advice can be obtained from civilian specialist in a given field, but must be made available to commanders through their military superiors. It is critical to proper defence of the realm (and unfortunately not the case now) that the intelligence that the CDS gets and in turn provides to the PMO be the military take, not the DND civilian washed intelligence. Only then can the CDS provide the PM with the truly military view on any matter that truly helps the PM to make the appropriate call with the fullest knowledge of the facts. The very same goes for the operations policy and the defence policy where, in a democracy like ours, the political masters of the military MUST receive from the military (not civil servants) their unadulterated military views and positions from which they may then make their political policy calls.

Do I even need to deal with "property and land management", when this is one of the clearest case for civil service only positions?

All food for thoughts also. Should we create a new thread to continue?

 

 

[Edward Campbell]

A couple of quibbles:

1. I think the JAG stands, uniquely, separate from the CDS and the DM. (S)he is, I believe the Minister's lawyer, above all else. Something from my experience tells me that all legal officers in government departments are in that position.

2. There is a military intelligence system but DND housekeeps, for the PCO, Canada's main intelligence gathering service: CSE. CSE is "in" DND but it does did not (when I served, almost 15 years ago) report to the CDS, DM or MND.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Quote from the web sit of the JAG:

"Reporting Relationships

The JAG is statutorily responsible to the Minister of National Defence and “accountable” for the legal advice given to the Chief of the Defence Staff, the military chain of command, and to the Deputy Minister. This clear accountability structure was designed to enhance the integrity of the Office of the JAG and ensure the independence of the JAG from the chain of command in the provision of legal advice in all areas including military justice."

So, while responsible to the Minister, he "advises" the CDS and DM, who simply have no power over him if they don't like his advice.

Good educational point for all.

On intel. I was talking about military intelligence only - not discussing the special status of CSE, which is another component separate and distinct in the overall Canadian government intelligence apparatus. On that, I would hope, however that CSE who does signal intel is not our main intelligence gathering service. I would hope it is CSIS. Nevertheless, all three (four with RCMP?) intelligence services are coordinated, and properly so, by the Clerk of the Privy Council and it is there that the unadulterated military intelligence must be given.

 

[dapaterson]

OldBoatGateDriver:  The Joint Command and Staff Course is the "Guederian"-esque course.  (Students have the option of completing some additional coursework to receive a MAsters degree, granted by RMC).  Of course, one could ask why we post Maj/LCols (and LCdrs/Cdrs) from Ottawa to Toronto for a year, only to post them back to Ottawa after - perhaps it's time to move CFC to Barrhaven or somewhere in the NCR, to save on cost moves and improve QoL for the students...

ERC:  All civilian lawyers employed as such in the public servant work for Justice and are then assigned to other departments.  JAG is an odd bird (as are military lawyers as a group (and individually, as well, but that's neither here nor there)). 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Thank you for the info  Dapaterson. BTW you inverted the Gate and the Boat.

If all "civilian" lawyers at DND work for Justice, then it confirms my view on TIMBIT's point that there should not be positions at DND that require alternating between civilian lawyers and JAG officers.

On the Guederian-esque course, you may find that in Europe the selected officers will have achieved that level well before they reach the exalted rank of Major/LCdr. In fact by that point in their careers they will have been expected to have completed the equivalent of a PhD in the subject, have numerous published work on strategy, politics or the art of war, even if just published internally. They would also have been expected to have written extensive critiques on the national plans and policies regarding defence, so that they would be at the stage where they teach the basic Guederian-esque course to their juniors.

Also, I hope you distinguish between military lawyers and lawyers also in the military: I am a commercial litigator, but a Mars officer when in uniform. I hope that does not make me an odd bird.

 

[TimBit]

Intelligence: I have no doubt that Military Intelligence is to be provided to the various military commanders through military officers. Expert advice can be obtained from civilian specialist in a given field, but must be made available to commanders through their military superiors. It is critical to proper defence of the realm (and unfortunately not the case now) that the intelligence that the CDS gets and in turn provides to the PMO be the military take, not the DND civilian washed intelligence. Only then can the CDS provide the PM with the truly military view on any matter that truly helps the PM to make the appropriate call with the fullest knowledge of the facts. The very same goes for the operations policy and the defence policy where, in a democracy like ours, the political masters of the military MUST receive from the military (not civil servants) their unadulterated military views and positions from which they may then make their political policy calls.

I'll address the rest later. WoW! Just WOW! Your "DND civilian washed intelligence" comment is demeaning and shows you don`t know much about it really. Contrary to you, I work with those people and see that most teams are mixed, well integrated, and perform very well. Unlike other areas of the military, intelligence often requires in-depth knowledge of a target which is hard to reconcile with the posting system. Therefore, civilians in most team bring stability and long-term perspective. It all depends on what level of intelligence is being produced. Tactical and low-level op int, like that in Afghanistan, is produced in theater by military personnel with only superficial support from civilians. However, when talking about strategic intelligence, well when it comes to the future behaviour of a country I,ll put my money on the guy who completed a PhD in the subject and worked that desk 15 yrs, not the freshly posted-in Major. As well, the vast majority of those teams are led by CF personnel or former Int O`s and are often composed of former service people... so I guess if it`s "washed" it is approved in its washed form by uniformed people. So that depends what the TRUE military view is to you... oh and we don't provide anything to the PMO, a partisan, non-government organization.

On intel. I was talking about military intelligence only - not discussing the special status of CSE, which is another component separate and distinct in the overall Canadian government intelligence apparatus. On that, I would hope, however that CSE who does signal intel is not our main intelligence gathering service. I would hope it is CSIS. Nevertheless, all three (four with RCMP?) intelligence services are coordinated, and properly so, by the Clerk of the Privy Council and it is there that the unadulterated military intelligence must be given.

CSIS is a security intelligence agency and is focused on threats to Canada, so not much use to DND. As far as Int on the capabilities and intentions of foreign actors goes, I wholeheartedly agree with ERC. Interesting also that, aside from tactical intelligence, most of the material produced by Military Intelligence, both here and the US, is derived from the material produced by overwhelmingly civilian agencies. So is it washed at the start? Rotten to the core?

Your whole idea that civilians would alter the military intelligence and lie to the powers that be is just plain weird and shows plain incomprehension and prejudice towards how it really works.

Sorry.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

PMO is a typo. Should have read PCO.

And I am not trying to demean intel people at all. The various desk officers and intel analysts are doing a tremendous job and are a credit to their trade. It is with how it gets from there to the PCO that I have some reservation. My understanding of how it was done goes back about ten years, and as I understand it , in those days, the "military" intel was brought to the PCO through the Minister who had himself been briefed by the DM or an ADM. I was also lead to understand that  as a result, some analysis and conclusions reached by the military that were considered a little too hard were softened along the way. If this is not the case anymore, I can only be happy.  You seem to confirm that the teams are mostly led by uniformed personnel. To me that is how it should be: It means that  once the analysis of the facts and the research has been done (by those incomparable PhD analysts), it is reviewed by someone with military background to, hopefully distillate it into a militarily view of the generated picture that can be passed up the chain of command in a military form. ("The world is grey, Jack!": That may be so, but for military purposes, we must often assign it a black or white colour, as appropriate, so that we may  act according to the "safe" course now, rather than the "sorry" one later.) .

This is all I am saying: the system must be set up so that it is the view of the uniformed personnel that reaches the PCO, hopefully through the CDS or his most senior intel uniformed officer bringing it directly to the Clerk of the PC.

As to my "prejudice" on how civilian intel might work, I would like to point out (though I admit not a Canadian situation) that it was such agencies that carefully worded their advice to US and British politicians to correspond more closely to what they wanted to hear on Irak. This clearly occurred above the heads of the fact finders, analysts and research officers that compile the picture and conclusions derived therefrom. Interestingly enough, in both countries, it was the message from the military intel people that was the furthest from concluding to the existence of a WMD threat and expressed the greatest reservations.

 

[TimBit]

Olga:

All good, I see your point now. The only thing I would say, however, is that in the US DIA produced an analysis in support of WMD's in Irak, which was not supported by CIA. I guess both should have balanced each other. The real culprits however, and that ties in to your posts, appear to have been the elected or appointed politicians who put the agenda before the facts and threw the intel out the window in any case, so... sad stuff. 

 

[Infanteer]

On the Guederian-esque course, you may find that in Europe the selected officers will have achieved that level well before they reach the exalted rank of Major/LCdr. In fact by that point in their careers they will have been expected to have completed the equivalent of a PhD in the subject, have numerous published work on strategy, politics or the art of war, even if just published internally. They would also have been expected to have written extensive critiques on the national plans and policies regarding defence, so that they would be at the stage where they teach the basic Guederian-esque course to their juniors.

Really.  I've read up on Officer Corps development for most other NATO/ABCA countries and I don't see anything too different from what we do.  The Brits and the Americans and us all have a similar model with a "Advanced Tactics Course" which focuses on higher level land operations.  The Germans have a bit different model, but their main venturi still remains the Command Course at the Fuhrungsakadamie which is a course attended.  This is a two year course, which differs from UK/Can.  The US also has a one year course, but has the SAMS follow on year for its "Jedi" guys.

We are probably digressing into a topic split, but you seem to be focusing on more stringent and detailed junior officer development.  Add academics to the "Captain's Course" (for the Army - AOC) and make it longer than 17 weeks?