- Reaction score
I strongly disagree with this. Knowing what the soldiers your leading actually do is to me critical. How are you supposed to mentor junior leaders when you have never done the job they’re doing ?
I absolutely agree with you. So can we make that a PAN CAF policy again ?
Because that is fully not the concept of SEMs for the CWO corps. Unless you're combat arms. Then your numbers are protected and you get some of everyone else.
How can an RSM in a Bn assess the performance of his CSMs if he’s never set a CCP / controlled the fast pack done any other CSM job ? That’s absurd.
It is you're correct.
Beggin yer pardon but you put an RCAF CWO as RSM - it won’t be pretty. And an Army RSM at the unit level is not an administrator. Ask any Infantry type.
I agree with you.
The theory behind the CWO Corps disagrees with you.
Unless you're Combat Arms. Then your positions are protected and you get some of everyone else too.
I think @Halifax Tar was pointing out that the whole Chief Corps concept was never really going to work as intended, because so many positions require a direct knowledge of the unit and how it functions. What happened though is those units protect certain trade's CWO positions, but mean that the support side of the house lost it's protection. As an example, the CFINT Gp CWO isn't an Int Op, or Met Tech, the trades that belong to the branch.
Hit the nail on the head.