Army Reserve Restructuring

[brihard]

People only see the troops deploying to work. They neither known or care about the bureaucratic machinations that got them there. The dysfunction is not visible or apparent outside of the institution. It commands no concern or attention.

 

[FJAG]

Regretfully, I'd take a guess that the majority of the public do not distinguish between the regular force and the reserve force when thinking "military" much less having any understanding of how those elements function, how many there are, the administrative details behind them or the problems which plague them. The CAF is one large amorphous mass that gets mentioned in the press occasionally but is mostly out of sight or mind.

Nope. If we are hoping for some crystallizing event to get a public movement for reform going, then we will be forever waiting in vain. We need either a strong minister or CDS with vision and the balls to turn the horse before it careens over the cliff's edge.

:worms:

 

[CBH99]

Regretfully, I'd take a guess that the majority of the public do not distinguish between the regular force and the reserve force when thinking "military" much less having any understanding of how those elements function, how many there are, the administrative details behind them or the problems which plague them. The CAF is one large amorphous mass that gets mentioned in the press occasionally but is mostly out of sight or mind.

Nope. If we are hoping for some crystallizing event to get a public movement for reform going, then we will be forever waiting in vain. We need either a strong minister or CDS with vision and the balls to turn the horse before it careens over the cliff's edge.

:worms:

Between our current CDS and our current MND, I thought any effective change to the PRes would have been coming during their tensure.

Vance had a solid reputation for good leadership during the Afghan war days, and I think was a good choice for CDS.  And our MND had a lot of experience as a reservist, and is well aware of the changes that are needed to make it a more effective organization. 

Yet on the issue of Reserve Restruction - zip, from both.


The crystalizing moment, if there is one, will be during the next serious armed conflict we find ourselves in, when the Army goes back to having a focus & the mindset changes back to a 'warfighting' mentality.    :2c:

 

[FJAG]

Between our current CDS and our current MND, I thought any effective change to the PRes would have been coming during their tenure.

So did I. Sigh. So did I.

:facepalm:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Between our current CDS and our current MND, I thought any effective change to the PRes would have been coming during their tensure.

Vance had a solid reputation for good leadership during the Afghan war days, and I think was a good choice for CDS.  And our MND had a lot of experience as a reservist, and is well aware of the changes that are needed to make it a more effective organization. 

Yet on the issue of Reserve Restruction - zip, from both.


The crystalizing moment, if there is one, will be during the next serious armed conflict we find ourselves in, when the Army goes back to having a focus & the mindset changes back to a 'warfighting' mentality.    :2c:

You mean like the time I suggested that me and my rifle company would walk to and from the training area, and then they accused me of 'abusing the troops'.

Or when my training plan was turned down because we would be practising section attacks and recce/fighting patrols, through something a little more 'cluttered' than bald a$$ prairie, and I was told that we would 'unnecessarily injure' too many troops, so they made me change it.

Or when I suggested that we would do the BFT, then carry on and do a FTX as per normal and.... well, you can guess the rest..

Or, or, or....

We've done an excellent job of inculcating an 'Office mindset' in our most Senior Officers

 

[Haggis]

Between our current CDS and our current MND, I thought any effective change to the PRes would have been coming during their tenure.

Not a chance with a Trudeau calling the shots. Remember, his first move was to give Daesh a pass from bombing. Then he spent years looking for a feelgood UN mission to deploy an all-female contingent on.

No, I never held out any hope for substantial/any improvements to the CAF under this government.

 

[FSTO]

We've done an excellent job of inculcating an 'Office mindset' in our most Senior Officers

That's a little harsh. Those chairborne warriors are wearing combats in 101 and Carling don't you know!

 

[FSTO]

Between our current CDS and our current MND, I thought any effective change to the PRes would have been coming during their tenure.

The MND is a placeholder and nothing else. All decisions come out the cabal that runs the PMO office and all they want from DND is don't spend more than what we give you and don't cause us trouble. Seems we do a pretty good job of failing at both of those tasks.

The last pro-active MND who executed a vision for the CAF was Hellyer.  :boke:

 

[FJAG]

...
The last pro-active MND who executed a vision for the CAF was Hellyer.  :boke:

Regretfully, that's probably true.

Your comment, however, made me also reflect on the Chiefs of Defence Staff we've had since unification to see who stood out for his vision and leadership.

There were a number who immediately popped to mind for the utter failures they were but none stood out as head and shoulders above the rest. Others who were clearly strong leaders but who, to the best of my knowledge, have left no lasting mark.

I briefly pondered Hillier but my feelings for him were quite mixed. Charisma is one thing and his relationship with government was notable as was the initial effort in shaping the force for Afghanistan. Unfortunately, IMHO, I think he botched being all-in on a medium weight Army and accelerated a spiralling growth in the bureaucracy in Ottawa which, again IMHO, is principally responsible for much of the sad state of the current field forces.

I think that, all-in-all, whatever talents each of them had were consumed by the day to day dealing with resource allocation and bureaucratic humdrum of their headquarters to left them with little to invest into any effort in the development of a vision that would revolutionize and evolve the force for the future. Fine tuning some issues, yes; "advancing with a purpose", no.

Interested in hearing opposing views.

:cheers:

 

[Dale Denton]

You could as what is the real purpose of a CDS or MND? Its clear that reorganisation and innovation is a part of the job only on paper/its public face and not the main focus, or else we'd see more noticable change every few years.

They really just seem like senior-management positions and not executives when you look at the public-facing decisions they can make on their own. Seems more like they are tasked with ensuring the dept doesn't implode or embarrass the "Board" while X gov't is in power. The "Board" doesn't want an Elon Musk/wildcard/Hillier that'll reshape the company (for the better you could argue), they want a quiet beaurocrat that'll keep this dept out of the news.

How do you realistically fix it?

Unionize the reserves, bring the issues to the public eye, embarrass the gov't into action is the only way to make change. Auditor General reports don't force change, the reserves aren't in the public eye enough. The legacy of the current MND is a risk to cabinet, either opposition can paint him as an ineffective change-manager or a silenced innovator. A union representing his former reservists could target him as easy as the next guy.

 

[FSTO]

Regretfully, that's probably true.

Your comment, however, made me also reflect on the Chiefs of Defence Staff we've had since unification to see who stood out for his vision and leadership.

There were a number who immediately popped to mind for the utter failures they were but none stood out as head and shoulders above the rest. Others who were clearly strong leaders but who, to the best of my knowledge, have left no lasting mark.

I briefly pondered Hillier but my feelings for him were quite mixed. Charisma is one thing and his relationship with government was notable as was the initial effort in shaping the force for Afghanistan. Unfortunately, IMHO, I think he botched being all-in on a medium weight Army and accelerated a spiralling growth in the bureaucracy in Ottawa which, again IMHO, is principally responsible for much of the sad state of the current field forces.

I think that, all-in-all, whatever talents each of them had were consumed by the day to day dealing with resource allocation and bureaucratic humdrum of their headquarters to left them with little to invest into any effort in the development of a vision that would revolutionize and evolve the force for the future. Fine tuning some issues, yes; "advancing with a purpose", no.

Interested in hearing opposing views.

:cheers:

The Hillier experiment by the Martin government is a blueprint for future governments on what sort of CDS they don't want! They want a grey man, a nobody and person who will implement the stupid stuff the government comes up with (Aussie F18) without a fuss.
Correction, they want 2 grey men (MND/CDS)!

 

[brihard]

How do you realistically fix it?

Unionize the reserves, bring the issues to the public eye, embarrass the gov't into action is the only way to make change. Auditor General reports don't force change, the reserves aren't in the public eye enough. The legacy of the current MND is a risk to cabinet, either opposition can paint him as an ineffective change-manager or a silenced innovator. A union representing his former reservists could target him as easy as the next guy.

No. Unions donMt get to trample on operational decisions. “Management has the right to manage”, and that doesn’t mean that have to be good at it. Unions can hold the employer accountable to law, regulation, policy, and the collective agreement. They cannot dictate things like how a unit is tasked, which jobs are deemed operationally necessary, etc. They can advocate and take legally enforceable action to make sure things are done with proper regards to health and safety, that work is properly compensated, etc.

The RCMP is grappling with this right now- their union has been up and running for about a year, but they mostly deal with individual or collective personnel, health, and safety issues. They don’t get to take the reins on how the force is deployed or the mission accomplished. They don’t get to lean out a too heavy chain of command, or excessively burdensome bureaucracy. A unionized portion of the military would be no different in these regards. All the operational problems, all the issues with force generation and force employment would still be unaddressed. Those are exclusively executive decisions.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No. Unions donMt get to trample on operational decisions. “Management has the right to manage”, and that doesn’t mean that have to be good at it. Unions can hold the employer accountable to law, regulation, policy, and the collective agreement. They cannot dictate things like how a unit is tasked, which jobs are deemed operationally necessary, etc. They can advocate and take legally enforceable action to make sure things are done with proper regards to health and safety, that work is properly compensated, etc.

The RCMP is grappling with this right now- their union has been up and running for about a year, but they mostly deal with individual or collective personnel, health, and safety issues. They don’t get to take the reins on how the force is deployed or the mission accomplished. They don’t get to lean out a too heavy chain of command, or excessively burdensome bureaucracy. A unionized portion of the military would be no different in these regards. All the operational problems, all the issues with force generation and force employment would still be unaddressed. Those are exclusively executive decisions.

Based on some of the whining that always impedes unity, progress and performance, a Unionized Reserve Force might be a relief.

The only way to 'fix' the Reserves is to give us a proper mission. And then support us & hold us accountable properly to achieve that mission e.g., "5 3/4 Bde will Destroy Enfor in KZ ABC NLT 0600hrs.....".

'Train to excite' is not a mission, it's a leadership cop out at the highest levels. Dishing out trinkets like 'Mission Taskings' that never get properly supported, or tested in integration with the Reg F units we are supposed to support, is even worse in many ways.

 

[FJAG]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Another way of putting this is that no planning is being done for a major war. This is shortsighted in the extreme. A military that thinks in terms of turning itself into a great host in a crisis is very different from one that is small, thinks small, and plans for very little. The Canadian Forces needs a plan. General Belzile 2005

The regular force is those people we need for day-to-day operations in a peacetime or semi-stable world. The reserves should be the plan for a "major war". This means organization, equipment and training. Take away any of those and it becomes an entity that falls far short of its potential and will fail the country in a crisis.

The only way to "fix" the reserves? - This is one way that won't break the bank. (Shameless plug)

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The regular force is those people we need for day-to-day operations in a peacetime or semi-stable world. The reserves should be the plan for a "major war". This means organization, equipment and training. Take away any of those and it becomes an entity that falls far short of its potential and will fail the country in a crisis.

The only way to "fix" the reserves? - This is one way that won't break the bank. (Shameless plug)

:cheers:

For that though we would also need a robust and slightly more aggressive foreign policy that actually utilizes the military as a tool in the box, not just something to toss at issues when our allies come knocking for our keep.

 

[FJAG]

For that though we would also need a robust and slightly more aggressive foreign policy that actually utilizes the military as a tool in the box, not just something to toss at issues when our allies come knocking for our keep.

Oh no. You're not getting me to go down that old rabbit hole again. No, sir.

;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Contentious US opinion - reform the National Guard as state militias and reinstitute conscription for the Guard.

And when the author says republican he means republican in the Roman sense and not Republican.

Rebuilding a Republican Army – Steele Brand

More Americans should be drafted to defend their way of life.

lawliberty.org

...the US Constitution established two federal military branches—the Army and the Navy—and militias. The United States would field a smaller, more professional force of soldiers and sailors, commanded by the President and financed by Congress. These would be ready to deploy against the perils of the moment but also prevent tyrannies, such as quartering in people’s homes.

The Constitution gives more attention, however, to the militia. Militias can be mustered to enforce federal laws, suppress rebellions, or repel invasions. The oft-misunderstood Second Amendment is intended to make sure such citizens are always ready to defend their homes and their republic. These citizens need a modest amount of training, familiarity with weapons, and a keen desire to maintain “the security of a free State.”

Reforming Military Service

Citizens should be conscripted to fill our current recruiting shortfalls. The draft must return to America’s military, but it should be accompanied by reforms that revivify the militia tradition. More Americans should serve their country. More Americans should feel the consequences of the wars we fight. More Americans should be forced to judge whether or not our causes are just. This participation is historically in the nature of republican warfare, and if we cease to fight as a republic, then we risk losing it.

We need a defensive option for military service. The militia has all but disappeared in recent years. The National Guard is now nearly indistinguishable from the Reserves and throughout the War on Terror it looked more like Active Duty service. Those who served became part of a different culture that endured several long foreign deployments every decade. Part-timers spent too much time away from career and family, looking less like citizen-soldiers and more like a warrior class.

Either the National Guard needs to be reformed, or a new military service option must emerge that conforms to the original intention of a militia. These reforms should increase the limitations states may place on military service, with options for shorter enlistments after the initial training is complete, as short as a single year. Many might serve as part-timers for longer, aiding their states and providing a ready reserve during emergencies.

This system would increase volunteers to the military, with fence-sitters opting to enlist and choose their own branch rather than be drafted by a lottery into something less preferable. Even those who opt for a discharge at the earliest opportunity will have gained valuable moral and civic experience. These minutemen-for-a-modern-age will be trained to endure hardship and fight ferociously when needed.

Steele Brand is Professor of History at Cairn University. He serves as a residential scholar at the John Jay Institute and is a faculty fellow with the Jack Miller Center. Publications include Killing for the Republic: Citizen-Soldiers and the Roman Way of War (Johns Hopkins University Press).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Regretfully, I'd take a guess that the majority of the public do not distinguish between the regular force and the reserve force when thinking "military" much less having any understanding of how those elements function, how many there are, the administrative details behind them or the problems which plague them. The CAF is one large amorphous mass that gets mentioned in the press occasionally but is mostly out of sight or mind.

Nope. If we are hoping for some crystallizing event to get a public movement for reform going, then we will be forever waiting in vain. We need either a strong minister or CDS with vision and the balls to turn the horse before it careens over the cliff's edge.

:worms:

For most people the Reservists is the closest they ever see the military, so in a sense the are the "military". That is a direct result of moving the Infantry units away from major urban centres.

 

[FJAG]

Steele Brand is Professor of History at Cairn University. He serves as a residential scholar at the John Jay Institute and is a faculty fellow with the Jack Miller Center. Publications include Killing for the Republic: Citizen-Soldiers and the Roman Way of War (Johns Hopkins University Press).

Judging by the lead-in text he doesn't like the DoD's vaccination policies or the "government's woke" training. That kinda sets a tone.

He's kind of off the beam too in what he considers "Roman republican" armies. And by republican we are clearly talking about the pre-Roman empire period. That Republican army is broken into two phases - pre-Marian and post-Marian reforms - the former based on farmer land ownership and the ability to supply your own arms and the other a professional enlisted army. The earlier force was generated through levies of citizens but this gradually changed to a mostly volunteer force of the urban poor that was in it for salaries, booty and land grants at the end of service. Both, but particulalry the latter where heavily reinforced by foreign levies for its cavalry and auxiliaries.

The trend is much like for today's America. Originally Rome's citizens and Latin allied citizens banded together for self defence, subsequently when we get to the late Republics several civil wars there is conscription but mostly volunteerism by the poor. Eventually, like the Americans, Roman farmers and landowners got tired of their numerous "defensive campaigns" and realized that wars had become expeditions to expand and enrich the nation or power grab squabbles between the elite. The middle class-urban and rural-abandoned military service and were happy to leave it to the destitute as a means of bettering their lives.

For a guy who seems to specialize in the topic, he has a bit of rosy coloured glasses at play here. There's one thing though, he's clearly too young to have been anywhere near the massive anti-Vietnam, ant-draft protests and riots that swept the country in the late sixties, early seventies.

Aside from the above, his arguments are entirely unpersuasive based primarily on the fact that a super power-like America or Rome-has reached a point where its wars are not overtly defensive. You can't get people-Brand included-in accepting that taking a vaccine is good for the country. How do you convince people like that that being drafted to fight people in Iraq or Korea or Israel or Europe is a necessity for the defence of the country.

 

[FJAG]

For most people the Reservists is the closest they ever see the military, so in a sense the are the "military". That is a direct result of moving the Infantry units away from major urban centres.

I'm a firm proponent of moving the majority of the army into urban centres. Do that and cut down on postings - preferably to zero postings - and you might in time eliminate the recruiting and retention problem.