Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[FJAG]

So then should Reserve Force units be deployable? and how would that work when you have members that usually cant drop their jobs to be deployed all the time.

Just because we haven't called-up reservists or reserve units in the last half century doesn't mean it can't be done. The US National Guard and reserves were certainly "activated" for Iraq and Afghanistan:

"In 2005, more than 300,000 Guard members and reservists were deployed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, comprising 43% and 55%, respectively, of the overall fighting forces. During the past decade in those two conflicts, the Guard comprised 28% of the 2.3 million total service members deployed, with 37% of the Guard engaging in multiple deployments, 700 of its troops killed and more than 9,000 wounded in action."

Extract from National Guard Bureau: http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-defense/national-guard-bureau?agencyid=7381

In fairness the Guard did reach a recruiting crisis in 2005 being at only 330,000 of it's authorized ceiling of 350,000 (at the time they also had a further 50,000 Guardsman in New Orleans for Katrina). In consequence they developed and made use of the Army National Guard - Recruiting Assistance Program from 2007 to 2012 to augment their existing recruiting system. The program paid bounties to serving soldiers and part-time contract recruiters of $1,000 for every referred recruit who signed a contract and a further $1,000 for every one of those that actually travelled to basic training. The program was very successful in restoring and keeping the Guard at authorized strength during this period.

Reservists can and do put their education and careers on hold. In the US hundreds of thousands have. Yes, you need to be up front with reservists and tell them it can happen. Yes, you need better legislation and employer support programs than we have. Yes, some have suffered because of this.

The point is that to continue to do business as usual means we will simply continue to spiral into obscurity.

The whole thing reminds me a bit of Kennedy's launching the US's space program: "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."

We need to stop inventing excuses as to why it can't be done; instead we should study the concept and find the solutions to do it effectively.  :2c:

:cheers:

 

[blackberet17]

Just because we haven't called-up reservists or reserve units in the last half century doesn't mean it can't be done. The US National Guard and reserves were certainly "activated" for Iraq and Afghanistan:

"In 2005, more than 300,000 Guard members and reservists were deployed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, comprising 43% and 55%, respectively, of the overall fighting forces. During the past decade in those two conflicts, the Guard comprised 28% of the 2.3 million total service members deployed, with 37% of the Guard engaging in multiple deployments, 700 of its troops killed and more than 9,000 wounded in action."

Extract from National Guard Bureau: http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-defense/national-guard-bureau?agencyid=7381

In fairness the Guard did reach a recruiting crisis in 2005 being at only 330,000 of it's authorized ceiling of 350,000 (at the time they also had a further 50,000 Guardsman in New Orleans for Katrina). In consequence they developed and made use of the Army National Guard - Recruiting Assistance Program from 2007 to 2012 to augment their existing recruiting system. The program paid bounties to serving soldiers and part-time contract recruiters of $1,000 for every referred recruit who signed a contract and a further $1,000 for every one of those that actually travelled to basic training. The program was very successful in restoring and keeping the Guard at authorized strength during this period.

Reservists can and do put their education and careers on hold. In the US hundreds of thousands have. Yes, you need to be up front with reservists and tell them it can happen. Yes, you need better legislation and employer support programs than we have. Yes, some have suffered because of this.

The point is that to continue to do business as usual means we will simply continue to spiral into obscurity.

The whole thing reminds me a bit of Kennedy's launching the US's space program: "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."

We need to stop inventing excuses as to why it can't be done; instead we should study the concept and find the solutions to do it effectively.  :2c:

:cheers:

Posting Series of the Day Award.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Just because we haven't called-up reservists or reserve units in the last half century doesn't mean it can't be done. The US National Guard and reserves were certainly "activated" for Iraq and Afghanistan:

"In 2005, more than 300,000 Guard members and reservists were deployed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, comprising 43% and 55%, respectively, of the overall fighting forces. During the past decade in those two conflicts, the Guard comprised 28% of the 2.3 million total service members deployed, with 37% of the Guard engaging in multiple deployments, 700 of its troops killed and more than 9,000 wounded in action."

Extract from National Guard Bureau: http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-defense/national-guard-bureau?agencyid=7381

In fairness the Guard did reach a recruiting crisis in 2005 being at only 330,000 of it's authorized ceiling of 350,000 (at the time they also had a further 50,000 Guardsman in New Orleans for Katrina). In consequence they developed and made use of the Army National Guard - Recruiting Assistance Program from 2007 to 2012 to augment their existing recruiting system. The program paid bounties to serving soldiers and part-time contract recruiters of $1,000 for every referred recruit who signed a contract and a further $1,000 for every one of those that actually travelled to basic training. The program was very successful in restoring and keeping the Guard at authorized strength during this period.

Reservists can and do put their education and careers on hold. In the US hundreds of thousands have. Yes, you need to be up front with reservists and tell them it can happen. Yes, you need better legislation and employer support programs than we have. Yes, some have suffered because of this.

The point is that to continue to do business as usual means we will simply continue to spiral into obscurity.

The whole thing reminds me a bit of Kennedy's launching the US's space program: "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."

We need to stop inventing excuses as to why it can't be done; instead we should study the concept and find the solutions to do it effectively.  :2c:

:cheers:

I don't think we should be talking about success when we talk about the National Guard deploying to Iraq in 2003.  They faced a myriad of problems and regular units did most of the heavy lifting.  Abu Ghraib?  Yep just What I want for the Canadian Army  :

It's good to see the "militia myth" is alive and well though.  Every other Military worth their salt is doing away with Large Citizen Armies and moving to a professional model.  Even the Russians and Chinese have disbanded large portions of their conscript force and are moving towards professionalization.

If anything, we need to further professionalize our military. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

I don't think we should be talking about success when we talk about the National Guard deploying to Iraq in 2003.  They faced a myriad of problems and regular units did most of the heavy lifting.  Abu Ghraib?  Yep just What I want for the Canadian Army  :

It's good to see the "militia myth" is alive and well though.  Every other Military worth their salt is doing away with Large Citizen Armies and moving to a professional model.  Even the Russians and Chinese have disbanded large portions of their conscript force and are moving towards professionalization.

If anything, we need to further professionalize our military.

I agree.

Can we start with some of the RSS/ Full timers who support the reserves? Please? 8)

 

[Remius]

Posting Series of the Day Award.

FJAG should be getting a lot of those.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree.

Can we start with some of the RSS/ Full timers who support the reserves? Please? 8)

Why bother?

He wants to professionalize the manpower pool.  Reservists need not apply. 

 

[Kirkhill]

One man's profession is another man's .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdOCWUgwiWs

> ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't think we should be talking about success when we talk about the National Guard deploying to Iraq in 2003.  They faced a myriad of problems and regular units did most of the heavy lifting.  Abu Ghraib?  Yep just What I want for the Canadian Army  :

It's good to see the "militia myth" is alive and well though.  Every other Military worth their salt is doing away with Large Citizen Armies and moving to a professional model.  Even the Russians and Chinese have disbanded large portions of their conscript force and are moving towards professionalization.

If anything, we need to further professionalize our military.

I'll see you Abu Ghraib and raise you Shidane Arone.  By all means professionalize.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The whole thing reminds me a bit of Kennedy's launching the US's space program: "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."

We need to stop inventing excuses as to why it can't be done; instead we should study the concept and find the solutions to do it effectively.  :2c:

:cheers:

So the effort that it took to make "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" would be necessary to restructure our military?  While it would be noble to think that our leadership has the courage to spend the political capital to attempt such an undertaking, reality would be another matter.  In comparison to putting a man on the moon, our high accomplishment in space was https://youtu.be/KaOC9danxNo?t=69 .  Renaming areas to "divisions" so that they could wear a "traditional" patch is more in line with how the military's masters see reorganization.

It's good to see the "militia myth" is alive and well though.  Every other Military worth their salt is doing away with Large Citizen Armies and moving to a professional model.  Even the Russians and Chinese have disbanded large portions of their conscript force and are moving towards professionalization.

Those "Large Citizen Armies" were a product of their times and necessity.  Since I assume you speak mainly of our NATO partners (Germany, France, et al) remember that for years we sat on a heavily defended border (on both sides) with the expectation that if the war became "hot" there would not be the luxury of time to constitute the military force necessary to oppose any incursion.  Canada, of course, sat in ignorant bliss and provided the minimum ground forces necessary to avoid distain and called ourselves a "professional" army.  As the circumstances changed, so did the requirement for large forces in being (including reserves) and that, in the main, was the reason most of those countries transitioned to a professional volunteer military.

If anything, we need to further professionalize our military.

Maybe my impression of your use of "professionalize" is in error, but you seem to be saying that more should be "full-time" and "Regular".  Well, perhaps FJAG is right and we should be using more of our military the same way I (and most people) use the professionals that are necessary in our day to day lives (doctor, lawyer, accountant).  I only pay them when I use them.

 

[Kirkhill]

...

Maybe my impression of your use of "professionalize" is in error, but you seem to be saying that more should be "full-time" and "Regular".  Well, perhaps FJAG is right and we should be using more of our military the same way I (and most people) use the professionals that are necessary in our day to day lives (doctor, lawyer, accountant).  I only pay them when I use them.

A shopping list....

http://www.privatemilitary.org/private_military_companies.html

Falck doesn't do the bang-bang stuff but it handles all the Disaster Assistance - MajAid type stuff - Hand SAR, Forest Fires, Ice Storms, Floods over to them.  And maybe they might be interested in starting a "kinetic" division to provide 20,000 bodies on an on-demand basis.

https://www.falck.com/en/services/

 

[Eaglelord17]

Its about bang for your buck. The Canadian government/people have shown time and time again they aren't willing to pay for a massive military. The reality is if we want a military capable of fighting anything larger than the Afghanis without significant time to build up, we need a larger Reserve.

To put in perspective, the Regular Force model we have couldn't sustain a very one sided war with only 2000 people in the field without significant Reserve support.

Yes the Reserves might not be as well trained as the Regular Force in some cases, but it is still significantly better than anyone you have just pulled off the street. Even if it takes a month to get the Reserves ready to fight, that is better than taking years to train new people up to combat standards. It is also better than just having your Regulars getting killed off and having untrained soldiers replacing them (like what happened to the British Army by 1915).

 

[Halifax Tar]

The empire defence (Reg V Res) in this thread is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

I think both side need to make some tough decisions. 

Such as; is the O&M budget, alone, of an armories that houses an Regiment (platoon in reality), lead by a LCol and a CWO, really fiscally responsible ? 

For the Regs, are we better off with joint unit this and that or what have you coming out of our wazzo ?  Or are these really just positions for continued employment of redundant personnel ?  Why are we so unwilling to tell people "service no longer required" ?

 

[Kirkhill]

The empire defence (Reg V Res) in this thread is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

I think both side need to make some tough decisions. 

Such as; is the O&M budget, alone, of an armories that houses an Regiment (platoon in reality), lead by a LCol and a CWO, really fiscally responsible ? 

For the Regs, are we better off with joint unit this and that or what have you coming out of our wazzo ?  Or are these really just positions for continued employment of redundant personnel ?  Why are we so unwilling to tell people "service no longer required" ?

:goodpost:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The empire defence (Reg V Res) in this thread is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

I think both side need to make some tough decisions. 

Pretty much sums up my feelings on the issues.  The chances of any of this changing are so remote that it just isn't worth getting bent out of shape over. 

Lots of ideas in this thread, none of them would survive the political minefield in Ottawa.  We are a status quo military and will remain so into the near future.

For those who think we can make do with a substantially reduced Regular Force, or that we aren't robust enough, what do you have to say about 2010?  The year we had nearly 10,000 soldiers engaged in Operations in three different theatres?  Op PODIUM, Op HESTIA and Op ATHENA.  I'd say that alone counters the narrative in this thread that we aren't a robust organization. 

Would we have been able to carry out such radically different missions simultaneously with a substantially reduced Regular Force?  I seriously doubt it and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

This isn't even touching on all the enduring operations our Armed Forces conducts on a daily basis, Op CARIBBE, Op LIMPID, NORAD, etc...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

To put in perspective, the Regular Force model we have couldn't sustain a very one sided war with only 2000 people in the field without significant Reserve support.

I have listened to this meme for entirely too long without going into rant mode, so here it is.  We (the Reg F) were mandated to have a 20% Res component, because that is what we had in Bosnia.  It was not necessary for AStan - it was habit.  We could, and I would argue should, have met the need from within the ranks of the Standing Force.  We didn't because we allowed ourselves the luxury of a 20-24 month readiness cycle.

 

[MJP]

I have listened to this meme for entirely too long without going into rant mode, so here it is.  We (the Reg F) were mandated to have a 20% Res component, because that is what we had in Bosnia.  It was not necessary for AStan - it was habit.  We could, and I would argue should, have met the need from within the ranks of the Standing Force.  We didn't because we allowed ourselves the luxury of a 20-24 month readiness cycle.

 

[Alberta Bound]

EL17, I am guessing that you meant Afghans and not Afghanis (which is the currency). But maybe this is just my OCD.

I always chuckle when people start throwing around the term "professional". As in does the activity While adhering to a technical code or standard in their work, or doing an activity for financial gain that is also often done by others as a pastime (amateurs). Just because someone does a job full time doesn't make them a professional. I know Judges, Doctors, Nurses, Engineers, Firefighters, Police Officers and others who don't work full time in their field and who would all state that they are as professional as others who do put in 40 hrs or 38.25 or 37.5 or 35 hrs or whatever # that your feel makes "full time". 

I once had a conversation with a combat arms Major who had retired from the reg force and was working class b. He spoke of how the reg force were "professionals" vs the reserves. I asked him how it felt the day that he CT'd and went from being a professional to suddenly just being another amateur. Once the light came on I couldn't help but smile. He didn't join me.

As a CIC Officer I don't think of myself as a soldier, professional or otherwise. But I don't think of myself as an amateur. When I was a paid part time - on call firefighter lieutenant directing, commanding, instructing and assessing part time and full time FFs I did consider myself a professional.

Just an opinion.

 

[Happy Guy]

I have listened to this meme for entirely too long without going into rant mode, so here it is.  We (the Reg F) were mandated to have a 20% Res component, because that is what we had in Bosnia.  It was not necessary for AStan - it was habit.  We could, and I would argue should, have met the need from within the ranks of the Standing Force.  We didn't because we allowed ourselves the luxury of a 20-24 month readiness cycle.

For the cbt arms maybe, but for Log/EME it was very difficult to sustain.  We only had 3 x Svc Bns (one on, one trg and one off) to chose from and even then we were forced to continually ask the RCN and RCAF for CSS pers.
Having the mandate of 20% Res F was difficult for the CSS because of the Res F lack of tech skills and experience.  They, after workup trg could get their soldier skills up to standard but their tech skills were still deficient.  However after a few months overseas while on the job most reached the tech standard required.  Then we were rotated home and the cycle began again with the new guys.

 

[dapaterson]

I have listened to this meme for entirely too long without going into rant mode, so here it is.  We (the Reg F) were mandated to have a 20% Res component, because that is what we had in Bosnia.  It was not necessary for AStan - it was habit.  We could, and I would argue should, have met the need from within the ranks of the Standing Force.  We didn't because we allowed ourselves the luxury of a 20-24 month readiness cycle.

At least one resident of the office of COS Land Strat would disagree.

And there were numerous no-fills from the Standing Force - including at least once when the Infantry no-filled a hard LCol position (as all 100+ Inf LCols were doing more important work than our #1 priority), and then no-filled for a Maj to be promoted WSE LCol (since all ~400 Inf Maj were doing more important work than our #1 priority) - and thus a Reservist was deployed to Afghanistan, since all 500 senior Infantry officers in the Standing Force were doingmore important things.

The Standing Force appears in many cases to have lost the bubble and lost their focus, and become more interested in palace intrigues and the protection of their iron rice bowls than in the generation of combat to meet the needs of our nation (We need nine infantry battalions because it must be a multiple of three!  MAPLE RESOLVE is the Army's vital ground!  I won't be the Commander, RCN who permits the fleet to shrink!  We need more command positions!).  The Standing Force has over 5000 senior officers; has 25% of its paid strength as officers; has 25% of its officers in Ottawa... there is a long overdue requirement for the Standing Force to conduct some honest self assessment.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

At least one resident of the office of COS Land Strat would disagree.

And there were numerous no-fills from the Standing Force - including at least once when the Infantry no-filled a hard LCol position (as all 100+ Inf LCols were doing more important work than our #1 priority), and then no-filled for a Maj to be promoted WSE LCol (since all ~400 Inf Maj were doing more important work than our #1 priority) - and thus a Reservist was deployed to Afghanistan, since all 500 senior Infantry officers in the Standing Force were doingmore important things.

The Standing Force appears in many cases to have lost the bubble and lost their focus, and become more interested in palace intrigues and the protection of their iron rice bowls than in the generation of combat to meet the needs of our nation (We need nine infantry battalions because it must be a multiple of three!  MAPLE RESOLVE is the Army's vital ground!  I won't be the Commander, RCN who permits the fleet to shrink!  We need more command positions!).  The Standing Force has over 5000 senior officers; has 25% of its paid strength as officers; has 25% of its officers in Ottawa... there is a long overdue requirement for the Standing Force to conduct some honest self assessment.

I don't dispute any of that.  Like I said, we allowed ourselves the luxury of a long road (or parking lot) to high readiness, and did not go all in when we clearly should have.  Given a choice, the institution always takes the path of least resistance, which is becoming a well worn path to rack and ruin.