Does everyone collecting a government pay check need to be presented as an extraneous pig at the trough? We can’t spend our budget on major equipment & war essential consumables for lack of people, but we should manage the budget by cutting the too few who we have?
No one is suggesting, well I'm not, that everyone is at the trough. What I am suggesting is that we have far too many people administering the forces than actually being the forces. Every military needs to tails; one being the immediate logistics tail and the other the overarching administrative one. IMHO the administrative one has completely outgrown its usefulness. There are far too many leaders with far too much staff. IMHO they need a significant culling as well.
I'm not going to disagree with your argument that the Army has its Reg/Reserve balance wrong. I do however question the fact that you're really just changing the manning of the same basic force structures from full-time to part-time...using the Reg Force PY savings to create Res Force Brigades (admittedly with the key enablers that we're currently missing put back).
Effectively, in peacetime, all armies are "in reserve". The issue should be how many people do you need in full-time positions to develop doctrine, achieve leadership proficiency, manage the organization and its gear and react rapidly in an emergency and how many people can you safely put into part-time positions to round out the force when needed and time is available. Canada has skewed that ratio beyond all logic.
We're currently seeing Russia in a full-scale shooting war with a NATO partner nation. A nation that until just before the initiation of hostilities was hosting our military trainers. Even this extreme situation hasn't led the Canadian government to deploy any significant new troops and equipment to Europe. Hasn't led to some dramatic increase in Reserve activity. No scramble to urgently acquire vital military equipment. No serious talk about re-activating a Canadian Brigade Group in Europe. No loading of LAVs and tanks onto Ro-Ro's so they're ready to deploy if needed.
Can't argue with that. Democracies being what they are we'll always be burdened by those who consider re-election more important than national survival. That said, many of the decisions that I criticize are not made by elected officials but the mandarins, civilian and military, who are the stewards of the CAF. Frankly with the state the CAF is in we don't even have the equipment and capabilities to send any weapons or deploy a brigade in Europe.
You might write this off as just another example of the talk-much, do-nothing leadership of an anti-military government. However, do you see any of those actions taking place in the UK? In France? Germany? Sure, the Germans are increasing their defence spending, but are they pushing Brigades forward?
They actually are and will be. There's much movement to expand enhanced forward presence southeast and moving closer to borders. The UK has just refocused its defence view towards the Pacific and is in need of a quick rethink. The US has certainly sent large elements forward and my guess is that the Poles are adding to their already forward thinking deployments
That's what's making me wonder if your model of using the savings to just create more of the same old Brigade Groups is the right path?
I try to be weapon neutral in my thinking except in the way of obvious forces. As an example, I've thought for a while that our brigades need a more robust cavalry force which can do more than simply gather information; I think entity structures based on threes (platoons, companies, battalions) just make sense; I think both direct and indirect fire support is critical and that anyone who builds an army around riflemen without adequate ATGMs, mortars, tanks, artillery, air defence and a sustainable logistics system is a simpleton. Basically the combined arms brigade group structure is sound whether its in the light, medium or heavy category. It's not rocket science. Some day we'll have weapon systems that will have us go in a different direction but for the time being that's it.
The issue for us is to have a doctrine and equip the force in full. The flexibility comes from the RegF/ResF mix. You might need two full rifle companies in a battalion and no artillery for day to day needs but you'd better have trained reservists to fill out that third company and the artillery regiment when the time comes. It's too late when you see the Russians doing a three month exercise at the Latvian border.
FJAG wants to supply more Reserve Troops at the expense of the Regular Troops. I'm wondering if there is opportunity for savings in the civilian sector of DND.
I quite frankly do not want to see any full-timer from the field force Army go at all. My example does two things - one expand the capabilities with existing numbers and the second, more radical, shows how a reduction of full-time field force could leave the same capabilities if properly trained and organized reservists were available and provide sufficient funding to buy the essential material needed. Particularly in a country that seems to profess an aversion for a standing army.
I do not want to target civilians. We need many of their skills as much as service members. IMHO we have far too many military and civilians in full-time salaried positions that do not advance the effort to deliver defence capabilities. We need to cull the full-time salaried by better, smarter more agile management practices. No one wants that though.
It reminds me of Leslie's attempt back in 2010/11. The first thing that happened right out the gate is that the DND HQ side of the house refused to take part. After that everyone fought for their turf. The only way to address that is with a top down directed, time limited arbitrary culling of the herd leaving it to sort itself out afterward.
en.wikipedia.org
