'MBA types' hurt military, commander says

[m410]

Jeff Lee
Vancouver Sun

Saturday, May 20, 2006

DUNDURN, SASK. -- Years of gutting the Canadian military to bring efficiencies to an organization that relies on layers of operations have deeply harmed the country's military capability, according to the commander of one of western Canada's best-known army battalions.

In an interview sharpened by Canada's decision Wednesday to extend its mission to Afghanistan two more years, Lt.-Col. Wayne Eyre, the commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, blamed "MBA types" for gutting experience-generating infantry battalions.

And he said Canada will continue to lose valuable, experienced soldiers because it doesn't offer them overseas missions, instead overtasking them with training and teaching jobs that keep them away from their families without giving them the adventure they crave.

Eyre also criticized the federal government's decision last month to cancel a smaller secondary task force that would have seen overseas operations in Afghanistan, Sudan or Haiti, and which directly impacted 200 of B.C.'s reserve soldiers who had volunteered for the mission.

Many of those soldiers had quit jobs, put schooling on hold or moved out of apartments in order to join the task force, Eyre said in an interview during a training exercise where a small group of reservists were preparing for a primary task force deployment in February to Afghanistan.

"For me personally it was extremely professionally disappointing. Extremely, because I would have commanded it. But also, what happened is they ripped the battalion apart," said Eyre, a 20-year veteran who was at the Battle of Medak Pocket in Croatia.

As a result, the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's is lending one rifle company, including 27 B.C. reservists, to a battle group from Ontario that will take over the newly extended mission.

The government cancelled the secondary task force because of concerns the military was overstretched and could only meet its Afghanistan commitment but not further demands elsewhere in the world.

But that problem started back in the 1990s when the military made ill-advised changes based on a theory it could become more efficient, he said.

"It's because we've got too many MBAs," he said. "Business and military are fundamentally different. Businesses strive for efficiencies. You eliminate redundancies. When you start taking out redundancies, redundancies that were put in place because of the realities of combat, and you're then faced with challenging overseas missions, you've shaved the ice so thin there is nothing left."

Despite his criticism, Eyre said in a second interview Friday he fully supports the decision to be in Afghanistan.

jefflee@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2006

 

[McG]

The government cancelled the secondary task force because of concerns the military was overstretched and could only meet its Afghanistan commitment but not further demands elsewhere in the world.

Actually, the second task force was cancelled so that the army could conduct training to relieve some of the problems raised in this article. 

 

[GO!!!]

Actually, the second task force was cancelled so that the army could conduct training to relieve some of the problems raised in this article. 

Impressive.

I would have thought that a LCol might have a particular insight into why the army does what it does at the macro level - where did you get this info?

What trg was so imperative that TF 02/07 had to be cancelled to conduct it?

 

[orange.paint]

"And he said Canada will continue to lose valuable, experienced soldiers because it doesn't offer them overseas missions, instead overtasking them with training and teaching jobs that keep them away from their families without giving them the adventure they crave."

Nice to see someone actually understands that most soldiers didn't join to obtain the "20yrs domestic service medal".Sounds like he actually talked to troops and no one was blowing smoke up his arse about "how much a honour it is to stay in the field for 8 months of the year and never deploy."

I can't imagine the frustration of the res guys who quit jobs to get the mat pulled out from under their feet.Must have messed up a lot of personal/business plans on civilian side.

I personally feel horrible in my current situation at the school.Freshly posted here (1 fiscal year) and will not return for a couple more for sure.I have not deployed to Afghanistan as of yet and feel that the opportunity is slowly fading away,and when I do get back to godsland (i.e Petawawa) it will all be over. (Career manager if your reading nod nod wink wink)

I understand the need for experience at the schools.experience is how we learn and influences they way we fight and hopefully live.I have heard the idea of taking people (reg and reserve) who do not wish to deploy, and sending them to these positions to instruct.This works for the members stuck in my situation, but thus greatly affects the new troops coming in.Not deployable,not employable just ain't so anymore.

I need another tour.
rant over.Back to my trench tomorrow.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Nice to see someone actually understands that most soldiers didn't join to obtain the "20yrs domestic service medal".

That is a short-sighted and cheap way to refer to generations of Cold War soldiers who joined to serve without the prospect of lucrative tours on the horizon.  In one post you insult those who have gone before you and also imply that the only respectable reason to serve is to go overseas.

 

[big bad john]

That is a short-sighted and cheap way to refer to generations of Cold War soldiers who joined to serve without the prospect of lucrative tours on the horizon.  In one post you insult those who have gone before you and also imply that the only respectable reason to serve is to go overseas.

+1

 

[m410]

What trg was so imperative that TF 02/07 had to be cancelled to conduct it?

Individual training such as SQ and BIQ.  We're over a barrel when it comes to instructors.

And he said Canada will continue to lose valuable, experienced soldiers because it doesn't offer them overseas missions, instead overtasking them with training and teaching jobs that keep them away from their families without giving them the adventure they crave.

This is Colonel Eyre's particular problem.  His battalion is split with some going to TF 1-07 with the RCR while the rest are presumably heavily tasked with instructor billets.  Which means NCOs away from their families in Wainwright and Gagetown and eager privates and corporals with no mission for the foreseeable future sitting around in Edmonton with no NCOs.  There are morale issues in the company staying behind and a lot of releases likely in the near future.

His point on redundancy is an important one.  There isn't a large overhead of master corporals and sergeants, the instructor ranks.  They need to be in two places at once: in their units leading sections, and at schools teaching recruits.

As far as the B.C. reservists, there were only about 80, not 200, who committed to TF 2-07 before it was cancelled.  There would have been more willing to go but starting at later dates (not many were willing to commit in April 06 for a tour deploying in February 07!).  27 of those 80 have firm positions with C Coy, 3 VP going to TF 1-07.  The rest have guaranteed employment through to this August (many have not taken this).  Everyone knew from the start that 2-07 was shakey and they shouldn't make irrevocable decisions (this was made very clear).  The people with the most problems were the 27 who only found out they were confirmed just before deployment to Dundurn and then only had 1 week after the ex to pack up their things, move out of apartments, etc. and get to Edmonton.  It was fortunate that 2-07 was cancelled when it was instead of months down the road, or it would have become another "Tour Too Far".

 

[McG]

I would have thought that a LCol might have a particular insight into why the army does what it does at the macro level - where did you get this info?

What trg was so imperative that TF 02/07 had to be cancelled to conduct it?

In a conversation with Comd CEFCOM & a member of his staff.  It came out that the second line of operations was cancelled so that the pers could be used to run courses for all of the new recruits that the government intends to hire.  This has been discussed in other threads as well.

. . . but, if it makes you feel better, the lack of quotation marks on that paragraph indicate the statement I referenced to have been the journalist's words.

 

[m410]

That is a short-sighted and cheap way to refer to generations of Cold War soldiers who joined to serve without the prospect of lucrative tours on the horizon.  In one post you insult those who have gone before you and also imply that the only respectable reason to serve is to go overseas.

-1

He was referring to current soldiers, not past soldiers.  And most current soldiers want, very badly, to carry live bullets in sandy places.

 

[orange.paint]

That is a short-sighted and cheap way to refer to generations of Cold War soldiers who joined to serve without the prospect of lucrative tours on the horizon.  In one post you insult those who have gone before you and also imply that the only respectable reason to serve is to go overseas.

Not to offend our cold war era guys at all.But in these times who would want to remain in Canada keeping the homefires burning while other young men made the sacrifice away from their families and with their lifes.I should have stated "most young guys TODAY don't join to serve 20 years in Canada."

Also we don't have a enemy threat to our north as it was then either,where defence of Canada was a real threat.But today its deployments that are our armys main focus.I personally don't want to be the guy in this mans army who have never deployed,guess it all comes down to the soldier I guess.

m410,thanks.

 

[big bad john]

-1

He was referring to current soldiers, not past soldiers.  And most current soldiers want, very badly, to carry live bullets in sandy places.

As someone who has served for over twenty years in my countries military (Royal Marines) , IMHO a good soldier might 'want' many things, but says yes sir, when he gets his orders and carries them out to the best of his abilities.  I know many very good soldiers who were 'cursed' by being excellent Instructors and Staff Officers, and thus never saw operational taskings.  But they did their jobs well and should not be looked down because they never went on operational taskings.  Such comments should be discouraged strongly in my opinion.  Rant over.

 

[orange.paint]

As I was reading in another topic Afghanistan is becoming a recruitment issue.New troops are being drawn in for the adventure and to serve their country in far off lands.Sort of how members joined years ago to beat off the CCCP from attacking their homeland.

Today most instructors have operational experience,thus greatly improving our training system as they have been there.Anyone can read about Afghanistan and learn from fellow troops stories, but until you have had foot on the ground you are still using second hand information.Now having said that many people have completed tours else where and have also brought that to the table.

Today a soldier must be willing to deploy and most are eager in my opinion.Afghanistan now is the Bosnia of the early 1990's.

Are there soldiers today who do not wish to deploy?Who haven't deployed?
Feel free to tell your story if that is the case.

 

[Gunner]

In an interview sharpened by Canada's decision Wednesday to extend its mission to Afghanistan two more years, Lt.-Col. Wayne Eyre, the commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, blamed "MBA types" for gutting experience-generating infantry battalions.

LCol Eyre is one of the best infantry officers I have had the pleasure of serving with.  Having said that, simply sitting on rucksacks rubbing our hands together hoping the federal government will suddenly realize they need to provide the military more money is not a suitable response.  After the Cold War, we lived in this alternate reality for the majority of the 90s and lost valuable time restructuring to the new paradigm (both from a government support perspective and globally).  In essence, the world and Canada continued to move forward, we circled the wagons hoping for the calvary to come over the hill to save us. Are "MBA types" going to solve all of the problems facing the CF/Army?  No of course not, but they can provde different approaches that may solve our current/historical conundrum (too small an army, too many tasks, too little resources, etc, etc).

At the end of the day, "MBA types" don't make decisions, commanders do.

Military guy and MBA student.

 

[Journeyman]

...current soldiers want...to carry live bullets in sandy places

Why would any soldier want to carry rounds in his underwear waistband? It was always sandy there. ;D

The media has been known to spin comments and leave a false impression with readers.....for example, the government has stated that Darfur is not doable because of the CF's personnel shortage. Now, hypothetically, an anti-Harper media could play up, out of context, a comment by a serving battalion commander that Canadian soldiers want to go, but the mean, nasty, perhaps even racist, Conservative government under Harper refuses to send them - - stiffling their desire to be humanitarian peacekeepers ( : ).

If, however, this article correctly represents CO 3VP's views, 180 degrees (or 3200 mils) contrary to government pronouncements, it sounds like Maj Eyres may be responding to his command not including an operational deployment with self-destruction. I wish him well.

 

[Gunner]

If, however, this article correctly represents CO 3VP's views, 180 degrees (or 3200 mils) contrary to government pronouncements, it sounds like Maj Eyres may be responding to his command not including an operational deployment with self-destruction. I wish him well.

I think there is a bit of journalistic emphasis on LCol Eyre's comments. I have no doubt that he, 3PPCLI, LFWA and the army would have all liked to have deployed to Afghanistan, Sudan or Haiti, it's what we join for.  I also have no doubt that LCol Eyre is fully supportive of the elected government.

 

[paracowboy]

why not wait and see if he reads this?

 

[orange.paint]

Another thing to think about also is the burn out rate,wrecked marriages of the men who have been deployed everytime their time in country has expired.Having a relatively small army we cannot afford to have the career domestic op's guys.We need guys on the ground and as the good Lcol has alluded to there are members stuck in the training system,reservist who have put down all their civilian plans who are desperate to deploy.

Are members in the training system less in terms of soldiers,defiantly not.Maybe a rotation between time in country and fresh members from schools should be looked at more rigorously.There should be no reason people should be signing waivers to return to Afghanistan when many members have not deployed.It's for the health of the members who have been deployed constantly and those who sit and get angry at the system who have put them in a stagnet position.

Having said all this people here in Canada are doing a very important job training our army's youth.Sort of like a guy told me about his grandfather who spent WW2 walking around London as an infanteer with a enfield loaded with no bullets.He wanted to go to the front also but his job was important to the sanity and security of the city.

Someone has to look at the numbers and qualifications of members and switch heavily deployed pers with non deployed pers with the same qualifications.We could easily field many more troops.

 

[Journeyman]

I think there is a bit of journalistic emphasis on LCol Eyre's comments.

Which is why I actually explained the first, media-spin, hypothesis; it sounds like the most probable.

 

[Gunner]

why not wait and see if he reads this?

He may but probably just to see the comments.  i would be surprised if he posted to it for a variety of reasons.

Which is why I actually explained the first, media-spin, hypothesis; it sounds like the most probable.

Roger that, my journeyman friend.

 

[big bad john]

Not going on a tour and avoiding a tour are two separate issues.  I personally know of more than one Canadian officer that has never avoided a tour, volunteered for tours, but because of their being 'blessed' as a good or better Staff Officer they have always missed out.  I respect them.  

On the other hand, I feel that it is a slimy individual who repeatedly avoids tours.  We all can have issues that crop up that might occasion us to miss A tour, but I look hard at repeat offenders.  But then, I am always tactful, aren't I.