Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[PPCLI Guy]

I look at it the other way. Ditch the tax free, but significantly increase hardship and risk allowances.

What we have now results in people of different ranks receiving vastly different advantage from being on a risky mission. I got curious, and I crunched the numbers using a simple online tax calculator for an IPC 0 Cpl and IPC 0 Major, each Ontario residents, each on a six month tour to a tax relieved op.

Maj 100,632 annual salary (25,478 tax payable)
Taxable income with six months tax free = 50,316 (8,499 tax payable)
Tax savings from a six month deployment = 16,979 (2,829/month while deployed)

Cpl 56,568 annual salary (10,352 annual tax payable)
Taxable income with six months tax free = 28,284 (3,444 tax payable)
Tax savings from a six month deployment = 6,908 (1,151/month while deployed)

So- the system of tax relief for deployed operations basically rewards risk different based on rank. A major receives approx 250% the benefit of a corporal from the tax relief. If we're compensating risk, and presumably the risk does not recognize variances in rank, maybe we're doing it wrong? Should an infantry company commander and his LAV driver not get the same benefit for risk? Or the pilot versus the AESop in the back?

Just a thought...

Nope.  Tax free against the maximum salary of a CWO, after that, one's salary is taxed....

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I don't know...using aircrew and clerks, or MPs deployed to OP IMPACT, are they all facing the same risk??

Before anyone answers, here's a quick reminder to what ISIS do to aircrew they capture. 

RIP Capt Moaz al-Kasasbeh

Well seeing as that just got axed, it is not likely a good baseline/benchmark for deployed ops benefits/compensation.

Operational Allowance, Risk Allowance...name it what you want but the key is to properly identify who gets it and when.  Again using IMPACT as an example, the SOR staff aren't at the same risk as aircrew, yet both receive the same RA.  Aircrew are *5 minutes away* from the fate of Moaz al-Kasasbeh over the JOA.  Anyone who has been to Camp Canada knows what the risk of that happening there is.

It's not about picking a different trade or whining, its about fairly administering benefits for conducting op's, or supporting op's.  Let's be honest, not everyone ends up putting their meat on the line.  That's why some folks going to deployments like IMPACT qualify for a GCS and some qualify for a GSM.

The General Campaign Star (GCS) is awarded to members of the Canadian Forces and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy.


The General Service Medal (GSM) is awarded to members of the CF and members of allied forces serving with the CF who deploy outside of Canada - but not necessarily into a theatre of operations - to provide direct support, on a full-time basis, to operations in the presence of an armed enemy.
  :2c:

Awarding of different medals for the same Op isn't debated, not everyone is F Echelon, right?  Why would allowances not be approached the same?  Conducting operations = Risk/Operational Allowance Level A, Supporting Operations = Risk/Operational Allowance Level B.

Do you get aircrew allowance?  The purpose of aircrew allowance is to acknowledge the inherent danger associated with flying or regularly being in an aircraft.  Whether you're shot down or have a mechanical failure is irrelevant.

It's the same with paratroop allowance, parachuting is inherently dangerous so we give a special allowance for it. 

You're paid to do a job in the military, why should you be paid yet more money to actually do your job?  The concept makes no sense and is a gigantic waste of money.

Imagine a conflict on the scale of WWII with every Tom, Dick and Harry that is anywhere near the FEBA getting a danger allowance, the concept is ridiculous.

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

To be clear, when we get Risk allowance, we cease to receive aircrew allowance.

 

[Sub_Guy]

To be clear, when we get Risk allowance, we cease to receive aircrew allowance.

Negative.  We got it because we were in a CDS designated flying position.

205.32 (3) (Limitation) A member who is paid an allowance under CBI 10.3.05 (Hardship Allowance) or CBI 10.3.07 (Risk Allowance) is not entitled to be paid Aircrew Allowance under this instruction unless the member occupies a position designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff in accordance with CBI 10.3.08 (Environmental Allowances).

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

Hmm if I remember correctly we lost it during Op Mobile. Not sure about Op Impact, since I was with Ops.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Do you get aircrew allowance?  The purpose of aircrew allowance is to acknowledge the inherent danger associated with flying or regularly being in an aircraft.  Whether you're shot down or have a mechanical failure is irrelevant.

I think the difference in *risk* is quite substantial, and relevant, between going down off the coast of Nfld on a SURPAT and going down IVO western Mosul.  There isn't much chance of taking a hit from a SAM off Nfld, the chances of going down *controlled* are increased, and there aren't people looking to put me in orange jammies and roast me in a cage.

So ya...pretty different circumstances and pretty relevant IMO. 

I also note you didn't comment on the aspect of aircrew, operating over ISIS territory and being the furthest into the JOA of any CAF personnel, getting the same RA as *anyone who is support and never leaves the safety of Camp Canada*.  This seems *ok* to you?  Is Pte Bloggin in the Infantry on sentry in Wainwright on Ex at the same risk as Pte Smith, patrolling in "insert African country UN mission name"? 

10.3.07 - Risk Allowance

10.3.07(1) (Intent) The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post.



* I agree, we are paid well.  I think we can administer things like RA better though.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Hmm if I remember correctly we lost it during Op Mobile. Not sure about Op Impact, since I was with Ops.

IMPACT, we keep it if we are in Designated Flying Positions, which should be part of the CFTPO details IIRC.  I've kept mine each time.

Maybe time for a thread split between the IMPACT and Ops compensation stuff?

 

[brihard]

Nope.  Tax free against the maximum salary of a CWO, after that, one's salary is taxed....

Same fundamental flaw. If what's being compensated is *risk*, there's no logical inherent connection between that and rank, but that's what the tax break does. Does the RSM face greater risk than his driver? If not, why does a financial benefit tied to risk benefit him or her so much more than the subordinate?

I'm just thinking out loud here, obviously I'll never be turned to for solutions. But it seems straightforward to do a bottom up analysis of what exactly it is that's being compensated and to ensure the compensation and benefits achieve that intent. We compensate differently for increased responsibility, authority, and experience. Totally fair. Compensation for risk and hardship should be as much as possible objectively and empirically based on what they're compensating.

 

[Harris]

I agree but we already break that model by having "points" that increase the amount based on time.  I'd be OK with a flat rate that increases the more you are "exposed" to the risk and/or hardship.

 

[dimsum]

CTV's been running with this for a little while now, and looks like the CDS has ordered a review of tax-free status for deployments.  There's a little line in the video (but not in the print) that mentions that an option is for all deployments to be tax-free.

Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance has launched a wide-ranging review of the rules around tax-free status for military personnel, after troops in Kuwait lost a tax break because officials said they didn’t face a high enough risk.nnAt the top of Vance’s list is making sure no more troops lose their tax exemption partway through deployment.

“My intent at this juncture is to try and avoid anyone losing this tax break while they’re actually on operations,” he said Friday.

CTV News first broke the story that more than 300 Canadian Forces personnel in Kuwait were losing a tax break worth $1,500 to $1,800 a month, after the military downgraded the risk assessment of their mission -- even though some personnel regularly enter Iraq, where the Islamic State has a foothold.

The Chief of the Defence Staff said troops are supposed to receive a six-month warning if their tax status will be lost. But several military personnel in Kuwait told CTV News they were not told in advance.  “I didn’t know at all until I got on the ground,” said one soldier who spoke to CTV News on the condition of anonymity.

Vance hinted that those who already lost their tax break mid-tour in Kuwait could see a resolution.  “Those who had planned on it ought to be able to get it,” he said. “So we’re going to work on that and we’re going to try and put that in place.”

Critics say the government should expand tax-free status to more troops stationed in global hotspots.

Documents obtained by CTV News show that Canadians serving in Bahrain, Qatar and Jordan -- where American and Jordanian security forces have been targeted in terror attacks -- do not receive a tax break, while U.S. soldiers stationed in those same countries are tax exempt.

“Certainly, these are dangerous areas,” said Christian Leuprecht, a professor of political science at the Royal Military College. “In Jordan, we have active efforts by militant groups inside the country.”

Even the mission in Erbil, Iraq, came up for review, after a risk assessment failed to qualify for automatic tax relief. On Friday, the finance minister’s office said it expects Canadian troops in Iraq will keep their tax-free status.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vance-launches-review-of-tax-free-status-for-deployed-troops-1.3291195

 

[MJP]

CTV's been running with this for a little while now, and looks like the CDS has ordered a review of tax-free status for deployments.  There's a little line in the video (but not in the print) that mentions that an option is for all deployments to be tax-free.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vance-launches-review-of-tax-free-status-for-deployed-troops-1.3291195

I have said it elsewhere but the right solution is for Kuwait only folks to pay tax and do whatever they did for pilots that flew over Kosovo or the TAL guys into Afghanistan in terms of risk/hazard/taxfree status. Apply that logic to those that meet the criteria either by virtue of flying in support of or going to any of the other areas involved in the mission.

Or make us all tax free  >

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If there is no risk in Kuwait, why aren't CAF members allowed off Camp Canada when they aren't working?  Hmmmmm...anything open source about that? 

Kuwait arrests suspected Islamist after truck attack on Americans

Sat Oct 8, 2016

Kuwaiti security forces have detained a suspected Islamist militant who rammed a truck believed to be carrying explosives into a car carrying five Americans, state news agency KUNA reported on Saturday.

The agency quoted an interior ministry statement as saying the Americans were unhurt, but the assailant, identified as Egyptian national Ibrahim Suleiman, was injured and was taken to a hospital under security escort.

"After an initial investigation of the suspect Suleiman, who was born in 1988, by specialized security apparatus, a hand-written note was found indicating that he had adopted the terrorist Daesh ideology and pledged allegiance to this organization," KUNA said, referring to Islamic State.

The agency published a photo of a bearded man. It said a belt and materials believed to be explosives were also found in the vehicle, "suggesting he was plotting a terrorist act".

It was the second time in three months that Western-allied Kuwait had announced it had captured suspected militants.

In July, the OPEC oil exporter and home to U.S. military bases said it had foiled three planned Islamic State attacks on the country, including a plot to blow up a Shi'ite mosque.

Kuwait suffered its deadliest militant attack in decades in June last year when a Saudi suicide bomber blew himself up inside a packed Shi'ite mosque, killing 27 people. Islamic State claimed responsibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, 2 announcements about captured suspected militants in 3 months.  And how many unannounced?  ^-^


Kuwait 'foils three planned IS attacks'

4 July 2016

The authorities in Kuwait say they have thwarted three planned attacks by so-called Islamic State (IS), including a plot to blow up a Shia mosque.

An interior ministry statement said security agencies had arrested five Kuwaitis and an Asian in a series of raids inside Kuwait and abroad.

Those held include a woman and her son, who were living between Syria and Iraq.

Last year, a Saudi suicide bomber killed 27 people when he blew himself up inside a Shia mosque in Kuwait City.

At least one man has been sentenced to death in connection with the attack, which IS said it was behind.

Gulf national 'at large'

The interior ministry statement, which was published overnight, did not mention when the raids to foil the alleged plots took place.

One of those held was named as Talal Naif Raja, an 18-year-old who the statement said was planning to bomb a Shia mosque and an interior ministry facility.

He allegedly told investigators that he had received instructions from a leading IS figure abroad, and that he had planned to carry out the attacks at the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan on Tuesday or during the festival of Eid al-Fitr.

The second cell comprised 52-year-old Hessa Abdullah Mohammad and her 28-year-old son, Ali Mohammed Omar, who were arrested near the Syria-Iraq border and brought back to Kuwait, according to the statement.

The third cell was made up of four men, three of whom were seized along with two rifles, ammunition and an IS flag, it added.

The statement said one of the suspects - Abdullah Mubarak Mohammed, 24 - worked for the interior ministry and that another was a citizen of an Asian country.

The fourth member of the cell, a Gulf national, is still at large.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

So, like people who work in St Jean, or Washington, or Boston??

 

[dimsum]

Cat is out of the bag regarding Syria:

It has been one year since Canadian CF-18 fighter jets flew their last mission over Syria after the Liberals withdrew the planes in favour of a mission to train local forces and help rebuild areas affected by fighting.

While the revamped mission against ISIL includes a mandate to operate over Syria, military officials have been reluctant to confirm whether Canada's surveillance and refuelling planes are operating over the country.

Two Canadian surveillance planes have flown hundreds of sorties to identify potential targets for coalition airstrikes, the majority of which have been in Iraq.

On Sunday, a senior Canadian commander revealed that the aircraft have also quietly flown dozens of times over Syria in recent months.
"We have done work in Syria," Brig.-Gen. Shane Brennan, commander of Canada's Joint Task Force-Iraq, told reporters during a media tour of the mission, though he added: "There's lots of work to do in Iraq. We are looking at all of the areas."

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2017/02/19/trump-may-influence-the-work-of-canadians-involved-in-fight-against-isil.html

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am shocked !!  Syria?

:blotto:

Seriously though, now the questions of why didn't this become common knowledge etc are likely to start.  I wonder why it took this long.

 

[dimsum]

I am shocked !!  Syria?

:blotto:

Seriously though, now the questions of why didn't this become common knowledge etc are likely to start.  I wonder why it took this long.

I'd say "Good OPSEC" but more likely "nobody cares but us".

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The OPSEC is so good, people deployed to IMPACT didn't know RCAF planes and people were flying over Iraq.  :rofl:

Joint Task Force - Iraq.  Air Task Force - Iraq.  Maybe it was a little too obvious?  ;D

I wouldn't be surprised to hear some political ramblings etc over "Canadians not being informed we were operating over Syria"... :blah:

Latest Information on RCAF Sorties

Attention: Latest news

Aircraft sorties

As of February 18, 2017, Air Task Force-Iraq has conducted 2,777 sorties*:

•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 680 sorties, delivering some 39,900,000 pounds of fuel to Coalition aircraft; and

•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 719 reconnaissance missions.

Definition - sortie: in air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing.

*This total includes 1378 sorties conducted by CF-18 Hornets between October 30, 2014 and February 15, 2016.

Air Task Force- Iraq

As part of Joint Task Force-Iraq, Air Task Force-Iraq contributes to Coalition air operations, including:
•one CC-150 Polaris aerial refueller to support Coalition air operations;
•up to two CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft to contribute to Coalition intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities;
•a tactical aviation detachment of up to four CH-146 Griffon helicopters to provide in-theatre tactical transport of Canadian troops, equipment, and supplies near Erbil. The Griffons are capable of providing casualty evacuations if required.  A variety of self-defence weapons are fitted to the aircraft for the deployment; and
•associated aircrew and support personnel.

These aircraft represent an important part of the Canadian contribution to the Global Coalition.

 

[MJP]

I'd say "Good OPSEC" but more likely "nobody cares but us".

We care as it is so cute when the fixed wing side of the RCAF makes it to a real fight, plus they never stop letting you know they are there so it is a double bonus.  Winning for everyone! 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Spoken like a true Dobber.  How awesome.

Try not to get hurt with that stapler again! 

*Sir*  ^-^

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Says the Logistics Officer who won't likely see Syria (or Iraq, or ISIS) other than from Google Earth or Youtube.  Your post demonstrates the true DOBBER attitude, thanks for that!  :subbies:

Oh, and, try not to get hurt with that stapler again!  ^-^

*Sir* 

Your post is ignorant beyond belief and insulting to the Logistics folks that kept the Canadian War Machine in Kandahar, well-oiled, fed and topped up with ammunition, some of whom paid the ultimate price. 

You should read more and speak less.  Here is a good book to start with: