Precedence of Tribal Badges (or “why I want to wear that badge) – split thread

[Baz]

Oh and Baz? USN Corpsmen work for the Marines not the US Army.

I never said work for, I said attached to... which they do.  I didn't want to use the exams of Corpsman with the Marines because they for all intents and purposes act like Marines.

But as that example is an edge case, I'll use this one.  When the Navy ordered me to wear NCDs on the boat I wore them.  And I never was posted to the boat, I was always attached posted.  So my Full Command chain was NEVER to the ship's CO, and I always had residual command responsibilities back to the Sqn.  If they had ordered my to wear them while flying then I would of refused.  Of course, in the early 90's we did have a detachment ordered to not wear flying jackets because they were only for Sea Training... and that order was enforced until the ship came along side and it hit the fan.

CANFORGEN 198/09, which is the one in question, is valid; pers wearing belonging to the Naval Environment (to be precise, entitled to wear the Naval Distinctive Environmental Uniform) should normally wear NCDs.  And as OGBD driver sind it even makes sense.  But it has nothing to do with the RCN, it pre-dates it by 2 years.  In no way do these pers belong to the RCN; they do have a tie to the institution of the RCN but no legal reporting mechanism.  It also says except for valid operational reason, again which makes sense.

What I have a problem with is the tone displayed... if you are ordered to wear CADPAT or any other dress, unless manifestly wrong, then that is a legal order.  A blanket statement that you are going to EMail the VCDS and then ignore the order until you get a reply is so contrary to proper C2 principals that it is scary.

None of it surprises me... I had a conversation a few years ago with an ORO (the 2nd most senior person on the ship when it comes to employment) about Full Command to the RCN, and latent responsibilities,  when chopped to CEFCOM or Canada COM  (at the time, now CJOC )... he in effect was saying the RCN could retask  him.  It showed a marked misunderstanding of the difference between MARLANT and JTF (A), even though they are Commanded by the same person.

You need to go no further than the JTF (P) website which describes some units, like 443, as units of JTF (P)... it may even say units of MARPAC but I can't be bothered to check... no, they are are.lodger units, not units of.  There was a reason they taught this stuff in OPDP 4 or whichever one it was.

I believe a legal order is just that, an order to be followed, unless it's manifestly illegal(illegal, as in against the law of Canada, primarily the NDA, or international law like the law of armed confict), or unsafe (and that only when you are not in a situation where the Commander has already evaluated safety).  You can advise that you believe it to be contrary to a regulation, but if ordered to do so then you do it; I also fully expect the chain of command to take responsibility for their orders.  So in this case the caveat is valid operational reason... to me that is decision for the chain of command.

There were situations I can thin of that I would have asked for the order in writing and then lock it in a safe (and even then only if time permits), but they weren't something as trivial as what clothes to put on.  Stuff like being ordered to go flying when it normally wouldn't be authorized to do so.  And in extremists I can think of situations I would have disobeyed such an order if given (as an example,  being ordered to launch by a ship's CO to conduct a SAR in unsuitable weather conditions ), but I would also fully expect to be charged with disobedience of an order and have the court martial figure it out.  Obviously I would hope that such an order would never be given.

OK... this certainly no longer belongs in this thread.  But to reiterate, it's not about the buttons and bows, nor the duty of subordinates to inform superiors of regulations they may not be aware of; it's about my perceived understanding of what some think the RCN and RCAF is, and the tone used to describe interaction with a lawful chain of command.

Edited to be a little shorter and a little less confrontational.

 

[cavalryman]

I'll probably commit an act of sheer heresy here, but might not one of the factors be the titles we now give the heads of the elements, i.e. Commander RCN, Commander CA, Commander RCAF.  The venerable sages of this site may correct (and flog me) at will but in the hoary days before Mr Hellyer, didn't we call them Chief of the Navy Staff, Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Air Staff?  Much different connotations than calling them 'commanders'.  It might explain some of the confusion, especially since CJOC is actually the commander employing the folks in the war zone.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Bravo, Baz.

I recently had an enlightening conversation with some folks from the Air Warfare Centre that made it crystal clear that the RCAF is more interested in making its Sqns fit a very USAF centric C2 model (that arguable does not fit Canada, given that our Air Force does Maritime functions that the USAF does not do) then they are in understand both the doctrine and C2 structure of the Army and Navy that they support, so that they can tailor the delivery of aerial effects to meet the needs of those services.

Instead, you see the RCAF antagonize both the Army and Navy with its cookie cutter ATF structure, which do not fit inside the doctrine of those services.

It is to weep.

Again, de-unification by stealth without the apparent knowledge of the CDS or MND.

 

[Baz]

Instead, you see the RCAF antagonize both the Army and Navy with its cookie cutter ATF structure, which do not fit inside the doctrine of those services.

Yep, had the same conversations, including wrote a letter to their Journal (which is available on the internet).  The Navy (and Army?) sometimes don't seem to understand the Full Command and residual implications, but worse the Air Force doesn't get that they don't need the USAF structure to exercise those responsibilities, as they do in fact retain full Command.

What is interesting is that the highest level regulations don't necessarily belong to the Air Force: flying orders belong to the CDS and technical airworthiness to ADM (Mat) for instance.  You could keep the Comd RCAF the advisor to the CDS on flight matters and retain responsibility for the maintenance of airworthiness, and move Naval and Tac Aviation back to the Navy and Army, and it would still work.  Attached units would still be that, attached, but the squadron full Command would be to a different environment, the primary Airworthiness authorities would also still be in place  The question is: would it make the situation any better, or worse?

Going farther, you could then re-encapsulate the Aviation communities (ie limit movement of hard air trades, aircrew and techs, in and out) and get back the sense of specialness they had.  At that point their home environment is no longer the Air Force.  Again, would that help?

But these are actual real questions of C2, not minor issues of buttons and bows.  Which uniform they wear is a by-product of where their home is.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Bravo, Baz.

I recently had an enlightening conversation with some folks from the Air Warfare Centre that made it crystal clear that the RCAF is more interested in making its Sqns fit a very USAF centric C2 model (that arguable does not fit Canada, given that our Air Force does Maritime functions that the USAF does not do) then they are in understand both the doctrine and C2 structure of the Army and Navy that they support, so that they can tailor the delivery of aerial effects to meet the needs of those services.

Instead, you see the RCAF antagonize both the Army and Navy with its cookie cutter ATF structure, which do not fit inside the doctrine of those services.

It is to weep.

Again, de-unification by stealth without the apparent knowledge of the CDS or MND.

I agree most of your first point, but I'm not sure about the second.

The formation of Air Command in 1975 is the "root cause" of the problem and I am 100% sure that the CDS, Gen Jacques Dextraze at the time, knew what (air force) Gens Carr and Hull were doing, and why ...

I'm not sure that the MND of the day, James Richardson, understood the implications or that even cared all that much.

More important, I think, is why it was allowed to happen.

As others have explained, many (most? almost all?) Navy admirals and Army generals were (intellectually) aware of the absolute need for joint forces, which we had in Maritime Command and Mobile Command, but they seemed unwilling or unable to make the hard organizational and priority setting choices needed to maintain joint forces when resources were tight ... tribalism and parochialism, I guess.

Meanwhile, from the very start, the "old" RCAF had felt short changed by Minister Hellyer: Maritime and Mobile Commands were big, joint commands, clearly the "top tier" but the air force only had a couple of smaller, single role commands: Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command. The solution, it always seemed to me, was simple, way back circa 1965: three big commands: Maritime, Mobile and Air. Air Command to have both air defence and air transport and, indeed, an air training (flying training) group. But, that never happened ... I was told it was discussed, every now and again, but nothing happened and the air force generals stewed and the anger festered and ... 1975 and Air Command and the biggest, dumbest "silo" in all, of human history was created, tossing everything we had learned about the value of joint operations (and organizations) on to the bonfire of logic so that a few enormous light blue egos could be satisfied.

Who to blame? Carr and Hull, obviously, but also Hellyer, himself, and Miller, the first CDS who, I think, understood the flaw in Hellyer's plan and other chiefs, like Allard and Sharp (although I heard rumours that Sharp was part of the problem and actually drove the process), who could have recommended changes. Oh, and every CDS since, some of whom, I know, understood that Air Command was a useless, even destructive monster but did nothing to make changes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yep, had the same conversations, including wrote a letter to their Journal (which is available on the internet).  The Navy (and Army?) sometimes don't seem to understand the Full Command and residual implications, but worse the Air Force doesn't get that they don't need the USAF structure to exercise those responsibilities, as they do in fact retain full Command.

What is interesting is that the highest level regulations don't necessarily belong to the Air Force: flying orders belong to the CDS and technical airworthiness to ADM (Mat) for instance.  You could keep the Comd RCAF the advisor to the CDS on flight matters and retain responsibility for the maintenance of airworthiness, and move Naval and Tac Aviation back to the Navy and Army, and it would still work.  Attached units would still be that, attached, but the squadron full Command would be to a different environment, the primary Airworthiness authorities would also still be in place  The question is: would it make the situation any better, or worse?

Going farther, you could then re-encapsulate the Aviation communities (ie limit movement of hard air trades, aircrew and techs, in and out) and get back the sense of specialness they had.  At that point their home environment is no longer the Air Force.  Again, would that help?

But these are actual real questions of C2, not minor issues of buttons and bows.  Which uniform they wear is a by-product of where their home is.

I know I'm repeating myself, but the service chiefs should be just that: Chief of the Naval Staff, Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Air Staff, professional heads of service, not commanders, with responsibilities for, inter alia, doctrine, individual training, and requirements but no, not even one iota of command authority over anyone but their own HQ clerks and staff officers. Oh, and they should be two stars appointments, too ... to keep the chain of command clear.

 

[Baz]

I know I'm repeating myself, but the service chiefs should be just that: Chief of the Naval Staff, Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Air Staff, professional heads of service, not commanders, with responsibilities for, inter alia, doctrine, individual training, and requirements but no, not even one iota of command authority over anyone but their own HQ clerks and staff officers. Oh, and they should be two stars appointments, too ... to keep the chain of command clear.

I can get onside for that, but I have a question.  Even though they would not be Commanders (of operations) should they not retain full Command of their environmental pers?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I can get onside for that, but I have a question.  Even though they would not be Commanders (of operations) should they not retain full Command of their environmental pers?

No,not in my opinion. They should be staff leaders. Command should rest, in a very clear chain of command, with the CDS, through commanders of joint or single service operational commands, formation commanders (MOGs, brigades, wings) and captains/COs of ships and units.

 

[Baz]

No,not in my opinion. They should be staff leaders. Command should rest, in a very clear chain of command, with the CDS, through commanders of joint or single service operational commands, formation commanders (MOGs, brigades, wings) and captains/COs of ships and units.

Now you gave me something useful to think about..

In the US system the forces are generated by the environment chiefs  (of staff), but what level of authority does the environment retain once chopped to the CO COM?  Not saying the US system is "right," but it is probably the best developed joint system.

 

[McG]

The unified commands (as opposed to joint) have seen detailed discussion before.  Aside from buttons and bows threads, it has been covered in the thread on HQ restructure.

To save your digging though 34 pages, it seems to start here:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/97262/post-1068689.html#msg1068689

 

[CountDC]

What I have a problem with is the tone displayed... if you are ordered to wear CADPAT or any other dress, unless manifestly wrong, then that is a legal order.  A blanket statement that you are going to EMail the VCDS and then ignore the order until you get a reply is so contrary to proper C2 principals that it is scary.

None of

Seems you have read something that I never said - at no point did I state or indicate I would not follow the order, merely that I requested it in writing when asked "what if I ordered you to wear it" so I could send it up as the order went against regulations of the CF as issued in the CANFORGEN and the order was never issued. 


Just as a point for those that seem to misunderstand the process of kit issue (or maybe I am reading it wrong) - when I draw green stuff I do not have to hand in my NCDs.  I do have all the green for when we go on field ex which amounts to once a year for one day for me.  Personally I think it is a waste to issue me all this green stuff to do a range shoot I am not required to have (only need PWT2 which is done on the SAT but they insist on PWT3), throw 2 grenades and a gas hut all of which could be done in NCDs (and yes I have done them in it).  I was ordered to draw the kit and to wear it for the ex so I do despite thinking it is stupid because it was an order that was actually issued and it does fit within the regulation.

Buttons and bows is an issue because the army insists on wanting to control every little detail of mbrs right down to the uniform they wear.  If it wasn't for the army mentality of everyone must wear green then the CANFORGEN would not have been needed in the first place.  Why does it matter to the army what I wear as a uniform to sit an office, do the SAT or gas hut.  In fact they should be happy to let me stay in my NCDs so they can issue the cadpat to an army member that actually needs it as there seems to be a shortage to go around. Instead I have the entire green issue that Cpl Army would receive sitting in my office locker and battle box not being used. 

i agree with the view that your command is the element you are posted to and not the element you are affiliated with. I am posted to the army thus I deal with army orders rather than marcords when elemental policies apply.  In some ways I agree with the desire to totally seperate the elements of army, navy and air force with anyone posted to them falling completely under their command.  I would feel sorry though for my army counterparts as I have no doubt they would be cut to even more barebones than we already have been and still expected to keep up with all the work. 
 

 

[PuckChaser]

Buttons and bows is an issue because the army insists on wanting to control every little detail of mbrs right down to the uniform they wear.  If it wasn't for the army mentality of everyone must wear green then the CANFORGEN would not have been needed in the first place.  Why does it matter to the army what I wear as a uniform to sit an office, do the SAT or gas hut.  In fact they should be happy to let me stay in my NCDs so they can issue the cadpat to an army member that actually needs it as there seems to be a shortage to go around. Instead I have the entire green issue that Cpl Army would receive sitting in my office locker and battle box not being used. 

We get it, you hate the Army. You also work for the Army, and they can tell you to wear whatever they want. Just like if I worked for the Navy, I'd wear ballcaps and coveralls because that's a lawful order. This buttons and bows crap is not solely an Army problem. It was the Navy that issued a CANFORGEN overstepping its bounds (IMHO). You also don't sail, so why are you wearing a Naval work dress? You're not using the uniform for its intended purpose, so throw on your DEU and wear that. How much money is wasted by you wearing the seat of your NCD pants out every year, when actual sailors could use it for actually sailing? You trying to start a bunfight over uniforms is exactly why we have problems with empire building in the CAF. Members of CANSOF in RCAF DEU cannot wear a tan beret, or even a tan insert (similar to MPs), all because Comd RCAF controls their DEU and said no (for what reason, someone in the Comd would have to outline). If I'm posted to an armored unit, they'd want me to wear a black beret with my jimmy. Do I get all up in arms about it, because I'm not armored? No. They do it because they want their support elements to feel like they're a part of the team, a part of the family, and an easy way to do that is have everyone in the same headdress.

At the end of the day, ordering Naval DEU pers to wear NCDs all the time was an absolutely stupid idea, out of someone's idea that no one knew the Navy existed. As if the anchor, black beret, and black thread on slipons/nametags wasn't enough. Look at the new NCDs: How many freaking times do you need your uniform to say "NAVY"?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Just as a point for those that seem to misunderstand the process of kit issue (or maybe I am reading it wrong) - when I draw green stuff I do not have to hand in my NCDs.  I do have all the green for when we go on field ex which amounts to once a year for one day for me.  Personally I think it is a waste to issue me all this green stuff to do a range shoot I am not required to have (only need PWT2 which is done on the SAT but they insist on PWT3), throw 2 grenades and a gas hut all of which could be done in NCDs (and yes I have done them in it).  I was ordered to draw the kit and to wear it for the ex so I do despite thinking it is stupid because it was an order that was actually issued and it does fit within

There's your first problem.... PWT 2 is only done in the SAT if you are required to do PWT 3 live. You have to complete your highest level PWT live.

Other than that, just wear the uniform you're required to wear. If you're in an army HQ and they want you in CADPAT just wear CADPAT

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Adm Donaldson was the VCDS when he signed the CANFORGEN not CMS.  Damn rights I will challenge anyone that wants to issue me an order to wear a uniform contrary to regulations same as I challenged them when they tried to tell me I couldn't wear a beard. I also challenge them over many things as it is part of my responsibility as a SNCM and clerk to challenge them when I see they are ignoring a regulation.  Guess what - I just did it again today.  Guess what else - my chain of command has thanked me several times for doing it as they want to be aware so that they can keep out of trouble for doing something wrong.  If your chain doesn't appreciate being challenged and advised of the regulations then there is something wrong there.

Last time I checked we are the REAL RCN, I am posted to the army and yes I not only think it is approriate to question, it is expected when you are aware of the regulations.

Adm Donaldson was the VCDS when he signed the CANFORGEN not CMS.  Damn rights I will challenge anyone that wants to issue me an order to wear a uniform contrary to regulations same as I challenged them when they tried to tell me I couldn't wear a beard. I also challenge them over many things as it is part of my responsibility as a SNCM and clerk to challenge them when I see they are ignoring a regulation.
Last time I checked we are the REAL RCN, I am posted to the army and yes I not only think it is approriate to question, it is expected when you are aware of the regulations.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the contents of CFP 265 then WRT being ordered to wear CADPAT.  First, Order of Precedence WRT CFP 265 [A-DH-265-000/AG-001, Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, is issued on authority of the Chief of Defence Staff].  Does your Adm's CANFORGEN say it supersedes CFP 265?  Likely not, however...

From CFP 265, Ch 1, Art 8.

CONTROL

8. Control is exercised by local commanders
who may standardize the dress of subordinates on
any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements
and alternative or optional items, subject to overall
command direction. See also Chapter 2, Section 1,
paragraph 44.

If I was your Sgt-Major, I would give you 2 choices (1) get issued and wear CADPAT IAW Art 8 above or (2) be prepared for a charge which may be successful, and a RW that would be successful.

If you are a PO2, you are a Senior NCO, not a Senior NCM.  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank.page

Warrant Officers, Petty Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers  Notice, there is no term SNCM present.

:2c:  I saw lots of NAval DEU folks on my last deployment, oddly enough they were all in Arid CADPAT, and not one of them in NCDs.

Being a clerk gives you no more 'right' or 'duty' to challenge lawful commands than anyone else.  :  No offense to clerks, but you're not exactly on the spear, let alone the tip of it.

 

[PuckChaser]

Oh look, a mic drop.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I take no issue in someone being proud of the traditions by wearing their environmental dress in such a way.  I do take offense though in an individual that does so only because he gets a kick out of the reaction of his CoC and because he can "show them" he knows better.  This is unacceptable and should be corrected.

Having said that, I also take offence in an organization that imposes things on their members "just because".  In the end, we should all be adults, and the CoC should not impose more restrictions than necessary without meaningful reason and members should not conduct themselves in ways that provoke the CoC solely because they get a kick out of it.  This is, IMHO, the only way to encourage flexibility in the organization:  by treating them as adults and trusting them they can make the right decisions, even when there is no cut & dry orders that go with it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Everyone gets to pick the hill they die on/sword they fall on.  Example, while at my Sqn, I can wear a beret, wedge, or toque with my operational dress (green flight suit) and, in certain locations, a ball hat.  I also wear my approved Sqn patches, and would be considered out of dress without them.

If I was deployed to the current theatre my types are going to lately, my single choice in operational dress (flight suit, but arid pattern/colour), I would be limited to the arid bushhat.  My Sqn patches are not authorized in that location.

When in Rome...

 

[Halifax Tar]

Call me crazy but all this who wares what, when; could all be avoided and done away with if regained some common sense and posted soldiers to the field, sailors to sea and airmen to a hotel. 

I know right!  Its nuts for a sailor to expect to go to sea, isnt it ?

But wait!  My goodness what would happen too our purple (read Logistic) empires ? 

 

[Happy Guy]

The only answer to the "Logistics Empire" is that each individual environment / service does not have sufficient numbers of logisticians to support it.  The increasing complexity of weapons, the situation in theatre dictates how we fight battles and the troops own perceived expectations tells the GO/FOs how many logisticians are required. Having worked this side before I can honestly tell you that there is no fat anywhere in operational units (HQs are another matter).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Call me crazy but all this who wares what, when; could all be avoided and done away with if regained some common sense and posted soldiers to the field, sailors to sea and airmen to a hotel. 

I know right!  Its nuts for a sailor to expect to go to sea, isnt it ?

But wait!  My goodness what would happen too our purple (read Logistic) empires ?

True but that would require complete de-unification...not likely to happen and likely very expensive for 0 gain in 'operational capability' (which, personally, is what I really care about;  I don`t care for the Game of Thrones BS that IMO is rampant in our SMALL armed forces (if you can fit the entire Reg Force, with room to spare, in Fort Knox and everyone is in a hard building...you have a small Armed Forces.  Knox can house up to 70,000 troops in building, or could when I was there last).

On the "..but I am RCN, I don't HAVE to wear CADAP!" debate.  The RCN certainly expects Army DEU pers posted to their HMCSs to wear NCD with CADPAT slip-ons regardless of how &^(@#@@ stupid it looks.

Gotta love the double standard deal!