Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:08:40 -0800
>a plan to fold 2 Brigade into 1CMBG
The grain of truth seems to be that a trial balloon was floated supporting
reduction of the current 3 brigades into 2, without identifying any specific
reconfiguration. This strikes me as a political impossibility since it
presupposes the citizenry, and hence politicians, will tolerate an army split
50/50 anglo/franco regardless of the reality, that‘s how the plan‘s detractors
will spin it. Someone is playing the game in which one pretends to offer the
decision maker two or more alternatives, knowing that all but one the favoured
one are unpalatable.
> and that units would be losing their traditional names ie Strathconas in
favour of teh American system of simply numbering units.
This is probably 100 mushroom fodder.
>Anyone out here heard similar rumblings or is this just another case of the
rumour mill working overtime
Methinks very much the latter.
>Can anyone out here confirm or deny the proposal first floated about a year ago
to disband all Combat Arms functions within the Reserves and reorg the
organization to provide solely CSS-type support has been shelved.
The proposal was not to disband all CA and CSA in favour of CSS it suggested
reducing CA in favour of increasing CSS. The plan still exists, along with
every other possible incarnation conceived to date. My belief is that all of
these are on hold pending decisions pertaining to Regular Force structure, or at
least until the MND receives a full briefing on all the facts rather than the
narrow viewpoint of each advocacy group. Since LFRR started, I have not been
holding my breath and have stressed the need to conduct business as usual:
recruit, train, and retain. I suspect true restructure will be a gradual
process executed on a case-by-case basis - unit with like roles who share an
armoury may be amalgamated, two geographically proximal units with low strengths
may be amalgamated into one unit which can provide an effective mission element,
and so forth.
>1. If Reserve soldiers join "a Regiment" rather than seek jobs, and esprit de
corps is "so high" because of the "Regimental System", why is there such a high
attrition rate?
There seem to be two main points of attrition. The first is soldiers recruited
for summer training who choose not to continue employment past 30 August. This
seems to particularly plague those units who target students in the last year of
high-school - some just want the summer job, and others aren‘t really ready for
military service. The unseen benefit is that the cost to the CF is presumably
cheaper than if those in the latter group had directly joined the regular
forces. If the reserves can be used to filter out those individuals before they
sign a contract for regular service, so much the better. I think the true
reserve attrition rate should exclude any soldier who departs before completing
QL2 or in the first six months after completing QL2.
The second point of attrition is soldiers reaching the end of post-secondary
education programs. If they have a job, they have less time or may be required
to relocate. If they don‘t have employment prospects, they often consider a
component transfer to the Regular Force. Either way, most people must work to
live, and this is entirely out of the control of reserve units. This happens to
coincide with the time at which most soldiers are attaining MCpl rank, and is
the best hypothesis I can conceive to explain the shortage of soldiers at that
rank and the difficulty staffing junior instructor positions during the summer.
Since the Regular Force is at least in some part a beneficiary of this drain, I
lobby anyone who cares to listen that the Regular Force has a vested interest in
ensuring reserve courses are adequately staffed.
Excluding non- or recent-QL2 soldiers as mentioned above, my own unit loses
soldiers for three primary reasons in no particular order: lack of time due to
commencement of full-time employment, relocation due to commencement of
full-time employment and those that can, do transfer to a unit in their new
location, and transfer into the Regular Force. Very few leave because they are
dissatisfied - maybe 1.5 per year.
In short, reserve attrition exists for good reasons, and the Regular Force
benefits in two ways:
1 Uncertain soldiers get a taste of military life at less net expense to the CF
than joining the Regular Force, and
2 It seems intuitive that experienced reservists who become regulars should be
more willing to remain in for a full career compared to regular soldiers
recruited directly off the street, and reservists also come with some value
training and experience added.
>2. If our political masters intend to force some degree of change, is not
reroling or amalagamtion better than risking disbandment? It‘s not exactly a
new experience in our Army, historically, the norm is amalgamation, renaming,
reroling and change.
Absolutely. It can take years to replace the numbers of soldiers lost to an
offhand cut or freeze in recruitment. Why should the units currently in
existence be more protected than those which have been consigned to history in
the past?
>3. If individual unit pride is so high that mass resignations are predicted as
likely, than how did the Elgin Regiment survive reroling to Engineers?
I think we have "Chicken Little" syndrome here. Scare tactics annoy me because
I think such behaviour destroys the credibility of the doomsayer. My own
respect for someone drops a notch when they attempt to shoehorn me into a
decision by falsely portraying adverse consequences. Short of reroling a combat
arms unit with a long history and pride into some sort of comparative non-entity
like a numbered CSS sub-unit, I doubt most soldiers will react in this fashion.
>Or do they plan to go down with the ship to use a Senior Service metaphor,
leaving the troops who wish to continue serving without leadership.
My preferred metaphor is "rats deserting a sinking ship", except the ship isn‘t
likely to sink. The hollow satisfaction of resigning in disgust or
disappointment benefits only the person committing the act and is to my mind a
disgraceful abdication of leadership.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
