Alright, I'm back at 'er...
Quote
Public works controls, according to Canadian law, all government aquisition policy. This is not a CF policy issue.
Well then maybe this authority should be taken out of the hands of someone sitting behind a desk and into the hands of soldiers.
I thought a bit about what I had said here and I can't find anything wrong with it. In fact, anything else seems ridiculous. The troops on the pointy end are the dog, and all the other government and military support is the tail. The dog wags the tail, not the other way around. What we need in terms of equipment is
based around how we are going to win the firefight. NOT how we're going to win the firefight is
based on the equipment we're given. I know it's unreasonable to think we can have
everything we want. In the real world we have to work within our limitations. People are always going to die and nothing will ever be perfect. But less people will die if we can streamline the system. We can stack the deck in our favour by adapting our equipment and our tactics faster and more efficiently. Instead of letting the tail wag the dog, how about we let the dog do what he does best and have the tail follow behind him.
My comment might have been a knee jerk reaction, but it's still bang on. The responses to it are nothing more then cheap pot shots that do nothing to address this my point:
While we're making the list, what other plans and policies would you like to see replaced with individual decisions by soldiers?
Is this the initial step in your campaign strategy for running for Prime Minister?
Oh... I know, I know. I think soldiers should be in charge of the policies on pay, strategic commitments, real estate acquisitions and disposal, military law reform, and CDS appointment.
Until someone who's actually been outside the wire comes in and applies common sense:
But our system is SLOW extremely slow, which worked fine when we weren't in a shooting war, but now we are and troops are demanding their kit be better for the rigors of combat and to allow them the ability and comfort to kill their enemy before they are shot.
And this I could not have said any better myself:
Tells you that somewhere, someone isn't really up to snuff on how things are really playing out....
Now onto this:
While the BEW can be improved - it does the job and has been shown to do the protection it was designed for.
Ditto for the LBV & the Body armour.
Sure it does the job it's been designed for. It's just too bad we're not doing that job. The TV
might have been OK for Bosnia - the job it was designed for. But it blows for an army at war.
The TV is an unsafe item of gear. It is unsafe because it limits the soldier's ability to return fire effectively and carry on the fight. Safety is more then just absorbing bullets. It's also about stopping them at the source. The same can be argued for the body armor. While it may be OK for our current threats, new threats might need to be solved by wearing less armour so we can move faster or by wearing more armour if the situation dictates. But in the time it will take for the system to adapt, how many soldiers will have died?
I dont know but i'm starting to think you cant understand / read english........
I would have expected more from the DS then roundabout insults and smartass one liners.