• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Troop Strength to Increase

Blindspot said:
I had a teacher in high school many years ago who advocated that Canada should have absolutely no military at all. It was impossible to convince him that peace through resistance is currently the only sustainable method of delivering peace because some fellow member of the human species across the Atlantic or Pacific may not share the same visions of Utopia.

I think all the 60's throwback hippies became teachers and, as a result, are having a bigger effect on students now than they ever dreamed possible!

The problem is that their Utopia could, all too easily come crashing down. If it does it will be very hard indeed to ever win our freedom and way of life back again.

Look how many of this countries enemies live here unmolested already. Don't believe me? Go and ask a reporter or journalist for TV tapes of some of the HUGE PARTIES BEING THROWN ON THE STREET DURING 911! :skull:

No, sticking our heads in the sand will not cut it in the long run!

Slim :cdn:
 
Slim,
I really hate to start my very first post here by disagreeing with someone,in this case you.But as far as I'm aware your parties in the street celebrating 9-11with one exception simply didn't occur. The exception took place in the Gaza strip.
I have of course heard   the rumours of all sorts of street parties in Arab communities in the U.S. and Canada but have never seen any real proof.
I think that courtesy of the "net" the reality is   becoming more and more blurred as time passes.

best regards, Gordon Dundas
 
Maybe its not for me to say as someone who is currently a bureaucrat and whose military claim to fame was service in the Militia 30 years ago but it occurs to me that the proposal to strip the air force and navy to create a "peacekeeping" brigade is sheer lunacy.    While reading this thread and other related ones on this board it occurs to me that this little virtual community is better able to   determinie defence policy than
policy wonks and the political strategists here in Ottawa.   Which by the way can be fairly described as 50 square miles surrounded by reality.

According to this board, or rather my interpretation of it, the 2 principal geo-strategic challenges facing DND   include the ability to participate in the war against against terrorism and the assertion of arctic sovereignity.    Is that not the national defence that us tax-payers are paying for?

So, how are we going to defend the second or third largest country in the world, one that is bounded by 3 oceans, without all three services properly equipped to do so?   Particularly when our historic practice has been to project our forces overseas to defend our homes here.

In my opinion, again based upon what I have read here, it seems to me fair to summarize that we need to build a model based upon the old Mobile Command concept or the immediate post WW2   MSF concept.    One in which the 3 brigades we have are readily deployable and appropriately manned and equipped to go anywhere at anytime and get the job done.   Whether that job is peace-keeping, peace-making, or protecting the homeland.

Do we need a fourth brigade?   Heck how would I know, I'm not a manning analyst?   But as I see it we need  "fire-brigades", not specialized and dedicated "peacekeeping" brigades.    And, I would hope that it goes without saying that to strip the other services to create it would be a major blunder.

Do we need to boost the size of our GNP allocation to defence spending?    Most certainly.    But not by an astronimical amount.   Another 1/2 a % age point could do the job without too much fiscal dislocation.

Just one man's opinion based on what I have read here.   In reality, I hope that the suggestion to conduct public consultations is indeed implemented and if it is I hope that you all participate and that your suggestions are heeded.  Thanks for letting me rant.
 
I know that the problems at Defence Headquarters in Ottawa have been mentioned before on Army.ca as one of the root causes of the repeated successful attempts of the Fed. Government to diminish the CF. I think there have been differing opinions on this, and specifically the role of senior defence staff (i.e. "The Generals"). I think that one very rapidly has to come to the conclusion that a failure amongst Senior DND Staff has got to be at least part of the problem here - - the other, public apathy or lack of understanding. If Sr. DND Staff in Ottawa keep accepting these ridiculous plans from political spin masters (who don't have a clue) then the trend will never end, save perhaps a terrorist attack or something to enlighten indifferent citizens. I long for the day when I read the paper and it says "DND Brass Stand Up to Ottawa" the next time they attempt to cut and shuffle. (Sorry, just dreaming.) In my view Sr. DND staff compromised what little credibility they had left when Chretien cancelled the helicopter deal. A responsible reaction to that decision would have been to say OK Parliament, OK PM, if that's the decision then no more maritime helicopter patrols, no more ship-borne helicopter deployments until we have new equipment. Instead, they cowed down, put personnel at risk, and "made due" as per usual.
:cdn:

 
Looks like someone is feeling a might "tetchy" these days.

I notice that this article says it is 5000 on top of current authorized strength and that new money is coming. 

The 5000 on top of current allows Paul to end up at the same number as Harper's Phase I.

Harper said he would increase from 52,000 to 65,000 on the way to 80,000.  Paul said he would add 5,000 to the 60,000 with no expression of what his desired end-state is.

Playing with semantics to maintain an "apparent" rather than a "real" difference?

I wonder what Harper's quid pro quo for support on missile defence is?

Monday, Aug 23, 2004 
Speculation on possible navy, air force cuts irks top general

OTTAWA (CP) - The country's top general called an unusual news conference Monday to complain about what he called inaccurate speculation about possible cuts to the navy and the air force in favour of the army.
Gen. Ray Henault, the chief of the defence staff, complained that members of the Forces, protected by anonymity, have suggested in media reports that a proposed increase in the ranks of the army will cost the navy four destroyers and strip 20 fighter jets from the air force.

"We are not doing anything at this point in time to reduce either the navy or the air force in favour of the army," he said.

"Reports that the expansion of the Canadian Forces would result in cuts to other parts of the defence program are simply false."

A Liberal election promise called for 5,000 more peacekeepers in the Forces. Recent reports suggested that paying for these extra people will mean cuts in ships and planes.

Henault called reporters to a hastily arranged news conference in the foyer of defence headquarters to denounce those reports as inaccurate and said those who were feeding these stories with anonymous comments were betraying military professionalism and discipline.

Insiders said Henault was prodded to call the news conference by the prime minister's office, which was upset by the suggestions that adding peacekeepers would mean losing other capabilities.

The general, a career air force officer, said rearrangements in the Forces are being debated, but no decisions have been made. It may mean changes in the navy or air force, but those aren't connected to the addition of 5,000 new people.

"This is an expansion of the Forces capacity and its capability," he said. "The 5,000 is not driven as a number which will . . . drive us toward a reduction in either the navy or the air force."

He also said he expects the government will come up with more money for the Forces, saying Defence Minister Bill Graham has promised more support.

Henault said the extra 5,000 soldiers promised during the election means the military manpower cap, now 60,000, will rise to 65,000. There will be more reservists as well, he said.

He conceded that the army will get the lion's share of the new manpower, if only because it bears the brunt of most peacekeeping missions.

While the Forces are authorized to have 60,000 full-time people in uniform, it now has only about 58,000 enrolled. Of those, only about 52,000 are fully trained.

The 6,000 difference includes recruits awaiting training, veterans on courses, people on sick leave and those on leave awaiting retirement.

Defence analysts say adding another 5,000 recruits will only increase pressure on an already strained training system. The point out that it takes years, not months, to produced a trained, effective infantry soldier and more years to season sergeants and warrant officers.



© The Canadian Press, 2004

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1694587
 
There is one thing I would like to add here, it gets a little old expecting "the brass" to fall on their sword.
They do have mortgages and family to feed just like everyone else, the days past where they could "resign" and then go back to whatever money bought them their commission in the first place are long gone.
There are many decisions in my trade that drive me up the wall, but, the bottom line is, first and foremost, I work for money and if I have to swallow  a little, so be it.
Just think, if all the top brass with honour decide to resign over something, just exactly who does that leave running the ship?
 
The even more eager yes men below the newly resigned general? :crybaby:
 
I hate to say it but any changes must come from the government frist. If the top brass were told tomorrow to start building the army up again and given sufficient funds and support to do it I bet they would do a pretty good job.

But what can you do when you're not supported and have no money for new toys!

Slim
 
You have that right Slim.

But me thinks Paul was thinking of him self a J.C. with the 5,000 and the loaves of bread and fish!!
 
Who said anything about resigning? The point is to maintain professional credibility and leadership on behalf of the Federal Department that has an incredible number of employees (i.e. you guys) who's safety and job capabilities are dependant on the decisions and policies set by the Sr. Staff, as well as the Government. I agree 110% with anyone who feels that the government (who is ultimately the public) must accept the need for additional capacity in the CF - - but to ignore the culpability of Sr. Staff in some of these decisions is to bury one's head in the sand. Kudos to those who had the fortitude and dedication to the ranks to leak the ridiculous plans to the media. I'm sure that wasn't a decision that they made on a whim. "Whistleblowing" perhaps.

I find it interesting that it was the Chief of Defence Staff who held the newsconference yesterday to dispel the rumor mill. If it was the Liberal's idea to create a brigade then why wasn't Bill Graham up there explaining where the cash would come from? My opinion as a civilian, rightly or wrongly, is that there are a number of lackeys up there, and yes, perhaps it is perpetuated by those looking to climb the ladder so to speak. Let's just hope that a new brigade will come with more money. Instead of presenting options for cuts it would be wonderful if the Sr. Defence Staff will be given the opportunity to build something new. Maybe I'm an idealist.

:cdn:




 
RGO said:
I find it interesting that it was the Chief of Defence Staff who held the newsconference yesterday to dispel the rumor mill.

Of course....He was holding the "umbrella" "over the Minister's head" to keep all the poop from landing on his shoulders.

GW
 
is that there are a number of lackeys up there,

Well...the majority of the CF would agree with you 110%. The problem (and incidentally how they control the top brass) is that when a Canadian Soldier reaches the rank of General Officer they are given the opportunity to "negotiate" their salaries based on loyalty to the government! Where does that leave them...Tow the party line or get frozen out!

Sucks but a VERY effective method of controling the top brass!

Slim
 
Slim, that's a pretty provocative comment.

Could you flesh out what you are describing?  Do they negotiate for appointments, postings, transfers to civilian taskings, pensions?  Or do they negotiate directly for their salary in a particular appointment?  "I will be a good boy, if you pay me at the top of my pay-scale?"

Really curious.  I hope you are just being cynical in the typical curmudgeonly fashion of most of us on this board.  Cheers, Chris. ;)

 
I believe it is Col and up that get to negotiate salary.  Would this be done through the Treasury Board?
 
Kirkhill said:
Slim, that's a pretty provocative comment.

Could you flesh out what you are describing?   Do they negotiate for appointments, postings, transfers to civilian taskings, pensions?   Or do they negotiate directly for their salary in a particular appointment?   "I will be a good boy, if you pay me at the top of my pay-scale?"

Really curious.   I hope you are just being cynical in the typical curmudgeonly fashion of most of us on this board.   Cheers, Chris. ;)

Wish I was. I don' have a link but will try to find one for you. Incidently, this has been going on for some time...
 
What's the logic behind General and Flag officers negotiating their salaries?  Can't they just be part of the normal pay scale like the rest of the ranks (this is what the US Military does, with its pay grades of O-6 to O-10).
 
It is because public service regulations classify their jobs as executives.  We are governed by the same rules that define the pay & benefits for all government employees.

 
Well, there is the first problem.  Generals do not equal executives.
 
Back
Top