Who'll be the next CDS? Speculation here, please!!

[Blackadder1916]

For the sake of discussion, it seems like a non-combat-arms officer might have been required to handle that sort of disparate, multi-trade input and set of demands for much longer, and perhaps much earlier, in their careers than an equivalent combat arms officer.

And it could be said that a non-combat-arms officer would be just as singularly focused in the requirements of his immediate position (supporting operators) as a combat arms officer at equivalent points in their careers.  The main difference between the operators and the supporters at the dizzying heights when they can see the CDS position within reach is that the operators (in most cases) have had more experience in COMMAND of operators at increasing levels.

 

[vonGarvin]

And the CDS has so much more to worry about.

Procurement.
Recruiting.
Strategic guidance.

Et cetera...

 

[Happy Guy]

I have to agree with that sentiment.

What do you mean by detailed knowledge of force in conflicts?  Do you actual application of combat force? Do you actual combat experience?  Do you mean academic knowledge?
If you look at the current CDS it appears that he has no actual application of combat force or combat experience when he was chosen.  Does this mean he was the wrong choice?

In today's generation of Officers
On asymmetrical land operations the majority of the army officers, who deployed in Afghanistan will have experienced combat operations although fewer support trades will have actual experience in conducting actual combat operations - close with and destroy the enemy. 
(Forgive me but I'm Army) I believe that on a ship only the bridge officers actually get to "see" combat operations although all on board will experience it.  What about the boarding party?  If the Landing Party Officer is the ship's Log O or MARE O does this experience in conducting actual operations count?
Only fighter and helicopter pilots fight - engage the enemy.  Does this mean transport pilots and air navigators are disqualified?  Yes I know that transport (fixed wing and rotary) pilots fly in combat zones and are fired upon, but to use a poor analogy they are like flying truck drivers except than in Land operations truck drivers are armed and can engage the enemy if required.

All CAF Officers has academic knowledge of combat operation by virtue of training.  How much much knowledge is required?  In the United States a good number of Officers have Masters Degrees and many have doctorates.  Should the CAF demand that our General / Flag Officers have at least a post graduate degree besides a valid second language profile?  Will having a post graduate degree make a better CDS?  What if the person does not have a degree of post graduate degree but have actual combat experience will this person qualify?

To conduct actual operations is only part of warfare.  Building a robust, sustainable support network (Logistics, engineering (all types), communications, intergovernmental affairs - diplomacy) is part of it.  Both depend on each other to function properly, but at the end of the day we still need someone to actually understand the implications of combat operations, give the command to use and wield the sword.  Will an operator have better understanding?  At the end of the day the government decides based on their requirement much like General Ramsey Withers, Sig O, who I believed did an excellent job and was a Korean War veteran.

 

[NSDreamer]

All CAF Officers has academic knowledge of combat operation by virtue of training.  How much much knowledge is required?  In the United States a good number of Officers have Masters Degrees and many have doctorates.  Should the CAF demand that our General / Flag Officers have at least a post graduate degree besides a valid second language profile?  Will having a post graduate degree make a better CDS?  What if the person does not have a degree of post graduate degree but have actual combat experience will this person qualify?

We pretty much do already, to give you an example my Comd has 3x Masters degrees. To be a Snr O in the Log Trade it is the unspoken rule you need a masters degree. I don't know of any majors that do not either have it, or are working on it...

 

[upandatom]

We get it, you hate the Branch. Get over yourself.

Surprised to see LGen Thibault (a Sig O) not on the shortlist. Stand up guy, must have done something right to get up to VCDS.

I far from hate the branch, it was a joke. IT is full of alot of good people, and good leaders. The branch gave me the training and tools to be successful civilian side, and I am grateful for that, but there is only one or two Officers I have served under, seen and dealt with signal side that are able to look at the whole picture, including the support required.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would love hear ERC weigh in on this topic.

 

[Good2Golf]

Norman or Day, and the choice will be a portent of where the Government intends to focus CAF activity.  If slight increase to existing international engagement, either in ME or UKR, then Day the likely choice. If consolidation and greater focus on CAF developing for a longer-term engagement, expect Norman.  If I were a bookie in Vegas, I'd give Norman 60:40 over Day.

:2c:

 

[kratz]

I think G2G nailed it.

If the GoC is truly interested in long term rebuilding of the CAF, Norman will be CDS. There are enough 'hot potatoes' to juggle without conducting operations, unless something more serious breaks out.

 

[JS2218]

I don't think there's any special science to figuring out who the Government will choose as the next CDS.

Statistically speaking, the person to become CDS was usually either: a) VCDS; b) a liaison/deputy commander at NORAD or NATO; or c) the Army Commander. It's usually Air Force or Army, although I *thought* there were supposed to be rotations between all three services equally. The CDS usually comes from a Combat Arms role (artillery, infantry, or pilot). That means a logistician (e.g. Chief of Military Personnel) is probably out, even if that person could bring some sense to some of our largest problem files (*cough* procurement).

Practically speaking, we have to ask where the Government will want to focus its efforts. LGen Thibault is relatively new to the VCDS role, and I would think the Government would want a competent deputy to oversee the transition to a new CDS. He also must be nearing CRA 60 (if he was born in 1960ish seeing how he joined in 1978). LGen Vance has done a great job in commanding CJOC. He too is overseeing a relatively 'new' department since replacing the DOTCOMS with CJOC. I would think the Government would want someone to stay in that role, as Vance is now, to 'complete' the Iraq mission and oversee a short transition period following Iraq. The Government also wouldn't want to be seen as being too close or supportive of Vance in the event something goes sideways.

The Navy hasn't had a CDS since 1997, and even then it was a short appointment. The Navy has also recently rolled out its future plans, and this Government has placed a high priority on Arctic sovereignty. With the current environment of Russian aggression and the Government wanting to show it defends its land, my money is on the Government choosing a Navy CDS to bolster a focus on a) operationalizing the Navy's dreams of upgrading the fleet; and b) increasing Arctic sovereignty efforts.

 

[tomahawk6]

Its a political job.Our own Chairman of the JCS is ineffectual and is perfect for THIS administration.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

T6, the Canadian CDS is not a political job like the US JCS because we do not have separate services like you. The CDs is the head of the whole military , the same way your CNO is head of your Navy, or the Army Chief of Staff is head of your Army.

He is not overseeing a Committee of such head of services.

 

[OldSolduer]

T6, the Canadian CDS is not a political job like the US JCS because we do not have separate services like you. The CDs is the head of the whole military , the same way your CNO is head of your Navy, or the Army Chief of Staff is head of your Army.

He is not overseeing a Committee of such head of services.

Maybe not in that sense, but it is political in the sense that the CDS has to keep the peace within the CAF as well as interact with civilians and politicians. It's not a job for a bumbler.

 

[tomahawk6]

In the US the Chairman's job rotates among the services.But the job itself is political in that he spends a fair amount of time testifying before Congress about one issue or another.The service chiefs routine is about the same.Day to day management usually falls to the Vice CJCS and Vice Chiefs of Staff.

 

[PanaEng]

I don't think there's any special science to figuring out who the Government will choose as the next CDS.

Statistically speaking, the person to become CDS was usually either: a) VCDS; b) a liaison/deputy commander at NORAD or NATO; or c) the Army Commander. It's usually Air Force or Army, although I *thought* there were supposed to be rotations between all three services equally. The CDS usually comes from a Combat Arms role (artillery, infantry, or pilot). That means a logistician (e.g. Chief of Military Personnel) is probably out, even if that person could bring some sense to some of our largest problem files (*cough* procurement).

Practically speaking, we have to ask where the Government will want to focus its efforts. LGen Thibault is relatively new to the VCDS role, and I would think the Government would want a competent deputy to oversee the transition to a new CDS. He also must be nearing CRA 60 (if he was born in 1960ish seeing how he joined in 1978). LGen Vance has done a great job in commanding CJOC. He too is overseeing a relatively 'new' department since replacing the DOTCOMS with CJOC. I would think the Government would want someone to stay in that role, as Vance is now, to 'complete' the Iraq mission and oversee a short transition period following Iraq. The Government also wouldn't want to be seen as being too close or supportive of Vance in the event something goes sideways.

The Navy hasn't had a CDS since 1997, and even then it was a short appointment. The Navy has also recently rolled out its future plans, and this Government has placed a high priority on Arctic sovereignty. With the current environment of Russian aggression and the Government wanting to show it defends its land, my money is on the Government choosing a Navy CDS to bolster a focus on a) operationalizing the Navy's dreams of upgrading the fleet; and b) increasing Arctic sovereignty efforts.

FYI, the CMP is not a Logistician, she is an Engineer (mind you, Air) - but just appointed so chances are she will stay there for a while.
Your allusion to the VCDS being somewhat more competent than the others is a stretch; they all got there because they are competent,  in any role. (although, in the 90's we had some bad examples) - but, they all have their biases and that will make the decision a more personal choice rather than some sort of formula.
Otherwise, I think your analysis is bang on.

 

[JS2218]

FYI, the CMP is not a Logistician, she is an Engineer (mind you, Air) - but just appointed so chances are she will stay there for a while.
Your allusion to the VCDS being somewhat more competent than the others is a stretch; they all got there because they are competent,  in any role. (although, in the 90's we had some bad examples) - but, they all have their biases and that will make the decision a more personal choice rather than some sort of formula.
Otherwise, I think your analysis is bang on.

Has it been announced yet? As far as I can find (and knew...) it was LGen Millar. I more meant along the lines of someone with a logistics background than the trade per se - someone who has experience in developing and growing policies surrounding personnel, materiel management, acquisitions, finance, and so on. But part of the problem, IMO, is that there becomes a rank where commanders and SNCOs are appointed to command/oversee departments, branches, and trades they're not familiar with. It's not always a problem, but having a logistics officer by trade as CMP could help (and thereafter pushing him/her up to CDS).

I did not mean to imply the VCDS was any more competent than the non-VCDS Generals What I meant is that change of command always requires continuity in governance, knowledge, experience, and so on. The VCDS runs the CAF while the CDS commands it. The new CDS will require a deputy who can give him/her a no-nonsense briefing on what's going on, what most urgently needs their attention, and so on.

 

[dapaterson]

My out-of-left-field idea: It's time for Batisse to be CDS.

 

[Good2Golf]

You mean Batisse XVIII?

 

[dapaterson]

Well, either CDS or a nice curry...

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well, either CDS or a nice curry...

Speaking of the more important of the two to me persoanlly, a nice curry, I've been feeding regularly off of various curries by Vij, now available in local markets. Fan-tastic....

 

[The Bread Guy]

My out-of-left-field idea: It's time for Batisse to be CDS.

You can start the t-shirts or golf shirts rolling off the presses for the "write-in campaign" ....