Progress in the Army

[Sgt.Mitoff]

Oh boy this guy has to watch out,

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1999/terror050199.htm

go to this link and look at what this person is saying about the canadian army he needs to be silenced quicktime!!

 

[AmmoTech90]

You realize this article is six years old, right?

 

[GO!!!]

He most certainly does NOT need to be silenced!

Although condescending, he brings up a number of valid points, many of which have been addressed in the time lapse since conception and you finding the article.

Unless there are more civilians pointing out our kit and leadership deficiencies they will not get fixed. We should endeavour to publicise the ones that can be fixed - or things will stay the same.

I would argue that cadets with totalitarian tendencies are more in need of silencing...

 

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

Unless there are more civilians pointing out our kit and leadership deficiencies they will not get fixed. We should endeavour to publicise the ones that can be fixed - or things will stay the same.

I agree. He does, however, need to re-evaluate his article, not so much in content but in direction. First off, why fault the troops for something they have no control over? Second, he should evaluate just why the situation was like that, and at the end of the day when you peel it back to the core of the problem, you will find him and 25 million other Canadians who were (and probably in large part still are), at best, indifferent to the CF, and certainly didn't want to see more of their tax dollars going to it.

 

[Infanteer]

The article had many weak points that really reduced the credibility of the author and made it seem more of a uninformed, penis-envy rant rather than a real analysis of our weaknesses.

The guy talks about the Apache's troop-carrying abilities and brags about the Air-Assault Course, which every American soldier I've talked to agrees is a short score for a badge.  As well, as GO has stated, many of these issues have or are being addressed by the Army (training, NVGs, education, etc, etc).

Other than that, are you just trying to stir the shitpot, Mr Mitoff?  Perhaps you should stick to the Cadet forums....

 

[wotan]

  We don't "silence" people in a democratic country.  We leave that to the Communists, Fascists and assorted tin-pot dictators.

  As for the article, it is a mixture of valid points, distortion and nonsense.  If he feels so badly for the CF, send the government back the money for his university education and ask them to dedicate to the CF.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

OK, going to unlock this one as long as the flaming is done,.......Acorn had a good idea for this thread and here's the direction we will be taking.

Lets have a "where are we now" vs "where we were" - type debate,  could prove very worthy.
Thanks,
Bruce

 

[Acorn]

First, I agree with the others who observed that the article was flawed at the time it was written, let alone now. However, much has changed in the intervening 6 years, I'd offer not all changes for the better.

I do believe our troops are smart, well trained and motivated - for the most part. Other topics have observed some of the flaws in our trg, especially when it comes to CSS. We still have some way to go.

I think the "plug-and-play" Army was a mistake, though borne of the desperate situation we were in - overtasked and under-manned something had to be done in order to provide deployable forces. I would argue that the stripping on the Inf of it's combat support elements, and the reduction in firepower and mobility of both the guns and the armour, is a direct result of having to "make do" with what we HAD. I would hope that the future addition of troops and equipment to the Army might reverse that trend, but I have a feeling there is a certain amount of inertia (hearing the Army CWO enthusiastically support the ability of a SAM with limited AT capability to "reach out" to 8 km has led me to believe that some in the heirarchy have bought their own snake oil).

One of the subjects of the article - education - is a good observation, though badly presented. I'm sure some NCMs here are a bit bitter about the changes to the availability of education benefits. Ultimately, we may end up with SrNCOs and WOs with Masters degrees, but not any time soon, and not under the current system. Currently, and rightly, IMO, the funding is geared towards educating the Commissioned Officers (the argument about the need to educate is best for another topic). We have limited resources, and should be concentrating those resources where they're needed: achieving the MANDATED educated officer corps, and providing educational opportunities to NCM where those resources provide a return to the CF.

In addition to the "where we are" and "where we were" we should probably consider "where we should go."

Acorn

 

[GO!!!]

In my opinion, we need an "up or out" policy in place to deal with the glut of officers we do have. The fresh blood coming in would have all of the education we require, as long as the proper benefits and comensurate salary were in place.

The army should be concentrating on attracting the best talent, not trying to create it.

ie: a 22 year Captain is not doing much to stimulate new thinking and ways of doing things. If his career was on the line, he would probably seek the requisite education to both broaden his horizons and become promotable.

Thoughts?

 

[Acorn]

In a way I agree. We have little more true benefit retaining a 20 year Capt than a 20 year Cpl. Present pers circumstances have forced the offer of IPS with only short-term benefit to the CF, and potential for long-term harm. It's much like the '90s FRP. Little real vision, and what vision there was could not be supported by the budget allotted.

I don't think "up or out" is a truly viable answer, though it could be, again, a short-term solution. Certainly we could recruit the material we want though - that doesn't change. it's retention that could become the problem.

One problem I also see is a culture of entitlement. Maybe it's more obvious in the Int Branch, but the idea that "I should be promoted" seems more prominent than it was when I joined as an infanteer some years ago.

Acorn

 

[SeaKingTacco]

ie: a 22 year Captain is not doing much to stimulate new thinking and ways of doing things. If his career was on the line, he would probably seek the requisite education to both broaden his horizons and become promotable

Hey- you just called my name!  I am that Captain (well, almost)- I have 20 years in this month and have been a Capt for 14 of those years.

It is not always as simple to "become promotable" as you imply.  I was an Artillery Officer for 9 years.  I sat thru Career manager brief after career manager brief in the mid 90's where the message was "zero promotions to Major this year.  Maybe one next year.  Sorry guys."

How do you "become promotable" in an environment like that?

Finally, I had enough and left the Artillery for the Air Force- not so much for lack of promotions, but that did play a part.  I had a real sense that the work we Captains were doing as a group in developing doctrine, moving things forward and generally holding the place together (being the most numerous officer rank) was distinctly undervalued by the senior Artillery leadership.  At one point, I had one very senior Artillery officer basically dare me to leave the Regiment.  I called his bluff.  About 80 other Captains did too, in a 3 year period.  Ironically, had I hung on, I would have gotten promoted and gotten my Battery Command. Eventually.

The point I'm trying to make is that the price of getting promoted was not worth it to me.  I would have had to become unbelievably careerist and ambitious.  Tell me, GO!, does this sound like what you want in your boss?  Because that is what an up or out system causes- rampant careerism- IMHO.

What I am today is a very happy MH Navigator Captain who has commanded a HELAIRDET on a Frigate.  I also speaks Army, and am able to understand the operational language of the Navy, Air Force and Army (sound handy in today's environment?).  I have friends and contacts in all three services that I regularily call on for favours and advice and vice-versa.  I keep up on doctrine.  I have written my fair share of doctrine. I am an experienced leader (my former subordinates will be the judge of my worth as a leader, however).  I am physically fit.  And I really could not care less if I am ever promoted to Major.  I am having too much fun trying to make the CF a better place- one job at a time.

Under your proposed "kill all of the old Captains" system, I would not exist.

Now, I ask you and the assembled masses here- Does it sound like a good idea to just arbitrarily cut off someone's career after 'X' amount of years, or should we maybe apply some common sense and flexibility and keep our better performers (regardless of rank and years of service)?

Cheers!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I didn't understand then and I don't understand now, why does the military eat those who are content at being just what they are.
Why is the 20 year Captain doing a good job expenable while the 8 year Captain doing the same good job is the cats rear end?

 

[GO!!!]

If we had an "up or out" policy there would have been room for you to get promoted as all of those majors above you timed out.

The main problem with the idea of keeping the better performers as you said, seems to be that anyone with any other aptitude gets out. This is certainly the case in my unit, with most keen men and officers leaving before MCpl and Major, simply because they have better prospects elsewhere. This leaves the careerists and those without civilian prospects. Hardly a common sense solution.

You said it - "eventually I would have gotten a battery" great. Just who I want as an OC. The guy that ground it out to the very end. How about a proven performer who is going places in the Military, and will undoubtedly do good things for your unit when he gets there? This is already happening in my unit, with OCs coming back as COs, to the units great benefit.

We train a massive number of OCdts every year, who see their chances at promotion limited by certain people sitting on the ladder, just like yours were. An up or out system may not be ideal, but it would eliminate the status quo that paralyses our effectiveness.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
You said it - "eventually I would have gotten a battery" great. Just who I want as an OC. The guy that ground it out to the very end. How about a proven performer who is going places in the Military, and will undoubtedly do good things for your unit when he gets there? This is already happening in my unit, with OCs coming back as COs, to the units great benefit

RED....I take this as the guy that earned it.
BLUE....hmm, one could say that person would be say,..someone like Belinda Stronach?...I'll go with RED thank you......

 

[Gunner]

GO!, don't forget that you reasoning applies to both officers and NCMs that "hang around" filling a spot long after their best before date.  Yeah, a lot of very good officer get out as their prospects are much better civilian wise but we do retain some outstanding talent that our system leans upon.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, I'm not sure if Up or Out is the solution we want - both the United States and the United Kingdom have "Up or Out" systems to some extent, and everything I read about them is negative.

American up or out affects the Officer Corps - the single greatest criticism that I have read is that it promotes careerism by threatening to cut an officer off from advancement (and a pension) if he does not take the steps to ensure his promotion.   This is cited as a primary cause of the "zero defect" mentality that plagues training and leadership.

Donald Vandergriff writes some very good pieces on this topic, including two well regarded books - (one of those "passed over" Major's in the US Army) in which he criticizes the DOPMA (the legislation under which the Up or Out system is enacted) for being based off of a personnel structure suited for 19th century industrialized structures (which he terms Taylorism).   Here are some interesting articles summing up his views:

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Vandergriff_110603,00.html
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Vandergriff_112503,00.html
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Vandergriff_121003,00.html
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Vandergriff_122004-P1,00.html

From what I understand, the British also employ an "Up or Out" system to some extent.   A soldier can sign on for a Career engagement, and after that 22 year contract is up, he's done.   I haven't heard glowing remarks about this either.

Certainly, there should be mechanisms to cut away the dead weight and those who are sitting around collecting a cheque.   But "Up or Out" may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater by cutting away the experienced and hard-working soldiers who simply don't have the desire to be a Field Marshal or the CWO of the Canadian Forces.

 

[elscotto937]

GO, I would be interest to find out where this glut of Captains are, because my unit is short, the Regiment is short and I'm pretty sure most other trades out there could use and find effective employment for trained captains. In fact that rank is what retains the structure of the army, filling very senior jobs and progressing the Army. Also, I would like to see this influx of Ocdts that we are getting every year, they are definately not lined up at the Artillery's door, when there are other trades out there.
Careerism would run rampant if we managed careers with an up or out mentality...There are some great hard working solders out there come to work everyday lead their soldiers well, are effective on operations, and will only ever be a good Sgt... You would shut this dedicated soldier's career down because, god forbide- he has "normal" potential.

Someone, "eventually given command of a battery" is there because he has demonstrated the required leadership and potential to command. Now GO, I suspect that you are unfamiliar with officer career progression, when you stated: "How about a proven performer who is going places in the Military", well that guy that eventually got the battery is the person going places. To be come a senior officer in the Canadian Army, is not as simple as taking a crse and your ready, 8-10 years filling all regimental positions and staff appointments is average of the development of a Captain to Major. I know that I would not want a Sub-unit commander who has 4 or 5 years as a Captain, and was promoted because they did well on a couple of crse and looks great on paper.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
and will only ever be a good Sgt...

..I know, extra heavy on the nitpicking Scott, but this is the kind of wording that drives me banana's.
...how about "and is quite content being a good Sgt"? I can't buy any rank being an "only".

 

[Haggis]

Another drawback of "Up or Out" is that it may drive members up before they are personally ready for it.  Say you have a member who meets the technical/time in/ticket punched pre-requisites for promotion but is not ready for promotion due to his:

1. Personal circumstances (wife has a great civvy job and if he gets promoted he (they) will be posted);
2. Extreme job satisfaction (absolutely loves what he's doing and does it well).

Promoting this member may very well force him out by economic pressure or job dissatisfaction.  Then we lose a valuable and highly contented asset due to a policy which places a members' career progression ahead of his quality of life.  This is not a good return on the investment of thousands of training hours and hundreds of thousands of training dollars.

Some folks are perfectly happy where they are and are quite good at what they do.  Why force them to progress?

Here's a better idea:  Write PERs honestly without fear of hurting someone's itty bitty feelings or making yourself look bad because you rated your 2IC as a "bag of hammers".  If they want to change they will.  If not, an honestly written PER gives you what you need to get them out.

 

[tannerthehammer]

I believe that the current state of our Army is in an upswing in regards to equiptment, training etc...I think its improving itself but I think they should be more proactive in listening to its soldiers for their input more so then it does...

Doctors are told to listen to their patients right?

Why not ask the guys that are living the life on a day to day basis for their opinions and then let the brass who are nice and comfy in their air conditioned offices with their nice dress call the shots based on their experience/knowledge AND the input of the guys that should matter most...the soldier...

I think we need an army that thinks and listens but not just listens...In addition there is also a time to think and a time to listen but the option should be there...They could even do simple things like surveys and go from there...