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

Auditor General Suggests RMC Not Working

Good2Golf said:
Amongst many others, two things to consider:

1) Does Society have an obligation to provide a breadth of its young members to the military if it wishes to be appropriately supported, or must the military force through whatever means, participation of demographics to feed the CAF that would support Society's demands for the military's understanding and support; and

2) Would it be considered acceptable for a (any) guest speaker to specifically accuse all of the male cadets as being potential rapists, during opening statements?  How privileged should the guest speaker's 'privileged platform' be?  Could not such unjustified accusations in and of themselves be considered sexual harassment and is that acceptable, whether the speaker is "trying to make a point?"  Just wondering.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G

1. In terms of the former, the society feeding a breadth of pers to the army, the only means to do that would be through conscription. If you read the links I posted, or many of the others that are of the same "military-civilian divide" the main premise of many is that a key drawback of the professional force is the loss of diversity and the creation of a warrior caste (which is a seperate debate point). However, at a hypothetical level you could argue that either: A) neither case need be true- some form of mutual understanding and promotion would allow more exposure to the military and could increase recruitment amongst different segments of society. Neither side in this case forces anything. or B) The CAF represents Canadian society and not vice versa. A military that believes that society should resemble it has historically been a dangerous thing and has led to military coups. Personally, I go for A, which was the original point. Some form of mutual engagement, even in "soft" ways of just having civilians see military pers regularly and talk over a coffee would be beneficial. The ability for this to occur in the largest Canadian urban centres is minimal. For example- years ago I was working at the booth of the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto. On the way to the Ex I got free coffee at a Timmy's because the worker thought my Navy DEUs (AB at the time) were Metro Police, who got free coffee. At the fair I got multiple surprised people who thought we didn't have a navy and a couple who didn't think we had a military. I also had an 8 year old ask me if I was a veteran (it was remembrance day) so that they could finish a project. Take into account things like the police being called because of reservists doing a BFT and it's clear that the CAF is an alien concept to the GTA and Southern Ontario, which makes up 30% of the Canadian population. How can these people support something in any meaningful way, let alone understand it, if they have zero exposure to it?

2. If Mrs Lalonde started her conversation with an accusation, at what point does that condone RMC cadets, ie- the future leaders of the CAF, acting like a*&holes, stating that alcohol related rape was the woman's fault, telling her that they might listen to her if she "wasnt a woman and a civilian", and cat-calling her LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER THE DESCHAMPS REPORT. i have talked to RMC pers who were there and heard that she was provocative at the beginning, but I disagree that that gives anyone any licence to act the way they did. There were multiple ways they could have dealt with this. The fact that they referenced alcohol related rape and the woman/civilian divide could be seen as a symptom of the larger sickness RMC was being accused of at the time. They had a choice and made the poorest one. Finally, how can we expect civilians, who only get their information and opinions from media and read this article to maintain a positive view of the military as accepting of women. Quick story- when Maj Gen Whitecross came through a co-worker described how her mother cried when she enlisted saying, "you're going to be raped". Is this an isolated case or a wider issue? the fact that several women in the audience had similar stories leads me to believe that it is likely more widespread than we think.

 
Humphrey Bogart said:
I've met very few people outside the military that even know how to turn an iron on, much less use one.

You clearly hang out with either very privileged people or people who purchase wrinkle free pants and shirts. I've met many people in the military with so few life skills that I wonder how they survive and had a Sgt once who had such poor eating and life habits that I felt bad when he was released because I knew he wouldn't find a job in civy world (he didn't).

To note- I dont believe that RMC makes people isolated from society. I think that having the majority of pers in one area leads to groupthink and ingrained opinions which dont push the organization forward. As the articles say, having military pers on civilian campuses is good for those campuses as well- it's mutually beneficial. I personally feel that RMC would be more beneficial as a Masters to PhD level institution which also housed the CFC and had more of an emphasis on military though and doctrine development. We should be looking for the next Mahan (though his doctrine is largely outdated and ineffective when it was applied) it allowed for thought and discussion on military matters.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
1. In terms of the former, the society feeding a breadth of pers to the army, the only means to do that would be through conscription. If you read the links I posted, or many of the others that are of the same "military-civilian divide" the main premise of many is that a key drawback of the professional force is the loss of diversity and the creation of a warrior caste (which is a separate debate point). However, at a hypothetical level you could argue that either: A) neither case need be true- some form of mutual understanding and promotion would allow more exposure to the military and could increase recruitment amongst different segments of society. Neither side in this case forces anything. or B) The CAF represents Canadian society and not vice versa. A military that believes that society should resemble it has historically been a dangerous thing and has led to military coups. Personally, I go for A, which was the original point. Some form of mutual engagement, even in "soft" ways of just having civilians see military pers regularly and talk over a coffee would be beneficial. The ability for this to occur in the largest Canadian urban centres is minimal. For example- years ago I was working at the booth of the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto. On the way to the Ex I got free coffee at a Timmy's because the worker thought my Navy DEUs (AB at the time) were Metro Police, who got free coffee. At the fair I got multiple surprised people who thought we didn't have a navy and a couple who didn't think we had a military. I also had an 8 year old ask me if I was a veteran (it was remembrance day) so that they could finish a project. Take into account things like the police being called because of reservists doing a BFT and it's clear that the CAF is an alien concept to the GTA and Southern Ontario, which makes up 30% of the Canadian population. How can these people support something in any meaningful way, let alone understand it, if they have zero exposure to it?

2. If Mrs Lalonde started her conversation with an accusation, at what point does that condone RMC cadets, ie- the future leaders of the CAF, acting like a*&holes, stating that alcohol related rape was the woman's fault, telling her that they might listen to her if she "wasnt a woman and a civilian", and cat-calling her LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER THE DESCHAMPS REPORT. i have talked to RMC pers who were there and heard that she was provocative at the beginning, but I disagree that that gives anyone any licence to act the way they did. There were multiple ways they could have dealt with this. The fact that they referenced alcohol related rape and the woman/civilian divide could be seen as a symptom of the larger sickness RMC was being accused of at the time. They had a choice and made the poorest one. Finally, how can we expect civilians, who only get their information and opinions from media and read this article to maintain a positive view of the military as accepting of women. Quick story- when Maj Gen Whitecross came through a co-worker described how her mother cried when she enlisted saying, "you're going to be raped". Is this an isolated case or a wider issue? the fact that several women in the audience had similar stories leads me to believe that it is likely more widespread than we think.

Horseshit. My daughter joined the Naval Reserve and I had no fear, at all, that she would be harassed. Challenged to push herself to the limits of her abilities yes, but harassed by some idiot? No way, unless he wanted a face full of knuckles followed by charge.
 
I suspect that, as Kirby notes, 'someone' is retaining Mil Col to make sure that we don't produce Officers with a 'Sergeant Major's pace stick in their knapsack'. Well, it seems that you don't need a special institution to do that: you need the right culture:

Canadian Army Officer Training in War

By:  Brigadier General C.L. Kirkby (Ret’d) ca. 1980

1.  After an upbringing in The Permanent Force, service in World War II and during the Korean War (minus combat experience, which is an acknowledged factor), and a normal career in the regular army, I am left with the paraphrased impression that the average Canadian officer carries a sergeant-major’s pacestick in his knapsack; as I consider it an officer’s duty to look up and ahead, rather than down and backwards, this strikes me as a Bad Thing.

2.  I have no doubt that the colonial mind lingers, hopefully not inextinguishably, in Canada and particularly in the defence establishment and this plays it part, but in war and peace Canadian officer training somehow fails all along the line to teach that the thin end of the telescope goes to the eye and that officers of every rank are paid to Think Big (or at least comprehensively), not small.

3.  Let just one continuing lacuna in operational thinking and training suffice as an example:  never or hardly ever has a clear, precise, governing context provided the kind of authoritative envelope within which that essential but rare characteristic – disciplined initiative – can develop and operate.

4.  To base a training system two ranks up, as is a necessity in any army with a clear, dispassionate view of war requirements, a primary factor is confidence:  the confidence of superiors in their own competence; the confidence of superiors in the capacity of their students.  Maybe the first is too much to expect in war, but it shouldn’t be in peace; and the second can to a large extent be imposed by the system, which can also, to a very large degree, ensure its foundations.  On reflection it was probably the lack of this kind of confidence which made the Canadian officer training system so defective in wartime, at least in my experience of it.

5.  After a few weeks in the Horse Palace on the grounds of the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto and two months of quite conscientious basic training in Orillia, I was sent on a brilliantly conducted and administered assistant instructor’s course in Brockville, a tour de force as far as I could see, on the warrant officer, promoted to Major, who ran it.  He was a mercenary soldier in his element, passing on the knowledge and skill of a lifetime with dedication, precision and complete success.

6.  But what was I, on graduation two or three months later, in the middle of a long war, doing training officers?  Where were the experienced regimental NCOs who should have been there, whether or not they had combat experience at that point?  What I was doing was exemplifying the deliberate degradation of candidates which formed the official attitude of the place.  “I’ll break your ‘earts before you break mine” was the reiterated ultimate of the commander’s communication with the assembled cadets.  “Treat cadets like dirt”, I was ordered regularly:  I didn’t, nor did many of the other assistant instructors, but we were in defiance of the party line. 

7.  The contract between the assistant instructor’s course and the officer training course probably sprang from the fact that the promoted warrant officers who commanded both were confident in teaching NCOs and not teaching officers.  Officers and NCOs function at different levels:  to deliberately place the training and initial orientation of wartime officers in the hands of mercenary NCOs, whatever rank was thrust upon them, was a fundamental mistake, a psychological blunder which still echoes in the Army and in the most sympathetic public perception of it.

8.  Quite suddenly and most fortunately I found myself in the British officer training system.  Whatever I must then have been, however callow, however unpromising, however foreign, I was, to every element of that system, automatically a gentleman, a potential officer to be given every skill time allowed but above all to be made confidant and, subtly, an immediate colleague in the officer corps.  Misdemeanors, while bringing swift punishment, were made to seem a source of disappointment than of vindictive contempt; incomprehension and minor errors were made to seem a failure to use one’s capacity rather than inherent stupidity.  NCOs did NCOs’ work and were obviously amongst the best available:  they knew their place, did their work thoroughly and well while remaining in it and, by doing so, taught cadets the rudiments of their relative positions.  Officers were experienced, comradely and sympathetic, fellows in an honourable estate, encouraging cadets to enter it rather than eyeing them as suspicious and unworthy interlopers.  After nine months in such an environment, I was ready and eager to command soldiers in action:  a thoroughly well considered and carefully conducted system made me so.

9.  What would have been my attitude as a graduate of the Canadian system?  I can’t say and I would offer many good officers insult if I said “awful”, but I can only think it was despite the system that they were good.  On my first morning back as a “Sandhurst Officer”, (a Canadian term at the time), I was sat down in the commandant’s office, given coffee, congratulated, welcomed and assured of the earliest posting to a unit in action.  When I and three companions were shown out by the Adjutant, a large platoon of “Canadian officers”, (another term in use), was brought to attention, acknowledged by the commandant and marched back to the mess.  Our relationship can be imagined.  They loathed the army, were bored stiff by it, couldn’t wait for the war to end so they could escape it and showed no sign of any desire to command.  The system had insulted them:  having seen it in action at Brockville, I wasn’t surprised.

10.  What has periodically bothered me since is that I still hear echoes of that military failure.  While having no connection with RMC and many reservations concerning it, it does seem to provide to the cadets an officer’s environment.  But what they seem to find in the schools in the summer – when they get to soldiering, not academics, is something like my memories of Brockville. 

11.  Now when I hear someone actually considering the training of officers in a new, long war, my experience suddenly bothers me again.  If this hasty and partial paper does nothing else but alert responsible people to the fact that not everything in the Canadian war performance was good and to be perpetuated, it will be useful.  If it can indicate that in the rapid expansion of an officer corps, it is the proper ethos which must be inculcated before all else, I will be delighted, and, of course, if it implies clearly that officer ethos is an essential element of success in war, to be understood, cultivated and sustained, what more could I expect?

https://army.ca/forums/threads/58250.0



 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
2. If Mrs Lalonde started her conversation with an accusation, at what point does that condone RMC cadets, ie- the future leaders of the CAF, acting like a*&holes, stating that alcohol related rape was the woman's fault, telling her that they might listen to her if she "wasnt a woman and a civilian", and cat-calling her LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER THE DESCHAMPS REPORT. i have talked to RMC pers who were there and heard that she was provocative at the beginning, but I disagree that that gives anyone any licence to act the way they did. There were multiple ways they could have dealt with this. The fact that they referenced alcohol related rape and the woman/civilian divide could be seen as a symptom of the larger sickness RMC was being accused of at the time. They had a choice and made the poorest one. Finally, how can we expect civilians, who only get their information and opinions from media and read this article to maintain a positive view of the military as accepting of women. Quick story- when Maj Gen Whitecross came through a co-worker described how her mother cried when she enlisted saying, "you're going to be raped". Is this an isolated case or a wider issue? the fact that several women in the audience had similar stories leads me to believe that it is likely more widespread than we think.

Did your RMC pers friends/contacts/acquaintances point out that it was in fact only female cadets who responded and challenged Ms. Lalonde (she's not a Mrs. as you incorrectly state, a detail, but there is difference in the way Mrs. and many Ms. view things) and that the responses were not to the extreme that Ms. Lalonde claimed?  For my part, through second-hand recounting of the proceedings, to include my son, several other male and female cadets I know, and a number of the college senior military staff I've known for decades, all recounted the incident without variation as described above.  That is also why the College now has an SOP of videoing all guest speakers...and it's not for posterity's sake, I would imagine (#jagrecommendations).  That said, BG45, you are certainly entitled to hold whatever impression you wish, regarding both the incident specifically, and the suitability of cadets collected from across the country to capably represent communities from...well, across the country.

Regards
G2G
 
daftandbarmy said:
Well, it seems that you don't need a special institution to do that: you need the right culture:

I completely agree.  Creating that culture is not accomplished with policies and institutions, rather with consistent professional leadership, freedom to report conduct violations without fear of reprisal, and good role models who mentor their peers and subordinates..
 
[quote author=Bird_Gunner45]

2. If Mrs Lalonde started her conversation with an accusation . [/QUOTE]
There were multiple ways they could have dealt with this.

In somewhat similar circumstances  members of my unit have taken to standing up and leaving the room when we dealing with speakers pushing "all men are abusers" type narrative.  We now no longer have civilian  speakers fromthat organization giving briefs to soldiers.


In my opinion Ms Lalonde got the exact reaction she was hoping to get to push her narrative.
 
FSTO said:
Horseshit. My daughter joined the Naval Reserve and I had no fear, at all, that she would be harassed. Challenged to push herself to the limits of her abilities yes, but harassed by some idiot? No way, unless he wanted a face full of knuckles followed by charge.

I'm glad you had that kind of confidence in the organization wrt your daughter.  I discouraged by daughter from ever joining, although she pretty much had her mind all ready made up on not wanting to join.  It would have pained me to hear if she would have been sexually harassed or assaulted, mainly because I couldn't have been there to protect her or at the least prevent it from happening.  That and like you, the dude would have been hurt to the point of being medically released because of it, knowing that I would have been charged, I would have made it worth my while!  But that is just a over protective dad talking.
 
Mike63 said:
I'm glad you had that kind of confidence in the organization wrt your daughter.  I discouraged by daughter from ever joining, although she pretty much had her mind all ready made up on not wanting to join.  It would have pained me to hear if she would have been sexually harassed or assaulted, mainly because I couldn't have been there to protect her or at the least prevent it from happening.  That and like you, the dude would have been hurt to the point of being medically released because of it, knowing that I would have been charged, I would have made it worth my while!  But that is just a over protective dad talking.

I guess the show-biz industry is better.  Or the police forces. 

I think we're a cross-section of the population. The several scandals that are emerging these days just prove this.  We're no better and no worse than most civilian occupations.  We're just more concious and decided to deal with it.
 
SupersonicMax said:
I guess the show-biz industry is better.  Or the police forces. 

I think we're a cross-section of the population. The several scandals that are emerging these days just prove this.  We're no better and no worse than most civilian occupations.  We're just more concious and decided to deal with it.

I agree with you but, I can't speak of those industries,  I was never part of the show-biz or police forces, I can only speak of what I have seen in my 27 year military career and the past 7 years as a public servant.  My daughter has been employed for the past 10 years at the same hotel chain and not once has she mentioned any type of harassment there, and yes, she would tell me if anything where to happen.

What surprises and angers me is all the briefings, crse's and warnings that have been in place for years now, this behavior is still going on, I have seen it where I am employed now.
 
I know several women in the military that had never anything happen to them.  Because it didn't happen to your daughter doesn't mean it didn't happen to others.

Read the news, you'll see why I used those two professions,
 
Mike63 said:
What surprises and angers me is all the briefings, crse's and warnings that have been in place for years now, this behavior is still going on, I have seen it where I am employed now.

Cigarette packages have warnings and there has been a concerted effort for years to stop drunk driving.

Some people will do what they want until they get caught, because some people are idiots.  Punish the idiots, not their whole community.

As long as we have little to no deterrent punishments for sexual misconduct or impaired driving, people will still do it. 
 
Pamela Anderson: so right, so not going to come out well from all this due to the 'world owes me' Brigade:

“Don’t go into a hotel room alone. If someone answers a door in a bathrobe, leave. Things that are common sense. But I know Hollywood is very seductive and people want to be famous and sometimes you think you’re going to be safe with an adult in the room.”

Read more at http://www.nme.com/news/pamela-anderson-harvey-weinstein-comments-2167435#y9Thpfbi0wdg7HpP.99



 
SupersonicMax said:
I know several women in the military that had never anything happen to them.  Because it didn't happen to your daughter doesn't mean it didn't happen to others.

Read the news, you'll see why I used those two professions,

I too know many women that nothing has happened to them either, but I do know 3 that were victims, that wasn't my point.  You had posted that the military isn't the only place where this crap happens, I was merrily pointing out that my daughter, in the civie world, hadn't ran into that type of situation before.  I completely understand why you picked out those two industries, I wasn't arguing with you.

I read the PM's site once a month, on who is getting charged with what, and there is still many CAF members being charged with harassment and sexual harassment.  I would have liked to believe that with the thought of getting caught, a fine, a reduction in rank and the possibility of release with a record, that alone would stop some people...but I guess I was wrong.
 
:cheers:
Eye In The Sky said:
Cigarette packages have warnings and there has been a concerted effort for years to stop drunk driving.

Some people will do what they want until they get caught, because some people are idiots.  Punish the idiots, not their whole community.

As long as we have little to no deterrent punishments for sexual misconduct or impaired driving, people will still do it.

I agree.

 
Forgive my crudeness but I can't resist. I found the Department responses interesting.  I was not sure if they were kissing the AG's rear or giving him a prostate examination.  After and the timing of the CMR announcement, I know now know which.  Priceless subtlety.
 
As a charm school graduate, I've never at any point believed that my military school experience made me a better officer than my DEO or ROTC civy U peers.  Actually, it's taken me decades to work through the neuroses that I developed there. 

But I did leave there with a huge network of friends and friendly acquaintances, initially within the military, and now spread throughout the military, public service, and public sector.  Throughout my career, it's amazing how often I've been able to find the SMEs across the environments that I needed to fix problems.  My civilian friends don't seem to have the same breadth of connections from their university years. 

As well, I left CMR as a bilingual Anglophone.  I do believe that CMR was the best place for Anglos to effectively learn French.

Are the military colleges value for money?  I don't think it's clear cut and I can't venture an opinion as I haven't worked with a young milcol officer in decades.  But I do think it's a valuable conversation.

Cheers,

AK
 
AK said:
Are the military colleges value for money?  I don't think it's clear cut....
It seems pretty clear to the Auditor General, and to anyone actually having read the report.

Of course, it doesn't matter since the response to RMC's failed assessment is to double-down with CMR; clearly a better investment than timely procurement.
 
Sandyson said:
Forgive my crudeness but I can't resist. I found the Department responses interesting.  I was not sure if they were kissing the AG's rear or giving him a prostate examination.  After and the timing of the CMR announcement, I know now know which.  Priceless subtlety.

The tone of their response has to do with the time between flash and bang for the AG!  Between the time that the AG started their research and they finally publicly released their recommendations the SSAV occurred.  What is evident in DND's response is - we know, we got this, thanks for stating the obvious, now get out of the construction zone!
 
AK said:
As a charm school graduate, I've never at any point believed that my military school experience made me a better officer than my DEO or ROTC civy U peers.  Actually, it's taken me decades to work through the neuroses that I developed there. 

But I did leave there with a huge network of friends and friendly acquaintances, initially within the military, and now spread throughout the military, public service, and public sector.  Throughout my career, it's amazing how often I've been able to find the SMEs across the environments that I needed to fix problems.  My civilian friends don't seem to have the same breadth of connections from their university years. 

As well, I left CMR as a bilingual Anglophone.  I do believe that CMR was the best place for Anglos to effectively learn French.

Are the military colleges value for money?  I don't think it's clear cut and I can't venture an opinion as I haven't worked with a young milcol officer in decades.  But I do think it's a valuable conversation.

Cheers,

AK

I went to Sandhurst, and Gagetown, and have had similar 'networking' experiences, fortunately, minus the academic trials and tribulations and a few of the psychological after effects - based on what the voices are telling me  ;D
 
Back
Top