Canadian military’s template for perfect recruits outdated: Vance

[Halifax Tar]

HALIFAX - The man who leads the Canadian Armed Forces says the military has failed to adequately integrate women and minorities, partly because it has for too long relied on an antiquated template for its recruits.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, told a defence and security conference Saturday that the military has to change because the very nature of warfare is changing, particularly when it comes to cyber-warfare.

More on link
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/canada/article-canadian-militarys-template-for-perfect-recruits-invalid-vance/

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It clearly is outdated, 40% of the Navy is so medically unfit they can't sail. 

 

[Stoker]

It clearly is outdated, 40% of the Navy is so medically unfit they can't sail.

I think the point of the article is that he's looking at lowering the standards for IT tech people and the like to allow more of those people to come in which I don't agree with. As for the 40% of the navy being medically unfit, I don't know the numbers on that but what is your source? If is in fact 40% we do need more people who can sail and a lowering of the standard is not going to serve the RCN well to replace these sea going people.

 

[brihard]

I wonder if there might be some merit in looking at how the RCMP employs ‘civilian members’ (as opposed to public servants) who are members of the force, are deployable, and who fill roles in operational, technical and investigational support without having to have a badge and a gun. The RCMP is sadly and in the eyes of many misguidedly moving away from this and converting CMs to Public Servants, however it offers a prototype for how skills could be recruited, trained, and career managed without the notion that everybody needs to be able to be a trigger puller.

 

[Journeyman]

I think that another telling line is, “...everybody else who is not in that template, the antibodies start to gather around them.” 

This suggests that the issue is not only with the recruiting system -- CFRS guidelines and Recruit School behaviours -- but potentially peer 'justice' within the shacks... to include 'old school' (to be kind) Snr NCMs who cannot accept that things are not as per their imagined "back in my day," and the Jr Officers who turn a blind eye to inappropriately taking matters into their own hands.


Note: I'm not advocating eliminating hard, challenging training, which is absolutely necessary in many fields; that isn't remotely the same as targeting individuals for beasting because they're 'different.'

Your interpretation may vary.

 

[PuckChaser]

The problem is, we have a hard right handrail of number of folks in uniform. We're not getting any bigger. Any increase in people who cannot deploy/bear arms/etc takes up those finite slots and makes the Op tempo higher for those who can. A cycle will just start where people get burned out, pushing them into non-deployable and burn more people out as the deployable pool gets smaller and smaller.

What the CDS seems to be proposing is a culture change from everyone being required to be fit to fight, to only some people need to do that, everyone else can hang out in the back.

 

[FSTO]

The problem is, we have a hard right handrail of number of folks in uniform. We're not getting any bigger. Any increase in people who cannot deploy/bear arms/etc takes up those finite slots and makes the Op tempo higher for those who can. A cycle will just start where people get burned out, pushing them into non-deployable and burn more people out as the deployable pool gets smaller and smaller.

What the CDS seems to be proposing is a culture change from everyone being required to be fit to fight, to only some people need to do that, everyone else can hang out in the back.

I sincerely hope not. Not quicker way to ferment resentment and and increase an already toxic us vs them attitude that is rife throughout the CAF.

 

[Journeyman]

What the CDS seems to be proposing is a culture change from everyone being required to be fit to fight, to only some people need to do that, everyone else can hang out in the back.

"Fit to fight" is just another catch-phrase that gets tossed around, like "whole of government."  We've always had different standards.  I've never expected the unit clerk, or a photo tech, or the Bde lawyer, etc. to carry the same rucksack and combat load as an Infanteer (who, as we know, in addition to his own kit, carries radio batteries, ammo for support weapons, etc).

I don't see the CDS suggesting that he wants differing standards within a trade;  the fitness and medical standards of a Cyber Operator will have absolutely no effect on the op tempo for a combat arms soldier.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think the point of the article is that he's looking at lowering the standards for IT tech people and the like to allow more of those people to come in which I don't agree with. As for the 40% of the navy being medically unfit, I don't know the numbers on that but what is your source? If is in fact 40% we do need more people who can sail and a lowering of the standard is not going to serve the RCN well to replace these sea going people.

I don't have access to hard numbers but this number has been thrown around by a number of folks, some quite senior.  To clarify, this number includes staffing shortages as well as medically unfit individuals who cannot go for various reasons.

It is to the point where the same people are deploying over and over again and different platform are robbing from Paul so Peter can sail. 

RCN is allowing MARS IV Officers to skip the normal surface fleet tour without even being NOPQ qualified and heading right to the submarine force after training, that is how short staffed that particular platform is for instance.  And Submarines are supposed to be a D-Level for post NOPQ-qualified Officers, according to official CAF policy.

 

[PuckChaser]

"Fit to fight" is just another catch-phrase that gets tossed around, like "whole of government."  We've always had different standards.  I've never expected the unit clerk, or a photo tech, or the Bde lawyer, etc. to carry the same rucksack and combat load as an Infanteer (who, as we know, in addition to his own kit, carries radio batteries, ammo for support weapons, etc).

I don't see the CDS suggesting that he wants differing standards within a trade;  the fitness and medical standards of a Cyber Operator will have absolutely no effect on the op tempo for a combat arms soldier.

You used a pretty polar opposite example of a clerk compared to a light infantry soldier, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the standard be on the infantry side of the spectrum. There should, however, be a standard where individuals are able to shoot, move, and communicate and function very basically as soldiers in a field environment. If you can't take a rucksack from a truck and hump it 500m into your biv site, or hit a target 100m away while prone, there's an issue.

Its not specifically outlined in this article, however the CDS has said he's pushing to tier our military into folks who want to deploy/get posted, deploy/not get posted, and not deploy/not get posted. This would mean differing standards within all trades, although his intent would be that folks who have no restrictions are the ones that are going to be getting the pay and promotions. We've already seen the start: Folks on TCAT (could be long or short term) can now be promoted, sometimes ahead of their peers who are fit and deployable.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What if the nature of warfare is such that only a certain, small percentage of a human population actually wants to consider a career field in it? Then what?

You will note that I am absolutely not singling out any particular gender, racial group or any other discriminator one might care to use.

What i am suggesting is that maybe, just maybe,  the PSEL folks should look objectively at what works in warfare (all areas of warfare) and then design our attraction, recruiting and retention strategies on those personalitiy types.

What I am suggesting is that we design our military to win. And use objective facts to do so.

 

[Underway]

I don't have access to hard numbers but this number has been thrown around by a number of folks, some quite senior.  To clarify, this number includes staffing shortages as well as medically unfit individuals who cannot go for various reasons.

It is to the point where the same people are deploying over and over again and different platform are robbing from Paul so Peter can sail. 

RCN is allowing MARS IV Officers to skip the normal surface fleet tour without even being NOPQ qualified and heading right to the submarine force after training, that is how short staffed that particular platform is for instance.  And Submarines are supposed to be a D-Level for post NOPQ-qualified Officers, according to official CAF policy.

I wouldn't use the submarine force as an example.  They are always different and change their policies over time.  What is written down really isn't the way things work in the sub fleet for career progression anymore.  It used to be that you elected for subs right out of MARS IV (when I joined in 2000 all the sub Lt(N) were straight submariners, never sailed on a surface vessel).  Then the switch the the D Level version.  They recently trialed getting engineers to finish their Phase VI on a submarine instead of on a frigate.  Subs do weird things and try different things all the time because by the time someone is getting a D-level they often don't want to go into subs.  They are too established in their surface fleet ways and shore postings with their kids and family.  Get them in and qualified before they have dependants ...

 

[Journeyman]

You used a pretty polar opposite example of a clerk compared to a light infantry soldier...

I was actually contrasting combat arms with pretty much everyone else ('pretty much' because, yes, I am aware that other trades actually ruck up as well).

Whereas I saw the CDS statement as looking particularly towards IT, you went directly to 'op tempo burnout' with, I suspect, an eye solely on your own rice bowl.  With everyone complaining about diminished training funds and wasted effort, I personally can't justify spending a training dime or day on having some Cyber person (or anyone with single-digit odds of being in harms' way) qualify on carrying a rucksack from a truck to a biv site, just so we can chant some "fit to fight" mantra.  Some people/units spend months on pre-deployment training; teach them then, if need be.

Although none of this was the gist of my original post, which apparently got garbled.

Again, "your interpretation may vary."  Enjoy. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think the point of the article is that he's looking at lowering the standards for IT tech people and the like to allow more of those people to come in which I don't agree with. As for the 40% of the navy being medically unfit, I don't know the numbers on that but what is your source? If is in fact 40% we do need more people who can sail and a lowering of the standard is not going to serve the RCN well to replace these sea going people.

As recently as Sept of this year at a divisions, the Flag officer present frankly pointed out that we are 7-800 people short in the RCN and roughly the same amount is on MELs that restrict employment at sea. 

Not sure what our total numbers are, but I am sure we aren't in good shape.

You used a pretty polar opposite example of a clerk compared to a light infantry soldier, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the standard be on the infantry side of the spectrum. There should, however, be a standard where individuals are able to shoot, move, and communicate and function very basically as soldiers in a field environment. If you can't take a rucksack from a truck and hump it 500m into your biv site, or hit a target 100m away while prone, there's an issue.

Its not specifically outlined in this article, however the CDS has said he's pushing to tier our military into folks who want to deploy/get posted, deploy/not get posted, and not deploy/not get posted. This would mean differing standards within all trades, although his intent would be that folks who have no restrictions are the ones that are going to be getting the pay and promotions. We've already seen the start: Folks on TCAT (could be long or short term) can now be promoted, sometimes ahead of their peers who are fit and deployable.

What are they going to do when the majority choose to be in the dont deploy dont post column ?  Scary thought eh! 

 

[daftandbarmy]

"Truly then, it is killing men with kindness not to insist upon physical standards during training which will give them maximum fitness for the extraordinary stresses of campaigning in war." S.L.A Marshall

 

[Lumber]

What are they going to do when the majority choose to be in the dont deploy dont post column ?  Scary thought eh!

I really think, as others have alluded to, that this will primarily affect cyber and IT related trades.

They will lower standards or alter the structure of the trade altogether. These folk will work in HQs, Cyber Ops Centres and IT Centres of excellence with zero possibility of deploying or being posted. But, they won't make as much money as the rest of us... maybe?

There will be a 2nd cadre of these folk who have elected to be able to deploy. They will have higher standards and make more money than the others... again maybe.

Really, only read my first sentence. The rest is all blind conjecture...

 

[Halifax Tar]

I really think, as others have alluded to, that this will primarily affect cyber and IT related trades.

They will lower standards or alter the structure of the trade altogether. These folk will work in HQs, Cyber Ops Centres and IT Centres of excellence with zero possibility of deploying or being posted. But, they won't make as much money as the rest of us... maybe?

There will be a 2nd cadre of these folk who have elected to be able to deploy. They will have higher standards and make more money than the others... again maybe.

Really, only read my first sentence. The rest is all blind conjecture...

I am pretty sure the "journey" program, or policy or whatever it will end up being; is going to be intended and implement across the board.

 

[RCDtpr]

I really think, as others have alluded to, that this will primarily affect cyber and IT related trades.

They will lower standards or alter the structure of the trade altogether. These folk will work in HQs, Cyber Ops Centres and IT Centres of excellence with zero possibility of deploying or being posted. But, they won't make as much money as the rest of us... maybe?

There will be a 2nd cadre of these folk who have elected to be able to deploy. They will have higher standards and make more money than the others... again maybe.

Really, only read my first sentence. The rest is all blind conjecture...

With the money these guys can make for cyber warfare skills civvie side.....rest assured they will likely make more than us....not less.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I really think, as others have alluded to, that this will primarily affect cyber and IT related trades.

They will lower standards or alter the structure of the trade altogether. These folk will work in HQs, Cyber Ops Centres and IT Centres of excellence with zero possibility of deploying or being posted. But, they won't make as much money as the rest of us... maybe?

There will be a 2nd cadre of these folk who have elected to be able to deploy. They will have higher standards and make more money than the others... again maybe.

Really, only read my first sentence. The rest is all blind conjecture...

So does the oath get changed? How do we operate when only some troops are slated for unlimited liability, while others sit in their warm dry cubicles? I mean, we see similar with people on MELs, etc, but that's caused by conditions, which should only be temporary. MELs that become permanent that affect universality, typically end up in release. Do we now allow someone to cross train to IT, that doesn't meet universality of service, so that person can remain in the CAF?

Do we really want to create two completely different classes of service people? If we want limited liability, no deployments, no harms way, shouldn't we just hire civilians to do those jobs? Of course, getting civies, especially techies, to do their job for military pay, might be a problem.

I'm intrigued by Lumbers scenario, but I think my questions might be just the tip of the iceberg. I really don't think it would be that simple, but I'd like more discussion of it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

With the money these guys can make for cyber warfare skills civvie side.....rest assured they will likely make more than us....not less.

The human resource challenges on the supply side will be significant, but perhaps not impossible, as this article suggests:

https://www.itbusiness.ca/blog/the-it-skills-shortage-fact-or-myth/66407