General wants to team with business

[McG]

General wants to team with business
Private sector has role in military missions
Chris Wattie
CanWest News Service
July 23, 2005

TORONTO -- The head of the Canadian Forces Friday called on Canadian business leaders to take a "Team Canada" approach to overseas operations and join his soldiers on missions to troubled nations such as Afghanistan.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in a speech to a Toronto think-tank that the private sector has a role to play in future military missions. He called for the same type of campaign used by official foreign trade trips during the 1990s.

"I think it's a Team Canada approach that we need," he told the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "We need private industry involved ... you want to come in and make money from us, build our camps, fill our contracts or do our maintenance for us and then 10 years later when everything's stabilized and secure you can come and start operating your business.

"We need you there on Day 1. Take some risks with us on Day 1 as part of a team that we build ... with you supporting us and us being supported by you."

Hillier said he wants to expand the Canadian Forces partnerships with diplomats and aid agencies, such as the military-protected provincial reconstruction team which deployed to southern Afghanistan this week, to help rebuild the war-torn nations where the military is often sent.

"The Canadian Forces obviously has a part to play in that, but if you're just asking us to conduct military operations without a country being built around us, without a more stable society being built ... we really are just setting ourselves up for longer term failure."

Speaking to reporters after the speech, Hillier said he has no specific plans to involve industry in future missions, but indicated he wants the private sector to do more than fill contracts to service the military.

"When we decide to disarm militia forces in various countries, like Kosovo, like Afghanistan, the stumbling block is always can we provide jobs ... to these men who've been soldiers all their lives," he said.

"That's when we want industry to be stepping up to the plate and starting small enterprises and offering some jobs and therefore some hope for the future."

Hillier said Canada is just now beginning to realize that it is facing a multi-faceted threat from terrorists and organized criminals, which he called "a ball of snakes."

"The Canadian population right now, in general, is waking up from a bit of a long slumber," he said. "The times have changed. Canada is starting to realize that, and that realization, I think, grows."

And missions such as the latest Canadian Forces deployment to Afghanistan are a way of denying terrorists the use of such countries as bases of operations.

"It's a fertile garden ... where you prepare your venom and your violence to send it worldwide."

Hillier said Afghanistan now exports 4,000 tons of raw opium a year, most of it going to Europe and North America, which he called "a weapon of mass destruction. And there's no easy solution to getting rid of it whatsoever."

 

[Younghusband]

"We need private industry involved ... you want to come in and make money from us, build our camps, fill our contracts or do our maintenance for us and then 10 years later when everything's stabilized and secure you can come and start operating your business.

This part of his message intrigued me. Aren't the Americans having some problems with this kind of stuff in Iraq right now?

 

[54/102 CEF]

My small observation

Business is in business for one thing ======== MAKE MONEY

For many Canadian Businesses its MAKE MONEY WHILE GOVT KEEPS OUT COMPETITORS

Army is in Business as a NON Profit Entity

Many Competitors are in Afghanistan and the region

Gen Hillier recently said we will never again do something like Camp Julien

It looks to me like Afghans have no MONEY unless they are drug warlords....... ie: no cash economy. ie: where are the Cash machines on every street corner.

Seems a huge gap for him to fill and then - we are tipped off when he admits that he want`s business in there but has no plans.

Long term its a great idea - short term I see no Governnment face involved which is like playing tag with a rattlesnake - risk to him and his plans goes up the longer the Government shows no face.

Couchiching or Andy Leslie`s recent comments not withstanding - he does not have an unlimited mandate and time is ticking away - lets see some news and deliverables on this side of pond first.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It appears to me (emphasizing that I get most of my information from the press with a valuable reality check here in army.ca) that most Western armies have decided to go back to the future â “ way, way back to Roman and Renaissance times when soldiers lived (rested and refitted) in secure, often quite comfortable fortified bases and sortied out every now and again to do the sovereign's (or the republic's) bloody business.  What I read about are bases with swimming pools and Burger Kings where soldiers can relax in something which has some of the attributes of home.  I have no views, yet, on the merits of this system â “ it seems a natural enough evolution from World War II and Korean era rest areas into which units were withdrawn every so often for rest, reinforcement  and refit.

The fact is that base functions being essentially (even largely) military is a recent innovation.  Historically most base functions over most of the past couple of millennia in most of the world were done by civilians â “ willingly or not.  (The Romans being the major exception â “ and they relied on military resources for only rather Spartan facilities but when, as often did appear to happen, camps were expanded and made more comfortable civilians contractors were the norm,)

I believe that military managers all over the West are facing a resource crunch.  People are expensive.  As a general rule soldiers 'cost' more than civil servants and civil servants are, generally, more expensive than civilians in the competitive market.*  Stretching the defence budget â “ and spending it on things which cannot be done by anyone but an armed soldier â “ requires alternate service delivery or, as I like to put it, going back to the future. 

Of course it (employing civilians in direct (adm & log) support of operations) is full of problems but, according to the rumours I hear, there is little choice.  The Canadian Forces have limits â “ on numbers of people and on personnel budgets, and every cook and every vehicle mechanic and every software technician means one less rifleman and one less Coyote crewman and one less combat engineer.

----------
* Consider: two computer technicians paid about the same (notwithstanding their respective duties) one a sergeant and the other a civil servant â “ the sergeant 'costs' more, probably by a few thousand dollars each year, because the overall costs (to the Treasury â “ to you and me) of military personnel (including training, medical care, support) are higher than the overall costs of a civil servant.  The civil servant costs more that the government would pay (including profits) to a civilian contractor for the same 'work'.

There are good and valid reasons to have soldiers and civil servants doing some jobs rather than contracted civilians but cost is never, ever one of them.  Government services â “ not for profit government services â “ are inevitably, almost universally, almost always higher, measurably higher, than the costs of for-profit corporations.  This is an unpleasant fact of life: corporations are, even after exorbitant executive salaries and dividends for the investors, almost always more efficient and more effective than not for profit public enterprises.  Of course there are exception â “ a few of them, and they prove the rule.

 

[48Highlander]

Yes it makes sense to have civilians providing some services for the troops, but I don't think that's what the CDS was talking about.  At least not entirely.  The new concept here is having them come in with the military and helping develop the civilian infrastructure.  In other words things like building houses, building an electrical grid, bringing in water treatment and transportation systems, and developing local businesses.  Basically, making an investment in the local economy, the majority of the work to be done of course by locals, thereby also providing jobs and helping build up their economy, for a possible future profit to the business.  These things could be quite profitable for large companies, but only in the long term, and only if the overall mission is a success from the military standpoint.  I think it's a good idea personally, but it would require a different type of planning and organization than has ever been attempted, as well as much closer coordination between the government, the military, and the corporations.  As well, no corporation would be stupid enough to make that sort of long-term commitment unless WE were willing to make certain guarantees to them, probably in the form of a contract.  Which then puts us in the uncomfortable position of appearing to be working for the corporations.  It's not surprising that the CDS admitted he has no real idea as to how to implement his idea - there's so many different factors to be considered that it could take years before any workable plan is ready to be tested.

 

[bossi]

Example:  Back on Op APOLLO, there was the story about an oil rig company that was willing to donate some drilling equipment to support the PPCLI ... hmmm ... now let me think ... what possible use would well-drilling equipment have been, in protecting Canadian troops, by winning the hearts and minds of locals who so desperately needed wells drilled for them due to a drought ... hmmm ... yup - that's probably why the rocket scientists at an unnamed HQ said "can't do" instead of "CAN DO" ...

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
-- Sun Tzu.

The center of gravity is "those characteristics, capabilities, or localities from which a military force derives its freedom of action, physical strength, or will to fight."
-- DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.

Ooops - there I go again - dreaming that I'm CDS for a day ...

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

If doing this means benefitting the peope of that country and help's us in our job and achieving a constructive goal, then sure why not! As long as the company doing it is not gaining any political backing and the parties aren't getting any political capitol in return. But then that's like getting the new ruck, Gore-tex rain suits, a tour. The company would probably be from a federal riding or Quebec.

 

[Korus]

KBR.. *shudders*

I'm amazed how many contracters there are here in Kandahar.. As mentioned in a post above, there's even a BurgerKing and a Pizza Hut.. which delivers... Haven't tried them yet, though.

 

[McG]

Yes it makes sense to have civilians providing some services for the troops, but I don't think that's what the CDS was talking about.   At least not entirely.   The new concept here is having them come in with the military and helping develop the civilian infrastructure.

I think he was talking about both: civilians providing ASD to soldiers overseas, and civilians doing reconstruction under protection of soldiers overseas (ie: the Camp Julian castle makers vs. the PRT participants).

It appears to me that most Western armies have decided to go back to the future - way, way back to Roman and Renaissance times when soldiers lived (rested and refitted) in secure, often quite comfortable fortified bases and sortied out every now and again to do the sovereign's (or the republic's) bloody business.   ...

There are good and valid reasons to have soldiers and civil servants doing some jobs rather than contracted civilians but cost is never, ever one of them.  

The civilians provide one major difference between our modern castles and those of history.   Historically, many of these armies included civilians in the fighting ranks.   Today, every group of civilians in our castles needs a group of soldiers to protect them.   At some point, our costs have to start going up as we add more soldiers with the sole role of protecting the civilians we have in our camps.

Where the civilians are a critical element to executing the mission (such as in a PRT) then obviously the additional soldiers are warranted.   However, I don't think we should ever travel down the route where the civilian ASD would tie us to another CASTLE JULIEN.

... or maybe we give preferential treatment to reservists when hiring civilians for overseas?   ...

 

[honestyrules]

Well, I might be out to lunch, but IMHO, if we take the tours away from some CSS troops ,there will be less experience transfered to the other troops back in Canada.

Has most people know SNC-Lavalin are ready to provide all kind of services.
December 2002, DND entered into a contract with SNC-Lavalin/PAE to provide support services to deployed CF operations to a value of $400 million for up to 10 years. SNC-Lavalin/PAE is an experienced company that has been in Afghanistan for two years providing support to non-governmental organizations and the deployed forces of the United States and other countries. Many contractors are in Kabul providing services such as food and fuel supply.

CANCAP will support the 1,700 personnel to be deployed in Afghanistan from August 2003 to August 2004. Due to the mission's extremely short timelines, the support task was divided into two parts: the Support to Theatre Activation Task and the Mission Sustainment Task.

The Support to Theatre Activation Task, now under way, will end on August 10, 2003, when the entire Canadian contingent will be on the ground in Kabul.. Activities in Kabul include camp construction, reception and movement of camp materiel, and provision of some camp support services (e.g., food services and fuel supply) to the Theatre Activation Team. Most of these activities are being conducted under subcontracts arranged by CANCAP in theatre.

The Sustainment Task Order for services to the Canadian camp is currently being negotiated and should be approved by June 20. This Task Order will allow CANCAP to provide camp services such as food services, local procurement, laundry, water and waste management, engineering support, fire services, accommodation control, and system support to communications and information systems.

Ok ,it sounds like a good idea, but Cooks, LPO(Local purchase dude), POL teams, ROWPU crews, WFE TECHS,Construction troops, Heavy equipment operators, Smokey the firefighter and LCIS TECHS are all members of the CF and might miss opportunities to gather the knowledge of what "really works" in theater, and it could spoil the money that the CF is putting in for training of CSS troops.

Being said ,I have nothing against the "Burger King" and stuff on a camp, it most be good to have after a while
Anyway ,just my two cents, as mentionned ,I might be out to lunch after all

Cheers

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think contracting out is a great idea.  I especially look forward to the first bug-out situation.  I'm trying to imagine if civvy chopper pilots have a version of a "Lloyd's Open" contract...