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

Lack of officers leaves army short of 'heart and soul'

The premise of the original article is wrong. The "heart and soul" of the CF, not just the army, is found in ships, regiments and squadrons - in the officers', sergeants' and, indeed, junior ranks' messes. The "heart and soul" are the committed, career NCOs and officers who "soldier on" (and the Navy and RCAF equivalents thereto) despite the cuts and despite the less than fully coherent guidance from a plethora of HQs.

But, the "heart and soul" leaves the fleet and the field and flying forces and they go to HQs, including to NDHQ and to schools and bases and all manner of strange places.

I would argue that the top two levels of HQ (NDHQ and the dot coms and some functional and regional HQs are bloated. I suggest, based on a lot of experience, that almost all HQs are almost always overstaffed - except that every so often, when the you know what hits the fan, one or two HQs are actually worked off their feet and could use a few extra hands, if only to answer the inane queries from HQs that are "fat."

There are a couple of groups who are not part of the "heart and soul:" the junior folks, officers and ORs who have too little experience to have, yet, made the deep emotional commitment that is characteristic of the professional naval and military man and woman; a small slice of the more senior folks who have replaced their commitment with careerism; and a rather general, across the board, slice for whom the CF is just a job. But the youngsters are learning and some will take their places in the ranks of the "heart and soul;" some, maybe most of the careerists did give us good value at one time - and they will all be gone, eventually; and even the "job doers" make a contribution.

Some of the "heart and soul" is indeed away from units, schools and HQs, where their skills and knowledge would help - but the rest of the "heart and soul" will take up the slack and will, indeed, be better for having risen to the challenge.

It's a tempest in a teapot and it's a damned small tempest in a damned small pot at that.
 
Grapeshot said:
Sorry, never did a tour in NDHQ, unlike some who spend their entire careers there!  This was posted as food for thought, in particular since DND is undergoing Strategic review which usually translates into a 5% budget cut along with the potential 5% or 10% options that all federal departments must preset to TB this fiscal. Looking at the actual cost of the higher ranks as contained in the Cost Factors Manual, getting rid of 1/3 of the Senior Officers would provide sufficient funds to pay for a light battalion of soldiers! In the current climate, what is the better value? Better still, maybe we could purchase a tail fin for an F-35.

I also noticed from some of your other posts that you seem to have identified where the "bloat" is in all the extra HQ's that General Rick was attempting to cut! Perhaps you could be of help; send your resume in to work as a consultant! Genreal Andy left some $$$ to hire a few of them.

Maybe you should tone it down. As you have admitted you have never done an NDHQ tour. Neither have I - nor would I want to - but having said that the people I work with at NDHQ have their hearts and souls in the right place.
 
The performance report says the Canadian military personnel who will be responsible for this task "are the same ranks which are (in) short (supply) in the army and are required in the training establishments (in Canada) where they preserve the long-term health of the army."           

Really? We could fire up a DP1 in January but the infantry is still a closed trade. Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) and even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses in the summer time. The above statement is complete bullshit! 

 
Grapeshot said:
Sorry, never did a tour in NDHQ, unlike some who spend their entire careers there!  This was posted as food for thought, in particular since DND is undergoing Strategic review which usually translates into a 5% budget cut along with the potential 5% or 10% options that all federal departments must preset to TB this fiscal. Looking at the actual cost of the higher ranks as contained in the Cost Factors Manual, getting rid of 1/3 of the Senior Officers would provide sufficient funds to pay for a light battalion of soldiers! In the current climate, what is the better value? Better still, maybe we could purchase a tail fin for an F-35.

I also noticed from some of your other posts that you seem to have identified where the "bloat" is in all the extra HQ's that General Rick was attempting to cut! Perhaps you could be of help; send your resume in to work as a consultant! Genreal Andy left some $$$ to hire a few of them.

Maybe that's something you need to work on then, to help enhance your perspective on how things work throughout the CF, the Dept and the GoC?  The CF doesn't get all its gear from annual sacks of gifts from Santa Claus, you know.  Some folks work hard within the Defence Services Program to get stuff for the very units, the likes of which you are implying you have spent your entire career within.

Whether you like it or not, there are important jobs to be done in strategic HQs interacting in the rest of the Government's machine, many of those being of appropriate rank to have an element of integration and understanding with Departmental and OGD civilians.  A rectal-plucked "1/2"...or a 'new and improved' "1/3" of the "Senior Officers" (I'm assuming you are actually using this term to address your previously mentioned GO and Col reductions and not the pure sense of Maj-LCol-Col type 'senior officers') will do little to increase the operational capacity of the CF.  If you want further analysis on my comments in the other thread you refer to, ironically (juxtaposed against your senior officer comment quoted above), I would characterize the majority of bloat to be in the Maj-LCol and CWO ranks within overlapping/conflicting/friction generating HQs.

If you take another swing through the CFM, perhaps you could help us better understand your ideas for creating a "light battalion" (do you mean something like a LIB or LIAB?) from the offsets in Departmentally offset General Officers and Colonels in NDHQ?  I would certainly be interested to see what such a LIAB/LIB would look like...seriously...perhaps you're on to something?


Regards
G2G




 
Tow Tripod said:
Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) and even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses in the summer time. The above statement is complete bullshit!

Never heard of any DS picking and choosing the courses they wanted to instruct before.

Don't want to instruct? Then quit. No one is forcing you to stay.
 
Tow Tripod said:
   

Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) and even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses in the summer time. The above statement is complete bullshit!

Oh no! Not a Reserve course :panic: How fucking horrible that you'd even have to associate with those red headed step children.  :facepalm: I guess now that things are winding down it's ok to forget that they backfilled, with honour, over 20% of the mission that the Reg force couldn't. It's ok now to kick them back to the gutter now that they've been used up.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Pretty hard to think about going off to fight against bigotry somewhere in the world, when there are so many pathetic, useless tit practitioners of it here. ::)

Your last sentence "The above statement is complete bullshit!" just neatly summed up your own post.
 
CF instructors.......teaching CF courses......in CF schools.........in Canada........
 
Nerf Herder,
I plan on taking you up on that offer! It wont be a big loss for me or the institution I belong too.
Recce Guy, Come spend another summer in Wainwright for maximum negative effect on oneself. I feel as though I should genuflect to your awesomeness. As for fighting bigotry I'm not sure what war that was but I'm sure you served honourably in your war. Thank you for you service and a hug is being emailed as I speak.
 
Tow Tripod said:
Nerf Herder,
I plan on taking you up on that offer! It wont be a big loss for me or the institution I belong too.
Recce Guy, Come spend another summer in Wainwright for maximum negative effect on oneself. I feel as though I should genuflect to your awesomeness. As for fighting bigotry I'm not sure what war that was but I'm sure you served honourably in your war. Thank you for you service and a hug is being emailed as I speak.

I quite enjoy Wainwright myself. Call me crazy.

I see you concentrated on the wrong part of the message................. again ;)
 
Pusser said:
Unfortunately, this isn't really true.  Newly promoted captains (even if not accelerated) do not solve this problem.  In the Canadian Forces especially, there is significant difference between a new captain and a senior captain (i.e. with a few years of experience under his belt), yet they are all lumped together when people start playing the statistics game.
Somewhere I've posted that every rank should have both training and TI requirements for promotions, and promotion from Lt to Capt should be merit based.  Such a system would certainly clear-up the problem identified here where the only difference between some Lt and Capt is enrolment programme (and not even TI).

Wookilar said:
ATOC, I think, is part of the current problem. ATOC, in my mind, was never meant for Lts to go on. It is for Capts that have a little bit of experience and they know, in general terms, how things work outside of their trade.
Actually, this should be a lieutenant course.  By the time someone is promoted to Captain, they should already be able to think broader than "this is my occupational lane."

 
MCG said:
Somewhere I've posted that every rank should have both training and TI requirements for promotions, and promotion from Lt to Capt should be merit based.  Such a system would certainly clear-up the problem identified here where the only difference between some Lt and Capt is enrolment programme (and not even TI).
Actually, this should be a lieutenant course.  By the time someone is promoted to Captain, they should already be able to think broader than "this is my occupational lane."

I am reminded that, in the late 1980's and early 1990's when I was a subaltern,  that the promotion even to Lt was not automatic.  The promotion rate each year varied from 70% to 90% of those eligible.  Each unit usually had it's token 7 year Lt that could not make it out of the bottom 20% to Capt and was on the edge of not being offered further terms of service and therefore given a gratuity to leave at 12 years service.

Lately, we have become used to 100% TOS conversion rates.  That is not the historical norm for the CF and I predict that we will see the return of limited TOS offers/ career gating.
 
Tow Tripod said:
Really? We could fire up a DP1 in January but the infantry is still a closed trade. Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) and even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses in the summer time. The above statement is complete bullshit!

If you don't like it, you do have the option of taking your release.

Your Sgts don't want to train Reservists? Well...guess what....we don't particularly like Reg Force pers who display "attitude" that Reservists are beneath them.


I've worked both sides of the street - Reg and Reserve. We are on the same team.


 
Tow Tripod said:
We could fire up a DP1 in January but the infantry is still a closed trade. Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) and even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses in the summer time. The above statement is complete bullshit!
What COULD be worse?  Oh yes, being taught by instructors who feel that way....
 
recceguy-

I am not trying to add any fuel to the Reg/Res battle but you realize there are RegF people who never had a chance to deploy to Afghanistan right? As I recall, many positions were held especially for reservists, were they not? I know of a handful of reservists who deployed to Afghanistan with barely 2 years experience, and a lot of that was pre-deployment. Why were people like that selected for tour when there were RegF guys with 4-5 years experience at the time, who were marking time in Canada? Especially considering some positions it didn't really matter what trade you came from...just curious.  It's not like every single RegF person was stretched to the breaking point.

If you have any insight, I'd be much obliged.
 
Spectrum,

Not to be a dink, but can you show me where in your enrolment documentation you (or anyone else) was promised a particular tour?

I have 27 years of experience to say that Afghanistan is not Canada's last war.  We will find even an crappier part of the world for your tour (they have been slowly going down hill since the 1980s)  ;)

Trust me- you hang around, you will deploy.  Someplace.
 
I always thought the heart and soul was the NCO corps. :camo:
 
Oh no, for sure I understand that. I am more asking a question than complaining. It's not even for me that I ask. I just happen to have a good friend with 8-9 years in, and no tour.  He's had good write ups, solid performer etc, fit. Pretty close to a model soldier (better than I will ever be!) so I just don't see why he wasn't utilized, considering some reservists were deployed before they even had 2 years in...He had to sit back and watch people come in, and train on something he was already qualified in, and then deploy.

I won't get specific but I can tell it bothers him...and he feels his lack of a tour may eventually hurt his credibility as a leader. With that said, he certainly doesn't need any help "cutting it" as an excellent Jnr NCO. I just don't see why someone like that wasn't given a shot - especially considering that he has made this a career and plans to "hang around".

But you are totally correct, there will always be something else. Sorry for the hijack.
 
Spectrum said:
Oh no, for sure I understand that. I am more asking a question than complaining. It's not even for me that I ask. I just happen to have a good friend with 8-9 years in, and no tour.  He's had good write ups, solid performer etc, fit. Pretty close to a model soldier (better than I will ever be!) so I just don't see why he wasn't utilized, considering some reservists were deployed before they even had 2 years in...He had to sit back and watch people come in, and train on something he was already qualified in, and then deploy.

I won't get specific but I can tell it bothers him...and he feels his lack of a tour may eventually hurt his credibility as a leader. With that said, he certainly doesn't need any help "cutting it" as an excellent Jnr NCO. I just don't see why someone like that wasn't given a shot - especially considering that he has made this a career and plans to "hang around".

But you are totally correct, there will always be something else. Sorry for the hijack.

To borrow your line, I am not trying to add any fuel to the Reg/Res battle but you realize your little friend may be leaving a little out about why he has not deployed, in a war we have been fighting for over 10 years....

Food for thought, before you go over to cord of wood, and to come back to add fuel to the fire.

dileas

tess
 
Maybe the attitude towards the reservists was noted and he wasn't deployed because it would cause problems in a platoon of 20% reservists.
 
See this is exactly it. It must be his fault, right? I think there is something wrong with simply jumping to that conclusion just because someone didn't deploy.

Anyways he's put it behind him, and thus I shall too. Just didn't feel recceguy's statement to be completely accurate.
 
Back
Top