NDHQ absorbs all the defense budget.

[Zipper]

Just a note on Sea-dogs reference to more efficient use of money.

Big problem there is that the bucks stop at NDHQ and may or may not make it past. We have such a bloated bureaucracy and are so top heavy command wise, that much of our money savings would come simply from a smaller more efficient HQ.

More later. Have to get to work.

 

[McG]

Split from "Why Does Canada not have Royal Canadian Marines" because it is a tangent.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Big problem there is that the bucks stop at NDHQ and may or may not make it past. We have such a bloated bureaucracy and are so top heavy command wise, that much of our money savings would come simply from a smaller more efficient HQ.

Your point has been put forth before, without further substantiation. I look forward to seeing your detailed analysis of NDHQ demonstrating exactly where such cuts can be made without detrimentally changing any functions affecting either yourself or any other service member.

The following comments were made by VADM (Ret'd) D.N. Mainguy in Volume 4, Number 1- January, 1997 of The Defence Associations National Network (DANN):

Homepage - http://www.dann.ca/frames.html

Quoted article - http://www.dann.ca/Backissues/nn4-1_3b.html

Are there in fact any fatal flaws in the military/civilian organization of NDHQ?

The one that most people zero in on, is the occupation of the same organizational box by the CDS and the DM, with the two of them being co-equal and being co-chairmen of various groups. That allows both military and civilians to work together, while maintaining the differences in conditions of service, which are vast, between the two groups. (For example, broadly, the civilian owns his job, while the service person owns hs rank.) In consequence, different expertise can be brought to bear on problems.

The other flaw suggested is that association with civilians somehow reduces the "militariness" of Service officers, and that they tend to manage rather than lead. In the author's opinion, the top leaders of the Armed forces need to be able to bring a wide range of skills to bear to be able to function; such leaders have to have both the skills of command and the skills of operating in the complex atmosphere of any national headquarters.

On one hand, the basic NDHQ set up has achieved a great record of success for nearly a generation. It is by no means a perfect organization, but it does work. The notion of "pure" military decisions has perhaps never existed in this country, and certainly has not for at least 75 years. It follows that better results are likely to be achieved by civilians and Service people mucking in together, than by trying to deal at arms length.

On the other hand, it requires great tolerance for the existing organization to function, and we are talking about great tolerance among strong minded individuals. The incumbents of those two positions must be prepared to accept joint accountability for their decisions.

On balance it is fruitless to waste time on the impossible task of devising a perfect organization for Canadian Defence, and put that effort into ensuring that whatever organization is in place, does function effectively.

In a word, anyone who thinks the problems of the Armed Forces would be solved by changing or disentangling NDHQ is dreaming in colour.

 

[Infanteer]

If you look through some posts by members experienced with NDHQ, Rusty Old Joint's in particular, you will see that not all is as rosy as the VAdm feels.

Douglas Bland wrote a (well-researched and argued) book on the idea of Unified Defence and Merged Headquarters (two different concepts, very important to keep in mind) titled Chiefs of Defence.  Very convincing argument on why "civilianization" was done for the wrong reasons.

Finally, Mr O'Leary is correct - there is no point blaring this opinion out without backing it up with facts and figures.  Although I may agree with the sentiments, it is more of a "gut feeling" perception based upon anecdotal evidence so I keep it to myself lest I just appear to be foaming at the mouth.  If you feel that NDHQ is a glut on manpower or resources, how would you change it?  Find the positions and the money in NDHQ and point out specific instances where you believe a wrong has occured and what you feel should be done to fix the situation.  All the figures are on the DND website, if you've got the energy to start looking.

 

[WATCHDOG-81]

Your point has been put forth before, without further substantiation. I look forward to seeing your detailed analysis of NDHQ demonstrating exactly where such cuts can be made without detrimentally changing any functions affecting either yourself or any other service member.

I must concur with Michael O'Leary.  Having worked at NDHQ, and having observed the amount of work that is done by a relatively small number of people in comparison to how many people one may believe actually work there, it would be interesting to see how one would make NDHQ smaller and more efficient...let alone remain effective.  Considering that many CF members and their civilian counterparts work well above 50 hours a week and have already taken on the workload of others who have left and not been replaced, I would suggest that any increase on the burden of these people would be sacrificing effectiveness to economy.  

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What criteria must civilians meet to take on the jobs they do at NDHQ?  The CDS and his lackeys progress through the ranks over several years gaining experience from leading a platoon to managing a BN's transport to managing money (DCO) and more (these are all examples found in an Inf BN).  With that progression I can see the "best" officers making it into the high decision positions.  What do the civilians do?  University? Transfer over from the military side of the house?

 

[WATCHDOG-81]

I guess that would have to depend on the position.  Not all jobs at NDHQ are military positions or functions.  Don't forget, the military does not operate in a vaccuum nor is it autonomous.  Foreign policy is set by civilians, not the military.  The military's job is to execute that policy.  The government decides the strategy or objective and the military executes the operation to achieve the objective.  Many of the positions within NDHQ, besides the administrative ones, include policy development, quantitative research, intelligence analysts, and defence scientists...many with Masters degrees or a Ph.D.  These are highly specialized positions that are not normally found within the rank and file of the CF, yet they are all required to keep the system operating and operating within the Departments mandate.  Furthermore, many military positions are filled for two or three years, then someone else takes over, therefore, the civilian personnel provide for continuity within the system as well.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well I"ll try to take it to the most base of things.  Who decides on the civilian side of the house where we go (other then the obvious PM), when, and what equipment we need to the job now and in the future and qualifies them to make these decisions.  I realize that this is getting off target here but I really do want to know.

 

[WATCHDOG-81]

Any decision to deploy the CF would be taken by the Executive Branch of the Government.  The PM and his/her Cabinet.  This is done with consultation of the Privy Council Office, staffed by military and civilian Subject Matter Experts, to provide advice to the Government of the Day on issues surrounding such a deployment, eg. legality, feasability, political consequences, etc.
In terms of equipment procurement, many civilians are involved in the process including Defence Scientists and Public Works.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I wonder how much real world experience these civvies have when it comes to equipment procurement?

 

[Zipper]

Well I seem to have made a thread? Hmmm...    ...how did that happen?

Thanks MCG, I think...

I guess I need to either clarify my statement or eat them.

Qualifier: I believe that military decisions should be made by military personal. Not bureaucratic paper pushers/political lackeys.

Now some questions.

How many positions at HQ truly need someone with a Masters Degree? Let alone a Ph.D? I'm sure there is money to be saved somewhere in there.

How many of these continuity positions filled by (unionized) civil servants are getting paid way more money then their military equivalents?

What is the departments mandate that requires so many policy developers, quantitative researchers, intelligence analysts and defense scientists?

Once policy is made, their not needed anymore. Or is there that much paper that must be shoved down the line to confuse everyone on every level to keep them on? And what the hell is a quantitative researcher anyway?

How many highly paid heads does it take to understand that the military is in the Sh!ter? Under equipped, under funded at the sharp end, under manned (you understand), and over tasked.

Now, for the big one...

Why in all the blue bloody hades do we need a full General as our CDS? We barely have the strength to warrent a Lt. General. Not to mention why we have more General's per capita of forces then most countries. Demote the whole bunch of them and give their jobs to Col's.

Ok let the games begin on that opinion. It should be hard and fast and most certainly bloody for me.