bgreen wrote:
This thread was covered in the LFRR loop back a year ago and there were some novel ideas put forward like tax credits and advertising promotions given to employers who supported their country and allowed reservists to accept tours
IMHO, this is by far the preferable way to go: make a Reserve employee an asset, not a liability. In other words, if the employer cooperates he benefitsNow, we already know about the s\intangible skills and attributes that Res (or RegF) people acquire in their service are assets to employers (far more so IMHO than most technical skills acquired in the military which have a shelf-life). What we could do is go a step beyond this and take measures such as tax incentives, wage top-ups, preference in bidding on Govt contracts, etc. that would make having a Res employee more attractive.
Too expensive? Not really, if you consider the return to the country in a more effective Res capability. As well, let's be realistic and remember that the number of Canadian citizens willing to volunteer their time to be soldiers will always be proportionately small. I remain skeptical and wary of a purely "stick" approach to employers in a country with our political culture.
Rick Goebel: you wrote:
Reserve full-time service, on the other hand, is completely within the control of the government and it's agencies.
Reserve forces should exist to provide a "surge" capability for the military when unusual events occur.
But, I would argue, the political situations that lead to the requirement to activate Reservists are not always fully predictable. It may also not be an option for the Govt to avoid using Res, if it finds itself faced with a situation that it cannot manage within its existing force structure for whatever reason. A good (domestic) example of this is the increasing (and, I say, appropriate...) use of Res for response to overwhelming civil emergency: these calls cannot normally be predicted. While an employer in the affected city will probably let the Res go for duty, what about employers of Res in distant cities, as happened during OP PEREGRINE, or OP ASSISTANCE? Thus far we have relied on the good will of employers, but I suggest that is a time-limited thing: before too long they may start wanting their employees back.
These situations that require unexpected surges in manning can affect all nations, regardless of the size of their Regular armed forces: look at the desperate manning situation the World's Most Powerful Nation is currently in. Simply expanding the RegF does not guarantee we will not need Res at unforeseen times. So, what will constitute an "important" surge requirement for Res full-time servicevice a "frivolous" one ? This, IMHO, would come down to defining what the national interest is in each case(which we should probably be doing anyway, but...)
The world wars were certainly examples of such unusual events.
Yes, but we can advance the argument that neither of these wars (particularly not WWII) were actual "surprises". In the case of WWII, there were clear warning signs of some sort of impending conflict for several years before the outbreak, which is why all the players (including Canada, to a lesser degree) began rearming in the mid-late 1930s. Since these wars could have been (and to a certain extent were..) foreseen, does, it delegitimize the use of the NPAM in them (as part of the CEF/CASF, I mean....)?
Cheers.
