Senate Committee: Reserves to be Pressed to Meet AFG Commitment by 2009

[Cardstonkid]

I think a problem exists in the way we structure the Reserve force. There are just to few of them to be expected to be a useful reserve to the regular Army. Many (Most?) countries Reserve Armies are larger than the Regular Army. Perhaps the problem then lies in the total number of Reservists able to deploy? If there were 200,000 Reservists (try not to fall out of your chair laughing) able to supplement a Regular Army of approx. 75,000 I think there would be far less worry about making service overseas mandatory for the Reservists.

As for Job protection I am all for it. I know there are great arguments on the other side but the truth that relying on the good will of an employer will not work to sustain the current operational tempo of the Reserve force. To help employers we could provide them with financial compensation through the Employment Insurance program. That would smooth some of the pain of losing a valued employee.

 

[cplcaldwell]

To help employers we could provide them with financial compensation through the Employment Insurance program.

Agreed.

More carrot, less stick.

 

[Haggis]

I think a problem exists in the way we structure the Reserve force. There are just to few of them to be expected to be a useful reserve to the regular Army. Many (Most?) countries Reserve Armies are larger than the Regular Army. Perhaps the problem then lies in the total number of Reservists able to deploy? If there were 200,000 Reservists (try not to fall out of your chair laughing) able to supplement a Regular Army of approx. 75,000 I think there would be far less worry about making service overseas mandatory for the Reservists.

Interesting observation.  Other countries can depend on substantial voluntary reserve augmentation because they are drawing on a vastly larger and deeper pool.

The Army Reserve has an approximate trained effective strength of 13,000. Presently we have around 800 Army Reservists on non-operational (yet still essential) full time service. During the summer months, that easily triples (I'm referring only to instructors as those on BMQ or SQ are not yet part of the "trained effective strength" of the CF). The total percentage of Army Reservists on any class of full time service annually fluctuates between roughly 12% and 30%.

If we send, say, 500-550 Army Reservists on every TF from now until end 2009 (five rotos), that's 2,500-2,650 soldiers out of a trained effective strength of about 13,000 we will have  deployed 20% of our Army Reserve.  Can any other country with troops in Afghanistan claim this (outside the US)?

 

[dapaterson]

More carrot, more stick are both needed.

If all you want is to wear a uniform and sometimes spend a weekend in the bush, don't join the Army.  If you never plan to employ the skills you're being trained in, don't join the Army.  If all you want is to spend one night a week drinking with your buddies, don't join the Army.

If you're going to deploy and employ your skills, come on in.  If you're going to train others to enable them to deploy, come on in.


If you're going to commit (and the institution of the CF is going to commit to you as well), come on in.


(And Haggis: Bang on about the numbers.  Add to that the significant number of Reservists already augmenting the CF on a full-time basis, and the Reserve contribution suddenly seems much more significant.)


(* Edit because I'm incapable of typing... *)

 

[Groucho]

Speaking as a current member of the TA (who served in the Canadian reserves) the way that people go on tours have changed since the beginning of the Iraq war! At first two or more people were mobilized for every one post that needed to be filled! 2/3 of the TA soldier past the checks at the Mobilition

 

[tomahawk6]

IMHO, the lengthy workup times are not negotiable.

Many reservists (and some reg F mbrs as well) bring very little to the table in terms of useful soldier skills that are relevant in the current operational context. This is not their fault, just a reality of a lack of resources and training time.

For example, when an infantry unit requires drivers, signallers, gunners and experienced support weapon operators, and the only courses augmentees have is LSVW and a basic understanding of TCCCS - it takes the better part of a year to get them through the requisite courses and then some practical experience. Once all of that is done, then the collective training can begin.

It would be downright foolish to send infantry augmentees into Afghanistan in the current operational context with a compressed workup training. They need the additional courses and training, and we often need it in the regs too.

In regards to legislated Reservist job protection, this seems to me like the PRes wants to "have it's cake and eat it too".

What most of you are saying is that you want legislated job protection when you choose to be deployed, regardless of the requirements of the CF. This begs the question - if employers can be forced to retain you - why should the CF not be permitted to force you to deploy?

I think that if the militia wants to be taken seriously (and by all indications it does) and reap the benefits of better and more training, pensions and better pay and benefits, there will have to be some "give" at their end too. Mandatory training events, parade nights, regular drug testing, fitness testing, the whole nine yards.

If this will be bad for retention, I ask, is it better to have a militia filled with people who can't/won't deploy? or a smaller cadre of trained and usable soldiers.

To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.

I have to quibble a bit with this post GO !! .
Reservists do bring alot to the table both in a military context but also civilian experience. My experience is with US reservists but my comments I think will be valid in the Canadian context. Reservists have alot of military experience, maybe its not obtained from a full time stand point, but its still experience. For many reservists their civilian job experience can prove valuable in theater as well. US Army commanders in Iraq have had national guard troops under their command that were cops, construction workers, teachers, plumbers, electricians ect in civilian life. They were able to utlize these skills on a local level which enabled them to do things that the RA troops werent trained for. Also the reservists are older than our RA troops which has some advantages as well.

It is true that reservists need a period of workup prior to a deployment but as you pointed out so do the regulars.Since the CF is utilizing reservists as fillers ,I dont see why they cannot workup with the units they will deploy with. It shouldnt require a bunch of schooling to make a reservist deployable, if thats the case then there is a problem with the way you are training your reservists - which I doubt.

There is a tendency in the RA community to look down on reservists with a certain amount of disdain. I know I have been guilty of this on occaision. The reality is that the regulars and reservists are on the same team.They signed on to serve their country and they have to do it while balancing their civilian job with their military career. Not an easy task at all. I think a reserve Sgt is capable of leading troops just as they did at the armory. The people skills are the same. I imagine that his military skills are pretty good or else he wouldnt have been promoted. We dont usually question a reserve Lt or Captain's skills to lead unless he has done something to bring it into question. We all have our exceptions but I gotta say reservists when given half a chance will not let the side down.

 

[kratz]

If ARAF and NR members training and working under the "total force" concept are near to their RegF counterparts, why not the militia? What is the difference? I am not trying to be difficult, but if a reserve Bosn knows most of the CRRs and all you have to do is show him the ropes (pun  ) and what the differences are seem expediant compared to treating them as if they don't know the skills at all.

 

[dapaterson]

Kratz:

Size matters.  The Army Reserve parades roughly 5x the number of soldiers the Nav Res does (and Air Res is largely a full time creature); those number make the cost of training prohibitive, were all soldiers to do "the full meal deal".  instead, the Army has 3 levels of training: Essential (that the normal, part-time reserve force trains to); Minimum (which the Regular Force trains to); and Deployment (which Reg and Res train to prior to going overseas).

There's also a time consideration - we've expanded (and not always for the best reasons) the timelines for training, to the point where an individual requires considerable free time to progress in their military career.  All while trying to do the same in a civilian career, and trying to maintain a semblance of a personal life (family etc).

No easy answers to this one...

 

[kratz]

dapaterson

Quick respons, thank you. It's easy to see there would not be an easy or inexpensive answer to the issue.

 

[vigillis]

The reserves require job protection legislation, when we decide to go overseas.  I say decide because up to now that is the bargin, we volunteer for all service, be it courses after our mandatory first two, and we can volunteer for any taskings that come our way.  Why you ask, because that is the way the system was set-up.  We all know it some of us work with it and some of us abuse it, you want to stop it change the system.

If the powers that be wanted more PRes on Ops they would stop nickle and diming us on our training.  Yes I know everyone is hurting for cash, but these new training standards are a joke when it comes to the time spent learning your new trade.  It would be more profitable if we had job protection for training, which would allow us to train to the (shudder ;D) Reg force standard, and allow us more time to practice these skills.  Thus when the call outs come the training delta (someone hit me I used a DND catch phrase) will not be so big. 

Tax credits or subsidies can sooth the sting for employers over the long haul, not tickets to the Senators, I mean really who wants to see them! > 

 

[SuperTrooper]

Job protection...whatever, I'll need wife protection!
She'll kill me faster, trust me.

 

[vigillis]

I hear ya brother!  :tsktsk:

 

[zipperhead_cop]

If the powers that be wanted more PRes on Ops they would stop nickle and diming us on our training.  Yes I know everyone is hurting for cash, but these new training standards are a joke when it comes to the time spent learning your new trade.  It would be more profitable if we had job protection for training, which would allow us to train to the (shudder ;D) Reg force standard, and allow us more time to practice these skills.  Thus when the call outs come the training delta (someone hit me I used a DND catch phrase) will not be so big.   

Agreed.  Getting 30 rounds to qualify PWT Level One is an embarrassing joke and IMO was a waste of a training day.  But it was "essential" training.  :  Yeah right.  Hit a piece of paper 25 times at 100 meters.  Pathetic. 
I am curious why it takes so long for work ups?  From what people coming back are saying doctrine is out the window and nothing stays the same for very long.  Do we have any information that any of the deaths in Afghanistan to date can be attributed to poorly trained reservists? 
I have seen repeatedly attempts to provide quality training be shot down by the RSS provided to a unit.  Generally, some excuse like "that form should have been filed six weeks in advance" or "WO So-and-so from Gagetown said you can't do that".  For many years I cynically believed that there was a Reg Force conspiracy to keep the Reserves looking incompetent and inept in the interest in job security. 
There is also a feeling that the Reserve don't exactly get (how to put this delicately?) the firebrand personnel from the Regs.  I don't think that it would be way out in left field to suggest that from time to time people who aren't cutting it back at home or are being punished get "buried" at some Reserve unit just to get rid of them for a couple of years.  Does anyone hold any illusions that RSS sent under those conditions have any interest in actually helping the unit they are jammed with? 

Job protection...whatever, I'll need wife protection!
She'll kill me faster, trust me.

Also a very good point.  I have heard that from my own wife..."I didn't sign up to be an Army wife".  However, that was in response to hearing that a position on TF 03-08 would be potentially a one year work up with a deployment of nine months.  For me, my job is guaranteed.  However, for every day I am in training and not overseas, I am losing money.  I can juggle my vacation schedule to cover about half of a 3 month work up, but then it is out of pocket.  A year work up would see me losing my family and my house.  I'm a true believer, but not that dedicated. 

We (reservists) want to train and get as much skill and experience as we can.  A great many of us want to deploy to Afghanistan.  Please believe that every second of quality training we can get before we deploy we will jump at.  Just give us some equipment, a couple boxes of ammo and some training space.  We'll be there as needed. 

 

[GO!!!]

I have to quibble a bit with this post GO !! .
Reservists do bring alot to the table both in a military context but also civilian experience. My experience is with US reservists but my comments I think will be valid in the Canadian context. Reservists have alot of military experience, maybe its not obtained from a full time stand point, but its still experience. For many reservists their civilian job experience can prove valuable in theater as well. US Army commanders in Iraq have had national guard troops under their command that were cops, construction workers, teachers, plumbers, electricians ect in civilian life. They were able to utlize these skills on a local level which enabled them to do things that the RA troops werent trained for. Also the reservists are older than our RA troops which has some advantages as well.

It has been my experience that most reservists who are volunteering for deployments are unemployed, or marginally so. They have few military or civilian skills in most cases. That's why they have the time to be deployed!

It is true that reservists need a period of workup prior to a deployment but as you pointed out so do the regulars.Since the CF is utilizing reservists as fillers ,I dont see why they cannot workup with the units they will deploy with. It shouldnt require a bunch of schooling to make a reservist deployable, if thats the case then there is a problem with the way you are training your reservists - which I doubt.

They do work up with their units as augmentees - and our workup training takes damn near a year too.  The problem is that we have one set of kit and training for deployments, and another for domestic training "getting back to basics" as we like to call it.

There is a tendency in the RA community to look down on reservists with a certain amount of disdain. I know I have been guilty of this on occaision. The reality is that the regulars and reservists are on the same team.They signed on to serve their country and they have to do it while balancing their civilian job with their military career. Not an easy task at all. I think a reserve Sgt is capable of leading troops just as they did at the armory. The people skills are the same. I imagine that his military skills are pretty good or else he wouldnt have been promoted. We dont usually question a reserve Lt or Captain's skills to lead unless he has done something to bring it into question. We all have our exceptions but I gotta say reservists when given half a chance will not let the side down.

I am of the opinion that most reservists can be brought up to speed with the reg force during workup training. This is also a good time to evaluate whether they will be offered a position on the deployment at their current rank level - this often sees them reduced to a rank more fitting their experience, which is often on par with a very junior reg F counterpart. They just don't have the opportunity to get much.

 

[GAP]

Reserves may not last through Afghan mission
BILL GRAVELAND Canadian Press
Article Link

CALGARY — A continued reliance on army reserve units to fill a growing need for fresh troops in Afghanistan could create a shortfall if Canada's mission is extended through 2009, the Senate committee on national security and defence was told Thursday.

Colonel Art Wriedt, commander of the 41 Canadian Bridge Group, said as many as 220 soldiers are already in line to be rotated into Afghanistan in the first part of 2008, but 2009 “is going to be very problematic.”

He said that makes recruiting new reservists key.

There is no formal program for that, and the job has been primarily left to individual units. But since going to Afghanistan is voluntary for reservists, a continuation of the war could result in a dwindling supply of those willing to go.

It could also create training problems, said Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Manley, commanding officer of the Calgary Highlanders, a reserve infantry regiment that is scheduled to send 90 of its 230 members to Afghanistan in 2008.

“With so many people leaving I have few people staying behind,” Lt.-Col. Manley told the committee. “I will have almost no sergeants or warrant officers left behind and very few master corporals.

“It will be very difficult indeed to train my regiment to generate forces for the next operation (in 2009). I don't know what the answer is.”

There are currently 2,500 troops serving in Afghanistan. Most rotations last about six months. For reservists going overseas it involves signing a contract, going through pre-deployment training and getting time off from current employers.
More on link

 

[tomahawk6]

Pretty sad view of your reservists GO.

 

[Franko]

Keep it civil troops...this thread will not degrade into a reserve bashing thread.

Regards

The Army.ca Staff

 

[GO!!!]

Pretty sad view of your reservists GO.

No, after doing the better part of a year with reserve augmentees, my opinion of them as soldiers has changed significantly from this time last year.

Individual reservists are not the problem. Given as much training as we have here in certain parts of the Reg F, reservists have just as much aptitude, drive and soldier skills as their reg force counter parts. The difference is that they are denied the opportunity to train as much.

We have had a steep training curve as well, with the new radios, weapons and weapon platforms, vehicles, (no-one had any trg in mech ops), individual soldier kit and new TTPs to boot. After working with these guys for a year, I have just as much confidence with an augmentee watching my back as a reg force guy. I know he can do the job.

IMHO, the problem lies in the units that allow their members to be in leadership positions without any course beyond PLQ and LSVW driver. Maybe the money is not there for training, maybe the members don't see radios as sexy enough to show up for, maybe there are no radios to train with - I don't know about that part of it.

I do know that reservists, like reg force soldiers, are only as good as their training. Train long and hard, the chaff will fall out, and you will be left with a good unit, no matter where they came from.

As for the rank thing - the truth is out there. A 24 year old reg force MCpl in the Para Coy is a very different beast from a 20 year old MCpl in the RWR/RMR etc. Sometimes those individuals are better off in a position where they will perform well as a rifleman than struggle as a Jack.

 

[darmil]

Not all reservists are bums some are I will agree there.I'm a journeyman welder making 70 grand a yr.I'm taking time off to go over to Afghanistan. In my unit we have firefighters, cops, and electricians.JOB PROTECTION is the main reason you won't get the skilled troops overseas.I have no problem volunteering to weld LAVS or any other vehicle that was hit by IED or mine.




edited for spelling

 

[Meridian]

Indeed, job protection is also something that has stopped me from enrolling PRes....  For me, it really is more of either all or none, primarily due to this.  My career is sufficiently advanced that I make a comfortable Captain's salary, and to put that on the line for voluntary service which is part time.. its just hard to justify, especially when my field is not very portable/a large job market.

There will be employers who fight it, but for the skilled and professional workers out there with major corporations, many of these companies have worked to hard on the PR front to risk legal issues regarding flouting job protection status.    Most of them are just unwilling to make much concession if the rest of the market is not compelled to do the same.  Job protection would help that.