Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

[daftandbarmy]

We want the best strategic commanders for the CAF's senior positions. Occupation should have nothing to do with it.

If the top three majors in the CAF are three nurses, then they should all proceed to JCSP. Not the top nurse plus a pilot and an armoured officer who are good at hockey.

The CAF confuses perceived tactical prowess with strategic acumen, to its perpetual detriment.

And just because you mentioned hockey, it seems to be pervading the military 'afterlife' as well. Personally, I haven't noticed the connection between hockey and business success on civvy street, but UBC clearly knows better

UBC recruits military men for research program involving hockey, to help veterans transition to civilian life​

Program first launched by UBC, now being expanded across the country​

Canadian troops warm up before a ball hockey game at the military base in Kandahar, Afghanistan in February 2010. The game is popular on Canadian bases worldwide and a new program designed to help veterans transition back to civilian life has ball hockey at the centre of it.

If you are a Canadian military veteran who identifies as male and loves a good game of ball hockey, a new program created by researchers at the University of British Columbia could be for you.

It's called the Purpose After Service through Sport program, or PASS, and brings together men who have served or are currently serving in the military, for weekly scrimmages where they can connect socially, access resources to make the transition out of the military less stressful, and blow off steam with some friendly competition.

The program was first launched by UBC researchers in 2019 and now, with funding from Veterans Affairs Canada, is being expanded to nine locations across the country — including Esquimalt, B.C. — on a trial basis to evaluate how well PASS can support the health and well-being of male military veterans.

"Men, in particular, are very reluctant often to reach out and seek help," said UBC kinesiology professor and PASS lead researcher, Mark Beauchamp, speaking Wednesday on CBC's On The Island.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-pass-program-1.6425028?fbclid=IwAR2cvqw9Dz7QCywzxDJowvh49ui48LniI0-1s_-Dyo48KwuJ9FIgSMbBjUI

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You know I love you so Im gonna call you your BS. And that's BS and it's a cop out.

What does being an infanteer, pilot or NWO bequeath for higher levels of leadership ?

I would point out we've kept putting the same people in that position and doesn't seem to have been working out.

Perhaps it's time to let others give it a shot.

It's because we are in the business of fighting war.

I want my institutional leaders to also be good warfighters. That means commanding brigades, fleets and wings, etc.

Imagine a Navy Commander that didn't have a schmick about driving ships or fighting ships? It would make no sense.

Supporters support, there are roles in Upper Management for them, but they ain't leading the fight because they lack the experience and by extension, the credibility with actual fighters.

Again, you wanna be the big cheese? Do your time in the trenches like everyone else 😎

You’ll note I said certain ranks and appointments.

Like what? CDS? Commander of the Navy? Commander of the Air Force? Commander of the Army? Commander of Special Operations Forces?

 

[Remius]

There is more to Ops and Planning than flying, marching or sailing. In fact I would argue thats the easy part.

From my experience the biggest impediment in our ops and planning is a complete disregard and lack of understanding Logistics and Logistics capabilities. Funny thing, we have a trade for that.

Honestly this makes sense. If we are in rebuilding and force reconstitution maybe someone with an intimate knowledge of our logistics would make sense.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Create an impartiality system that forces those involved to account for and justify its decisions

What the hell would that look like?

I’m not trolling you, but it is about like saying “just go invent a cheap, pollution free source of energy”.

At it’s heart, the military is about human beings- which are imperfect beings. And trying to get them to do impossible things under the worst conditions imaginable. That is the sort of system which has trouble switching gears between peacetime and wartime.

I am all ears if somebody has a specific set of workable recommendations for a new way to do business that works both in garrison and in wartime.

 

[Good2Golf]

Fix DP3 selection which is biased towards male-dominated occupations. Pick the best CAF members for DP3, and remove the occupational filters that are biased towards male-dominated occupations.

TL;DR: Select majors for JCSP on merit; don't apportion seats based on occupations.

A few questions follow:

1. What is the Department's official assessment identifying the male-dominated MOSIDs?

2. So de-link the primary selection of candidates by MOSID, from the future command MOSID demands, then?

3. With 2. above accomplished, should not the PINK LIST also be eliminated? Or should it be kept as insurance?

 

[Remius]

It's because we are in the business of fighting war.

I want my institutional leaders to also be good warfighters. That means commanding brigades, fleets and wings, etc.

Imagine a Navy Commander that didn't have a schmick about driving ships or fighting ships? It would make no sense.

Supporters support, there are roles in Upper Management for them, but they ain't leading the fight because they lack the experience and by extension, the credibility with actual fighters.

Again, you wanna be the big cheese? Do your time in the trenches like everyone else 😎



Like what? CDS? Commander of the Navy? Commander of the Air Force? Commander of the Army? Commander of Special Operations Forces?

Not sure but it could be explored. How about a transition from Junior to senior. Maybe make a promotion from Capt to Maj a competitive process. Or Sgt to WO. Maybe from Col to The first rung of general.

Everyone is so focused on the CDS and other GOFO spots and we forget that it’s getting through some of the other lower ranks and opportunities that creates the talent pool and opportunities.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's because we are in the business of fighting war.

I want my institutional leaders to also be good warfighters. That means commanding brigades, fleets and wings, etc.

Imagine a Navy Commander that didn't have a schmick about driving ships or fighting ships? It would make no sense.

Supporters support, there are roles in Upper Management for them, but they ain't leading the fight because they lack the experience and by extension, the credibility with actual fighters.

Again, you wanna be the big cheese? Do your time in the trenches like everyone else 😎



Like what? CDS? Commander of the Navy? Commander of the Air Force? Commander of the Army? Commander of Special Operations Forces?

Ya I'm not talking commanding ships and fleets. We have trades for that. But CDS and VCDS, there is no reason a Log O or Engineering Officer couldnt do those jobs.

CDS, CRCN is about representing the organization and dealing with our political leaders and the government machine. I highly doubt that Hiller was making tactical decisions for the BG in Panjway.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There is more to Ops and Planning than flying, marching or sailing. In fact I would argue thats the easy part.

From my experience the biggest impediment in our ops and planning is a complete disregard and lack of understanding Logistics and Logistics capabilities. Funny thing, we have a trade for that.

I'll stick to the flying part as it's my lane;

You're right of course...there is more to it. We rely on Medical, Logistics, AERE Officers to be able to conduct air ops. More importantly, we also rely on "everyone who isn't a Plt/FE/ACSO or AES Op" to also get airplanes in the air heading towards their Op Area.

The difference is, they are supporting ops, usually 'from a distance' and don't ever get involved in the planning/conducting part. This doesn't speak to their intelligence or abilities in a derogatory manner, it is simply a huge difference in experience which leads to huge differences in skills/competencies/knowledge.

It is rare for even our Techs on a deployed Det to have knowledge of what the actual op details and planning factors are; they simply don't have a need to know requirement for the info and aren't part of the pre and post mission brief/analysis stuff. Int is different, of course.

AERE Officers would be a good comparison in Aurora-world. Despite working in the same hanger as Pilot or ACSO Majors, they support but don't conduct air ops. When they are COs, they traditionally become COs of Air Maint Sqn's vice flying Sqns.

Again, the differences is in their experience and skills/knowledge....not their intelligence, etc.


For our side of the house as Warrant/Petty Officers....the SEMS/TEMS project is supposed to remove those barriers at the CWO/CPO levels...time will tell. If I'm honest, I don't agree with a 'chief is a chief is a chief'.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

A few questions follow:

1. What is the Department's official assessment identifying the male-dominated MOSIDs?

2. So de-link the primary selection of candidates by MOSID, from the future command MOSID demands, then?

3. With 2. above accomplished, should not the PINK LIST also be eliminated? Or should it be kept as insurance?

What, if you don't mind, is the PINK LIST?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'll stick to the flying part as it's my lane;

You're right of course...there is more to it. We rely on Medical, Logistics, AERE Officers to be able to conduct air ops.

The difference is, they are supporting ops, usually 'from a distance' and don't ever get involved in the planning/conducting part. This doesn't speak to their intelligence or abilities in a derogatory manner, it is simply a huge difference in experience which leads to huge differences in skills/competencies/knowledge.

AERE Officers would be a good comparison in Aurora-world. Despite working in the same hanger as Pilot or ACSO Majors, they support but don't conduct air ops. When they are COs, they traditionally become COs of Air Maint Sqn's vice flying Sqns.

Again, the differences is in their experience and skills/knowledge....not their intelligence, etc.


For our side of the house as Warrant/Petty Officers....the SEMS/TEMS project is supposed to remove those barriers at the CWO/CPO levels...time will tell. If I'm honest, I don't agree with a 'chief is a chief is a chief'.

Again tactical level decisions can be made by the tactical leaders insitu.

Strategic should be open to all.

I'm not advocating for the CO or 1 RCR it even Bde Cmdr to be open all. I'm advocating for well above that to be open to all for competition. Log, RCEME ect all have their versions of tactical level leadership.

 

[dapaterson]

A few questions follow:

1. What is the Department's official assessment identifying the male-dominated MOSIDs?

2. So de-link the primary selection of candidates by MOSID, from the future command MOSID demands, then?

3. With 2. above accomplished, should not the PINK LIST also be eliminated? Or should it be kept as insurance?

You can command at unit level without JCSP.

Selection of institutional leadership should not be predicated on MOSID, but on capacity to lead the institution. So eliminate the various branch / regimental section processes; move to self-motivated selection for DP3 (which acts as a future filter for Col and above).

And that, in turn, can eliminate the pink lists.

And will serve to eliminate the bad-toothed toxic folks who are branch darlings who should never have gone beyond BK.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think the elephant in the room might not be how we select GOFOs, but that we might have too many of them.

Can a Force of 65K (and dropping) really produce 150 quality GOFOs? What would be a realistic number for the CAF: 40-50?

Above a certain level, I would be inclined to agree that any occupation (except the Geneva Convention restricted ones) could realistically do any job. What that level is (2 star?) is open for debate.

I would actually like to see most GOFOs stay in a portfolio long enough to get smart and see the consequences of their decisions, vice getting moved on every 18 months or so.

 

[dapaterson]

I'd like to see development of core competencies in some fields before we name someone a GOFO...

 

[Halifax Tar]

You can command at unit level without JCSP.

Selection of institutional leadership should not be predicated on MOSID, but on capacity to lead the institution. So eliminate the various branch / regimental section processes; move to self-motivated selection for DP3 (which acts as a future filter for Col and above).

And that, in turn, can eliminate the pink lists.

And will serve to eliminate the bad-toothed toxic folks who are branch darlings who should never have gone beyond BK.

We have to shed this idea that certain MOSIDs are the only true leaders in our institution.

 

[Remius]

What the hell would that look like?

I’m not trolling you, but it is about like saying “just go invent a cheap, pollution free source of energy”.

At it’s heart, the military is about human beings- which are imperfect beings. And trying to get them to do impossible things under the worst conditions imaginable. That is the sort of system which has trouble switching gears between peacetime and wartime.

I am all ears if somebody has a specific set of workable recommendations for a new way to do business that works both in garrison and in wartime.

Systems like that already exist. It’s is not a novel thing. Selection is based on criteria and specific benchmarks. People making the selections or recommendations should be as impartial as possible by anonymizing the process as much as possible.

In the US, people apply for their WO program? The RCMP have application processes for their various ranks with tests and interviews.

We already do this with VOTs, CFRs, UTNCM etc etc

Some of these could be looked into at certain stages of a CAF career trajectory.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think the elephant in the room might not be how we select GOFOs, but that we might have too many of them.

Can a Force of 65K (and dropping) really produce 150 quality GOFOs? What would be a realistic number for the CAF: 40-50?

Above a certain level, I would be inclined to agree that any occupation (except the Geneva Convention restricted ones) could realistically do any job. What that level is (2 star?) is open for debate.

I would actually like to see most GOFOs stay in a portfolio long enough to get smart and see the consequences of their decisions, vice getting moved on every 18 months or so.

Also might be bingo

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Systems like that already exist. It’s is not a novel thing. Selection is based on criteria and specific benchmarks. People making the selections or recommendations should be as impartial as possible by anonymizing the process as much as possible.

In the US, people apply for their WO program? The RCMP have application processes for their various ranks with tests and interviews.

We already do this with VOTs, CFRs, UTNCM etc etc

Some of these could be looked into at certain stages of a CAF career trajectory.

Sure- but I don’t see how applying for your next promotion and job justifies your decision making?

Besides, having purely self-driven promotion system can have other downsides. Maybe the only folks applying for certain jobs/promotions are not the folks you want with 10NM of the job, but they were the only applicant, so…

 

[dapaterson]

I think the elephant in the room might not be how we select GOFOs, but that we might have too many of them.

Can a Force of 65K (and dropping) really produce 150 quality GOFOs? What would be a realistic number for the CAF: 40-50?

The 1997 Report to the PM on the Leadership and Management of the CAF suggested 65-70 maximum.

That fell by the wayside as successive CDSes learned that making new GOFO positions is a great form of patronage to shore up your position.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's because we are in the business of fighting war.

I want my institutional leaders to also be good warfighters. That means commanding brigades, fleets and wings, etc.

Imagine a Navy Commander that didn't have a schmick about driving ships or fighting ships? It would make no sense.

Supporters support, there are roles in Upper Management for them, but they ain't leading the fight because they lack the experience and by extension, the credibility with actual fighters.

Again, you wanna be the big cheese? Do your time in the trenches like everyone else 😎



Like what? CDS? Commander of the Navy? Commander of the Air Force? Commander of the Army? Commander of Special Operations Forces?

 

[MilEME09]

The 1997 Report to the PM on the Leadership and Management of the CAF suggested 65-70 maximum.

That fell by the wayside as successive CDSes learned that making new GOFO positions is a great form of patronage to shore up your position.

Time for a claw back