Author Topic: 'It's time to consolidate NDHQ' & 'DND to take-over Nortel Campus' (Merged threads)  (Read 158822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 4,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 922
  • Retired WO
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2004, 07:28:22 »
Oh, I also forgot to add, why is there fully manned, but zero funded PMO's?
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 124,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,785
  • It's all good
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2004, 09:00:17 »
There might be places to trim in NDHQ, but the people I deal with on the Land Staff need augmentation, not cuts, to keep up with the volume and complexity of the issues they deal with.

 I agree wholeheartedly.  I had the opportunity to deal with the Land Staff over the last two years from the same kind of vantage point as Devil39, and I cannot say enough about the dedication and professionalism displayed by the LS.  I have never subscribed to the theory that the higher headquarters must, by its very nature, be evil/incompetent/lazy etc.  I have learned that they simply see problems (and their solutions) in a different context than the lower headquarters/unit/formation - and that is to be expected in a hierarchical organisation.

I too have never served in NDHQ - and yet I sense its inevitability.  There are many officers and SNCOs that I respect and implicitly trust (based on their soldiering abilities and tactical skills) that have served there - and I do not think it likely that they suddenly became evil/lazy/incompetent on arrival at 101 Colonel By.  Much has been said in many threads about "walking a mile in my shoes" etc etc.  Perhaps the aphorism could just as easily be applied to those that throw stones at NDHQ.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    is thinking beach volleyball.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 229,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,513
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2004, 09:12:35 »
Quote from Goober,
Top heavy? Easy fix. Fill out the bottom.


Goober, I usually look forward to your posts with as much dread as certain parts of a yearly physical.
But when your on ......... :o    :salute:
Bruce
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline GINge!

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 300
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2004, 13:31:07 »
Oh, I also forgot to add, why is there fully manned, but zero funded PMO's?

the Matrix way of tasking perhaps? Just because a project has no funds, doesn't mean there's no reqr for loads of prep staff work.
It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,397
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2004, 13:52:45 »
Goober has pretty much pinned it down.  Just because you've been starving and you'd like to gain back a few pounds of muscle doesn't mean you can trade in your liver.  NDHQ looks large only because we've drawn down the deployable forces so far.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"But injustice is a rule of the service, as you know very well; and since you have to have a good deal of undeserved abuse, you might just as well have it from your friends."  - The Ionian Mission, by Patrick O'Brian.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 115,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,332
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2004, 13:56:11 »
So, if I'm getting this right; our NDHQ is organizationally "left over" from when we had 100,000 troops and a Brigade in Europe?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    is thinking beach volleyball.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 229,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,513
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #31 on: September 25, 2004, 14:08:53 »
Which would make sense. The number of admin channels would not change with the decrease in troops, just the amount of work required for each channel. And I'm pretty sure that decrease in work has been supplemented by all the new PC kife that has come down the pipe since then.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,339
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2004, 16:10:14 »
For the life of me, I can't figure out why we have our normal chain of command, Minister, to CDS to Army to Area to Unit/Base, plus we have a Divisional HQ in Kingston. What Division? Where, exactly, do they fit in to the chain of command?
We do not have a Div HQ.  There is a Joint HQ in Kingston which contributes to every overseas deployment we have going.  Within the CFJOG there are other formations and units (just like any other CF higher formation) that are outside the three enviroments.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 124,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,785
  • It's all good
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #33 on: September 25, 2004, 19:52:48 »
So, if I'm getting this right; our NDHQ is organizationally "left over" from when we had 100,000 troops and a Brigade in Europe?

In a purely numerical sense, that is probably true.  I think however that you will find that there have been a number of changes in the way in which NDHQ is organised since those heady days.  To start, FMC is gone, and folded into the greater maw in 101.  The J Staff has been established etc etc.  PMOs have grown like weeds, and we have had a massive increase in the number of Sigs types (IIRC Signals Officers are now the largest single officer classification in the military).  With deeper analysis, I propose that what we would find is that an Industrial Age HQ of 100,000 to 120,000 was the same size as an Information Age HQ of 60,000.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 4,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 922
  • Retired WO
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #34 on: September 25, 2004, 19:57:49 »
OK, thanks McG.

But I still have the "why". 

We have several layers of HQ now.  Do we still need another one in Kingston?  You say they contribute to every mission.  Does that mean we have unemployed staff officers sitting around waiting deployment?

I guess what I am really asking, is this a luxury we can afford?
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,339
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #35 on: September 25, 2004, 20:07:57 »
But I still have the "why".
Read this: Canadian Forces Joint Operations Group
If you still have questions on the formation's utility you might be able to ask some of the questions there.

logau

  • Guest
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2004, 08:50:58 »
Suggest you see this book

Failure in High Command, by LCol (Ret) Jack English - 1991 ISBN 0-919614-60-4 which lays out the need for a peacetime HQ and what it does.

What it does is fight for the survival of the forces when their is no war.

In addition to this is works with other government departments among them being PWGSC to buy the kit and services the military needs.

Unfortunately this may be hidden or invisible from most soldiers who wear combats in the regular or reserve armed forces in Canada.

Two other points for you

I have read (can't remember the exact source) that if DND is compared to the UK Armed Forces it appears that DND is funded at 25% of the comparable level that the Brits are. This alone leads to a better understanding of why progress seems so slow in the military in Canada. there truly isn't much money compared to other departments --- you should see a paper I wrote a short while ago here Canadian US Relations (1900 â “ 2003) http://www.donlowconcrete.com/USA/ and this page http://www.donlowconcrete.com/USA/consensus.htm

What it means in a nutshell is

DND gets no votes for the government - they think they can keep under funding it and get away with it - and they will not be called to account - just look at the sponsorship scandal, the Jane Stewart Scandal, the SeaKing Scandal.

Does anyone care? I really think they don't - In the paper I show above I found a quote from the Conference Board of Canada which said - Canadians do not feel threatened and as long as this is FACT they will not prepare in a meaningful way.

But we'll have a warm and fuzzy from a new re-developed DND space at Downsview and many other boon doggles.

You see? They even bought off the RCMI which is why heads will never roll.

Where to start? DND has a plan which is un funded - means a major expansion of the reserves

Send me your ideas on what to fix as I am writing another paper and if nothing else we can put them on line and then bombard all MPs to say that they have a heck of a mess on their hands.

But why re-write history? DND knows the solution which is laid out here at the 2003   Final Report of the Minister's Monitoring Committee on Change. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/mmcc/final_report_e.asp

an extract - On 3 April 2003 the Minister of National Defence (MND), the Honourable John McCallum, announced the start of Land Force Reserve Restructure (LFRR) Phase II as per the Government Policy Statement of 6 October 2000.[21] LFRR Phase II will provide funding for an immediate increase of 750 Army Reservists in fiscal year 2003/2004 and another 750 in 2004/2005. The overall goal, within constraints on resources, remains to increase the Army Reserve (Militia) to 18,500, and additional monies will be set aside to address the equipment needs associated with the new capabilities of the Army Reserve. On 13 May 2003 the Minister re-emphasized that "LFRR is a critical project, and I am determined that Phase 2 will preserve the Army Reserve as a national institution and transform its operational potential to meet Canada's needs in the 21st Century."[22] After assuring the Monitoring Committee on 9 June that he did not wish Progress Report II to gather dust on some shelf, the Minister issued a tasking order to the Department in the full realization that a corporate DND/CF response was required."

althought these are high sounding words - if you scan this board for links to a post I made in MArch April of this year you'll see this link on the HOmeland Defence COnference in Mar 2004 http://www.stratnet.ucalgary.ca/reserves2004/index.htm and then click the publications link - IF YOU DO NOTHING ELSE READ JACK ENGLISH'S PAPER ON WHERE THE REGULAR AND RESERVE ARMY FIT INSIDE DND - http://www.stratnet.ucalgary.ca/reserves2004/publications/english.doc[/size]

Next steps --- draft a letter to Minister of National Defence - ask them - how much of the reports recommendatiosn have been implemented, and when the remainder will be funded and delivered. You can send this as a private citizen (barrack room lawyers need not reply to this)

Send me a message if you can't read any of the links above and I will email you privately

OK - all you ruck sack luggers - get going!     :D - you have your reading assignments.


Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,180
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2004, 21:20:36 »
Logau ... I don't know if it is just my browser, but some of the font in your posts appears unusually large.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 115,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,332
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2004, 22:47:03 »
He's yelling at us.... ;)
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline GINge!

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 300
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2004, 07:58:22 »
Got this from a Patricia in DLR-5 today, its from the UK, but it can be applied to us too  ;)

STAFF GUIDANCE ON DEFENCE RESTRUCTURING


1.    This guidance is being issued to remedy a perceived difficulty experienced by Staff at all levels in understanding the rationale behind recent Defence  re-structuring.  In particular many Staff Officers seem not to understand how reducing the numbers of aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery and soldiers results in a more flexible, robust and effective fighting force.

2.    In particular it seems that much of the confusion stems from a systemic misunderstanding of the correct use of military terminology.  A list of common terms and actual meanings follows. 

3.   In addition there follows an explanation of the key assumptions embedded within the Defence Review.   All Staff Officers are encouraged to seek clarification through their Chain of Command if they still have any questions.

4.   Staff Terminology used in the new Defence Plan;

Term            MOD meaning

Flexible-    a.    Smaller
   b.   Unable to operate unless under US protection

Robust-   a.   Smaller
   b.   Lacking reserves or regeneration capability

Networked- Smaller, but still unable to talk to each other

Capable-   Smaller

Agile-   Really, really small

Deployability- Method of making the Forces, primarily the Army, able to send higher percentages of their manpower to a distant location.  This is achieved by reducing the overall numbers involved, i.e. â Å“In future the Army will be able to send 50% of it's manpower to Africa in the back of a Cessna, thus achieving greater deployabilityâ ?.

Reach- The distance the American's are willing to fly us

Efficient-   Much, much smaller

Streamlined- Just unbelievably small

Just in time- For the funeral.

Integrated-    Process by which all three services get to brief against each other in public leaks, attempting to justify and defend their own budget against cuts, thereby doing the Treasury's work for them. Taken to extremes by the Army in which Corps and Regiments fight each other, and perfected within the Infantry.

Technically ambitious-   a.    Slang, as in â Å“He was being a bit technically ambitious when he tried to drive that car through the wallâ ?  (cf, â Å“To propose a Bowmanâ ?)

b.   Description of the far future

Reserves-   Integral part of current Operational Manning.

Rationalisation- a.    Cuts

b. Psychological term, meaning to use complicated arguments to avoid facing unpalatable truths,  i.e. , â Å“we don't need to pay for both expensive servicemen and equipment, because we will be networked, agile,  and technically ambitiousâ ? .

Rapid-   Used in a comparative sense, as in â Å“The rapid erosion of the Himalayan Mountains...â ?

Modernisation-   Cuts

Radical-   Deep Cuts

Transformation-   Really Deep Cuts

Sustainable-   Assuming zero casualties, no leave and no emergencies.

Sentences such as  â Å“these proposals capture our aim for a speedy deployable, agile, joint and integrated, technically ambitious defence capabilityâ ? will make more logical sense to the experienced Staff Officer once the above definitions are applied.

4.   It will also help if Staff Officer's bear in mind the following Planning Principles.  Point C will be of particular relevance in explaining the rationale behind restructuring to Junior Staff.

a.   Use of Special Forces.  No one in the general Public has a clue how many there are, so they can be announced as deploying to every country in the world.

b.    Aggressive use of terminology can compensate for lack of actual forces.  For example in the past effective deterrence of a reasonably capable Maritime threat would require the despatch of a task force, consisting of destroyers, frigates, submarines and possibly even a carrier.  In the future this task will still be achieved by a task force; but task-force will be the new description for a mine-sweeper.

c.    The new Defence Plan was not resource driven.  A comprehensive strategic estimate was conducted, from first principles, identifying the current and potential threats to the UK and it's interests, allowing a reserve for the unexpected, and also allowing for recurrent non-warfighting tasks such as Fire Strike cover and Foot and Mouth disease.  Against the tasks identified an ideal manpower establishment and Task Org was then identified.  By an amazing coincidence it happened to fit almost exactly within current Treasury MOD expenditure plans, and even allow the MOD to carry half the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.

d.    Much of the current crisis in Defence Spending can be directly traced to the high costs of legacy equipments.  These were ordered at a time of ignorance in the past when Planners naively seemed to believe that the threat they identified as imminent would remain the same for the 20-30 year service life of the equipment they were ordering.  The assumption in the 1980's and 90's that tanks, artillery, and aircraft would be needed in the future was ridiculous, as none of these equipments have been used by the British Armed forces to any degree since the Falklands war.
However, current planners possess better foresight and are able to predict future threats for at least the next 40 years.  We are therefore able to be certain that Britain is unlikely to need any tanks, aircraft, submarines etc. past about 2015.

e.   Britain no longer needs a significant anti-submarine capability.  No other nation possesses submarines in any numbers, submarine technology is unlikely to advance at all over the next few 30 years, and should anti-submarine technology or skills be required at any point in the future they can be reconstituted overnight from the reserves.  (Once the reserves have been reconstituted).   In any case by 2020 the UK will be fully integrated into mainland Europe, and will therefore no longer have a coastline to defend or be reliant upon sea-supply. 

f.    Similar arguments apply to air defence.

g.   The Regimental System.  In the past the Regimental System has been seen as the corner-stone of British Military success, creating a system in which the individual is made to feel part of a greater family, often stretching back hundreds of years, in which he is nurtured and developed, and to which he feels such great loyalty that he is inspired to sacrifice himself if need be for his Regimental comrades.  However, the British youth of today are so naturally self-sacrificing and community spirited that additional incentives are now unnecessary, and in any case the threat to soldiers on the ground has been assumed away.  There is therefore no further need for a system whose main purpose is to generate fighting spirit, and it can be safely emasculated to achieve administrative efficiency (see â Å“Efficientâ ? above).

h.   High divorce rates within the Services will solve manpower crises, by ensuring all service personnel will be happy to conduct back-to-back tours forever, as no one will have any families or friends to miss.

i.   Savings will be ploughed into the purchase of large numbers of hats.  This will be essential as in future everyone will be at least treble or quadruple hatted.  Wars will be fought in rotation on a strict â Å“first come, first servedâ ? basis.

k.   Future savings will be made by abolishing all training for the Chiefs of Staff.  After all they haven't proven remotely as effective at manoeuvre warfare, disruption, dislocation or divide-and-rule as the Treasury.

l.   Successive efficiency measures can be made to reinforce each other.  For example, each time troop numbers are cut, a unit can then be tasked to conduct the same jobs as before. Provided there are no actual massacres of Friendly Forces, the new troop numbers can be seen to have been fully as effective as the previous numbers, and so can form a baseline for achieving efficiency cuts to new troop numbers.  Savings can then be invested in new equipment, in the same way that British Airways fires half its pilots every time it needs to buy a new plane.  The ultimate aim is to have one man, but equipped like Dr Octopus.  He will sleep with one eye open at all times to replicate full manning.

m.   Key Assumptions:   Current levels of operations are an aberration, will never be repeated, and should form no guide to current manning requirements, let alone future ones.  Gerry Adams has embraced peace, there is no more requirement for crowd control in Northern Ireland, the FBU have forsworn strikes along with all other key public workers, Osama Bin Laden is about to hand himself in and the Easter Bunny will be providing Area Air Defence for London.

5.   More detailed guidance can be found in JSP 4708- â Å“Magic Mushrooms, their consumption, effects and results in the MODâ ? and Minister Hoon's Autobiography â Å“What Colour is the Sky in My World?â ?


{CHOtS SIGNED}

I M Promoted
SO2 Spin
Ministry of Truth
Orwell Bldg
MOD 1984


It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

Offline Otto Fest

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 421
  • If you're warm & dry you're just cheating yourself
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2004, 18:58:10 »
GINge! - I really like that!  Your obviously a big fan of Yes Minister!
You can't be first, but you could be next.

logau

  • Guest
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2004, 13:47:51 »
Ref my large typing - is the font control feature

For all you true blue ruck sack luggers - why NDHQ is dysfunctional is as follows

They don't reply to email or letters telling them to do anything. Its all a 1 to 1 relationship where by if you want somethign done you have to walk around and make people do it. If you could send a tasking sideways or up or down any argument for NDHQ reduction might make sense.

Imagine a jungle where many tribes live who do not see the power of a central control as legitamate

Airforce goes after the army goes after the navy - and its a real furball dogfight to do anything at Fort Fumble.

Thats NDHQ - or Iraq without the bullets and bombs

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,495
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2004, 14:11:56 »
Quote
Thats NDHQ - or Iraq without the bullets and bombs

So THAT's the reason they don't buy any of those.   >:D
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

logau

  • Guest
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2004, 15:44:25 »
hey - they are way ahead of you ref your stand and wait line at the bottom of your post.

PM Louis St Laurent launched the CF circa 1948 - 1968 and he's memorialised in Hull Quebec where the DND support teams live - the people who buy and manage all the kit in the CF inventory.

The building looks out a multi-million building housing the Hull Casino............................ Uncle Louis's bldg is known as

Louis Stand Around :cdn: :salute:

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 9,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,281
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2004, 22:03:07 »
As a civvie, tell me where the following logic breaks down....

The military is an organization.
An organization is designed to deliver a service (or product which is not applicalbe in this case)
The service required determines equipment and personnel.
The equipment and personnel determine the support structures, logistics and org chart.

Bottom Line:   I simply cannot fathom an executive that would erode its revenues, income, whatever (pick a metric) by 40% and not makes cuts to itself in order to re-invest whatever it could to minimize the damage to the underlying service.

33 generals???   Give me a break.   There are no justifiable excuses.   There is only a clearly demonstrated mutually-supported culture of self-interest and to see where that is guaranteed to go, check Enron....




CB.     >:(
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

logau

  • Guest
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #45 on: October 02, 2004, 10:32:02 »
Blackie

You are 100% right (in my opinion) about the executives not reducing their revenue.......and the rest of your post.

Its not the executives - aka the Generals or the Full Colonels or the Legions of burned  out Chief Warrant Officer cheerleaders, who, like many of us at NDHQ are only bobble heads.

It is, and has been clearly demonstrated in numerous public and private sources, that the Canadian Taxpayer is the idiot - who, through his ready acceptance of other government services/bribes/cake and theatre, denies the men and women of the CF - the equipment and capabilities to lay a such a thumping on an enemy of the country that they will never think of looking sideways at us.

So Blackie - we have seen the enemy and he is us!   :threat: :skull: :cdn: :salute:

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
Consolidated NDHQ
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2008, 00:21:18 »
TCBF - Now you are talking sense. There is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

But now we can get back to the strawman..... amalgamate units

- Lets amalgamate NDHQ.  Build a new building at Connaught Ranges.  Pull all of those understrength and over-ranked cells out of Ottawa Center and the Gatineau, and put them into one gated compound five hundred meters from the rifle range.  Think of the savings!
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 452,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,046
Re: It's time to co-locate and shink NDHQ!
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2008, 07:51:16 »
If only it was so simple.

While arbitrary cuts to NDHQ are generally good ideas every few years – no multimillion dollar consultant reports required, thank you, just 5% across the board, no questions asked or answered – real, major reform of the system requires political will that has been totally absent in Ottawa since 1967.

Although I have been retired for many, many years I remain confident in my guesstimate  that the centre in Ottawa (Privy Council Office, Treasury Board Secretariat, Department of Finance) mistrusts DND because it is poorly led, at the top bureaucratic and military levels,*and even more poorly managed.

A Liberal MND, Don (Thumper) Macdonald, imposed the current “system” on NDHQ – trying, I think to correct the management defects that were evident then, 35+ years ago. He made things worse by mixing a few key functions – allowing senior military people to intrude into areas that are, quite frankly, beyond both their ken, in most cases, and certainly not in their area of responsibility, and by forcing senior bureaucrats into areas where they ought not to tread.

Add to that the fact that NDHQ is not about the CF – it is a major department of government: one that has a large staff and spends a lot of money. DND/NDHQ is a rich source of patronage. I don't think I'm telling tales out of school by telling you that during one of the regular rounds of cuts about 20 years ago DND’s ”general manager” (the VCDS) was told, explicitly I think, that while cuts and more were necessary and while efficiency was a laudable goal, there was to be no effort to consolidate NDHQ in Ontario – all or part of it was to stay in Québec (then Hull, now Gatineau). Since here was no way to move it all there, without spending hundreds of millions, it was to remain split. I do not believe that political direction has changed or will change. There is, politically, no way to reduce the national government's footprint in Québec – nor is there any good reason (beyond a massive downsizing of the whole thing) to do so – and no one in the “centre” wants to endure the Sturm und Drang of the civil service unions that would be occasioned by replacing DND/NDHQ (in Gatineau) with another government department.

So, indeed: reduce, reuse, recycle and reorganize - but don't hope for much.

DND/NDHQ needs reform, starting with excellent management, at the top of both the bureaucratic and military heaps. If it gets that then some administrative reform can be made in Ottawa.

That being said, it's a great idea, TCBF.

----------

* Yes, that includes Gen. Hillier! No one disputes his skill as an operational military commander but he is asked required to be more than that and I'm not sure that he has achieved anything like approval for his overall leadership – including, especially, the transformation exercise.



Edit: typo - "... cuts to NDHQ are generally good ideas every few years ...". While my ideas are, in my tiny mind, god likeI really meant to say good.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 08:59:50 by E.R. Campbell »
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,339
Re: It's time to co-locate and shink NDHQ!
« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2008, 08:29:56 »
...there was to be no effort to consolidate NDHQ in Ontario – all or part of it was to stay in Québec (then Hull, now Gatineau). ...
That is too bad, because there is a lot to be gained from putting it all under one roof.  At the very least, the Army could look to ensure those scattered elements of the Land Staff get brought into the national capitol region:

...

The whole force development in the Army is impaired against doing this right.  While the force development & requirements folk are not in the same building, at least they are in the same city (basically).  However, with DLCD and doctrine in Kingston, the two halves of the Army's force development brain are not even close enough to sit together over coffee every other week & ensure they are working in the same step.

With equipment it stands out more because the wrong answer gets dumped on the troops & they have to make it work (or there is nothing & the troops still have to make things work).  When the doctrine side is missing, the troops make their own (which is a lot easier that fabricating vehicles, weapons & other kit in the field).  However, it seems to me that signs of the doctrine ball being dropped are plenty to be found.  The Infantry platoon & company doctrine is so badly out of date that it is hidden and not even available on the AEL.

When the field army runs into problems that require a fast & coherent response from the national headquarters, the solution is to create new ad-hoc organizations (like the CF C-IED TF) with PYs to do what should already be happening in existing staffs ... except that it is not because those staffs are so physically separated that good communication is not happening at the working levels.

...

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
Re: MND told to cut top heavy ND HQ
« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2008, 17:57:27 »
IF YOU DO NOTHING ELSE READ JACK ENGLISH'S PAPER ON WHERE THE REGULAR AND RESERVE ARMY FIT INSIDE DND - http://www.stratnet.ucalgary.ca/reserves2004/publications/english.doc[/size]

- Love to.  Would you have a link that works?
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")