I'm not being dismissive; I'm just using a particular measure. Warfighting is the only thing that really matters to "military readiness". The rest is just things the military can do, as can many civilian agencies.
And in a world where we had a military that focused exclusively on expeditionary warfighting, and some other organization that focused exclusively on domestic emergencies, then maybe you would have a great point. But that's not the world we're currently living in. The Rangers provide a valuable and underappreciated domestic response capability that costs peanuts to maintain. They're a valuable asset, and while you're correct that they don't offer a great deal more in the way of warfighting capability than civilians do, I would still argue that it was an uncharitable comment for you to have made.
I think you both have a point that they really are not a Military entity. They are a Domestic Watch/Response Entity that is administrated by the CA.
The point that they're not really a fighting force or close to being one is neither charitable nor uncharitable. I'm pushing back against the notion that the Canadian Rangers are some sort of model for increasing voluntary participation in the Militia, in a way that is useful for supporting what the Army needs the Militia to be.
I suspect we're in violent agreement then: they aren't a fighting force, I've never said they are one, and in fact the idea that they aren't a fighting force is one of the misconceptions that needs to be better understood across the CAF. If I misunderstood your point then I apologize. But when you commented on their readiness vs civilians this is perhaps where I misunderstood and where I most certainly took issue.
I think that "warfighting the only thing that really matters to 'military readiness.'" Is shortsighted and is dismissive. I'm not sure where you are going with this, but living in the local community, having extensive knowledge of local conditions, being able to guide and advise are all things that a Ranger organization can and does do. The military doesn't because on a day-to-day basis its an inward looking agency that has isolated itself into a few bases.
Let's split some hairs here. Rangers are very definitely a military entity. The NDA makes them as such. They are a reserve force component that exists at different capability levels for different purposes than the other components.
Then why dwell on it?
Why push back on it? Expanding a Ranger program is a cheap way of obtaining involvement in rural communities where even ARes organizations have no penetration. Bringing a positive image of the CF into local communities is by and of itself a good thing and may even enhance recruitment. Having local knowledge to quickly draw on in the case of a disaster in the community is also a good thing.
But he isn't wrong in that outside of a invasion, they don't offer the CA any more PY.
Part of the Military yes, but I disagree that makes them a Military force.
Agree 110%
To me the "Militia" means a bunch of rag tag clowns playing at playing soldier.I guess the question is what you mean by a "Militia." I think @Kirkhill and you have different ideas as to what a Militia is. For the record, I don't think that the Army has a hot clue what it wants the Militia (AKA Ares) to be other than Class Bs and augmentees. The Army has had an overly restricted view of the ARes for a half a century despite urgings from both government and review reports. @Kirkhill's concepts of a sedentary militia/home guard system is IMHO a good one which could be built on the Ranger system with some imagination and effort.
For some reason the Canadian miliary can't think in terms of mass (except when staffing NDHQ). Thinking about how to expand the military footprint in an economical fashion is something that it should do.
$0.02
Because it shouldn't be necessary to make some sort of participation trophy preamble to stating that some group isn't suited to something. I suppose I'm the problem here - people are becoming increasingly thin-skinned, and I'm stuck where I was 40 years ago.
As it does to me, but I use it as a formal descriptor. I suppose I should use "Primary Reserve", but I wanted to separate out the Army-oriented part of the Res F sub-component that is not Supp Res, Rangers, or Cadets.
I'm confident that'll happen in July.Until the 'Big one' hits, of course
I agree with the idea of intertwined and needing each other. The term professional reserve is a bit of a contradiction. One of the definitions of "professional" is "one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime," albeit one can also look at it as being part of the "profession of arms." I always looked at the reserve force as falling short of professionalism due to the fact that they simply are not engaged full-time in learning their craft. They practice their craft enough to reach a level of competence but never full competence.
The CRPG are a sub component of the reserve force separate from the other sub components including the primary reserve. They don't need to generate bodies towards an expeditionary force because their role is exclusively domestic defence. At their most basic, they're like the old WW2 Australian coast watcher service. In fact I think our Rangers arose out of the WW2 Canadian Pacific Coast Militia Rangers, voluntary civilians, who performed surveillance along the Pacific coastline.
Actually if that "thin-skinned" was directed at me I should just point out that I hadn't participated in the prior debate. I just thought that some of the later comments were unnecessarily condescending. I see it as one of the problems with the CAF which has a tendency to see itself in tiers where much of the time one tier looks down on the lower levels and questions whether they are value for money worth keeping. Every time one of the lower tiers says "I can do more" the upper tiers immediately react negatively in fear that it will effect their funding and/or status.
It wasn't directed at you. It isn't looking down on any part of the whole to state its limitations plainly.
Arguably no one achieves full competence until bullets start flying as training has artificial constructs in it for a number of reasons, safety being one, but budget is a major factor.
Interesting, when I joined 30Fd in 1987 the recruiting pamphlets still referred to Militia.
Agreed, but my point had been that is what makes them and outlier.
I think trying to make them a combat capable entity would result in a net loss. Accept them for what they are, and don’t try to shoe horn them into something they are not.
Agree.
Without massive expansion of infrastructure and airlift, I don’t see the Medium units being practical for the North.
