Annoucement of New Cabinet Ministers.

[Infanteer]

I can't wait to see what happens when a real warfighter and warrior like Leslie becomes CDS...  sadly sometimes he too will probably have to "carry on"...

As much as I hope for a "Warrior" CDS to come to the fore, I think he would be constrained in his actions.  I think a majority of our problems lie in our military culture and organization, not in our senior leaders, who are merely (like us groundpounders) products of the system.  Any CDS who attempted to really make an impact would find himself constrained by an unhelpful government overhead and an unwilling bureaucracy below him.

Maybe so Infanteer, but I get the feeling you would be saying that regardless of who was put in the position

If that's what you want to think, go ahead.  But I've never really liked him as our Foreign Minister.  Along with the points RCA and Lance have brought up, I also remember the harsh words he seemed to be throwing towards Israel for taking out a Hamas leader; aren't we supposed to be fighting the terrorists?  Seems like another patsy to me that won't rock the boat.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, if Canadians want a peacekeeping CF, then let the people who want to be peacekeepers staff it.  I suppose if it comes to that the warrior-inclined will still have the option to pursue military careers elsewhere in the anglosphere - which, in the long run, may be more satisfactory for some.

 

[ringo_mountbatten]

I think the thing to keep in mind is that in the end this government will only last two years at the most.  There are not going to be any huge decisions being made that could lose the Liberals the next election.  Probably the only major spending decision that this government will make concerning the CF is the acquisition of new helos to replace the Seakings.  That is hardly a hot button issue as even the NDP was on board about replacing the helos.  The military is basically in a holding pattern until they get their new white paper and that won't happen until foreign affairs get theirs.  the military is a tool for foreign and domestic policy period.  If the powers to be wish their capabilities to be constabulary than so be it.  At least they finally have a clearly defined role something they have been lacking for quite a period now.  I think Graham understands the need for a strong and healthy armed forces in securing soft power objectives, something that Axworthy could never get his head around. Human security requires far more than a guy saying the UN says you can't kill these people.

As for the whole CDS needs to be a warrior, they certainly do need to be, but not in the way that you are referring.  Henault has probably been one of the best CDS in the last 10-20 years.  He fights for his people behind the scenes and knows that acting like a "warrior" will get him nowhere quick and might lose him his job.  While at the same time he is not willing to be a scapegoat for the minister so that the government looks good and the military bad.  I think most would be surprised at how hard Henault fights for the CF behind the scenes and then bites his tongue in public, most of the time.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

If Henault is more than a puppet, then why do we not see him?  When's the last time he visited a Base, and how many has he visited in the last year?

Why did he not denounce the idiotic, short-sighted decision to take personnel from the Schools and Recruiting centers to beef up the Units, knowing that this would cause a crunch in recruiting and training?  Why did NDHQ, under his watch, become even more bloated?  Why did he allow positions for 600 full Colonels to be established, in an Armed Forces of our size?  Why did the officer Corps rise to over 25% of our authorised strength?

I believe Henault is fighting for Henault, and his version of Wally World in Ottawa.  I don't believe that Henault cares one little iota about the troops.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Lance could you provide a source for your percentages and numbers?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Um, actually, no I can't.

As a civilian I am not privy (officially) to that information, however, if you know one of the people at CFSU(O), they can verify it for you.  Most likely unofficially as well.

The military did admit to the Senate Committee to having a ratio of 4.06 NCM's per Officer in 1999.  They claimed that they did not have more current information available, if you can believe that.  The apparent NATO average for non-conscript forces is around 8 NCM's per Officer. 

At the end of WWII, Canada had a total of 70 Generals/Admirals, and an average of 12.5 NCM's per Officer.  Why the ratio of Officers has climbed so high, I'm not sure.  Also, and I'm not sure if this is common knowledge or not, but I was told that last year a total of 498 Colonels and Generals received bonus pay for doing their jobs so good, I guess.

I know a few Cpl's, MCPL's, Sgt's & WO's that deserved a bonus too, but I think you only qualify if you make over $100,000 a year......

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I ask because I am filling out a questionnaire in regards to a CF survey and I want to present as much fact as I can.

 

[AntiArmour Guy]

Um, actually, no I can't.

Then don't post them as fact, because while you might be on to something, now your credibility on this matter is blown.

As a civilian I am not privy (officially) to that information, however, if you know one of the people at CFSU(O), they can verify it for you.  Most likely unofficially as well.

Access to Information.  Use it. We all can, so don't offer up poor excuses for potentially BS information.  Or post hard data here and someone can check them for you.

The military did admit to the Senate Committee to having a ratio of 4.06 NCM's per Officer in 1999.  They claimed that they did not have more current information available, if you can believe that.  The apparent NATO average for non-conscript forces is around 8 NCM's per Officer. 

At the end of WWII, Canada had a total of 70 Generals/Admirals, and an average of 12.5 NCM's per Officer.  Why the ratio of Officers has climbed so high, I'm not sure.

While I (now) hold your number suspect, It is indeed sad that the ratio has shrunk, especially now as we have so many "time saving" devices like computers and email...lol.

Also, and I'm not sure if this is common knowledge or not, but I was told that last year a total of 498 Colonels and Generals received bonus pay for doing their jobs so good, I guess.

This is true, they are called Performance Management Agrements (PMA's) and apply to all Civilian Executives (EX's) in the Public Service... because DND is "part" of PSAC and we benefit from any raises they recieve we are also now "forced" to adhere to all Treasury Board Regulations...which also means PMA's.  Now while I don't know of anyone turning it down (lol) I do know that some would rather not have it for many reasosn and not just the obvious perspective problems but this is governmental policy that must be adhered to (ahhh beaurocracy!)...

Now you seem to be a tad jaded Lance, and that is cool, but I must say that the group of Generals we have now seem much stronger than those of the 90's... these guys tell MND's to piss off when they lie and do their best by their subordinates (for the most part, there are still carreerist schmo's out there).  I've seen the hours the guys work...lemme tell you I wouldn't want to be a general.

I agree that every one should be able to get a bonus, but that is unrealistic, and...ahhh nevermind.  Needless to say some of US don't work as hard as THEM.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Not that I don't believe you but what postion did you hold that allowed you to see the daily practises of the generals?  More curious then anything.

 

[AntiArmour Guy]

Not that I don't believe you but what postion did you hold that allowed you to see the daily practises of the generals?   More curious then anything.

I suspect you are talking to me...lol

Well I am in H.E.L.L right now serving my time, keeping my eyes and ears open and hoping to learn things that will make me a better leader.   Most of this information is relatively easy to find once you know how.   As for my insights....I'm close enough to be insightful, lets leave it at that.  

I know it must seem like I'm a big fan of generals, NDHQ etc... that's not the case, I'm a soured RCR Captain who is considering joining the ADF, because I'm so bitter about the way things are going....   I just can't stand people posting BS information or passing of their perception/interpretation of (more often than not, MIS)information as fact.   I want to read something interesting and insightful, not some useless hotblooded and meaningless reply to serious events.

Just tryin' to keep it real, even if that means being a bit of a devils' advocate.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Yes it was directed to you.

Have anyone shine something for you lately.  LOL J/K

Hang in there soon you'll be knee deep in Canex shares.  Last J/K

Good to see the someone in the officer corp that isn't a yes man or careerist to the detriment of their subordinates.

 

[Yard Ape]

Would anyone have cheered if we had gotten John McCallum back?


BTW: What is an Associate Minister of National Defence?  Have we ever had one before?  Why was it given to someone with so many unrelated portfolios (Why not add it to the Minister of Vetrans Affairs)?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Um, actually, no I can't.

Then don't post them as fact, because while you might be on to something, now your credibility on this matter is blown.


Quote
As a civilian I am not privy (officially) to that information, however, if you know one of the people at CFSU(O), they can verify it for you.  Most likely unofficially as well.

Access to Information.  Use it. We all can, so don't offer up poor excuses for potentially BS information.  Or post hard data here and someone can check them for you.

OK, you do have a point.  But neither you, nor I, or even the VCDS can post accurate numbers.  If you yourself try to get accurate numbers, you will run into the same inanity as everyone else who has tried to use Access to Information.  I admit that i made a mistake, I should have used "best guess" or words to that affect.

The problem is for anyone trying to get accurate numbers of people at NDHQ is that:

1.  Not all of them are employed by DND.  There are those from PWGSC, Treasury and so on.  They are emplayed at DND, not by DND.

2.  Class B reservists, apparently, are accounted for seperately, by different organisations, and it is near impossible to find this out as well.  For example, while a PMO may have some Class B on strength, they get paid for out of his budget, and may or may not be on the paper strength, depending on contract and other issues.

3.  Many of the jobs that were once held by military personnel, are now held by contractors.  Many of the LCMM's, for example, and many of those at DLESS.  While they work at DND, and were hired to do a job for DND, their contracts are not with DND in many cases.

The way I got my numbers is from a paper phone listing, that was once available in the NCR.  I know that the paper listings are gone, but a check of the phone listings in the NCR may surprise some.  That will not be accurate either, so I promise not to post the numbers as facts again.  OK?

Next, the ratio of officers to NCM's was fact, and is verifiable, I am sure.

Now, mention was made on how hard Generals work.  Well, OK, I know that some Generals do indeed work hard.  The problem I have is thattoo many of them are serving overseas.  Yeah, yeah.  Some, like Gen Hillier and Gen Natynczyk are undoubtedly working their tails right off.  But how many are serving as military attaches?  Too many, given the size of our Forces, and thats part of the problem.  If we have even a dozen Generals overseas, we have to have four times that number as replacements.    The other problem is what are they working so hard at?  No, really.  They are not commanding troops, but they are working long hard hours.  Are they doing what they are trained to do?  Or are they busy working on trying to meet the equality goals, or studying the effects of something on something else?

At any rate, yes, I am jaded.  Sigh.