Ok, I fixed your posts for you Tracker.
Now, for our tete-au-tete. It's funny how this whole thing sprouted over an issue of a reference letter, which is probably one of the least important parts of the application process. I can see we are getting sidetracked because you and I seem to be arguing about two different things. Let's clear this up a bit.
No, The guy who wanted to shoot everybody he could see in Toronto didn't have a criminal record. the guy who killed Holly Jones didn't have a criminal record either.
With reference to the dinky, standard issue CF Reference Letter supposed to ascertain what people like this
might do if they were admitted into the Forces? Obviously, the Toronto guy already succeeded in getting through a form of government vetting to be a registered firearms owner, and the Holly Jones killer had a respectable job, if I recall. I think we both know that goof-balls will get through both the recruiting and training processes by simply being grey men. However, I am not looking at making more lax standards, I just want to see troops processed faster.
You want to have someone pushed through the system and not properly screened to share a trench with you? The bottleneck is not the CFRC, it is the VFS, the Medical, the CRNC and the physical fitness test. All these are outside the CFRC's control
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. I was going to throw this in a previous post, but it never fit.
You are absolutely right, if we are going to discuss the recruiting bottleneck, it is best to look at all the responsible groups and go from there.
Obviously, the training system has something to do with it, due to the lack of qualified instructors to handle a large influx of recruits. This is a structural problem in the Forces with many underlying causes that are beyond the scope of this argument, so we'll leave that.
VFS - is merely confirming paperwork, why must it take time. I could have a file fed-exed to you in a day.
Medical - I understand this is one of the big stumbling blocks for time, is this the CFMS issue? I know a doctor down the street who could give me a physical tomorrow; should it take 3 months?
Fitness Test - What is the big deal with making an appointment to do 19 pushups? If the guy is extremely obese and has heart problems, then the medical should pick that up. If he can't quite rip the 19 off, I'm sure he will after a few weeks in basic.
As for the CSIS and the Criminal Record Check, I don't advocate getting rid of these. Surely they could be expedited or processed while the recruit is on route. This is the what happened for my good buddy who just quit the CF and joined the US Army. The FBI does a background check on him; if he fails, they yank him quick and probably send him to Guantanamo.
I am looking at the US recruiting process for a comparison here. Like I said on another board, my buddy went from recruiter door to Ft Benning in a month. He went in with his social security card and birth certificate and set up a date for testing the following week. Over two days, he did a detailed interview process, and medical examination, an aptitude test. The next day, they offered him a contract, which he signed. It was conditional of him passing his PT test, which he did the day before he departed to Ft Benning two weeks later, and passing a FBI record check, which would be done while he was enroute.
Was he scrutinized any less by the recruiters? No. Did he have a reference letter (which is the source of this argument)? No. Is the American Army's supply of recruits qualitatively less for expediting the recruit process? Having seen idiots from both Armies, my answer is no.
Why do we have to have such a time consuming system? If the answer is resources, then fine, we can admit our recruiting system is strapped for cash and put that on the list of things that need money. Is the problem bureaucratic, which I suspect it is? Then I would venture to say someone in Ottawa isn't doing there job.
Here is my question; do you feel are system is as efficient as it could be, even with the constant barrage of complaints we get here at Army.ca?
So you want to screen troops at basic training after we have sent them there and denied the spot to someone who might be more deserving? That sounds like a waste of money and effort to me.
I think I've answered this question. Recruiting should be responsible for screening, I just find fault with the time it takes.
If he could not find anyone who was willing to vouch for him would sound alarm bells to me. No system is perfect, I know guys who made it through basic and QL3 in Wainwright, onto a tour only to be proven to be the biggest piece of s*&t ever to walk the Earth. Everyone can find an example of this. In your mind you want those people who are instructors to weed them out in training but this system has already failed. I instructed on a QL3 course once and my CO told me before I left for Wainwright, "I don't need good troops, I just need troops, we'll make them good troops later."
Yep, weak training standards can be attributed to this. I think that we are in agreement here. Let's be honest, if we were to pick out problems with the recruiting system we would have to pick out problems in the training system as well.
Wouldn't be more cost effective though if the CFRC weeded out the crackheads, the asthmatics and the mentally insane at the recruiting centre instead of waiting untill they are on an OP in a mission theatre? There are many reasons that it takes this long.
As I said before, the processing aspect of recruiting should ensure that troops are medically, mentally, and physically sound. All these problems you describe are covered under medicals, I never argued that CFRC should quit doing them, although the argument seems to be moving in the direction of addressing the time they take.
I am also critical of many of the policies I have to work with everyday,and it is difficult to understand why many of them are in place, mostly they are cover the CF's ass incase something goes wrong. If we don't do a VFS on a former member, for example, how do we know if he was released medically or as permanently unsuitable.
Just like above, I never said a VFS shouldn't be done; again I think the argument is moving towards problems with the time required to do one.
I spent most of my adult life as a soldier on the pointy end.
Good. Then we probably have a pretty common view on things if we are frustrated grunts.
I would rather be short handed than have a full section of soldiers who should not have made it through the recruiting process.
Let's put it this way. I would rather have a section of 8 then a section of 4. I never advocated we open the flood gates to whatever trash comes off the street wanting green welfare, I just think it is unacceptable to wait so long to serve in the military.
The letters of reference don't give you a green light for anything. You don't show up with your letters and go straight the basic training. We understand that they can be falsified, If they don't look right, we call the person listed on the back. I read one once that was clearly written by the same hand that filled out the application. When questioned about it, the applicant denied that he filled out his own reference so I called the number on the back while he was still in my office. The number turned out to be his own and his mom answered. Do you want to have to rely on a lier when things get rough? That might only be one example, but if I ignored his letters or if he didn't have to have any, you might be sharing a trench with him one day.
Basic training is too expensive to be used as a screening tool. It costs much less to do it at the recruiting centre. Either way, some people get through who shouldn't, and some people get screwed.
Ok, to sum up. Neither of us want to see CFRC quit screening potential recruits for outstanding issues of medical, mental, or physical nature. I think the point I am trying to argue is that it shouldn't take so damn long. Many members here have dealt with the recruiting processes of the military forces of other countries (myself included to some extent) and there is a general consensus that the Canadian Forces is the most frustrating one in the world to deal with.
What I'm getting at is that I disagree with the way the things seem to be intended to function. I've heard an experienced SNCO tell me that the problem is that in the CF, the recruitment process is seen as a vetting tool (yes, this guy will be a good soldier), while the training process is seen as merely a skills tool (we'll show them how to march and clean a rifle). I find that for an institution as total as the military, this is unacceptable. The recruiting process should make sure that there are no outstanding problems with a potential recruit. There are simply too many factors with soldiering (mental fortitude, ability to work in a cohesive unit, courage under intense stress) that can only be tested under an rigorous basic training regime. I just don't believe recruiters have the ability to test for this, and trying to is a waste of effort. That is why tougher basic training should go hand-in-hand with a quicker recruit intake. Instead of glorified summer camp, recruits should be indoctrinated into the total institution they are trying to join (the old break them down and build them up routine).
Anyways, sorry for the long winded response, I just thought that it was essential for me to answer all your points in order to clarify my arguement.
Cheers,
Infanteer
