Sharpening the saw
Chief of the Land Staff LGen Andrew Leslie's comments about the need for an operational pause in 2011 created quite the tempest in a teapot.
What might be instructive is some context on the general's remarks. In what looks to be either a fortunate coincidence or some serious prescience on the part of its editors, Vanguard Canada provided just that in a recent interview with Leslie.
The whole article is worth reading, especially if you're interested in how 'transformation' is going, some of the ongoing issues surrounding force generation, and a whole panoply of other fascinating tidbits.
But in terms of the CF's - and specifically the Army's - ability to generate troops for overseas deployments, this is what the general had to say:
I used to sell sales training to car dealerships, and one of the objections I'd get was that they were too busy trying to sell cars to do any training. I'd acknowledge that objection and let them know they weren't alone feeling that way, but gently tell them the story of the lumberjack sawing furiously away at a log with less and less bite until one of his mates says to him "why don't you stop for a minute and sharpen your saw?" The lumberjack replies that he'd love to, but he's too busy sawing.
We want to grow our military. We need to grow our military if we want to be able to engage in the sorts of missions Canada seems to be interested in pursuing at home and abroad. But right now, the Government of Canada has the CF sawing at just about maximum effort. We're recruiting, but we can't train the recruits as fast as we need to, because we're too busy sawing. We're trying to retain our people, but we're so busy sawing that sometimes they need to get out of the CF altogether in order to get the work-life balance they need after so much time away from home and family.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that a safe and prosperous country like Canada can't field more than 3,000 troops over a three or four year period without needing a break. But that's what we, the Canadian public, have allowed to happen through the politicians we've elected over the past couple of decades. So now, if we're going to fix things, if we're going to increase our military capacity in a sustainable way, we need to pull our saw out of the wood.
Here's hoping the mandarins in Ottawa actually allow the CF to sharpen it while it's out.
What might be instructive is some context on the general's remarks. In what looks to be either a fortunate coincidence or some serious prescience on the part of its editors, Vanguard Canada provided just that in a recent interview with Leslie.
The whole article is worth reading, especially if you're interested in how 'transformation' is going, some of the ongoing issues surrounding force generation, and a whole panoply of other fascinating tidbits.
But in terms of the CF's - and specifically the Army's - ability to generate troops for overseas deployments, this is what the general had to say:
Junior and senior NCOs, the backbone of any Army, are leaving. Are these not the very people you will need to get to 2021? How do you encourage them to stay?
To keep 3000 soldiers overseas, we have to have 15000: we’ve got 3000 deployed, 3000 just returned home, 3000 forming into the next team to go, 3000 doing individual training, and 3000 doing collective training. Then you have the trainers on top of that. The army is 20,000; we’re growing by 3000. The reserves number 20,000, of which just under half are on full time service. We have a demographic issue where we have a bubble of folk who joined roughly 20-30 years ago who are getting close to retirement. We desperately want them to stay because they have maturity and experience and they’ve got five or more missions under their belt. These are our best teachers. What are we doing to keep them? Quite frankly, we’re not doing enough. I know that a study team has been set up and is chewing its way through a variety of options. But in my mind we’re not doing enough to keep those great folk in a red-hot economy. So while half of my brain is, like most Canadians, worried about the international economic climate and the impact of a recession on the nation, the other half is saying, I kind of hope many of these folk who would normally stay three to 12 years in the Army will take a look at the job conditions across Canada and decide to stay another five or 10 years. We’re seeing a slow trickle from the civilian economy back into the Army.
...
Are you short specialized trades?
There are a lot of trades or military occupation classifications that we need more of. Quite frankly, it’s more of just about everybody. Not in numbers; quality versus quantity again. Just about every trade we have in the Army is slightly short. For example, vehicle technicians: we’re using our vehicles very hard over rough terrain, both overseas and at home. We’ve got a lot that are broken. And I’m led to believe there may well be a whole lot of vehicle technicians in the auto sector who may consider the army as a viable career. If they’re physically fit and they want to do amazing things, come on down.
...
The folk who do the daily grind of the Army business are frankly getting tired, very tired. That’s why, when the government said the military mission ends in 2011, although I firmly believe in what we are doing, my reaction is, ok, got it. Your army will need a bit of time to re-set itself – six months, 12 months – post 2011. The Army will be providing about 3,000 to 4,000 soldiers for the Olympics, so when you wrap those two issues together, 2011 is happening about the right time. 2011 is 2011 and I’m ok with that.
I used to sell sales training to car dealerships, and one of the objections I'd get was that they were too busy trying to sell cars to do any training. I'd acknowledge that objection and let them know they weren't alone feeling that way, but gently tell them the story of the lumberjack sawing furiously away at a log with less and less bite until one of his mates says to him "why don't you stop for a minute and sharpen your saw?" The lumberjack replies that he'd love to, but he's too busy sawing.
We want to grow our military. We need to grow our military if we want to be able to engage in the sorts of missions Canada seems to be interested in pursuing at home and abroad. But right now, the Government of Canada has the CF sawing at just about maximum effort. We're recruiting, but we can't train the recruits as fast as we need to, because we're too busy sawing. We're trying to retain our people, but we're so busy sawing that sometimes they need to get out of the CF altogether in order to get the work-life balance they need after so much time away from home and family.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that a safe and prosperous country like Canada can't field more than 3,000 troops over a three or four year period without needing a break. But that's what we, the Canadian public, have allowed to happen through the politicians we've elected over the past couple of decades. So now, if we're going to fix things, if we're going to increase our military capacity in a sustainable way, we need to pull our saw out of the wood.
Here's hoping the mandarins in Ottawa actually allow the CF to sharpen it while it's out.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 3:53 p.m.
10 Comments:
Babbling: Well posted. But it's not really up to the mandarins, it's up to the elected politicians. Sigh.
Mark
Ottawa
Amen! Preach it, brother!
Perhaps the CF could take a more proactive approach and attempt to create the kind of politicians it wants, instead of settling for what it gets.
Take a bunch of pols under its wing and drag them around to a bunch of facilities, show them what key units/assets do the rationale for doing it, how it could be done better if there were more bodies/better gear/etc, threat considerations, long-term plans for modernisation etc.
Like the classified dog and pony shows the US Senate Armed Services Committee (or our own Standing Committee on National Defence) get. Except there are only what, six members (eight if you count the ex-offcio members) of the Canadian Senate's standing committee vs. twenty-six of the US Senate's committee.
At some point you have to have a hand in creating the future you want, or it's never going to come to pass. Instead of waiting around for politicians to regard security and defence issues seriously, perhaps the CF should start regarding cultivation of substantive relationships with ordinary government and opposition MPs as one of its critical missions.
At the very least it would probably help change opposition criticism of the CF from cartoonish to something a little more grounded in reality.
You make some good points, Chris. The CF already does a good deal of what they call "outreach" to centres of influence - political and otherwise - but they likely don't regard that as a critical function.
One of the big problems with focusing on already elected politicians is that it takes a long time to bring them up to speed, and they can be gone in an instant - David Pratt comes to mind as one such MP. And many, like a certain NDP defence critic, have been known to privately commiserate with the troops, and then publicly cut the legs out from under them when it's politically expedient or when the party leader calls for it.
So while I'd agree with you, I find it a shorter route to actually educate the Canadian voting public better. Once you create a constituency with the voters, then they'll apply all the pressure necessary on the politicians. But all the educated politicians in the world won't stand against the misguided wishes of an uninformed body politic threatening to defeat them.
The real prize isn't the politician, as I see it, but rather the voter.
Chris, Damian: I can see no situation in which MPs from any party {given their motivations and, er, quality) will bother to develop the serious interest in, and knowledge about, military matters that one sees in the US Congress or the UK House.
Senator Kenny's Senate committee is superb, but I think essentially a one-off that would wither without him.
Defence, and national security, writ large, are simply too remote from the political realities of elected Canadian politicians (and I think the PM is a clear example) to engage sustained and intelligent attention.
So there's all the nonsensical hoo-hah about "use it or lose it" in the Arctic where--as I constantly and boringly point out--there really are only certain limited issues, all maritime except for the dreaded Danish threat to Hans Island, concerning sovereignty.
As for the public...sadly, without our own 9/11, 7/11, or Bali bombings, I don't think much ground might be made with voters. And even then I suspect our reaction might be more like the Spanish after the Madrid bombings.
It's a very fine line indeed for support for the military in this country, much less real interest and understanding.
Mark
Ottawa
I might add that I watch a fair amount of parliamentary stuff on CPAC, besides what one sees on TV news shows and reads in the papers.
Hence my view.
Mark
Ottawa
The voter is a better prize, but also much harder to win.
Every military will, of necessity, do things that tick off voters. They have lie to, obfuscate or withhold facts from, the voter. They have to do that in order to maintain OPSEC. They also need to train, meaning they will make noise or create hassles near somebody's home or business. There are lots of little annoyances.
The voter may realise the necessity of these annoyances, but they generally figure it can be done somewhere else without annoying them. And in the case of lying or obfuscating capabilities or activities, let's say say seven or eight times out of ten civilians can figure out the reason for it. And they don't generally like being misled. So I feel that there is a hard ceiling to CF effectiveness with the voter.
The other thing is, voters like the military in the abstract, but they like it a lot less than say, publicly-funded entitlements, kids and maple syrup. Politicians will generally get pulled into funding other priorities, because the military is a tiny constituency and the need is perceived to less imperative.
If you target the pols (especially those with clearance), you get the benefit of having to lie or obfuscate an awful lot less. You can paint a better, broader, more accurate picture. And as a bonus, your audience may also be the future decisionmakers who are helping to decide your slice of the budget pie.
The risk is, as you say, the fact that they can be cashiered at a moment's notice.
Realistically, the CF needs to do both. Better outreach to the public, certainly, but also better outreach to our parliamentarians.
And Mark—I completely understand your skepticism. I believe it's well-founded. =)
But as I said earlier, at some point the CF has to take a bit of an active hand in its own destiny. If it wants to survive the coming centuries as anything other than an emasculated constabulary force, it needs to figure out how to make substantive connections with both ordinary Canadians, and the guys on Parliament Hill.
Good discussion - this is why I'm glad we have a comments section.
Discussion here sure beats the House of Commons, committees included. Even Canadian journalism, sad though it may be on the whole, beats the bozos. Though whether they really are simply bozos, or are compelled to behave the way they do by the political system, I'm not quite sure. But I hae me douts. I detect a "manque de sérieux".
Mark
Ottawa
Post a Comment
<< Home