CEFCOM Change of Command

The only commander that CEFCOM has ever known just handed the reins over to a new boss yesterday:

This afternoon, Lieutenant-General Marc Lessard accepted the responsibility of defending and protecting Canada’s interests overseas as he became the new Commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM) during a ceremony at the Cartier Square Drill Hall. Lt.-Gen. Lessard replaces Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier.

Perhaps I'm the only one who finds this whole evolution as fascinating as I do, but there are a number of complicated questions connected with this move that remain unanswered. In no particular order:

• What's LGen Gauthier going to do? I had heard rumours about retiring him and slotting him* a potential military retirement and transition into a DM job on the civvie side of the house, but nothing firm. I hesitate to speak ill of a man who has had such a difficult job to do - both in terms of setting up a new command, and doing with Afghanistan on his plate at the same time - but I've heard very little in the way of glowing personal tributes to the man pejoratively referred to as "The Goat." That's not to say he wasn't effective in his job, because he obviously got the the rank of LGen for a reason. But given the number of people who found it pointedly difficult to work with and for him, and given the mixed success of the Afghan mission to date, it will be interesting to see where he ends up, and how history judges his term as Commander CEFCOM.


• How's Lessard going to do? He's inherited quite the bird's nest of interwoven mission problems, political problems, and structural/organizational problems. Is he ready for all that, all at once? How are his priorities going to shake out? Like it or not, as much as they've tried to de-personalize command with standards and procedures, it still requires leadership, and that's made up to a large degree by personal characteristics - personality, character, intelligence, charisma, etc. I don't know much about Lessard, but I wish him luck.


• How is the Afghan mission going to change, and how will CEFCOM and Lessard have to change with it? The influx of Americans is obviously the biggest factor, but the evolution of the mission along the spectrum from military to civilian, from western to Afghan, from all hope to managed expectations, from an ambitious future to a Canadian exit strategy will all contribute to this being the greatest period of change at CEFCOM since the move from Kabul to Kandahar. And the fact is there's no real template to work from.


• What's going to happen to the Command overall? The "transformation" that Hillier championed (by necessity, but that's another story) has stalled noticeably without Hillier's direct involvement. While Natynczyk managed the process as VCDS, he didn't drive it, and the restructuring still faces a good deal of resistance and needs a high-level sponsor willing to push it forward if it's going to succeed, since it has no real momentum of its own. On top of that, the Afghan mission is gradually, inexorably winding down, and with it perhaps the greatest reason for CEFCOM's existence. I don't know if the new command structure is the way the CF needs to go or not. But with resentment in the "force generation" side of the CF for the drain of what the nay-sayers profess is an unnecessary HQ, and without a signature mission, CEFCOM's future in the next few years is less than certain.

This period of transition will be be interesting, to say the least.

* Update: There's a good deal of difference between "retiring" and "being retired" and I typed this piece much too quickly this morning. It was a thoughtless reference.

I would also like to clarify a couple of points regarding what I wrote about LGen Gauthier. It was five sentences. It dealt with the tiniest portion of a thirty-some-odd year career serving our nation - a career upon which I congratulate him. I maintain that the impression of his leadership style I've been able to glean from conversations with other people who know him better than I do is relevant to our readership, as is the effect of that leadership upon his command. But it's hardly the definitive story on the man.

As I said, history will judge him as a commander, as will his troops and his contemporaries. I qualify on none of those counts. But I offer my perspective, for whatever it's worth.