Reserve Restructure

[army]

Posted by "Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@bmts.com> on Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:18:32 -0500
The following story about possible restructure and re-roling of Reserve
regiments is from the National Post website. Setting the emotional
outbursts aside, I offer the following obssrvations/questions for
consideration:
1. If Reserve soldiers join "a Regiment" rather than seek jobs, and esprit
de corps is "so high" because of the "Regimental System", why is there such
a high attrition rate?
2. If our political masters intend to force some degree of change, is not
reroling or amalagamtion better than risking disbandment? It‘s not exactly
a new experience in our Army, historically, the norm is amalgamation,
renaming, reroling and change.
3. If individual unit pride is so high that mass resignations are
predicted as likely, than how did the Elgin Regiment survive reroling to
Engineers?
I‘m not lokikng to start a fight, just thinking out loud. I do realize
we‘ve covered much of this ground before. But if this becomes inevitable,
are the Regiments preparing back-up plans to maintain unit histories and
ties through an era of change? Or do they plan to go down with the ship to
use a Senior Service metaphor, leaving the troops who wish to continue
serving without leadership.
Fideleter PLFus, 1979-82
Pro Patria The RCR, 1983 - present
Mike
*******************************
Saturday, March 25, 2000
Historic regiments face support roles
James Cudmore
National Post, with files from The Canadian Press

Members of Vancouver‘s Seaforth Highlanders show off their battle-readiness
during the Second World War. The regiment is one of 41 judged unfit for
combat in a recent evaluation.
...Royal Newfoundland Regiment did not.

South Alberta Light Horse passed muster...

EDMONTON - The Department of National Defence is preparing to do away with
some of its historic combat regiments in favour of units trained in public
relations, the Internet and civil affairs, according to a new army plan.
Under the Land Forces Reserve Restructuring LFRR plan, army units that
have failed to balance their budgets, recruit and retain their soldiers, or
adequately prepare them for battle are facing the possibility of losing
their historic roles in favour of newer, non-combat jobs.
In addition, regiments that fail to pass an army viability evaluation might
be disbanded and lose their celebrated histories and traditions altogether.
A report released this week detailed the military‘s new viability
evaluations and revealed that as many as 41 of 139 army reserve regiments
across the country were classified as non-viable, including Vancouver‘s
Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and the 1st Battalion of The Royal
Newfoundland Regiment.
The evaluations considered a unit‘s size, its soldiers‘ collective and
individual skills, and tasks such as providing soldiers for natural
disasters. Army commanders also judged the regiments‘ ability to recruit
and retain soldiers.
A similar report last year described 36 units as non-viable. That poor
showing prompted Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, to kick the reserve
restructuring plan into high gear.
The plan, which has yet to be approved by the minister, will dramatically
alter the shape of the Canadian militia. It calls for a restructuring of
brigade formations to provide a more seamless mix between reserve regiments
and their regular forces counterparts so that reserves would primarily
provide service and support functions.
"What we‘re looking at is a transformation in the army reserves," said
Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Kampmann, director of the reserve restructuring
plan. "Changing them from a combat focus to a focus on support."
Traditionally, units such as the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, The Royal Regina
Rifles, the Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders or the Canadian Scottish
Regiment trained their citizen-soldiers in the art of infantry battle.
But under LFRR, these storied regiments will lose that role, and instead
train in logistics, public affairs, postal delivery, civilian liaison or
perhaps Web page design, the colonel said.
In fact, the idea of changing the function of the reserve force from a
combat-oriented role to a support role has been the subject of much
conjecture since the Special Committee on Restructuring the Reserves issued
its ****son report in 1995.
The report called for the military to commit more resources to the reserves
and to reconsider how best they might be employed.
As the Canadian Forces are called upon to do more with less, Lt.-Col.
Kampmann said, the reserves are playing an even more vital role in the
country‘s defence policy.
As early as 1991, all overseas operations conducted by the Canadian Forces,
including Bosnia, Somalia and, most recently, Kosovo, required soldiers
from reserve regiments.
"In order for the regular force to meet its full mobilization requirements
... we have to depend on the reserves to provide us with additional or
supplementary forces," said Lt.-Col. Kampmann.
"But the new concept is complimentary capability.
"There‘s a heck of a lot of high- tech expertise in the Canadian public,
and we would like our reserves to be able to tap into," Lt.-Col. Kampmann
said.
For his part, Brigadier-General Jim Hanson, a military analyst for the
Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, is worried that Lt.-Col.
Kampmann‘s plan to disband and amalgamate some historic combat regiments is
wrong-minded.
"It would be devastating," the general said, adding it would only result in
the loss of a militia soldiers‘ regimental pride, and ultimately the
willingness to serve.
"Soldiers don‘t join the reserves, they join a regiment. You can‘t take the
48th Highlanders of Canada and suddenly try to turn them into [Toronto
Scottish soldiers]," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said.
"They‘d all quit!"
Lt.-Col. Brian Hodgson, the commander of The South Alberta Light Horse, one
of the "viable" regiments, agrees. "Under no circumstances would I consider
retraining my regiment into some postal corps," he said, adding that he
believes the majority of his soldiers would feel the same way. "I‘m
worried," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said, "that if things keep going the way they
look like they‘re going, that Canada isn‘t going to have a militia. Not one
to speak of, anyway."
NON-VIABLE REGIMENTS:
St. John‘s 1st Battalion of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service
Battalion Sydney 35 Medical Company Saint John 31 Service Battalion, 3
Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Montreal 3 Field Engineer Regiment,
51 Service Battalion Ottawa 2 Intelligence Platoon Kingston Princess of
Wales‘ Own Regiment Toronto 2 Intelligence Company, 2 Field Engineer
Regiment London 22 Service Battalion Windsor 21 Military Police Platoon, 21
Service Battalion Sudbury 2 Irish Regiment of Canada North Bay Algonquin
Regiment, 26 Service Battalion Sault Ste. Marie 49 Field Regiment Royal
Canadian Artillery Thunder Bay Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, 18 Service
Battalion Kenora 116 Independent Field Battery Winnipeg Queen‘s Own Cameron
Highlanders, Royal Winnipeg Rifles, 17 Medical Company, 17 Service
Battalion Brandon 26 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Regina 10
Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, Royal Regina Rifles, 16 Medical
Company, 16 Service Battalion Calgary 33 Field Engineer Squadron Edmonton
15 Medical Company, 20 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, 15 Service
Battalion, 8 Field Engineer Regiment, 6 Intelligence Company Lethbridge 18
Air Defence Regiment Vancouver Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, 12 Service
Battalion Victoria Canadian Scottish Regiment, 11 Service Battalion
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
Leadership is the practical application of character. - Colonel R.
Meinertzhagen, CBE, DSO, Army Diary, 1899-1926, 1960
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Gunner <randr1@home.com> on Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:45:52 -0700
Mike, the comments by The National Posts James Cudmore only tell part of
the story and I could speak on this issues for hours. However, a couple
of comments:
A Res F unit being termed non-viable is simply a snapshot of the unit at
that particular time. The results quoted by James Cudmore are simply
the third year of the three year evaluation process used by LFRR. And
finally, each Land Force Area interpretated the guidelines of the
Evaluation differently, therefore units in SQFT were judged differently
from units in LFWA. Did you not notice that there are no French
Canadian Units listed - they used different interpretation of the LFRR
criteria...does that mean the Royal Montreal Regt will be moved to
Winnipeg as the Royal Wpg Rifles were non-vialble...of course not. As
another example, all the units in 41 CBG Alberta Based failed because
their CBG HQ failed to manage their budget properly not the units
fault, however, they pay the price.
To answer your questions:
1.Attrition - Attrition is a problem in the Res F and its causes are
many....component transfers to the Reg F, family commitments, education
commitments, work commitments, boring unit and summer trg i think this
is one of the biggest, Res F units are caught in a rut always trying
to recruit and then they leave as the trg is boring. Esprit de Corps
manifests itself in alot of ways, take yourself as an example, stressing
your roots with the PL Fus. You know very well the AC/NC challenges the
Res F must face and the burden it places on the Reg F. This is a
difficult topic. As an aside the Reg F is now grappling with the
attrition problem in its units that rivals the Res F problems...30
attrition rate.
2.I hope our political masters approve the changes or at least bless a
strategic direction for the Reserves. The trouble is most of the
Infantry units that will be disbanded and reroled will be in Ontario,
which is a liberal stronghold. There is a election coming in
2001...will the liberals want to cause that type of negetive media ie
the Toronto Scottish struck from the order of battle? The Army reg
and res have to decide what they want each component to do and use each
of their strenths and weaknesses to cover off one another. The reroling
of Res F units to CSS will help cover off an extreme weakness in the
current Reg F structure.
3.I agree with you, I don‘t think there will be a mass exodus of
soldiers from the unit as the reason they will remain with the military
will remain the same. That being a part time job, extra income,
comraderie, chance to participate with the UN and NATO. I think some of
the older soldiers offr and NCOs will leave as they are not able to
devote the time to rebadging. You mention the Elgins going to engr.
Another success is the 1st AD Landark and Renfrew Regt...I think they
reroled well to Arty and maintained their scottish roots.
No one in the Res F will deny the Res F needs to be restructured unit
closures, amalgamation, etc, however, there is so much mistrust in the
Res Community towards the Reg F, I admire the work of R2000 and the
Council of HCols in pushing this issue although I don‘t necessarily
agree with them. The Res have never been treated as an equal partner
in the CF. Although the Reg F has been underfunded for years, the Res F
has been chronically underfunded. To simply say the Res are a waste of
money doesn‘t take into the fact they were ignored for years by the Reg
F and we now must make some painful decisions. The Navy, Airforce and
DISO are way ahead of the Army with a true "Total Force", its high time
the army did the same and became "One Army".

Gunner sends....
Michael O‘Leary wrote:
>
> The following story about possible restructure and re-roling of Reserve
> regiments is from the National Post website. Setting the emotional
> outbursts aside, I offer the following obssrvations/questions for
> consideration:
>
> 1. If Reserve soldiers join "a Regiment" rather than seek jobs, and esprit
> de corps is "so high" because of the "Regimental System", why is there such
> a high attrition rate?
>
> 2. If our political masters intend to force some degree of change, is not
> reroling or amalagamtion better than risking disbandment? It‘s not exactly
> a new experience in our Army, historically, the norm is amalgamation,
> renaming, reroling and change.
>
> 3. If individual unit pride is so high that mass resignations are
> predicted as likely, than how did the Elgin Regiment survive reroling to
> Engineers?
>
> I‘m not lokikng to start a fight, just thinking out loud. I do realize
> we‘ve covered much of this ground before. But if this becomes inevitable,
> are the Regiments preparing back-up plans to maintain unit histories and
> ties through an era of change? Or do they plan to go down with the ship to
> use a Senior Service metaphor, leaving the troops who wish to continue
> serving without leadership.
>
> Fideleter PLFus, 1979-82
> Pro Patria The RCR, 1983 - present
>
> Mike
>
> *******************************
>
> Saturday, March 25, 2000
>
> Historic regiments face support roles
>
> James Cudmore
> National Post, with files from The Canadian Press
>
>
> Members of Vancouver‘s Seaforth Highlanders show off their battle-readiness
> during the Second World War. The regiment is one of 41 judged unfit for
> combat in a recent evaluation.
>
> ...Royal Newfoundland Regiment did not.
>
> South Alberta Light Horse passed muster...
>
> EDMONTON - The Department of National Defence is preparing to do away with
> some of its historic combat regiments in favour of units trained in public
> relations, the Internet and civil affairs, according to a new army plan.
>
> Under the Land Forces Reserve Restructuring LFRR plan, army units that
> have failed to balance their budgets, recruit and retain their soldiers, or
> adequately prepare them for battle are facing the possibility of losing
> their historic roles in favour of newer, non-combat jobs.
>
> In addition, regiments that fail to pass an army viability evaluation might
> be disbanded and lose their celebrated histories and traditions altogether.
>
> A report released this week detailed the military‘s new viability
> evaluations and revealed that as many as 41 of 139 army reserve regiments
> across the country were classified as non-viable, including Vancouver‘s
> Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and the 1st Battalion of The Royal
> Newfoundland Regiment.
>
> The evaluations considered a unit‘s size, its soldiers‘ collective and
> individual skills, and tasks such as providing soldiers for natural
> disasters. Army commanders also judged the regiments‘ ability to recruit
> and retain soldiers.
>
> A similar report last year described 36 units as non-viable. That poor
> showing prompted Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, to kick the reserve
> restructuring plan into high gear.
>
> The plan, which has yet to be approved by the minister, will dramatically
> alter the shape of the Canadian militia. It calls for a restructuring of
> brigade formations to provide a more seamless mix between reserve regiments
> and their regular forces counterparts so that reserves would primarily
> provide service and support functions.
>
> "What we‘re looking at is a transformation in the army reserves," said
> Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Kampmann, director of the reserve restructuring
> plan. "Changing them from a combat focus to a focus on support."
>
> Traditionally, units such as the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, The Royal Regina
> Rifles, the Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders or the Canadian Scottish
> Regiment trained their citizen-soldiers in the art of infantry battle.
>
> But under LFRR, these storied regiments will lose that role, and instead
> train in logistics, public affairs, postal delivery, civilian liaison or
> perhaps Web page design, the colonel said.
>
> In fact, the idea of changing the function of the reserve force from a
> combat-oriented role to a support role has been the subject of much
> conjecture since the Special Committee on Restructuring the Reserves issued
> its ****son report in 1995.
>
> The report called for the military to commit more resources to the reserves
> and to reconsider how best they might be employed.
>
> As the Canadian Forces are called upon to do more with less, Lt.-Col.
> Kampmann said, the reserves are playing an even more vital role in the
> country‘s defence policy.
>
> As early as 1991, all overseas operations conducted by the Canadian Forces,
> including Bosnia, Somalia and, most recently, Kosovo, required soldiers
> from reserve regiments.
>
> "In order for the regular force to meet its full mobilization requirements
> ... we have to depend on the reserves to provide us with additional or
> supplementary forces," said Lt.-Col. Kampmann.
>
> "But the new concept is complimentary capability.
>
> "There‘s a heck of a lot of high- tech expertise in the Canadian public,
> and we would like our reserves to be able to tap into," Lt.-Col. Kampmann
> said.
>
> For his part, Brigadier-General Jim Hanson, a military analyst for the
> Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, is worried that Lt.-Col.
> Kampmann‘s plan to disband and amalgamate some historic combat regiments is
> wrong-minded.
>
> "It would be devastating," the general said, adding it would only result in
> the loss of a militia soldiers‘ regimental pride, and ultimately the
> willingness to serve.
>
> "Soldiers don‘t join the reserves, they join a regiment. You can‘t take the
> 48th Highlanders of Canada and suddenly try to turn them into [Toronto
> Scottish soldiers]," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said.
>
> "They‘d all quit!"
>
> Lt.-Col. Brian Hodgson, the commander of The South Alberta Light Horse, one
> of the "viable" regiments, agrees. "Under no circumstances would I consider
> retraining my regiment into some postal corps," he said, adding that he
> believes the majority of his soldiers would feel the same way. "I‘m
> worried," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said, "that if things keep going the way they
> look like they‘re going, that Canada isn‘t going to have a militia. Not one
> to speak of, anyway."
>
> NON-VIABLE REGIMENTS:
>
> St. John‘s 1st Battalion of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service
> Battalion Sydney 35 Medical Company Saint John 31 Service Battalion, 3
> Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Montreal 3 Field Engineer Regiment,
> 51 Service Battalion Ottawa 2 Intelligence Platoon Kingston Princess of
> Wales‘ Own Regiment Toronto 2 Intelligence Company, 2 Field Engineer
> Regiment London 22 Service Battalion Windsor 21 Military Police Platoon, 21
> Service Battalion Sudbury 2 Irish Regiment of Canada North Bay Algonquin
> Regiment, 26 Service Battalion Sault Ste. Marie 49 Field Regiment Royal
> Canadian Artillery Thunder Bay Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, 18 Service
> Battalion Kenora 116 Independent Field Battery Winnipeg Queen‘s Own Cameron
> Highlanders, Royal Winnipeg Rifles, 17 Medical Company, 17 Service
> Battalion Brandon 26 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Regina 10
> Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, Royal Regina Rifles, 16 Medical
> Company, 16 Service Battalion Calgary 33 Field Engineer Squadron Edmonton
> 15 Medical Company, 20 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, 15 Service
> Battalion, 8 Field Engineer Regiment, 6 Intelligence Company Lethbridge 18
> Air Defence Regiment Vancouver Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, 12 Service
> Battalion Victoria Canadian Scottish Regiment, 11 Service Battalion
>
> Michael O‘Leary
>
> Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
> http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
>
> Leadership is the practical application of character. - Colonel R.
> Meinertzhagen, CBE, DSO, Army Diary, 1899-1926, 1960
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "dave newcombe" <davebo@seaside.net> on Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:05:04 -0800
Attrition in the reserves is also caused by its total focus on the student
as a manpower source. Once a person leaves school and begins to work, it is
difficult to attend training course. They primarily take place in the
summer, as a person just starting work, your seniority is low. The chances
of even getting two weeks off in the summer are slim. If trade level
courses were made more available during the rest of the year, then more
people would have a chance to progress within their units. I couldn‘t
balance my work schedule with a constantly changing training schedule at my
squadron, I was forced to miss exercises when they were postponed to later
dates. It is during these weekend Ex‘s, and they Mil-Con‘s that unit pride
is fostered. Nothing builds a great team like mutual exhaustion and
suffering.
Chimo
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gunner"
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
> Mike, the comments by The National Posts James Cudmore only tell part of
> the story and I could speak on this issues for hours. However, a couple
> of comments:
>
> A Res F unit being termed non-viable is simply a snapshot of the unit at
> that particular time. The results quoted by James Cudmore are simply
> the third year of the three year evaluation process used by LFRR. And
> finally, each Land Force Area interpretated the guidelines of the
> Evaluation differently, therefore units in SQFT were judged differently
> from units in LFWA. Did you not notice that there are no French
> Canadian Units listed - they used different interpretation of the LFRR
> criteria...does that mean the Royal Montreal Regt will be moved to
> Winnipeg as the Royal Wpg Rifles were non-vialble...of course not. As
> another example, all the units in 41 CBG Alberta Based failed because
> their CBG HQ failed to manage their budget properly not the units
> fault, however, they pay the price.
>
> To answer your questions:
>
> 1. Attrition - Attrition is a problem in the Res F and its causes are
> many....component transfers to the Reg F, family commitments, education
> commitments, work commitments, boring unit and summer trg i think this
> is one of the biggest, Res F units are caught in a rut always trying
> to recruit and then they leave as the trg is boring. Esprit de Corps
> manifests itself in alot of ways, take yourself as an example, stressing
> your roots with the PL Fus. You know very well the AC/NC challenges the
> Res F must face and the burden it places on the Reg F. This is a
> difficult topic. As an aside the Reg F is now grappling with the
> attrition problem in its units that rivals the Res F problems...30
> attrition rate.
>
> 2. I hope our political masters approve the changes or at least bless a
> strategic direction for the Reserves. The trouble is most of the
> Infantry units that will be disbanded and reroled will be in Ontario,
> which is a liberal stronghold. There is a election coming in
> 2001...will the liberals want to cause that type of negetive media ie
> the Toronto Scottish struck from the order of battle? The Army reg
> and res have to decide what they want each component to do and use each
> of their strenths and weaknesses to cover off one another. The reroling
> of Res F units to CSS will help cover off an extreme weakness in the
> current Reg F structure.
>
> 3. I agree with you, I don‘t think there will be a mass exodus of
> soldiers from the unit as the reason they will remain with the military
> will remain the same. That being a part time job, extra income,
> comraderie, chance to participate with the UN and NATO. I think some of
> the older soldiers offr and NCOs will leave as they are not able to
> devote the time to rebadging. You mention the Elgins going to engr.
> Another success is the 1st AD Landark and Renfrew Regt...I think they
> reroled well to Arty and maintained their scottish roots.
>
> No one in the Res F will deny the Res F needs to be restructured unit
> closures, amalgamation, etc, however, there is so much mistrust in the
> Res Community towards the Reg F, I admire the work of R2000 and the
> Council of HCols in pushing this issue although I don‘t necessarily
> agree with them. The Res have never been treated as an equal partner
> in the CF. Although the Reg F has been underfunded for years, the Res F
> has been chronically underfunded. To simply say the Res are a waste of
> money doesn‘t take into the fact they were ignored for years by the Reg
> F and we now must make some painful decisions. The Navy, Airforce and
> DISO are way ahead of the Army with a true "Total Force", its high time
> the army did the same and became "One Army".
>
> Gunner sends....
>
> Michael O‘Leary wrote:
> >
> > The following story about possible restructure and re-roling of Reserve
> > regiments is from the National Post website. Setting the emotional
> > outbursts aside, I offer the following obssrvations/questions for
> > consideration:
> >
> > 1. If Reserve soldiers join "a Regiment" rather than seek jobs, and
esprit
> > de corps is "so high" because of the "Regimental System", why is there
such
> > a high attrition rate?
> >
> > 2. If our political masters intend to force some degree of change, is
not
> > reroling or amalagamtion better than risking disbandment? It‘s not
exactly
> > a new experience in our Army, historically, the norm is amalgamation,
> > renaming, reroling and change.
> >
> > 3. If individual unit pride is so high that mass resignations are
> > predicted as likely, than how did the Elgin Regiment survive reroling to
> > Engineers?
> >
> > I‘m not lokikng to start a fight, just thinking out loud. I do realize
> > we‘ve covered much of this ground before. But if this becomes
inevitable,
> > are the Regiments preparing back-up plans to maintain unit histories and
> > ties through an era of change? Or do they plan to go down with the ship
to
> > use a Senior Service metaphor, leaving the troops who wish to continue
> > serving without leadership.
> >
> > Fideleter PLFus, 1979-82
> > Pro Patria The RCR, 1983 - present
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > *******************************
> >
> > Saturday, March 25, 2000
> >
> > Historic regiments face support roles
> >
> > James Cudmore
> > National Post, with files from The Canadian Press
> >
> >
> > Members of Vancouver‘s Seaforth Highlanders show off their
battle-readiness
> > during the Second World War. The regiment is one of 41 judged unfit for
> > combat in a recent evaluation.
> >
> > ...Royal Newfoundland Regiment did not.
> >
> > South Alberta Light Horse passed muster...
> >
> > EDMONTON - The Department of National Defence is preparing to do away
with
> > some of its historic combat regiments in favour of units trained in
public
> > relations, the Internet and civil affairs, according to a new army plan.
> >
> > Under the Land Forces Reserve Restructuring LFRR plan, army units that
> > have failed to balance their budgets, recruit and retain their soldiers,
or
> > adequately prepare them for battle are facing the possibility of losing
> > their historic roles in favour of newer, non-combat jobs.
> >
> > In addition, regiments that fail to pass an army viability evaluation
might
> > be disbanded and lose their celebrated histories and traditions
altogether.
> >
> > A report released this week detailed the military‘s new viability
> > evaluations and revealed that as many as 41 of 139 army reserve
regiments
> > across the country were classified as non-viable, including Vancouver‘s
> > Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and the 1st Battalion of The Royal
> > Newfoundland Regiment.
> >
> > The evaluations considered a unit‘s size, its soldiers‘ collective and
> > individual skills, and tasks such as providing soldiers for natural
> > disasters. Army commanders also judged the regiments‘ ability to recruit
> > and retain soldiers.
> >
> > A similar report last year described 36 units as non-viable. That poor
> > showing prompted Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, to kick the
reserve
> > restructuring plan into high gear.
> >
> > The plan, which has yet to be approved by the minister, will
dramatically
> > alter the shape of the Canadian militia. It calls for a restructuring of
> > brigade formations to provide a more seamless mix between reserve
regiments
> > and their regular forces counterparts so that reserves would primarily
> > provide service and support functions.
> >
> > "What we‘re looking at is a transformation in the army reserves," said
> > Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Kampmann, director of the reserve restructuring
> > plan. "Changing them from a combat focus to a focus on support."
> >
> > Traditionally, units such as the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, The Royal Regina
> > Rifles, the Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders or the Canadian Scottish
> > Regiment trained their citizen-soldiers in the art of infantry battle.
> >
> > But under LFRR, these storied regiments will lose that role, and instead
> > train in logistics, public affairs, postal delivery, civilian liaison or
> > perhaps Web page design, the colonel said.
> >
> > In fact, the idea of changing the function of the reserve force from a
> > combat-oriented role to a support role has been the subject of much
> > conjecture since the Special Committee on Restructuring the Reserves
issued
> > its ****son report in 1995.
> >
> > The report called for the military to commit more resources to the
reserves
> > and to reconsider how best they might be employed.
> >
> > As the Canadian Forces are called upon to do more with less, Lt.-Col.
> > Kampmann said, the reserves are playing an even more vital role in the
> > country‘s defence policy.
> >
> > As early as 1991, all overseas operations conducted by the Canadian
Forces,
> > including Bosnia, Somalia and, most recently, Kosovo, required soldiers
> > from reserve regiments.
> >
> > "In order for the regular force to meet its full mobilization
requirements
> > ... we have to depend on the reserves to provide us with additional or
> > supplementary forces," said Lt.-Col. Kampmann.
> >
> > "But the new concept is complimentary capability.
> >
> > "There‘s a heck of a lot of high- tech expertise in the Canadian public,
> > and we would like our reserves to be able to tap into," Lt.-Col.
Kampmann
> > said.
> >
> > For his part, Brigadier-General Jim Hanson, a military analyst for the
> > Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, is worried that Lt.-Col.
> > Kampmann‘s plan to disband and amalgamate some historic combat regiments
is
> > wrong-minded.
> >
> > "It would be devastating," the general said, adding it would only result
in
> > the loss of a militia soldiers‘ regimental pride, and ultimately the
> > willingness to serve.
> >
> > "Soldiers don‘t join the reserves, they join a regiment. You can‘t take
the
> > 48th Highlanders of Canada and suddenly try to turn them into [Toronto
> > Scottish soldiers]," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said.
> >
> > "They‘d all quit!"
> >
> > Lt.-Col. Brian Hodgson, the commander of The South Alberta Light Horse,
one
> > of the "viable" regiments, agrees. "Under no circumstances would I
consider
> > retraining my regiment into some postal corps," he said, adding that he
> > believes the majority of his soldiers would feel the same way. "I‘m
> > worried," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said, "that if things keep going the way
they
> > look like they‘re going, that Canada isn‘t going to have a militia. Not
one
> > to speak of, anyway."
> >
> > NON-VIABLE REGIMENTS:
> >
> > St. John‘s 1st Battalion of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service
> > Battalion Sydney 35 Medical Company Saint John 31 Service Battalion, 3
> > Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Montreal 3 Field Engineer
Regiment,
> > 51 Service Battalion Ottawa 2 Intelligence Platoon Kingston Princess of
> > Wales‘ Own Regiment Toronto 2 Intelligence Company, 2 Field Engineer
> > Regiment London 22 Service Battalion Windsor 21 Military Police Platoon,
21
> > Service Battalion Sudbury 2 Irish Regiment of Canada North Bay Algonquin
> > Regiment, 26 Service Battalion Sault Ste. Marie 49 Field Regiment Royal
> > Canadian Artillery Thunder Bay Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, 18
Service
> > Battalion Kenora 116 Independent Field Battery Winnipeg Queen‘s Own
Cameron
> > Highlanders, Royal Winnipeg Rifles, 17 Medical Company, 17 Service
> > Battalion Brandon 26 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Regina 10
> > Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, Royal Regina Rifles, 16 Medical
> > Company, 16 Service Battalion Calgary 33 Field Engineer Squadron
Edmonton
> > 15 Medical Company, 20 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, 15
Service
> > Battalion, 8 Field Engineer Regiment, 6 Intelligence Company Lethbridge
18
> > Air Defence Regiment Vancouver Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, 12
Service
> > Battalion Victoria Canadian Scottish Regiment, 11 Service Battalion
> >
> > Michael O‘Leary
> >
> > Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
> > http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
> >
> > Leadership is the practical application of character. - Colonel R.
> > Meinertzhagen, CBE, DSO, Army Diary, 1899-1926, 1960
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com> on Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:36:21 -0800
If my anecdotal old experience means anything: come disbandments of
units "they won‘t walk across the parade square". In late 1964 there was
a sudden major purge of units across Canada. One very viable regiment
was the 19th Alberta Dragoons headquartered in Edmonton. At least two
full squadrons and RHQ in Southside Edmonton and other squadrons
elsewhere. One field officer, some junior officers and Sr NCOs
transferred to other units. Only ONE Cpl. and NO Privates before the
days of MCpls transferred anywhere. And not that there weren‘t
vacancies. The Militia had just gone through about 5 years of a focus on
National Survival training sitting in the back of duce and a halfs
within mobile support columns expected to reenter built up areas after
the Bomb had dropped without doing real damage. Consequently, members
had left in droves and most units were crying for members and nothing
changed, it just got worse. There were jobs on civvy street,
girlfriends and wives to pacify, weekend mornings to sleep in, and all
just turned the page and got on with their lives and never looked back.
1964 - 2000, what‘s the dif?
Gunner wrote:
>
> Mike, the comments by The National Posts James Cudmore only tell part of
> the story and I could speak on this issues for hours. However, a couple
> of comments:
>
> A Res F unit being termed non-viable is simply a snapshot of the unit at
> that particular time. The results quoted by James Cudmore are simply
> the third year of the three year evaluation process used by LFRR. And
> finally, each Land Force Area interpretated the guidelines of the
> Evaluation differently, therefore units in SQFT were judged differently
> from units in LFWA. Did you not notice that there are no French
> Canadian Units listed - they used different interpretation of the LFRR
> criteria...does that mean the Royal Montreal Regt will be moved to
> Winnipeg as the Royal Wpg Rifles were non-vialble...of course not. As
> another example, all the units in 41 CBG Alberta Based failed because
> their CBG HQ failed to manage their budget properly not the units
> fault, however, they pay the price.
>
> To answer your questions:
>
> 1. Attrition - Attrition is a problem in the Res F and its causes are
> many....component transfers to the Reg F, family commitments, education
> commitments, work commitments, boring unit and summer trg i think this
> is one of the biggest, Res F units are caught in a rut always trying
> to recruit and then they leave as the trg is boring. Esprit de Corps
> manifests itself in alot of ways, take yourself as an example, stressing
> your roots with the PL Fus. You know very well the AC/NC challenges the
> Res F must face and the burden it places on the Reg F. This is a
> difficult topic. As an aside the Reg F is now grappling with the
> attrition problem in its units that rivals the Res F problems...30
> attrition rate.
>
> 2. I hope our political masters approve the changes or at least bless a
> strategic direction for the Reserves. The trouble is most of the
> Infantry units that will be disbanded and reroled will be in Ontario,
> which is a liberal stronghold. There is a election coming in
> 2001...will the liberals want to cause that type of negetive media ie
> the Toronto Scottish struck from the order of battle? The Army reg
> and res have to decide what they want each component to do and use each
> of their strenths and weaknesses to cover off one another. The reroling
> of Res F units to CSS will help cover off an extreme weakness in the
> current Reg F structure.
>
> 3. I agree with you, I don‘t think there will be a mass exodus of
> soldiers from the unit as the reason they will remain with the military
> will remain the same. That being a part time job, extra income,
> comraderie, chance to participate with the UN and NATO. I think some of
> the older soldiers offr and NCOs will leave as they are not able to
> devote the time to rebadging. You mention the Elgins going to engr.
> Another success is the 1st AD Landark and Renfrew Regt...I think they
> reroled well to Arty and maintained their scottish roots.
>
> No one in the Res F will deny the Res F needs to be restructured unit
> closures, amalgamation, etc, however, there is so much mistrust in the
> Res Community towards the Reg F, I admire the work of R2000 and the
> Council of HCols in pushing this issue although I don‘t necessarily
> agree with them. The Res have never been treated as an equal partner
> in the CF. Although the Reg F has been underfunded for years, the Res F
> has been chronically underfunded. To simply say the Res are a waste of
> money doesn‘t take into the fact they were ignored for years by the Reg
> F and we now must make some painful decisions. The Navy, Airforce and
> DISO are way ahead of the Army with a true "Total Force", its high time
> the army did the same and became "One Army".
>
> Gunner sends....
>
> Michael O‘Leary wrote:
> >
> > The following story about possible restructure and re-roling of Reserve
> > regiments is from the National Post website. Setting the emotional
> > outbursts aside, I offer the following obssrvations/questions for
> > consideration:
> >
> > 1. If Reserve soldiers join "a Regiment" rather than seek jobs, and esprit
> > de corps is "so high" because of the "Regimental System", why is there such
> > a high attrition rate?
> >
> > 2. If our political masters intend to force some degree of change, is not
> > reroling or amalagamtion better than risking disbandment? It‘s not exactly
> > a new experience in our Army, historically, the norm is amalgamation,
> > renaming, reroling and change.
> >
> > 3. If individual unit pride is so high that mass resignations are
> > predicted as likely, than how did the Elgin Regiment survive reroling to
> > Engineers?
> >
> > I‘m not lokikng to start a fight, just thinking out loud. I do realize
> > we‘ve covered much of this ground before. But if this becomes inevitable,
> > are the Regiments preparing back-up plans to maintain unit histories and
> > ties through an era of change? Or do they plan to go down with the ship to
> > use a Senior Service metaphor, leaving the troops who wish to continue
> > serving without leadership.
> >
> > Fideleter PLFus, 1979-82
> > Pro Patria The RCR, 1983 - present
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > *******************************
> >
> > Saturday, March 25, 2000
> >
> > Historic regiments face support roles
> >
> > James Cudmore
> > National Post, with files from The Canadian Press
> >
> >
> > Members of Vancouver‘s Seaforth Highlanders show off their battle-readiness
> > during the Second World War. The regiment is one of 41 judged unfit for
> > combat in a recent evaluation.
> >
> > ...Royal Newfoundland Regiment did not.
> >
> > South Alberta Light Horse passed muster...
> >
> > EDMONTON - The Department of National Defence is preparing to do away with
> > some of its historic combat regiments in favour of units trained in public
> > relations, the Internet and civil affairs, according to a new army plan.
> >
> > Under the Land Forces Reserve Restructuring LFRR plan, army units that
> > have failed to balance their budgets, recruit and retain their soldiers, or
> > adequately prepare them for battle are facing the possibility of losing
> > their historic roles in favour of newer, non-combat jobs.
> >
> > In addition, regiments that fail to pass an army viability evaluation might
> > be disbanded and lose their celebrated histories and traditions altogether.
> >
> > A report released this week detailed the military‘s new viability
> > evaluations and revealed that as many as 41 of 139 army reserve regiments
> > across the country were classified as non-viable, including Vancouver‘s
> > Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and the 1st Battalion of The Royal
> > Newfoundland Regiment.
> >
> > The evaluations considered a unit‘s size, its soldiers‘ collective and
> > individual skills, and tasks such as providing soldiers for natural
> > disasters. Army commanders also judged the regiments‘ ability to recruit
> > and retain soldiers.
> >
> > A similar report last year described 36 units as non-viable. That poor
> > showing prompted Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, to kick the reserve
> > restructuring plan into high gear.
> >
> > The plan, which has yet to be approved by the minister, will dramatically
> > alter the shape of the Canadian militia. It calls for a restructuring of
> > brigade formations to provide a more seamless mix between reserve regiments
> > and their regular forces counterparts so that reserves would primarily
> > provide service and support functions.
> >
> > "What we‘re looking at is a transformation in the army reserves," said
> > Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Kampmann, director of the reserve restructuring
> > plan. "Changing them from a combat focus to a focus on support."
> >
> > Traditionally, units such as the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, The Royal Regina
> > Rifles, the Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders or the Canadian Scottish
> > Regiment trained their citizen-soldiers in the art of infantry battle.
> >
> > But under LFRR, these storied regiments will lose that role, and instead
> > train in logistics, public affairs, postal delivery, civilian liaison or
> > perhaps Web page design, the colonel said.
> >
> > In fact, the idea of changing the function of the reserve force from a
> > combat-oriented role to a support role has been the subject of much
> > conjecture since the Special Committee on Restructuring the Reserves issued
> > its ****son report in 1995.
> >
> > The report called for the military to commit more resources to the reserves
> > and to reconsider how best they might be employed.
> >
> > As the Canadian Forces are called upon to do more with less, Lt.-Col.
> > Kampmann said, the reserves are playing an even more vital role in the
> > country‘s defence policy.
> >
> > As early as 1991, all overseas operations conducted by the Canadian Forces,
> > including Bosnia, Somalia and, most recently, Kosovo, required soldiers
> > from reserve regiments.
> >
> > "In order for the regular force to meet its full mobilization requirements
> > ... we have to depend on the reserves to provide us with additional or
> > supplementary forces," said Lt.-Col. Kampmann.
> >
> > "But the new concept is complimentary capability.
> >
> > "There‘s a heck of a lot of high- tech expertise in the Canadian public,
> > and we would like our reserves to be able to tap into," Lt.-Col. Kampmann
> > said.
> >
> > For his part, Brigadier-General Jim Hanson, a military analyst for the
> > Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, is worried that Lt.-Col.
> > Kampmann‘s plan to disband and amalgamate some historic combat regiments is
> > wrong-minded.
> >
> > "It would be devastating," the general said, adding it would only result in
> > the loss of a militia soldiers‘ regimental pride, and ultimately the
> > willingness to serve.
> >
> > "Soldiers don‘t join the reserves, they join a regiment. You can‘t take the
> > 48th Highlanders of Canada and suddenly try to turn them into [Toronto
> > Scottish soldiers]," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said.
> >
> > "They‘d all quit!"
> >
> > Lt.-Col. Brian Hodgson, the commander of The South Alberta Light Horse, one
> > of the "viable" regiments, agrees. "Under no circumstances would I consider
> > retraining my regiment into some postal corps," he said, adding that he
> > believes the majority of his soldiers would feel the same way. "I‘m
> > worried," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said, "that if things keep going the way they
> > look like they‘re going, that Canada isn‘t going to have a militia. Not one
> > to speak of, anyway."
> >
> > NON-VIABLE REGIMENTS:
> >
> > St. John‘s 1st Battalion of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service
> > Battalion Sydney 35 Medical Company Saint John 31 Service Battalion, 3
> > Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Montreal 3 Field Engineer Regiment,
> > 51 Service Battalion Ottawa 2 Intelligence Platoon Kingston Princess of
> > Wales‘ Own Regiment Toronto 2 Intelligence Company, 2 Field Engineer
> > Regiment London 22 Service Battalion Windsor 21 Military Police Platoon, 21
> > Service Battalion Sudbury 2 Irish Regiment of Canada North Bay Algonquin
> > Regiment, 26 Service Battalion Sault Ste. Marie 49 Field Regiment Royal
> > Canadian Artillery Thunder Bay Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, 18 Service
> > Battalion Kenora 116 Independent Field Battery Winnipeg Queen‘s Own Cameron
> > Highlanders, Royal Winnipeg Rifles, 17 Medical Company, 17 Service
> > Battalion Brandon 26 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Regina 10
> > Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, Royal Regina Rifles, 16 Medical
> > Company, 16 Service Battalion Calgary 33 Field Engineer Squadron Edmonton
> > 15 Medical Company, 20 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, 15 Service
> > Battalion, 8 Field Engineer Regiment, 6 Intelligence Company Lethbridge 18
> > Air Defence Regiment Vancouver Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, 12 Service
> > Battalion Victoria Canadian Scottish Regiment, 11 Service Battalion
> >
> > Michael O‘Leary
> >
> > Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
> > http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
> >
> > Leadership is the practical application of character. - Colonel R.
> > Meinertzhagen, CBE, DSO, Army Diary, 1899-1926, 1960
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Wyn van der Schee <vandersw@cadvision.com> on Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:44:38 -0700
Those who read the article on Canada‘s Reserve Army in last Saturday‘s
National Post are aware that the Militia is at a critical point in Canada.
DND is trying its best to demolish units or trying to turn them into
platoons of second line gas station attendants.
A report on Reserve Restructuring is being prepared for the Minister of
National Defence by John Fraser, former Speaker of the House of Commons and
current Honourary Colonel of The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada. The
Seaforths, incidentally, were one of the units listed as unviable in the
National Post article.
The Minister has delayed any decision to reorganize the Militia until he
has seen Colonel Fraser‘s report. That report will be critical to the
restoration and viability of the Militia, but it is the Cabinet and the
Members of Parliament who will ultimately decide what is to happen to the
Militia in each of the 125 communities where they are located. Those MPs
have to be made aware that the Militia needs to be something more than
Office Overload for the Regular Force if it is to survive.
Reserves 2000 has sent blank mail-in cards supporting a viable,
well-equipped and adequately funded Militia that you can complete and send
to your MP, the Ministerof National Defence and the Prime Minister. They
have been sent to all Honourary Colonels with a request to make them
available to unit members. Please obtain copies locally and send them in.
If you can not get them through your Honourary Colonel, call Reserves 2000
in Toronto at 416-868-1186 and request copies for yourself, your family and
your friends. The life of the Militia is surely worth the cost of one
long-distance phone call. Call at night and leave a message if you want a
cheap call rate.
Canada needs a strong Reserve Army and the politicians need to be made
aware of the need.
Wyn van der Schee
403-253-4585
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Patrick Cain <patrickcain@snappingturtle.net> on Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:19:23 -0500
At 19:44 27/03/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Those who read the article on Canada‘s Reserve Army in last Saturday‘s
>National Post are aware that the Militia is at a critical point in Canada.
>DND is trying its best to demolish units or trying to turn them into
>platoons of second line gas station attendants.
I am unable to resist pointing out that the Post‘s story was beaten by a
long clean day by Canada‘s national wire service, The Canadian Press. CP‘s
article, which contained a full list of this year‘s list of non-viable
units later re-used, with acknowledgement, in the Post‘s article,
appeared Friday morning in papers in Halifax and Winnipeg, on the Web sites
of the Globe and Mail and National Post, and and in adapted forms in the
Winnipeg Free Press and the Kingston Whig-Standard.
Patrick Cain
voice: 416 539-0939
fax: 416 515-3698
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Rhett <lawson@cclacbrome.qc.ca> on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:52:35 -0500
Go for it!!!!!!
Rhett Lawson
Wyn van der Schee wrote:
> Those who read the article on Canada‘s Reserve Army in last Saturday‘s
> National Post are aware that the Militia is at a critical point in Canada.
> DND is trying its best to demolish units or trying to turn them into
> platoons of second line gas station attendants.
>
> A report on Reserve Restructuring is being prepared for the Minister of
> National Defence by John Fraser, former Speaker of the House of Commons and
> current Honourary Colonel of The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada. The
> Seaforths, incidentally, were one of the units listed as unviable in the
> National Post article.
>
> The Minister has delayed any decision to reorganize the Militia until he
> has seen Colonel Fraser‘s report. That report will be critical to the
> restoration and viability of the Militia, but it is the Cabinet and the
> Members of Parliament who will ultimately decide what is to happen to the
> Militia in each of the 125 communities where they are located. Those MPs
> have to be made aware that the Militia needs to be something more than
> Office Overload for the Regular Force if it is to survive.
>
> Reserves 2000 has sent blank mail-in cards supporting a viable,
> well-equipped and adequately funded Militia that you can complete and send
> to your MP, the Ministerof National Defence and the Prime Minister. They
> have been sent to all Honourary Colonels with a request to make them
> available to unit members. Please obtain copies locally and send them in.
> If you can not get them through your Honourary Colonel, call Reserves 2000
> in Toronto at 416-868-1186 and request copies for yourself, your family and
> your friends. The life of the Militia is surely worth the cost of one
> long-distance phone call. Call at night and leave a message if you want a
> cheap call rate.
>
> Canada needs a strong Reserve Army and the politicians need to be made
> aware of the need.
>
> Wyn van der Schee
> 403-253-4585
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:17:09 -0800
>DND is trying its best to demolish units or trying to turn them into platoons
of second line gas station attendants.
There‘s nothing like hyperbole to destroy the last shred of reasoned debate.
>The Minister has delayed any decision to reorganize the Militia until he has
seen Colonel Fraser‘s report. That report will be critical to the restoration
and viability of the Militia,
It will? Pardon my scepticism, but wasn‘t the SCRR report supposed to have the
same impact?
>but it is the Cabinet and the Members of Parliament who will ultimately decide
what is to happen to the Militia in each of the 125 communities where they are
located.
Herein lies a problem. Extend this attitude to encompass the Regular Force, and
the entire CF becomes nothing more than a pork barrel. The Militia should not
simply exist for the sake of itself, and if its structure is not driven by
military requirements, then by what? Decisions at the political level should be
no more than affirmation of recommendations made by the military - regular and
reserve.
>Those MPs have to be made aware that the Militia needs to be something more
than Office Overload for the Regular Force if it is to survive.
So, what exactly is "something more"? Before we became "Office Overload", we
were something less, and next to useless. I have yet to see anyone offer a
reasonable counterproposal to the half-baked plan floated last year which
envisioned a downsizing of combat arms and upsizing of combat support and
service support. What exactly do we go to the MPs with - a suggestion that we
spend money we don‘t have to build up a combat support and service support
structure that justifies the existing combat arms, or a suggestion that we
simply return to the good old days of training without validation and structure
without reason?
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Patrick Cain <patrickcain@snappingturtle.net> on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:49:21 -0500
At 11:17 28/03/2000 -0800, Bradley Sallows wrote:
>Decisions at the political level should be
>no more than affirmation of recommendations made by the military - regular
and
>reserve.
>
That‘s very problematical. The people ultimately responsible to the public
for the Canadian Forces are the PM and the MND. If their job is only to
affirm recommendations, then there‘s no point in having a defence minister
the job could be done by a signature machine.
Patrick Cain
voice: 416 539-0939
fax: 416 515-3698
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:37:22 -0800
>>Decisions at the political level should be
>>no more than affirmation of recommendations made by the military - regular
and
>>reserve.
>>
>That‘s very problematical. The people ultimately responsible to the public
>for the Canadian Forces are the PM and the MND. If their job is only to
>affirm recommendations, then there‘s no point in having a defence minister
Sure there is. Not all decisions are beyond the ken of a MND. I‘m specifically
talking about restructure here. Canadian politicians with detailed knowledge of
military matters and the CF are rare, and I haven‘t seen one in the MND‘s chair
lately in fact, I haven‘t seen one occupy the chair long enough to become
knowledgeable. It would make as much sense to have, say, a plumber be elected
to parliament, be appointed Minister of Finance, and start dictating tax policy.
Try it another way: if the MND isn‘t going to go with the recommendations of his
military advisors on military matters, why have any military advisors? Reserve
restructure is such a political minefield that we might as well admit from the
outset there‘s no point trying to accommodate any special political interests
and go ahead and make the decisions based on purely military considerations.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Patrick Cain <patrickcain@snappingturtle.net> on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:19:28 -0500
At 12:37 28/03/2000 -0800, Bradley Sallows wrote:
>Try it another way: if the MND isn‘t going to go with the recommendations
of his
>military advisors on military matters, why have any military advisors?
When you ask someone for advice, do you commit yourself to following
whatever they say? Of course not. Advice is advice, and recommendations are
recommendations. If you *have* to follow recommendations, then they are
really instructions: it‘s like the constitutional fiction of the Queen
being advised by her ministers. If the MND *has* to follow instructions
from his subordinates, then there is no point in the office existing, and
meaningful civil control over the military may be said to have ended.
Patrick Cain
voice: 416 539-0939
fax: 416 515-3698
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:24:26 -0800
Perhaps the discussion can be redirected without digressing too far into the
traditional roles of advisor and advised.
It was stated that Cabinet and the MPs will decide the fate of Militia. I
countered that such decisions specifically those pertaining to reserve
restructure should affirm the military‘s recommendations - notwithstanding
everything you correctly say about advisors and advice, Patrick.
This does not exclude the politicians from exercising judgement, but I am
suggesting it would be best if they employed minimal to no discretion since I
believe that on this particular issue Cabinet and the MPs are incapable of
making even a wild-*** guess as to what would best suit the needs of the CF.
Whatever military good sense they might display will be occluded by a cloud of
political self-service.
I fully realize that the recommendations of the military regular and reserve
will be affected by military politics, but I would rather see the process
command-driven based on force structure and needs.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by james.hanna@ca.pwcglobal.com on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:49:24 -0500
As someone who is currently in a combat arms reserve unit the Black Watch I
can tell you that
if we were rebadged to something else especially if it was not a combat arms
then virtually the entire
men‘s mess, myself included, would walk. For myself, I already have a load of
committements work, family, etc
which pressure me not to show up on a weekend ex, and have hit a point where I
will probably release from
the military soon. However, these pressures were there for the last four years,
since I started work. Why
didn‘t I release sooner? Because I enjoy being in the infantry. Not in the CF,
but in the infantry and in particular
the Black Watch I enjoy going out on an ex and pushing myself, and learning how
to lead. I can‘t say that I am
great at it, or even good at it, and lord knows, I have to get myself in better
physical shape if I want to keep doing this -
but I do it because it challanges me. **** , I‘m a CA - and I‘ve been offered
the finance clerk position at the unit - and
I‘ve turned it down, because that‘s not why I‘m in the army. And its not why my
mates are in the army.
Just my opinion.....
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by edward@IslandNet.com on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:39:15 (PST)
It is apparent from the discussions in this forum that members are concerned and very interested in the outcome of reserve restructure. I am firmly of the opinion that the Army Reserve is broken and needs fixing, however I have yet to see any proposal eminating from NDHQ that addresses this issue meaningfully.
The proposals to date will not work because the structural conditions which have lead to the weakening of the Army Reserve have not been discussed, and little has been done to fix them. I encourage all of you to visit the Reserves 2000 website www.saveourreserves.com where an excellent rebuttal of the VCDS paper "Rethinking the Total Force" is found.
It is a useless exercise to imagine that simply reroling or amalgamating units into CSS is going to solve our problems. As many on this list have already observed, they joined their particular unit because of the esprit de corps associated with their units, the truly identify with the Regimental System. I find it difficult to believe that the 6th Battalion of the 521st Laundry Regiment will inspire the type of loyalty that many of our historic regiments do.
A partial list of observations in no particular order
- Does anyone else find it odd that the proposals being floated by NDHQ for the Reserve are similar to what has happened to the USAR? The USAR has been retooled to being almost entirely CSS, however, Canada‘s Army Reserve is more like the Army National Guard in terms of service. The Army National Guard has seen an increase in the combat arms roles and equipment in the last 15 years - not the opposite.
- If rerolling to CSS is the objective, is it not fair to say that the range of skills and knowledge found in a CSS unit would require skilled recruits, many of them allready established in their civilian trades? If so how will the Army Reserve make CSS attractive to semi skilled applicants how will the Army Reserve retain skilled applicants in the CSS once they realize that the current AC/NC course structure caters to high school students and not the skilled applicants.
- Senior Reserve Leadership. Centralized training establishments may have inadvertently killed most opportunities for senior reservists to learn to command anything beyond pl size. Under the old though flawed NRQS system many reservists were able to polish their leadership skills as they held senior NRQS positions such as OC, RSM, CSM etc. With the senior positions at the centralized training establishments now mostly held by Regs, the few opportunities left for reservists to learn the art of command are at the Brigade HQ‘s.
- Army Reserve units do not regularly conduct combined arms training. Infantry, Artillery, CSS, Armour, etc all pursue their own unit training plans without co-ordination or co-operation with each other - this within the context of Reserve Brigades. This has the net effect of encouraging parochialism. Reserve units concentrate on matters pertaining to their own corps and because units do not have an established pattern of working together in the field or otherwise, we are often ineffective in working together to protect ourselves.
Enough ranting for now
Comments?
Ted Underhill
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com> on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:35:34 -0800
Brad, not quite up to your usual high standards of debate grin:
For starters, the Feds could get the money for DND if they‘d stop
spending money on the useless gun control measures. Hand guns have been
required to be registered for decades, and although I favour their
continued registration albeit with what little results the idea of
registering shot guns and single shot bolt action rifles is a complete
no-brainer, blah blah, blah. HRDC waste, etc, ad infinitum., I digress.
Trouble is, "we" haven‘t been going to our MPs with anything in the way
of public backed support and that‘s why there is no money. I took Wyn‘s
advice and phoned for a set of reply cards 30 to pass around at a
meeting this coming weekend. They are being sent to me my Priority Post
hope they get here, that‘s another government renown for its
efficiency. So let‘s ALL do something similar - if WE don‘t then it‘s
no use complaining in the future.
Bradley Sallows wrote:
to be fair, snip
> What exactly do we go to the MPs with - a suggestion that we
> spend money we don‘t have ....
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com> on Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:59:08 -0800
Tell that to Lois Hole the Lt. Gov. of Alta.check the CP story first
then HCol Black‘s chain if you must. She wasn‘t too happy with some guy
named Bill 11 working for Ralph Klein.
Patrick Cain wrote:
> it‘s like the constitutional fiction of the Queen
> being advised by her ministers.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Rhett <lawson@cclacbrome.qc.ca> on Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:04:31 -0500
Hello James
Very well said, it is the essence of why anyone joins a particular unit and sticks
with it, it is the driving force behind the Militia. In fact I do recall when the
Victoria Rifles One of Canada‘s Oldest Regiments was struck from the order of
battle, of the members of the unit, only 10 went to another, the others all retired,
having lost their enthusiasm.
Let us all hope that some semblance of intelligence will prevail and we will in fact
find that our future is not determined by a Uniformed Civil Servant who must balance
a budget.
Rhett Lawson
james.hanna@ca.pwcglobal.com wrote:
> As someone who is currently in a combat arms reserve unit the Black Watch I
> can tell you that
> if we were rebadged to something else especially if it was not a combat arms
> then virtually the entire
> men‘s mess, myself included, would walk. For myself, I already have a load of
> committements work, family, etc
> which pressure me not to show up on a weekend ex, and have hit a point where I
> will probably release from
> the military soon. However, these pressures were there for the last four years,
> since I started work. Why
> didn‘t I release sooner? Because I enjoy being in the infantry. Not in the CF,
> but in the infantry and in particular
> the Black Watch I enjoy going out on an ex and pushing myself, and learning how
> to lead. I can‘t say that I am
> great at it, or even good at it, and lord knows, I have to get myself in better
> physical shape if I want to keep doing this -
> but I do it because it challanges me. **** , I‘m a CA - and I‘ve been offered
> the finance clerk position at the unit - and
> I‘ve turned it down, because that‘s not why I‘m in the army. And its not why my
> mates are in the army.
>
> Just my opinion.....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
> review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
> in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca> on Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:36:51 -0700
Well we‘ve all myself included have bitched, whined and complained this
problem pretty much to death. Lets turn our thoughts to getting inside the
decision making process of the enemy for lack of a better term - no
disloyalty intended.
What if we were to, collectively, generate a clear question that would then
be asked to the members of our respective units hopefully by an outsider so
as to prevent a charge of mutiny to determine how many troops would
re-badge to a non-combat arms unit if directed to do so by DND.
It‘s not Angus Reid, but at least that way the decision makers would be
acting on positive data and debates on both sides would be centered around
real data and not merely the anecdotal evidence we see here -- in short we
have to get our collective poop grouped on this issue or we could be dog
meat.
What‘s everyone think and who wants to start the pool on how long it takes
you-know-who to get back on his horse.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:49:51 -0800
>Trouble is, "we" haven‘t been going to our MPs with anything in the way of
public backed support and that‘s why there is no money.
I think the money is there, if it‘s spent more efficiently. Simply lobbying for
more money will achieve little when competing with health care and social
benefits lobbies.
Reserves 2000 is chiefly concerned with preserving the infantry and, to a lesser
extent, the armour. There‘s nothing wrong with that, but it‘s something we
should not forget since it has caused them to situate their estimates - at
least, it stood out to me from between the lines when I read their proposal. I
disagree with a few of their assumptions and deductions.
Much of the discussion has been triggered by the fear of wholesale
reorganization from combat arms to service support. I think such an approach is
wrong, unless the project lifetime is 20 years. In addition to the literal
problem of convincing soldiers to beat their rifles into wrenches, the service
support units and training system have to prove that they can increase the
numbers of CSS soldiers. Reservists and regulars now take the same courses in
most logistical and maintenance trades, and the courses are long. I speculate
that some of the reservists with time available to attend these courses are
unemployed. How many are receiving enticements to undertake a component
transfer on completion of a course? Right now, trading combat arms for CSS is
not an option since we are most likely to end up reinforcing failure, so to
speak.
I am content with the current funding I see at my own unit. I am more concerned
that we sort out exactly what the Regular Force should be and fund it
adequately, while preserving existing reserve funding levels until such time as
we can approach reserve restructure knowing exactly what is needed to sustain,
complement, and augment the Regular Force.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

 

[army]

Posted by Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca> on Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:05:00 -0700
So - what - did I scare everyone off with my suggestion?
I can usually count on someone taking issue with a post of mine -- or is
everyone still pondering the idea...
> -----Original Message-----
> Fromerrick Forsythe [SMTPerrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca]
> Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2000 8:37 AM
> To:‘army@cipherlogic.on.ca‘
> Subject:RE: Reserve Restructure
>
> Well we‘ve all myself included have bitched, whined and complained this
> problem pretty much to death. Lets turn our thoughts to getting inside
> the
> decision making process of the enemy for lack of a better term - no
> disloyalty intended.
>
> What if we were to, collectively, generate a clear question that would
> then
> be asked to the members of our respective units hopefully by an outsider
> so
> as to prevent a charge of mutiny to determine how many troops would
> re-badge to a non-combat arms unit if directed to do so by DND.
>
> It‘s not Angus Reid, but at least that way the decision makers would be
> acting on positive data and debates on both sides would be centered around
> real data and not merely the anecdotal evidence we see here -- in short we
> have to get our collective poop grouped on this issue or we could be dog
> meat.
>
> What‘s everyone think and who wants to start the pool on how long it takes
> you-know-who to get back on his horse.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.