{"id":44877,"date":"2018-09-13T05:00:11","date_gmt":"2018-09-13T09:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=44877"},"modified":"2018-09-12T11:57:17","modified_gmt":"2018-09-12T15:57:17","slug":"the-canadian-forces-are-suffering-from-obesity-in-leadership-and-staff","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2018\/09\/13\/the-canadian-forces-are-suffering-from-obesity-in-leadership-and-staff\/","title":{"rendered":"The Canadian Forces are suffering from obesity … in leadership and staff"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ted Campbell<\/a> responds to requests to explain what he feels the Canadian Forces should do about our far-too-large military headquarters buttprint:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

… let\u2019s consider the command and control (C\u00b2) superstructure. I\u2019m going to continue to argue that it is beyond \u201cfat,\u201d it is, now, morbidly obese and that condition actually poses a danger to our national defence. Too many cooks do spoil the broth and Canada has too many admirals and generals […] without enough real \u2018work\u2019 to keep them all productively busy; so they send each other e-mails and fabricate crises for their own HQ to solve and, generally, just make a nuisance of themselves. Fewer admiral and generals (and Navy captains and Army and RCAF colonels) will be busier and more productive and less dangerous.<\/p>\n

I have a couple of concrete suggestions:<\/p>\n

Start by reducing the rank of the Chief of the Defence Staff from four stars (admiral or general) to three stars, vice admiral or lieutenant general. We only have something like 65,000 regular force military members and 25,000 reserve force members. In about 1960 the Canadian Army, alone, had nearly 50,000 regular force members and something like 30,000 in the militia (reserve army) and it was commanded by one lieutenant general. Now, some will argue that times have changed and increased complexity means that higher ranks are needed. I call bullsh!t!<\/strong> The Israeli Defence Forces, today, has over 175,000 full time members and over 400,000 in reserve. Gadi Eizenkot, the Chief of Staff of the IDF holds the rank of Rav Aluf<\/em> ~ lieutenant general, and he is the only Israeli officer to hold that high a rank. Now, let\u2019s play a little mind game \u2026 suppose you are (four star) General Joseph Dunford of the United States Marine Corps, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the most senior officer in the world\u2019s most powerful military; now suppose, also, that your phone is ringing off the hook for some reason and your aide calls in on the intercom and says, \u201cI have (four star) General Vance of Canada on line 1 and (three star) Rav Aluf<\/em> Eizenkotof Israel on line 2, sir.\u201d Which line does General Dunford pick up? Of course he isn\u2019t impressed by Canadian General Jonathan Vance\u2019s four stars; but he is mightily impressed by the size and power of the force that answers to three star Lieutenant General Eizenkot. <\/p>\n

The argument that we need a four star CDS just because everyone else has one is specious \u2026 it\u2019s rubbish. The Americans have several four star admirals and generals, they also have over 1\u00bc million active duty military personnel and 10 aircraft carriers and over 4,000 nuclear weapons. India has has a few four star officers, the Indian Army, with over 1 million regular, professional troops and with almost 1 million reserve soldiers, has one, only one, four star general. Canada does not need any four star officers on a regular basis \u2026 our lieutenant generals, vice admirals, rear admirals and so on, including Navy captains and Army colonels may all need generous pay raises but they do not need more gold on their shoulders and sleeves. Canada got its first four star officer back during World War II, when we had over 1 million men and women under arms. The rank returned in 1951, after our main allies, America (in 1947) and Britain (in 1939) established unified Chiefs of Staff<\/em> committees to coordinate joint operations, when General Charles Foulkes was appointed to the post, which he would hold for almost a decade. Lowering the rank to three stars (vice admiral or lieutenant general) and raising the pay, would set a good example for the rest of the military and, indeed for all of government, in setting senior executive compensation, including perquisites<\/em>, and status at reasonable levels.<\/p>\n

Another thing, which I have mentioned before, is that back in the 1960s, when Defence Minister Paul Hellyer was upsetting every apple cart he and his team decided that the best way to set ranks and pay was to \u201cbenchmark\u201d some military jobs with civil service equivalents. Now, in the civil service the appointment of \u201cdirector\u201d is, usually, the lowest level of executive ~ it is the point where technical expertise meets up with broader government wide responsibility and accountability, \u2018ranks\u2019 below that are specialists, ranks above it are, increasingly generalists. Now, anyone who knows much of anything about the military will agree that the first executive level in the Canadian Armed Forces is the captain of a major warship (a frigate, say) or the commanding officer of an Army regiment or battalion or of an Air Force squadron. Those ships and units are commanded by officers in the rank of commander or lieutenant colonel but for some reason, in the mid 1960s, the Hellyer team decided, probably just an error made in haste, that Navy captain and Army colonel and RCAF group captain were the appropriate ranks for directors and some very serious rank inflation was embedded inside the Canadian Armed Forces\u2019 command and control (C\u00b2) superstructure \u2026 it\u2019s an easy enough problem to fix although it will cause some short term disruption, and it means that the officers\u2019 pay scales probably need to be reformed all the way down to the very bottom.<\/p>\n

It has always seemed to me that the hallmark of a great army, of a great defence staff, especially, is a culture of excellence<\/em>. The ranks of the staff don\u2019t matter much, the staff act of behalf and in the name of the commander they serve. In fact, in a really good staff system the chain of command is always crystal clear because the senior staff are always, without fail, lower in rank (occasionally equal to) than the subordinate commanders<\/em>. Thus, in an army corps (three or four divisions, perhaps 100,000 soldiers) the corps commander is a lieutenant general (three stars) and the subordinate commanders of divisions and of the corps artillery, are major generals (two star officers); in a proper corps the chiefs of staff<\/em> of the operations and logistics branches, who control<\/em> operations on behalf of the corps commander, are one star officers ~ brigadier generals. Ditto in the division (20,000+ soldiers) where the major general is the division commander and brigadier generals are the brigade commanders, the two chiefs of staff (operations, which includes intelligence, and logistics, which includes administration and personnel) are colonels \u2026 in each case the subordinate commanders outrank the senior staff officers. But the senior staff are listened to with great regard because they are excellent at their job and because they speak for the superior commander.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ted Campbell responds to requests to explain what he feels the Canadian Forces should do about our far-too-large military headquarters buttprint: … let\u2019s consider the command and control (C\u00b2) superstructure. I\u2019m going to continue to argue that it is beyond \u201cfat,\u201d it is, now, morbidly obese and that condition actually poses a danger to our […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35193,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,6,5],"tags":[31,448,572,214,745],"class_list":["post-44877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bureaucracy","category-cancon","category-military","tag-army","tag-canadianforces","tag-leadership","tag-rcaf","tag-rcn"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/favicon.png","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-bFP","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44877"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44877\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44881,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44877\/revisions\/44881"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35193"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}