Pages: [1] 
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Re: Afghanistan - The Royal Canadian Regiment - 2006-2007 (Read 362 times)
|
Dave Brydon
Veteran 100+ Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 196
|
I think the real issue is, and has always been, that we have a limited number of front-line combat resources available to use. All these new steps to increase manning levels are short sighted, and knee-jerk reactions.
It bothers me that we supposedly have intelligent individuals running the various shops, yet I feel they expend more energy coming up with short term, limited thinking processes to fix serious manning shortages in the CF. In my opinion, Canada should have at minimum, 20 thousands combat-arm troops available to draw upon, i.e. Infantry, Armoured, and Artillery, etc… I would really like to see more, especially in terms of infantry troops.
Even if we took away the equation of providing troops to this current war, Canada cannot support focused, and well staffed multiple UN missions abroad. Additionally, if a natural disaster happened in Canada, and/or a terrorist attack, our military would have very little resources to support recovery and clean up actions, let alone security.
Canadians always think, they’ll been fine if something happens, and it appears that more and more natural disasters are occurring around the world…our time will come. Vancouver is bound to have an earthquake, or possibly a tsunami at some point. Hell, the fast resources available to the US, were not even able to manage the New Orleans Floods, and they had a difficult time getting the resources to were they needed them the most; we have no such military machine as the US, this is obvious…so we really would be up the creek without a paddle.
The point is; we need to increase our combat troops in a positive and focused manner; should we not reinstate some of the fine infantry reserve regiments around the country, and place them back on full time service, and build their strength accordingly. We could even reinstate a regiment for a 3, or 5-year period, or as determined necessary. The idea of having local regiments is not new: in fact such an idea of keeping a regiment local may prove handy for some of us retired members, who could be utilized in training cells, store and/or office positions, etc… There is plenty of jobs in the battalions that could be filled by retired soldiers, thus allowing much younger troops to train for their tasks.
Just an idea…does anyone else feel there is any merit to this concept?
Cheers,
Dave
|
"I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom."
-George Patton
Pro Patria
|
|
|
Garbett D.K.
Hero Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 31
Pro Patria
|
I agree with the direction of your argument Dave. I tend to lean in what you may see as a more radical so;ution to the problem.
Manditory military service for all Canadians upon reaching 19 years of age or when the education cycle is completed or terminated.
Patterned after the system currently used in many of the European countries, adjusted to the reality of the vast geography we occupy, it could be a useful and sustainable system. Service to ones country is no longer based solely in the honour of the endeavour..... it is a duty.
In addition to this, is there any harm in making a recruits initial term of service exclusively combat arms? If you wish to learn a trade in the Air element, do six months of combat arms trades training....and then proceed to Borden to commence your career.
The same could also be applied to Naval and support trades. The effectivness of base defence forces would certainly not suffer because of it.
The reinstatement of a number of militia regiments and their immediate staffing to full compliment would be a good start.
But to sustain it? Manditory service and yearly qualification followed by alternating years on at least sixty days of duty with a unit in the field. This while your civilian employer holds your full time job open for your return. By law.
I am quite interestd in your opinion regarding the workability of a system such as this... any one else wishing to offer up a comment or opinion? Better yet an alternative?
Cheers Dave, Great post , had to comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Brydon
Veteran 100+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 196
|
Howdy old top <smile>
Good to hear some feedback: I think this forum is a valuable resource for all members to participate in, and provide ideas on possible solutions to our current military staffing and/or structure issues.
It would even be better if we had whiteboard capabilities, so we could collectively develop and map out a structured chart of pro’s, cons and hopefully solid targeted ideas for potential review by our military hierarchy. This sort of open discussion is similar to brainstorming, which is always good for coming up with good ideas.
I just want to reiterate that when I stated 20k combat-arms troops, I meant that we should be able to field that many troops; i.e. place that many on the ground to fight…not a paper based 20k that we may have now, with a mere 3 to 5k +/- that can possibly be fielded.
Regardless, open discussion is most welcome, and I look forward to hearing some of the reasons why we can adopt or discount the solutions put forth by Dalton, or I.
Cheers,
Dave
|
"I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom."
-George Patton
Pro Patria
|
|
|
Dave Brydon
Veteran 100+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 196
|
Perhaps this topic should have it’s own thread, and not to be confused with the informational one provided by Mike.
Additionally, it was mentioned privately, that we already utilize the reserve (militia) units… My point in this regard was; yes, we ask for volunteers from the reserves to augment positions in the regular battalions, but I was suggesting that we review the option of reinstating some reserve units to regular force units.
I think the idea of having units around the country in key cities would provide a valuable resource for various operational reasons, and certainly may prove beneficial in encouraging new troops to join and stay in their home areas.
Thoughts welcome!
|
"I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom."
-George Patton
Pro Patria
|
|
|
Garbett D.K.
Hero Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 31
Pro Patria
|
G'day Dave, how have you been?
I have often wondered why it is that a country with a population base of some thirty million souls finds it so difficult to maintain a combat effective force of at least a reasonable percentage of its populace.
Given the current world situation, this topic is timely.... yet the problem is systemic and is older and rooted far deeper than our time.
Solutions to this problem are currently limited... anything done to increase staffing during conflict will most likely be used by one or more political parties to score points and make political hay fear mongering.
Did this not just happen??
I seem to recall a newspaper headline, "Armed troops on the streets of Canadian cities".
Alarming. Except for the fact that they were our troops being discuss. Political spin doctors from the NDP scored heavily with this twist in the story. A story that went on to suggest we increase the strength of the Militia units within major Canadian cities to aid primairily with civil emergency.
Hamstrung by the politic of the moment!!!
I think its a great idea. I think it is prudent (given climactic and geographic emergency) and necessary (given the openly stated tactical goal of our enemy).
Having gotten that off my mind, 20k is a fine start Dave. It is a numeric target that can be easily reached, the structure is already in place to support it and the decomissioned units you mention would relish reactivation to regular force status.
My idea, pertaining to manditory service will not work.
It has been pointed out, privately also, that it rings of conscription at this point.
Maybe so.
It was also pointed out, by a second private opinion, that it would be expensive to initiate.
A completely new structure would have to be created from the top down. Though the model exists elsewhere its implimentation here would meet a brick wall of resistance.
Absolutely so.
The alternative however is increased time in rotation of our combat arms branch. The Americans discovered this a few years ago. The Russian 140th years before that. We only recently came to this realization.
A seed change is necessary. I don't think we have reached the point on a national level Dave to support this. Yet.
Given some of what I have read regarding recent arms procurements world wide... soon perhaps...
Cheers Dave.
"Old top" is it now??? The truth hurts man!! White suits me though.. winter cam.. LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2593
|
Dave; Well i thoiught thats what you meant in the first place. Reform now disbanded Reserve units, especially those of the old guard ,so to speak, who still have a very stronglocal following wherever they are. i also agree with D.K. that in all likelihood it will run inot a gobbeldy goop of political hassling.. but it is i believe , avery intelligent way to go..for a lot of the reasons you two have stated..ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged