My recent experience is that "Fighting a Modern War" means:
a) lying about attacked warships, babies-in-incubators, or WMDs to get one started;
b) fighting to prop up a corrupt, murderous regime that you wouldn't let your kids grow up in;
c) spending more on it than the GDP of the country invaded; (in Afghanistan 3X as much)
d) spending most of the money at home on comically overpriced weapons systems;
e) lying for 10 years (Iraq) or 20 years (Afghanistan) about how it was going well;
f) losing to rice-paddy farmers, shopkeepers with garage-door openers, or goatherds.
...I would rather NOT subject any young, idealistic Canadians to that nightmare. Thanks.
We need to change our whole concept of "fighting" to fit a modern world with nukes, and where every non-nuke nation knows that the "Sixteen Character Formula" (google that and "Gwynne Dyer") works against even the most-powerful attackers. Americans got 10X *better* at fighting in Afghanistan, because of their amazing drone and surveillance improvements...and even THAT didn't make any difference.
We need our smartest strategic-level thinkers working on the problem: What does effective, useful, meaningful "fighting" look like in this century? The military themselves, have utterly failed us. Not their fault: they're brave and smart - it's the world that has changed around them.
Thank you for this informative article. It’s too easy for CFC critics to posture and present simplistic pictures. As Richard has stated, let’s become better educated on Canada’s military before becoming armchair critics.
This professor is indicative that the cure is worse than the disease. Academia is where progressive b.s. thrives, and unfortunately for Tommy and others, it's infected our very institutions which our nation was built upon.
Wow. Listening to a CFC professor brag about helping people "think outside of their professional boxes" and at the same time talking about how great and important OPP (operational planning process) is.... well, calling that a contradiction could never do it justice. It shows just how far removed he is from reality, which I suppose should be expected......
I have watched for 13 years how OPP has rendered our Battalions, Brigades, and Divisions completely and utterly useless, completely withdrawn from reality, taking 2 months, 18 COAs, and 100 pages to draft an administrative road move order.... all because their face is so deep into OPP they can't think outside the Powerpoint slides let alone outside the box. I'm sure he can tell you all the textbook benefits of OPP, but has never ever in his life seen what it looks like when units and brigades actually try to put it into practice. It's enough to make you cry.
I'm with Tommy.
-Signed, a very recently retired Captain who had spent the last 8 years in a Battalions, Divisional, and Brigade Headquarters.
My take away from this discussion is the importance of a quality education. And that partisan squabbling is not the path to the most effective development and use of knowledge.
I'm a bit old school, someone who has spent many hours in classrooms on both sides of the front desk, I favour the notion of core curriculum. I have no acquaintance with military education. But that's my point, the police & military are essential institutions in a democratic society and citizens who are ignorant of their essential roles, how they're organized, for what purposes, and where they fit in a democratic society don't make for wise voters. Realism does. Flower child ideologies, ah, not so much. Understanding fundamental values and principles is crucial.
So I welcome the discussion, tolerate the squabbling, and if there must be sharp shooter sniping, make sure you hit the mark, otherwise the intended recipient may be coming back at ya truly pissed. Kind of like the fiasco unfolding in Ottawa these days. Lousy shooters, meaningless squabbling, chaos. Not sure I'd be willing to go to war for or following any of these guys (talking about the pols.) Which no doubt emboldens those who would do us harm.
A little misleading about the fighter procurement. He should know that a procurement of this nature takes quite some time under the circumstances and the previous government had moved on it when the incoming government cancelled it. Other than that informative.
Interesting debate here. Very interesting points. I don't have a firm opinion either way, really. I get what the author is saying here, but also it sounds like perhaps some of the things the military is being trained for are not really what the military is for, e.g., long-term care facilities.
As a hypothesis, perhaps what we may need for much of this is more of a civilian emergency response corps, both for domestic and international activities. And separate that from the military. Or, maybe there is a good reason to keep them together.
What I'm a bit more interested in is whether there is a measure of effectiveness of the academic education for the purposes assigned. To Conway's apparent point, there is a lot of useless 'fluff' elsewhere in academia and on paper to some it looks like some of that may have found its way into military training. It may sound good and useful, but does the education actually produce better results than other approaches to learning such as practical methodologies including live exercises and de-briefing. I know some of that is mixed in anyway, but I'm curious if the effective components are tested and measured to be more efficient and rid of the 'fluff'.
Can the Professor comment on the Potemkin Village that is the CAF Joint Capabilities? Maybe our HQ's (CJOC) are joint but nothing else is. And don't point at the Helicopter Air Detachments on HMC Ships nor the Tactical Aircraft (re Helicopters) with the Army. Real nations have those capabilities as part of the force structure (re- RN Fleet Air Arm, US Army Aviation). The 4 elements in the CAF (Army, RCAF, SOF, and RCN) are still severely stove-piped and I see nothing in our future planning, or current operations (expect in the most basic and laughably ad hoc manner) to change this reality.
Tommy Conway rues "misguided pseudo-intellectual development" and Tara Houle comments that "academia is where professional b.s. thrives".
Dr. Mitchell says that "the challenges military officers confront in contemporary missions go well beyond traditional professional knowledge".
I vote for Dr. Mitchell.
My recent experience is that "Fighting a Modern War" means:
a) lying about attacked warships, babies-in-incubators, or WMDs to get one started;
b) fighting to prop up a corrupt, murderous regime that you wouldn't let your kids grow up in;
c) spending more on it than the GDP of the country invaded; (in Afghanistan 3X as much)
d) spending most of the money at home on comically overpriced weapons systems;
e) lying for 10 years (Iraq) or 20 years (Afghanistan) about how it was going well;
f) losing to rice-paddy farmers, shopkeepers with garage-door openers, or goatherds.
...I would rather NOT subject any young, idealistic Canadians to that nightmare. Thanks.
We need to change our whole concept of "fighting" to fit a modern world with nukes, and where every non-nuke nation knows that the "Sixteen Character Formula" (google that and "Gwynne Dyer") works against even the most-powerful attackers. Americans got 10X *better* at fighting in Afghanistan, because of their amazing drone and surveillance improvements...and even THAT didn't make any difference.
We need our smartest strategic-level thinkers working on the problem: What does effective, useful, meaningful "fighting" look like in this century? The military themselves, have utterly failed us. Not their fault: they're brave and smart - it's the world that has changed around them.
Interesting article, but I still agree with Tommy.
Thank you for this informative article. It’s too easy for CFC critics to posture and present simplistic pictures. As Richard has stated, let’s become better educated on Canada’s military before becoming armchair critics.
For every yin, there’s a yang. It’s just too bad that people can’t learn about both of them before opening their mouths.
This professor is indicative that the cure is worse than the disease. Academia is where progressive b.s. thrives, and unfortunately for Tommy and others, it's infected our very institutions which our nation was built upon.
Does not sound like he addressed the issues outside of 'I am doing a good job'
Wow. Listening to a CFC professor brag about helping people "think outside of their professional boxes" and at the same time talking about how great and important OPP (operational planning process) is.... well, calling that a contradiction could never do it justice. It shows just how far removed he is from reality, which I suppose should be expected......
I have watched for 13 years how OPP has rendered our Battalions, Brigades, and Divisions completely and utterly useless, completely withdrawn from reality, taking 2 months, 18 COAs, and 100 pages to draft an administrative road move order.... all because their face is so deep into OPP they can't think outside the Powerpoint slides let alone outside the box. I'm sure he can tell you all the textbook benefits of OPP, but has never ever in his life seen what it looks like when units and brigades actually try to put it into practice. It's enough to make you cry.
I'm with Tommy.
-Signed, a very recently retired Captain who had spent the last 8 years in a Battalions, Divisional, and Brigade Headquarters.
My take away from this discussion is the importance of a quality education. And that partisan squabbling is not the path to the most effective development and use of knowledge.
I'm a bit old school, someone who has spent many hours in classrooms on both sides of the front desk, I favour the notion of core curriculum. I have no acquaintance with military education. But that's my point, the police & military are essential institutions in a democratic society and citizens who are ignorant of their essential roles, how they're organized, for what purposes, and where they fit in a democratic society don't make for wise voters. Realism does. Flower child ideologies, ah, not so much. Understanding fundamental values and principles is crucial.
So I welcome the discussion, tolerate the squabbling, and if there must be sharp shooter sniping, make sure you hit the mark, otherwise the intended recipient may be coming back at ya truly pissed. Kind of like the fiasco unfolding in Ottawa these days. Lousy shooters, meaningless squabbling, chaos. Not sure I'd be willing to go to war for or following any of these guys (talking about the pols.) Which no doubt emboldens those who would do us harm.
A little misleading about the fighter procurement. He should know that a procurement of this nature takes quite some time under the circumstances and the previous government had moved on it when the incoming government cancelled it. Other than that informative.
'Graduate-level' challenges require graduate-level thinking derived from graduate level education. Absolutely!
Interesting debate here. Very interesting points. I don't have a firm opinion either way, really. I get what the author is saying here, but also it sounds like perhaps some of the things the military is being trained for are not really what the military is for, e.g., long-term care facilities.
As a hypothesis, perhaps what we may need for much of this is more of a civilian emergency response corps, both for domestic and international activities. And separate that from the military. Or, maybe there is a good reason to keep them together.
What I'm a bit more interested in is whether there is a measure of effectiveness of the academic education for the purposes assigned. To Conway's apparent point, there is a lot of useless 'fluff' elsewhere in academia and on paper to some it looks like some of that may have found its way into military training. It may sound good and useful, but does the education actually produce better results than other approaches to learning such as practical methodologies including live exercises and de-briefing. I know some of that is mixed in anyway, but I'm curious if the effective components are tested and measured to be more efficient and rid of the 'fluff'.
Maybe there's a bit of truth in both.
Can the Professor comment on the Potemkin Village that is the CAF Joint Capabilities? Maybe our HQ's (CJOC) are joint but nothing else is. And don't point at the Helicopter Air Detachments on HMC Ships nor the Tactical Aircraft (re Helicopters) with the Army. Real nations have those capabilities as part of the force structure (re- RN Fleet Air Arm, US Army Aviation). The 4 elements in the CAF (Army, RCAF, SOF, and RCN) are still severely stove-piped and I see nothing in our future planning, or current operations (expect in the most basic and laughably ad hoc manner) to change this reality.