Pics from Op Athena

[Mortar guy]

Mortar Guy, this is my third tour and there are whiners on every one of them.  It's human nature to whine.  When I was deployed to Africa we didn't have any of the things you mentioned and we made do with what we had access to.

You've sort of proven my point with your ref to Africa. I agree that there are whiners on every tour but the difference here is that they have nothing to whine about! In Kosovo, everyone (me included) complained about the constant ankle-deep mud in our camp, the cocoa-matting showers and the lack of internet, TV or good gym facilities. Those were genuine gripes in my mind. I can't see what guys have to complain about in Julien.

To a certain extent you have fixed overhead for the NCE no matter how many troops you have in theatre. So, where do you want to cut?  HSS, ASIC, NCCIS?  How about the NCE proper? PSO, PAO, etc.  I don't have any problem some of this stuff but other people in theatre would.  You mention Recce and Inf, but what about all the other slices you don't quote (NSE, CANCAP, CFPSA, etc, etc, etc).  Again, the actual NCE HQ proper is only about 40 personnel (cut out all the multinational staff (ie PBI), MPs, CIMIC, NCCIS, HSS, etc) and there really aren't very many to do all the national and in theatre liaison.  Where do you want to cut? There is risk involved in each cut.

Give me a break! Why do we a 40 person NCE for a 700 person contingent? That's more than a Bde Gp HQ! Is it that hard to command friggin CANCAP and CFPSA!? The alphabet soup you mention should not account for the remaining 60 some-odd people in NCE. Again I have seen the ORBAT and I know there is alot of padding there! Does Julien need its own team of two PAffOs? Do we really need a 16 person NCCIS det? I am arguing no, we do not. If it wasn't for the five star camp and the neat-o star you get at the end of the tour, I am still willing to bet the NCE, NSE would be much smaller. I think what a lot of people here are saying is that there seems to be an awful lot of tail for the tiny little teeth we have in Kabul.

Alex

 

[Gunner]

Give me a break! Why do we a 40 person NCE for a 700 person contingent? That's more than a Bde Gp HQ!  Is it that hard to command friggin CANCAP and CFPSA!?

The interesting part of this NCE is it has strategic, operational and tactical level command responsibilities.  None of the other Op ATHENA Roto's, Bosnia, Kosovo had to deal with this.  Where is the Roto 2 Tactical level command?  Guess what, there isn't one.  By the way your streamlined Bde Gp HQ on Roto 1 consisted of 156 people (not including the Sig Sqn) working out of Camp Warehouse. This did not include multinational staff on Roto 1.  Ever dealt with CFPSA and CANCAP?  This is my second time doing so....

The alphabet soup you mention should not account for the remaining 60 some-odd people in NCE. Again I have seen the ORBAT and I know there is alot of padding there!

Look what we ask it to provide though...

Does Julien need its own team of two PAffOs?

Does the military need any PAFFOs?  Won't argue with you there!  Having said that, there are a lot of media people coming through here.  Who's going to take care of them?  The limited forces on the ground?  What about drumming up support at home for the military? Who's going to do it?

Do we really need a 16 person NCCIS det?

Well, coming from the artillery I have no problems at with the signallers here.  They do a great job.  Who is going to run your secure computer systems and strategic communications back to Canada?  Or conduct ln with ISAF, KMNB, CFC-A, etc, etc, etc? 

I am arguing no, we do not. If it wasn't for the five star camp and the neat-o star you get at the end of the tour, I am still willing to bet the NCE, NSE would be much smaller.

NCE isn't much bigger than all the previous roto's.  Same (and increased) responsibilities despite the smaller size.  It is not a normal NCE as it has tactical responsibilities.

I think what a lot of people here are saying is that there seems to be an awful lot of tail for the tiny little teeth we have in Kabul.

That is because you have chosen not to understand the situation here.  It is not Roto 0 and 1 at all.

 

[pbi]

Quote
But, all of that aside, when I see the US Army types here in country for a year (with NO guarantee of a fixed repat date...), or when I attended a Portuguese African vets dinner in Winnipeg and listened to them talk about three years in theatre with no home leave, or when I hear about our troops in WWII deployed for years, I get a slight twinge of guilt.

PBI - Comparing apples and oranges (then and now).  I salute all those who served overseas for up to six years without any leave at home, but we don't live in the 30s/40s anymore.  The US approach is different from ours but which country has troops refusing to deploy overseas?  We don't offer cosmetic surgery for our troops either to lure them to stay in.  Should we?

Gunner: Right you are, which is why I said a "slight" twinge of guilt. I understand that we don't face the op needs of WWII, and that we are not fighting a brutal colonial campaign with a conscript army. Nor do I propose (for a moment..) that we adopt US Army personnel policies lock, stock and barrel. Rather, I was offering these examples as a sort of measuring stick or relative suffering.

We don't offer cosmetic surgery for our troops either to lure them to stay in.  Should we?

Yes...for some people I can think of. In fact, we might offer it as an incentive to get them to leave......

To a certain extent you have fixed overhead for the NCE no matter how many troops you have in theatre. So, where do you want to cut?  HSS, ASIC, NCCIS?  How about the NCE proper? PSO, PAO, etc.  I don't have any problem some of this stuff but other people in theatre would.  You mention Recce and Inf, but what about all the other slices you don't quote (NSE, CANCAP, CFPSA, etc, etc, etc).  Again, the actual NCE HQ proper is only about 40 personnel (cut out all the multinational staff (ie PBI), MPs, CIMIC, NCCIS, HSS, etc) and there really aren't very many to do all the national and in theatre liaison.  Where do you want to cut? There is risk involved in each cut

In general I can agree with you. An NCE/NSE is not just a "big A Ech" and the unique Canadian support requirements mean that we pretty well have to field all of our own capabilities. If we bought all our stuff offshore, we could live off (say...) the US or UK, but we don't so we can't. Besides, we have learned through bitter experience that to depend on the UN (or, in this case, NATO/EuroCorps) is to take a rather big risk. Our capable performance on the missions we have done has to a certain extent been due to our support capacity.

You should know better than to quote a reporter because you are only getting his limited perspective.  LCol Sirois was the TFK COS on Roto 1, Col Ellis is the TFK Comd Roto 2.  If you can tell me of anything Roto 2 has not done because it is deemed to risky I would be very interested in hearing it.

OK-I'm with you here. This particular journalist IMHO did a dreadful job with his Kabul articles, and in terms of force protection the current TFK is highly proactive and capable when compared to any other force here except possibly the Brits. (I definitely include the US in this...)

Maybe, but once again all of the personnel in one organization are not all related to Command and Control.  They have line functions and are grouped into the NCE for organizational purposes (too small to be independent

People may have forgotten why we insist upon deploying a robust NCE on these missions. It is rooted in our military history and is there for the simple reason that we do not give FULCOM of our troops to anybody. And, seeing some of these "multinational HQs" in various missions, I'm not even sure they should get TACOM.

However, having agreed with you where I could, I still think we want to take a hard look at our Army: can it live in the field any more, or is it totally tied to hard camps and lots of creatur comforts? Other opinions? Cheers.

 

[Gunner]

Rather, I was offering these examples as a sort of measuring stick or relative suffering.

Hasn't our society changed as well. The requirments placed on the men of WWII were perhaps not as bad as what they experienced in Canada. I would submit that the "me and my creature comfort" environment is much more prevalent in today's society than it was 65 years ago.

I still think we want to take a hard look at our Army: can it live in the field any more, or is it totally tied to hard camps and lots of creatur comforts? Other opinions? Cheers.

Agreed, but what about what we did to ourselves in the 80s (RV 85 and 87) when we built sprawling bivouac sites with large messes and statellite TV, BQ/CQ/SQ driving around the beer truck, etc, etc.  Is the welfare creep we are experiencing today new?

 

[pbi]

Hasn't our society changed as well. The requirments placed on the men of WWII were perhaps not as bad as what they experienced in Canada. I would submit that the "me and my creature comfort" environment is much more prevalent in today's society than it was 65 years ago.

Agreed, but what about what we did to ourselves in the 80s (RV 85 and 87) when we built sprawling bivouac sites with large messes and statellite TV, BQ/CQ/SQ driving around the beer truck, etc, etc. Is the welfare creep we are experiencing today new?

On your first point, I think that may be a bit of a myth, but I am not sure and I stand to be corrected by the more knowledgeable.  IIRC a large percentage of our recruits during WWII were middle class town and city dwellers. Their living conditions in wartime would have been far worse than what most of them experienced: just read about the complaints about dreary barrack life in England-it seem to me most Canadian troops hated it.

On your second point, I am with you completely. On another thread (forget which one...) I roundly slammed the RV series as a grossly overrated exercise in logistics on a lavish and unwarranted scale. I remember at one RV in Wainwright watching a civilian semi-trailer rig up to its axles in bivouac mud, being pulled out by a wrecker. The cargo? Furniture for messes. I will never forget the comment of a USMC Sgt attached to my platoon on one RV: "This aint a warfightin' exercise: y'all are just building a big boy scout camp." At the time I thought he was a**hole, but, on reflection..........  Cheers.

 

[Gunner]

On your second point, I am with you completely. On another thread (forget which one...) I roundly slammed the RV series as a grossly overrated exercise in logistics on a lavish and unwarranted scale. I remember at one RV in Wainwright watching a civilian semi-trailer rig up to its axles in bivouac mud, being pulled out by a wrecker. The cargo? Furniture for messes. I will never forget the comment of a USMC Sgt attached to my platoon on one RV: "This aint a warfightin' exercise: y'all are just building a big boy scout camp." At the time I thought he was a**hole, but, on reflection..........  Cheers.

I had a similar experience with C Bty from whichever US Artillery Battalion that was working with 2 3 and 5 RCHA during RV 89.  They were tactical to the nuts (wired compound, sentries, BC sleeping in the CP, etc, etc). It put us to shame with oiur bivouac a km away from them. I remember a particularly drunken night when I staggered back to C Bty with a group of americans and trying to take a M109 for a ride...didn't make it through the wire.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Had to wade in on this one and if you check my profile you'll know why!

I'm currently serving with some 17 nations in a camp slightly more "austere" (cafes aside, Gunner, detect the sarcasm?) than JULIEN and can categorically state that Canada treats it's troops far, far better than 99% of NATO countries.  We are paid more and have enormously greater welfare benefits than just about anyone else.  Personally, I believe we've gone a tad too far with JULIEN, but we should remember that it supports civilian workers too (and no, I'm not going into that here), who demand a "higher" standard of living than soldiers.  Whether they are justified in doing so is another matter.  Frankly, I'm now a bit uncomfortable when I visit...

BUT...

I was heavily involved in the TO&E war for Roto 2 and it cannot be compared to the previous rotations here - both of which served under Canadian Brigade HQs and both of which had enormous command and control structures.

I do take issue with those who criticise NCEs without having been there.  Is there scope for reducing the size of the (say) 40 person HQ?  Sure, but it depends on what value you place on Public Affairs, Personnel Services, Legal, and dealing with all the crap that NDHQ forces upon a contingent.  Some branches I would chop in a heartbeat, but others are worked to death. The G4 shop, for instance, has it's hands full just trying to justify unit UORs and trying to get them filled - not to mention movements, redeployment, on and on.  The two person G1 branch has to stick handle everything from medals to redresses to repats to discipline.  The workload is far more than a Bn HQ - there is no comparison (been there too).  If the Bn HQ had to report directly to NDHQ, it couldn't possibly manage.  The role of the NCE is primarily to deal with national nause in order to keep it off the units' backs and to let them get on with tactical operations unimpeded.  PBI is exactly right in his assessment of why we have a large(ish) NCE here!

Gunner and PBI:  I'd add a war story to match yours but, as a cavalry officer, they'd all involve pink gin and mocking the infantry - not a good thing to do on an Infantry board!    :-X

 

[Gunner]

I'm currently serving with some 17 nations in a camp slightly more "austere" (cafes aside, Gunner, detect the sarcasm?)

Hmm, gruel in the mess again?  Sweet nourishing gruel! 

can categorically state that Canada treats it's troops far, far better than 99% of NATO countries. We are paid more and have enormously greater welfare benefits than just about anyone else. 

Is that a bad thing?  Certainly with the tax break as of 1 Jan 04 we are sitting on the top of the heap (except perhaps the Americans).

Cheers,

 

[KevinB]

Okay back online

NCE - while not an officer, I have worked in Bde and DiV CP's back in my 021 days (RV92 era) I fail to see how some of the jobs that are being justified can actually get foisted upon a tour - the problem starts in Ottawa, as it should not need the endless drivel that it requires.
I'd chop down G1 too (Gunner can guess why ).
NIS - IMHO the most worthless to have on a tour - if needed then they could be TD'd.  The MP Pl - how many doing what - traffic accidents? (and the occassional ND) I think it could do with a weight reduction plan.

Medical - I am not going to touch this one - for the event of a Mass Cas.  Dental - now the Belgian/Hungarian contingents and their "routine" teeth cleaning - WTF - I would suggest that would be way too many - I dont think we need a Canadian Dentist as the only need should be emergency and I would out source it to an American hospital.


NSE
  Get the chop saw boys...

I think that at the very least 1 or 2 Sgt Maj postions could go - the occasional Maj and the Lt Col NCE comd position.


The "TOC"  I would move the "guys off to the side" inside and lose the entire rear rank...

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

NCE - while not an officer, I have worked in Bde and DiV CP's back in my 021 days (RV92 era) I fail to see how some of the jobs that are being justified can actually get foisted upon a tour - the problem starts in Ottawa, as it should not need the endless drivel that it requires.

You're comparing tactical HQs to an NCE - they're quite different and deal with different issues.  It's easy to look at a HQ from the pointy end and decide what should or should not be chopped. You're bang on, though, in that the problem begins in Ottawa.

I was in the middle of the hurricane that surrounded the development of the OP APOLLO TO&E (faaaar worse than ATHENA) and saw first hand how NCE (and other) organizations are directly influenced by what a previous commander of mine called "rice bowl" issues.  For instance, the NCE "must" contain a PSO, because the PSO community deems it important and requires deployable positions; there has to be TWO PAOs, one as "senior spokesperson" because that's what the PAFF community deems important and necessary; the medical orbat is bloated and overranked (IMHO) because tickets need to be punched...on and on.  A great deal of this is imposed by higher (J Staff, vice the Army).  Ye gods, on APOLLO we had entire units imposed on the TO&E!  (Then again, I deployed with one of them, so maybe should keep shut up!).

The long and the short of it is that there is still a reluctance to take force generator recommendations as to what is required as gospel and build the TO&E from there.  We're much better now but there's room for improvement.  There's always someone that knows better (especially the specialists - witness the NIS requirement), it seems, and the second-guessing that goes on is disturbing to say the least.  Until we have standardized force packages that can deploy anywhere, the mission and welfare creep will continue and we will build, from the ground up, every unit we deploy.  The problem with the standardized solution is that it's hugely expensive (you need all the required kit) - ask the Americans.