Jed said:
A very interesting thread, but I have not seen a lot of input from Borden and the Ammo tech world. What are some of the thoughts and opinions from these folks especially when we discuss the need for possible domestic reponse in the new Canada Command context ?
Seeing as we've been invited into the thread I'll throw my two cents in. Just to situate myself, everything I'm saying relates to EOD, not including CMD/BMD in a offensive type operation. That should remain with the Engineers as part of their tasking to deal with obstacles. I do include IED (low and high threat), mine strike clearances (not mine field breaching), and rendering safe of caches, and conventional EOD when more than a basic charge is called for.
I agree with Earl that if we are to deploy an EOD capability then we should deploy EOD techs who belong to EOD units under DCDS control (or whatever it is called now, I'm sortof out of the loop, Expeditionary Command I think). There is currently very little convergence of doctrine and deliniation of responsibility (although the new DAODs did help a bit). I sat at a briefing where a CWO said Canada would never deploy without EOD coverage again. A year later I went to Haiti and the Engr WO and I had to thrash out how we would do what because things were a bit vague (I'll leave it at that).
As far as domestic coverage goes, I believe it is invaluable. The EOD pers (Engr, Diver, AT, Taz) that actually work on EOD calls in Canada are the ones I want to work with overseas. Don't take this as a slight, but the pers who do it Canada should be the ones who deploy for EOD. Real experience is a definite asset in EOD just in the exposure to unfamiliar items and developing the thought process to rsp them. Combine this with exercises that test aspects of the trade not normally practiced domestically and you should get someone who can be deployed with a high level of confidence. Unfortunately, this currently excludes a lot of the Army based Combat Engineers because they are not actively involved with domestic EOD. From talking to 4 ESR pers it was a decision on their CoC's part not to permit their pers on this duty. Understandable to a certain degree because of the conflict duties can have with readiness. Likewise there is a failing in AT side of things because EOD is secondary activity and a lot of pers in the trade slip into a very domestic mindset that can trip them up when deployed.
My solution to this would be to re-intergrate them back into Base level EOD activity with Ammo Sections and Range Control and set up a nation wide policy that an EOD section on each base be responsible for the on and off base response (ie Assistance to Civil Power and Duds). Then they can get experience, conduct individual and collective training, and increase the profile and awareness of EOD.
Does this mean a seperate trade that can be fed from the current trades involved in EOD. Sure, why not. You can easily make the case for a couple of hundred people. Theres less posties than that and they are their own trade. One thing I would really stress though. Have a dedicated officer corps. Coming from a trade where you platoon commander may come from a Fin back ground, do four years or so as an ATO and go back to Fin, well its not good. I believe the last ATO nomination message included Engineer Officers as being eligable. I have to admit I view this with trepidation, mostly because I am not sure what the role of an ATO trained Engineer would be. To be honest, I view this as a possible first step to consolidating EOD within the Engineer world, however I would love to have an ATO Engineer with me on deployment because then they would know what I need for storage facilities and why. There is a EOD Staff course run in the UK that should be manditory not for TF Engineers (most are HA or more), but for someone in the J3 staff so that part of the HQ has an idea of what EOD does, what they need, and their limitations.
Oh, and Borden should stop thinking they can run a HB course to the same level as the States does. It doesn't have the training aids, the exchange of ideas, or the facilities.
Thanks for listening.
D