- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
My apologies guys, I had never seen the other thread before I answered the posts above mine (on the new thread that has now been merged).
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Petamocto said:
Its why we encourage members to use the Search function. People may get sick of seeing us say it but believe me, most of us are sick of typing it over and over again.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
GAP said:
Your opinions then, don't necessarily conflict.
I'd imagine that conscripts in Vietnam were, for the most part, motivated to do their jobs well because their survival depended on it.
Conscripts in a peacetime army, such as the one Petamocto was exposed to, could have been less motivated because had less of a vested interest in mission success.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Since this is all on one thread now I feel less guilty about replying.
I am completely willing to grant that a wartime conscript will be far more useful than a peacetime conscript.
I am also willing to grant that a small percentage of conscripts have proven to be better soldiers under fire than a small percentage of volunteers.
The above is common ground that I think we can agree we agree on (fingers crossed here...?).
Could we now please discuss the "en masse" or "mixed" type scenarios, both in combat? GAP, from your experience, a couple questions if I may:
1. Do you feel a platoon of conscripts could be made to equal an volunteer platoon after one year of training for a one-year deployment? (Using the conscript serving two years for argument's sake).
2. Do you feel that a section of mixed volunteer and conscripts (say 4 of each) could merge as tightly as an all-volunteer section, or that a volunteer soldier would trust a conscript fire team partner the same?
Please take what I am asking as me being in a data collection phase, not in any way me trying to counterpoint anything you have said above. I am genuinely interested in the unique wisdom you have on this topic (certainly no serving Canadians I work with) and I want to learn from it if I can .
I am completely willing to grant that a wartime conscript will be far more useful than a peacetime conscript.
I am also willing to grant that a small percentage of conscripts have proven to be better soldiers under fire than a small percentage of volunteers.
The above is common ground that I think we can agree we agree on (fingers crossed here...?).
Could we now please discuss the "en masse" or "mixed" type scenarios, both in combat? GAP, from your experience, a couple questions if I may:
1. Do you feel a platoon of conscripts could be made to equal an volunteer platoon after one year of training for a one-year deployment? (Using the conscript serving two years for argument's sake).
2. Do you feel that a section of mixed volunteer and conscripts (say 4 of each) could merge as tightly as an all-volunteer section, or that a volunteer soldier would trust a conscript fire team partner the same?
Please take what I am asking as me being in a data collection phase, not in any way me trying to counterpoint anything you have said above. I am genuinely interested in the unique wisdom you have on this topic (certainly no serving Canadians I work with) and I want to learn from it if I can .
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Let's take this back six years:
George Wallace said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Hey, we're back in Kabul and Michael Jackson is still alive!
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Petamocto said:
Col David Hackworth wrote extensively about his experience with both Regular and conscript troops in the Viet Nam war, and the essential element according to him boiled down to leadership.
If the unit leadership really cared about the troops and went all out to train them properly, then outstanding results could be achieved. My copy of "About Face" is packed away somewhere, but one battalion Hackworth thought highly of had the nickname "The Centurions", and benefited from the commander's decision to segregate them from everyone else, train them as a unit and include hardcore and realistic training in the Panama Canal Zone's Jungle warfare school before deployment. On the other hand, Col Hackworth's comments on the training system as it existed at the time are quite scathing, including lack of standards, and unrealistic training (one training company he monitored did their predeployment FTX in the middle of winter in Washington State, somewhat like training for Kandahar by deploying to Wainwright in the middle of January...). Since this is pretty much your scenario, the answer is "Yes" if the proper conditions are met.
Once again this would depend on leadership. While most of the units Hackworth observed (and commanded) in the later stages of the Viet Nam war were made up of conscripts, the leadership above the "Shake and Bake" NCO's did consist of Regular soldiers, and when well integrated by the command team (Read Hackworth's account of turning the 4/39 around in About Face and "Steel My Soldier's Hearts") a high level of mutual trust was developed.
I suppose the real answer is "it depends", and the leadership must be able and willing to go all out to train their soldiers and look after the welfare of the men and women entrusted to them. How they do that depends on many factors (being liked isn't one of them, Hackworth's soldiers in the 4/39 reportedly put a bounty on his head, although no one was stupid enough to go for it). Wartime also changes the motivation, conscript soldiers will find it behooves them to learn the trade and learn well when rounds are coming back at them...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Wow! Wander away for a couple of years and look what happens! (Plus ca change, etc...)
I'm with Thucydides on this one: it's mainly all about leadership. As we've seen in our own Army over the years, a group of volunteer professionals are just as capable of being very bad soldiers as any group of conscripts (although our last real experience with draftees was a VERY long time ago). When you look at how a unit performs (or doesn't...) you're almost always looking at the results of leadership. ("Rabbits led by a lion" vs "lions led by a rabbit" etc..)
A second factor worth considering (as some posters have already pointed out) is how the society looks at conscription in the first place. Is it seen as a necessary (and maybe even honourable) civic duty, or is it a hated burden to be avoided? How is the military regarded in general? We know that in our own country the history of conscription has been a very painful and divisive one, resulting in everything from troops firing on a crowd to mutiny to a historical legacy that tells us that we could "never" have conscription again.
The third thing is the purpose of the conscription. Is it to send troops to an unpopular foreign war, for unclear purposes? Or is it to defend the homeland? Even within that there can be variations: IIRC, the UK used conscript National Service soldiers in Malaya with some success (although Regular units were there as well).
Personally, I think it's always going to be a non-starter in Canada, both for the military and for the emergency services (as was suggested), except in a time of great national peril. The argument against military national service is pretty well known already. I have no doubt that the respective trade unions/associations for the police, EMS and professional firefighters would bitterly oppose conscripts as "scabs", much as a few ill-informed members of those services do now towards volunteer firefighters, auxiliary police, etc.
Cheers
I'm with Thucydides on this one: it's mainly all about leadership. As we've seen in our own Army over the years, a group of volunteer professionals are just as capable of being very bad soldiers as any group of conscripts (although our last real experience with draftees was a VERY long time ago). When you look at how a unit performs (or doesn't...) you're almost always looking at the results of leadership. ("Rabbits led by a lion" vs "lions led by a rabbit" etc..)
A second factor worth considering (as some posters have already pointed out) is how the society looks at conscription in the first place. Is it seen as a necessary (and maybe even honourable) civic duty, or is it a hated burden to be avoided? How is the military regarded in general? We know that in our own country the history of conscription has been a very painful and divisive one, resulting in everything from troops firing on a crowd to mutiny to a historical legacy that tells us that we could "never" have conscription again.
The third thing is the purpose of the conscription. Is it to send troops to an unpopular foreign war, for unclear purposes? Or is it to defend the homeland? Even within that there can be variations: IIRC, the UK used conscript National Service soldiers in Malaya with some success (although Regular units were there as well).
Personally, I think it's always going to be a non-starter in Canada, both for the military and for the emergency services (as was suggested), except in a time of great national peril. The argument against military national service is pretty well known already. I have no doubt that the respective trade unions/associations for the police, EMS and professional firefighters would bitterly oppose conscripts as "scabs", much as a few ill-informed members of those services do now towards volunteer firefighters, auxiliary police, etc.
Cheers
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,023
- Points
- 1,010
How about this for a far out funky idea. Just throwing it out there.
Instead of conscription, have an extended BMQ (say like 16 weeks) mandatory for all healthy canadians 18-22. After completing BMQ, they are free to leave or they can join the regular or reserve CF.
Some people dead set agaisnt the idea would probably change their minds after acheiving some things they never thought possible in BMQ, they may also develop camraderie and a new level of physical fitness. This might "trigger" some good kids who have been steered in the right direction to change their minds about what they will do with their lives.
BTW, I didn't think forever on this idea, it just popped in my head and I am throwing it out there.
Like the idea? hate the idea? Do I get lynched? Do I get cheered?
Waiting in a semi-duck position ready to evade rotten tomatoes flying at my skull...
Instead of conscription, have an extended BMQ (say like 16 weeks) mandatory for all healthy canadians 18-22. After completing BMQ, they are free to leave or they can join the regular or reserve CF.
Some people dead set agaisnt the idea would probably change their minds after acheiving some things they never thought possible in BMQ, they may also develop camraderie and a new level of physical fitness. This might "trigger" some good kids who have been steered in the right direction to change their minds about what they will do with their lives.
BTW, I didn't think forever on this idea, it just popped in my head and I am throwing it out there.
Like the idea? hate the idea? Do I get lynched? Do I get cheered?
Waiting in a semi-duck position ready to evade rotten tomatoes flying at my skull...
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
This document (PDF) gives a cadre size of 2,125,900 for the age group 15-19 years (in 2004). This would, on average, mean that about 425,000 young Canadians would be old enough in any one year to enter your proposed program.
Let's say that we accept any and all rational excuses for exemption (deferrals only postpone training requirements) and let's say about 75% will enter the program each year. That leaves us with just over 300,000 needing to be trained in your national service BMQ each year.
If we accept your plan for a 16-week training period, we can have three cycles per year using the same staff and supporting resources.
Three cycles per year means we need to train 100,000 people during each cycle.
That's 2000 50-man BMQ platoons at once.
What's your infrastructure and funding plan?
Let's say that we accept any and all rational excuses for exemption (deferrals only postpone training requirements) and let's say about 75% will enter the program each year. That leaves us with just over 300,000 needing to be trained in your national service BMQ each year.
If we accept your plan for a 16-week training period, we can have three cycles per year using the same staff and supporting resources.
Three cycles per year means we need to train 100,000 people during each cycle.
That's 2000 50-man BMQ platoons at once.
What's your infrastructure and funding plan?
- Reaction score
- 1,439
- Points
- 1,260
pbi said:
Young people are more than welcome.
"Toronto EMS, in partnership with Scouts Canada, operates a vocational Venturer Company and Rover Crew for male and female youth ages 14 to 25. The group consists of a two Venturer companies: 1st Downsview and 1st Scarborough.
Toronto EMS MedVent training staff provide the youth with EMS certified first aid training as well as orientation in EMS procedures. They are also assisted by civilian trainer Rick Speckeen, Jenny Leung and Adam Gesicki as well as numerous community college students in the CTS Canadian Career College paramedic program.
Toronto EMS Education and Development oversees the medical training which is provided to Toronto EMS standards."
Toronto Fire Service has a similar program.:
http://www.toronto.ca/fire/recruitment/venturers.htm
I believe York Regional and Ottawa Police Services also offer Venturer progams.
- Reaction score
- 1,505
- Points
- 1,260
ArmyRick said:
Just one point in regards to this from a school point of view. As you know we have a hard enough time training the number of soldiers we have right now. Without a major increase in the number of MCpls and Sgts we would not be able to train that number of people.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
dangerboy said:
This is a problem. To produce the numbers required, would mean accelerated promotions. This would for the most part lower the calibre of the instructors both knowledge and experience wise. Yes, I do agree that there are some who would do well, but for the numbers required there would be a steep drop in the quality of the instructor pool. Only time would overcome this problem.
Now, remember as well, not all of these people would be coming into the military. They would be flooding other organizations as well. "Conscientious Objectors" would not likely join the military or police, and would likely land up in the Health Care System (more cries for Health Care dollars). All these other organizations would be facing the same dilemma as well.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 28,676
- Points
- 1,160
ArmyRick said:
Shades of SYEP... which actually turned out soem good people.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I realize this is just a discussion for debate's sake, but to be honest I just can't ever see anything like this happening in Canada.
Some human rights groups deem any sort of conscription as slavery because your freedom is essentially taken away without your consent and you belong to the State.
There is no way I can see that happening in Canada.
[/reality]
Game on!
Some human rights groups deem any sort of conscription as slavery because your freedom is essentially taken away without your consent and you belong to the State.
There is no way I can see that happening in Canada.
[/reality]
Game on!
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Conscription is slavery, particularly military conscription, where you are forcing people into unlimited liability contracts.
The primary argument for universal service is to "build communities and cohesion". This might work in a well established society like Switzerland, where this is a rite of passage going back 500 years and people who decline national service find their avenues in life are blocked. (This isn't saying it is right, just an observation).
A Science Fiction novel (Manna. by Lee Correy) postulated a society where there was "Universal Military Training" as part of high school education, allowing the regular army to be augmented by an armed rabble in the event of an invasion (although even the author, speaking through one of the characters, recognizes this is a danger for everyone involved in the fray). I would say this is a poorly thought out idea, particularly when you consider skill fade.
If the true motivation is to gain cohorts of motivated, civic minded citizens, then I would vote for making "outward bound" part of the high school curriculum. We get team building, "hands on" experience in solving problems and a useful set of skills to build on. Throw in standard first aid and financial literacy and you have well rounded, independent citizens who would make outstanding recruits should they decide to enlist.
The primary argument for universal service is to "build communities and cohesion". This might work in a well established society like Switzerland, where this is a rite of passage going back 500 years and people who decline national service find their avenues in life are blocked. (This isn't saying it is right, just an observation).
A Science Fiction novel (Manna. by Lee Correy) postulated a society where there was "Universal Military Training" as part of high school education, allowing the regular army to be augmented by an armed rabble in the event of an invasion (although even the author, speaking through one of the characters, recognizes this is a danger for everyone involved in the fray). I would say this is a poorly thought out idea, particularly when you consider skill fade.
If the true motivation is to gain cohorts of motivated, civic minded citizens, then I would vote for making "outward bound" part of the high school curriculum. We get team building, "hands on" experience in solving problems and a useful set of skills to build on. Throw in standard first aid and financial literacy and you have well rounded, independent citizens who would make outstanding recruits should they decide to enlist.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
mariomike said:
This is all good and an excellent project, but it isn't what I was driving at. I was referring to the idea that the actual uniformed services (not their cadets or sponsored Scout troops) would contain National Service people in their ranks. I don't think this would go over well with the unions/associations at all, considering that National Service usually provides a fairly low rate of pay.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 1,439
- Points
- 1,260
pbi said:
National Service recruits could be trained as firefighters.: "Training tends to vary between approximately 12 and 16 weeks, depending on such factors as class size and previous firefighting experience of the recruits in the class."
http://www.toronto.ca/fire/recruitment/faq.htm#a12
But, that would open a can of worms with their union.
I could see a paid - rather than volunteer - Auxiliary police. But, again what would the police associations, and Police Services Act, have to say? Would they even let them direct traffic?
The first, last, and only time I saw, or heard of, anything like you mention where I worked was during the SARS quarantine. Mayor Mel declared a State of Emergency.
Students were hired - I don't know what they were paying them - to Deep Clean ambulances. There was a grievance from the union, because Deep Cleans are part of the Equipment Technician's Job Description, so they had to let them go.
Interestingly, every summer they hire students to clean stations, and do clerical work. Those jobs belong to a different union, so there is no problem.
Almost all of their parents were management.
I should add that I am not condoning or defending past practices. But, that is how it was.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
OK-we are on the same net.
Having said that, if we had a Civil Defence Service, similar to what existed in the 1950s and early 60's, that might be more of a natural destination for people doing National Service, who don't want to serve in the CF. An organization like CD, which would become involved only in major incidents when local services were stretched, wouldn't look as much like a threat to unionized members.
Having said that, if we had a Civil Defence Service, similar to what existed in the 1950s and early 60's, that might be more of a natural destination for people doing National Service, who don't want to serve in the CF. An organization like CD, which would become involved only in major incidents when local services were stretched, wouldn't look as much like a threat to unionized members.
- Reaction score
- 1,439
- Points
- 1,260
pbi said:
Metro Emergency Services had the Emergency Measures Organization EMO until it was disbanded in 1975. EMO was responsible for maintaining a disaster response network, a heavy rescue service, disaster planning and training to deal with disasters.
All we have left over from EMO is the Casualty Collection Units CCU's.:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/emu/ness/ccu_storage.html
Now, there's the Office of Emergency Management OEM and Heavy Urban Search and Rescue HUSAR:
http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/oem/main.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/oem/husar/index.htm
