gamiddleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) (10/16/89)
From: gamiddleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) Several years ago, the Canadian armed forces were merged into a single unit, the Canadian Forces. No more Army, Nave, or Air Force -- a single command structure. At least that is the impression given to the public. So, a question: was the apparent unification of the forces merely a public relations exercise, or what? If not, was there any benefit? Recent U.S. military adventures have shown that a failure of communication between different arms of the military is a serious problem. Are the Canadian forces (and any others that try to erase the distinctions between land, sea and air operations) any better off?
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/18/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: gamiddleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) >Several years ago, the Canadian armed forces were merged into a single unit, >the Canadian Forces. No more Army, Nave, or Air Force -- a single command >structure. At least that is the impression given to the public. >So, a question: was the apparent unification of the forces merely a public >relations exercise, or what? If not, was there any benefit? The Canadian Forces have been slowly drifting back to an Army/Navy/AirForce structure, with some exceptions. The idea is sound in theory, but imposed from above on an existing military, it didn't work as well as hoped. One big complication, here as in the US, is that each major sub-unit tends to set up a fairly expensive headquarters apparatus, so there is much political pressure to minimize the number of sub-units. This is why, for example, the USAF's Aerospace Defense Command disappeared. It was absorbed into Tactical Air Command, not because their missions were at all similar, but because it looked like a good way to cut expenses, and ADC no longer had the political clout to fight it. I smell similar factors in some of the internal-structure changes in the Canadian forces in recent years. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) (10/20/89)
From: bnr-di!borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) In article <10275@cbnews.ATT.COM>, gamiddleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) writes: > Several years ago, the Canadian armed forces were merged into a single unit, > the Canadian Forces. No more Army, Nave, or Air Force -- a single command > structure. At least that is the impression given to the public. > > So, a question: was the apparent unification of the forces merely a public > relations exercise, or what? If not, was there any benefit? In my experience (14 years as a reserve artillery officer) it has worked fairly well. A lot (but not all) of the unneeded duplication (and triplication) has been removed. There was a lot of very valid grumbling about the loss of traditions, but in my experience, a lot of the little traditions were kept even if according to the paperwork, they had been lost. For example - we still called bombadiers, bombadiers except on documents where they were called corporals. With the new uniforms, things are a even better (I always felt sorry for our sailors who had to go into a port wearing a green army type uniform when all of the other sailors get to wear sailors clothes.) -- UUCP : utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!borynec James Borynec, Bell Northern Research Bitnet: borynec@bnr.CA Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7