Canadian Defence News

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Excellent post.

Fair enough... stay the course and best of luck with it.

Regeneration is problematic. You may find you get to deal with a vexing problem you never anticipated:  money you can't spend on people you can't train in equipment you can't man... oooops better say person eh?

Let me know how it works for ya... if you want to laugh at my opinion in 5 years time you better start hauling a$$ today.

Edited December 24, 2024 by Venandi

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Last year there were almost as many new applicants as there are people the entire CAF regular force.

Ready, willing and able has a profound effect on those numbers. So does the intake you're actually (structurally) capable, or not capable of dealing with.

But never mind all of that... you seem inclined to ignore it anyway. Just for fun, put them in combat boots, run them a few miles in deep sand and see how many are left. 

When I taught basic training I was always surprised at the number of people who had never been out on the land from the first glow of a pending sunrise to broad daylight... I'm just cynical enough to think there are even more of them around today. 

I don't know what else to say here in terms of raw numbers vs acceptable candidates (and the capacity to train them). The raw numbers aren't as important as factors mentioned. By way of example, there's show called (if memory serves) Hard North on Prime and there's a girl on it (one of the participants) who's in the Yukon. I love this girl, she's a powerhouse... I doubt she even knows what rare commodity she is.  

Where can we find a bunch just like her? If you want an army that's 50% women, reality suggests that you better hope she has like minded sisters.

I would urge you to search your memory banks, of all the women you've ever known, including friends, relatives acquaintances etc (I mean all of them). How many do you know who actually want to join the infantry and are ready willing and able to roll right now (like today).

Don't know about you but I got nothing...

Edited December 24, 2024 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I don’t think most civilians know the military is “woke” until they get there, Canadians famously don’t know anything about our military and I don’t think they would stop dreaming about being a fighter pilot just because they hear there will tampons in the mens room and say “oh I guess I’ll just be an accountant then”.  

People who are beginning to show an interest tend to talk to people who are already in it or who have considered it themselves and looked into it.  Nobody just wakes up one day and says "you know, i know nothing about it so i guess i'll go enlist'.  They'll find forums online they'll find people to talk to, they may have been in cadets or the like. They're going to hear about stuff. 

And then people serving are less likely to stay on after their first enrollment.  Would you want to go to war where your life depends on a dei hire? Or a  military where you can't get bullets for target practice but free tampons are plentiful?

I"m quite sure it's not the only factor in people's thinking, the substandard gear and the other problems as well as how the gov't treats vets all probably come into play, but i guarantee you that you're not increasing enrollment by "pussifying" a job that traditionally only appeals to the strong masculine type and where your life is on the line if "jim" (formerly janet) isn't 100 percent up to snuff even if they did transition successfully. 

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, Venandi said:

I would argue they don't but admittedly, I'm a bit dated now. At best I'd say the window is small and closing incrementally with time and rust out.

Typo in my original post, now fixed. I meant to say the CAF doesn’t have the resources to process applications 

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, Venandi said:

Ready, willing and able has a profound effect on those numbers. So does the intake you're actually (structurally) capable, or not capable of dealing with.

But never mind all of that... you seem inclined to ignore it anyway. Just for fun, put them in combat boots, run them a few miles in deep sand and see how many are left. 

When I taught basic training I was always surprised at the number of people who had never been out on the land from the first glow of a pending sunrise to broad daylight... I'm just cynical enough to think there are even more of them around today. 

I don't know what else to say here in terms of raw numbers vs acceptable candidates (and the capacity to train them). The raw numbers aren't as important as factors mentioned. By way of example, there's show called (if memory serves) Hard North on Prime and there's a girl on it (one of the participants) who's in the Yukon. I love this girl, she's a powerhouse... I doubt she even knows what rare commodity she is.  

Where can we find a bunch just like her? If you want an army that's 50% women, reality suggests that you better hope she has like minded sisters.

I would urge you to search your memory banks, of all the women you've ever known, including friends, relatives acquaintances etc (I mean all of them). How many do you know who actually want to join the infantry and are ready willing and able to roll right now (like today).

Don't know about you but I got nothing...

I don’t think anyone is reasonably expecting 50% women and Im not even defending the “woke” policies Im just saying the numbers don’t suggest the policies are affecting the number of applicants. They are likely having an influence on the number of exits so my thesis is that  it negatively affects retention but not recruitment. 

Edited December 24, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

People who are beginning to show an interest tend to talk to people who are already in it or who have considered it themselves and looked into it.  Nobody just wakes up one day and says "you know, i know nothing about it so i guess i'll go enlist'.  They'll find forums online they'll find people to talk to, they may have been in cadets or the like. They're going to hear about stuff. 

So are you suggesting that potential recruits dreaming of a military career are saying “if the military is allowing gays and facial hair Im going to instead work a boring job in the civilian world where nobody is gay or has facial hair”? No matter the woke policies there are probably always going to be a lot more gays weirdos and woke workplace policies in the civilian world than the military one at least for large employers and white collar workplaces  

 The numbers suggest that recruiting hasn’t declined and in fact had massively increased in the past year (probably because of attention and media coverage over Ukraine  and recent procurement not because of wokeness) I suspect the applications are mostly from the usual demographic who apply to the military and not pacifist transgender wiccans with purple hair  

 

[Army Guy]

On 12/23/2024 at 7:54 PM, BeaverFever said:

It’s not the only thing we contribute weve trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops for example. 
 

Also just as a point of fact the GAs role is to advise Canadian leaders not necessarily teach other countries.

. 

Yes we do, you make that sound like a huge mission that consumes large amounts of resources and manpower... i mean we are talking about a force that the government continues to say is gaining on 70 k soldiers....when in reality Infantry boots on the ground might be a little over 5000 people...a little more if you add in armored and arty, Combat engineers...Reserve units would need to be robed blind to make up short falls in regular force units before getting on the start line....

Your GAs are going to be short lived, PP has said he is going to gut the forces of all woke policies and personal, he wants warriors not whatever it is we have today....

These so call GA have influenced TPP's , not sure if you have ran into any Ukrainian, but they are biwilder by this whole concept, and discredits our soldiers on the ground. They don't care about the whole topic, they want to learn to close with and destroy the enemy... 

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

the numbers don’t suggest the policies are affecting the number of applicants

Maybe, but I'm guessing it affects the quality of applicant though, and even if that's not the case, good  applicants will in turn, and very quickly IMO, become part of the very attrition cycle you mention... that makes regeneration extremely difficult. You quickly end up with people you can't train and money you can't spend because of a shortage of trainers and mentors... operational tempo then trashes all attempts to fix it  whilst simultaneously increasing attrition. It ends up shining a light on those DEI promotions... just when you need the best of the best to help with regeneration you find them gonzo.    

When you have long training times in occupations where experience is king, the balance between retention, recruitment and tempo requires binoculars... careful analysis of future requirements and a firm hand on the tiller. Throw one of those parameters out of balance for too long and it can be hard to fix. By way of example, I think manning the future UAV/UAS acquisition will be problematic. Maybe maintenance and training will be farmed out to civilians meaning retired RCAF pilots (with Heron or extensive ISR experience) and ex military maintainers. Even so, finding the operational cadre will prove challenging simply because there's already a shortage of them. 

Finding the trainers may be a challenge as well, speaking personally, I have the background and experience to do that but simply wouldn't return to take up a training role... it would be operational flying only and I doubt that would happen. I'm not alone in that sentiment either and it's a small club unless you want to start from scratch... again, or should I say AGAIN.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 25, 2024 by Venandi

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes we do, you make that sound like a huge mission that consumes large amounts of resources and manpower... i mean we are talking about a force that the government continues to say is gaining on 70 k soldiers....when in reality Infantry boots on the ground might be a little over 5000 people...a little more if you add in armored and arty, Combat engineers...Reserve units would need to be robed blind to make up short falls in regular force units before getting on the start line....

Your GAs are going to be short lived, PP has said he is going to gut the forces of all woke policies and personal, he wants warriors not whatever it is we have today....

These so call GA have influenced TPP's , not sure if you have ran into any Ukrainian, but they are biwilder by this whole concept, and discredits our soldiers on the ground. They don't care about the whole topic, they want to learn to close with and destroy the enemy... 

What am I making it sound like?  I think OTHERS are making it sound like is all we contribute internationally is GAs and nothing more and Im am dispelling that myth, also AFAIK GAs are no a contribution to foreign militaries but rather are advisors to the Canadian military leadership  

Also they’re not “my” GAs   I have no doubt that hat they’ll be on the chopping block under a PP government. Ukrainians have plenty of women in frontline combat roles it seems. Whether they get dedicated “gender advisors” or just regular advisors who slice amd dice the data by different ways including but not limited to gender they’re probably going to end yo with similar advice in the end.
 

Could you imagine for example the Afghanistan mission with nobody talking to leaders about female personnel interacting with Afghan males or about Canadian males interacting with Afghan females? It might not be called GA anymore after PP and maybe it never should have been in the first place but that lens of analysis isn’t going to go away because its just part of due diligence. 

[Army Guy]

49 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So are you suggesting that potential recruits dreaming of a military career are saying “if the military is allowing gays and facial hair Im going to instead work a boring job in the civilian world where nobody is gay or has facial hair”? No matter the woke policies there are probably always going to be a lot more gays weirdos and woke workplace policies in the civilian world than the military one at least for large employers and white collar workplaces  

 The numbers suggest that recruiting hasn’t declined and in fact had massively increased in the past year (probably because of attention and media coverage over Ukraine  and recent procurement not because of wokeness) I suspect the applications are mostly from the usual demographic who apply to the military and not pacifist transgender wiccans with purple hair  

 

It is a little more complicated than that, there is DEI hiring that is rampant, people are being recruited primarily becasue of race, color, religion, sex....and promotions are based on this as well... instead of promoting those that show superior skills first, they are filling position based on DEI charts and graphs...Government continues to shove more policies down soldiers throats that require hours of training and resources that could be used elsewhere...

The long hair is tied to looking professional, it is not a big thing to over come , we have multi colored hair, of all lengths and styles, man buns, beards policy has changed a little, still a few ZZ top beards out there...pants are not bloused at the bottoms, uniforms not ironed, the list goes on and on... They have forgotten that this uniform represents our country and should inspire other to want to wear it...

Recruiting issues are On DND and those responsible for back ground checks for security clearances... They have the resources just have not allotted them into the right spots...But lets not forget that, a good number of soldiers are completing their initial contracts and getting out for a couple reasons toxic leadership, DEI practices, and woke culture....

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What am I making it sound like?  I think OTHERS are making it sound like is all we contribute internationally is GAs and nothing more and Im am dispelling that myth, also AFAIK GAs are no a contribution to foreign militaries but rather are advisors to the Canadian military leadership  

Also they’re not “my” GAs   I have no doubt that hat they’ll be on the chopping block under a PP government. Ukrainians have plenty of women in frontline combat roles it seems. Whether they get dedicated “gender advisors” or just regular advisors who slice amd dice the data by different ways including but not limited to gender they’re probably going to end yo with similar advice in the end.
 

Could you imagine for example the Afghanistan mission with nobody talking to leaders about female personnel interacting with Afghan males or about Canadian males interacting with Afghan females? It might not be called GA anymore after PP and maybe it never should have been in the first place but that lens of analysis isn’t going to go away because its just part of due diligence. 

Having the GAs there in the first place is Canadian culture being forced on those that do not want it, period....it is not our place to tell them how to treat their women....

I did not say they were yours unless you've been promoted....

It is a common sense thing , not every culture has common sense, when Afghan men crossed the line which hapoopen a lot, they were dressed down with a firm voice, and a weapon in hand....normally a pistol, as that for some reason was what they feared the most... Canadians males did not have anything to do with Afghan women, we had female soldiers to do just that...no crossing the streams unless your looking for a gun fight...

It might have made sense at the time, if we need to teach our soldiers how to treat women , our parents have failed in their parenting....our entire culture has flaws in it, our education system has flaws in it.. our morals and values are flawed....lets start there....waiting to when a man is training to be a warrior is way to late in the cycle...

Just to be honest we did bring this whole thing on ourselves...first by bringing women into the army period....then opening all combat trades up to women , lowering standards to accommodate some politicians hopes and dreams, Warriors are mostly a type personalities, who like to fight, argue, and get laid, and military training brings that out in them.... and it was encouraged...the dream was to have 25 % of the forces females...and they have yet to mange to even come close...Don't get me wrong i've seen some women perform some wicked bravery on the battlefield...they can fight, and soldier....but they are the exception to the rule...lowered standards have robbed those who truly perform at that level. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

t is a little more complicated than that, there is DEI hiring that is rampant, people are being recruited primarily becasue of race, color, religion, sex....and promotions are based on this as well... instead of promoting those that show superior skills first, they are filling position based on DEI charts and graphs...Government continues to shove more policies down soldiers throats that require hours of training and resources that could be used elsewhere...

Do we have any actual evidence to support that non-whites and non-males are unqualified for the jobs they’re being given?

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

The long hair is tied to looking professional, it is not a big thing to over come , we have multi colored hair, of all lengths and styles, man buns, beards policy has changed a little, still a few ZZ top beards out there...pants are not bloused at the bottoms, uniforms not ironed, the list goes on and on... They have forgotten that this uniform represents our country and should inspire other to want to wear it..

I agree and Im glad that policy was reversed and should be reversed even more  

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Recruiting issues are On DND and those responsible for back ground checks for security clearances... They have the resources just have not allotted them into the right spots...

They should outsource the screening to private firms just like civilian government and the private sector do.  Use reserves, veterans, allied militaries and civilian contractors to expand and speed up training until the CAF is large enough and healthy enough to handle it themselves. 
 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

But lets not forget that, a good number of soldiers are completing their initial contracts and getting out for a couple reasons toxic leadership, DEI practices, and woke culture....

Sure, it’s a toxic brew with many factors.  And toxic leadership has been a problem for many decades. Qualify of life is also poor with shabby living conditions, frequent relocation, long-term postings to bases in the middle of nowhere where spouses can’t find decent jobs, and where nobody wants to raise a family or waste away their young single years.  Not a quick fix but some things that would go a long way are: fixing up the facilities, family supports and programs, pay raises, signing bonuses, retention bonuses, making some of those remote locations temporary instead of long term postings, expand the reserves in metro areas, integrate them with reg force and open more jobs to them, and just increasing the number of personnel overall to reduce burnout. 
 

 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Having the GAs there in the first place is Canadian culture being forced on those that do not want it, period....it is not our place to tell them how to treat their women....

I think they tell the CANADIANS how to treat the local women and local men as well as apparently provide Canadians with data and insights on other aspects of society not just gender. Like how certain economic or social groups will he affected or react to certain policies and activities. 
 

 

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Do we have any actual evidence to support that non-whites and non-males are unqualified for the jobs they’re being given?

 

I agree and Im glad that policy was reversed and should be reversed even more  

 

They should outsource the screening to private firms just like civilian government and the private sector do.  Use reserves, veterans, allied militaries and civilian contractors to expand and speed up training until the CAF is large enough and healthy enough to handle it themselves. 
 

Sure, it’s a toxic brew with many factors.  And toxic leadership has been a problem for many decades. Qualify of life is also poor with shabby living conditions, frequent relocation, long-term postings to bases in the middle of nowhere where spouses can’t find decent jobs, and where nobody wants to raise a family or waste away their young single years.  Not a quick fix but some things that would go a long way are: fixing up the facilities, family supports and programs, pay raises, signing bonuses, retention bonuses, making some of those remote locations temporary instead of long term postings, expand the reserves in metro areas, integrate them with reg force and open more jobs to them, and just increasing the number of personnel overall to reduce burnout. 
 

 

Anyone with enough time in rank should be qualified for any number of positions....The fact remains why are others that are more qualified be passed up over someone that fits the DEI profile....Same as the recruiting process, CAF recruitment media even states who will get a first look, if they meet certain profiles....again why should someone that is better qualified be over looked just to file holes in a pie chart....remember we are looking for warriors, not diversity hires, this is not some downtown company, but rather assembling a team that can and will depend on each other on the battle field...where chaos thrives... 

Been lots of talk about current CDS, is she the most qualified person, or was the liberals looking to break a glass ceiling....i mean those generals that were passed over have very impressive records...While the current CDS has had some bumps along the road....

Everything else you've written about i agree in spades, and i hope that the next government takes an interest in correcting all of what ills our military, it is time this nation took as much pride in its military as our soldiers do....

[Venandi]

On 12/24/2024 at 11:58 PM, BeaverFever said:

Do we have any actual evidence to support that non-whites and non-males are unqualified for the jobs they’re being given?

Being qualified for a job doesn't make you qualified for a leadership position. In addition, there are many jobs that women, by nature, aren't terribly interested in... if you take stock of the number of women that you know who would want to join the infantry or spend 6 months of the  year at sea you can begin to appreciate the challenge. I don't know any who aren't currently serving. You? 

A better question might be is it wise to promote based on competency or would you rather see skin colour, gender, and religion be heavily weighted as criteria in merit listings.

Would you apply that same criteria when selecting a mechanic, plumber, or the contractor who renovates your kitchen? If you use word of mouth to find a good tradesman, is your first consideration (and question) about gender and colour or is it about competency/reliability?

I've worked in the industry and I've offered numerous recommendations... not once has it come up and not once has it "coloured" my recommendation.  My reputation is tied to those recommendations and I don't take that lightly (I can't afford to)... would you prefer that I did?

I've also acted as a reference for pilots seeking airline jobs (even though they never knew it because it was the company that called me). And they called me because they trust my judgement.

Not once has that come up... NOT ONCE. In fact, if my endorsement of a candidate was ever seen to be based on such a frivolous quality and not on competence (and the ability to play well with others) the phone would have stoped ringing.  

I don't think you really want what you seem to be asking for, and if I actually gave it to you you'd be annoyed with me for doing it.... so let's not snow the snow queen.

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Venandi

[Venandi]

On 12/25/2024 at 12:04 AM, BeaverFever said:

I think they tell the CANADIANS how to treat the local women and local men as well as apparently provide Canadians with data and insights on other aspects of society not just gender.

FWIW, I would question their general competence and depth of experience in such things. 

Cultural topography, and its impact on interactions are usually part of pre-deployment training.... often reinforced in a myriad of scenario driven exercises and sometimes videoed for (potentially embarrassing) classroom analysis after the fact. Actors (if I can call them that) are routinely hired for realism... might be a reason for that eh?

From what I've seen, real life, native speaking cultural advisors in the form of educated, thoughtful and articulate immigrants  are usually recruited for such things. Never have I seen it delegated to white women with attitude and a degree in woke. Ya, a bit sarcastic maybe but factually correct based on my experience.  

For me, talking to some of those advisors was sometimes the most enjoyable (and enlightening) part of the training and I still remember a couple of them fondly... same with some of the interpreters. 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Venandi

[BeaverFever]

16 hours ago, Venandi said:

Being qualified for a job doesn't make you qualified for a leadership position

My question was do we have evidence of anyone being unqualified for the job they have been given and obviously if its a leadership role then thats part of the job. So my question still stands. 

16 hours ago, Venandi said:

In addition, there are many jobs that women, by nature, aren't terribly interested in... if you take stock of the number of women that you know who would want to join the infantry or spend 6 months of the  year at sea you can begin to appreciate the challenge. I don't know any who aren't currently serving. You? 

Yeah, I don’t think anyone disagrees with the idea that women are less likely to be interested in the military, what’s your point?

16 hours ago, Venandi said:

A better question might be is it wise to promote based on competency or would you rather see skin colour, gender, and religion be heavily weighted as criteria in merit listings….

To the rest of the post, it seems to imply that if the person is a straight white male, it is certain that he got the job because he was and is the most competent and qualified person for the job. But we all know that’s often not the case. In the CAF one straight white male senior leader -a RCAF wing commander- was literally a serial rapist and murderer.    You know what they would be saying if he had been non-white or female  

Obviously incompetent or less competent people should not be given positions.  All I am asking is if we have examples where the non-white/non-males have shown themselves to be unworthy of the roles they have been given, compared to white males who have shown themselves to be unworthy. 

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

My question was do we have evidence of anyone being unqualified for the job they have been given and obviously if its a leadership role then thats part of the job. So my question still stands. 

Yeah, I don’t think anyone disagrees with the idea that women are less likely to be interested in the military, what’s your point?

To the rest of the post, it seems to imply that if the person is a straight white male, it is certain that he got the job because he was and is the most competent and qualified person for the job. But we all know that’s often not the case. In the CAF one straight white male senior leader -a RCAF wing commander- was literally a serial rapist and murderer.    You know what they would be saying if he had been non-white or female  

Obviously incompetent or less competent people should not be given positions.  All I am asking is if we have examples where the non-white/non-males have shown themselves to be unworthy of the roles they have been given, compared to white males who have shown themselves to be unworthy. 

Your question is not based on logic, your saying that DEI practices must be working becasue there is no clear evidence of any failures....But look around there are plenty of examples....The forces is plagued with toxic leadership, since it has not cured this type of leadership it must be continuing with the DEI hiring....

The most critical part of Hiring and promotion based on merit was you were also going to get the cream of the crop, the best man or women for the job....All DEI hiring practices accomplish is to keep the wall charts balanced, you no longer have the cream of the crop in management levels, your promoting a racist ideology, that does not have a business model but rather correcting a behavior long since gone for the most part....the search of excellence is no longer front and center, but rather based on ethnic back grounds...

Merit based promotions and hirings has been the practice for thousands of years....for good reason  perhaps you can explain how DEI practices are superior to merit based ones...In todays world each soldier is merited against all his peers...ranked form 1 to thousands , if one has to cut the top couple hundred off the top to find a candidate that fits your DEI chart , how is not proof that it does not work...when hundreds of candidates out scored your DEI candidate...How does this system advantageous to use...is it fair ?, does it spark competition ?, it gives a small group an unfair advantage, while slowing merit based candidates down to the point they may stop showing interest in promotion or advancement as there is no reward for that behavior... 

[Venandi]

47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

what’s your point?

Answered above... better read it twice, I might have been too subtle.

I would also add that government mandated efforts to reach quota driven targets usually carry a soonest imperative. In an environment where careers are measured in decades it can have lasting implications, particularly in slow moving low turn over occupations like series 500 trades.

Then again, I'm retired now and other than contract operational gigs like UAV/UAS I won't be back... so fill your boots.

Best of luck with it.

Edited December 27, 2024 by Venandi

[Venandi]

32 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

In todays world each soldier is merited against all his peers...ranked form 1 to thousands

BTW Beav, that tends to be something of a sore point (with some) in the special forces community where everyone who walks through the door is superior or outstanding.

In that context, maybe it should be us asking what YOUR point is and whether you really do want what you seem to be asking for. You're on track to do some lasting damage here so you should (at least) have one doozy of a compelling point.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Venandi

[BeaverFever]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your question is not based on logic, your saying that DEI practices must be working becasue there is no clear evidence of any failures....But look around there are plenty of examples....The forces is plagued with toxic leadership, since it has not cured this type of leadership it must be continuing with the DEI hiring....

I think my logic is sound but yours is questionable.

 1)Again I am not necessarily advocating for DEI hiring I am asking for evidence that any DEI policies have filled riles with incompetent people. I am questioning that it is as bad as you say it is, not defending what you claim is happening  

2)To your argument I don’t think anyone ever suggested that a couple years of DEI hiring would magically and instantly undo decades of toxic leadership. Furthermore it’s not like the entire CAF leadership has turned over to DEI candidates it’s still overwhelmingly straight white male and probably always will be.

3) The subtext of your argument reads like you’re saying:  “since DEI hiring hasn’t fixed all the problems created by 100% straight white male leadership, DEI is a failure and we should return to 100% straight white male leadership” which logically doesn’t make sense. 
 

28 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The most critical part of Hiring and promotion based on merit was you were also going to get the cream of the crop, the best man or women for the job

What am I asking you is:  are you sure that was the case before DEI?  Let’s not romanticize what it is like without DEI, it was never a perfect meritocracy. We all know there has always been plenty of favouritism, old boys networks,  social cliques, office politics and completely subjective assessments of people’s ability. That’s life everywhere. Some people are granted exceptions to the rules and opportunities to go on courses, prove their abilities in front of leadership, etc  while others get screwed on technicalities and never get a chance to showcase what they can contribute. And sometimes just like in a union, “time in” matters more than merit and ability. There are all kinds of informal and unofficial gatekeepers in life and the CAF isn’t immune from that. 
 

 

[BeaverFever]

22 minutes ago, Venandi said:

BTW Beav, that tends to be something of a sore point (with some) in the special forces community where everyone who walks through the door is superior or outstanding.

In that context, maybe it should be us asking what YOUR point is and whether you really do want what you seem to be asking for. You're on track to do some lasting damage here so you should (at least) have one doozy of a compelling point.

 

 

I am just asking the question:  is there any evidence of any incompetent/unqualified DEI hires in roles right now?   Like if someone can show me that say only 1 in 10 straight white males are unqualified and incompetent but 4 in 10 non-SWMs are unqualified incompetent, I would accept that as being evidence. But what Im hearing instead sounds like “because some sort of DEI policy exists on paper ipso facto the ranks and leadership are filled with unqualified and incompetent non-SWMs.”

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I think my logic is sound but yours is questionable.

 1)Again I am not necessarily advocating for DEI hiring I am asking for evidence that any DEI policies have filled riles with incompetent people. I am questioning that it is as bad as you say it is, not defending what you claim is happening  

2)To your argument I don’t think anyone ever suggested that a couple years of DEI hiring would magically and instantly undo decades of toxic leadership. Furthermore it’s not like the entire CAF leadership has turned over to DEI candidates it’s still overwhelmingly straight white male and probably always will be.

3) The subtext of your argument reads like you’re saying:  “since DEI hiring hasn’t fixed all the problems created by 100% straight white male leadership, DEI is a failure and we should return to 100% straight white male leadership” which logically doesn’t make sense. 
 

What am I asking you is:  are you sure that was the case before DEI?  Let’s not romanticize what it is like without DEI, it was never a perfect meritocracy. We all know there has always been plenty of favouritism, old boys networks,  social cliques, office politics and completely subjective assessments of people’s ability. That’s life everywhere. Some people are granted exceptions to the rules and opportunities to go on courses, prove their abilities in front of leadership, etc  while others get screwed on technicalities and never get a chance to showcase what they can contribute. And sometimes just like in a union, “time in” matters more than merit and ability. There are all kinds of informal and unofficial gatekeepers in life and the CAF isn’t immune from that. 
 

 

Perhap it is , but you've yet to explain why ? 

1...I gave you a good reason, if you need to go down the merit listing a few hundred places to find a DEI promotion , then you not filling that position with the best person, but rather filling it with some trait that has no bearing on the quality of  that person.....some of color or what ever trait your looking at...unless you can prove some how that other ethnic back grounds provide better candidates...DEI is just balancing the racial chart, it is not based on any valid points that would make for a better candidate...And if your not getting the BEST Candidate what exactly is it your getting....

2....To be honest it has been in play for decades, streaming lining women promotions to get a balance in the ranks...well before i got out, in 2014...and it is pretty much the entire CF, it is the system how could it not be ...take a look at who was in the running for CDS, 4 women, not one man was on the list, does that mean there was not qualified MEN... horse crap...it was a political appointment, Canada wanted to break a glass ceiling... And lets be honest here, white men made up the majority of the military, becasue they made up 99 % of the candidates...

3...Not what i meant at all...ALL promotions and hirings, should be based on merit and merit only....color , creed, all of that DEI stuff should not even be a consideration....Standards should be based on the job, not demographics, sex, etc....want to be an infanteer, then those standards should be the highest for fitness, body strength, etc....no where should there be a 25 % target for female soldiers make the standards then your in, can't make the standards then be something else...

You have a lot of excuses for the old system, and yet for some reason can't explain what benefits DEI has...are both going to be dominated by white people, well until white people become the minority here in Canada thats how it is ...

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

In todays world each soldier is merited against all his peers...ranked form 1 to thousands

I have a very specific memory from my day in the reserve, on what was then called QL-2. The rankings handed out were total BS, people who were known to be physically fit given poor fitness scores etc. Basically it was a ranking of the LT’s favourites. So I take that with a grain of salt. 
 

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

if one has to cut the top couple hundred off the top to find a candidate that fits your DEI chart , how is not proof that it does not work...

Which is why I am asking if that actually happens. Do you have evidence that they’re going hundreds deep to find rhe best non-SWM?  Underpinning your argument is the claim that SWM=inherently qualified and non-SWM = inherently unqualified behind hundreds of more qualified SWMs. All I  asking for is evidence that this is happening. 

[Army Guy]

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I am just asking the question:  is there any evidence of any incompetent/unqualified DEI hires in roles right now?   Like if someone can show me that say only 1 in 10 straight white males are unqualified and incompetent but 4 in 10 non-SWMs are unqualified incompetent, I would accept that as being evidence. But what Im hearing instead sounds like “because some sort of DEI policy exists on paper ipso facto the ranks and leadership are filled with unqualified and incompetent non-SWMs.”

Has anyone had a reason to gather that data....you seem to be good with a system that instead of based on merit...is now based on racial overtones...does not matter how well you do your job, but rather how deep your skin tone is....

So just to be clear anyone in the top third of the merit list is qualified to be promoted, or hired....but now we are saying no need for a merit listing we are taking those ethnic backgrounds we deem fit, and all the others well we will try and fit them in some place...That's what your good with...instead of having someone that scored high now your good with a moderate score...becasue they fit someone's diversity chart...

performance reviews never mentioned skin tone or who you identified as, that was something that came our in the last ten years...color had nothing to do with merit....