 |
| KCIS was at a new location which had bulk candy! |
 |
| RAdm (ret) Patterson |
First, a caveat--people kept mentioning Chatham House Rule, so I am not sure what I can say. The speeches are going to be streamed, but the Q&A was to be Chatham-ed. Not sure how the moderated chat part of the talk is supposed to be discussed. So, I will try to be vague, focusing mostly on my questions and less on Eyre's answers. Not sure if that does the trick. I will say that Eyre was engaging both before and after the talk, meeting with a variety of interested folks. It is not my first chat with him as I first met him at a KCIS in 2019, that he was on the podcast in 2021, he contacted me about another BR podcast (he didn't recall that until I brought it up during our session), and we bumped into each other at a reception at the Korean Embassy in Ottawa. He knows me well enough that his Star Wars references in his talk (greatest teacher failure is) were aimed at me.
So, I asked him:
- How is civil-military relations at the top different than whatever you learned in your professional military education?
- Which barriers/challenges in recruitment/retention are the hardest to address?
- How are you thinking about the sustainability of the Latvia mission?
- How do we know we are making progress in culture change?
- What is the first thing you will tell your successor when you hand things over?
The civ-mil question led to Eyre discussing Eliot Cohen's book Supreme Command, which focuses on teh unequal dialogue between civilian leaders and the military--that both sides should be open and honest with each other, but that at the end of the day, after a decision is made by the civilians, it is the job of the military to carry on with the civilians' intent. I am pretty sure his two immediate predecessors didn't read or heed this book.
The recruitment/retention question led to some discussion of some of the successes, like allowing permanent citizens to join, and an acknowledgement that the traditional recruiting demo is getting smaller---white straight dudes like himself.
I don't want to misremember what Eyre said on culture change progress, but if I remember correctly, the sense of it was on whether retention improves, whether the folks in the force report that things are getting better.
The successor question was most interesting as, well, Vance had reportedly tried to eliminate potential successors so that he could stay a long time, and that worked. Eyre discussed how he is already training the cohort of possible replacements by giving them time with and exposure to folks like the Defence Minister, the Defence Committee, and the Prime Minister. They will have far more experience with the key civilian actors (plus parliament) than Eyre had, as he famously had no handover--he just got a call to show up as Acting CDS and had to start doing the job immediately.
So, if you can get to a future KCIS, do so. You learn a lot, you meet sharp people, and Kingston is lovely in the fall.
7 comments:
Steve, you continue to make statements about Vance that are highly unlikely to be true in the way you describe and without evidence or substantiation. You have a beef with him based on a relationship he had, and now you are critical of all aspects of his tenure as CDS. I know for a fact that Vance put great effort into the development of his subordinates.
I will address the two claims you make here.
First, my beef with Vance is multi-dimensional. Let me count the ways:
1. He abused his power by having an affair with a subordinate but moving her around in her career to be convenient for his sexual "needs".
2. He undermined the effort to improve the culture of the CAF because so many folks knew he applies the rules to others, not himself.
3. He hit on other subordinates.
4. He picked for his chief of personnel someone who skated past accusations of rape... we will find out soon whether those accusations can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you are having a sexual misconduct crisis, how about not appointing an accused rapist as head of personnel? That is like appointing someone who has been accused of embezzlement to be your chief accounting officer.
Re the development of subordinates, I have been told by a number people inside DND/CAF that Vance had been eliminating contenders, but let's say he was developing his subordinates, why did the government have no options but Eyre after McDonald got suspended? Why wasn't there a herd of potential replacements?
I think you have fallen prey to the zeitgeist surrounding Vance’s case.
1. Vance could not have moved her around as you say. She was a Class B reservist and they cannot be posted. As I understand it, she moved voluntarily over the years, had relationships and marriages with other men, and made more than a few impossible-to-believe claims about their relationship…including a false statement about the number of children they had.
2. My read and the public statements of Whitecross, Patterson and others indicate Vance did his best - leading a multidimensional team of experts - to eradicate harmful sexual misconduct. He never claimed Op Honour was intended to govern consenting relationships.
3. He wrote a cheeky sign off to a woman who was known to him as a consultant, who was in touch with him as a consultant and, if I read the context, he was actually saying no to her invitation.
4. Edmundson was selected as all three stars are - largely by consensus of the other three stars and with MND approval. I don’t think you are being accurate about accusations of tape being known as the selection process occurred. I think all that came out after. And yes, he is innocent before proven guilty. You keep treating him and others as guilty because of accusation. Not really how you as a professor should be seeing things.
5. Not sure who he eliminated? Rouleau, Meinzinger, Whitecross, Allen, etc, etc we’re still in harness I believe. In fact, the media stated he increased the number of female generals. He certainly supported Eyre, sending him to Korea and then Army Commander.
I honestly believe you are not thinking rationally about this era of ‘if it’s said in the media it must be true’. I would have expected a little more circumspection from you.
1. ah, yes, Vance was only a deadbeat dad to one kid. So, it's all cool.
2. Operation Honour was poorly conceived, contradicting some of Deschamps's recommendations. And Jody Thomas did say that Vance, who had a rep for being hostile to civilian oversight, told her to stay out of the effort to deal with sexual misconduct.
3. As if that was the subordinate Vance chased after.
4. Who appointed Edmundson to Chief of Personnel? Where does the buck stop?
5. Good thing Rouleau wasn't picked, eh? How many folks retired from VCDS or from Army Chief or the other Chief spots who could have been CDS? Lots of rotation in those spots. Now, some of that may have been careerism and entitlement--that folks quit when they realized Vance was not going to leave anytime soon.
Well, I guess in the realm of human relationships, nobody really knows what goes on. A woman with eight children from different fathers, making false statements about moves and numbers of children they had has to leave you wondering just a little bit about where the truth lies in this entire saga. Maybe she didn’t want him involved. Who knows? You condemn without full knowledge or, honestly, full appreciation of things. You keep calling people subordinates when they are in fact of lower rank and may not actually be subordinate. There’s a difference. If your standards were applied there would not be any married service couples who met at different rank levels, dated for a period and then declared their relationship. Which is pretty much how that scenario goes.
Op Honour was drafted (conceived) by Whitecross and her team. Vance branded it and made it a core effort. It was applauded by most I think based on reporting.
Not sure about chasing subordinates really. All I can say is that it’s not wrong to show interest, but wrong to force and I have never heard him cited for that. Maybe a bit of urban myth. He’s on his third wife, so probably not good at relationships.
Ok, I get it about Edmunson, but if Vance didn’t know of any past issues, how can you condemn?
As for retirements of senior people, sure, it’s a life/career choice. I don’t think Vance would be allowed to hang on…the job is controlled by the government. I do recall he was in consideration for an overseas posting after he finished, so maybe the government wanted him to stay on. Lots of people have left or are leaving on Eyre’s watch…do you condemn him for that? Of course not. Most who leave are probably at retirement age and maybe some don’t want to be CDS.
I remember hearing him say at a conference that the role of CDS is not a reward, it’s service. Anyways, not a role someone can just stay in on their own accord.
I think it a shame when people don’t accept the flaws in humans and make otherwise good people out to be worse than they really are. I saw that you seemed happy that Maisonneuve was ‘cancelled’. That’s a horrible way to treat a person in public.
I’ll end by saying that the furor over senior leader misconduct was, in part, accelerated by many who were otherwise very much in favour of institutional improvements. The seniors were blamed and the knives came out on sexual misconduct allegations. So far, even as recently as yesterday at Whelan’s trial, not a lot of sexual misconduct against them was proven. Even Vance was only one (summary) count of obstruction. You contributed to the furor, and maybe you thought or think that it helps the cause, but I think over playing your hand in the end hurts. Women are being infantilized, victimhood is claimed in a whirlwind of support and political theatre, and you played in that. When all is said and done, what more has actually changed since Vance? Lots of promises and effort, just like Vance, but things take time.
Good chat. Thank you professor.
I joke about Maisonneuve being cancelled because he whines about it yet has a perch on a national newspaper. He is an NP columnist in all but name, he is hardly cancelled. Indeed, as far as I can tell, he is not even edited.
Can't come close to the seriousness of these comments but have to suggest that "teh" in "focuses on teh unequal dialogue" might be "the".
And I think "permanent citizens" are usually known as "permanent residents".
Sorry, I can't resist.
Post a Comment