I fully understand the complaint of soldiers who are unhappy seeing this come to pass. The change is unnecessary, unwanted, unhelpful, wasteful, and occasionally supported under an insulting message.
The world over (universally amongst our NATO allies but with some exceptions external to the alliance) military ranks are distinct to a nation and they often contain imagery and symbolism of national pride. Just as a flag is linked with the identity of its nation, so too is the rank insignia and uniform of the military. The current common rank insignia is uniquely Canadian and it incorporates elements from the former services.
After nearly a half century of proud service, the current rank insignia is what current serving service personnel identify with. Referring to pips & crowns as our traditional rank is inaccurate – it is our historical rank, but our tradition has changed. Tradition is something that evolves, sometimes consciously, sometimes not, sometimes out of desire, and other times out of necessity. After two generations, the current tradition (the rank the Army now identifies with) is the current system of rank.
This is an important reality that must be accepted by those arguing that the move rights a wrong of unification because the opposite is in fact true; it repeats a wrong. In 1968 the government reached into the Army and, against the desire of most members and the expressed wishes of Army leadership, the in-place symbols of identity/rank were thrown out the window and new ones imposed. Today the government is reaching into the Army and, against the desire of most members and Army leadership, the in-place symbols of identity/rank are again being thrown out the window and new ones imposed. If it was wrong in 1968, it is wrong today.
Not only is the current rank now our tradition and change unwanted, the current rank insignia are more functional than the historical ranks. It facilitates communication across the environments because, even though service pers may not be able to name the rank, all CAF members can recognize the rank of any other CAF member. If you go into a coalition environment today, you will find a great mix of every nations’ army, navy, air force, marines and gendarmerie – our common CAF rank actually helps in this setting because our allies only have one rank system to learn. The idea that pips are an Army rank system and therefore pips & crowns will improve communication within a pure army coalition is balderdash – the British system of pips & crowns differs from the norm “on the continent” (and there is even variation amongst those nations). There are also a substantial number of allies who do not use any pips as ranks including USA, France, Romania, Bulgaria, Portugal, Slovania. In the end, the only way we will ever see a rank that truly improves recognition in a coalition environment will be if we successfully lobby for pan-NATO Joint rank insignia ... that notion is probably several bridges too far. Sticking closer to home, we could preserve the enhanced ability to communicate across environments which is provided by our current rank system.
Because the change is unwanted and unhelpful, the waste going into this really stands out. Renaming the CA, RCN and RCAF has already cost over $1 million as reported in the press. How much more will this cost to implement? I am not convinced this will eventually pay for itself either – instead of sewing a ribbon of rank onto just the officer uniforms, we will sew branch/corps/regimental identification tabs onto the sleeve shoulders of every member in the Army. How much will it cost to embroider pips and crowns onto the dress shirt slip-ons as opposed to sewing on the strip of ribbon? How will costs compare to embroider the more intricate pips & crowns onto operational clothing slip-ons as opposed to embroidering the simple bars now?
Unfortunately, one of the biggest wastes in this whole thing is not money but effort. For all the staff effort that will go into this in Ottawa, a person could probably have been found to instead push through a few minor equipment projects or help accelerate a major project to get soldiers operationally needed clothing or equipment. Or maybe this person could have updated some years out of date CFAOs on military careers and promotion (resulting in usefull improvements to how personnel progress through the ranks). When a decision is made on the design of the new ranks, that is going to take-up the purchasing time of a item and supply managers working for soldier systems in ADM(Mat) – that means these people will be postponing the buying of potentially more relevant soldier kit. In all the time that the MND and his staff spent discussing, planning, and presenting the various little bits of these silly aesthetic identity changes – what files were marking time? Where is the solution to the housing problem in Cold Lake? Where is the solution to the families that have lost tens of thousands because the housing markets were less than favourable when the CAF ordered a move? How many expenditures requiring ministerial approval time expired?
And if it wasn’t enough for this change to be unnecessary, unwanted, unhelpful, and wasteful – soldiers are treated with the additional (unintentional) slap in the face of being told this will restore lost pride. Lost Pride?! That very statement implies some lack or want of pride over the last decades. Go look an Afghan vet in the eyes and tell him “you guys lacked pride over there.” There was no shortage of pride amongst the guys fighting over there.
I am sorry if this message doesn’t sit well with those who are really happy to see the change, but that’s how it is. There are some serving members happy with this, but they are a small minority.
I will admit, authorizing the use of historical branch titles for the private rank was the right thing. As those rank titles continued to be used in practice, they remain a tradition that soldiers identify with. However, I would not see the NDA amended in Parliament just to add the missing ranks of Colour Sergeant and Ensign.
On a different but not unrelated topic, what will become of the “CANADA” shoulder tabs when the new cloth branch/regimental tabs replace the metal tabs and move from the epaulet to the shoulder of the sleeve? The media jumped all over the potential loss of maple leafs, but no mention of the possibility that the uniform will cease to mention the nation by name (and let’s face it, not on regiments contain “Canada” or “Canadian” within the name).
|