Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 1
    That's a good point about the redundancy in having multiple services. Not sure how much light Canada sheds on the subject. Our Dept of National Defense still seems bloated, extremely slow in procurement, prone to overpaying massively on gear, choosing the wrong gear and slow to act on sexual harassment. On the other hand our tooth-to-tail ratio is one of the better ones. And Canadian soldiers have served honorably and well in combat. Commented Apr 10, 2023 at 21:54
  • Canada performed not such much "incremental rollbacks" as "wholesale reversal" of the singe force change. Commented Apr 11, 2023 at 3:30
  • 3
    If you say so. I don't claim to be an expert on the Canadian military. What seemed significant to me was that I couldn't find any examples (in my admittedly limited research -- where do people even find time to write multiple answers a day on this site) of people arguing for rollback on the basis of practical concerns. Arguments invariably appealed to the importance of tradition in maintaining esprit de corps. Why three services (in Canada) is optimal for esprit de corps is never addressed.
    – Nobody
    Commented Apr 11, 2023 at 12:11
  • what if you wanted waste, inefficiency and duplication of effort because you were getting paid per unit of effort? Commented Apr 11, 2023 at 21:25