A rejoinder

I will admit I have thought long and hard on whether or not to respond to Andrew's riposte to my comment. It certainly was not my intention to start a mud-slinging contest which benefits no one but might amuse some Broadsides readers. The point of my original comment was that we need to address the defence and the security requirements of this country from a non-parochial point of view. It is a given, but not totally understood by some, that the navy, the army and the air force operate in different operational environments. These environments, by their very nature have created separate operational cultures. As a result, three methodologies evolved to identify and to deliver the capabilities needed by the CF to meet government defence needs.

No particular methodology is the best as each best serves its operational culture and environment. Moreover, one process solution cannot be forced on another operational culture as the "standard" methodology as the operational environments are, with the exception the Joint or Integrated interface, different. What is needed is an understanding of the differing environments and cultures not a parochial debate. Finally, to be successful a one size fits all solution will not work, but the Force Development Center of the CF needs to be able to translate and to understand the different operational cultures, environments and methodologies so that they can match national capability requirements at the strategic level. This is the road to success - not parochialism.

Share