I can take a stab at that.
Obviously, there is civilian oversight of the military, and that's the way it has to be. The military is there to serve the policies and objectives of the nation, but they're there as servants. They don't set policy; they carry out policy.
The government's obligation, in my view, is to provide predictable funding over the long term and to support a plan that supports the national objectives, whatever they happen to be, and our individual objectives in conjunction with our allies. The military needs to take that funding and plan and, in my view, develop combat-capable forces above all else, because you can do less demanding missions with more capable people, but it's very difficult to do more demanding missions with less capable people. You have a level of training you need to be at; it almost doesn't matter which mission you do.
The other thing you need to do--you talked about things like military colleges and so on--is develop a leadership model that brings people into the military, whether it's the enlisted ranks and up through the enlisted ranks or the officer corps and up through the officer corps. You need to develop leadership. You do that through a training model through professional development in things like military college, staff school, staff college, National Defence College--there are various levels, all the way up.
You take the people who have demonstrated leadership potential and make sure you give them the extra training that's needed to develop that potential. Over a period of time you wind up with strong leadership throughout the chain of command. Again, they are in the best position to carry out the objectives of the government, to whom they are always responsive and responsible.