Army Officer Commercial [Archive]

Courtney Massengale

08-06-2009, 05:32 AM

The Army, proving once again, that it doesn't understand how to recruit, retain and develop junior Officers.

I'm not really sure what specific demographic they had in mind as this method seems to be aimed at people who don't have USMA, OCS, or ROTC available as an option to them (as each have their own robust recruiting for their target demographic). I’ve heard the theory that this aimed at getting individuals who already have a degree and are not satisfied with civilian employment (unemployment?) to enlist under 9D or get a direct commission if applicable.

I’ve always been skeptical of the argument that the Officer Corps is in direct competition with Corporate America for college graduates – they’re in direct competition with college admissions and enlisted recruitment as the choice to use ROTC or USMA is made back in high school. The notion that there is the untapped pool of people who passed up multiple chances to serve their country, but since earning a degree are just waiting for someone to ask if they want to be an Officer, is flat out silly.

Its going to be interesting to see if this program works. It will be even more interesting to see how the Army spins the results.

patmc

08-06-2009, 02:09 PM

Honestly, when I read about this campaign earlier in the week, I was a little skeptical. That video was better than I expected though. Was much better than previous, "Hey, you'll get job training and teamwork experience that you can use later in another job." That said, I don't think it will solve the shortage of officers (some on this board state we are already overstrength in officers, and maybe we are, but the 2 Battalions I served in were always short and fighting for people).

For years the Army denied or explained away that there were not enough LTs or CPTs staying in. Now not enough CPTs, MAJs, and even LTCs are staying for duration. The Army claims it is because of the expansion of BCTs, not retention. Maybe, but some of the best and brightest I went thru OBC with are now working on the outside or in grad school. Many in my recent CCC course are planning to do another deployment, finish out that bonus contract, and then move on. The problems keeping those already in are greater than attracting people already out of school and working/or not.

None of the officers I've served with joined bc of a commercial. It's nice that the Army is recognizing that officers do more than drink coffee and do paperwork, but I don't know if this campaign will achieve the desired goals. Maybe more Officers working as recruiters that can actually explain to students what is involved in ROTC/OCS/USMA and what life as an officer is like (more than the current Gold Bar LT recruiter and a CPT or MAJ per ROTC BN or temporary Home Town Recruiter). I did a Yahoo search for Worcester, MA and Army ROTC and emailed the address I found. The ROTC recruiter, a CPT, gave me an honest, but patriotic speech, and asked me if it sounded good, and it did. You need more than commercials to get students to give up their college routine and be a Soldier and Student. Most don't think the sacrifice is worth it. That's a problem deeper than advertising.

Massengale

08-06-2009, 03:29 PM

It would also help if the Army didn't do everything possible to culturally exclude people from the coasts from coming in.

SWJED

08-06-2009, 03:37 PM

Just a cover (hat, beret, etc.) tip to the Army from a retired Marine - I liked the video and in retrospect - is heads and tails above earlier efforts dating back to, well, forever.

jkm_101_fso

08-06-2009, 04:19 PM

It would also help if the Army didn't do everything possible to culturally exclude people from the coasts from coming in.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

SWJED

08-06-2009, 04:26 PM

I'm not sure what that means either...

Ken White

08-06-2009, 05:05 PM

I too wonder what you mean...

Ron Humphrey

08-06-2009, 06:13 PM

It would also help if the Army didn't do everything possible to culturally exclude people from the coasts from coming in.

But since you make quite clear "exclusion" and "coasts" it seems quite likely your alluding to Lifestyle Choices. Do I get a cookie:wry:

Massengale

08-06-2009, 06:52 PM

I'm referring to the Army commissioned officer culture (especially at the company grade level) being primarily southern/midwestern. NASCAR, fishing, pickups and dip v. hybrids and theater. Binge drinking (or teetotalling) v. wine with dinner. The assumption that everyone is married. The assumption that non-SM spouses are either homemakers or have careers that can be plied even in the most remote locations. Etc. And then an unspoken (and sometimes spoken) assumption that people on the coasts aren't really Americans and that cosmopolitan officers are weird.

The other branches don't seem to have this problem...it's Army specific.

In 2004 over 40% of new Army officers were from the south. 18% from the midwest. 18% from the northwest. 18% from the west. the number from the northeast is too small to measure. even on the West Coast there were something like three ROTC grads out of the U Cal system last year. 34 out of NYC total in 2006 in comparison to 200 from Alabama.

http://columbiamilitary.blogspot.com/2007/03/wall-street-journals-statistics-urban.html

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,126186,00.html

Massengale

08-06-2009, 07:12 PM

one interesting take:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA493829

Ken White

08-06-2009, 07:47 PM

JarodParker

08-06-2009, 08:10 PM

The Army, proving once again, that it doesn't understand how to recruit, retain and develop junior Officers.
I’d argue that this commercial is a step in the right direction, at least marketing wise. Actual recruitment/applicant processing/ candidate mentorship is a different story.

I'm not really sure what specific demographic they had in mind as this method seems to be aimed at people who don't have USMA, OCS, or ROTC available as an option to them
It’s aimed at everybody: high schoolers, college students and grads since the commercial made a point of showing soldiers in OCS, ROTC and WP gear.

(as each have their own robust recruiting for their target demographic).
I disagree with you here. The Army doesn’t do nearly enough to recruit for OCS at least it didn’t about a year ago when I was researching the subject. A majority of teens and 20 or 30 year olds don’t know the difference between enlisted and officer, much less the different officer accession routes, especially OCS. Even if they knew, they are likely to encounter an enlisted recruiter who will try to tell them they have to enlist and serve first in order to become an officer.

I’ve always been skeptical of the argument that the Officer Corps is in direct competition with Corporate America for college graduates – they’re in direct competition with college admissions and enlisted recruitment as the choice to use ROTC or USMA is made back in high school.
The choice to apply for the USMA is made back in high school. Cadets decide to join the ROTC at different times; some before college, other during their freshman, sophomore or even later years.

The notion that there is the untapped pool of people who passed up multiple chances to serve their country, but since earning a degree are just waiting for someone to ask if they want to be an Officer, is flat out silly.
How is it silly? I can’t find the PDF at the moment and the Marine Officer site has been changed but there was a breakdown of all the USMC commissioning sources and I’d say about 20% were OCC graduates (people who already have degree in hand).

Massengale

08-06-2009, 08:11 PM

Is that culture you refer to an Army imposed culture or is it the culture of your 40% South plus 18% Midwest and perhaps a few of the others preferring those cultural icons to the alternatives you cite? I think there's a correlation versus a causation problem there...

On the wives and such, again what is the national, not the culturally elite, norm? On that topic, recall that military forces are by nature conservative and slow to change. The wife and wife / career issues have been around since the early 70s -- that they are still a problem is an indicator of the often glacial pace of military social change. I doubt that will ever go away -- and, FWIW, the other services have that problem as well.

You might also consider that the South has been over represented in the Army only since the Draft ended. I think that says something about the presence of a willingness to serve that is more in evidence in some parts of the nation than in others.

On the ROTC issue, is that not in part due to the fact that belonging to ROTC -- more particularly Army ROTC -- on many campuses is not at all politically correct on both a faculty and peer basis? Recall that many Ivy league schools opted out of hosting Army ROTC in the late 1960s and now do not want to let it back in -- ostensibly due to objections to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The paper by COL Wendel which you linked is, I think accurate and I agree with his recommendations. He, I think is missing one critical point which I address below. He makes a few statement that allude to it around the edges, this one, for example:That sentence is notable for its understatement...

You correctly point out that the same social conduct attributes do not apply to other services; that is a residual of the New England born and widely disseminated idea that the Army was the refuge of thieves and scoundrels whereas the Navy and to a lesser extent, the Marines were somewhat socially acceptable (too many seafarers in New England to reject the Navy totally :wry:). The Navy is presumed by most in this country to be a socially acceptable profession -- barely so in a few circles but still acceptable. The Air Force is slightly less acceptable, then the Marines and the poor old Army is at the bottom, the social sewer as it were. That has far more impact on persons from the coasts (and from tertiarily educated families nationwide) entering the services than do any of the things you cite.

That attitude in part reflects the historical opposition to a standing Army in this country and it partly reflects the strong anti military / antiwar bias present in Academia which has been imparted to many students over the past 30 plus years.

However, it is far more a reflection of social change in this country. As recently as fifty years ago, kids pretty well left home for good at 18 or thereabouts and Dad broke their plate to remind them it was tough world and they had to be able to take care of themselves. Since then this nation has been effectively 'Momized.' Moms do not break plates, on the contrary they welcome their offspring back even unto the 30th or 40th year; encourage it, even -- and the Moms of America do not want their Sons and Daughters in a socially questionable organization and absolutely do not want them in a position to engage in close combat with unsavory people.

"Is that culture you refer to an Army imposed culture or is it the culture of your 40% South plus 18% Midwest and perhaps a few of the others preferring those cultural icons to the alternatives you cite? I think there's a correlation versus a causation problem there..."

Neither. it's the result of self-selection. And the Army keeps going back to the same wells digging deeper and deeper.

As for the South being more willing...I'd say that's primarily a result of that being where the bases are. It's a heck of a lot less of a culture shock for a young LT from Alabama to end up at Polk than one from Manhattan. I'm an American who grew up overseas and in NYC. Quite frankly, I feel a lot more comfortable and at home (and have more friends and family) in Rome or Paris or London or Cairo than I do in Texas. There are millions of Americans like me. Where the posts are is going to be a harder sell than to a southerner who is assured of mostly staying at home (when not deployed). So the Army becomes a much easier sell to southerners than to the coasts (who by the way aren't just composed of "liberal elites" but also millions of first generation immigrants...a traditional military favorable category that the other branches manage to recruit quite well).

And why is it that the Army advertises during NASCAR races (or so I'm told) but not during golf? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

Many of my peers back in NY are multilingual, uber-well-traveled, educated and in excellent physical fitness. Many of them are willing to do something of public service for much less than private-sector money. They often end up in the foreign service or at Langley. But being unmarried, usually not Christian and a heavy traveler (the DOD pass/leave policies are obviously archaic and asinine) does not fit into Army culture, not well at all. The Army doesn't consider them and they don't consider the Army.

Massengale

08-06-2009, 08:24 PM

"Is that culture you refer to an Army imposed culture or is it the culture of your 40% South plus 18% Midwest and perhaps a few of the others preferring those cultural icons to the alternatives you cite? I think there's a correlation versus a causation problem there..."

Neither. it's the result of self-selection. And the Army keeps going back to the same wells digging deeper and deeper.

As for the South being more willing...I'd say that's primarily a result of that being where the bases are. It's a heck of a lot less of a culture shock for a young LT from Alabama to end up at Polk than one from Manhattan. I'm an American who grew up overseas and in NYC. Quite frankly, I feel a lot more comfortable and at home (and have more friends and family) in Rome or Paris or London or Cairo than I do in Texas. There are millions of Americans like me. Where the posts are is going to be a harder sell than to a southerner who is assured of mostly staying at home (when not deployed). So the Army becomes a much easier sell to southerners than to the coasts (who by the way aren't just composed of "liberal elites" but also millions of first generation immigrants...a traditional military favorable category that the other branches manage to recruit quite well).

And why is it that the Army advertises during NASCAR races (or so I'm told) but not during golf? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

Many of my peers back in NY are multilingual, uber-well-traveled, educated and in excellent physical fitness. Many of them are willing to do something of public service for much less than private-sector money. They often end up in the foreign service or at Langley. But being unmarried, usually not Christian and a heavy traveler (the DOD pass/leave policies are obviously archaic and asinine) does not fit into Army culture, not well at all. The Army doesn't consider them and they don't consider the Army.

As for the marriage thing: Army officers used to get married later in life than equivalent civilians. Not so anymore. I'd suggest that's a result of where officers are from.

Old Eagle

08-06-2009, 08:25 PM

Massengale

08-06-2009, 08:45 PM

Not all for the best, but change is inevitable. Ken, JT and some of the others can remember officers' clubs, "calls" on commanding officers, "mandatory" officers' wives' clubs, etc. Social life was much more focused on the base, the unit, etc., than is apparent today. Most of our families were exposed to diverse foreign cultures. But that was then and this is now.

As for ROTC, I think that the detractors have a serious cart and horse problem. We close programs, not to exclude part of the population, but as a business matter. Look at it this way -- if I can produce 34 widgets for x amount of money, or over 200 for the same amount, which operation am I going to keep open? Having worked the famous MIT magnet program (5 schools), I'm just not buying the "build it and they will come" model. I do think that the effort to recruit highspeed folks who didn't or couldn't participate in ROTC is a worthy effort and I look forward to seeing how this all pans out.

OBTW -- been slogging through rice paddies in the far East and hanging at the opera in Vienna (hardship tour), and there are a bunch of us around who don't fit your preferred stereotype.

I get the economics behind ROTC. But that also assumes that all ROTC candidates are equal. That 200 cadets from Podunk State are equivalent to 200 cadets from NYU (who come from across the country in reality). In our current operational environment, where COIN and cultural sensitivity are key, that's a false assumption I think.

My "stereotype" was specifically of company grades...there's a reason for that. And I stand by it. And when we still have CPTs discussing "haji" and "man-dresses"....I'd suggest that young officers from more diverse backgrounds might turn out to be force multipliers over that (very low) bar.

Ken White

08-06-2009, 08:50 PM

Neither. it's the result of self-selection. And the Army keeps going back to the same wells digging deeper and deeper.Yes, but is that self selection or going to a well that provides bodies when other wells do not?
As for the South being more willing...I'd say that's primarily a result of that being where the bases are.Certainly true -- recall they are there for three reasons, good weather (relatively, thus more training time per year); unoccupied rural real estate when they were built; not nearly as many environmental hangups and worries as the equally numerous posts that were in the north and west before the enviro / anti -war types congealed to shut them down.
I'm an American who grew up overseas and in NYC. Quite frankly, I feel a lot more comfortable and at home (and have more friends and family) in Rome or Paris or London or Cairo than I do in Texas.Totally understandable. Reaffirms my point, to an extent. The problem is that there's no way, short of en existential war that there will be post in the norht or far west.
And why is it that the Army advertises during NASCAR races (or so I'm told) but not during golf? Isn't that self-fulfilling?Certainly, to an extent -- but again, dry wells aren't of much value. You're focusing on officer accessions but the NASCAR ads are focused on Joe.
The Army doesn't consider them and they don't consider the Army.True and what neither of us can answer is the Chicken - Egg aspect of that. My guess is the Army tends to concentrate on what it thinks it can get and your friends are not likely candidates for accession so it doesn't, as an institution, waste much effort on trying to gather in people who are likely to be concerned about socialization and the caliber of people they may associate with. State and Langley are too of the most 'liberal' agencies in the government, the Army is perceived as being among the most 'conservative' and is therefor unattractive to many, IT is conservative but the people in it are not, they pretty well reflect the nation ideologically; the Army knows this but can see little point in trying to convince many to get very few.

There is also the fact that many of your peers likely consider the Army to be stodgy, not conducive to innovative though and stifling to young go-getters. It is and isn't but the perception that it is rules. I don't think the Army is deliberately eschewing attracting urban elites to the organization -- I think it just realizes that few will come, so why waste time and effort...

Back in the days of ROTC most everywhere, of it being an only mildly derided (as opposed to today's fairly heavy derisory efforts) and a lottery based Draft, there were many more folks from the north and west. Now it's voluntary and they don't seem disposed to volunteer...

selil

08-06-2009, 09:01 PM

I get the economics behind ROTC. But that also assumes that all ROTC candidates are equal. That 200 cadets from Podunk State are equivalent to 200 cadets from NYU (who come from across the country in reality). In our current operational environment, where COIN and cultural sensitivity are key, that's a false assumption I think.

My "stereotype" was specifically of company grades...there's a reason for that. And I stand by it. And when we still have CPTs discussing "haji" and "man-dresses"....I'd suggest that young officers from more diverse backgrounds might turn out to be force multipliers over that (very low) bar.

So where would PoDunk State be located? Considering the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, state of Michigan, university "U" of lake Michigan represent the FIVE largest engineering and sciences state sponsored concentration of schools on the PLANET.

Of course cultural sensitivity is important and care and stewardship of the environment are also important.

I unfortunately want that dirty, nasty, cursing, blood thirsty army that smiles after the kill. While helping little old ladies across the street, working in the most technically advanced army on the planet, and discussing the philosophy of Kant and Jung while doing civil affairs.

That's what we do here in fly over country that forgotten by coastal elitist metropolitan wasteland of hard working, hard playing, folk.

You know, right there next to PoDunk University. Heck I work at one of those PoDunk U's. What do we have to say for it? Oh, the most astro-nuts launched out of the atmosphere, Ameila Earhardt, Sully don't wanna swim to New York, a variety of captains of industry, many soldiers and sailors (captains of the Wabash), and lots of corn. Of course my campus is so far out in the sticks the nearest burg is that tiny little town called Chicago. You know that place where first run theater often beats Broadway?

No culture, but lots of corn here on the shores of Lake Michigan.

But hey, in other news this fall we are opening an ROTC on our campus.

Massengale

08-06-2009, 09:45 PM

Yes, but is that self selection or going to a well that provides bodies when other wells do not?Certainly true -- recall they are there for three reasons, good weather (relatively, thus more training time per year); unoccupied rural real estate when they were built; not nearly as many environmental hangups and worries as the equally numerous posts that were in the north and west before the enviro / anti -war types congealed to shut them down.Totally understandable. Reaffirms my point, to an extent. The problem is that there's no way, short of en existential war that there will be post in the norht or far west.Certainly, to an extent -- but again, dry wells aren't of much value. You're focusing on officer accessions but the NASCAR ads are focused on Joe.True and what neither of us can answer is the Chicken - Egg aspect of that. My guess is the Army tends to concentrate on what it thinks it can get and your friends are not likely candidates for accession so it doesn't, as an institution, waste much effort on trying to gather in people who are likely to be concerned about socialization and the caliber of people they may associate with. State and Langley are too of the most 'liberal' agencies in the government, the Army is perceived as being among the most 'conservative' and is therefor unattractive to many, IT is conservative but the people in it are not, they pretty well reflect the nation ideologically; the Army knows this but can see little point in trying to convince many to get very few.

There is also the fact that many of your peers likely consider the Army to be stodgy, not conducive to innovative though and stifling to young go-getters. It is and isn't but the perception that it is rules. I don't think the Army is deliberately eschewing attracting urban elites to the organization -- I think it just realizes that few will come, so why waste time and effort...

Back in the days of ROTC most everywhere, of it being an only mildly derided (as opposed to today's fairly heavy derisory efforts) and a lottery based Draft, there were many more folks from the north and west. Now it's voluntary and they don't seem disposed to volunteer...

I think we're probably in general agreement.

1. My concern is that there are severe second-order consequences to the Army and the nation as a result (you have alluded to this as well I think).

2. Considering the conflicts that we are currently in; four LTs with the wrong mentality may well do more harm and less good than one LT with the right mentality.

Massengale

08-06-2009, 09:57 PM

So where would PoDunk State be located? Considering the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, state of Michigan, university "U" of lake Michigan represent the FIVE largest engineering and sciences state sponsored concentration of schools on the PLANET.

Of course cultural sensitivity is important and care and stewardship of the environment are also important.

I unfortunately want that dirty, nasty, cursing, blood thirsty army that smiles after the kill. While helping little old ladies across the street, working in the most technically advanced army on the planet, and discussing the philosophy of Kant and Jung while doing civil affairs.

That's what we do here in fly over country that forgotten by coastal elitist metropolitan wasteland of hard working, hard playing, folk.

You know, right there next to PoDunk University. Heck I work at one of those PoDunk U's. What do we have to say for it? Oh, the most astro-nuts launched out of the atmosphere, Ameila Earhardt, Sully don't wanna swim to New York, a variety of captains of industry, many soldiers and sailors (captains of the Wabash), and lots of corn. Of course my campus is so far out in the sticks the nearest burg is that tiny little town called Chicago. You know that place where first run theater often beats Broadway?

No culture, but lots of corn here on the shores of Lake Michigan.

But hey, in other news this fall we are opening an ROTC on our campus.

I did some of my schooling in the midwest actually. I'm not quite sure where Podunk State is located; I just know that it exists. It's the place that apparently has a huge ROTC program which keeps producing young officers who can't spell or write, who refer to "haji" and "man-dresses", wear sunglasses when talking to the local populace and who wonder why Jews don't celebrate Christmas.

"I unfortunately want that dirty, nasty, cursing, blood thirsty army that smiles after the kill."

I don't. I want the Army that actually wins wars. That Army would have been great for fighting the Soviet hordes when they came across the Fulda Gap but that Army almost lost us two wars this decade and did lose a war in Southeast Asia. Don't get me wrong, we need the good old boys who grew up coon hunting and we certainly need to preserve plenty of HIC capacity. But right now, the kinetic stuff is secondary (and indeed depends upon the stuff that the kid who grew up in Jackson Heights knowing four languages might just happen to be better at).

Steve Blair

08-06-2009, 10:17 PM

2. Considering the conflicts that we are currently in; four LTs with the wrong mentality may well do more harm and less good than one LT with the right mentality.

Correct. But who's to say that a group of over-educated urban elites would be any more capable of producing the "right mentality" than their social and cultural opposites? How can you be sure they won't end up looking down their collective noses at folks who don't think the same way they do or aren't as open-minded as they are? I've met plenty of the "elites" who are just as close-minded and opinionated as their more "rural" counterparts...they just use bigger words to convey their disdain. And some of those same folks contributed to the policies and execution that lost that war in Southeast Asia you allude to.

What we need is a mix, and there is no silver bullet to get that. Not even on the more elevated coasts....

Ken White

08-06-2009, 10:40 PM

..Considering the conflicts that we are currently in; four LTs with the wrong mentality may well do more harm and less good than one LT with the right mentality.of a commander not doing his or her job, pure and simple -- not of the accession system or pool.
As for the marriage thing: Army officers used to get married later in life than equivalent civilians. Not so anymore. I'd suggest that's a result of where officers are from.No, it's a function of economics (it pays more to be married), lust and --in this case, the Army is the culprit -- tacit encouragement of marriage, Officer AND Enlisted because the married people cause less trouble. No matter that they ultimately cost more and are arguably less risk averse than those who are not married and in fact impose a long term burden on the Army. The Army takes a long view on cultural change but is into short termism when it comes to the hassle level on Commanders. :D
...That 200 cadets from Podunk State are equivalent to 200 cadets from NYU...That doesn't merit a response but I will note that even the podunks get students from many nations as well as from all over the country. I lived in Manhattan for a couple of years, heard about the same number of racial and ethnic slurs there as I did in San Francisco or Atlanta or hear now on the Redneck Riviera in Florida-- NYC and Boston may even have a slight edge. :wry:

No, that isn't an education problem, that's a command failure.
My "stereotype" was specifically of company grades...there's a reason for that. And I stand by it. And when we still have CPTs discussing "haji" and "man-dresses"....I'd suggest that young officers from more diverse backgrounds might turn out to be force multipliers over that (very low) bar.Previous comment applies -- that's a command failure. You cannot legislate morality or decent behavior -- but you can darn sure dictate it... ;)

Not to mention that your next conflict may be a major high intensity model and that cultural factor will be totally irrelevant... :cool:

Massengale

08-06-2009, 10:42 PM

Correct. But who's to say that a group of over-educated urban elites would be any more capable of producing the "right mentality" than their social and cultural opposites? How can you be sure they won't end up looking down their collective noses at folks who don't think the same way they do or aren't as open-minded as they are? I've met plenty of the "elites" who are just as close-minded and opinionated as their more "rural" counterparts...they just use bigger words to convey their disdain. And some of those same folks contributed to the policies and execution that lost that war in Southeast Asia you allude to.

What we need is a mix, and there is no silver bullet to get that. Not even on the more elevated coasts....

true on your conclusion. but kids from the coasts tend to be either a. from first-generation immigrant families or b. are the elites you speak of. in which case they've probably traveled extensively in Asia, the ME or Africa and know other languages (besides Spanish)...which does, in and of itself, lend itself to dealing with other cultural environments. My concern here is with young officers, not the folks who actually get us into wars (that's a separate discussion). I'm not saying that we should get rid of southerners, I'm saying that it might be advantageous for a variety of reasons for the number of young officers from the coasts to be more than the current number, which is infinitesimal. I'm also suggesting that the dominant cultural environment of the Army is hostile to people from the coasts. And I'm tired of hearing that we're not real "Americans." And, yes, the northeastern "elites" do hold all sorts of (mostly but not always wrong) stereotypes about the Army (and the rest of America for that matter). And that hurts recruiting too. But the Army does itself no favors when it acts in ways that reinforces those stereotypes.

CR6

08-06-2009, 10:45 PM

Massengale

08-06-2009, 10:57 PM

Agreed on the Army encouragement and incentivization of marriage...but that's part and parcel of Army culture too. And like I said, it discourages us single folks from entering. (Never mind that Forscom posts are always placed in areas where the local younger female inhabitants are chain-smoking obese single mothers.)

Considering that over 40% of young officers are from the South and considering where the posts are, I don't see the resistance here to the idea that the Army is culturally dominated by southerners. That's simply inevitable.

I also am unclear on what the opposition is to the logical point that 200 cadets at a relatively low-ranking school are likely to have more mediocrities and turds among them than 200 cadets at a high-ranking school, whether it be Carleton, Emory, the University of Chicago or Columbia. That's just a function of math.

A commander can't change hicks into diplomats overnight.

Until the economy changed everything (very temporarily), look at what happened with enlisted recruiting. They were mining ever deeper and deeper into the same zip codes, having to issue more and more waivers.

Massengale

08-06-2009, 11:07 PM

The issue isn't geographic origin or commissioning source. It's training, and more specifically post-commissioning training. Assuming that 200 cadets from NYU, or any east-coast urban university, are somehow "shovel-ready" for operations requiring cultural sensitivity doesn't make that much sense to me.

Why wouldn't cadets who grew up speaking Arabic or Mandarin or Russian be more ready? Why wouldn't cadets who spent two years in Israel in high school be more ready? Why wouldn't cadets who spent the summer of their jr. year traveling in the ME or Africa be more ready?

There are millions of Americans who fit that description. The Army ignores them at its own (and the nation's) peril. How many lives were lost because of some retarded prison guards?

Power-point slides and a few actors at an NTC are no substitute for prolonged, formative exposure to other cultures.

selil

08-06-2009, 11:12 PM

I also am unclear on what the opposition is to the logical point that 200 cadets at a relatively low-ranking school are likely to have more mediocrities and turds among them than 200 cadets at a high-ranking school, whether it be Carleton, Emory, the University of Chicago or Columbia. That's just a function of math.

Since, there is absolutely NO reasonable reliable current method of ranking schools in any form or fashion. Since, in many cases the best academic schools and the best ROTC programs are joined sets. Since, most of the Ivy Leagues are liberal arts programs, and the military has always decreed that they are interested in engineering talent (oh since Thomas Jefferson and the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890).

I wonder why you have such an unfathomable derision for people from the south, midwest and inter-mountain region of the United States. I've never run into this kind of egregious cultural centrism in Bozeman, Durango, Kalamazoo, or Champlain. You continue to refer to people from anywhere but the coasts as turds and mediocrities among other unflattering derisive terms.

Massengale

08-06-2009, 11:21 PM

Since, there is absolutely NO reasonable reliable current method of ranking schools in any form or fashion. Since, in many cases the best academic schools and the best ROTC programs are joined sets. Since, most of the Ivy Leagues are liberal arts programs, and the military has always decreed that they are interested in engineering talent (oh since Thomas Jefferson and the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890).

I wonder why you have such an unfathomable derision for people from the south, midwest and inter-mountain region of the United States. I've never run into this kind of egregious cultural centrism in Bozeman, Durango, Kalamazoo, or Champlain. You continue to refer to people from anywhere but the coasts as turds and mediocrities among other unflattering derisive terms.

1. I of course said nothing of the kind. (Ok, I don't have much good to say about Killeen or Lawton or Fayettville. Have you been to any of those three?) Better reading comprehension please. For example, you clearly misread the "turds and mediocrities" reference. Try again.

2. yes, the Army has concentrated on engineering and ignored languages, cultural studies, communications and all sorts of other fields that might actually have won some wars for us.

Technology is nice but pictures are often far more important. And we are still very amateurish when it comes to that sort of thing.

Massengale

08-06-2009, 11:24 PM

Since, there is absolutely NO reasonable reliable current method of ranking schools in any form or fashion. Since, in many cases the best academic schools and the best ROTC programs are joined sets. Since, most of the Ivy Leagues are liberal arts programs, and the military has always decreed that they are interested in engineering talent (oh since Thomas Jefferson and the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890).

I wonder why you have such an unfathomable derision for people from the south, midwest and inter-mountain region of the United States. I've never run into this kind of egregious cultural centrism in Bozeman, Durango, Kalamazoo, or Champlain. You continue to refer to people from anywhere but the coasts as turds and mediocrities among other unflattering derisive terms.

You also failed to notice that I mentioned two midwestern schools and one southern school as examples of "elite" schools. To make the engineers happy I'll add Caltech, CMU and MIT as examples.

Massengale

08-06-2009, 11:51 PM

to try and refocus this so it doesn't become a free-for-all my point is this:

1. The Army is racially diverse but culturally homogenous.

2. Although the causes of this homogenity are multiple, one of its effects is that it is self-perpetuating.

3. Although this homogenity is cost-effective for the Army in raw dollars, it has been quite costly in the long run due to 2nd order effects...such as a chasm between policy makers and the Army and...well....sucking at COIN.

CR6

08-07-2009, 12:46 AM

Why wouldn't cadets who grew up speaking Arabic or Mandarin or Russian be more ready?

From my limited experience, the Mandarin and Russian wouldn't have helped that much in Iraq, but the Arabic is useful. That said, my friends who attended NYU didn't speak any of those languages. Russian is probably helpful in Afghanistan. That said, a multi-lingual background doesn’t automatically free an individual from the prejudices of their culture and family, nor does it mean they are more receptive to other cultures.

Why wouldn't cadets who spent two years in Israel in high school be more ready? Why wouldn't cadets who spent the summer of their jr. year traveling in the ME or Africa be more ready?

Certainly, but I am not convinced that students at East coast universities commonly have such experiences. Again, in my experience, study abroad programs focused on Europe and Latin America. Three months of cultural tourism may be broadening, but I wouldn't say it prepares someone for anything like troop leading in stability operations.

For the record, I am a graduate of east coast prep schools and an East Coast University. I don’t feel that helped me corner any markets in cultural awareness or immersion. I married a fellow student who was a first generation American from a Korean family, who grew up speaking Hangul and practicing her family’s cultural traditions, and traveling back to Asia periodically. As far as I can tell after 18 years together, these experiences didn’t make her (or her family) any more or less open minded than anyone else I know. We are all subject to biases and human frailty.

There are millions of Americans who fit that description. The Army ignores them at its own (and the nation's) peril.

But I don’t see the correlation that officer recruiting in Northeastern schools really gets after this demographic.

How many lives were lost because of some retarded prison guards?

How was that not a leadership and training failure? An East Coast degree doesn't change that. For that matter, BG Karpinski is a graduate of Kean College of NJ, and COL Pappas graduated from Rutgers. East coast educational backgrounds among leaders did not prevent this problem. Of course, they weren’t Tier One graduates, so maybe that accounts for the less than stellar outcome.

Power-point slides and a few actors at an NTC are no substitute for prolonged, formative exposure to other cultures.

Amen brother. The crappy job we make of cultural immersion training is something we can discuss at length.

Cavguy

08-07-2009, 01:13 AM

All -

Also a new Army Strong/Warrior Ethos commercial.

cq-ZVIZJaI8

And for those who are lazy, an embed of the original video being discussed.

r34x_YiSWcE

I dunno, I like them, especially the officer one. Best the Army's done in awhile.

selil

08-07-2009, 01:29 AM

I dunno, I like them, especially the officer one. Best the Army's done in awhile.

I have to agree I like them. Where can a 43 year old expert on cyber warfare sign up? Oh, thats right I'm to old now. Take that USNR I slipped out of your fingers again! The vids are great though. Even my pinko commie spousal accessory unit likes them.

Ken White

08-07-2009, 01:30 AM

to try and refocus this so it doesn't become a free-for-all my point is this:Best way to avoid that in my observation is to avoid name calling on places and people who do not meet your standards. ;)
1. The Army is racially diverse but culturally homogenous.Essentially correct -- what's your recommendation for change?
2. Although the causes of this homogenity are multiple, one of its effects is that it is self-perpetuating.True, see my question 1.

3. Although this homogenity is cost-effective for the Army in raw dollars, it has been quite costly in the long run due to 2nd order effects...such as a chasm between policy makers and the Army and...well....sucking at COIN.Again, correlation is not causation -- the Army doesn't do COIN well simply because it eschewed it doctrinally and trainingwise for almost 30 years at the direction of a number of very senior, not company grade and generally not from the South persons (Specifically and in turn: from / College : MA/USMA; CA/UCB; KS/USMA/Rhodes Scholar; PA/USMA; NY/USMA/Dual MAs Harvard; PA/USMA; MA/Norwich/MA UNH; OK/USMA; HI USMA/MA Duke). In fairness, one of the PA guys and the Hawaiian tried to reverse that neglect but the system just outwaited the first mentioned and went back to what it does best, little change. The second became OBE. One of the worst at killing and burying COIN was the Rhodes scholar. Notice the thread -- no common state other than the two from PA... :wry:

Do recall that COIN is only one Army mission; cultural sensitivity is not a requirement in warfighting (trust me on that) -- really not even in COIN because, as I noted earlier, the lapses you cite are command problems, not individual cultural error attributed to people whose greatest flaw seems to be that they do not think the way you do.
I'm also suggesting that the dominant cultural environment of the Army is hostile to people from the coasts.I spent 45 years in and working for it; my observation was not that, it was that the dominant cultural environment was hostile to people from the coast (or anywhere) who expressed an obvious sense of superiority and disdain for those not so anointed... ;)

That, I believe is due to the coastal 'gentlemen' not demonstrating some of that cultural sensitivity that you mention they intrinsically possess and you seem to prize. Hicks are like that in responding to pseudo elitism. It's a Scotch Irish thing...

P.S.

Been to Fayetteville, avoided the others; full of Earthlings, no place for an old airborne sweat -- the trick if you get back to Bragg is to go west, to Troy and points west, get out in the small towns away from post. Or you can just go to DC and meet kindred spirits...:cool:

Uboat509

08-07-2009, 01:33 AM

As for the South being more willing...I'd say that's primarily a result of that being where the bases are.

Or it could be that there is a tradition of military service in the South and the Midwest that goes back many generations. Or maybe it's the fact that the South and Midwest are more politically conservative and therefore don't tend to look down on military service as being for the uneducated or sociopathic. I'm no scientist but I suspect that it is not a coincidence that red states provide tend to provide more recruits than blue states.

And why is it that the Army advertises during NASCAR races (or so I'm told) but not during golf? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

Hard to say. Maybe the Army hired an ad agency (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10371179/) who then did research to determine the best place to spend the Army's advertising dollars. Maybe they discovered that you can find more people at a NASCAR event who are willing to enlist than at a golf tournament. I don't know.

Many of my peers back in NY are multilingual, uber-well-traveled, educated and in excellent physical fitness. Many of them are willing to do something of public service for much less than private-sector money. They often end up in the foreign service or at Langley. But being unmarried, usually not Christian and a heavy traveler (the DOD pass/leave policies are obviously archaic and asinine) does not fit into Army culture, not well at all. The Army doesn't consider them and they don't consider the Army.

First of all, what civilian job have you had, or even heard of, that gives you thirty days of paid leave a year plus obscene amounts of three and four day weekends? I'm getting close to retirement and I want to find that job.

Second, there is a world of difference between foreign service or service at Langley and military service. I was born in New Jersey and raised in Suburban Pennsylvania. I went to a private high school with exactly the people that you are describing. My parents still belong to a country club in Jersey where they play golf with those kinds of people. If you are honestly trying to tell me that the only thing keeping them out of the Army is the Army is too Christian and too pro-marriage and doesn't give enough time off, I'm just not going to buy it.

SFC W

selil

08-07-2009, 01:40 AM

First of all, what civilian job have you had, or even heard of, that gives you thirty days of paid leave a year plus obscene amounts of three and four day weekends? I'm getting close to retirement and I want to find that job.

It is called Academia. 3 months off a year, most federal holidays, a Xmas break, a Thanksgiving break, and Spring Break. Especially in Ivy League colleges.

Uboat509

08-07-2009, 01:54 AM

So what you are saying is that we need more culturally sensitive officers. I can see that. We certainly don't want officers who don't refer to Arabs as "Hajjis" or their clothing as "man dresses." And we would certainly want them to be culturally sensitive enough to characterize anyone not from the coasts as a dumb hick and to refer to criminals as "retarded." We should definitely be doing more to keep the "hicks" out. So what if Southerners and Midwesterners have been the backbone of the military for decades? They're not our sort. As soon as we cut back on them then the highly educated, well-traveled, multi-lingual elite will come pouring in.

SFC W

Uboat509

08-07-2009, 01:57 AM

It is called Academia. 3 months off a year, most federal holidays, a Xmas break, a Thanksgiving break, and Spring Break. Especially in Ivy League colleges.

You got me, Selil. I am actually pursuing a degree in military history with an eye towards a masters so that I can eventually teach. But other than academia, what jobs give you that time off?

SFC W

SWJED

08-07-2009, 02:20 AM

But one irritation - They lead from island to island - with American Caesar Douglas MacArthur in the footage - well - I would beg to say that Chester Nimitz would be that leader.

And a little known fact concerning George Washington crossing the Delaware River (They lead across frozen rivers):

Washington's crossing of the Delaware, occurring on December 25, 1776 during the American Revolutionary War, was the first move in a surprise attack against the Hessian forces in Trenton, New Jersey at the Battle of Trenton. Final preparation for the attack was begun on December 23. On December 24 Washington ordered that each man be provided with three days rations and that they keep their blankets handy. He also ordered that security be tightened at each river crossing. The Durham boats used to bring the army across the Delaware from New Jersey were brought down from Malta Island near New Hope and hidden behind Taylor Island at McKonkey's Ferry. A final planning meeting took place on December 24, with all of the General Officers present. General Orders were issued by Washington on December 25 outlining plans for the march and attack. Just prior to the commencement of H-hour, an advance / lead party consisting of 7 Continental Marines pushed off and aided the advance of the main party, to include General Washington's boat, through the utilization of aft-facing black out candles mounted on their Trimountaine Whalers - a boat considered by many at the time as “unsinkable". Legend has it that 4 of the 7 Marines were deemed “liberty risks” by Continental Army military constable officials within an hour of landing in the vicinity of Trenton.

Cavguy

08-07-2009, 02:40 AM

selil

08-07-2009, 02:41 AM

You got me, Selil. I am actually pursuing a degree in military history with an eye towards a masters so that I can eventually teach. But other than academia, what jobs give you that time off?

SFC W

If you want teach you have to have the PhD. Just sayin.

Basically as a systems engineer working in implementation I negotiated at my last employer an embarrassing salary and 6 weeks of paid vacation (plus all weekends home). That was with 15 years of experience in the industry though and a huge funnel of work coming in (none DOD type work). I left that job for a lot less money because I was on the road monday through friday most weeks with a family at home. Might not be an issue for a military guy, but then again I'm not military anymore. Those jobs are out there.

For me, I always wanted to go back into the military but never seemed to get it done. The commercials hit a soft spot. The same spot that had me enter academia versus taking a CSO position in any of the corporations that offered. As a prof I might still get to serve the community. Those commercials play on that egalitarian thread. That same thread that we respect and honor in the military officers and enlisted soldiers and sailors that currently serve.

Service with honor and a creed of respect for America as a nation is a big deal. The commercials speak to that quite convincingly. You know there are a lot of jobs out there that you can have but the military is a career you live. It is likely one of the largest mistakes of my life (right up there with the first wife) that after breaking my back in the Marine Corps, after healing up and walking again, I didn't petition to get back in. Then again woulda, shoulda, coulda, life is what we've done not what we wish for. So, I did pretty good in law enforcement, and really good in international telecom, and now I'm moving up the ladder in academia. I'm not much up on what it means to be an officer in the military I never was one.

The commercials speak to team work. I've ran telco implementations teams with a cast of thousands and filled them with veterans from different services. Those veterans become the fulcrum where talk becomes success. On world wide projects those veterans represented a huge resource for understanding culture and foreign societies. Just my two cents on the outside world. The commercials are important to serving soldiers because for those getting out, this is how employers are going to think about you. The Army of One running through the desert all alone was bad because it said they don't play well with others. The big world of non-DOD commercial interest is about relationships. These commercials are much better.

JarodParker

08-07-2009, 03:09 AM

Geez, I love a hearty discussion as much as the next guy but when did this turn into Tom Ricks' the Ivy Leagues should save the Army from itself thread.

I agree that the Army should try to mend fences with the Coasters by revamping officer recruitment. It just doesn’t make sense to ask college students to drive 50+ miles from one campus to another in LA traffic for an ROTC class. However, I don’t think that someone would necessarily be a more effective operator in a COIN environment just because he/she went to an Ivy League and/or studied abroad (not everyone from such schools is a Fick or Exum ;)). Heck, look at what Ivy League grads did to our economy? The last thing they need is a weapon and minimal adult supervision. Furthermore I have found people who studied abroad to be a representative of the normal student body… meaning they are no more culturally nuanced, intelligent or resourceful. Some students grow because of their experience while others just return with an increased alcohol tolerance. And I say this as a multi-lingual west coaster.

In related news, I guess this ad is part of a whole series of spots about the marketability of leadership skills one would gain as an officer. Grrr, it took 48hrs for them to f- it up for me.

jkm_101_fso

08-07-2009, 03:09 AM

1. I of course said nothing of the kind. (Ok, I don't have much good to say about Killeen or Lawton or Fayettville. Have you been to any of those three?)

Lived in two, currently in one of them. Never had any issues; of course I'm one of those mid-western hicks you despise.

Although, in the 72 hours I spent in NYC, I was propositioned by two prostitutes, had my life threatened, had some Israeli guy try to hustle me in pool at a bar, and paid $13 for a can of Copenhagen.

I went to ROTC Camp with a kid from Cornell. I had to show him how to read a map...and take his M-16 apart...and use his MRE heater.

Folks from all walks of life contribute in their own way. No one type of person has the patent on how to be a successful Army officer.

Uboat509

08-07-2009, 03:42 AM

If you want teach you have to have the PhD. Just sayin.

Eventually, sure. But to get a job at a community college you just need a masters. I figured I could do that while I worked on a PHD. Plus I could be sure whether or not my wife is right and that I would like to teach at a university.

SFC W

patmc

08-07-2009, 04:03 AM

I think Courtney has some valid points, but is diving too much into elite vs rest. The following is my Yankee odyssey from high school to the Army. I'm not a martyr or special, and I think many have the same or similar story.

I am from northern NJ, and went to a Catholic liberal arts school in Massachusetts. Not exactly bastions of conservatism, but not as extremely liberal as one would think. Mostly working/middle class practical. Only one or two guys from my high school went straight into the military. My best friend from home did Navy ROTC out of high school (his brother was 10+ years in Navy), and I almost did AF ROTC, but ended up just going to college. My parents both worked in mid-town NYC, and were in the city that morning in September. A month or two later, I joined Army ROTC, which was across town on a different campus. In the winter (most of the school year), the town had snow, so getting up for PT and ROTC included snow shoveling. Navy/Marine ROTC were on campus, and were rather popular, but AF and AR were across town.

Only 2 or 3 students per class out of 600+ were Army cadets. The college did not recognize ROTC for credit. The college only offered housing assistance if you did ROTC for all 4 years. The college cost well above the ROTC scholarship I received, which was priced more for state or technical schools, not Northeastern private schools. The admin were Jesuits, and mostly liberal and anti-war (despite the fact that a Jesuit from the school won Medal of Honor in WWII) though the student body was largely conservative. My buddies partied, stayed up, and slept late. I did my best to join them, but was up at o dark thirty every weekday. When I started wearing BDUs once a week, people would look and wonder. A friend asked me if I was in the AF or NAVY, despite my ARMY nametape. A couple people sought opportunities to debate war, Iraq, President Bush, etc... but I tried to avoid those discussions. My answer was usually "Unfortunately I'm not in charge yet." Most smiled or said thanks.

Senior year, my friends worried about jobs, I worried about branch and duty station. After graduation, everybody packed up and planned summer vacations or grad school, a couple went right into work. I packed up, went home to NJ for 3 days, saw friends and family, then packed out and left for Fort Knox and Fort Sill. I didn't make it back to NJ until Thanksgiving. Then again for Christmas. Then I went to Airborne and Bragg, and did not go home until summer exodus. Then the next time was pre-deployment leave. I was engaged when I left, not when I came home a year later. All 3 of my senior roommates are married to their college girlfriends (1 has a child). I now have an amazing girlfriend 2000 miles away, waiting for me to find out where I am heading next. I still can't tell my parents when I will be home to visit again. I've been back to NJ twice this year.

I think my experience in ROTC was pretty common, though the NE and West probably experience more of the extremes. The location of posts in the south is due to history, available land, and politics. There is plenty of not in my backyard up north, and land in most NE states is too "valuable" to use as an impact zone or training area. Fort Drum is Canada, not NE. That's like telling someone from Texas, "Hey, Fort Polk is close." People from the northeast are generally disconnected from the military bc of social, political, and geographic reasons. If Fort Dix was an active post, or Fort Devens reopened, you would get more volunteers from the area. It would not solve the problem, but it would help retention and exposure.

Being in the Army has forced me to see the rest of the country, which I am grafteful for, but has also forced me across the country from my family and friends. The Army is cut off from a large portion of the country bc of geography. I don't think the good vs better colleges is a winning debate, but growing up in the NE was a different experience than KY, OK, or NC. Not better, different. I grew up in a town with mixed Black, White, Spanish, and Asian populations, and nobody realized that "mattered" until high school when we "grew up." I initially couldn't do much good walking through the woods, and I itch if I smell Poison Ivy, but I could talk to different people and get along. Spending time in KY, OK, NC (and now AZ) showed me that my opinions and stereotypes of the rest of the country were also incorrect, but that there were/are differences. Family and religion are more public and prominent outside the NE, but I don't remember any David Allan Coe sing alongs back home.

The shortage of NE or Western Officers will take more than posts in those areas to help recruit. Colleges in general, and the cultural elite need to change. Society as a whole needs more exposure. Short of a draft, I honestly don't know how you would do it though. The current call to service is focused more on community work or Peace Corps than on military service. It falls on us to let people know what we actually do, and that we are regular people despite our awesome clothes and occasional involuntary overseas work. I do my best to give Yankees a good name (and Jeter and company are finally helping out), and I think its better for the Army to have a mix of the whole country. I never missed an opportunity to remind my Georgia born and raised Battery Commander that I was finally exposing him to "civilization." He never missed an opportunity to remind me that he was exposing me to "real Americans." We were joking, but too many people believe that to be true. My adventures and travels in the Army have made me a better person and better American, but still come at high price. I think the price has been worth it, but is getting tougher, and getting more people to pay that price is harder than new commercials (and yes, this new commercial is pretty good).

Courtney Massengale

08-07-2009, 05:17 AM

Wow, go home, come back the next day and there's three pages and somebody who has stolen my last name! AND he hates the midwest! :p

How is it silly? I can’t find the PDF at the moment and the Marine Officer site has been changed but there was a breakdown of all the USMC commissioning sources and I’d say about 20% were OCC graduates (people who already have degree in hand).

The Marine Corps is a very different animal in how they generate officers - there isn't "Marine ROTC" or "Marine Academy" (there's some kind of competitive program inside Naval commissioning iirc). I'm not really sure you can hold those numbers up to the other three services and make a fair comparison. There's a different process and a different pool that they are "making" Marine Officers from.

(insert Ain't Ready for the Marines Yet joke here)

MattM

08-07-2009, 05:56 AM

The Marine Corps is a very different animal in how they generate officers - there isn't "Marine ROTC" or "Marine Academy" (there's some kind of competitive program inside Naval commissioning iirc). I'm not really sure you can hold those numbers up to the other three services and make a fair comparison. There's a different process and a different pool that they are "making" Marine Officers from.

Having served as an assistant to a very successful Officer Selection Officer, the most pervasive challenge is communicating to potential applicants what it means to serve as an officer. The difference between the enlisted and officer ranks are not well understood in any region of this nation.

If the US Army has a self interest in recruiting from U.S. News's top 20 schools in America, it will do so. Based on some of the things Courtney has posted, I predict that the US Army has not found that the performance matches the pretentiousness among these students. My view is that these are students who have always been successful among their peer group, and have always had good options (and resources) available to them. Therefore, to tell these students that: the branch they serve in, the continent they live on, and the people they spend time with will all be determined in a lottery process, conducted by a committee someplace else, is simply not going to work.

Lastly, if these students are the academic and cultural elites they think they are they should have no challenge finding worthwhile things to do wherever they go. If they are worn out by a lack of urbane attractions, do they possess the resilience to serve as a military officer?

I have served with Marine lieutenants from MIT, Harvard, Duke, Georgetown, and Cornell. Also, I have served lieutenants who had founded companies or launched satellites with major corporations. Once they hit the fleet, the playing field was very level. Only the MIT student stands out (small sample, like the awful study the colonel published on page 1).

Ken White

08-07-2009, 04:13 PM

Very good, in fact. BZ.

bspeer

08-07-2009, 06:07 PM

Interesting read here on the roots of American bellicosity:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=620

Ken White

08-07-2009, 10:16 PM

Thanks for the link.

Schmedlap

08-08-2009, 08:45 PM

I know nothing of how this commercial was focus-grouped, watered down, and coded. My general impression upon viewing it, and after reading through the comments here, is that it is targeted towards family members of potential officers – NOT the officers themselves. I cannot imagine viewing that commercial between the age of 18 and 22 and wanting to join up. On the other hand, my friends and family would probably view it and it would either sustain or improve their perception of military service and it may prompt them to either encourage or not discourage me from pursuing such a career.

Regarding the cultural divide, if any, and the perceived failure to target certain sub-cultures within our country – I think we are reading too much into what may not be there. This was, in my opinion, a very mushy, feel-good, cheery commercial that was light on content – not likely to appeal to ANY potential officer candidates. It appeals to their families.

In regard to targeting the audience of potential recruits/candidates, I still say that the British Royal Marines have cracked the code. I wish we would just copy, paste, alter the uniforms and accents, and repackage it for the Army. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUcaM_0ztbM

Ken White

08-08-2009, 09:37 PM

In regard to targeting the audience of potential recruits/candidates, I still say that the British Royal Marines have cracked the code. I wish we would just copy, paste, alter the uniforms and accents, and repackage it for the Army. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUcaM_0ztbMOnly if you want to raise and uphold that higher standard. Works for me; would work for a 300-350K person Army that could do more than can the current model.

Bob's World

08-08-2009, 10:07 PM

pjmunson

08-09-2009, 03:16 AM

I admit that I skimmed through a lot of the stereotype slinging and back-and-forth, so I apologize if I am rehashing old ground, but I would like to throw in my two cents. I have met and served with what I think would run pretty well as the best and worst officers from the "elite," the coasts, the south, hickville, etc. While each of these demographics contributes differently and therefore may have more or less examples for others to draw on when making their opinions, I find it hard to believe that any one region or demographic has the corner on soldierly or leadership qualities. All bring something to the table and the qualities of a good officer really come down more to unique personal traits and how an individual deals with them or puts them to work as a leader than any regional or class culture. Things generally get bad, though, when someone falls into a stereotype or, even worse, tries to live a stereotype. The liberal elitist who looks down his nose on the troops, cringes at the arch-conservative banter, and tries to talk like a thesaurus is no worse than the officer who tries to act like a Skoal commercial and thinks he wins cool points by speaking and acting stupid, to the point where a field grade officer opens an address to military, diplomatic, and commercial bigwigs from several nations by drawling, "Even though the military sent me to get a masters degree, I'm still not all that bright." True story.

For those who believe that all the real officers agree with the viewpoints (political, cultural, social, etc) that seem to permeate the service right now, realize that many keep quiet on their positions rather than making for difficult conversation in a professional environment. What I'm saying is that, just because everyone seems to think the same way and act the same way, that doesn't mean we really are all from the same demographic politically, socially, etc. Thus, the negative examples of X demographic that stand out usually stand out because they've sky-lined themselves as a-holes.

Finally, although I made the decision to serve very early on, I think that one of the comments in this thread that essentially dismisses people who -paraphrase- passed up multiple opportunities to serve their country -end paraphrase- is offensive. Not everyone grows up wanting to serve and not everyone who does is really thinking of serving the country. People do it because of family, ROTC money, the cool factor of the job, etc. Those who have had different career paths but then decide one day that they want to have more meaning in life and do something that really matters can be among the most dedicated officers out there and often bring unique views and skills to the fight. It is one thing to be an 18-year old all fired up about shooting guns and playing soldier (some get it some don't), but it is much different to chose after college to enter the service. Aside from it being a job and a relatively secure one, the decision is probably based more on the actual notion of service than it is for many of us who have always wanted to be in the military before we really knew what service meant. If the Army can bring even a few more of these people in, then bravo.

Ken White

08-09-2009, 07:14 AM

During that entire period, all of the Services have pretty well represented the society of the day from which they come. Among the better educated in the US, the Navy has always been more socially acceptable, the AF and Marines wander back and forth in second and third place and the Army is always the least accepted socially. All the services have varied over time in what that acceptance means and it has had various impacts on recruiting and officer accessions. There has always been a rural/urban, an East/West and a North/South disconnect -- mild but present. We're a very large nation with over 300M people. Lot of variations. By and large though, the services have generally been supported by most in the nation and most people in the service have adapted to others without major trauma. Far better today than it was about the time of Korea -- major riots occurred over States of birth and such, to include killed (very few) and wounded (most lightly). Those days are gone and good thing -- lets the MPs and Shore Patrol have an easier life.

It's also been my observation that the amount of religious fervor or noise, general social attitudes among service people and more pretty much reflect the nation and that changes over time. I've seen totally irreligious periods and others where it blossomed a bit. There was a religious upswing in the late 40s and early 50s that dissipated, virtually nil in the 60s and 70s, started up again in the 80s, peaked in the 90s, dropping again today. It goes in cycles...

My personal belief is that there are more officers and EM of a politically 'liberal' persuasion than there are those inclined to be 'conservatives.' As many or more vote Democratic as Republican. NCOs generally reverse that, the result is pretty much political equilibrium. That with the caveat that for several reasons, it can vary a bit by type unit and where the unit's located. As pjmunson said, most just don't go on about it -- and should not; no one should even come close to trying to sway the troops one way or another. Some will err and do that and they should be called on it if it occurs.

The issue of those wanting or not wanting to serve is colored by several things. I do not want to see a draft and think one is highly unlikely but back when we did have one, it brought in a lot of people to include to the Navy, Marines and AF -- those who were going to get drafted and did not want to go in the Army so they enlisted -- even Doctors, who would never have volunteered but once they were in, found something to like and stayed in. with the elimination of the draft, we went to pure volunteers. We're better off for it. I'd even go for fewer of them; we waste a bit of man and woman power here and there...

I never had a problem with those that did not want to serve -- too many people in uniform now that do not really want to be there. It's not a job for everyone and I'd rather go to war with four or five motivated people than a dozen or more run of the mill sorta wantas. Nor do I have any problem with those who don't want to be combat types; that sure isn't a job for everyone. I stopped trying to get people to stay in over 50 years ago when one kid I had tried to encourage to reenlist said "Sergeant, you're okay but there are a lot of people here who aren't and the only thing I've learned in the Army is to say MF and eat with a big spoon." I have never even considered asking or encouraging anyone to join or stay after that...

Courtney Massengale

08-09-2009, 02:02 PM

Ok, I just gotta ask: Why use "Massengale" as a screen name?

A good friend and officer I respect tremendously once accused me of being Sam Damon. (A gross overstatement, but a compliment of the highest order). But if someone called me Courtney Massengale I'd be tempted to lay them out.

Particularly curious as we discuss officership on this thread.

(Graduate and commissioned at West Coast podunkville myself. Used to be with considerable justification called "The West Point of the West". Go Beavs!)

I can only speak for myself and not the other guy who has just "massengale"...

The Officers I have known who view the Corps as populated by either Sam Damons or Courtney Massengales tend to have difficulties determining the difference between reality and fiction. If you choose to emulate a fictional protagonist dreamed up by a Marine E-5 as your Army leadership role model, something has gone horribly wrong.

And let’s not forget that Sad Sam cheated on his wife and resorts to tossing people down stairs or threatening to fight them in a warehouse if they don’t agree with him.

In the name of full disclosure, my second boss in the Army was a Major who viewed himself as Sam Damon and had a gigantic black and white photo of The Duke in The Green Berets in his office. He was woefully incompetent (light guy in a heavy unit syndrome) and used obtuse and uneven methods to “prove” he was Sam Damon. Which, by default, made the rest of us (ie everyone) who didn’t fit his self-fulfilling criteria….

*thunder*lightning*

Courtney Massengales

Bob's World

08-09-2009, 02:24 PM

I can only speak for myself and not the other guy who has just "massengale"...

The Officers I have known who view the Corps as populated by either Sam Damons or Courtney Massengales tend to have difficulties determining the difference between reality and fiction. If you choose to emulate a fictional protagonist dreamed up by a Marine E-5 as your Army leadership role model, something has gone horribly wrong.

And let’s not forget that Sad Sam cheated on his wife and resorts to tossing people down stairs or threatening to fight them in a warehouse if they don’t agree with him.

In the name of full disclosure, my second boss in the Army was a Major who viewed himself as Sam Damon and had a gigantic black and white photo of The Duke in The Green Berets in his office. He was woefully incompetent (light guy in a heavy unit syndrome) and used obtuse and uneven methods to “prove” he was Sam Damon. Which, by default, made the rest of us (ie everyone) who didn’t fit his self-fulfilling criteria….

*thunder*lightning*

Courtney Massengales

But for someone with such an aversion to taking what a Marine E-5 dreams up seriously, you did name yourself after a character he dreamed up to represent everything bad in self-serving, career oriented officers.

Just seems odd to me, but that's just me.

And as you noted, your self-deluded former boss was no Sam Damon, but then no one is or was.

I've always said I've learned from everyone I ever worked for or with. Either how to do something, or how not to. Trick in life is to pick your role models wisely. As to once an eagle, I enjoyed the book and could empathize more with Damon, no more, no less.

Greyhawk

08-09-2009, 05:06 PM

Timely poll result (http://www.defenselink.mil//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=55417)

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7, 2009 – U.S. military officers have “very great prestige,” and their status is climbing, according to a poll released this week.

...More than half of those polled gave military officers top marks, saying that the position held very great prestige. Military officers tied with teachers for 51 percent.

I left the teacher reference in there just for Uboat509. More interesting to me is the steady upward track from 1982.

On demographics: without digging for supporting documentation, I expect a significant portion of the "southern" skew in recruiting figures is also due to the many military brats (I use the term as a father of three myself) with southern addresses because that's where their parents are stationed/retired. The imbalance is not geographic, it is family tradition vs nonesuch - something that is the same for most professions.

On another note, much of the current civilian view of the military is still informed by living memory of the WWII (and post-WWII) military - which was the historical exception, and not the rule it's often described as now. ("our current military is small and detached from larger population" - true but actually the norm in U.S. history). By "living memory" I mean in particular the experience of many who were not "right" for military service but who endured (in most cases honorably and many with distinction) a few years of it as very low-ranking individuals under the worst possible conditions.

And how many bright, young (Ivy-educated or otherwise) folks with world-changing/saving ideas are going to "survive" the first five or so years when "sir yes sir" is the right response to everything? Especially when they know they are the smartest in the room (a room full of people for whom "smart" appears inversely proportional to time in service/experience) and no one will listen?

Ken White

08-09-2009, 06:11 PM

On demographics...also due to the many military brats (I use the term as a father of three myself) with southern addresses because that's where their parents are stationed/retired....all us Fathers of three of 'em, that's a good point. One that had totally slipped my small, retired in the south mind. :wry:
And how many bright, young (Ivy-educated or otherwise) ... (a room full of people for whom "smart" appears inversely proportional to time in service/experience) and no one will listen?...all us old guys who are just jaded, not stupid.

I submit that part of that problem is that we've heard it all before from dozens of bright youngsters coming from all areas of the nation, we're just waiting for one of 'em to come up with something truly innovative or different, achievable within the system and not too self referential. Not necessarily in that order. :D

Good post, Greyhawk.

MattM

08-09-2009, 09:05 PM

And how many bright, young (Ivy-educated or otherwise) folks with world-changing/saving ideas are going to "survive" the first five or so years when "sir yes sir" is the right response to everything? Especially when they know they are the smartest in the room (a room full of people for whom "smart" appears inversely proportional to time in service/experience) and no one will listen?

I would dare say that was my experience. It is not that nobody would listen; it was that I had to slow the thought process way down to countermand the logical errors and comparative reasoning faults of all parties involved up the chain of command. Thus, I respectfully declined augmentation in July of 2001. This was a big deal back then, when all the field grades went through the wringer to be offered augmentation.

To my own fault, I did not trust that I would get orders to Naval Post Graduate School, even though in hindsight I surely would have. I had only bad experiences with the manpower process to this point.

The issue of a polarized Sam Damon / Courtney Massengale offers the opposite pole to the elite education issue. Currently, all services accept a degree as a qualification that one can obtain a commission; and the process requires very little evidence that an education has taken place.

Kiwigrunt

08-09-2009, 10:06 PM

Timely poll result (http://www.defenselink.mil//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=55417)

A bit off topic, but on reading this poll, my eyes were drawn to the number (200,000) of officers in US active service. I thought, shikes, that seems a lot. So I asked my friends Google and Wiki for some numbers and came up with these officers to enlisted ratios:
US Army 1 : 5.2
USMC 1 : 8.8
US Navy 1 : 5.4
US Air Force 1 : 4.1
US Coast Guard 1 : 4.1

What struck me here (apart from the relatively high number of officers in relation to enlisted) was that the USMC stands out…quite a bit, especially when compared against the army. I assume larger platoons will have something to do with it but…..what else?

PS: If we completely flatten the hierarchy we could almost have one officer to every fire-team.:eek:

Uboat509

08-09-2009, 11:16 PM

PS: If we completely flatten the hierarchy we could almost have one officer to every fire-team.:eek:

Don't even kid about that.

SFC W

Old Eagle

08-09-2009, 11:38 PM

The air force numbers are a little misleading in that the "privates", i.e. the trigger pullers are all commissioned, while the NCOs do the intellectual work:D

jmm99

08-09-2009, 11:58 PM

from kiwi...
US Army 1 : 5.2
USMC 1 : 8.8
US Navy 1 : 5.4
US Air Force 1 : 4.1
US Coast Guard 1 : 4.1

also as noted by me once upon a time, and explained to me by my local Marine recruiter: The Marines give NCOs a lot more responsibility, starting with fireteam leaders. We don't need as many officers, who can do other things that have to be done.

I'd be interested in how the Marines here explain it.

CR6

08-10-2009, 12:23 AM

What struck me here (apart from the relatively high number of officers in relation to enlisted) was that the USMC stands out…quite a bit, especially when compared against the army. I assume larger platoons will have something to do with it but…..what else?

PS: If we completely flatten the hierarchy we could almost have one officer to every fire-team.:eek:

I'm curious if this comparrison removed specialty officers such as doctors and chaplains from the mix. In the Army, these personnel are Army officers, while the Corps has no billets and receives such support from the Navy. If ALL Army officers were considered, it seems to me it distorts the ratio a little.

Cavguy

08-10-2009, 12:34 AM

I'm curious if this comparrison removed specialty officers such as doctors and chaplains from the mix. In the Army, these personnel are Army officers, while the Corps has no billets and receives such support from the Navy. If ALL Army officers were considered, it seems to me it distorts the ratio a little.

Another skewing factor is the relative lack of theater level logistics units in the Corps. The Marines rely heavily on the Army's higher level logistics networks in IZ and AFG as it cannot support itself for enduring missions without augmentation from the other services. Many of these such elements are officer heavy as things such as movements control, warehouse ops, port operations, etc. are staff intensive.

Ken White

08-10-2009, 12:35 AM

This is caused by three things; A series of reductions in force that always cuts more enlisted than officer spaces , thus nudging the ratio down a bit with each iteration. A strong desire for an adequate mobilization base of officers, particularly Flag Officers leads to a padding of officer strength -- most of the excess is simply parked on too large staffs at all levels, the ratio of officers in contact with or command of troops hasn't changed much. The third factor is the Statutory requirements for fairness and equity in promotions. Congress demands an equal shot and the up or out process required to satisfy them entail a very wide pyramid. There are many other factors but those are the big three. One minor factor is the dumbing down of the US educational system at the secondary level for a number of reasons that result in a belief that a college degree is required for anyone who must think. Yet, as MattM said above:
Currently, all services accept a degree as a qualification that one can obtain a commission; and the process requires very little evidence that an education has taken place.I figure if we keep playing with the uniform, giving out high level meritorious service (as opposed to combat) awards to people for just doing their jobs (Someone senior note a LTC friend of mine had seven Meritorious Service Medals and asked him why. His reply: "I PCSed a lot" -- meaning that he got one every time he transferred) and the Officer to troop ratio keeps going down, we'll resemble one of those Armies that we used to make fun of... :D

jmm99

08-10-2009, 01:02 AM

MEDOPSBOOKFEB01 Ppt Presentation (http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Quintilliano-60507-MEDOPSBOOKFEB01-Education-ppt-powerpoint/), gives the higher echelon Naval Med and Dental support to a Marine MEF (3 active):

Slide39: USMC Medical Battalion Personnel: 214 Officers/757 Enlisted Mobility: 100% BOA: One per Force Service Support Group Assigned To: Force Service Support Group MISSION: Provide Echelon II medical support to a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). COMMAND AND CONTROL: Commanding officer reports to the Commanding General of the Force Service Support Group. ORGANIZATION: 1 x Headquarters and Service Company 3 x Surgical Companies CHARACTERISTICS: Operating Rooms: 9 Laboratories 6 X-ray: 6 Pharmacy: 6 Flow-through Cots: 260 Shock Trauma Platoons: 8 Erect Time: 6 hrs. Maximum Patient Holding Time: 72 hrs. 39

Slide40: USMC Dental Battalion Personnel: 76 Officers/160 Enlisted Mobility: 100% BOA: One unit per maneuver battalion Assigned To: Force Service Support Group MISSION: Provides Echelon II dental support to a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). COMMAND & CONTROL: Dental battalion Commanding Officer reports to the Commanding General of the Force Service Support Group and is assigned the additional duty as the MEF Dental Officer. ORGANIZATION: Headquarters and Service Company Three x Dental Companies COMPANY ORGANIZATION: Headquarters Section 2 x Dental Officers 4 x Dental Technicians Clinical Section 17 x General Dentists 1 x Comprehensive Dentist 1 x Periodontist 1 x Endodontist 1 x Oral Surgeon 1 x Prosthodontist 44 x Dental Technicians 40

but, then you would have to factor in all of the lower echelon EM hospital corpsmen, etc. I doubt whether this is close to the complete answer - nor, for that matter, the infantry platoon size.

If you want to go to more work than I do, you can parse through the TO&E of a MAGTF (MEF - e.g., Marine Division (http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/FMFM%206-1%20Marine%20Division.pdf)), which would provide the answers.

Be interesting to see the O-EM ratios in the GCE, ACE and CSSE, and in their respective components. Do the Marines have relatively fewer officers in the GCE ? That was the point made to me by the Marine recruiter.

Regards to all,

Mike

Kiwigrunt

08-10-2009, 02:55 AM

Ha ha, you thought you guys were rich on officers......I just did the same for the NZDF (http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/personnel-records/personnel-branch/default.htm).

Ratios are as follows:
Army 1 : 5.0
Navy 1 : 3.4
Air Force 1 : 3.0

Just to give you a taste, for an army (active duty) of 5003 we have 9 brigadiers, 268 majors, 176 captains (less than majors) and 182 lieutenants (1st and 2nd)

jmm99

08-10-2009, 03:04 AM

A regimental TO from 1 Jan 1945 (117-30ID), with 153 Os (+ 5 WOs) and 3049 EM.

Since we don't have operational regiments anymore, the Rifle Bn ratio was 35 Os and 825 EM. Miracle how they managed to function - with that, and 8 O Bn operational planning staffs (most all managing combat roles, as well).

Kiwigrunt

08-10-2009, 04:24 AM

This (http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/index.htm) site gives a lot of detailed info on WWII unit compositions. Commonwealth battalions (inf) were similar to the US set-up that you showed jmm99. With around 35/36 : 800 (bat. HQ had 5 off.)
USMC inf bat. were larger but ratios weren’t far different with around 38 : 900 (roughly averaged through the evolving series)
The Germans typically had around 30 % fewer officers but many platoons were commanded by NCOs and often the coy. com. was the senior pl. com.

Now to be fair, do current inf. bat. really look all that different. Maybe a few more off. at HQ but from there down it's pretty much identical.
So the 'excess' is to be found where Cavguy and Ken have identified them, above and to the peripherals of the combat units.

jmm99

08-10-2009, 05:24 AM

since I tend to accept Ken and Niel as pretty much gospel when it comes to Army force structure and training.

That being said, are the present inf Bns running anywhere near the 20:1 ratios of WWII ?

And, there could be good reasons for the present ratios - more technology = more degrees = more officers - might be one syllogism. And - higher grade = higher pay - since there has to some status recognition and economic reward for the commitment.

What does NZ do with 9 brigadiers ? Or 258 majors ? Provide, I suppose, an officer corps for a much larger army if the balloon goes up ? Life must get pretty boring for most of them. Although I'm told by a friend that NZ has just great stream fishing.

WWII Battalion Organisation link is interesting - thanks much.

Cheers from Upoverland

Mike

Courtney Massengale

08-10-2009, 06:53 AM

But for someone with such an aversion to taking what a Marine E-5 dreams up seriously, you did name yourself after a character he dreamed up to represent everything bad in self-serving, career oriented officers.

Like so many other things, it isn't the work itself, its what it has come to represent. For me, it represents the generation that just missed Vietnam, survived the draw down, got us into GWOT and fooled themselves into thinking they are Damons.

But more to the point, this is a website. Not to offend anyone, but I tend to take self-image over the internet with a large grain of self-depreciating salt. I understand and respect that many people tie SWJ to their professional career (be it military, historian, writer, etc), but my personal $0.02 here is more geared towards voicing my opinion. I tend to worry more about the folks who create an avatar that prefaces their comments with an air of credibility without revealing their qualifications. There are, obviously, other places for more nuanced professional discussions about what I have experience in and those are the places where I toss my resume behind my blabbering.

I've always said I've learned from everyone I ever worked for or with. Either how to do something, or how not to. Trick in life is to pick your role models wisely. As to once an eagle, I enjoyed the book and could empathize more with Damon, no more, no less.

This might be a very post-modern take, but for me, here was a large cognitive dissonance between what people believed Sam Damon stands for and what is actually written in the book. Especially as the first time I read it was in the mid-90s. Some of the most Damonesque aspects of Sam Damon seemed quaint (racial equality! OCS! lists of things your boy needs to learn!) while others seemed strangely out of touch with the newly minted Army Values and the direction the Army was moving in (tossing guys down stairs! screwing nurses in Australia! walking off malaria!). It doesn’t help that the dire predictions at the end of the novel did not come to pass (land war with China?) and the specter of Vietnam had mostly been erased by Desert Storm.

I might be on an island here, but I would wager that most of today’s junior officers don’t relate with Sam Damon OR Courtney Massengale. If anything, I think MORE people are able to emphasize with Courtney – they’re caught in a marriage that the military has sucked the love out of, they have to do unpleasant things to stay in their bosses good graces and they’re stuck advocating for a war that they know is bad for the country but is professionally developmental.

Although I would like to see HRC employ an alcoholic mother to give advice for career progression...

pjmunson

08-10-2009, 01:23 PM

if Courtney Massengale just likes to ruffle feathers and put out a contrarian viewpoint for fun or if he really is a lot like Courtney Massengale, but it sure seems like he's taken the contrarian a bit far. I highly doubt that many people who read "Once an Eagle" identify with Massengale. Everyone I know that has read and recommended the book has wanted to identify with Damon. Yes, it's fiction and yes, it's quaint, but we have all met Massengales and hated them and some of us have met a precious few who trend towards Damon and idolized them. I forget how throwing the guy down the stairs came into the plot, but things like that, while publicly "reprehensible," often only increase a military leader's attraction, especially if he doesn't get caught. This was especially so in the timeframe of the book. We aren't in the glee club and we don't lead boy scouts.

Some of the Damon flaws can be taken, too, as cautionary. In any case, Massengale loves to hate Damon. I hope he doesn't take his Massengale character too far in real life.

AmericanPride

08-10-2009, 01:58 PM

From a junior officer: I've never heard of Once an Eagle until I read this thread. Well, I probably heard about it in passing when talking about Army reading lists which I usually do my best to avoid (though I did read Killer Angels and Band of Brothers). It's hard enough drawing accurate and useful lessons from historical fact, much less fiction which is designed to drive home the author's ideals sometimes in spite of fact. It seems to me though from the depictions of the characters that Damon is an idealized character because he reflects what should be and the other is admonished because he reflects what is. It's appears to be one of those things that everyone knows but God forbid you be the one to actually say it.

Ken White

08-10-2009, 02:12 PM

But more to the point, this is a website. Not to offend anyone, but I tend to take self-image over the internet with a large grain of self-depreciating salt.As do most of us...
...(racial equality! OCS! lists of things your boy needs to learn!) while others seemed strangely out of touch with the newly minted Army Values and the direction the Army was moving in (tossing guys down stairs! screwing nurses in Australia! walking off malaria!).Different time. He was reporting life as it was then in a book of fiction. Tossing people down stairs occurred frequently, as did multiple fights in all grades of school and in public places between adults. Seem almost prehistoric by today enlightened standards. That's why the Army and Marines have to teach various forms of hand to hand combat today -- many 'adults' have never been struck or roughed up by another person. As for Australia, if you're ever in a similar situation and consider it carefully, not just overseas, but deployed for the duration not a few months and in a nation of broadly similar culture where association is not 'discouraged,' I suggest you note the behavior along that lineof all your fellow soldiers...
It doesn’t help that the dire predictions at the end of the novel did not come to pass (land war with China?) Should that be did not or 'has not yet?'
and the specter of Vietnam had mostly been erased by Desert Storm.Really? I don't think so. Not at all. Most people are sharp enough to realize that Desert Storm with 100 casualties in 100 hours was not a war but a live fire FTX with a poor OpFor. That it didn't erase much of anything about Viet Nam is I think evidenced by those who objected to Afghanistan and Iraq. Same people and their clones or offspring.
I might be on an island here, but I would wager that most of today’s junior officers don’t relate with Sam Damon OR Courtney Massengale. If anything, I think MORE people are able to emphasize with Courtney – they’re caught in a marriage that the military has sucked the love out of, they have to do unpleasant things to stay in their bosses good graces and they’re stuck advocating for a war that they know is bad for the country but is professionally developmental.In order, I suspect you're correct and that's sad. I don't think anything can suck love out of a good marriage though one that probably shouldn't have been could be easily affected. How do you live with yourself if you 'have to do unpleasant things' and why would you want to stay in the good graces of your Boss. Anyone who advocates any war is a dangerous fool; doing your job is one thing, advocating it for professional development definitely is Courtney material.
Although I would like to see HRC employ an alcoholic mother to give advice for career progression...She'd probably make far more sense than does most that comes out of HRC...

Ken White

08-10-2009, 02:21 PM

...It seems to me though from the depictions of the characters that Damon is an idealized character because he reflects what should be and the other is admonished because he reflects what is. It's appears to be one of those things that everyone knows but God forbid you be the one to actually say it.As you say, it's fiction. Admonished due to being 'what is' perhaps -- also noting that it doesn't have to be that way, it's a personal choice that doesn't reflect well on the individual, that it does drive other, better people out of the service and that some Damons stick around in spite of the Courtneys. I'd say the ratio is better than 60:40 for the good guys.

That's a good thing. That's also reality. Everywhere in the world other than in the entertainment industry and a couple of other places where it seems to be reversed; fortunately, the armed forces of the US are on the good slope...

Schmedlap

08-10-2009, 02:47 PM

In regard to Officer ratios - I think Neil hit it on the head with regard to the Army's logistics tail. Just running the numbers in my head from one of my deployments, my battalion had about 800 to 850 personnel. We had 1 LTC, 2 MAJs, 13 CPTs, and 40 LTs (at the start of the deployment). That was for 8 companies (A thru F, plus HHC, and an attached NG company) manning a small FOB and 3 patrol bases, plus a JCC and a MiTT. So, our ratio was about 1:14. I suspect that is a good snapshot, since our battalion had infantry, armor, engineers, a support company, and an HHC - each type of company having platoons of different sizes. By the end of the deployment, the numbers of CPTs and LTs flip-flopped due to promotions, but it didn't make much sense to swap out personnel at that point.

Brigade had 12 CPTs just in their S3 shop. No wonder they were always demanding more reports and storyboards.

In regard to some issues about who we recruit - the Officers in the battalion above were a fair mix of West Point, OCS, and ROTC. We had LTs ranging in age from 23 to 33 - guys fresh out of college, others who left a career in response to 9/11. I don't think that any officer in the Bn attended an Ivy League school, though I know one attended the notorious UC-Berkeley. Their backgrounds ran the full gamut of redneck, rich kid, yankee, farm hand, beach bum, and backwoods yokel; black, white, asian, and hispanic; religion did not come up often, but I know one was an evangelical, one was Jewish, and it would not surprise me if many had "no preference" on their ID tags. I saw no indication that any background made anyone better or worse prepared.

In regard to the Once An Eagle tangent - I never heard of the book or the characters. But I am now glad that I know the name is not real. I thought it was a tad awkward to see responses to Courtney Massengale on other threads prefaced with "Sir,". I wondered, "is Courtney a man's name?" Well, apparently it is, though I guess it didn't matter.

tankersteve

08-10-2009, 03:39 PM

Schmedlap,

What Neil was alluding to was the Army's Title X requirement to provide ALL theater logistics support beyond a certain distance inland, regardless of service. Thus, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all find themselves looking to the Army for heavy line-haul, bulk fuel, etc. This certainly ups the numbers of officers a bit.

I am sure a logistician can deliver the details (or correct my mistakes) more succinctly than I can.

I am not sure the Army Corps of Engineers is factored into that number, but that is pretty much an all officer/civilian organization, AFAIK. They support US, Army and Air Force engineer issues. Engineer types, please chime in...

On another note, anyone here with better search-fu have the manning/MTOE of the Stryker and IBCT? I would be curious of where our combat brigades stand on the officer/enlisted ratio. This is what really matters, IMO.

Tankersteve

Greyhawk

08-10-2009, 03:42 PM

"...all us old guys who are just jaded, not stupid."

True - I neglected to add this ;) to the end of my line you quoted. :wry:

What shouldn't be overlooked in this discussion is that regardless of what career path one chooses in life one will experience a lifelong compromise between the inner Massengale and the inner Damon, and a lifetime of interaction with others who at various times will exhibit qualities of either if observed long enough. (They have their own inner struggle, after all.) While Once an Eagle set that conflict against a military background it could certainly have been done within a corporate or academic setting, too. The author chose that with which he was familiar, which was also a setting that would have broad appeal (in circa-1970 America) and provide action sequences.

There's an incident early in the book (Damon's pre-military life) where he knocks someone down a flight of stairs. One can read the book for a full examination of the circumstances surrounding that. But the book details a full life, and as with most fiction takes its characters along an arc wherein they are changed. Much about the book - including the length - is certainly outdated by today's standards, but due to that length it shouldn't be characterized by events in chapter one.

So, setting the book aside: Damon and Massengale are no more or less than caricatures of something that exists in part in each of us, and not unique to military life. I believe those of us in the mid-latter chapters - jaded though we may be - hope those in the earlier continue to progress with enthusiasm for the task.

Schmedlap

08-10-2009, 03:56 PM

What Neil was alluding to was the Army's Title X requirement to provide ALL theater logistics support beyond a certain distance inland, regardless of service. Thus, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all find themselves looking to the Army for heavy line-haul, bulk fuel, etc. This certainly ups the numbers of officers a bit.
Understood. Perhaps "tail" wasn't the best way of describing it, as it is both our tail and the tails of the other services and other functions that are not really tails, but additional heads placed on other bodies.

I was providing the numbers from my battalion just to demonstrate that - at least at BN level - the ratio is not too out of whack. Those number include the FSO's and the PA - remove them and the ratio nears 20:1.

Agree regarding BDE being the most important measure. That is probably the best cross section of types of units, as it seems to be the clearing house where all of the alphabet soup of random 3- to 15-member teams seem to come from.

Courtney Massengale

08-10-2009, 06:26 PM

I forget how throwing the guy down the stairs came into the plot, but things like that, while publicly "reprehensible," often only increase a military leader's attraction, especially if he doesn't get caught. This was especially so in the timeframe of the book. We aren't in the glee club and we don't lead boy scouts.

Unethical, immoral, illegal and unsafe are just fine and dandy and are, in fact, encouraged to increase your cult of personality – just don’t get caught.

If that’s what being a Sam Damon is all about…

Most people are sharp enough to realize that Desert Storm with 100 casualties in 100 hours was not a war but a live fire FTX with a poor OpFor. That it didn't erase much of anything about Viet Nam is I think evidenced by those who objected to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The aura of imminent failure was so great that H.W. had to declare that it would "not be another Vietnam".

The aura of confidence was so great that W. flew onto an aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished.

Nothing changed?

In order, I suspect you're correct and that's sad. I don't think anything can suck love out of a good marriage though one that probably shouldn't have been could be easily affected. How do you live with yourself if you 'have to do unpleasant things' and why would you want to stay in the good graces of your Boss. Anyone who advocates any war is a dangerous fool; doing your job is one thing, advocating it for professional development definitely is Courtney material.

My roommate has spent four of the past six years in Iraq. His marriage of 17 years is being “easily affected”. (Oh by the way, he hasn’t taken a second wife or gone to the manlove as is the local custom in this part of the world.)

Every day that I have to turn an Iraqi citizen away from US forces and into the hands of our less capable Iraqi counterparts for matters that could very well be life or death, I’m doing something that to me is unpleasant (down right manslaughter), but what is required to keep in the good graces of our masters.

As for advocating war, where is the line between advocating war and advocating how to conduct a war? More than a few careers have been made and broken over the past few years…

Just some thoughts.

What shouldn't be overlooked in this discussion is that regardless of what career path one chooses in life one will experience a lifelong compromise between the inner Massengale and the inner Damon, and a lifetime of interaction with others who at various times will exhibit qualities of either if observed long enough. (They have their own inner struggle, after all.)

Amen. You have found the words that elude me and hit the nail on the head. We can’t be one without acknowledging the other. Anyone who professes to be the embodiment of either is a fool who does not know himself. ;)

Ken White

08-10-2009, 09:12 PM

Unethical, immoral, illegal and unsafe are just fine and dandy and are, in fact, encouraged to increase your cult of personality – just don’t get caught...If that’s what being a Sam Damon is all about…I'm not about to defend a fictional character to someone bearing the name of another but I will suggest you put it in the context of the times as far the book went. It shines a spotlight on people; some of their actions were in tune with a different time when there was more violence about and other moral and behavioral differences were more prevalent; some of the actions and attitudes are timeless -- like just don't get caught. That's sure still with us...
The aura of imminent failure was so great that H.W. had to declare that it would "not be another Vietnam".

The aura of confidence was so great that W. flew onto an aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished.

Nothing changed?Since both were stupid mistakes by sitting Presidents, apparently not ;)

As for aura of imminent failure, I was working in an involved Headquarters at the time, we had a Pool on how long it would take. SF LTC won it, I was third and most of clustered around 30--50 days. The longest period picked by any of 30 plus folks was 90 days. Some of the other Civilian Employees thought we were terrible for having a pool on a war with death and destruction guaranteed. Oh, well...

Politicians often say foolish things, best not to put much stock in them.
My roommate has spent four of the past six years in Iraq. His marriage of 17 years is being “easily affected”.Move goalposts often? Of course it's been affected, any marriage would be affected -- but that's not what you said earlier, that was: "they’re caught in a marriage that the military has sucked the love out of..." Not quite the same thing. My marriage was affected by a bunch of deployments -- but the love wasn't sucked out of it.
(Oh by the way, he hasn’t taken a second wife or gone to the manlove as is the local custom in this part of the world.)Lot of both going around here in the States, much less there. :D

The Army merely says it will expose you to other cultures, it doesn't insist you like or agree with them but it does want you to accord them at least surface respect. Bummer, but it goes with the territory.
Every day that I have to turn an Iraqi citizen away from US forces and into the hands of our less capable Iraqi counterparts for matters that could very well be life or death, I’m doing something that to me is unpleasant (down right manslaughter), but what is required to keep in the good graces of our masters.Good graces of your Masters? The US civilian Politicians that signed an agreement saying we would do that? Surely you aren't calling the Iraqis your Masters -- even if it is their country...In any event, if that distresses you, I can understand that and would feel the same way -- have in fact in other places at other times -- however, if it REALLY distresses you, then another line of work may be indicated. That BTW is not a knock or a pejorative but a serious thought. Sort of like the less capable bit, probably true but they are different, no question. The serious thought is that's a strange area of the world in many respects, much that is very different. But then, so the Far East, so's South America.
As for advocating war, where is the line between advocating war and advocating how to conduct a war? More than a few careers have been made and broken over the past few years…They are in peace time also -- careers made and broken that is. They also were in previous wars. Probably will be in the next one also. One after that, too, most likely. That, too goes with the territory.

The difference in advocating war and advocating how to conduct warfare it is best explained by the Marines who have long said "Nobody wants to fight a war but somebody better know how."
Just some thoughts.Thoughts are always good, particularly if they are accepting of other views or at least willingness to consider them. Helps if they do not lead to a "My brilliance is all encompassing " outlook and one realizes that other opinions don't have to be heeded but they aren't necessarily invalid or wrong.
Anyone who professes to be the embodiment of either is a fool who does not know himself. ;)We can agree on that, fiction is fiction.

Umar Al-Mokhtār

08-10-2009, 09:43 PM

Kevin23

08-10-2009, 10:15 PM

had to go to the Army site to watch the video since YouTube is verboten here. It seems to be a pretty good production but I still wonder when the Army is going to seriously start considering hiring from within. There are now thousands of highly qualified, dare I say it, enlisted soldiers who would make outstanding officers since they have led other soldiers in combat and understand what it takes. Oh, but many lack a piece of paper that officially says they’re smart. So they do not qualify.

Had to dig around the site so it took a while to find this (http://www.goarmy.com/rotc/hip_pocket_guide.doc).

Great the “Green to Gold” path for enlisted personnel to become officers. Except one small obstacle on the last page: there are only 165 slots per school year. That to me is criminal. If the Army truly needs officers, and needs them now, the number should be almost 10 times that. Plus they should be pushing it a lot harder rather than burying it deep on the web site.

What I've been reading about the Green to Gold issue and I don't know how much truth there is to this, is that quite a few enlisted soldiers in the Army don't want to go through the process of becoming a mustang. Because some enlisted men and women feel that their prospects are better in the civilian world both employment wise and educational wise. However despite hearing this I think the Green to Gold program should be expanded as there are many enlisted soldiers who would be more then willing to go through the process of becoming an Army officer. In addition there is a fair and growing number of enlisted men and women who already hold college and other advanced degrees. Why not target them as perspective officer candidates as they already have the educational background to become officers, they just need the training.

Schmedlap

08-10-2009, 11:49 PM

I would be curious to know how common degrees are among enlisted Soldiers. I had several Soldiers who had Bachelor degrees and at least one who had a Masters. But they seemed to enjoy being NCOs. We encouraged them to at least consider OCS. No takers. I do not see it as a loss. They would have made good Officers. But they are also good NCOs, which helps make life easier for any Officers above them and helps to offset the impact of any bad Officers who might end up in their chain of command.

Side note: Above paragraph only pertains to my active duty experience. When I was an Infantry platoon leader in the National Guard, there were only 6 Soldiers in my platoon with less college credit than me (also the only 6 who were younger than me - go figure). One of my squad leaders was working on his PhD. Also had at least one self-made millionaire.

tankersteve

08-11-2009, 01:21 AM

All my real studs went WOCS for the flight training. I talked to some of my guys about Green-to-Gold, but most were not interested. They saw the timelines kept by company commanders in garrison and really thought it sucked. Meetings, meetings, powerpoint, powerpoint. And of course, most good NCOs want to keep the real studs as fellow NCOs.

I think we as an Army could target these guys a lot harder. Green to Gold is tough for a guy with a family - no income worth mentioning if the guy is married/has kids. OCS actually increased the college requirement (the number of hours required to get into OCS) in the past few years, making it hard for guys with less than 3 years of college to be commissioned this way. And the opportunity to attend school (evenings, weekends) has significantly dropped, especially for combat arms guys, the last few years....

Some worry that we would gut the NCO Corps but I don't think the impact will be that severe. It would be truly amazing if the Army could ever get ahead of itself in manpower - officer, NCO and enlisted - with a comprehensive and well-thought out plan that interests the average American in service to the country. We always seem to be running to catch up with half-baked programs.

Tankersteve

Starbuck

08-11-2009, 09:30 AM

I will second the WOCS/Flight school packet.

Rarely do I have Soldiers looking for the green-to-gold program. The WOCS program is instant gratification--you go straight in, do a few weeks of WOC school, and you start making WO1 pay and flight pay. (I should also note that my experience is skewed because I'm in an aviation unit)

Am I remembering Green-to-Gold correctly as 4 years of E5 pay? I remember a number of G2G students in college who still had to work another job in addition to school.

davidbfpo

08-11-2009, 10:26 AM

Ha ha, you thought you guys were rich on officers:

NZ Ratios are as follows:
Army 1 : 5.0
Navy 1 : 3.4
AirF 1 : 3.0

US ratios are:

Army 1 : 5.2
USMC 1 : 8.8
Navy 1 : 5.4
USAF 1 : 4.1
USCG 1 : 4.1

Just to give you a taste, for (the NZ) army (active duty) of 5003 we have 9 brigadiers, 268 majors, 176 captains (less than majors) and 182 lieutenants (1st and 2nd)

According to figures given to the UK parliament and cited in: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14304_85_4cornish_dorman.pdf (Pg.s 15 & 16)

In 2008

Army 1 : 7.1
Navy 1 : 5.1
AirF 1 : 4.4

In 2008 for all three armed services using consolidation of officer ranks to army equivalents, for an all ranks total of 187,100; we have 140 major generals, 350 brigadiers, 1180 colonels, 4070 lieut.colonels, 9600 majors, 11900 captains and 4460 lieut / 2nd lieut. A total of 31,700 officers for 155,300 other ranks.

The cited source has more details and criticism. Note the Royal Marines are within the navy figures and our coastguard is not within the military.

davidbfpo

Cavguy

08-11-2009, 12:19 PM

since I tend to accept Ken and Niel as pretty much gospel when it comes to Army force structure and training.

That being said, are the present inf Bns running anywhere near the 20:1 ratios of WWII ?

Mike

As Schmed pointed out, it's about 1:14 on the line.

Also be aware we have added a lot to the TO&E of a line BN since WW II, beside powerpoint requirements. Many functions that were once at much higher levels are done at BN, requiring extra officers. As far as primary staff, a line BN should have approx:

BN CDR
1 XO
1 S3 Operations
2-3 S3A
1 Fire Support Officer (works for S3)
1 CHEMO (works for S3)
1 S6 SIGO
1 S1 Adjutant
1 S2 MI
1 AS2 BICC (MI)
1 S4 Logistics
1 Air Liaison Officer (USAF)

Optional but often found:

1 S5/S9 Civil Military Ops OIC
1 Battalion Maintenance Officer
1 Host Nation Security Forces LNO
1 Intelligence/Surveillance/Reconnaissance Manager
1 S4 Assistant (LT)

So about 16 officers or so on staff. Five line companies equals another 25-30 or so. (CO CDR, XO, 3-4 PL's) So the low 40's for a BN of officers is standard, and has been for awhile.

You really see staffs growing at BCT levels right now, due to the shift to the BCT of many functions once handled by divisions. You'd be shocked what a BCT has to synchronize on today's battlefield, and it takes a fair number of experienced personnel. BN hasn't grown that much.

WW II is a poor analogy, because the primary "maneuver" elements were divisions and corps, not Companies and BN's. Assets were held and coordinated at those levels.

jmm99

08-11-2009, 05:44 PM

thank you for the complete rundown. Schmedlap mentioned the 8 Coys in his Bn (56 Os & ca. 800 EM). I took three support coys from the 1945 regimental chart and dropped them down to Bn level - result 62 Os. The ratio in support coys was about 13:1.

The main difference between WWII and present in infantry Bns came in the very large ratio in the rifle coys because of the larger squad size (12 men, including squad leader) - so, 40 men in a rifle platoon (3x12 + 1 O + 3 HQEM). 3 of them, plus a weapons pl and HQ pl not much smaller (with only 3 more Os). I'll post the setup for a 1 Jan 1945 rifle coy and a weapons co tonite.

Quite a bit of EM redundancy in WWII, which turned out to be useful. E.g., Charlie-1/117-30ID had two engagements (Mortain & Siegfried), where it had casualties on the first day of each at about 50% and 40% of tabled manpower.

As you correctly point out, WWII is not an analogy to the present; nor, did I intend it to be so. As Tom Odom once pointed out, we are not presently in the process of driving from the Rhine to the Elbe.

In 30ID, the regiments tended to be primary "maneuver" elements because of the way the division commander ran his show.

Regards

Mike

82redleg

08-11-2009, 07:37 PM

Per FKSM 71-8, APR 08
HBCT: 324:3393 = 1:10.47
BCT HHC: 45 /12 /106
BSTB: (30 / 7 / 398) (1:10.57)
HHC: 15 / 1 / 165
SIG CO: 4 / 1 / 65
MI CO: 5 / 5 / 83
EN CO: 6 / 0 / 145
CAB (x2): (52 / 1 / 781) 1:14
HHC: 27 / 0 / 194
IN CO (x2): 5 / 0 / 131
AR CO(x2): 5 / 0 / 59
FSC: 5 / 1 /207
ARS (39 / 1 / 478) (1:11.95)
HHT: 22 / 0 / 115
RECON TRP (x3): 4 / 0 / 78
FSC: 5 / 1 / 129
FA BN (30 / 3 / 447) (1:13.54)
HHB: 15 / 2 / 106 (including specialty TGT ACQ sections)
HOW BTRY (x2): 5 / 0 / 102
FSC: 5 / 1 / 137
BSB (40 / 11 / 402) (1:7.88)
HHC: 17 / 3 / 67
DISTRO CO: 5 / 2 / 177
MAINT CO: 4 / 6 / 95
MED CO: 14 / 0 / 63

82redleg

08-11-2009, 07:53 PM

Same reference for IBCT: 271 / 3168 (1:11.69)

HHC, BCT: 58 / 97

STB: 34 / 397 (1:11.67)

IN BNx2: 52 / 768 (1:14.77)

RECON SQDN: 40 / 422 (1:10.55)

FA BN: 33 / 352 (1:10.6)

BSB: 49 / 364 (1:7.4)

82redleg

08-11-2009, 08:12 PM

Same source, for SBCT: 352 / 3874 (1:11.0)

HHC, BCT 63/145

EN CO: 6 / 137

MI CO: 9 / 70

SIG CO: 6 / 57

AA CO: 6 / 48

IN BN (x3): 43 / 654 (1:15.2)

RSTA: 42 / 395 (1:9.4)

FA BN: 36 / 364 (1:10)

BSB: 55 / 696 (1:12.65)

82redleg

08-11-2009, 08:16 PM

I got lazy, and just did BN # after the HBCT- same with combining Os & WOs after the HBCT.

Massengale

08-11-2009, 10:07 PM

Boy, I do some work for a couple days, actually get internet access and I see all this. (the BCT breakdowns are missing a couple officers btw.)

1. I never said that people not from the coasts were hicks (heck, LI and NJ have a higher-than average percentage of them anyway!). My father is from IA and my mother is from MN (most definitely not a hick state btw). And, heck, UT might be the most well-traveled state in the country. I do think that the statistical distribution by state of passports per capita and the relative rankings of state school systems (ok, is it really news to anyone that the deep south has the worst school systems in the country? is it really controversial that that fact is unfortunate from the military perspective insofar as we prefer better-educated EM and officers?).

2. I never said anything about semesters abroad. Affluent people from the coasts travel the world because that's what affluent people from the coasts do. Some of it's just because it's easier to fly to Paris or London from NY than it is to Des Moines from NY, some of it's just because traveling is a way of life. That background, in and of itself, is useful. So are the accompanying language skills.

3. Since we are obviously talking in broad statistical generalizations, I'm not certain why some were bringing up specific individuals and their backgrounds. But if you're going to do that you might as well mention the origins of Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystal. But agreed that's all irrelevant.

4. No one addressed a major point. No one. The coasts are filled with millions of first generation immigrants from around the world...places where the Army will end up. They have valuable language skills and cultural knowledge. We ignore the coasts to our detriment. (And I completely disagree with the statement that "cultural sensitivity is unnecessary for COIN." That's so wrong it's not even wrong.)

5. Yes, kids from urban backgrounds aren't as ready for a variety of traditional Army skills that are more woodland based (here's looking at you Ranger School). Nevermind that the world grows more urban every year and it's urban areas that pose the greatest difficulty for us.

6. Ultimately, as I said, we need people from every background. But right now 40% of new officers are from the South and almost 0% from the Northeast. That's my point.

Massengale

08-11-2009, 10:08 PM

oh, and I thought Once an Eagle was a pretty poorly written book that displayed some passion in need of an editor.

thus my moniker.

Kiwigrunt

08-11-2009, 11:16 PM

Hmmm, these numbers so far are looking a bit embarrassing for us Kiwi’s. Now for the Navy it’s easy to explain; more than half of both of our boats are so small they only need a captain. And for the RNZAF, the three maintenance crew take turns at setting the clock back on the hecilopter (I’m too little to say a big word like flopticopter):p

On a slightly more serious note now,

Davidbfpo:

According to figures given to the UK parliament and cited in: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files...ish_dorman.pdf (Pg.s 15 & 16)

In 2008

Army 1 : 7.1
Navy 1 : 5.1
AirF 1 : 4.4

In 2008 for all three armed services using consolidation of officer ranks to army equivalents, for an all ranks total of 187,100; we have 140 major generals, 350 brigadiers, 1180 colonels, 4070 lieut.colonels, 9600 majors, 11900 captains and 4460 lieut / 2nd lieut. A total of 31,700 officers for 155,300 other ranks.

I was about to state that UK and US are quite similar with the UK army being a nice average between US army and USMC…….until I discovered that the rates that Davidbfpo indicated are not accurate. (I’m a numbers-man more than a words-man. I was checking your link to find the ranks-layout for army only.) You divided the total by the number of officers, instead of the number of ORs by the number of officers. So it should read:

Army 1 : 6.2
Navy 1 : 4.1
RAF 1 : 3.5

In the NZ numbers, officer cadets are included. If we exclude them for the army, the ratio would be 1 : 5.5 (not stating this as a pissing contest, just that, well, I am a numbers-man and sometimes analy so:o)

Cavguy:

So about 16 officers or so on staff. Five line companies equals another 25-30 or so. (CO CDR, XO, 3-4 PL's) So the low 40's for a BN of officers is standard, and has been for awhile.

You really see staffs growing at BCT levels right now, due to the shift to the BCT of many functions once handled by divisions. You'd be shocked what a BCT has to synchronize on today's battlefield, and it takes a fair number of experienced personnel. BN hasn't grown that much.

Even 82redleg’s brigade numbers show a ratio of around 1 : 11, which is still a far cry from the army average of around 1 : 5/6.
I believe arty (for instance) are a bit higher on their officer ratios, other than that, I think this still applies:

So the 'excess' is to be found where Cavguy and Ken have identified them, above and to the peripherals of the combat units.

Another thing I have noticed, in both UK and NZ army, is the relatively low number of lieutenants. That makes the bottom of the pyramid a lot narrower than I would ever have guessed it.

And for those interested or with nothing better to do (like me at the moment), visit youtube for a NZ army recruitment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvkMZCaMGiU) clip, a NZ army (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpGK4x-YwC8&NR=1) promo (note the reflective safety belt a quarter of the way through) and a NZSAS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZt9b6tGCKU&feature=fvw) promo.

82redleg

08-11-2009, 11:53 PM

CR6

08-12-2009, 12:50 AM

2. I never said anything about semesters abroad. Affluent people from the coasts travel the world because that's what affluent people from the coasts do. Some of it's just because it's easier to fly to Paris or London from NY than it is to Des Moines from NY, some of it's just because traveling is a way of life. That background, in and of itself, is useful. So are the accompanying language skills.

I guess I misunderstood your reference here:

Why wouldn't cadets who spent the summer of their jr. year traveling in the ME or Africa be more ready?

The reference to cadets and junior year threw me. Mea Culpa.

3. Since we are obviously talking in broad statistical generalizations, I'm not certain why some were bringing up specific individuals and their backgrounds. But if you're going to do that you might as well mention the origins of Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystal. But agreed that's all irrelevant.

I made specific reference to the leadership involved in Abu Grahib in response to your statement regarding lives lost due to retarded prison guards. I stand by my contention that this mess was a direct result of poor training and leadership, therefore I found that the background of the leaders involved was relevant. I referenced alma maters to demonstrate that east coast educations did not prepare these officers to inculcate cultural awareness in the soldiers for whom they were responsible

4. No one addressed a major point. No one. The coasts are filled with millions of first generation immigrants from around the world...places where the Army will end up. They have valuable language skills and cultural knowledge. We ignore the coasts to our detriment. (And I completely disagree with the statement that "cultural sensitivity is unnecessary for COIN." That's so wrong it's not even wrong.)

I believe my response was that I did not believe recruiting on college campuses was the best way to reach this demagraphic.

jmm99

08-12-2009, 02:08 AM

hasn't changed that much since WWII, except for reduction of riflemen. See attached charts (both from 1 Jan 1945). Inf Coy = 6 O: 187 EM (5 pls; 3 rifle w/ 12-man sqds, 1 weapons, 1 HQ).

Looking back further, the "line" portion of a Roman Legion's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion) century consisted of 3 "officers" (Centurion, 10 x basic pay; Optio, 2 x basic pay; Tesserarius, 1-1/2 x basic pay). So, 3 O: 80 EM; or, to compare with WWII and present, times 2 = 6 O: 160 EM.

To be complete, each "century" had a support unit of 20 men, which were spread among the 10 contubernia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contubernium) (each a 8-man tent team, including its decanus). So, the century was a century including its support group.

The higher Roman legionary officers were mostly "lawyers" (trained in rhetoric & Roman Law) - because the route to becoming a legate included being a magistrate as a tribune and higher offices as a senior tribune and legate.

The military professionals at the top were (from same link):

Praefectus castrorum, Camp Prefect: The Camp Prefect was third in command of the legion. Generally he was a long serving veteran from a lower social status than the tribunii whom he outranked, and who previously had served as primus pilus and finished his 25 years with the legions. However, Camp Prefects were also on occasion appointed from aristocrats, in the same way as tribunes.

and

Primus pilus, literally First File: The Primus Pilus was the commanding centurion of the first cohort and the senior centurion of the entire legion. He was called first file because he also directly commanded the first century of the first cohort. (Unlike other cohorts, the first cohort had only one javelin century, instead of a "front spear" and a "back spear" century). The Primus Pilus had a chance of later becoming a Praefectus Castrorum. When the primus pilus retired he would most likely gain entry into the equestrian class. He was paid 60 times the base wage.

So far as number of company-grade officers is concerned, the number has not changed much in the poor, old infantry.

BTW: the debate between recruitment of "aristocrats", as opposed to officers from the "ranks", also goes back to Roman times. So, this thread is nothing new - if we went back to a Roman legionary staff campfire.

Cavguy

08-12-2009, 02:14 AM

Field Artillery is slightly higher than IN in the BCTs- a 44 man FA platoon has a PL and an FDO- a 39 man rifle platoon has only the PL. This evens out when you add the staff, med, CSS, etc.

Fires BDEs FA BNs will have a higher ratio (because MLRS sections are smaller), but they don't have FDOs, either. I'll have to find an MTOE and run the #s.

Echelons above BDE will have a higher ratio, as they are composed of HQs and staffs. Also, the Army sends alot more officers to school longer than enlisted, so, for example, approximately 20% of MAJs are at FT Leavenworth for CGSC/SAMS at any given time. There is also OBC, CCC and War College- the only enlisted comparison is the Sergeant Major Academy, which I think is 600+/- in any given class. All these #s will skew the data.

I used the FKSM 71-8, dated APR 2008. It doesn't exactly match the BCT I came from, or probably any other BCTs MTOE- it allegedly reflects the base TOE. I'd be interested in which you think I missed.

Yeah, MTOE's are rarely standard. Nice use of the statistic from the welcoming remarks the other day ... ;)

My above on officer numbers for a line BN were an off the top of the head calculation, but +/- 10 or so. Most of the lowering of the overall army ratio comes from higher HQ and logistics staffs that in many cases support the joint force. (i.e. theater logistics, or HQs such as MNF-I, which are mostly Army) Whether they are overmanned or needed is an ongoing debate and favorite subject for Ken. :cool:

JarodParker

08-12-2009, 02:26 AM

And for those interested or with nothing better to do (like me at the moment), visit youtube for a NZ army recruitment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvkMZCaMGiU) clip, a NZ army (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpGK4x-YwC8&NR=1) promo (note the reflective safety belt a quarter of the way through) and a NZSAS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZt9b6tGCKU&feature=fvw) promo.

The first recruitment video was mehhh. The second video would've been uber awesome had it been shorter (less chow hall footage) and had better music. The last video, all I'm going to say is "Creed! Really?"

Thanks for sharing.

Schmedlap

08-12-2009, 03:56 AM

I believe my response was that I did not believe recruiting on college campuses was the best way to reach this demagraphic.

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

Cavguy

08-12-2009, 04:05 AM

Kiwigrunt

08-12-2009, 04:10 AM

The first recruitment video was mehhh. The second video would've been uber awesome had it been shorter (less chow hall footage) and had better music. The last video, all I'm going to say is "Creed! Really?"

Thanks for sharing.

On the first, concur. And that's one of the better adds on TV. Maybe that's why we're having trouble recruiting!:eek:
On the second, concur again, but hey, they had to show a few nice looking chicks;)
On the third, maybe my English but not sure whether that's pos or neg.:confused:

And I think I found out why the RNZAF have so many officers. They are all busy coming up with better TV adds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGhkfAu8lbw)

Courtney Massengale

08-12-2009, 06:04 AM

patmc

08-12-2009, 02:09 PM

I joined sophomore year, did "Basic Camp" at Knox, then did the regular program junior and senior year. Schmedlap, agree that most join early though. I sought out ROTC, they did not find me. My upbringing, values, education, and interests pushed me to the Army. A couple other people from my school joined over the next two years, but only 1 other stuck with it until the end (she is still in as well). Having more of a presence and exposure on campus could get those extra couple people who did not consider or know about their options before starting college, but the costs would be great for minor return. You would also need younger officers to recruit, not senior Captains or Majors, who though knowledgeable, can be ten or more years older than average college student, and can't really "rap with the kids."

Majority of officers (and SGTs and Soldiers) decide they want the Army and seek it out. The demands of ROTC are significant compared to a normal college schedule, and just the early mornings alone weed a lot of people out. That's good and bad. You don't want people who think its going to be just a job and easy, but it doesn't help draw cadets when you make them change their whole lifestyle. My roommates were proud of me, but they were not getting up and joining me at o dark thirty. Though I fell asleep in my afternoon classes sometimes, the regimen of ROTC was much better for me than what I was doing previously. It still is.

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

Massengale

08-12-2009, 02:27 PM

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

oh, ROTC may not be the primary mechanism by which to reach this demographic (though if there was a serious CUNY ROTC program you might be surprised)...my post that started all this was just stating that Army culture in general is an issue. The fact that posters here don't think that both command influence and peer pressure relating to religion and politics isn't an issue in the Army simply shows that you're too used to it and see it as ordinary (I hear and statements which cross the line all the time, from LTs up to three stars).

BTW, I agree that the Army does a good job advertising its leave policies. It's effective propaganda. Too bad it's pretty misleading. Since weekend days count toward the 30 days of leave we're really just talking about 3 weeks of vacation. No different from other jobs. On the other hand, many units do get a fair amount of three and four day weekends in a garrison environment. But then plenty of private sector jobs are on a four day work week or offer the opportunity to work from home part of the time.
Then throw in the hassle that is involved in actually traveling somewhere (redundant, pro forma safety briefings, POV inspections and having to plan everything way in advance) and I can't say that military vacation policies are actually better than the civilian sector. It's worth it for other reasons, not the vacations.

Massengale

08-12-2009, 02:32 PM

Majority of officers (and SGTs and Soldiers) decide they want the Army and seek it out.

You are way overestimating the exposure that many people have to the Army. When I went in I remember trying to explain it to one friend of mine in NY...her: "I don't know anything about the military. I'm Jewish!" (The reality is that a few people in our social circle had been in the Israeli military...but otherwise, yes, I'm the only person she had ever met who had been in any branch of the American military. And that's pretty standard there.) And the Army doesn't advertise there either. No advertising on the TV programs we watch, no web-ads on the sites we go to. None of that. People do, generally speaking, have to have some exposure to something for them to think of it as an option. Advertising works that way.

Schmedlap

08-12-2009, 02:59 PM

The fact that posters here don't think that both command influence and peer pressure relating to religion and politics isn't an issue in the Army simply shows that you're too used to it and see it as ordinary (I hear and statements which cross the line all the time, from LTs up to three stars).
Or maybe you're just one data point out of many and their experience differs?

Massengale

08-12-2009, 04:01 PM

Possibly.

But the few officers that I've met that come from a similar background as myself agree with me (and bring it up themselves)...in private anyway.

One of the things about having a monoculture is that the few who don't represent that culture are kind of forced to keep silent. And in the Army's case, that monoculture only represents a part of America. (The other services seem to do better.)

Courtney Massengale

08-13-2009, 05:22 AM

One of the things about having a monoculture is that the few who don't represent that culture are kind of forced to keep silent. And in the Army's case, that monoculture only represents a part of America. (The other services seem to do better.)

I would disagree that there is any one "monoculture".

If you stick around long enough, you see everything come full circle. Religion was a third rail when I first came in; a couple years ago it was a requirement for promotion, now its sliding back down towards standard deviation. There are a couple different axis for Officer temperament and we tend to slip and slide between the two polar opposites from post to post, administration to administration, war to war.

The neat thing is that anytime something approaches monoculture, that means its about ready to tip over and fall flat on its face as the new cool kid monoculture comes up behind it.

Steve Blair

08-13-2009, 01:41 PM

BTW, I agree that the Army does a good job advertising its leave policies. It's effective propaganda. Too bad it's pretty misleading. Since weekend days count toward the 30 days of leave we're really just talking about 3 weeks of vacation. No different from other jobs. On the other hand, many units do get a fair amount of three and four day weekends in a garrison environment. But then plenty of private sector jobs are on a four day work week or offer the opportunity to work from home part of the time.
Then throw in the hassle that is involved in actually traveling somewhere (redundant, pro forma safety briefings, POV inspections and having to plan everything way in advance) and I can't say that military vacation policies are actually better than the civilian sector. It's worth it for other reasons, not the vacations.

And how much private sector experience do you have? There aren't that many regular jobs that offer work from home, and the 4/10 schedule is still limited to a few sectors. And if you're in a company or environment that uses a time bank you have to balance any vacation against a possible need for sick leave (since time banks tend to lump all accrued "off hours" into a single pool that's used for both) and possibly any holidays in the bargain (yes...there are some places that make you take your earned hours to get paid for holidays). And if your job requires you to flex out, you have to use those hours to get paid. Last time I checked the military didn't require you to burn leave on a command-designated "down day."

Not saying that the military's policy is necessarily better, but what you read in the "Army Times" about private sector opportunities often doesn't square with the reality. Nor does elite coastal job experience. That's not the norm for folks out here...a point that is often missed.

And as for monoculture...if you think the Army's bad you should try academia sometime.

Massengale

08-13-2009, 07:25 PM

I would disagree that there is any one "monoculture".

If you stick around long enough, you see everything come full circle. Religion was a third rail when I first came in; a couple years ago it was a requirement for promotion, now its sliding back down towards standard deviation. There are a couple different axis for Officer temperament and we tend to slip and slide between the two polar opposites from post to post, administration to administration, war to war.

The neat thing is that anytime something approaches monoculture, that means its about ready to tip over and fall flat on its face as the new cool kid monoculture comes up behind it.

Ok, that's a fair point. I haven't been around long enough to have seen it. Point taken.

Massengale

08-13-2009, 07:34 PM

And how much private sector experience do you have? There aren't that many regular jobs that offer work from home, and the 4/10 schedule is still limited to a few sectors. And if you're in a company or environment that uses a time bank you have to balance any vacation against a possible need for sick leave (since time banks tend to lump all accrued "off hours" into a single pool that's used for both) and possibly any holidays in the bargain (yes...there are some places that make you take your earned hours to get paid for holidays). And if your job requires you to flex out, you have to use those hours to get paid. Last time I checked the military didn't require you to burn leave on a command-designated "down day."

Not saying that the military's policy is necessarily better, but what you read in the "Army Times" about private sector opportunities often doesn't square with the reality. Nor does elite coastal job experience. That's not the norm for folks out here...a point that is often missed.

And as for monoculture...if you think the Army's bad you should try academia sometime.

I have almost a decade's worth of major corporate experience in NY. (Agreed, that doesn't necessarily represent the norm across America.) And I was in academia once upon a time. Gave it up partially because of the monocultural miasma you suggest. Flex time/work from home does seem to be a sharply growing trend across the IT/media/high-tech centers....and I stand by the point that the 30 days (because of the weekends) is really only three weeks off. I don't dispute that the DOD's pass/leave policies are more generous than most private sector jobs (unless you're actually trying to use a pass or leave to actually go anywhere...)...but it's not just academia that offers comparable benefits.

(And, yes, academia is worse when it comes to the monocultural aspect!)

Kevin23

08-13-2009, 10:11 PM

oh, ROTC may not be the primary mechanism by which to reach this demographic (though if there was a serious CUNY ROTC program you might be surprised)...my post that started all this was just stating that Army culture in general is an issue. The fact that posters here don't think that both command influence and peer pressure relating to religion and politics isn't an issue in the Army simply shows that you're too used to it and see it as ordinary (I hear and statements which cross the line all the time, from LTs up to three stars).

BTW, I agree that the Army does a good job advertising its leave policies. It's effective propaganda. Too bad it's pretty misleading. Since weekend days count toward the 30 days of leave we're really just talking about 3 weeks of vacation. No different from other jobs. On the other hand, many units do get a fair amount of three and four day weekends in a garrison environment. But then plenty of private sector jobs are on a four day work week or offer the opportunity to work from home part of the time.
Then throw in the hassle that is involved in actually traveling somewhere (redundant, pro forma safety briefings, POV inspections and having to plan everything way in advance) and I can't say that military vacation policies are actually better than the civilian sector. It's worth it for other reasons, not the vacations.

I have a couple of things I would like to add on the various points we are talking about here.

The first being that unlike the other branches the Army does not have it's own OSO's and from what I've read many Army recruiters who are enlisted and more used to that side of the armed forces. Are sometimes unprepared to deal with and answer the questions of perspective OCS candidates. Again this is only what I've read about other people's experiences in terms of being a perspective OCS candidate.

Also it seems the process of becoming an Army officer straight out of college without any prior experiences with the military, is alot longer then it is for other branches of the American military. This is due to OCS candidates having to go to basic training first then OCS. I figure while this can be a good process to add before going to OCS, it appears to makes things alot more longer then does for other branches.

Last bu not least even the Army is the most represented branch of ROTC on college/university campuses I agree with what alot of prior posters said that the Army ROTC needs to establish it's self more and reach out to students on college campuses as well as establishing more companies and battalions on college campuses .As even though the Army is the most represented branch of ROTC there is not nearly enough as there should be to attract more perspective Army officers. For example on my campus if I wanted to do Army ROTC I would have to make a nearly 2 hour drive to go to classes for it at another university. Also maybe the Army as well as other branches could establish military science and studies more prominently in terms of mainstream academics in colleges/universities. Because that subject is easily interchangeable with history, political science, sociology and anthropology as well as international affairs and a whole list of other subjects and fields. That way I feel it would add more flexibility in terms of providing credit and perspectives in the classroom towards a career as a military officer after college/university. If it would be possible to accomplish due to the attitudes some take towards the military on college/university campuses.

Overall though the commercial that started this subject is an effective tool to draw individuals with a college education to the Army.

Schmedlap

08-13-2009, 11:28 PM

...and I stand by the point that the 30 days (because of the weekends) is really only three weeks off. I don't dispute that the DOD's pass/leave policies are more generous than most private sector jobs (unless you're actually trying to use a pass or leave to actually go anywhere...)...

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. You are correct that the 30 days of leave equates to 3 weeks if the leave is used in a manner in which it overlaps with weekends. That is a pretty simple issue to solve. Start your leave on a Monday and/or end it on a Friday. I did that for 9 years. When I ETS'd, I took 60 days of terminal leave - collecting BAH and BAS for those two months even though I was already beginning to grow my beard.

It is also worth pointing out how easily (and often) the leave process is abused. I knew Officers and NCOs who took weeks of leave and never had it charged against them. I was thought a jerk for raising this issue with the Battalion Commander - as though free leave were some kind of entitlement. This was not an issue isolated to our unit or our installation, as I saw it elsewhere and know of senior NCOs who arrived at the unit with the expectation that they only needed to become buddies with someone in the S1 shop and their leave would then be free.

Furthermore, passes are common and have been getting more common as the war has gone on. Oh no, POV inspection and some other minor administrative hoops? Geez, 30 minutes out of your life to take a few days off with full pay. That's rough. Ditto half days and three- and four-day weekends. Federal holidays are off. Small unit leaders often exercise discretion to just let a guy go home if something significant is occurring. A water leak, hotwater heater crapping the bed, sick child or spouse, car problem, or other unforeseen events often, if not usually, result in a guy leaving work early or taking a day off with no leave days incurred. One of my squad leaders used up all of his leave and went 10 days in the hole upon our return from one deployment because his mother was terminally ill. When he returned, his mother was on life support 300 miles away. I brought him into the battalion commander's office to try to obtain more leave. The BC took the old leave form (45 days of leave) ripped it up and said, "it looks like he's still got plenty of leave remaining." Find the me the civilian boss that can, and will, do that.

Then there is my personal favorite - attending to personal business while on duty. I cannot begin to describe the amount of pushback and indignation that I was up against when I started reigning in the amount of personal business that my Soldiers were conducting during duty hours. People were leaving during the day - or just taking the day off altogether - to get their license renewed, their registration renewed, to take motorcycle driving tests, etc, etc. When I ordered a stop to this, my NCOs reacted as though I was canceling Christmas (which, I guess I kind of was). I later learned that this was not just some phenomenon unique to that unit. It happens everywhere.

Okay, so 30 days equals 3 weeks. I have only scratched the surface of all of the intangibles that make the Army one of the most generous organizations on the planet when it comes to time off. Many of those intangibles are not sanctioned by the powers-that-be, but they are commonplace nonetheless and I suspect many power-that-be know about them. It would not surprise me if many of those powers-that-be partake of them. That may be a reason why more leave is not offered up.

But despite my different take on the issue, I do agree that the Army should not advertise the 30 days off. The Army is a service-oriented institution. The commercials and other promotional material pushes way too hard on the "what it's in in for me?" angle. I wish we pushed harder to emphasize the challenges, the demands, and high expectations. This may be a federal job, but it shouldn't be like the others.

JarodParker

08-14-2009, 02:19 PM

But despite my different take on the issue, I do agree that the Army should not advertise the 30 days off. The Army is a service-oriented institution. The commercials and other promotional material pushes way too hard on the "what it's in in for me?" angle. I wish we pushed harder to emphasize the challenges, the demands, and high expectations. This may be a federal job, but it shouldn't be like the others.

Well put Schmedlap. I believe we have come full circle. I posted the video in the first place because I felt the army was finally heading in the right direction when it comes to its recruitment pitch. In a way the army is kind of like the artsy fixer-upper chick with the dorky glasses and walmart cloth from your typical high school flick... lots of potential but in need of a makeover. :D

On the third, maybe my English but not sure whether that's pos or neg.
That's definitely a negative. No military can expect to recruit fighting men with a video that has a "Creed" song as a soundtrack. The RNZAF video is good to go.

Massengale

08-14-2009, 05:02 PM

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. You are correct that the 30 days of leave equates to 3 weeks if the leave is used in a manner in which it overlaps with weekends. That is a pretty simple issue to solve. Start your leave on a Monday and/or end it on a Friday. I did that for 9 years.
[snip]

Furthermore, passes are common and have been getting more common as the war has gone on. Oh no, POV inspection and some other minor administrative hoops? Geez, 30 minutes out of your life to take a few days off with full pay.

[snip]
But despite my different take on the issue, I do agree that the Army should not advertise the 30 days off. The Army is a service-oriented institution. The commercials and other promotional material pushes way too hard on the "what it's in in for me?" angle. I wish we pushed harder to emphasize the challenges, the demands, and high expectations. This may be a federal job, but it shouldn't be like the others.

1. I completely agree with your last point. See the Marines as an example.

2. We might have run into a major cultural difference here. just take leave beginning on Monday and ending on Friday? you can't take successive M-F leaves (at least not if they're following regs). So if you're actually planning on taking a real vacation (as opposed to a short trip....nothing wrong with a quick four day to Paris but if you plan on going anywhere else....) that doesn't work.
as for the work required: these days, it's not just inspections and leave forms, it's also pointless country briefings, "antiterrorism training", and often having to get a general officer sign off on any real travel.