I can agree with all that and couldn't blame you one bit were you to decline.
On the First --Absolutely! Not restricted to a self appointed / annointed 1%, either.
On the Second -- Agree on the non-training foolishness couched as training and you point out -- as have many others -- that the AIT and OBC product is not ready for prime time. Been that way for years and we adamantly refuse to fix it. Lord knows how many people that failure has killed over the years...
Third -- Yet another truth.
The terribly sad thing is that those complaints could have -- and were --voiced by others years ago. With minor modifications, they are also made by the Navy, the Marines, the air Force and the Coast Guard.
Why are we still shooting oursleves in the foot like this?
Yep. There are also some who will try to bulldoze
subordinates just to see how far they can be pushed. Been my observation that accepting such pushing frequently puts one in a position of being less respected and more often pushed, IOW, with the blusterers and blowhards (and they exist at all ranks and in all fields of human endeavor) it only gets worse if you accept it.
Best response to being told to reinstall an error one has removed or resisting that generic pushing IMO is to resist it as calmly and forcefully as one can (while being quite sure one is right). That will generally bring a cessation of such pushing. Lot of would be bullies out there. Some in uniform and some not...
I've seen a lot of folks take that foolishness from overbearing senior people and then get waxed on their OER or EER / Fitness Report as not being forceful or morally courageus. People may dislike you if they're wrong and you're correct but most of them will accept it and won't penalize you for it -- mostly because they're afraid they'll get found out.
You just missed the fly, that's all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
So though you disagree you say specifically what I was saying...
No, that's not what I said. I said most. There are some exceptions and even the stopped clock is right twice a day, etc. Nor did I say valid complainants needed to be military; I said many tend to make comments that are ill informed or simplistic which does not mean they have to be military, it does mean they should try to become informed or avoid making simplistic comments. I can think of many civilians with no service who are very knowledgeable; they are just exceptions to the rule.
Quote:
It is s standard argument from priori knowledge or experience.
Why, yes, it is -- I believe I've seen you use it repeatedly with reference to the educational industry... ;)
Quote:
As such the military does look specifically like a closed club...There are MANY who have told me that is a benefit of having been military in the past and a reward for their service.
In reverse order, I'm sure there are many -- I'd also bet there are far more who do not believe that. I'll certainly admit to knowing too many who do believe the system owes them something but I know more who do not feel that way than those who do. Moving back past that, yep, it is a closed shop from cradle to grave, no question. So? It would be better if it were not but I think that would fly in the face of 5,000 years of human development...
Quote:
Those who aren't contractors are sitting in plumb civilian posts to military organizations where they determine the civilian side of the policy. In some cases they are paid shills to news corporations spouting the DOD line rather than giving honest assessments. Blame congress but the number of shills serving DOD with former military ties given jobs that have precise KSA's attributed to them that require former military service determines what policy Congress votes upon.
That's an unclear statement. I agree with the first part and also agree that's wrong. Don't understand the Congressional / policy reference.
Quote:
From the outside it looks pretty inbred and incestuous.
It is. As do the vales of Academe look from the outside. As does the Banking industry. As does Congress itself. Do we have a military problem or a people problem here?
Quote:
The systemic anachronism created by this incestuous methodology stifles innovation, creates parasitic losses on the economy of scale, is a closed loop of thinking, and is orders of magnitude more expensive than alternative models.
I tend to agree with most of that but I'm very curious what alternative models might realistically be used in the US???
You probably can:
Quote:
...write that, support that, and provide detailed evidence for it, and I'm a fan of the military and a former Marine. Knowing something stinks is a lot different than not caring about how it gets fixed.
Don't think I said otherwise. So can I do all those things. That doesn't put either of us any closer to fixing it...
Quote:
How to fix the military in five easy steps (for today, some I've said before)
1) Do away with mandatory up or out promotions systems. At the same time do away with the 30 years max service. You can serve until you can't perform. I'm ok with 20 year corporals. I'm also OK with field grades saying "you suck go away" to those who can't perform. If you have a bad commander go ahead and appeal. Or, don't.
I agree with eliminating up or out. I disagree strongly on the 30 years max service (there are already exceptions made and most of them would not fill you with pride...). I'd go the other way and drop it to 25 because if you do it right, your mind and body will not take 30 years of that kind of punishment. What's required is a portable retirement process so that people are not locked in and can move in an out of the service as they mature and goals or needs change. I'd also submit that a part of the problem with much of the other stuff you cite is those folks who have over 20, are headed for 30 -- and absolutely will not rock the boat to mess up their retirement. Those also are most of the folks that are in your "I earned it..." pot.
I'm also okay with 20 year corporals and with Field Grades that tell people to go away -- the problem is that your Congress is not really okay with either of those things. For the CPL, they don't like lowly peons sticking around that long; they become way too loyal to the institution and not to the Nation or other things. The Field Grade can do that to his CSM or a CPT or two -- but sooner or later, he's gonna get reported for being mean; someone's Congressman will write to some General and the Field grade likely becomes history unless that GO is really adept. That's reality. Should any of those things be true? Absolutely not -- but they are...
Quote:
2) If it deploys it is a "b" or "c" billet for a military member. Yes the military gets bigger but it gets much more flexible. The reasons for outstrip the reasons against.
I agree in principle but I don't think the willing and qualified volunteer pool in this country today will support a larger force. Further, given current costs, I doubt the current force can be supported on economic grounds for very long. I'd go the other way; a smaller force, almost all deployable and better trained (that adds to costs which removes any savings from a smaller force)
Quote:
3) End weapons systems bloat...We can Innovatively loose wars too.
On that we totally agree.
Quote:
4) Increase military pay for all across the board by 25%. Decrease mandatory enlistments periods to 24 months (no promotion past E-1), increase bonuses for extended enlistments 24-72 months (promotion possible).
Disagree. Some are overpaid now. Across the board increases in the past have contributed to a pay imbalance; some folks do need a pay raise, some do not -- and some could take a cut (IMO); plus, we need a completely new pay scheme -- the current system is good for a mobilizing major war force; it is not good for a professional force. We have too many grades and no way to reward good performance other than by promoting people in rank -- that forces the services into the Peter Principle...
Disagree with 24 month enlistments. The way we now train it takes that long for the kid to get really productive (as you earlier said, the object is to do the job, not be a social laboratory) -- or if we improve training by an order of magnitude, that'll leave him only a year in a unit, that's too much personnel turbulence. In the Marine Corps when you an I were in, that was a minor effectiveness impactor -- today, it is a major adverse element that must be ameliorated.
That last item is currently being done. The Army, incidentally did the two year option and it really didn't attract that many.
Quote:
5) Contractors must accept the UCMJ foreign or domestic and all that means. If a contractor sues the military they don't get paid until it is resolved. If the military files UCMJ charges against a contractor the officer doing so has to withstand I believe it is an Article 32 hearing. You get big sticks but you need to have the wisdom to use or not use them.
I agree but I don't think Congress will. Congress likes contractors because they allow rapid expansion and contraction (efficiency and effectiveness are not concerns; ongoing, surge and residual cost is a concern; contractors don't get VA benefits...) and, even better, Contractors contribute big time to campaign funds (which few services or soldiers do).
Quote:
I know with all that you're going to vote me off the island.
Nope, not even. You're entitled to your opinions and I agree in large measure. In some things, we see the same problem but have a different fix. There are a few where I think you are missing the pernicious presence of Congress.
Quote:
If I don't know enough about the military because I didn't serve long enough, or in enough billets, then is it a fanciful thing to say the military is told what to do by civilians?
I hope not because they largely are told what to do by civilians. Most of the personnel policies are promulgated by a Congress overly concerned with two things -- that none of their constituents / voters (or their family members) get too badly screwed by the Armed Forces (thus many silly, even dangerous, personnel rules like up or out, promotion quotas and the like) and the great big, elephant in the corner factor that many really miss -- Congress absolutely does not want, will not tolerate, an Army that is too good or not adequately subservient. Read the Constitution -- Congress has the nation by the old short hair on that one and since the Army is the biggest service, that allows them to dictate Army Policies to the other services (One of many reasons I disagreed and disagree with the existence of DoD) and they flat take advantage of that power.
Remember that because those factors are the root of many of your complaints.
Quote:
Go ahead sign me up for Platoon Leader Course I'll be one of the most educated, oldest recruits in history. Going through boot camp, basic training is sort of a hobby. Maybe it will change my mind though I doubt it.
No intent to try to change your mind. In any event, I agree with many of your desired changes. Only thing in the way of those is Congress. Fly in the old ointment. Good luck with that fix...
I agree with your hope and I think
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
I've got to believe things can change. I've got to believe people I know and respect can serve with dignity and without being treated poorly. the RIF will happen. When I don't know.
The delay in achieving that hope you cite in the foregoing is caused by this:
Quote:
The problems are huge but politicians don't believe we can discuss them with considered thought. Nobody wants to discuss in depth. They all want to spend time in sound bites. Really dig into problems? At all levels that is not happening.
Like you with KBR (which I saw only as business as usual -- they got their start supporting LBJ back in the 50s; made big, big bucks in Viet Nam) I thought the economic debacle would tumble some out of Congress and send a message. Didn't happen. I cannot believe a bunch of those guys got reelected. :mad:
Quote:
Grumble. Ranting I guess.
Me, too. Good news is there are a lot of small changes afoot and this current generation may grow up and fix some more ills -- but I'm afraid we're not going to see any major change until we have a real disastrous situation on our hands or we stop electing people to Congress who are more concerned with their party than the nation. Which probably means disastrous...