One more nit and I'll go away and let you enjoy Sierra Vista...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
patmc
...Agree that you get the missions you get, but the buck stops at the top. If large numbers of troops are not utilized or under utilized, those in charge need to find a better use for them, or send them home.
I totally agree but the problem may not be quite as simple as it seems. The problem originates with Staffs, not commanders or CSMs. Staffs. Staffs from DA on down -- they are the ones that come up with odd taskings and a lot of make work; convoy security missions for the wrong units who just happened to be untasked at the time. Easier to put them on it than find a unit that's designed, trained and equipped to do that. Oh, wait...
Consider also that generally the actual impact falls about three or more levels down from their august height so the fact that it is not always a smart, well considered idea is really immaterial to them. They're insulated from direct complaints and every experienced StaffO knows that valid complaints at Bn level get to Div and sound like minor problems while Corps considers them whining. Give it some thought.
How to fix it? The Commanders concerned are busy guys and cannot watch or know everything, they depend on their Staffs and subordinates to keep them informed -- and there is reluctance to do that -- keep the boss informed, I mean, simply because he is busy. It's a matter of what's important and that, unfortunately is in the eye of the beholder. Better to say little and not annoy El Commandante. That, BTW, is one area where CSMs do have some play and I acknowledge many will not get involved for some bad reasons...
Practically speaking and in general, to get it fixed, Unit Staffs have to fight with their Bosses Staff and force them to fight with his Bosses Staff(s) -- and too many are reluctant to do that on make work, force protection or 'local security' issues in order to save their fights for what they think may be more important issues. I submit that misuse of troops is a very important issue but I know that many staff types do not see it that way; all too many want to do is keep their Boss happy and out of trouble and if Joe suffers a teeny bit or some LT has a tough job for part of his tour, well so what...
While convoy protection has been a greater or lesser problem in all our recent wars, it has occurred to some degree in all, yet, in peacetime, it is difficult to envision much less justify a unit trained and equipped just to protect convoys. even if that were not so, it would be difficult to predict the size and number required. So we have to ad-hoc it. Fortunately, we do that well but it does offer discombobulation to the ad-hocced unit.
One thing that all our wars point out is that we are not flexible enough in organizing and equipping units for theater and conflict unique missions -- which will always exist. We generally get around to it but we're way too slow to adapt -- that and the multi level staff problem are what I meant by the penalty of the bureaucracy
I suggest that a real solution to the problem in question lies in better training of Staff Officers -- and in Commanders insisting on troops not being misused instead of just accepting it and saying that's what "Corps wants, just do it." I've been told that or something similar several times by fairly good Commanders. I have never been told to do anything like that by a really good Commander...
Quote:
If a BN has couple dozen guys who do nothing but eat and go to MWR, put them at a gate or guard tower to increase force protection, free up others, and give them a purpose. This is micro-managing yes, but idle hands will do bad things. If a BCT claims to own battlespace, put people out in the battlespace.
That, OTOH, is to me not a mission issue but a unit tasking issue, it is emphatically a Battalion level issue and it certainly does impinge on the CSM and /or CO. It also impinges on the Staff who had to have some part in the design it and if that abuse -- and it is that -- continues, on the Co / By / Trp Cdrs and 1SGs...
So we aren't in much disagreement at all...:D
Have fun in Aridzone... ;)
When your Personnel system is a World War I (Yes, that's a One) model and refuses
to adapt, you can't expect much. I'm unsure why it is so difficult to transmute an individual replacement centric organization into one that supports rotating units -- unless it has something to do with the high number of people required to do the former and a lesser number needed for the latter. Nah, that can't be it -- that would mean that job security takes precedence over supporting the Army... :rolleyes:
Add to that the brilliance of CentCom staffers who took an Airborne Infantry Brigade intended for a high profile mission and instead put it on convoy escort duty for a year in MND-S and managed to turn a competent combat Brigade and a super high personnel (all ranks) retaining organization into one that put retention below the basement and became a borderline shambles that will take a lot of time to rebuild... :mad::mad:
When the Staff imperative at upper levels is to answer the mail as quickly and easily as possible instead of to do what's needed, right and sensible, bad things happen...
That said, we've been more short of these levels of experience before. Not that such knowledge makes it any easier for those who have to cope but it should reassure many that it can be done.
Sheesh. Good find of some bad stuff. Those are beyond sad.
I need to start displaying Steve Blair's tag line which he stole from one of you guys out there:
Quote:
"As a 2LT, I had a crusty, old SFC tell me he thought that “the Army, as a whole, is like a guy that just keeps punching himself in the balls over and over for no reason.” Maybe he was wiser than I thought."
It certainly applies to all the ad campaigns since "Be all you can be"