off topic, I know, but I have respond to Reed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
Also having been both sides of the house, one thing that Active side could do to gain some of the advantages of the reserve side is reduce the amount of movement from unit to unit. Keep people in a unit longer.
Having been on both sides of the house myself, I disagree with you. I think active duty has the right idea. It prevents buck SGTs from calling the 1SG by his first name after being in the same unit for 10 years (just what I experienced in the NG). In AC, just about the time that folks get TOO comfortable with each other, they move on.
On active duty, it is also possible for folks (NCOs in particular) to homestead on posts forever. My last 1SG had been at Campbell for 12 years, most of it in the same BCT and BN. There were several NCOs in my BN at Campbell that had been there for 5+ years.
Quote:
The big advantage of the NG over active is that the soldiers know each other and how to work w/ each other and when they do have a deployment, that experience and knowledge stay w/ the unit for a long time.
Also consider that active duty work together every single day, as opposed to just drills. In my own experience, I developed much closer relationships with peers, superiors and subordinates much more quickly than I did in the Guard unit I was in for 4 year. Relationships forge quickly in the military, from what I've seen. Maybe they don't work and live in the same town like NG, but professionally, relationships on active duty flourish pretty quickly, IMO...it makes sense, you work with them everyday.
Quote:
In the 41st BCT ORNG that I used to belong to, you could no longer tell the difference from prior service soldiers and those that had only served in the guard once we returned from OIF. Us prior service guys shouldered a lot of the weight early on, but this diminished fast. By the time we returned from Iraq, I would say that the M-day soldiers were every bit as skilled as the active side of the house.
I'm glad it went well for your unit. In theory, it should work that way. Not sure it ends up being that way across the board. Not sure if the NG/RC SOF dynamic works differently. With that being said, I never met a CA guy or PSYOPer that wasn't RC...
We've had this discussion before so no sense in revisiting it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jkm_101_fso
...It prevents buck SGTs from calling the 1SG by his first name after being in the same unit for 10 years (just what I experienced in the NG). In AC, just about the time that folks get TOO comfortable with each other, they move on.
but if a 1SG is really competent he won't really care what SGT Heebly calls him, he will care how Heebly performs and if that's good, then Heebly can call him "SOB" and get away with it...:wry:
More to the point, that 'move on' bit also prevents a lot of accountability processes. For example; if one is a BC and has a mediocre 1SG (there are a lot of them about) but one knows the 1SG's leaving in six months, there is little incentive to fix the problem. If one is himself leaving in a few months, there's no incentive to get rid of bad apples that will not be moving with one.
Quote:
...My last 1SG had been at Campbell for 12 years, most of it in the same BCT and BN. There were several NCOs in my BN at Campbell that had been there for 5+ years.
That propensity for staying tends to make one police the ranks a little better, poor performers get noticed and zapped...
That's one factor that gives both the 82d and 101st a little bit better overall performance capability than many units (having said that, all units go through cycles -- I've seen both Divisions in sad shape).
Both sides of the AC / RC mix have good and bad points and traits, in the end, it's all about the quality of the people -- and, mostly, there is little difference between them and they're pretty good. For which we should all be thankful.
Thanks for the CA baton...
Chores permitting I'll see if I can set aside some time this weekend to research and add a post on military government/civil affairs history. I will also try and address in a short space why it's still around and why it's a fun/rewarding specialty for those of us who practice it...
Somebody else will have to take the the SF and PSYOP batons.
It's above our paygrade but
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uboat509
...I do get annoyed, however when I hear people complaining about how SF gets more of the AD CA guys when, for years, SF was the main user of CA assets. I also can't help but wonder if, after OIF ends and OEF draws down if you won't see a return to the old division of labor between SF and Big Army.
somebody needs to work on both those problems There's no need for either. The structural imbalance is an easy fix.
While a certain degree of professional jealousy will always exist and is even healthy in small doses, when it gets in the way of getting the job done, it should be fixed. It seems that there's a fair degree of cooperation and understanding at the working level, be nice if it could be raised to the echelons above reality...