Certainly. Easy, common sense fixes. However, the question then becomes
will we solve it?
I suspect not, lacking a major war. The US governmental system is purposely, slow, infinitely variable due to political whim and a short electoral cycle. It is also tilted toward maximum freedom and individual choice. While that latter attribute has been ameliorated to an extent by communitarian requirements, the other three factors still exist and mitigate any rigorous much less draconian tightening of disciplinary measures. :eek:
We tend to do that only when confronted with a really big emergency or an existential war -- and we've only had one of those, the American Civil War. WW II was a close second. All the others, including Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation was effectively at peace and just parts of the Armed Forces went to war. Even the Pentagon doesn't really go to war, at least they have not since 1945... :wry:
So we'll piddle around the edges but change little -- until we believe we have to do so. Then we will do it and it'll work out okay. No big thing, it's terribly inefficient but in spite of mediocre training and odd rules the kids will make it work until then. And there will be a 'then.' :cool:
Though it pains me to have to agree with Jon ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
Personnel were getting ridiculously fat as a result, and we were wasting too many resources on the amenity.
Can anyone here tell which guy is the Marine in this photo? :o
Sergeants Major: Duties, Responsibilities and Authority
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Honestly I think the first step to fixing the overweight problem would have been to let a handful of fire blowing sgt majors ( sergeants-major) loose in these bases to clean them out. A sgt major in the US is still allowed to blow fire?
It's been 25 years since I was in the Army so my observations may be a bit out of date, but as I saw it the role of command sergeants major at battalion level and higher in the U.S. Army was rather nebulous. Their main duty description was to serve as the commander's chief advisor on matters relating to NCOs and other enlisted personnel; other than that his duties were pretty much as the commanding officer chose to define them. In addition to monitoring enlisted selections for leadership schools, promotions and disciplinary issues, as Ken pointed out they often focused on uniforms, haircuts, the barracks and the police (tidying up) of the unit's area. One thing they are certainly not are the hellfire-and-brimstone type of sergeant major the British Army is famous for. It also seemed to me that the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy turned them into homespun philosophers who go on and on about how "the young soldier" adapts to his new military environment. What is really needed is a better definition of their duties, responsibilities and authority, even if it infringes a bit on the traditional prerogatives of company/battery commanders and first sergeants. Perhaps Ken may have something to add because he knows a lot more about this subject than I do.
We're too rich and that makes us too fat...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
The Rhodesian forces were lumbering along with the old Brit colonial pattern as well. It took the birth of the Selous Scouts to break the mold...So maybe such units may be the bridging force between the current traditional units and formations deployed in Afghanistan and the final hand over to the Afghan army which should be considered? Perhaps with a progressive integration of Afghans?
The problem is that politicians do not want to do that sort of thing in peacetime -- the Mothers of the Troops get all upset at a 1 or 2% killed loss in realistic training. As I said elsewhere, make no mistake, the US is at peace and has been since 1945. In the war that ended then, a near existential thing as was your war existential for you, we did the same thing, formed units ad hoc and charged them with producing results. Commanders who did not produce were fired and quickly. The rules change quickly and harshly. Can't do that in peacetime; tradition and protecting the institution get in the way -- and the politics of it all are not helpful.
The Selous Scouts and their roles and missions have been discussed here and a search should show the threads. However, the US is highly unlikely to use those techniques, successful as they are, for a variety of reasons. So we'll bumble along in Afghanistan, realize a medium level of success and depart. That's okay, no one ever really wins an insurgency, the best that can be obtained is an acceptable outcome. That's what we wanted going in and we'll get it on the way out.
That said, I'll reiterate that in an existential war, the nice stuff goes out the window and we can be as effective as anyone and more so than most. We just need a real reason to do that, otherwise we just want to argue amongst ourselves and ponder Jesse James (the modern one, not the outlaw).
Quote:
I would like to comment upon this in more detail. I would preface this by saying I really don't have a solution to the Afghanistan situation but am able to ask some questions. If the questions make for discomfort please resist the temptation to shoot the messenger.
No reason to shoot anyone for sensible questions. Non-sensible ones might require a second or two of thought... :D
Quote:
If I understand this you are saying that 70% of the force level supports the 30% who actually do the fighting? If this is correct it is outrageous.
No. It is not at all outrageous, it's fairly typical today. Check this whole, short thread on the topic: (LINK). You might also ponder who else can put 150,000 troops in Iraq and 40,000+ in Afghanistan from another continent 12,000 miles away and sustain them. That capability comes with a cost.
Quote:
Gee, well you make your own bed you must lie in it. But there must be a way around this? What percent of support 'troops' are obese?
Nah, not really, Politicians make the beds we all have to lie in; US, Rhodesia, south Africa, UK. Makes little difference what country, all do dumb things. not the same things perhaps, but still dumb.
To answer your question, Obese about 5-10% on a guess (none morbidly so); simply overweight another 10% or so and marginally heavy about 10 more -- that means 70± % are okay. In the US population at large, we've got BIG problem (pun intended) (LINK). That's what happens when you have too much money and too much free time. The interesting thing is that we've had the problem for about 25-30 years and got to be a laughing stock to the rest of the world -- who are now catching up. ;) (LINK). In South Africa you do a bit better: LINK. Also, we've already started cracking down on the excess, it was allowed to slide to keep troop numbers up with on and off deployments. now that we're able to one on and two offm the housekeeping will get caught up.
Quote:
Are they happy with this role? I'm sure those who have some fight left in them would be valuable to the units doing the actual fighting?
My guess would about half the Sergeant Majors are happy with it, it becomes a bureaucratic sinecure sort of thing -- and make no mistake, we are very bureaucratic. Plus most are in their forties when one realizes one is not immortal and that things break easily in field service. Of the other half, about half of those aren't happy with it but accept it for one reason or another; that leaves one lonely fourth -- or about the 20% I mentioned earlier -- that actively try to improve the tactical and technical performance of their units.
I believe Bertrand Russell commented that 80% of the work in the world is done by 20% of the people or words to that effect.
Pete's comment elsewhere is pretty accurate; we have effectively tried to create a slightly different category of NCO. It may work; I'm skeptical but we'll have to wait and see.
Yes, it is a damn shame but, like the tooth to tail ratio it also is more typical of other Armies than many are prepared to acknowledge, particularly Armies from wealthy western nations. All Armies have their problems. This LINK is old but I suspect if that problem has gone away, there are others equally debilitating...
Quote:
I understand as it appears similar to my experience... but once again I say any fool can be uncomfortable.
Once again I suggest you're missing the point, possibly because the excess has to be seen to be believed. I spent almost 30 years as an Infantryman, believe me when I say that the Base Camps in theoretical war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq feature a far higher standard of comfort and convenience than I saw on my last peacetime tour in Korea in 1975 and in some respects exceeds the levels I can obtain today as an old retired Dude in the at peace United States.
Not a question of being uncomfortable -- it is a question of removing excessive comfort producing items that provide for what can only be called a cosseted existence. American have a bad tendency to overdo everything. We're not talking about removing good food, the gyms or soft drinks and the occasional beer or air conditioned billets, they stay. We're talking about taking away civilian fast food outlets and shopping facilities that exceed the per capita availability factor for most American cities.
Those Fast Food outlets by the way are a significant contributor to that obesity in the rear problem (pun again intended).
Why, they support. What else would they do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
It would be fascinating to find out what all these 'support' people do.
Aviation units maintain and fly aircraft; Engineers build stuff; Artillery shoots guns and rockets, Medical units keep the 'died of wounds' rate down in single figures, a worldwide wartime first; Supply and maintenance units do those things; Signal units provide comms; Military Police provide law enforcement, security and do convoy escort, Intelligence Brigades provide intel and operate some UAVs / drones (other are owned by combat units but the folks operating them are support types, not riflemen), SF do both combat and support stuff; Transportation types move stuff and people.
Combat units have mechanics and cooks who are support types. The significant US fixed wing and helicopter presence, with aircraft from all services requires a lot of maintainers, armers and fuelers to support 24 hour operations. Not to mention control tower operators...
Don't forget that the armed forces of the US are providing people to assist in rebuilding Afghan infrastructure (LINK) -- and these guys: LINK. All sorts of stuff going on there. Those US numbers also include the Air Force (fihters, transports and helicopters plus crews and support folks) and the Navy (yes, a lot Navy types there; all the Marine Medical Corpsmen and Doctors are Navy, as are the Chaplains).
P.S
In addition to the big military support package, there are a host of civilian contractors also supporting the effort. :D
Modern warfare is expensive and expansive... :cool: