Printable View
SWJ blog post - The Officer Critical Skills Retention Bonus
Read the memo at the first link above...Quote:
I received the following memo by Colonel J. B. Burton (USA), Commanding Officer of Dagger Brigade Combat Team in Iraq, via "Warlord Loop" e-mail. An abbreviated version appeared in the Washington Post - see Tom Rick’s Inbox dated 8 July 2007. COL Burton has been kind enough to permit the SWJ to post it in full. Where a military acronym is used I have inserted an explanation...
"Where a military acronym is used I have inserted an explanation" <--- I've often told the officers I work with that we "normal" people (and I use the term loosely) need subtitles to scroll just below their head when they talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWJED
I think I've read about ninety percent of that here on SWC.
Is the Warlord Loop a good email list?
Yes. Reminds me of a running conversation a few of us had about 4 months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
If I remember right one of us actually got this e-mail right after it was sent out. We've discussed this before.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis
Yup, I just did a backtrack to that thread, and the email had been posted. It was labelled FOUO at the time, so the post in question was deleted.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2886
Army Offers Officers Incentives - original e-mail now w/ permission to post from COL Burton...
Yeah, I remember that now. I was in the field the night that was posted, saw the FOUO marking, and quickly sent out some PMs. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis
the only requirements will be opposable thumbs:D
From my armchair, this all makes a ton of sense, and we should be investing a lot more in both retention and recruitment, and a lot less in F-22s, the Future Contract System, etc.
5. Rotate operational units differently. Most officers and Soldiers would rather rotate to Iraq, then do a second rotation to Afghanistan, then a third tour back to Iraq - this shakes up the scenery, allows us to fight a different enemy in different terrain, and think through different problem sets. It also puts a new set of eyes on the trends and problems for each conflict - might skin the cat a different way!
For those of you that have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both, does this make sense? I remember the old saw about one of the biggest problems in Vietnam being that we didn't fight the war for nine years, we fought it for one year nine times.
There are only 2 BCT's in Afghanistan, so how exactly do you do this?
Didn't see this the first time around. A coupla things stand out (to me)
Grad school -- great idea, BUT the Army sees grad school as an investment. When I went, the AERB payback was 3 years additional service commitment for every 1 year of school, one year of commitment being served during each school year. So, yeah, it's easy to end up with a commitment through the 13th year of service. I don't see the Army changing that process, that's what the GI Bill is for.
Changing theaters -- For "fairness" in purely "kinetic" (unauthorized term) operations, this concept makes sense. But we're fighting counterinsurgency battles. If we're serious about cultural anthropology, this probably won't work, quite aside from the math problems outlined above. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very different and require different ROE, among other considerations. The more you go back to the same area, the more you are likely to make progress among the local population.
MiTTs -- Give them all the incentives we can find. They are the wave of the present AND the future. We need the best and the brightest, and need ways to ensure that we get them.
Most officers are not eligible for the GI Bill. It is my understanding that all officers commissioned through USMA are not eligible and officers that received a ROTC scholarship are not eligible. It is also my understanding that those are the two major sources of new 2LTs every year. While there are a number of officers who commission through ROTC without receiving a scholarship and those who are "college-option" OCS graduates, the majority of the officers in the active Army either graduated from USMA or received an ROTC scholarship.Quote:
Grad school -- great idea, BUT the Army sees grad school as an investment. When I went, the AERB payback was 3 years additional service commitment for every 1 year of school, one year of commitment being served during each school year. So, yeah, it's easy to end up with a commitment through the 13th year of service. I don't see the Army changing that process, that's what the GI Bill is for.
Got an email from buddy getting ready to start his MiTT tour in Iraq. He reported that in the last couple months there have been more volunteers for MiTTs because of one major "incentive": MiTTs are still only a 12 month tour as opposed to 15.Quote:
MiTTs -- Give them all the incentives we can find. They are the wave of the present AND the future. We need the best and the brightest, and need ways to ensure that we get them.
Concerning the CSRB: The Engineer NBQ CPT page reports it will be released sometime in July. Excuse me, branch qualification does not exist in my branch anymore, the new terms are "Junior Captains" and "Senior Captains."
Me personally, as a junior Captain with an ETS of next May, I am undecided. However, the Navy makes an attractive pitch.
What ever happened to professional officer appointments? They still do it in the medical service, but wouldn't it get line officers off desks?
We talk about a holistic look and targeted rewards. We also have identified the growing influence of spouses and children on retention of those leaders with skills marketable on the outside.
Instead of just mandating the time owed for every year of grad school, how about giving credit up front(I'm not talking about the GI Bill)? How about extending that to families?
The first is like COL Burton describes - For every two years you servepast the initial 4, you get a year off to attend grad school at a state school.
The second applies to your family. For every 4 years past the initial 4, one of your kids gets their tuition paid for at a state school.
My point- make it attractive for the family in a long term way. You make it an incentive for more then just retention, it also becomes an incentive for attracting talent you might otherwise miss out on. It goes back to the public by introducing educated young Americans with a family background of service.
The term around these parts is remission.
If you are the spouse or child of a faculty member you get 2/3rds off your tuition state run institution undergraduate (only) program. There can be caveats like (must get a (insert level of achievement) grade or higher).
As long as a person is employed full time by the united states military their spouses/children should get at least remission of fees in addition to normal scholarships/awards.
I know there is always a money issue, but regardless of incentives to keep people in the military it is the RIGHT thing to do. Unfortunately the money issue is looked at first and not the RIGHT thing to do. With the federal government pulling funding from higher education, states pulling funding from higher education, grants and awards dwindling, and some state schools considering privatizing this is an idea that won't likely make it out of the barn.