Well, I agreed with him as the attrition rates will rise. Hey, everyone needs a break, even the hardest of samurai. Shuffle a guy off to school followed by a ROTC or TRADOC assignment would cure a lot of ills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Printable View
Well, I agreed with him as the attrition rates will rise. Hey, everyone needs a break, even the hardest of samurai. Shuffle a guy off to school followed by a ROTC or TRADOC assignment would cure a lot of ills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Not alone. My gut feel (with apologies to the SecHS) is that between one third and one half of one percent of the population of a modern western democracy will join and serve under such conditions; if it trends to the lower figure due to length of time that means less than the now authorized strength while the upper figure is about what we have. Per usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between.Quote:
Originally Posted by marct
"Under such conditions" -- but some inducements in the near term will be necessary. IOW, I'm saying I think we can muddle through for a few years with some belt tightening. To maintain the force in the long term, some major reforms are going to be necessary. Simply, the ability to deploy fairly frequently but not too frequently and not always to combat zones is desirable but the biggest single draw to the kids is challenge. Period. Most kids come in the service (officer or enlisted immaterial, service nonpeculiar) and leave due to disappointment.
It isn't challenging and it isn't fun. Start a small war and you have challenge but no fun (for most); do all the good training stuff IAW OSHA guidelines and you have fun but no challenge.
Then there's the fact that the aforementioned tendency to treat people like children tends to make them act like children. Nobody likes that; add that people used to be trusted and that the ability to trust has been allowed to severely erode. That has to be fixed.
Frankly, in the US, I'm not particularly optimistic about getting there from here. We are, I'm afraid too distrustful of each other, too pampered, too PC and Congress does not want the Mothers of the Etats Uniens complaining about a 1% loss annually in training. Penalty of living in a democratic society; the bulk of the populace do not want Armed Forces that are too good. Not that I'd change that; I think its part of the price we pay for the freedom we have and the life style we are able to enjoy. So I suspect we'll just muddle along. Unsatisfactory answer, I know. Need to think about it a bit.
As to the second part of your query; total honesty and integrity allied with great competence; all equally important. The first simply requires an effort of will and a change in attitude (particularly toward the media, no matter how hard that is to swallow); the second requires only will and effective policing and the third cutting much of the bureaucracy, well thought out doctrine and even better than the already good training. Then it'll take 15-30 years of improvement for the effects to be truly felt, I believe. However, I see some positive if slight moves in those directions and that is good.
Two things that will contribute to that better perception are the mantra of 'support the troops' which makes it hard for those who say it at least on the surface to be too negative (if it is said often enough, it begins to be believed) and the return of a bunch of smart people from the current wars to the mainstream and many of whom will go to school on the GI Bill and possibly, among other things, affect some, uh, attitudes on campus... :wry:
However, it is unlikely that the attitudes toward the Armed Forces of about 15 to 20% of the population, those strongly inclined toward non-violence / anti-militarism will ever be changed. Nor are they likely to subside into quiet acquiescence. Fortunately, they are a fairly small percentage.
Let me mull both points for a bit...
have to be a total spectrum Army and we're losing the big war edge, only the schools and training will fix that. We're in the same boat we were in during Viet Nam; year or less in CONUS, year there. Repeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski
That ran off a humungous lot of obligors at the end of their oblig. Captains left in droves. Killed a lot of good NCOS too. Left the hardcore and the dead wood and very few in between. Given the personnel community's approaches, we're probably looking at the same thing again.
Hard to understand. Not like we've never done this before...
Some people would be amazed at how good a job a young LT can do as a Company Commander or a good SSG can do as an acting Platoon Leader or a Major can do in the Div 3 slot. Once upon a time, we insisted all newly commissioned Officers had to do two years combat arms duty before reporting to their final branch. There was a reason for that. However, it was unpopular with some so it got killed, nominally on grounds of cost effectiveness -- and at great loss of flexibility in entry Officer assignments -- not to mention professional knowledge...
Hi, MarcQuote:
Originally Posted by marct
After some thought and talking to a few others, not much to add to my off the cuff remarks the other night. Could have been more coherent and concise but the basic thoughts remain the same. Let me reiterate and add a couple of things.
I still believe that between one third and one half of one percent of the population of a modern western democracy will join and serve under such conditions; if it trends to the lower figure due to length of time that means less than the now authorized strength while the upper figure is about what we have. Per usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between. My three
co-consultants agree (one's a COL Ret, one a serving brand new MAJ and the other a serving MSG). It is highly probable that the number of people who opt for the combat arms is a rough constant and thus they need little added inducement.
The issue is attracting the specialist types and for the Gen Y kids, it seems to us a pitch that leans toward the opportunity to help others in lesser endowed nations would be a draw; that and the travel.
To maintain the force in the long term, some major reforms would be necessary. Pay is a factor. The services tout the total package but the reality is that has little resonance with many because they do not partake of many of the benefits so increased base pay and a cut in the ‘benefits’ would be better received I think (I await the screams and wails of some serving…). Pay for specialties hard to recruit and retain should be increased to a point commensurate with like trade civilian pay. An enhanced G.I. Bill – particularly if it offers more money for graduate studies to those who enlist with two or more years of college would probably help
The biggest single draw to the kids is challenge. Period. Most kids come in the service (officer or enlisted immaterial, service nonpeculiar) and leave due to disappointment. The Brits use Adventure Training to good effect. We played with it in the 70s but only half heartedly; the British Army does it right, IMO.
A major reform is need in the way people are treated and, in fairness, the Army is headed that way but it will be a culture change and, as Ski pointed out, the upper levels still have a tendency to treat people like children.
The ability to trust has been allowed to severely erode. That has to be fixed. :mad:
To repeat what I said earlier with respect to the second part of your query; total honesty and integrity allied with great competence; all equally important. We are getting better on both counts but there is still a tendency to hide bad news, that needs to be stop totally. A change in attitude particularly toward the media is a must (and that has major impacts in the Information War as well); I’ll add that we also need to do better with the film and TV industry. We do not need to co-opt them, we just need fair and unbiased portrayals.
Somehow, we also need to convince the denizens of Academe that we are not evil or stupid and that we dislike war even more than do they…
Still think it will take 15-30 years of improvement for the effects to be truly felt. However, the moves in those directions that are already occurring are good.
Not sure that's very helpful...
Ken/Marc
Some additional thoughts.
1. Rebuild trust between senior officers and mid/junior grade officers. The cracks are there, need to mortar them up before real problems arise. Might not be possible in the short term. I'm 34 years old with one foreign deployment and three humanitarian/disaster relief missions under my belt, as well as working on a Master's. Treat me like an adult for Christ's sake.
2. Sell the challenge and the rite of passage rather than the benefits and the endstate in terms of recruiting.
3. Completely reform the personnel and pay system. Both are antiquated and obselete. Retirement should be changed as well - the 20 year rule is dumb and obsolete. 2.5% per year accrual rate with a 10 year minimum is the way to go.
4. Show the populace that military service is worthy and that the people are good and honest. Crush those who are in service who are not honest or are criminals, and make it widely known across the press.
5. Create a real system of command and control by eliminating at least two or three layers of staff, starting at the Division level and head up to COCOM level. Ties in with trust development.
6. Grand startegy and strategy must be clearly stated to the privates and lieutenants in the military. These are the building blocks of the military, and if the grand strategy and strategy smell funny, they'll leave as soon as possible. They must believe in the mission...
Great, in fact. Benefit of still serving instead of bein' old, marginally out of touch and retarded... :)
All are good, all are of about equal importance, IMO.
Addressing the challenge issue....this is something the Marines have done well for many years now, and they don't have trouble meeting recruiting goals. We've lost some cadets to the Corps, and it has been due to the challenge factor. The AF promotes itself as a job with security and benefits...the kids we lose (and they've been good ones) wanted something more.
With Gen Y, you need to push service to something bigger than yourself more than travel. Many of these kids have already been places, and that hook just doesn't catch 'em. The trust issue is a major factor for these kids. They aren't as jaded as us Xers, but it's still an issue for them. Some of them are surprisingly idealistic, and shattering their trust will make them head the other way faster than you can blink.
One area that's really hurt the AF recently has been the horrible problems in some of the areas of JAG. It may not seem like much to those currently in, but it gets commented on a great deal (and negatively) by our cadets. They really don't like hearing one thing and then seeing something else. Lip service to core values will be smelled out quickly by this group, and they'll find somewhere else to go in a hurry.
With academe, you'll have to catch current undergrads and convince them to defy the ideology of their instructors. It's only going to get worse as the military starts looking for history majors, modern language majors, and others from the social sciences (to meet the demands of any COIN strategy you'll need those kids). You're going after the ideological strongholds of the '60s generation there, and they won't surrender easily.