More training, less parading urged.
Army chief Gen. Peter Schoomaker worries that soldiers are spending too much time marching in parades and “filling the bleachers” for retirement ceremonies.
So, on Thursday, the Army’s four-star leader challenged a group of trainers meeting at Fort Jackson to find better and more efficient ways to train soldiers.....http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20060825452884.html
Don't taze me bro!
Link...
For those that cannot access Current News - Early Bird Edition - here is a link to the original article in The State - More Training, Less Parading Urged.
More Training
Strange, I don't remember any parade being offered to me a decade ago when I retired. I do however remember being in many more than I care to count.
I would have thought with the current levels of activity around the world, the Army would be concentrating on sharpshooters and language experts.
Dress-Right-Dress has its roots and rationale, but practical at the moment ?
Regards, Stan
There are, unfortunately, a lot of leaders out there who thrive on D & C. They don't really know why it is important but they are good at it because it is relatively easy to be good at and so they overemphasize its importance. I can remember being told when I was with 2nd ACR in the mid '90s that anytime we had a group of three or more soldiers going anywhere on foot, then one of them was required to march the rest. Typical Joes, we just spread ourselves out so that there was never more than two of us walking together. It was not uncommon to see five or ten groups of two guys walking at ten meter intervals down to the motor pool in the morning.
SFC W
Originally Posted by Uboat509
Don’t feel bad we were doing the same thing in 1AD.
D and C has its purpose but it doesn’t take much time be good enough at it. As for retirement parades and the like, total BS we waste soldier’s time and tax payers money just to stroke some fools ego. I’ll never forget we had a brigade change of command ceremony, the entire brigade had to come out for about 6 hours (counting practices time) the highlight was the wives’ choir singing every verse of the national anthem, soldiers where struggling to hold a salute for that long . . . what a waste of time.
COD in Iraq?
From the MCG forum - Close Order Drill in Iraq?
Officer PC?
As a civilian outsider and contractor, I saw alot of Field grade officers who were more concerned with being politically correct and/or punching their ticket to get promoted rather than being a warrior. Most MAJ's, COL's and GEN's are merely political animals and have lost their warrior ethos. They are closed minded and have had their hands tied by DOD policy. There is no ability to modify their tactics without approval from "on high"...very similar to Hitler controlling Panzer movement or Johnson guiding the bombing in North VN. Let the boots on the ground fight the war with realistic rules of engagement. Just my $0.02.
29 Years...
As an insider and outsider - active, reserve, government and contractor - I cannot agree with the sweeping categorization that most MAJ's, COL's and GEN's are merely political animals and have lost their warrior ethos. In fact, I take exception to that statement. Yes, we all have our stories and experiences related to those who are not our best and brightest. Still, my experience is that amongst the captain through lieutenant colonel rank we have a treasure trove of talent and professionalism. We also have a stable of colonels and above of the same mettle. For every Franks we got - we had a Zinni... I'd feel more comfortable with your statement if I knew a bit more of the situation (s) that led you to your conclusion.
I know that every time I hear the phrase "warrior ethos" I want to puke and claw out my eyes.
I'm the kind of guy who is going to die early of being a "type A" personality. I mean, I really, really love fighting. I have since I was a little kid. It has hamstrung both my military and my civilian career(s). So when a guy with a $40 haircut and manicured nails starts talking about "warrior ethos" my blood pressure starts to spike. (I'm not talking about anyone in particular, just generalizing.)
But... having said that, we have some really, really smart killers out there wearing O-3 through O-10 rank whom I respect and am in awe of. Does the Army promotion system have some issues? Yes. But the things we call "bull####" (and are more the exception than the rule) in the military are multiplied 1000-fold in the civilian "leadership" world.
Does someone have the original article? I can only find things like this:
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Columb...0037&oliID=229
V/R
Ok, so "warrior ethos" seems to be a buzz word used by, "a guy with a $40 haircut and manicured nails" it also is being pushed by drill sgts in basic and AIT. the newbies coming fresh out of school are being trained to live by this. The unit that replaced us in Tikrit had a 35-40% population of E-1 - E-3's. They were gung-ho, without any real-world experience. Still, they had the mission in their hearts, and good leadership. THAT above all else, is what matters. Those kids will grow to understand the real meaning of "warrior ethos"
I have met some really good officers, aaand some NOT SO good ones. just like with any work force, good leaders are made, not born.
I have a quote in the back of my head that is, I think, from Vegetius:
"'Warriors' are meat on the table for 'Soldiers' with discipline."
I would also submit that one builds "Strategic Corporals" and wins "Small Wars" with the head, not the heart. I've been in the Army long enough and have studied enough history to distrust buzz-words and the people who use them. What I want in a soldier is someone who will tell me "Sir, are you sure you want me to do this?" when appropriate, yet do the "hard things" when necessary, and to have the intelligence and presence of mind to know the difference. "Warriors" have a certain utility, but in the pre-buzz-word sense of the word, a "warrior" has limited utility when the center of gravity is Humanitarian Aid, for instance.
I know it's a necro-post, but one thing has bothered me about this, but I let it drop. Until now.
The problem with teaching "everyone" about the "warrior ethos" and using it as a buzz-words, is that there are damned few people out there who are really warriors. The rest are just Joes doing a Job.
You cannot teach someone to be a warrior; they either are or they are not.
Trust me. I'm a warrior. I know other warriors when I see them. Not being a "warrior" is not a handicap. In fact, being a warrior is an incredible handicap in life. You are constantly riding to the sound of the guns, and fighting the good fight, even when it is not the smart fight. Then, when you are inevitably discarded because you don't "fit in" with all the normal human beings, you get to grow older and bitter. And you feel useless to society.
Frankly, I take the "warrior ethos" push by the Army as an insult. And alternatively, incredibly funny. The Army is no place for "warriors". They are much too regimented and closed-minded for "real" warriors to truly thrive.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks