FMSWeb, the website for the US Army Force Management Support Agency (USAFMSA), shows all Division Bands directly under the Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion (HHBN), just as battalions are listed under brigades. This seems contrary to what the US Army School of Music (USASOM) is saying. I think the ROA define what can be assigned, but HQDA says where it actually goes. Also, if USASOM was correct, the the Senior Commander would be able to reorganize BCTs, but from what I gather, they only have TACON/ADCON, not OPCON of the units living on their posts.
I agree that the bands are most known for their time as ceremonial organizations and that if the knife comes, they too must have some flesh removed. But I also believe that there is something to be said about this "soft power" revolution we're living through and the Band is soft power when utilized correctly. The Band, like combat camera, MWR, public affairs (PA), information engagement (IE), and even military history are all part of the Inform and Influence (I&I) arm of the Mission Command (MC) WFF. All add nothing if not synchronized. The Band is used most effectively where MWR cannot go. If the Band is treated first as an organization of Soldiers and not as performers, they go where you wouldn't send Toby Keith or the Lakers Cheerleaders. Although not the same type of entertainment (I don't want to see any of our bandsmen in a cheerleader's short shorts), I've seen what happens to fighting strength when you don't get entertainment out to every outpost. That's what this FDU fight is all about. It is about keeping a tool at the lowest level. I believe that the US Army School of Music (USASOM) is trying to make all bands like "Pershing's Own," something akin to MWR functions that must be escorted around the battlefield and only perform for large venues, without synchronization, and without any other purpose than to put on a good show. On the contrary, our band trains as Soldiers, to self move without security (they even own up-armored HMMWVs and M240Bs). They free-up combat power, not sap it way. The bandmaster and first sergeant actively particpate in the CG's Information Working Group. They take the CG's messages and work them into their shows (e.g. safety, physical fitness, ROE, unit mission, etc.). They are tasked with assisting the command with maintaining morale and one of their tasks is to report what they see in that arena. We're still working this piece, but we've made great strides and we're seeing it bear fruit. We're always fighting the controlling fingers of USASOM who require an amazing number of reports and interactions with a staff bands planner at theater, but the Band knows who they work directly for, so the change contiues. Bottom line, if the tool isn't used, it will eventually rust and become useless. That being said, if the tool user doesn't utilize the tool, the skill to do so is lost. I think the most of the problem with the integration of band operations is that we maneuver, fires, and effects (MFE) officers, don't take the time to look at the whole of tools in our toolbox. Rather than creating a symphony of various effects, we lean only on one instrument and hammer away with the insane expectation that it will always work. We still haven't bought in to the whole WFF concept, that combat power is made-up of the whole of the WFFs, not just movement and maneuver and fires. The division band affords the division commander a tool, that unlike MWR, is fully within his control, to effect morale even in the most austere of outposts. I believe pulling bands futher up the command heirarchy will remove them from their intended purpose. “Sound off,” by tradition, is for the troops, not the general in the stands. I blieve the FDU does just the opposite and focuses all bands on the stars in the stands, because MFE officers and even some bandsmen believe the tool is only good for display purposes.
Bookmarks