Quote Originally Posted by IronTwoSix View Post
...those who decide staffing will always do what is easiest and fastest for them. Is there a way to change this?
IMO it can be changed a bit but it's really a function of human fallibilities. All of us will try to make our jobs easier, the good guys will do so consistent with getting the job done right, the less good will be more concerned with their ease and comfort. You can change the rules but people will just game the system. Long answer, that -- short one is probably not significantly.
Ken, you said that more often than not people are assigned to where they are most useful. Do you believe this was true during your time in and have you come across any concerns to the contrary in forums about today's military?
Both. I have a long and still serving son; he and his friends keep me reasonably up to date. Remember, I also said "and most failings are a result of a bureaucratic failure to bend in order to protect the sanctity of the institution that is HRC." That protection involves both keeping their power and keeping senior leaders -- and Congress -- happy. The "more often than not" is generally true but there are peaks and valleys caused by deployment turbulence and by individuals who evade or otherwise aren't available from time to time, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. In all cases, we're talking about people so there are infinite variations...

A part of the problem is overstrength elements. We are effectively over-Officered and over NCOd; too many of each for the number of lesser Peons. There are units that really do not need to exist; most Staffs are too large by far. All those things and a few more exist or are that way to keep a pool of Officers and NCOs at hand in case of a need to mobilize or rapidly expand the Army. Our Personnel System was developed in 197 to cope with a major mobilization for WW I. The system was 'refined' for WW II -- and it still bases much of what it does on mobilization requirements. The problem all that creates is that when ever there's an over supply of anything, allocation becomes muddied and waste is prevalent.

Consider also if you have MAJ Heebley and / or SFC Schmedlap assigned to a Corps Staff and the Army needs either or both for another assignment; it can sometimes settle down to which General (the one they're working for or the one who wants 'em) has more pull in Washington; needs of the service often become secondary.
Are the rules of a peacetime Army appropriate for today?
Not in my opinion but then I'm a Neanderthal. Or a Dinosaur -- maybe both...

However, reality is that we live in a democracy and that war based training and assignments would be expensive and would impose a training casualty rate of over 1%. Both those things are anathema to Congress who do not like Mothers to get upset by their kids getting hurt 'unnecessarily' and who wish to use taxpayers Dollars to reelect themselves and not spent so some can play Soldier. The peace time orientation is a function of all that. We won't go to a war footing unless we have a WW II-like existential war and then it'll take us a while to ramp up. That's why that for Korea, Viet Nam and today, the Pentagon and HRC are at peace.
The three generations are: Baby Boomer, X and Y. How can we best utilize all generations?
Force all the Baby Boomers to retire, they have not been helpful. They had a chance, post Viet Nam and post Cold War to fix a lot of these and other problems and they didn't do it...

That last is a serious comment BTW.