All I know is that everytime my orders have come, I was ready to go...I like the system, personally.
I'm not sure anyone will disagree with you so
why presume that anyone will try to serve you any kool-aid? If they do, you can always respond but to issue an unnecessary challenge up front just invites a minor flame fight that will accomplish nothing. Most of us are here to discuss and learn, not argue -- there are plenty of places that thrive on that.
All I know is that everytime my orders have come, I was ready to go...I like the system, personally.
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
common response to any discusion on US Army doctrine is a quick referal to ahem..US Army Policy, as though that makes it all well and right. I guess I am just a little gun shy on that type of response becouse it tends to kill any meaningful discusion and boils topics down to black or white - army is wrong or right. The truth is always a little more grey. not looking to flame or argue, what drew me to this board was the amount of open discusion and apparent level of inteligance of it's members.Originally Posted by Ken White
Reed
It's had it's strong points, to be sure. But consider that the British have had to practically abandon some historic single battalion "regiments" in favor of "super-regiments" of several battalions each. That's verging on something really close to brigade districts, except the British don't brigade the battalions together tactically.
I think a plan with brigade districts - something closer to the old German divisional districts, instead of the British regimental system - would be a better option for the US if you want to go with regional recruiting and staying with a unit for an entire career.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Actually...
...my favorite unit rotational scheme is MacGregors combined w/ some soldier say in staying or leaving at the refit stage only. This allows soldiers to choose to stay or opt out to improve promotion opertunities, get away from personality conflicts, allow spouses to have meaningful carreers, kids stay in good schools, etc etc. Otherwise a soldier is locked in till next cycle. This differs from the regimental system in that a recruit can be assigned wereever the Army needs him, but can then have some say in staying or leaving.
This being said, I feel that a major error of the recent recruiting by the Army is the specific recruitment of families. While I am a family man and still chose to serve, for the most part this business is best for bright single soldiers and that is who I would want the majority of my unit to be. My concern for my family in my abcense or loss will handicap my fighting skill to some degree. Just a thought,
Reed
I felt the same way.
Now that I've been in the reserve and guard, I can see a lot of negative effects of no PCS. There's a lot of stagnation, "good old boy" networks form and organizational change and adaptation become more difficult.
One thing the USAF was going to move toward when 9/11 came around is a kind of home-basing. Basically, most people could expect to spend about 1/2 their career in one location (not necessarily one command).
More recently the AF has extended all officer tours to a minimum of four years (though PCA's are allowed), but that was simply an effort to save money.
If you're in the right MOS you can get lucky though. For example, the Navy consolidates all of some types of aircraft at one base, so if your job revolves around that aircraft, then you'll spend a lot of time there.
Can't improve on that.
Deja view
Many of us more seasoned (how's that for a euphamism?) guys have seen more than our fair share of Army personnel experiments. What failed miserably in the past, may, in fact, succeed in the future.
UK -- What makes their system work may not apply to ours. I spent many years paired w/British regiments and saw things up pretty close. For instance, the Brits didn't (back in the day) have the stringent up or out policy we have. When teamed with 2d Bn, Royal Irish Rangers, I met one Ranger (Pvt) O'Something-or-other (No, not O'Bama, you comedians) -- a first class machine gunner with something like 15 YOS, but who would NEVER become an NCO. He was happy, the unit was happy, and life went on. He could essentially stay w/ the regiment forever. 2RIR rotated out of country w/kith & kin one March. Rotating out-of-cycle, by US standards was the only way the UK system could stay on an even keel. American families would have been up in arms. But when I asked a visiting UK 3-star why they rotated families in the middle of the school year, he stated that only the "other ranks" were effected, as officers' children were boarded out back home. If OR kids fell behind in academics, it was somehow OK because if they got too smart, the wouldn't join the regiment. I am not making this up.
US -- OK, now if current ops is the "new normal", then maybe a regimental/homebase system has more chance of survival than in the past. Mom & kids stay at Camp Swampy (why not Minot?) and Dad takes off for 12 mo out of every 36, 48, or whatever. No overseas PCS's, only o'seas deployments. OBTW, freezin's the reason.
Couple of historical points
"Back in the day" when the US did use a regimental system (I'm using the post-CW period for the example) there was no such thing as "up or out." Career privates were common, and it wasn't unusual to find a company first sergeant with 15-20 years in, most of that as an NCO. Officer promotion was slow, mainly because it was done based on regimental seniority until the rank of colonel and branch seniority thereafter. Root's reforms (and some work done prior to him) changed the officer promotion system, but the enlisted side remained more or less "as was" until later.
US regiments did not have home areas. Such a concept was discussed in the Cavalry Journal (and other sources) many times (I'm familiar with a couple in the 1880s, but those weren't the only occasions), but was usually struck down as "Prussianism" (a code word for fearing a garrison state) and never went anywhere. Rotations tended to happen every few years (more for a crack regiment...less for one that was not in high demand), and involved moving the entire regiment (or consolidating it, as was the case with the 7th Cavalry prior to the Little Big Horn...two and three company posts were the order of the day back then). Later, moves were still conducted on a regimental basis. You saw this even with Philippine garrison duty; cavalry units would simply leave their horses in place and exchange stations with a regiment already "in country."
Even under this system, a man could transfer to another company within his regiment, or change regiments by enlisting in a different one when his current enlistment expired. Some transfers did take place between regiments, but they weren't overly common. Officers would often refuse promotions if a vacancy came open in a different regiment, although over time this became less common (15 years as a lieutenant was enough to make many want to test new waters).
Downsides could be stagnant development (although this varied greatly depending on the personality of the regimental commander) and the formation of cliques. Plus side could be tremendous loyalty (to first the company, then the regiment) and a continuity of knowledge and experience that might otherwise not have been available.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Indefinate Re-enlistments
The Army and all it's wisdom some years ago decided that E-6 and above with 10 or more years have to do an indefinate re-enlistment. My thought on this is to make it an option and in doing so the soldier re-enlists indefinately for that post. Many with 10 years or more in service have families, this would stabilize the family, additionally would set the service members up for retirement. Imagine knowing the last 10 or so years of your career would be in the same location. Move soldiers all over the first half of their career and then allow them to stabilize themselves and their family if they choose to do so. There will be those who want to continue to move and those who will want the stabilization. Just my .02 on the subject.
ODB
Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:
Why did you not clear your corner?
Because we are on a base and it is secure.
Good points all, but......
In the case of certain career specialties, a Soldier could end up stovepiped (i.e. heavy vice light or XM777 vice Paladin). Well-rounded leaders are desperately needed who are adaptive and resourceful. A few "specialists" are always a good thing, but not the status quo.
As for reenlistment options, this next year will reveal just how few left there really are....
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks