Contractors Doing Combat Service Support is a Bad, Bad Idea

[Sargent]

Pardon the delay in responding. I was thinking.

Schmedlap wrote:

I understand the concern that an argument was put forth stating, basically, that if the contract were cancelled then troops would be without food. However, that is an exaggeration of a statement that was false to begin with. There would be a delay in transferring back from contractor-provided logistics to Army-provided, but the troops would not go hungry. They would simply eat MREs in the interim.

Any FOB or other type of base in Iraq always has enough MREs to be a buffer against a stoppage in food flow. I know this because I have seen it occur. Certain FOBs have had their food supply cut short due to certain routes being shut down to logistics convoys. During those times, the FOBbits ate MREs. The issue is not that troops would go hungry. The issue is that they would be eating MREs. And if you do not cringe at the though of troops eating anything less than gourmet food prepared in a 4-star dining facility, 3 to 4 times per day, everyday, then you do not support the troops (that was sarcasm). That's right - there is a political angle.

I did not mean to suggest that the contractor refusing to do his job meant that troops would starve. Rather, I do not think that folks with that sort of an attitude ought to be in the government contracting business. Alternately, I'm not sure that the government contracting model works because, at the end of the day, the profit motive is at odds with the needs of national security. There is a fundamental conflict between interests and objectives.

As to the MRE point, it should be remembered that the MRE is not formulated for long-term consumption. It's a stop gap, it's a means to provide interim caloric and basic nutritive needs, but it is not an answer to the subsistence needs. On a less tangible basis, one could be concerned about the cohesion effect of constant MRE feeding -- the nature of the meal is such that it can tend to degrade the group dynamic by pushing people apart during an activity (feeding) that is most enhanced by the group. How we eat is as important as what we eat. (I am a believer in the small intangibles in the military effectiveness equation.)

It would take a lot more explanation than is feasible here, but I think the biggest problem is the lack of balance. FOBs with steak and lobster and five flavors of ice cream contrasted with small units outside the FOB with very little is not a particularly good set up. If I were in charge of logistics, I would start with the pointy end and work my way back -- nobody gets steak and lobster until everyone can get a decent meal. For the guys at the very edge of that pointy end, the best answer is for military personnel to handle the food preparation.

I do like your point about the "political issues." You've basically made the entire point of my dissertation, that the gastronomy for morale calculus is determined to a greater degree by the larger societal-cultural needs than the morale needs of the troops.

Ken White wrote:

Do not take umbrage but allow me to point out that your son is not a relatively mature 18 or 19 year old who volunteered to do a particular for remuneration. That guy volunteered to do a job that he thought he would like or at least tolerate for some reason.

If that relatively mature 18 or 19 year old had learned the lesson earlier in life, that might not be the attitude. The point of childhood is to develop the skills and tools that will be necessary and useful for adult life.

And I did not inadvertently -- or otherwise -- "malign" anyone. You all provided a set of facts regarding the average combat arms soldier. I drew a conclusion from those facts -- perhaps a harsh one, but certainly a defensible one. It may not be anything anyone wants to hear or contemplate, but I can't help that. If you want to change the facts that you assert, then I can arrive at a different conclusion. But if you provided that set of descriptors about a generic individual or group, I doubt anyone would come to a different conclusion. Let's not allow our thinking to be clouded by a false loyalty.

For the record, I am just this harsh with my husband whenever he starts complaining when he shouldn't be. I'm blunt. Live with it. Learn to love it. I have no doubt it will prove valuable one day.

===

As to my use of the Marine officer as an example... I am aware that the Marine Corps and the Army are different institutions and comparisons are made at one's peril. I was not comparing the institutions, I was comparing attributes of individuals. As such, I do think that if it's possible to achieve such an end with Marine Corps officers, there is certainly room to consider that it's possible to achieve the same thing with enlisted soldiers.

As to how the A/B billet rotation works, I was not intending my idea to be an exact copy of how the Marine Corps runs it, but rather was suggesting a model from which to build a similar system with different specifics and ends.

Finally, please remember that I did suggest that such a program would best work with new enlistees.

Regards,
Jill

[Schmedlap]

As to the MRE point, it should be remembered that the MRE is not formulated for long-term consumption. It's a stop gap, it's a means to provide interim caloric and basic nutritive needs, but it is not an answer to the subsistence needs.

In OIF I, we ate nothing but MREs, T-rations, and occasionally some food from local restaurants in Baghdad. In 12 months, during OIF III, at least 90% of my meals were MREs. The rest were a mix of T-rations (either mystery meat or General Tso's chicken) and an occasional brown-lettuce salad or a piece of rotten fruit. It was completely random in OIF V - MREs, occasional DFAC meal, eating with locals, etc.

On a less tangible basis, one could be concerned about the cohesion effect of constant MRE feeding -- the nature of the meal is such that it can tend to degrade the group dynamic by pushing people apart during an activity (feeding) that is most enhanced by the group. How we eat is as important as what we eat.

We lived in pretty tight confines, so eating indoors did not push anyone apart. The same was true of eating in the back of a Bradley in the field - very tight confines. I suspect that the same is true on a FOB. Soldiers are going to eat their MRE in an air-conditioned hut or huddle together to take up refuge from the sun in whatever shade exists. The only time that I recall MRE consumption to be a solitary event was in Ranger School, when you moved toward the center of the patrol base to devour your meal while your buddy pulled security.

[Sargent]

We lived in pretty tight confines, so eating indoors did not push anyone apart. The same was true of eating in the back of a Bradley in the field - very tight confines. I suspect that the same is true on a FOB. Soldiers are going to eat their MRE in an air-conditioned hut or huddle together to take up refuge from the sun in whatever shade exists. The only time that I recall MRE consumption to be a solitary event was in Ranger School, when you moved toward the center of the patrol base to devour your meal while your buddy pulled security.

Other people have noticed different effects in field exercises and deployments -- especially when compared with other feeding models (hot chow/tray rats).

Again, I suggested that "one could be concerned..." with the second and third order ramifications of how things are done. Perhaps it didn't happen in your case. In has happened in others. It is something to consider, something to keep in mind, a possible tool to keep in one's kit -- that is, using how you feed to affect the demeanor of a unit. Furthermore it's not a one way proposition -- bringing people together is not always the objective, it may also useful to consider how to give people a chance to separate and go their own ways. It could be the one flap of that mythical butterfly's wing....

Finally, that you ate MREs for a long period does not mean that this was how they were meant to be used or that they were, in fact, suitable to that usage.

Regards,
Jill

[Steve Blair]

As to the MRE point, it should be remembered that the MRE is not formulated for long-term consumption. It's a stop gap, it's a means to provide interim caloric and basic nutritive needs, but it is not an answer to the subsistence needs. On a less tangible basis, one could be concerned about the cohesion effect of constant MRE feeding -- the nature of the meal is such that it can tend to degrade the group dynamic by pushing people apart during an activity (feeding) that is most enhanced by the group. How we eat is as important as what we eat. (I am a believer in the small intangibles in the military effectiveness equation.)

Eating has always been a pretty social activity in the field army, going back quite a ways and no matter the type of rations. Old Army accounts stress small units (sets of four, platoons, squads) sharing food and cooking gear in the field. The transition to C-rats didn't change this dynamic much. If the tactical situation allowed the troops to get together to eat, they seem to have done so with great regularity. Ken and others could speak to actual field conditions in Vietnam, but most accounts I've read stress the "C-rat chef" in just about every small unit and the pooling of rations to make better (or at least more varied) meals out of the rations. This also tended to make units eat at more or less the same time (as allowed by the tactical situation). I'm not sure that this is necessarily recreated at the mess hall unless units march there in formation and eat in a similar manner. Again, based on anecdotal accounts (and plenty of civilian experience at campus dining facilities, which in some ways are mess halls....), an open mess tended to allow people to go in small groups based on friendship and not necessarily unit organization. You'd also get those who preferred to eat on their own and thus avoided the whole mess hall "experience."

But, as with most things like this, YMMV.

[Ken White]

...On a less tangible basis, one could be concerned about the cohesion effect of constant MRE feeding -- the nature of the meal is such that it can tend to degrade the group dynamic by pushing people apart during an activity (feeding) that is most enhanced by the group...

Not generally correct. Sometimes providing security or other requirements can do that but a unit eating MREs is more inclined to grouping and cohesion than one using a mess hall where multiple units tend to intermingle and table size tends to disrupt cohesion.

Added Comment:

Finally, that you ate MREs for a long period does not mean that this was how they were meant to be used or that they were, in fact, suitable to that usage.

Reality again intrudes. You are correct in what you say is the goal. The same was true of the old C Ration. However, most line units as opposed to CS and CSS units frequently exist or existed on one or the other for weeks at a time with only rare hot meals. IIRC, my record was 27 days without a hot meal and that was in the Corps. My Army max was about two weeks plus or minus a day or two. What should be and what is often differ...

Back to our regularly scheduled program:

I do like your point about the "political issues." You've basically made the entire point of my dissertation, that the gastronomy for morale calculus is determined to a greater degree by the larger societal-cultural needs than the morale needs of the troops.

I believe that's called reality? Having spent many days in the field in both the Marines and the Army when there were plenty of uniformed cooks; the lobster in the rear and the societal-cultural needs were a fact of life in Korea and elsewhere. "Suck it up" is not a new phrase (though it used to be "take two salt tablets..." ).

If that relatively mature 18 or 19 year old had learned the lesson earlier in life, that might not be the attitude. The point of childhood is to develop the skills and tools that will be necessary and useful for adult life.

Totally true. Every Mom is not a Jill and every Dad is not a Ken . The system has to live with what is, not with what we both agree should be.

And I did not inadvertently -- or otherwise -- "malign" anyone. You all provided a set of facts regarding the average combat arms soldier. I drew a conclusion from those facts -- perhaps a harsh one, but certainly a defensible one. It may not be anything anyone wants to hear or contemplate, but I can't help that. If you want to change the facts that you assert, then I can arrive at a different conclusion. But if you provided that set of descriptors about a generic individual or group, I doubt anyone would come to a different conclusion. Let's not allow our thinking to be clouded by a false loyalty.

No false loyalty to it, simply a question of knowing and understanding the demographic versus forming a conclusion about it based on the written word in a less than perfect communications venue. I would suggest you are judging a quite large group of people with little understanding of their motivation and rationale based on your perception of what should be as opposed to their knowledge of what is in the environment under discussion. I do not believe it's as simple as you would like.

For the record, I am just this harsh with my husband whenever he starts complaining when he shouldn't be. I'm blunt. Live with it. Learn to love it. I have no doubt it will prove valuable one day.

Blunt is good, got no problem with it at all. I didn't perceive your comment as harsh, idealistic, yes -- but not harsh. Many accuse me of being excessively frank, outspoken, opinionated and so forth; probably correctly and this is a forum that lends itself to misunderstanding -- so, IMO, blunt is good.

However, I'd point out that you were the one complaining, not the rest of us -- we merely suggested a couple of counterpoints to your observations based on our experience that contravene or question your conclusions and a few of us asked for a realistic as opposed to an idealistic solution to the problems.

Said problems being, simply (1) From where do we obtain the numbers of people required to do this considering (2) it's a volunteer force and not enough young people want to be cooks and (3) many -- not all -- who do join for combat jobs are quite unwilling to do logistic, maintenance, custodial and kitchen work. That may be sociologically and militarily undesirable but it is reality and will remain so short of an existential war and a draft.

[Uboat509]

It would take a lot more explanation than is feasible here, but I think the biggest problem is the lack of balance. FOBs with steak and lobster and five flavors of ice cream contrasted with small units outside the FOB with very little is not a particularly good set up. If I were in charge of logistics, I would start with the pointy end and work my way back -- nobody gets steak and lobster until everyone can get a decent meal. For the guys at the very edge of that pointy end, the best answer is for military personnel to handle the food preparation.

The issue is not that someone has made a decision to feed to feed the CSS guys before the CA guys. It is a matter space and facilities. The big dining facilities are on the FOBs because that is where there is space and facilities to put them. That also happens to be where the majority of the CSS guys are. Ergo, they get the good dining facilities. Those same FOBs have at least some CA guys and they eat at those same facilities. Many of the CA guys are not on the FOBs now, however. They are at smaller posts such as combat outposts and the like. Small posts like that have neither the room nor facilities for dining facilities. Often they barely have room for the troops that they house. That is just the reality.

And I did not inadvertently -- or otherwise -- "malign" anyone. You all provided a set of facts regarding the average combat arms soldier. I drew a conclusion from those facts -- perhaps a harsh one, but certainly a defensible one. It may not be anything anyone wants to hear or contemplate, but I can't help that. If you want to change the facts that you assert, then I can arrive at a different conclusion. But if you provided that set of descriptors about a generic individual or group, I doubt anyone would come to a different conclusion. Let's not allow our thinking to be clouded by a false loyalty.

I disagree completely. I think that you have drawn the conclusions that best fit your idea of how things should be. Comparing men who have voluntarily chosen to do the most demanding a dangerous jobs there are to petulant children is not "blunt," it's insulting.

As to my use of the Marine officer as an example... I am aware that the Marine Corps and the Army are different institutions and comparisons are made at one's peril. I was not comparing the institutions, I was comparing attributes of individuals. As such, I do think that if it's possible to achieve such an end with Marine Corps officers, there is certainly room to consider that it's possible to achieve the same thing with enlisted soldiers.

As to how the A/B billet rotation works, I was not intending my idea to be an exact copy of how the Marine Corps runs it, but rather was suggesting a model from which to build a similar system with different specifics and ends.

I would also point out that you can't really make these kinds of comparisons between officers and enlisteds. Officers in the Army do similar rotations called branch detailing. That does not work for enlisted. As ken stated, officers are generalists. They are concerned with the employment of the unit as a whole. It is the enlisted who work the many parts that make up the whole that the Officers employ. I doubt very much that Marine Corps CSS units are staffed with 0300s on two year rotations. They are staffed with the guys who's career has been spent in that MOS. Just like the Army, or virtually any organization for that matter. Take the auto industry for example. You can take the manager for the welders and make him the manager for the electronics section and there will be a short adjustment period but he will pick it up fairly quickly. Management is management, to a degree. On the other hand, you are not going to take a a trained welder and throw him into the electronics section. He will have to be completely retrained, as will his replacement in the welding section, and he may have neither the interest nor aptitude for the job. This is an imperfect comparison but I think it illustrates the point well enough.

SFC W

[Sargent]

I disagree completely. I think that you have drawn the conclusions that best fit your idea of how things should be. Comparing men who have voluntarily chosen to do the most demanding a dangerous jobs there are to petulant children is not "blunt," it's insulting.

Anybody who threatens to quit a job -- even the most heroic of jobs -- if they are asked to anything that exceeds their comfort zone is vulnerable to a degree criticism. If you think that is insulting, well I can't do anything about it. Go back and read the descriptions of the soldiers offered up as evidence for why such an idea as I presented would not work -- none of them are particularly flattering. Perhaps you could share the joy and direct some of your ire at those who wrote the unflattering comments to begin with. They were, after all, the sine qua non of my conclusions.

Bottom line, "PFC Schmuckatelli will quit because he didn't sign up for that" is a bad argument against the idea, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it does not reflect well upon PFC Schmuckatelli -- and I think this last part is important (hint -- that ought to suggest that I am not altogether keen to insult the good PFC to begin with). The bureaucratic, work specialization, and others are better. None of them are deal breakers, but they require additional thought.

Regards,
Jill

[Uboat509]

Tell a cop that he has to spend two years stocking the shelves at Safeway or a firefighter that he has to spend two years as a frycook and you are going to get the same answer. For that matter, tell the average stockboy at that Safeway that he has to risk his life to spend two years arresting criminals or a frycook that he has to risk his life putting out fires and you will get a similar answer. Few people are suited to the types of jobs that CA entails and fewer still are willing to do them. I hardly think that it is unreasonable for those individuals to expect to be allowed to do those jobs. I would take a guy who wants to to the job over a guy who has been forced to do the job. This is precisely why the draft is a non-starter.

SFC W

[selil]

Tell a cop that he has to spend two years stocking the shelves at Safeway or a firefighter that he has to spend two years as a frycook and you are going to get the same answer.

Most California sheriffs offices required patrol to do 2 years in the jail before going to the street and then 1 year in five after that in the jail. Of course that was the late 80s early 90s.

[Sargent]

Tell a cop that he has to spend two years stocking the shelves at Safeway or a firefighter that he has to spend two years as a frycook and you are going to get the same answer. For that matter, tell the average stockboy at that Safeway that he has to risk his life to spend two years arresting criminals or a frycook that he has to risk his life putting out fires and you will get a similar answer. Few people are suited to the types of jobs that CA entails and fewer still are willing to do them. I hardly think that it is unreasonable for those individuals to expect to be allowed to do those jobs. I would take a guy who wants to to the job over a guy who has been forced to do the job. This is precisely why the draft is a non-starter.

SFC W

The better comparison is to how firefighters live while on duty: during that time they all take turns at the stove and the sink. None of them quit because that is part of their jobs and lives. In fact, as far as I can tell, they quite enjoy it -- it builds camaraderie amongst the personnel, they know the importance of a good meal, etc.

I might also point out that, until recently, such self-support was the norm in the army. Troops arranged themselves in messes, were given food, and prepared it themselves. Again, from what I've read, most enjoyed this setup.

The fact of the matter is that even for the trigger puller at the pointiest end today, most time is not spent engaged in combat. Most of the time is spent in a variety of tasks that are akin to housekeeping duties -- ie, not things for which anyone signed on the dotted line.

Finally, if folks enlisted knowing that this was the set-up, their expectations would not be a problem.

Regards,
Jill

[Uboat509]

The better comparison is to how firefighters live while on duty: during that time they all take turns at the stove and the sink. None of them quit because that is part of their jobs and lives. In fact, as far as I can tell, they quite enjoy it -- it builds camaraderie amongst the personnel, they know the importance of a good meal, etc.

And CA guys also do that, but there is world of difference between picking up some unpleasant duties at the unit level and moving to to a place where you ONLY do those duties.

I might also point out that, until recently, such self-support was the norm in the army. Troops arranged themselves in messes, were given food, and prepared it themselves. Again, from what I've read, most enjoyed this setup.

How recent are you talking? Units have had sepparate mess sections at least since the '40s. In any case that does not solve the problem of all the other support activites that CSS takes care of.

The fact of the matter is that even for the trigger puller at the pointiest end today, most time is not spent engaged in combat. Most of the time is spent in a variety of tasks that are akin to housekeeping duties -- ie, not things for which anyone signed on the dotted line.

Again, there is a world of difference between doing unpleasant tasks around the unit that need to be done and being sent someplace where that is ALL that you have to look foreward to.

Finally, if folks enlisted knowing that this was the set-up, their expectations would not be a problem.

True. Many of them would simply not enlist.

SFC W

[Schmedlap]

Just a few points...

- My company was tasked with providing 2 Soldiers to help the support platoon prepare food. We raised hell over that because we were only getting 2 hots meals per week, but were losing 2 men everyday for the tasking while we were were grossly undermanned and overtasked (neither of those attributes are unique to my situation - every unit in Iraq is undermanned and overtasked, particularly as Soldiers rotate to and from mid-tour leave). The XO threatened to cut off the food for LOGPAC if we didn't pony up. We said fine - we need men, not the brown lettuce. Eventually either the LTC or CSM put an end to the foolishness and we got our men back. The lesson here is that units are overtasked, overstretched, and having enough men is more important than having green eggs instead of poundcake.

- Leaders can handle cohesion in their own way. We don't need a designated time, place, or manner of feeding. Using that justification for revamping some aspect of our CSS makes no sense to me. Sounds like a rationalization for a conclusion already reached.

- While I agree with the comments about Soldiers likely opting to ETS if tasked with being a cook instead of an infantryman, I think it is more important to point out that it would simply be a bad idea, regardless of how enthusiastic Soldiers are about it. Specialization of skills helps to make us more effective. Every nervous system has a certain threshold of tasks that it can be trained to perform well in a given period of time. We've already got enough training requirements and time constraints. Adding in a duty completely unrelated to the skills or knowledge of a combat arms Soldier for a significant period of time does more harm than good. I have never heard a Commander or First Sergeant object to a tasking on account of morale. It was always due to it depriving the Soldier of training or depriving the unit of his exertions. It is tough enough to develop our future leaders. Swapping out a rifle for a ladle doesn't help - especially if it is for a year or more.

[Cavguy]

The better comparison is to how firefighters live while on duty: during that time they all take turns at the stove and the sink. None of them quit because that is part of their jobs and lives. In fact, as far as I can tell, they quite enjoy it -- it builds camaraderie amongst the personnel, they know the importance of a good meal, etc.

I might also point out that, until recently, such self-support was the norm in the army. Troops arranged themselves in messes, were given food, and prepared it themselves. Again, from what I've read, most enjoyed this setup.

The fact of the matter is that even for the trigger puller at the pointiest end today, most time is not spent engaged in combat. Most of the time is spent in a variety of tasks that are akin to housekeeping duties -- ie, not things for which anyone signed on the dotted line.

Finally, if folks enlisted knowing that this was the set-up, their expectations would not be a problem.

Regards,
Jill

Jill, lots of respect for you and your husband.

Most Infantry, Armor, Artillery, and engineer guys have zero desire to become CSS types.

Where you get the idea that combat guys helped in the mess is beyond me - KP was eliminated in the AVF by 73, and as Uboat said, we have had specialized cook sections since (and during) WW II.

Sometimes junior combat arms guys are detailed to BN support platoons, where they often work in the fuel/ammo resupply platoon under soldiers who have that MOS. Their PL is usually a combat arms type as well, though that is changing in the modular units. Often each staff section has combat arms augmentees, such as the S1 (personnel) and S4 (supply) sections to round out the supply types.

Officers and NCO's in the army do get "B" type billets, we just don't call it that. Post command, a CPT may work as an observer/controller, reserve component trainer, ROTC instructor, recruiter, branch school instructor, trainer/mentor, senior staff (generating force), or a host of other options.

Most E5's and above get an assignment in the training base as instructors or as recruiters at some point. Most E7's wind up in RC training, garrison staffs, senior instructors, drill sergeants, observer/controllers etc. after their PSG time. It works because in each they apply their combat lessons in the generating force.

Officers also rotate through staff assignments between troop duty - I was a BN S1, AS3, and S4, and BCT asst S3 (twice). Now I have my "B" job here at Leavenworth in the COIN center, applying my 29 months of OIF time to better the army.

I don't see what is to be gained by making combat guys pull KP, wash laundry, or any other service that outweighs the above. Ken and Uboat are also right - some jobs (like being a NCO cook - really a DFAC manager) are actually highly trained specialties. A good mess daddy is a true treasure, and I wouldn't want it any other way. I had additional duty as the Food Service Officer for awhile, and it's eye opening how complex it can be. Same with most other support MOS's.

The fact that we use contractors is a value decision that we can contract our short term need for lots of food service in Iraq, and don't need it in garrison. as I explained to SFC Hoh in another thread - it can be long term cheaper for the military.

Regarding your complaints about the fobbits getting steak and lobster and the guys in the COP's not, that's just whining. I venture I've spent as much time in COP's or remote locations as anyone else, and it's just the nature of the beast. You can't mermite lobster to COP's because it becomes unsafe in the 4-6 hours between it being cooked and delivered via LOGPAC to the field. We usually got steak though. The selection was much more limited than on the FOB, but hey, what do you expect? My guys did enjoy their platoon rotation back to the fob for maintenance/rearm/refit, where they enjoyed the bounty provided for about 48h every two weeks.

My company got 1 hot daily during OIF 05-07 in our COP, occasionally two, brought out by my 1SG and HQ det daily. Guys on the FOB got 3x hots a day. Lots of people here can talk about the M-M-M and M-M-A from OIF1. I know of no one who would prefer to do that again. (WOW! General Tso chicken! for breakfast!)

You seem to be deginerating the army guys as whiners, but you're doing just that regarding your perceptions from your husband. You seem to percieve injustice or poor leadership because CSS types live better than the line dogs. That's just reality, and all combat arms soldiers know it. We also may bitch about it occasionally, but I haven't met a motivated combat arms soldier who would trade it for the steak and lobster life. In fact, my soldiers during their rotations back generally got off the FOB whenever possible, and back to the COP where the tip of the spear stuff was done. The only time they complained was when they heard someone on the fob complain about some luxury not being available. Generally, most FOB soldiers know they have it well, and don't speak such things around those not living there. (Could bring a beating!)

I also served in MNF-W under I and II MEF during the latter half of my last OIF rotation, and the MLG guys had it good while the regimental guys and TT's out in sector lived spartan. It's simply the fact of life in the military, and not only in the army. I really don't see what is gained by your proposal, and strongly disagree that it's unique to the army.

Niel

[Ken White]

Anybody who threatens to quit a job -- even the most heroic of jobs -- if they are asked to anything that exceeds their comfort zone is vulnerable to a degree criticism.

That may be your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. Others may not agree but that's really irrelevant in both cases. What's possibly relevant is that the issue isn't a comfort level on the part of those who want to do a particular thing, it's whether you can attract the numbers to do some things. As several stated above, we aren't doing too well at that in part because civilian industry pays better for the good stuff and not many really want to do the bad stuff.

If you think that is insulting, well I can't do anything about it. Go back and read the descriptions of the soldiers offered up as evidence for why such an idea as I presented would not work -- none of them are particularly flattering. Perhaps you could share the joy and direct some of your ire at those who wrote the unflattering comments to begin with. They were, after all, the sine qua non of my conclusions.

Unflattering? Unappealing to you perhaps but not necessarily unflattering, it's simply reality. Personally, I see nothing wrong in a person wanting to hew to a particular line of work -- because that's what's at issue. You see it as being a Marine -- he may see it as being a Grunt, period. I don't think either of you are wrong but you do have different perspectives and unlike you, he has to live with his.

Bottom line, "PFC Schmuckatelli will quit because he didn't sign up for that" is a bad argument against the idea, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it does not reflect well upon PFC Schmuckatelli -- and I think this last part is important (hint -- that ought to suggest that I am not altogether keen to insult the good PFC to begin with).

Schmuckatelli will not quit -- he signed a contract and will do what he's told until his enlistment is up. The issue is not that, it's whether he will reenlist or not if you do that to him. You say he should or it will not reflect well on him. Frankly, I don't think he gives a hoot what others think. He's got to live with himself and by the time he comes up for reenlistment, he's old enough to have figured out that the opinions of others merit some consideration but cannot -- should not -- be a determinant for what he does.

There are a lot of combat arms NCOs in both the Marines and the Army who are perfectly capable of getting a commission -- and they opt not to do so simply because they know they'd have to 'generalists' and do desk things (and social things, for some... ) -- and they'd really rather not. As mentioned above, many CSS guys get reclassified to the combat arms when numbers get tight, most adapt pretty well to that switch but that is not true in reverse. My guess is that a healthy majority of combat arms guys would not reenlist if they were to be reclassified or had to serve in CSS positions. I would not have and as a Navy junior, I got a reasonably good grounding in responsibilities and duties. People are different...

None of which addresses the real issues -- raw numbers of persons available and the number who will enlist to do the CS/CSS jobs.

[Old Eagle]

OK, so how many cooks and other CSS folks you want to replace w/non-contractors does it take to sustain a force of 160k? Oh, and another 30k in OEF?

Now where do they come from?

1. Additional duty for each deployed unit. Just keep x% of your folks out of the fight to do sustainment activities. Been there, done that, and it hurt last time.

2. Find that number of folks lounging around the States on "dwell time" and send them over. Make sure you plan for a rotation cycle.

3. Replace the new BCTs coming into the force structure with CSS units. If we have held up under this PERSTEMPO so far, I'm sure we can do it for another decade or so.

4. Bring back the draft and plus up the armed forces to VN levels. Get back on a 3:1 rotation schedule.