And what did Conway have to say? About Army senior NCOs since that was the point of my question?Originally Posted by Sargent
And what did Conway have to say? About Army senior NCOs since that was the point of my question?
I apologize for being cheeky, Tom, and suggesting that Casey was following the commandant's lead. In any case, the point was that Conway's message covered both Marine Corps officers and NCOs who served on MTTs. Perhaps Casey intends a separate message for the NCOs -- or perhaps he wants to see how it works out for the officers before extending the policy.
Regards,
Jill
Cheeky is good
I have not seen Conway's message and did not know what it said. Hopefully the CSA or the SMA will address the NCO issue for the Army. Guys like Tony Hoh need credit for what they are doing. I am proud to say Tony was my NCO here before heading to ETT duty in OEF.
Stan did it for me and I had to write a book about it to give him credit for what he did as my NCO. The Army certainly did not.
Tom
Tom, I posted it to the "Ill-informed blog post" thread. I'll (sniff, sniff) ignore the fact that you don't hang on my every submission.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...2&postcount=36
Cheeky is good, like many things, in moderation! Sometimes I just can't help myself.
Cheers,
Jill
Leveraging the "P"
The “P” or personnel piece of this will serve as the fulcrum by which we will better leverage the rest of the DOTMLPF.
I’m not alone when I say that serving as an advisor to a foreign security force is among the most rewarding to be had. In my own military service it is coequal with command. I view them as complimentary – one having made me better for the other. I think if ever I was asked to take another command it would benefit both me and those served. This is because as an advisor to FSFs you will see and do things you would not see or do other wise. It is because the conditions inherent to being an effective advisor require you to develop and exercise a different side of your talents - often in a different way, and because the environment in which the advisor operates offers a view from a different perspective – both on the operational environment and our own forces.
The CSA’s message talks to the valuable contribution the advisory mission makes to our Land Power. That is worth considering beyond just our current operations in OIF and OEF. As more leaders take on this challenge, it informs the rest of our Doctrine, Organizational, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities development and decisions we make as we go forward. With the CSA’s message we stand to create both a relevant body of knowledge throughout the force on working closely with FSFs, and we create Army stakeholders that better understand how “by, with and through” both benefits our own tactical, operation and strategic objectives, as well improving upon the direction we take our own force.
The CSA’s message shows what we value; we protect and advance those things which we value.
Best, Rob
The true position, I submit, will be seen when resolving the resourcing issue; that is, coming up with enough human beings to fill all these slots. When push comes to shove and there are not enough follks to go around, which will get filled first--Bn or TT command, O-4 TT advisor or Bn/Bde XO/S3? And which incumbents will be extended in their slots when the replacement pool is insufficient? While the memo says O4 TT types "will be afforded the opportunity" to be XOs/S3s, the cynic in me wonders how successful they will be in actually getting to serve in those positions.
I worry about scenarios like this :
MAJ X spends 12 months in IZ on a MiTT; he is then offered an "opportunity" to be an XO/S3 of a Bn enroute to IZ or AF rather than a Bn just returning from the AOR. I acknowledge that a lot of value accrues to the Army by having MAJ X apply his MiTT-derived in-country experience immediately. However, is MAJ X willing/able to undergo the back-to-back deployment it might entail?
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
Hi Wayne, I think your concerns are valid - it gets to matching Means and Will - but I also think this is a good step in the right direction. That first step is often the hardest for a conservative organization to make as it demonstrates both a recognition and will to change. There are challenges ahead, but having your service chief make a public recognition is a good start.
I'm not necessarily in line with John Nagl about the advisor tab, but I am on board for a personnel code that allows us to track by category advisory skills and experiences.
I'd also say that there are allot of folks out there doing advisory work with FSFs who need the same type of recognition but are not formally assigned to a TT or PRT. The TF 134 folks who work with Iraqis helping the develop RoL issues spend as much or more time in many cases with Iraqis advising them as do TTs of various flavors. The MPs who are not tagged as TTs, but increasingly are exclusively focused on working with IPs, the unit augmentees who roundout the shortages in TTs and find they have a natural aptitude for it - and make a huge difference, the minesterial level advisors who are not necessarily part of a TT, the TTs internally resourced by BNs, BCTs and DIVs, etc. There is far more advsing going on then most people realize. We should work to identify those people and ensure they receive recognition for it, as well as categorizing their experience and assigining a value code to it so they can be tracked.
Best, Rob
Now if they can just fix the process for assigning folks to TTs, we might be getting somewhere.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks