speicher
I was at Speicher for OIF IV, and thankfully the pt belt rule had not arrived yet, but we did encounter its introduction at LSAA when my guys were refused access to midnight chow bc they did not have PT belts with their IBA's. (note: we got them into chow)
One of my drivers got a ticket for speeding on the Speicher perimeter road after refueling (if you've driven it, you know). We were more concerned at why MPs were patrolling Speicher and not ASR Hershey, but that was above our level.
I spent some time at Speicher in OIF V. Apparently if you go to the DFAC without your reflective belt then the sun won't come up, or something like that. I do remember there being some MPs on post, not enough to be of any use off post, just enough to annoy us. If I recall correctly, the MPs were there for patrol on post and to be the post QRF, in lieu of the division band who were also deployed there for reasons that are entirely lost on me.Originally Posted by patmc
SFC W
I'm starting to remember why I like being a civilian... yeah.. it is becoming quite apparent.
As a professor if I don't like a rule I ignore it.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
As a field grade who's done enough TDY in the last year to last me a lifetime, I can only say this:
"This is what we are worrying about in today's Army?"
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
And your classified staff must just LOVE you for it....
"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
I'm with Ski.
I'm much more concerned about the goals of ILE, the relationship between content and goals of ILE, and the lack of understanding of the difference between education and training in ILE than the mechanics of the delivery medium for ILE."This is what we are worrying about in today's Army?"
On the other hand, the corner-cutting appearence created by these 'other than Leavenworth' ILEs re-enforces the perception that these are the "No Major Left Behind" options.
I stress perception because it may well be only perception; the content may be a perfect mirror of what is taught at the 'premier' ILE souce, Leavenworth. But will board members believe this? Will the peers and leaders of the graduates of these programs viscarally believe this?
I'm in a better position than many to say that the distance-learning, web-based ILE reflects the core curriculum of resident CGSC Common Core (did one, married to someone who just completed the other, and have no vested interest in the perceptions, failure, or success of either program other than its impact on the Army and the Army's future). But when the people going to the outlying ILE programs feel like red-headed step children, it would be easy to come to the conclusion, right or wrong, that the program isn't as good.
In response to Van....
I'm real pressed for time, but will offer the following....
1) the satellite ILE curricula is based on the common core ILE content by design and purpose
2) Reason being that the intent was to use this resource a the ILE experience for those who didn't need the "warfighting" portion of the curricula (e.g. the school population would be non-basic branch officers)
3) Conditions have changed since... plenty of capacity to educate basic branch MAJ at leavenworth, availability of students has been the issue for the past 5 years
4) Leavenworth was directed (should be finished, but I'm a little dated) to build web-based version of warfighter course for those officers (basic branch types) who attend satallite sites due to time constraints
5) Intent is to go back to all basic branch officers attend Leavenworth (with some exceptions for advanced civil schooling, and to work down a significant backlog)
6) Will this impact promotability of satallite site, basic branch officers? Initial evidence emphatically points to NO! For a couple of reasons.... Promotion rates are so high to LTC that it makes no difference, because of PERSTEMPO of the past 5 years - several officers were promoted on waivers for no ILE experience (that number has grown each year) Just don't think its an issue
Perhaps larger question is the relevance of ILE to future success as FG Officer. Seems to be plenty of examples of officers who have succeeded just fine as a MAJ without the benefit of ILE. I don't really believe this the case, but its the question that CGSC ought to be asking itself because someone else will when Rep Skelton move on.
Live well and row
Hacksaw
Say hello to my 2 x 4
Wrong place, but ....
I agree with most of the comments that said this was the wrong place for such a post, but disagree with the response in general. Some of the replys were off the mark, such as why don't you drive your POV? If a guy is stationed in Germany or the other end of the country, he/she is not going to drive their POV. The issue isn't making money, but to have rules where our Soldiers don't lose money, and the current rules are non-functional, and that is the issue that needs to be addressed. We're trying to keep our best and our brightest in, and you do that through good leadership. If this issue is another straw on the camel's back, then we (Army) need to address it. IN the big picture the Army is saving pocket money, while putting the burden on the Soldier (enlisted and officer). We deal with these issues all the time, and the amount of money (based on the school, location, duration, on post housing availability, etc.) that comes out of a Soldier's pocket to go to a directed school at times is ridiculous. Leaders don't blow this stuff off and say there isn't an issue, they see what the issue is and they try to fix it, unless "Soldiers first" is just an empty mantra. Since we deal with this frequently (we don't blow it off), we know what the real issues are and what the empty complaints are, and we're trying to fix the real issues with our higher, not turn a blind eye to it.
They have, Advanced Operational Warfighting Course (AOWC). Although not required to take it, I took the leadership and history portions in addition to the mandatory ILE-CC. After the history and leadership, AOWC is a protracted bout of redundant iterations of MDMP. Again, it mirrors the CGSC Leavenworth curriculum very closely, but it is training not education. Multiple iterations of one drill, no matter how complex, aren't the same as critical thinking, which is the cornerstone of education.4) Leavenworth was directed (should be finished, but I'm a little dated) to build web-based version of warfighter course for those officers (basic branch types) who attend satallite sites due to time constraints
The underlying issue is the relevance of ILE/CGSC, and getting all the uncountable factions of the Army (and Joint) PME system on one sheet of music, with a common goal. Right now, it appears that every element with a voice in the curriculae is only concerned with the most short-sighted and parochial agenda. OK, an overstatement, but the folks with their eyes on the future are getting drowned out by shrill voices of the folks who think the point of the hockey match is the Zamboni.
The whole business of penny-pinching on the folks going to the satellite sites makes it look like the point of ILE is the faculty rather than the students.
So? How else will the rest of the world learn of the nonsense we live with, day-to-day.
Get the book published, even if you fictionalize it.
We need more CATCH-22's for the 21st century, or the Colonel Cathcarts of this world will escape un-mocked.
[dons full-body condom and suit-of-bubblewrap, before resuming Lanes training]
Have you considered Lulu publishing? It's kind of like CafePress, but for books. No cost to put your book on their website, they publish on demand, and you set your profit margin for yourself. Be sure you get security vetting for it though.So? How else will the rest of the world learn of the nonsense we live with, day-to-day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmedlap
I considered writing a book about my FOB experiences. I even have drafts and a very good outline for how it would be structured. My only reservation about contacting a publisher is that it would be difficult to pull it off without the book reflecting poorly on the military.
Get the book published, even if you fictionalize it.
I'm looking forward to these fireworks.
The military gets enough illegitimate criticism. I don't want to add to it, even if my criticisms are legitimate. There is also the risk of my tales being interpreted as the norm for the Army as a whole, rather than as humorous, outrageous behavior of people determined to make FOBs and stateside garrison areas exactly the same.
Let's see if I can summarize this thread. I'm not quite sure if I understand it, so bear with me.
OP: This satellite ILE site is pretty jacked-up in terms of chow and transportation conditions. You'd think it was better thought through. This is a rant. Thanks for listening.
Generic Response Type 1: Wrong forum! This is for combat arms stuff!
Generic Response Type 2: You're lucky you're not living in a ditch and eating bugs to survive! Why are you complaining?
Generic Response Type 3: Yeah, Type 2 is right! When I went to Insert_School_Here, we had to road march fifty miles each way. So, if it sucked for me, it should suck for you, too.
Generic Response Type 4: Screw you, FOBbit! Screw Os, too!
I think the only thing I might have missed was the obligatory "82nd-Airborne-is-the-greatest-we-single-handedly-won-every-war-we've-ever-been-in" post. Hell if I know. My attention span started to wane.
Come on, guys, I thought we were adults. We used to beat Soldiers when I enlisted, but we stopped because it's just a plain stupid thing to do. What does that have to do with some Major having to carpool to his ILE site? Simple: why settle with mediocrity? If we adopt stupid historical precedent as policy, we'll be the same Army that starched our combat uniforms "because that's the way we've always done it". If we're going to do that, let's start forming ranks 300 abreast and firing muskets. It's equally dumb.
So OP posted some frustrations in the wrong forum. I'm not so much ashamed of that as I am by the responses. Honestly, if that is the kind of response posters can expect, we as a professional forum are no better than a bunch of kit whores arguing about what badass sling we can buy from our local "tacticool" vendor that allows us free range of movement in the DFAC. To assume that OP concerns aren't valid because he's not 11-series or whatever is juvenile. What if OP's done four combat rotations and a few hundred convoys? Is there an SWJ standard for body count or something to be considered a valid contributor? Gee, what is it? I sure hope I qualify!
I guess the whole point of the exercise is that we as an Army should be constantly looking for ways to make things better for our people. If we're going to go down the road that only certain groups of people are worthy of respect and good treatment (regardless of rank, folks; tough, but I know we can do it!), how are we going to get people to do the jobs that aren't deemed worthy?
Last edited by sandbag; 06-28-2008 at 06:00 PM. Reason: Man, I can't spell.
That's interesting...
I first enlisted in the USMC in 1949, went to Parris Island. Not then noted as a vacation spot -- but beating troops was illegal. Totally -- and it did not happen in my observation.
Then I enlisted in the Army in 1956. Beating troops was illegal. Did someone go off the rails occasionally and lose his temper? Yeah, and more than one lost stripes over it. Generally, it did not happen and the better the unit, the less likely it was to occur. Stayed that way for the next 27 years 'til I hung up the war suit and the further 18 I was a DAC in close proximity to the working Army. If they were being beaten when you came in, you must be really old...In my opinion, no one really went that far. He sniveled and sniveling will draw flies. Always has in my observation. Bitching is okay, sniveling gets flak. Difference? In the eye of the reader or listener. Solution? Try to avoid even coming close to it.I guess the whole point of the exercise is that we as an Army should be constantly looking for ways to make things better for our people. If we're going to go down the road that only certain groups of people are worthy of respect and good treatment (regardless of rank, folks; tough, but I know we can do it!), how are we going to get people to do the jobs that aren't deemed worthy?
That seems to apply regardless of branch, experience, rank or whatever.
It's bad form for an officer to snivel...
...and it makes one wonder...if a field grade officer can't find a solution to a simple problem in the land of plenty how in the world he will be able to operate effectively down range...
Last edited by Surferbeetle; 06-28-2008 at 07:25 PM.
Sapere Aude
The concerns were generally regarded as invalid because they smack of an entitlement mentality that offends the sense of selfless service that members of all specialties and services hold dear. There is a world of difference between denying a Soldier the opportunity to fulfill his desire to serve his country and denying a Soldier an amenity to fulfill a sense of entitlement. The complaints from the OP fall into the latter category, in my opinion.To assume that OP concerns aren't valid because he's not 11-series or whatever is juvenile.
The opinions here tend to be subjective, so it is understandable that some disagree. But they are subjective in that everyone has a different perception of what servicemembers are entitled to. To assume that the uproar was a reaction to MOS or location of the OP is to completely ignore most of the content in the thread.
I made the first response and drew attention to the "trigger-puller" self-characterization of the OP. That was not a knock against any MOS. It was calling the OP out for attempting to cast him/herself as someone in the line of fire without the tools necessary to fight, win or survive. Instead, regardless of MOS, the OP is someone stateside, griping about amenities. There is a world of difference. The characterization would have been dishonest whether the OP were an ODA team sergeant back from his 4th tour in Iraq or a mess kit repair specialist waiting to deploy for the first time.
As a former holder of US Army Enlisted MOSC
67J20, Meat Can Model 1932 Repair Technician -- who fortunately got later converted to MOSC 00Q3P, Small Unit Coward, non-tactical -- I appreciate your mention of my former worthy if potentially dangerous employment.
I also respect and agree totally with your characterization of the locale and temper versus the thrust or background of the original poster.
Given current tracking in the discussion, I should clarify something here. Without making any specific ID, the original poster is not a service member, but a DA civilian who works at the school and is bitching about something that doesn't affect him directly. I just wanted everyone to know that this is not a case of a field grade officer sniveling anonymously in a public forum about his TDY amenities.
Thanks for that clarification. That means I can
forget my former mild bemusement and chuckles at what I thought had occurred.
Now, as a former overpaid DAC, I can get torqued off at a guy who may have a valid point but knows so little about his environment he posts about the issue in a totally inappropriate place instead of doing something concrete about it like forcing it up the chain of command and giving the always slow system time to react. Nobody's going to fire him. If that doesn't work, going public as a last resort can work -- but in the media, not on a weblog...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks