Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 71

Thread: Is US Fighting Force Big Enough?

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    Does the failure of that force to contain the insurgent threat mean our military needs a (surge) size more troops to get the requisite number of men capable of doing the job? Or was it simply a numbers problem?
    I would argue that there was no real planning for an insurgency, and when it did begin, nobody at the top was willing to declare it so, and adjust strategy accordingly. Pax on the ground saw the issues and dealt best they could, but when higher pulls the too few troops to secure a country of millions off the streets and back to FOBs, you can only do so much.

    A ten fold increase has not lead to more strategic success if one defines that as denying freedom of maneuver to the enemy. With 70K plus troops, there should be one in every valley.
    If there was a patrol in every valley, the Taliban would just wait it out. If we built Combat Outposts in every valley, the Afghans may see us as occupiers. No win either way. Need to convince the Afghans its in their own best interest to keep the bad guys out.

    Do these examples point to a misuse (or under-use) of our troops on the ground? If so, and if our current conflict is what is driving the "bigger military" idea I think there is any easier answer.
    I was in Iraq in 05-06, so I cannot speak of conditions now, but while I was there, forces were consolidated to FOBs. There were lots of people that never left, though in their defense, they were CS/CSS, so there was no real reason for them to leave. Unless you want to give every MOS a non-standard ILO mission, you need more combat arms if you want to put more bodies out in the fight. Same problem in Vietnam... 500,000 pax, only 60,000 infantry in the fight (that number is pulled deep from professional readings past, so if it is off, someone please correct me). The Army has a very heavy tail.


    The size military we currently have is capable of a great deal more. Barring a land war with China or Russia, the size is probably big enough if policy remains reasonable.
    If policy remains "reasonable," volunteers will continue to leave the service due to burn out. If the Army is going to constantly do 1 on, 1 off, it will eventually wear out. The goal of 1 on, 2 off, is still ways off for BCTs if the commitment continues. There needs to be a drawn down in CENTCOM, or relocation from somewhere else. Otherwise, the force is not big enough.

    My pratical experience leads me to believe that there is an enormous amount of waste out there. Few soldiers spend more time on patrol than in the FOB. None, I would hazard a guess (SOF excluded).
    Can't speak to this, but those units patrolling and living at COPs may disagree.

    I would propose linking redeployment to mission accomplishment. For instance, X BDE, you will pacify Anbar, you will meet these goals (civil, military, infastructure, political.....) and you will go home. Higher obviously verifies completion/success. If this takes 6 months, great, two years, fine, ten years, so be it. Individual replacement begins after two years on a points system.
    Sounds good (well, semi-good) on paper, but how would you quantify or verify these goals? What happens when the goals/missions change 1 month in? "Hey, we pacified the area, you didn't say anything about keeping foreign fighter infiltration routes closed. We're done, send us home." Individual deployments up to 2 years if/when mission creeps? Goodbye to the volunteer force. Everyone in today is sacrificing more than 99%, but unless "you spread the wealth around" that is probably too much.


    Instead of "making it" to 365 days, however you do that, and punching out, this would give commanders a reason to risk casualties, be more aggressive, generally go after the enemy continously. Points for awards, patrols, whatever, are incentives for the soldiers. Also, knowing that their deployment is a mission makes it much easier to understand "why" they are there.

    Not sure it is a good idea, but it is less expensive than adding a division.
    Commanders should not be counting the days, though as humans, they likely are. They should be caring for their Soldiers, and accomplishing the mission. Adding points for redeployment may lead to cheating, backstabbing, etc... It would also send your best performers home the quickest and destroy unit cohesion and integrity. You may save 10-15K needed in a division, but you might add that many in the staff/bureaucracy needed to track these points/goals.

  2. #22
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Wonder is good...

    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    Did we see this disconnect (size vs. capability) play out with Rumsfeld's plan for Iraq?
    Had Rumsfled's plan been followed, we'd have been out of there in less than 90 days and there likely would have been no 'insurgency' -- though there certainly would've been some mayhem. His plan got changed and arguably, the changer also was instrumental in disbanding the Iraqi Army and Cops -- without which there'd have been a far different insurgency of far shorter duration.
    I mean, did he believe that the size force we sent in could do the job because some previous size force in our history would have?
    Partly that and partly he over relied on technology; remember, he was briefly an Aviator...
    Does the failure of that force to contain the insurgent threat mean our military needs a (surge) size more troops to get the requisite number of men capable of doing the job? Or was it simply a numbers problem?
    Four times the number of troops would've made little difference; Iraq is too big to dominate without well over 1M troops on the ground. Even then it would be dicey. If you're going to rotate units, then you'd need about 4M troops; we can't afford it, couldn't fill -- and don't need it.[quote]I have seen a dramatic drop in aggressive patrolling in Afghanistan from 02-03 to 05-06 and have heard of more of the same from friends there now. (Foxhole view, I know) A ten fold increase has not lead to more strategic success if one defines that as denying freedom of maneuver to the enemy. With 70K plus troops, there should be one in every valley.[quote]Worse problem than in Iraq; Afghanistan is even bigger, more populous and the terrain is far rougher -- and the people are more warlike. Adding X number of troops will make little difference and we don't -- couldn't -- have enough to 'occupy and pacify' the whole country.

    As for the patrolling, I hear the same thing and also hear that it is very much unit peculiar; that is it's true with some units but not with others thus I suspect it's a matter of risk averseness in Commanders.
    Our performance in this war as a military has not been as good as it could be. I don't mean this on a personal or personel level. I am speaking of raw capability and results.
    I've been around since WW II and our performance in every war I've seen has been mediocre at best (with occasional rare and great exceptions in all of them). We've been saved by the fact that our opponents have generally been worse than we have. We will this time as well. Both theaters.
    The size military we currently have is capable of a great deal more. Barring a land war with China or Russia, the size is probably big enough if policy remains reasonable.
    I agree with that.
    My pratical experience leads me to believe that there is an enormous amount of waste out there. Few soldiers spend more time on patrol than in the FOB. None, I would hazard a guess (SOF excluded). We need to recalibrate our force's incentives for going home and squeeze more productivity from the ones already deployed. This would reduce the perceived need for a larger Army.

    I would propose linking redeployment to mission accomplishment. For instance, X BDE, you will pacify Anbar, you will meet these goals (civil, military, infastructure, political.....) and you will go home. Higher obviously verifies completion/success. If this takes 6 months, great, two years, fine, ten years, so be it. Individual replacement begins after two years on a points system.

    Instead of "making it" to 365 days, however you do that, and punching out, this would give commanders a reason to risk casualties, be more aggressive, generally go after the enemy continously. Points for awards, patrols, whatever, are incentives for the soldiers. Also, knowing that their deployment is a mission makes it much easier to understand "why" they are there.

    Not sure it is a good idea, but it is less expensive than adding a division.
    Has some merit; I see two problems. The Army is risk averse but that is a reflection of the nation from which it comes, it reflects the values of this country and we have, as a nation, become quite risk averse. I don't think that will change soon. Thus the first prob is that you'll put Commanders at career risk for failure and in an Army that refuses to test people who are going to lead in combat that isn't likely to fly.

    The second problem is that the proposal would be difficult to balance because of the vagaries of life and combat; Unit A gets an easy zone and goes home in six months; Unit B gets a hot spot and is there for three years. Unit C has a great commander and does well, Unit D has a dork and stumbles over everything. I could foresee big time morale and attitude problems...

  3. #23
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up I nominate * patmc * for Quote of the Week

    Quote Originally Posted by patmc View Post
    ...
    The Army has a very heavy tail.
    Priceless!

    I also agree with his Post. Good one...

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    We may end up with no Army at all if we don't get the procurement mess under control. This is simply criminal:

    As part of 18 new reports for the Bush administration, the panel found that over the last seven years changes to initial program plans have cost the DoD $328 billion. Such program changes, typically referred to as "requirements creep," have helped swell the price tag for the department's major programs from $783 billion to $1.7 trillion, according to the panel.

    Of that increase, $401 billion, or 44 percent, was caused by program cost growth.

    On one slide, the panel uses striking language to express its concern about the skyrocketing cost of the Pentagon's next-generation systems, warning it could "in times of budget stress, threaten the core of the institution."

    One chart included in the briefing shows that $205.7 billion of the $401 billion in seven-year program cost growth was generated by just five programs: The Army's Future Combat Systems ($69.7 billion), the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter ($66.8 billion), the Navy's SSN-774 attack submarine program, the Chemical Demilitarization initiative ($23.4 billion) and the Air Force-run Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program ($18.5 billion).

    More than 90 programs from across the services accounted for the remaining $195 billion in cost growth. In the coming years, the board warns, the situation could affect the state of the American force.
    $328 billion from requirements creep - that averages to about $47 billion a year. I wonder how many soldiers the Army could have trained and equipped for that.

  5. #25
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default You got that right...

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    We may end up with no Army at all if we don't get the procurement mess under control.

    $328 billion from requirements creep - that averages to about $47 billion a year. I wonder how many soldiers the Army could have trained and equipped for that.
    As they say...

    Though I'd add that the problem, as the articles states, involves ALL the services, not just the Army. The LCS and the F-35 both suffer from the malady. Don't even start on the EFV and the Army's checkered small arms history. The phenomenon is as American as Apple Pie unfortunately. Who of us has not been in a Drive through or checkout line and watched people ahead of us dither over choices. Penalty of having too much money and too much time on our hands...

    I recall A Bundeswehr LTC years ago remarking on Kärcher's Decon device that "...the Americans have bought a few for test. They will now engineer it for seven years until it doesn't work and then will buy in quantity."

    Sad but true.

  6. #26
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Though I'd add that the problem, as the articles states, involves ALL the services, not just the Army.
    Oh yeah, didn't mean to suggest otherwise, but to point out if all the services hadn't changed requirements, we'd be able to have a bigger Army without an increase in the budget - theoretically, of course.

    The services simply can't continue like this - something has got to give.

  7. #27
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default It is unlikely to change until all the services

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    ...The services simply can't continue like this - something has got to give.
    realize that their personnel system (DOPMA !!!) forces them to rotate unqualified or poorly qualified people into positions they should not have on a two to three year cycle in a fruitless attempt to be 'equitable' and create an Officer Corps of generalists. How has that worked out for us, all things considered?

    Each change at the Action O, Branch and division Chief and Project Manager level introduces a cascading series of 'desirable and necessary changes.' While aiming for state of the art -- a moving train -- is desirable it is costly and in many cases totally counterproductive.

    When you add the changes desired by senior leaders -- who also rotate entirely too rapidly -- above the Project Managers, you get a never ending series of ECPs that the contractors absolutely love. They bid in low, knowing that will occur and that they can thus realize a healthy profit.

    Add to all that micromanagement by Congroids and their staffers (not at all influenced by Lobbyists ...) and you have a recipe for a mess.

    That's where we are. So. How to fix it?

    All we gotta do is clean out Congress, reduce their staff by 60% and make it functional, discard DOPMA, select people who are competent in the field for jobs, quit rotating people to 'manage personnel' every 18-48 months and stop trying to prove everyone can do anything.

    No problem...

  8. #28
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    All we gotta do is clean out Congress, reduce their staff by 60% and make it functional, discard DOPMA, select people who are competent in the field for jobs, quit rotating people to 'manage personnel' every 18-48 months and stop trying to prove everyone can do anything.

    No problem...
    Gee, is that all?

    Quite depressing....

  9. #29
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    When you add the changes desired by senior leaders -- who also rotate entirely too rapidly -- above the Project Managers, you get a never ending series of ECPs that the contractors absolutely love. They bid in low, knowing that will occur and that they can thus realize a healthy profit.

    Add to all that micromanagement by Congroids and their staffers (not at all influenced by Lobbyists ...) and you have a recipe for a mess.

    That's where we are. So. How to fix it?

    All we gotta do is clean out Congress, reduce their staff by 60% and make it functional, discard DOPMA, select people who are competent in the field for jobs, quit rotating people to 'manage personnel' every 18-48 months and stop trying to prove everyone can do anything.

    No problem...
    Don't forget to get rid of "low bid/best value" as an award criterion. I suspect a big piece of cost increases is due to contractors underbidding and then getting price increases granted as the programs get well entrenched. This can happen with or without government ECPs. From an earned value management (EVM) perspective, things look great until too late. Contractors can game the system and earn big EVM points doing egg-sucking work early on. If a contractor puts off the really hard tech development stuff until late in the materiel development effort, program costs tend to skyrocket late in life.

    I think the operative logic (or is that illogic) is once you're more than a quarter way into the program, you need to keep throwing money at it in order to save the investment you've already made (not to mention all the jobs that the program has created in Congressional districts across the country). I think any program's likelihood of cancellation is inversely proportional to the number of Congressional districts in which the contractor and its subs have operating locations. I also suspect that the likelihood of cost overruns is directly proportional to that number of Congressional districts as well.
    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

  10. #30
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up Astute as always.

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    ...
    I think the operative logic (or is that illogic) is once you're more than a quarter way into the program, you need to keep throwing money at it in order to save the investment you've already made (not to mention all the jobs that the program has created in Congressional districts across the country). I think any program's likelihood of cancellation is inversely proportional to the number of Congressional districts in which the contractor and its subs have operating locations. I also suspect that the likelihood of cost overruns is directly proportional to that number of Congressional districts as well.
    That part, in particular is distressingly correct...

    The good news is that my unnecessarily dour prescription of a fix while obviously unlikely on several levels is not the only way the trend can be reversed. The move toward spiral development is a good start and reversal of the trend for excessive in-process changes can be accomplished to a great extent far more simply with some firm direction from those on high by simply locking the design at the 'good enough' stage. Hopefully, they can and will do that. Equally (more??? ) hopefully, Congress will assist rather than impede that process...

  11. #31
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    That part, in particular is distressingly correct...

    The good news is that my unnecessarily dour prescription of a fix while obviously unlikely on several levels is not the only way the trend can be reversed. The move toward spiral development is a good start and reversal of the trend for excessive in-process changes can be accomplished to a great extent far more simply with some firm direction from those on high by simply locking the design at the 'good enough' stage. Hopefully, they can and will do that. Equally (more??? ) hopefully, Congress will assist rather than impede that process...
    And in a related matter, the idea that Senator Stevens will continue to run for office after his conviction and pending appeals makes the likelihood of a sudden rush to reform from within Congress doubtful

    Next week will tell many tales

    Tom

  12. #32
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    That part, in particular is distressingly correct...

    The good news is that my unnecessarily dour prescription of a fix while obviously unlikely on several levels is not the only way the trend can be reversed. The move toward spiral development is a good start and reversal of the trend for excessive in-process changes can be accomplished to a great extent far more simply with some firm direction from those on high by simply locking the design at the 'good enough' stage. Hopefully, they can and will do that. Equally (more??? ) hopefully, Congress will assist rather than impede that process...
    Would that it were so simple--we used to have spiral and incremental development as alternatives. But in the planned revision of the DoDD 5000.01, spirals go away and all we have are increments developed on mature technology. The intent, I think , is to prevent cost overruns due to tech development costs being postponed until later in a program because of unknowns or requirements creep. However, this means we will probably have to keep doing new cycles of technology development for each new increment (and all the Acq paperwork to go from pre-MS A to post MS C for each increment)--big loss of time and effort here I think. I'd like to see the cost benefit analysis for increments vice spirals.
    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

  13. #33
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I missed that...

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    ...But in the planned revision of the DoDD 5000.01, spirals go away and all we have are increments developed on mature technology. ... I'd like to see the cost benefit analysis for increments vice spirals.
    Or maybe I saw a blurb on it and didn't want to believe it...

    Why do I have visions of future revolving doors going through my little brain...

    Sigh.

    One step forward and two back. Agree on your your desire for an analysis; hopefully someone will trigger an effort.

  14. #34
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Or maybe I saw a blurb on it and didn't want to believe it...

    Why do I have visions of future revolving doors going through my little brain...

    Sigh.

    One step forward and two back. Agree on your your desire for an analysis; hopefully someone will trigger an effort.
    Someone probably views the move to only increments as a streamlining of the process.

    After all, now we will only have one route forward in acquisition--simpler is better, right ?
    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

  15. #35
    Council Member Tacitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    146

    Default Ted Stevens holds onto his Senate seat...for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    And in a related matter, the idea that Senator Stevens will continue to run for office after his conviction and pending appeals makes the likelihood of a sudden rush to reform from within Congress doubtful

    Next week will tell many tales

    Tom
    Tom, I don't know if you have seen the Alaskan election returns or not. But it looks like a victory for (drumroll, please)...Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, of all people.

    I believe that makes him the first person in the history of our republic to be re-elected to the U.S. Senate after having been found guilty of a felony. Any Senate historians out there who can come up with another, correct me if I am wrong. I thnk it takes 2/3 of the vote in the Senate to expel a Senator. Stay tuned for more on this one.

    Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel.
    No signature required, my handshake is good enough.

  16. #36
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus View Post
    Tom, I don't know if you have seen the Alaskan election returns or not. But it looks like a victory for (drumroll, please)...Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, of all people.

    I believe that makes him the first person in the history of our republic to be re-elected to the U.S. Senate after having been found guilty of a felony. Any Senate historians out there who can come up with another, correct me if I am wrong. I thnk it takes 2/3 of the vote in the Senate to expel a Senator. Stay tuned for more on this one.

    Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel.
    Hey mate

    yeah I saw that this AM

    incredible

  17. #37
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lillington
    Posts
    55

    Default

    PATMC
    If there was a patrol in every valley, the Taliban would just wait it out. If we built Combat Outposts in every valley, the Afghans may see us as occupiers. No win either way. Need to convince the Afghans its in their own best interest to keep the bad guys out.
    Problem is that we have defined ourselves into a box as not being occupiers, conquerors, crusaders, etc. Now we have to figure out how in heck we call ourselves “winners” and leave. The locals don’t understand this either, they just want us gone, whatever we are. As long as we are just and equitable in the prosecution of our war, the occupied will usually wait out the interim. We should not be worried as being seen as what we are, we must act as we are and then leave. Yeah, the Talibs will wait, that is what they’ve been doing. The part WE”RE waiting on hasn’t, and may not happen. The DOS needs to build the nation to the point that our national security goals are met and the DOD can call it a day, bigger army won’t fix that. Let’s be efficient while we wait is my point.

    PATMC
    Can't speak to this, but those units patrolling and living at COPs may disagree.

    Well, I don’t like to air out others laundry, but the ol’ BLUFOR does give away when folks are on patrol, and I was a lonely dot out there more often than not. When I did see other dots, they were in BN strength. There wasn’t a lot of small unit action going on. Are there units doing the business? absolutely, just not enough of them.

    PATMC
    If policy remains "reasonable," volunteers will continue to leave the service due to burn out. If the Army is going to constantly do 1 on, 1 off, it will eventually wear out. The goal of 1 on, 2 off, is still ways off for BCTs if the commitment continues. There needs to be a drawn down in CENTCOM, or relocation from somewhere else. Otherwise, the force is not big enough.
    I have heard a lot about this boogey man as well. I don’t really see it happening, maybe you have different numbers. My thought has been that if the mission is made relevant to the men, they will die for it. You’re saying, yes, but only if that doesn’t take too long. I don’t mean to be cute, but there is a real disconnect here and it comes from pandering to the pampered.

    My squad re-upped for 6yrs each (minus one) after 11 months in Afghanistan and with full knowledge of the deployment to Iraq coming 9 months after our return home. They believed in the mission. They also knocked out a year of college while doing three days out of the wire and two days in for those 11 months. They understand the bennies too.

    Quite simply, the standard of living at war has never been better, the tours have never been shorter (for this duration a war) and we are still saying “not good enough?” We need a history lesson and the Indian wars of the sub-continent and the American west are in order.

    PATMC
    Sounds good (well, semi-good) on paper, but how would you quantify or verify these goals? What happens when the goals/missions change 1 month in? "Hey, we pacified the area, you didn't say anything about keeping foreign fighter infiltration routes closed. We're done, send us home." Individual deployments up to 2 years if/when mission creeps? Goodbye to the volunteer force. Everyone in today is sacrificing more than 99%, but unless "you spread the wealth around" that is probably too much.

    Defining these are what the generals get paid to do. I think everyone understands that FRAGOs happen.

    I don’t really see the sacrifice, sorry. I have missed a lot of birthdays, first steps etc (I have 5.9 kids and have been absent more than half my enlistment, or roughly 3.2 kids), but the missions were not that demanding, the down time is excessive in most places (Kandahar, Gardez, Salerno, Baghdad-little more intense, Baghram) and we eat pretty good over there. War is purgatory these days in other words, and we should expect more from the men. We aren’t far from 2 yr deployments when mission creeps anyway, my last deployment order didn’t come with an end date and we didn’t find out it was 15 months until three months in.

  18. #38
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    175

    Default

    First off, made it into Sierra Vista, AZ last night. Wow, after 4 years of pine trees, this place is heaven. Just have to get used to the altitude.


    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    Problem is that we have defined ourselves into a box as not being occupiers, conquerors, crusaders, etc. Now we have to figure out how in heck we call ourselves “winners” and leave. The locals don’t understand this either, they just want us gone, whatever we are. As long as we are just and equitable in the prosecution of our war, the occupied will usually wait out the interim. We should not be worried as being seen as what we are, we must act as we are and then leave. Yeah, the Talibs will wait, that is what they’ve been doing. The part WE”RE waiting on hasn’t, and may not happen. The DOS needs to build the nation to the point that our national security goals are met and the DOD can call it a day, bigger army won’t fix that. Let’s be efficient while we wait is my point.
    Agree on this, except I don't know how long an interim the Afghans will tolerate. Also, it is DOS' job to help other states rebuild, and PRTs are working to this, but as designed right now, State does not have the manpower or forward capability to "rebuild" a place like Afghanistan. Army can be used more efficiently, but unless we or the Afghans "surge" reconstruction, the Army will just be there forever.


    Well, I don’t like to air out others laundry, but the ol’ BLUFOR does give away when folks are on patrol, and I was a lonely dot out there more often than not. When I did see other dots, they were in BN strength. There wasn’t a lot of small unit action going on. Are there units doing the business? absolutely, just not enough of them.
    Above both our pay grades, but again goes to efficient use of the force we have, and the realties of METT-TC in Afghanistan. Poole argues in his books for US small units that live off the land and patrol for weeks on end. I don't see Roger's Rangers returning any time soon, though.


    I have heard a lot about this boogey man as well. I don’t really see it happening, maybe you have different numbers. My thought has been that if the mission is made relevant to the men, they will die for it. You’re saying, yes, but only if that doesn’t take too long. I don’t mean to be cute, but there is a real disconnect here and it comes from pandering to the pampered.
    My squad re-upped for 6yrs each (minus one) after 11 months in Afghanistan and with full knowledge of the deployment to Iraq coming 9 months after our return home. They believed in the mission. They also knocked out a year of college while doing three days out of the wire and two days in for those 11 months. They understand the bennies too.
    Again, agree on most points, but I saw the retention problem in my unit. BN made mission for re-enlistments, but as the 2, I had to process the paperwork for many of them that were switching MOS and reclassing. I also had the other half that were ETSing. There are not enough mid to senior level NCOs, and guys are making E6 in less than 5 years without the schools and experiences. We had a SEVERAL time DWI make the E7 list. Same with officers, near 100% promotions to fill slots. A lot of the guys we are retaining are motivated, but not necessarily the ones you want.

    We can't pick out missions, and its pretty hard to convince everyone that the war will not be won without their full support. We escorted convoys, thankless and crappy mission. We struggled to keep guys motivated. Those who re-enlisted, reclassed or hoped we would go back to Artillery. All were ready to serve, but to be honest, most were not motivated to die to ensure Toilet Paper and Ice Cream got delivered safely. If you are at the tip of the spear, drawing blood, it is easier to see your contribution than if you are the shaft. If at their re-enlistment they were told, yo'u will go to Afghanistan or Iraq until the mission ends, most would have said, "no thanks, that's too long."

    Quite simply, the standard of living at war has never been better, the tours have never been shorter (for this duration a war) and we are still saying “not good enough?” We need a history lesson and the Indian wars of the sub-continent and the American west are in order.
    Agree on the living conditions for most, but Vietnam was one year and out. Gulf War 1 was less than a year. Panama, Grenada, Haiti, etc... were in and out. Post WW2, the Army has been fortunate in this regard. Many of the long wars of the past though, the nation went to war and people were drafted or sacrificed. The "savage wars of peace" were not always short and sweet, but again, today if you asked for volunteers to live in the jungle for years, you would get some, but doubt you would get enough. The US could try this and ask for volunteers in OIF or OEF until mission complete. (question: didn't we create the Marines to go live in the jungles for years, kidding sort of) I appreciate that in the scheme of history, one year is nothing, but my first fiance did not agree, and my new girlfriend is not too excited about it either.

    I don’t really see the sacrifice, sorry. I have missed a lot of birthdays, first steps etc (I have 5.9 kids and have been absent more than half my enlistment, or roughly 3.2 kids), but the missions were not that demanding, the down time is excessive in most places (Kandahar, Gardez, Salerno, Baghdad-little more intense, Baghram) and we eat pretty good over there. War is purgatory these days in other words, and we should expect more from the men. We aren’t far from 2 yr deployments when mission creeps anyway, my last deployment order didn’t come with an end date and we didn’t find out it was 15 months until three months in.
    God bless you brother for what you do, but many do consider time away from their families as a sacrifice. The Army won't survive without people willing to pay the price. Lack of mission and too much down time is bad leadership at the top. COLs and CSMs can surely find better missions, though I remain doubtful. 2 year deployment, hope not, and after the impact of the 15 month, don't know if the brass are willing to do that again. I know at Bragg, one of the BCTs lost a lot of people after they returned, or will lose when their contracts run out. They all said 15 months was just too much.

  19. #39
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lillington
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Yeah, I am familiar w/ that BCT, they lost me too. Good point on the reclass, I didn't consider that when I wrote the comment. Our company lost all their E-6's to reassignment. I would disagree to a point on the "shake and bake" NCO allusion, we made bad NCO's in peacetime (as I observed upon my enlistment [by the by, these grand, all encompassing statements are ment to be taken in the context of my experience, not some meta-researched scientific doctorate sort of way]) than are being rapidly promoted now. The trade is in maturity as far as I can tell, but their combat experience, IMO, greatly outweighs much that the NCOES has to offer. Nonetheless, we are losing depth across the board to fight this way, its true.

    What is missing is the reason to stay gone this long, the "manifest Destiny" so to speak. We need a positive goal that compels our guys to gear for a "Long War." It appears the nation is not ready to devote more GDP to this fight, or at least the politicians aren't, if that is true, DOD still has to win the war. I am in favor of solving this problem with our current resources as best we can while we ask for more. I offer the mission based deployment as a motivator for those units that need it, applied to all of course.

    And the Marines should stay in the woods, yes.

    BTW, you just had your 82D post. Congrats, its a good number.

  20. #40
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Good exchange. A couple of minor thoughts for consideration

    First, on this:
    Agree on the living conditions for most, but Vietnam was one year and out.
    Living conditions for most in Viet Nam were, to the extent possible, as close to todays as was possible at the time. That was also true in Korea, again relatively. In both those as in Afghanistan -- though not so much in Iraq -- time in the boonies was long and without creature comforts but that goes with the job.

    As for Viet Nam being one year and out; true for the single enlistment folks and for those drafted. For those on a second or later hitch the rule was a year in the States and a year in Viet Nam, MOS dependent -- didn't need or use too many tankers, though a lot of them, did get sent as Grunts or Advisers. People with four or five tour in Viet Nam aren't all that rare. I know one guy with seven Purple Hearts, all entailing Hospital time, over four tours...

    Point of all that is there aren't as many differences between then and now as many seem to think.
    Poole argues in his books for US small units that live off the land and patrol for weeks on end. I don't see Roger's Rangers returning any time soon, though.
    I'm not a Poole fan and I think any Westerner who tries to 'live off the land' in Afghanistan is gonna be an advertisement for 'Weight Watchers ®' but I do think the only thing precluding smaller units out on their own is senior leader excessive caution. We are still risk averse to too great a degree. That said, I know some units in Afghanistan were / are prone to kick out Squad (and smaller) sized patrols while others will not.
    ...unless we or the Afghans "surge" reconstruction, the Army will just be there forever.
    Doesn't that depend on what ones desired end state actually happens to be? I suggest there's a happy and realistic medium between dropping a copy of the Federalist Papers and leaving versus the alternative of 'forever.' While pondering where that 'medium' should fall, recall two things; be realistic and aim for something achievable. Best is the enemy of good enough.
    We had a SEVERAL time DWI make the E7 list. Same with officers, near 100% promotions to fill slots. A lot of the guys we are retaining are motivated, but not necessarily the ones you want.
    At the risk of drawing fire, I'll just say that I've known a slew of highly competent drunks, Officer and NCO. it's a tough job and it drives to a vice of some sort...

    IOW, don't write those SFCs off. Nor the Officers who were just there. I'll also suggest that I'd rather have five guys who are motivated and drink than ten who are 'superbly qualified' but are not motivated -- whether they drink or not is really irrelevant...
    ...but many do consider time away from their families as a sacrifice. The Army won't survive without people willing to pay the price. Lack of mission and too much down time is bad leadership at the top. COLs and CSMs can surely find better missions, though I remain doubtful.
    True on the first, each person has his or her own level on that. Some will wave the Family goodbye for the job, some will not. Too much down time is bad, always has been -- penalty of a large bureaucracy. So is mission allocation and, believe me on this, COLs and CSMs have been known to fight bad ones quite strenuously and lose. It's not usually their call. That too goes with the territory and if the territory is not conducive to an adequate comfort level, people will -- and should -- find something else to do. The Green machine is better than it ever was, it isn't perfect but it is trying to improve -- and it will all work out.

Similar Threads

  1. Future Conflict
    By Reid Bessenger in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 08:58 PM
  2. Understanding Airmen
    By LawVol in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 12-12-2007, 06:26 PM
  3. U.S. Air Force Loses Out in Iraq War
    By SWJED in forum Equipment & Capabilities
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-20-2006, 02:41 PM
  4. Aiming for a More Subtle Fighting Force
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-09-2006, 08:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •