I was happy as can be when I was patrolling dangerous streets with a bunch of 18-year-olds carrying assault weapons. Granted I was single and op tempo pretty much guaranteed that I would remain so (one year in Iraq, then one year in the field or at a training center, preparing to go back, repeat...), but I was willing to spend years on end in Iraq. I loved being an Infantry Officer and could see the contributions that we made almost everyday. When my "career progression" required that I move to a job behind a desk and do PowerPoint slides, I put in my separation paperwork. That was the motivation for many of my peers, as well. Retention bonus? Just give me my old job back. There are plenty of individuals who don't like the dangerous work and are willing to change the headings of the tables on the slide and make the colors more vibrant. I'm not one of them. Because of that, I'm no longer a Soldier. There are plenty others like me.
True. Very true.
More than many would think.Originally Posted by Schmedlap
Some people leave the services due to family pressures -- and that ought to be okay with everyone.
Too many leave only because they're disillusioned and there's not enough challenge. No one should be okay with that...
Agree, people are being promoted faster than in the past, but people are also doing more than in pre War on Terror. We are growing up fast. That said, your experience at each level can only teach you so much. I spent my entire time as a S4 learning OJT, then as S2, same deal. Schools give you the technical skills you need. Leadership is earned and learned at units. Also, the vast majority of NCO's I worked with deserve more rank and rewards. There were just a few that all heads turned in the room when name was read on promotion list.
Good point, and agree completely. The Soldiers still in today are here because they want to be (minus those stop-lossed, but they did volunteer at one point). The nation as a whole has not moved much farther than bumber stickers and ribbons. Exceptional many have, and are greatly appreciated, but as election showed: number one issue for voters - 60% economy 10% war on terror (read that this morning over breakfast, source forgotten after bagel). We have to use what we have, but asking for more does not hurt. (Spreading the wealth around...)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.
Something we can all agree on, and I have now ruined the number. Not looking to start any flame wars or anything, but first day in AZ today, I was in a sea of black berets. Mine is looking sharp too though, and I'm really happy to be here.And the Marines should stay in the woods, yes.
BTW, you just had your 82D post. Congrats, its a good number.
Sadly, if given the chance, more Afghans would probably read the Federalist Papers than Americans, aside from the selcted chapters in American Government 101. That said, and though the Afghans could literraly have cities on a hill, they will likely not be the same as our ideal. Agree that best is usually good enough, as long as its good enough for the Afghans or Iraqis or whoever to accept.
There are definately those that drink and fight, and do both well. The NCO I mentioned was not very capable or motivated either, so the DWIs were icing. Having been to St. Barbara's Day Balls (Patron Saint of Artillery), dining ins, O'calls, Prop Blast, etc... I can agree that some of the best will have a few drinks on occasion.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...
Agree that you get the missions you get, but the buck stops at the top. If large numbers of troops are not utilized or under utilized, those in charge need to find a better use for them, or send them home. If a BN has couple dozen guys who do nothing but eat and go to MWR, put them at a gate or guard tower to increase force protection, free up others, and give them a purpose. This is micro-managing yes, but idle hands will do bad things. If a BCT claims to own battlespace, put people out in the battlespace.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.
To Schmedlap. I came very close to getting out for the same reason and will reassess in couple years. My good buddy who is now excellent CPT in NG got fed up with slaving on staff and getting little satisfaction from doing paperworkwork. Main reason the CRSB served as a reward to those largely already staying in. The slides and briefings on CSRB all seemed to ignore that job satisfaction was primary reason guys got out.
One more nit and I'll go away and let you enjoy Sierra Vista...
I totally agree but the problem may not be quite as simple as it seems. The problem originates with Staffs, not commanders or CSMs. Staffs. Staffs from DA on down -- they are the ones that come up with odd taskings and a lot of make work; convoy security missions for the wrong units who just happened to be untasked at the time. Easier to put them on it than find a unit that's designed, trained and equipped to do that. Oh, wait...
Consider also that generally the actual impact falls about three or more levels down from their august height so the fact that it is not always a smart, well considered idea is really immaterial to them. They're insulated from direct complaints and every experienced StaffO knows that valid complaints at Bn level get to Div and sound like minor problems while Corps considers them whining. Give it some thought.
How to fix it? The Commanders concerned are busy guys and cannot watch or know everything, they depend on their Staffs and subordinates to keep them informed -- and there is reluctance to do that -- keep the boss informed, I mean, simply because he is busy. It's a matter of what's important and that, unfortunately is in the eye of the beholder. Better to say little and not annoy El Commandante. That, BTW, is one area where CSMs do have some play and I acknowledge many will not get involved for some bad reasons...
Practically speaking and in general, to get it fixed, Unit Staffs have to fight with their Bosses Staff and force them to fight with his Bosses Staff(s) -- and too many are reluctant to do that on make work, force protection or 'local security' issues in order to save their fights for what they think may be more important issues. I submit that misuse of troops is a very important issue but I know that many staff types do not see it that way; all too many want to do is keep their Boss happy and out of trouble and if Joe suffers a teeny bit or some LT has a tough job for part of his tour, well so what...
While convoy protection has been a greater or lesser problem in all our recent wars, it has occurred to some degree in all, yet, in peacetime, it is difficult to envision much less justify a unit trained and equipped just to protect convoys. even if that were not so, it would be difficult to predict the size and number required. So we have to ad-hoc it. Fortunately, we do that well but it does offer discombobulation to the ad-hocced unit.
One thing that all our wars point out is that we are not flexible enough in organizing and equipping units for theater and conflict unique missions -- which will always exist. We generally get around to it but we're way too slow to adapt -- that and the multi level staff problem are what I meant by the penalty of the bureaucracy
I suggest that a real solution to the problem in question lies in better training of Staff Officers -- and in Commanders insisting on troops not being misused instead of just accepting it and saying that's what "Corps wants, just do it." I've been told that or something similar several times by fairly good Commanders. I have never been told to do anything like that by a really good Commander...That, OTOH, is to me not a mission issue but a unit tasking issue, it is emphatically a Battalion level issue and it certainly does impinge on the CSM and /or CO. It also impinges on the Staff who had to have some part in the design it and if that abuse -- and it is that -- continues, on the Co / By / Trp Cdrs and 1SGs...If a BN has couple dozen guys who do nothing but eat and go to MWR, put them at a gate or guard tower to increase force protection, free up others, and give them a purpose. This is micro-managing yes, but idle hands will do bad things. If a BCT claims to own battlespace, put people out in the battlespace.
So we aren't in much disagreement at all...
Have fun in Aridzone...
On the bright side of all this (misuse of troops), I fondly recall Gen Schoomaker red in the face chewing some butt at a remote base in Afghanistan when he saw a platoon of soldiers filling sandbags - for his benefit. The make work stopped quickly and locals were employed to fill sandbags. This type of leadership is sorely needed now, and probably always has been.
The use of contractors and locals for the busy work that needs to be done could reflect this shift from "have enough men to be ready for anything" to "have men enough who are ready for anything." I am much in favor of the second approach.
The bigger army problem, IMO, isn't one of numbers. More would be better. It is an attitude that "if only I had more guys, I would have to think of a better way to use the one's I have." An imperfect ancedote for this, I am sure we are all familiar with the area beautification that takes one day a week out of the training calender. I would return to on base housing to see the civilians mowing my lawn. I brought this to the SMA attention, ensuring him that my wife could mow the grass at home, if he would just send the civilians to the barracks so I could train the men. It comes as a shock to me that the managers of the Army find nothing wrong with taking guys off the "assembly line" to pick up trash or do landscaping. Any business who did this in the competitive market would be trounced.
So, first we must become more effecient. We now feel the pain of our poor management style, this is a great motivator to make things better. Then we add bigger numbers to the better system.
That's my pitch.
I've always said, if I were to win to lottery, I would go back into the Army. And whenever one of those stupid details arose, I would hire a bunch of migrant workers to do it while I take my guys to a private shooting range.
promotions sped up again
Just saw on HRC, Army is projected to be short 5000 CPTs and MAJs next summer, so MAJ board is being bumped up 4 months, and promotion to CPT will also bump up one month. MAJ in 9, CPT in 3 +/-.
They are over on LTs right now, but only time will tell.
I think this is due to a combination of retention problems, transformation, and growing more BCTs. Nobody seems to be willing to stop and realize that you can't create slots if you have no plan to fill them.
Is a BN/BCT/etc... that is half filled to MTOE for Officers and Senior NCOs a force enabler? People are and will step up to fill the open slots, we had a CPT filling a MAJ slot, and 1LT(P)s filling CPT slots, but there reaches a point where people wear out or get overwhelmed due to lack of training and experience.
With regards to size of the force question, we can't fill slots now, so maybe adding 60-100K may not fix anything.
When your Personnel system is a World War I (Yes, that's a One) model and refuses
to adapt, you can't expect much. I'm unsure why it is so difficult to transmute an individual replacement centric organization into one that supports rotating units -- unless it has something to do with the high number of people required to do the former and a lesser number needed for the latter. Nah, that can't be it -- that would mean that job security takes precedence over supporting the Army...
Add to that the brilliance of CentCom staffers who took an Airborne Infantry Brigade intended for a high profile mission and instead put it on convoy escort duty for a year in MND-S and managed to turn a competent combat Brigade and a super high personnel (all ranks) retaining organization into one that put retention below the basement and became a borderline shambles that will take a lot of time to rebuild...
When the Staff imperative at upper levels is to answer the mail as quickly and easily as possible instead of to do what's needed, right and sensible, bad things happen...
That said, we've been more short of these levels of experience before. Not that such knowledge makes it any easier for those who have to cope but it should reassure many that it can be done.
And instead of those 1LT(P)s getting a few months of XO, specialty platoon, or (gasp) extra line platoon time, they're screwing with PowerPoint slides, working through a mountain of paperwork, and hanging around with fellow officers instead of Soldiers. That's lousy preparation for future command.
For all the institutional changes that could be made to free up trigger pullers,(i.e. shifting funding from RC to AD, reducing non-deployable commands, reducing support troops etc.) I feel the core fact is that A) if we need 15 month deployments to meet our current deployment needs and B) that does not free up a standing pool of units available to deploy elsewhere in a very turbulent world political/military atmosphere; then the Army is not big enough, period. So, do we need a long term enlargement or a short term one? Expanded recruiting or draft? I feel the POTUS elect's call to national service is the right track to expanded recruiting. I do feel that the military should remain voluntary, but we are burning through soldiers physically and emotionally at a non-sustainable rate, and if recruitment failed to bring in sufficient quantity of quality troops, then I would be open to a short term draft. I would focus draftees in the tail and not the teeth personally, but that's me.
Reed
Could it be that we are
burning through soldiers physically and emotionally at a non-sustainable rate -- and I agree that is the case -- not because the Army is too small but because we aren't doing it right?
The 'it' being recruiting, selection and training on the one hand -- and the methodology and TTP of the operational and tactical effort in theater on the other hand. I submit that the former problem is due to a flawed personnel system and a tendency to select and train pretty much as the huge Army of the United States did during WW II -- and the latter is due to trying to operate with flawed organizations and techniques (also from WW II) overlaid with the terribly wrong Goldwater-Nichols structure...
And, as was said above:-- that sort of business as usual mentality in an unusual time...
Slings and Arrows Welcomed.
Last edited by Ken White; 11-10-2008 at 08:24 PM.
Draw the bow back and...
So here is the thing, I agree with you 100% on everything you mentioned, especially the flawed personnel system, BUT... even with those corrections, I think the Army would be too small for the current world conflict outlook. Still need to address them, since a draft is a political A-bomb and would create potential long term problems once the military needed to downsize, and expanded recruiting is possible, but only to a point.burning through soldiers physically and emotionally at a non-sustainable rate -- and I agree that is the case -- not because the Army is too small but because we aren't doing it right?
The 'it' being recruiting, selection and training on the one hand -- and the methodology and TTP of the operational and tactical effort in theater on the other hand. I submit that the former problem is due to a flawed personnel system and a tendency to select and train pretty much as the huge Army of the United States did during WW II -- and the latter is due to trying to operate with flawed organizations and techniques (also from WW II) overlaid with the terribly wrong Goldwater-Nichols structure...
And, as was said above: -- that sort of business as usual mentality in an unusual time...
Slings and Arrows Welcomed.
Reed
P.S. I suppose I could try to dig up the hard numbers, but I'm actually fairly busy doing my actual VA job, and I am hopeful somebody here has them pre-generated.
Last edited by reed11b; 11-10-2008 at 08:38 PM.
We can disagree on part
Not if we adapted what we do to what we have instead of trying to adapt what we have to do things we cannot do for all the reasons you earlier cited and which the DoD and Army leadership know, knew or should have known.Agreed...a draft is a political A-bomb and would create potential long term problems...and both agree and disagree. I agree we can do it; I do not agree that we should do it....and expanded recruiting is possible, but only to a point.
Problem is...
precisely because we are failing to train them properly. As Ken points out, our expectations are still geared to a peacetime service. Adding more numbers to these guys who are expecting to only be away every so often, who aren't mentally prepared for the psychological onslaught of room clearing during hours of limited visibility, driving through a nuisance minefield to get to work, who are fighting a civilian benefits provider from overseas so their family can get medical attention, who have to deal with mixed gender unit issues, blah blah blah… are going to burn out quick.
Why not fix all this stuff first, adjust our expectations to a wartime footing (i.e. there is a war on, sorry to inconvenience you) and try to save some of the institutional knowledge that is leaving too fast, instead of replacing it with more empty heads to be filled.
I understand that guys are burned out, I differ regarding the length/number of tours is the reason they ETS, PCS, or otherwise leave. It is a convenient way to sum up one’s frustrations, particularly for those who have no idea what Tricare is, or haven’t been deployed three Christmas’ in a row and received a penny on each of those LES’.
These, and more, problems should be fixed regardless of whether we grow or shrink the force. It might just be that if we make the military a more user friendly environment (in the sense of servicemen) we will see that these guys stick around longer and we don’t need a wider mouth on the funnel to get the same numbers on the other end.
The benefits to this are that we can continue to modernize the force and increase effectiveness. You get 4 inches of tail for every 1 inch of tooth. Adding more teeth does not, therefore, translate directly into effectiveness, though it does treat the symptom.
There is no doubt there is a problem, numbers will reduce the pain, but the leaders will leave for the same reasons unless we fix the lack of professionalism and job satisfaction they should expect.
Good points all, however my reason for stating that 15 month rotations is unsustainable comes from a MH provider standpoint. Go over a year and PTSD (and other MH issues) rates shoot up, period. We have known this since WWII. Yep, realistic expectations help, but most studies suggest that more tours for shorter lengths would be healthier from a MH aspect.
Reed
I do not intend to sound
unfeeling or lacking in normal human compassion -- because I'm not. However. While mental health is and should be a concern, that it is not why the Army is in business and thus it is a secondary issue. Combat effectiveness is the primary issue and it must be.
What you cite is the result of a system as Sapperfitz82 says is a peacetime oriented but WW II based personnel and operational / tactical series of processes and systems that is determined to operate the way it has since 1945 even though the missions are different, combat elements and equipment are different and the people are really, really different. Doesn't work, does it?
He and I contend that systemic changes particularly in personnel selection and training but also including new organizations and employment techniques will lessen the MH impacts -- at least in so far as gross numbers affected. Keep doing what we've been doing but with more people and I guarantee you the MH problem numbers will go up to match the troop increase in percentage terms -- just as they have in the last two years.
Not that I'm gonna hold my breath waiting for that change, you understand. We're more likely to get your solution than mine...
Last edited by Ken White; 11-11-2008 at 06:00 AM. Reason: Typo
new recruiting campaign
The Army must have known this disussion was going on. Just found this on AKO, the Army is releasing the new "Army Strong... Strength Like No Other" campaign on Veterans Day.
http://www.usaac.army.mil/sod/ads/
I was excited that maybe they were updating Army Strong to showcase the courage, history, sacrifice, etc. especially if on Veterans Day. Instead, they are releasing another campaign to show you how the Company, School, and Team will make you better for your career after the Army.
Maybe on Veterans Day they could just show an interview with someone who jumped into D-Day, suffered through the cold of Korea, or walked the jungles of Vietnam, and finish off with a shot of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. What do I know?
Sheesh. Good find of some bad stuff. Those are beyond sad.
I need to start displaying Steve Blair's tag line which he stole from one of you guys out there:It certainly applies to all the ad campaigns since "Be all you can be""As a 2LT, I had a crusty, old SFC tell me he thought that “the Army, as a whole, is like a guy that just keeps punching himself in the balls over and over for no reason.” Maybe he was wiser than I thought."
National Service
Found an interesting article by Times discussing the feasibility of national service and different suggestions on how to encourage it. Though not much directly related to military recruiting, some interesting ideas nevertheless, some of which have yet to be mentioned in this thread.
Here is the link in case anyone is interested:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...657570,00.html
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks