Based on the news reports that I've been seeing over the past week, that should be occurring today at around noon. At least the world peace thing.Originally Posted by Voodoun
Good news
Based on the news reports that I've been seeing over the past week, that should be occurring today at around noon. At least the world peace thing.
A Couple More (Mostly Random) Thoughts
1- CAT-As need to be beefed up to the point that they are self-mobile (meaning 4 vehicle crews). Otherwise, they take combat power out of the fight to execute their missions, or their missions will always be second fiddle to combat operations.
2- We acknowledge that we need CA and PSYOP, but only have enough active for the SOF community. WRONG ANSWER. If we need the capability, we need the capability. There is enough issues integrating "non-lethal" because it is NOT (generally) what the Army does. Having your "non-lethal" guy being an overweight, out-of-shape reservist with an attitude ("I'm special so I don't have to comply with your standards") who shows up at the last minute, without resources or collective training, makes integration almost impossible. Yes, I've thrown out every stereotype there is, but believe me, I've seen most of them.
3- If everyone needs CA and PSYOP all the time (or even most of the time), they aren't SOF, and can't remain only in the SOF community. That means that the BCT CA officers, and CA & PSYOP NCOs can't be the cast offs (those that aren't "good enough" to hang with the SOF guys), and that the active BCTs need their own assets, all the time. The best solution I see for this a CO in the BSTB. Yes, CA & PSYOP are different, but they are often focused in the same areas, and alot of their indiividual training requirements (language, culture, etc) are the same. Plus, neither element is large enough to justify a company of its own- a CA CO (even augmented as in 1- above) and a TPD combined would still be among the smaller COs in the BCT.
4- If what surferbeetle is describing is the norm, than there is something completely disfunctional somewhere. If we can have a LAD before we even redeploy, we should be able to align a team at LEAST to meet our ITC, MRE and deployment. And rotating them based on a different deployment schedule is ridiculous. Same as the JTACs, an enabler like that should task organize, deploy with, and redeploy with the BCT- I don't care what service or component.
Jeez. I understood about a 2/3 of that.
But yeah, fat out of shape reservists? Big problem (no pun intended). Fat out of shape soldiers in general? Big problem (pun intended this time).
Seriously, there should simply not be uniforms made to fit certain body types.
I admit to being "out of the loop" with current CA issues, but I've lived some in the past.
First, circa the '90s, they didn't want anyone else to play their special reindeer games. The only way to hold down a CA slot was to be school-trained, but the only way to get the school was to be in a CA slot. And now they're screaming for more people. Guess what, CA-guy; you guys created your own problems.
Second, CA guys tend to come in two flavors: Broken SF dude who is too "special" to play nice, and "dud". So units end up leaning on some combat-arms reservist who holds a CA-relevant job in the US, during deployment.
Third, currently they are trying to stand up a CA Brigade in Europe. While they are willing to export a 38-series enlisted school to Europe, they are forcing officers to come back to the US for school. The "so-what" of this, is that most Army Reservists serving in Europe would make terrific CA officers, but by attending the stateside school, these people will lose their tax-exempt status, so basically it will cost around $20,000 to attend the school.
And CA refuses to budge on their school requirement. Frankly, I doubt their school is "all that and a bag of chips."
I have my doubts as to whether CA should continue to be allowed to exist as a branch.
It seems that I have touched a nerve...
82nd Redleg has some good points. Keep in mind that I have spent time in all of our Army's arena's: Active, Guard, Reserve, and Civil Service. My observation is that most of the Army has not been resourced and trained like the tier one units such as the 82nd, 101st, and SF; however GWOT has changed many things.
Many of the issues mentioned, imho, can be boiled down to prioritizing and resourcing. Head count for both active and reserve CA and PSYOP types is low, our allocated budgets track with our headcounts, and the majority of active training (from AIT to OBC and onwards) has not addressed the use of CA and PSYOP. Before GWOT the majority of units that I have supported did not know that CA existed. This of course impacted the integration and budgeting process then and it still does to an extent (1610's were not funded, requests for CA support were an afterthought, etc.)
IMHO a civilian Assistant DA, City Planner, City Manager, Civil Engineer, Doctor, a Nurse, a Policeman, and a Teacher is a practicing specialist who brings needed skills to COIN work that are not found on active duty. Most of these folks do not fit the 18-25 year-old demographic (it takes time to acquire mastery in these employment fields). Despite this we need to integrate these types of folks into the COIN fight, others may disagree.
As an aside how many active duty folk also hold a 'part-time-job' in addition to 'active-duty-job' and sometimes risk their 'active-duty-job' in order to serve their nation in their 'part-time-job'? Few do.
Increasing the number of Active Duty CA and PSYOP, training the force on CA and PSYOP, and resourcing CA and PYSOP are certainly answers to some of these issues, in particular if a generalist in this arena can get things done. My observation is that sometimes you need a specialist and it is for this reason that CA and PSYOP reserve types are still around. Your mileage may vary.
As for 120mm's observations, some are valid and some not so. We in the CA community are looking for good, smart soldiers...send me a PM and I will get you linked up with someone who can help you sign up and then you can straighten things out.
Last edited by Surferbeetle; 01-20-2009 at 04:46 PM.
Sapere Aude
Surferbeetle has it right
True on the training and resourcing -- and there's also an intangible difference. Can't speak for the 101 today but knowing folks in the other two organizations there is an attitudinal difference --and an arrogance -- that can be problematic and annoying to some.
That attitudinal difference makes it hard for the Airborne and SF communities to accept the sometimes seemingly casual attitude of other communities. Having spent a great many years in both communities, my take is that the arrogance is okay but it should not blind one to the value of other organizations and it must not take the form of bigoted disdain -- nobody will work well if they sense that attitude coming from the people with whom they're supposed to cooperate...
The SOF / conventional force divide is stupid and counterproductive; the AC / RC divide is even more so. Both need to disappear.This is a critical point -- those civilian skills ARE necessary and the likelihood of any AC CA type ever acquiring and enhancing them to the point a civilian practitioner who is a Reservist is microscopic. Those skills are hard to obtain, are critical and the fact that the City Manager is overweight and doesn't look like a recruiting poster is immaterial.IMHO a civilian Assistant DA, City Planner, City Manager, Civil Engineer, Doctor, a Nurse, a Policeman, and a Teacher is a practicing specialist who brings needed skills to COIN work that are not found on active duty. Most of these folks do not fit the 18-25 year-old demographic (it takes time to acquire mastery in these employment fields). Despite this we need to integrate these types of folks into the COIN fight, others may disagree.True and some things all the active folks need to contemplate are:As an aside how many active duty folk also hold a 'part-time-job' in addition to 'active-duty-job' and sometimes risk their 'active-duty-job' in order to serve their nation in their 'part-time-job'? Few do.
- Navy and DoD studies show conclusively that reservists excel at the non-operational skills and will invariably outperform their active counterparts. In the operational arena, that is reversed. The point is that for many things, the reservist or guardsman brings a lot to the table.
- Many dislike the money spent on the reserve, contending it would be better spent on the active forces and they justify this by saying that when reserve units are called up, they still need additional training. That ignores the fact that a Guard Brigade taking 90 days to train up to deploy is far less time than it would take to recruit, fill and train a Brigade from scratch.
- The guardsman and reservist put in a lot of kitchen table time for no pay in doing their military jobs. Also, due to the dispersed nature of reserve units, the reserve leader is more independent and resourceful than his Active counterpart. Due to the nature of many reserve units, he or she will generally be a better troop leader than most active compatriots (Before you flame, realize that leading and commanding are different things. Also consider the reserve company commander may be 150 miles from his Bn CO, a situation many an active company commander has often wished for).
There is no doubt that more CA and PSYOP folks are needed, both active and reserve -- though the best CA assets will always be reservists due to the daily skill practice -- and there's no doubt that some AC assets need to be in position to accompany the General Purpose forces, not all should be SOF.Increasing the number of Active Duty CA and PSYOP, training the force on CA and PSYOP, and resourcing CA and PYSOP are certainly answers to some of these issues, in particular if a generalist in this arena can get things done. My observation is that sometimes you need a specialist and it is for this reason that CA and PSYOP reserve types are still around. Your mileage may vary.
Ken,
Also having been both sides of the house, one thing that Active side could do to gain some of the advantages of the reserve side is reduce the amount of movement from unit to unit. Keep people in a unit longer. The big advantage of the NG over active is that the soldiers know each other and how to work w/ each other and when they do have a deployment, that experience and knowledge stay w/ the unit for a long time. In the 41st BCT ORNG that I used to belong to, you could no longer tell the difference from prior service soldiers and those that had only served in the guard once we returned from OIF. Us prior service guys shouldered a lot of the weight early on, but this diminished fast. By the time we returned from Iraq, I would say that the M-day soldiers were every bit as skilled as the active side of the house.
Reed
I agree, Reed.
All your points are correct. Too much AC movement and the continuity in RC units gives them an edge in many things. I know some FA units that have six Chiefs of section in a Battery that have all been in that job over 15 years -- they are good!
BTW, by both sides, I meant Abn and SF; my RC time is more than limited and was over a half century ago -- but I did learn much about them from working with them for years in uniform and as a DAC.
We're all one Army...
Last edited by Ken White; 01-20-2009 at 06:33 PM.
off topic, I know, but I have respond to Reed
Having been on both sides of the house myself, I disagree with you. I think active duty has the right idea. It prevents buck SGTs from calling the 1SG by his first name after being in the same unit for 10 years (just what I experienced in the NG). In AC, just about the time that folks get TOO comfortable with each other, they move on.
On active duty, it is also possible for folks (NCOs in particular) to homestead on posts forever. My last 1SG had been at Campbell for 12 years, most of it in the same BCT and BN. There were several NCOs in my BN at Campbell that had been there for 5+ years.
Also consider that active duty work together every single day, as opposed to just drills. In my own experience, I developed much closer relationships with peers, superiors and subordinates much more quickly than I did in the Guard unit I was in for 4 year. Relationships forge quickly in the military, from what I've seen. Maybe they don't work and live in the same town like NG, but professionally, relationships on active duty flourish pretty quickly, IMO...it makes sense, you work with them everyday.The big advantage of the NG over active is that the soldiers know each other and how to work w/ each other and when they do have a deployment, that experience and knowledge stay w/ the unit for a long time.
I'm glad it went well for your unit. In theory, it should work that way. Not sure it ends up being that way across the board. Not sure if the NG/RC SOF dynamic works differently. With that being said, I never met a CA guy or PSYOPer that wasn't RC...In the 41st BCT ORNG that I used to belong to, you could no longer tell the difference from prior service soldiers and those that had only served in the guard once we returned from OIF. Us prior service guys shouldered a lot of the weight early on, but this diminished fast. By the time we returned from Iraq, I would say that the M-day soldiers were every bit as skilled as the active side of the house.
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
further off post...
To be honest that sounds more like culture shock then anything else to me (and believe me, I had it as well), how does a buck sergeant calling the Top "Bob" prevent him from effectively completing his mission exactly? Also keep in mind that it is more likely to be due A) poor discipline in a unit that only meets one weekend a month-two weeks a year or B) lowly SGT works w/ "Bob" the 1stSGT in the real world then because they have been in the same unit too long. As for your second point, that may be true, but you can't guarantee it, and how quality were those particular NCO's? If you have to sacrifice your commitment to the job in order to remain in a location (my experience w/ homesteading NCO's) then those soldiers are not very good examples of the benefits or liabilities of allowing for a more stable roster.
True, but personal relationships have little to do with effectively working together and placing the best person for the job in the job. I disliked several soldiers in my squad and even on my team, but I knew there strengths and weaknesses and could lead them effectively. My RTO had been an RTO for 3-4 years, on active duty they usually had been an RTO for less then 6 months.Also consider that active duty work together every single day, as opposed to just drills. In my own experience, I developed much closer relationships with peers, superiors and subordinates much more quickly than I did in the Guard unit I was in for 4 year. Relationships forge quickly in the military, from what I've seen. Maybe they don't work and live in the same town like NG, but professionally, relationships on active duty flourish pretty quickly, IMO...it makes sense, you work with them everyday.
Again CA is making a big recruiting push, so perhaps we will see that change. I would also guess that the culture shock between SF and RC is much less due to the SOF communities less formal operating mode to begin with. Of course I have never been or worked with the SF community, my knowledge is all second-hand through peers in the community.I'm glad it went well for your unit. In theory, it should work that way. Not sure it ends up being that way across the board. Not sure if the NG/RC SOF dynamic works differently. With that being said, I never met a CA guy or PSYOPer that wasn't RC...
Reed
We've had this discussion before so no sense in revisiting it
but if a 1SG is really competent he won't really care what SGT Heebly calls him, he will care how Heebly performs and if that's good, then Heebly can call him "SOB" and get away with it...
More to the point, that 'move on' bit also prevents a lot of accountability processes. For example; if one is a BC and has a mediocre 1SG (there are a lot of them about) but one knows the 1SG's leaving in six months, there is little incentive to fix the problem. If one is himself leaving in a few months, there's no incentive to get rid of bad apples that will not be moving with one.That propensity for staying tends to make one police the ranks a little better, poor performers get noticed and zapped......My last 1SG had been at Campbell for 12 years, most of it in the same BCT and BN. There were several NCOs in my BN at Campbell that had been there for 5+ years.
That's one factor that gives both the 82d and 101st a little bit better overall performance capability than many units (having said that, all units go through cycles -- I've seen both Divisions in sad shape).
Both sides of the AC / RC mix have good and bad points and traits, in the end, it's all about the quality of the people -- and, mostly, there is little difference between them and they're pretty good. For which we should all be thankful.
Are you saying the numbnuts who run CA have decided to grant an exception to Reserve Officers living overseas for the transition course? This is the kind of brain dead idiotic decisions that I'm familiar with vis-a-vis CA.As for 120mm's observations, some are valid and some not so. We in the CA community are looking for good, smart soldiers...send me a PM and I will get you linked up with someone who can help you sign up and then you can straighten things out.
My complaint about that dates back to earlier this year. I doubt it has changed since then. If CA cannot or will not recognize the unique asset that ex-pat Reserve Officers could potentially be, I have nothing for them. And if they think that it is reasonable for an ex-pat Reservist to give up their tax exempt status to rebranch CA, they are smoking weed.
And not thanks, I believe that CA is beyond straightening out. Making CA a branch was a mistake.
Goodness gracious! You're absolutely right! in fact, I think I'm going to book my vacation to the Sudan right now - I hear they've got wonderful beaches there.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks