Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Thread: Open Thread – Which US DoD Dinosaurs Would You Slay?

  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Open Thread – Which US DoD Dinosaurs Would You Slay?

    After 30-plus years in this business; I’ve come to the conclusion many, many times along the way; that the Department of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Services, and associated activities have an abundance of antiquated and dysfunctional commands, organizations, offices, programs, and processes. Go figure. With two-plus wars, an ungodly optempo and shrinking resources we really cannot afford the excess baggage anymore.

    I’d like to highlight some specifics in a potential Small Wars Journal article and SWJ Blog posting. I’d like this to be a Council effort and therefore asking our members to lay it out in this thread.

    The ground rules are:

    • Antiquated and/or dysfunctional commands, organizations, offices and processes that hinder progress and are high-impact. Not General Joe Blow “who didn’t get it” or a dysfunctional battalion in Operation ABC. Think big, critical, and long term.
    • Identify the problem, cite, and provide recommendations to correct – and be reasonable.
    • "Write" - don't ramble or bulletize.
    • For those who wish to remain anonymous – e-mail or PM me – as long as I can verify your authority to make such commentary and recommendations you can rest assured your identity “goes to the grave”.


    That is all.
    Last edited by SWJED; 01-24-2009 at 11:47 PM.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quick question:

    Are you asking only for things that we should be rid of completely or things that can be done better/reformed, or both?

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Here are 2 dinosaurs...

    My first follows from CPT Crispin Burke's op-ed in the Journal. He is railing there at an outdated education system coupled with a dysfunctional personnel system. My candidate for dinosaur is the latter in its OPMS XXI guise. While single tracking served to give more predictability to a career - FAOs, for example, could expect to retire as O5 or O6s rather than as Majors - but they will never again see stars. Surely, we can develop an officer personnel system that allows for dual tracking without destroying a career and gets some unique and desirable skills/experience into the GO ranks.

    My second candidate for dinosaur is the USAR (and by extension the AFR) - event though I was a USAR officer for 28+ years. The problem is that there is a significant redundancy in higher HQs. Why do we need a National Guard Bureau and an Army Reserve Command? COL (ret.) Charles Heller would argue that the USAR is a Federal Reserve while the NG is the state militia updated. But that argument has been proven false by the post-DS/DS use of the RC as operational reserves (if it ever was true). Merging the Guard and Reserve would be appropriate and, since the NG has constitutional status while the Reserves do not, then any merger must be into the NG. Might just get rid of a whole bunch of unneeded senior officers....

    Cheers

    JohnT

  4. #4
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    Quick question:

    Are you asking only for things that we should be rid of completely or things that can be done better/reformed, or both?
    Both.

  5. #5
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default training and manning

    First, I second John T. on the OPMS and would further it to include all "up or out" or "zero defect" policies. I could not find the exact orders (Ken??) but many of the orders stating that training, manning and fitness (readiness) are the responsibility and priority of the individual as opposed to the unit's responsibility. How we PTS and man units should be looked at from a clean slate as well. See, I don't ask for much!
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I'm giving Dave's request some serious thought.

    I came up with several things when I read his fist post in the thread this morning. My problem with all of them is that -- like OPMS and the USAR / ARNG problem (and I very much agree both are major problems) they're things that DoD or the service has had to based on either law or significant Congressional pressure.

    I'm not saying that all the inefficiencies can be laid at the feet of Congress; the Services are quite capable of doing some strange things but the really big things that immediately popped to mind are all Congressionally driven. I suspect that will make them difficult to change. I'd guess that, given the right rationale, change to OPMS would be attainable; change to NGB and the USARC are so deeply political I'm not sure they're adjustable.

    Difficult, however, is not impossible. Many things need to be changed and Congress can be strange but they also are not totally unreasonable. I think when we proffer a problem, the issue(s) that make(s) it a problem and recommend solution(s), we need to bear in mind that if the item has interest from the Hill, we'll need to give a rationale that they can or will accept and that accords with the legislative cycle.

    That is going to be time dependent. For example, many items in OPMS were pushed by Congress in an effort to be very fair to all concerned; to be fair to the point that they accepted degradation of effectiveness and officer competence and capability that resulted; that and the effort to be 'objective' in evaluations as opposed to subjective (as if that were possible...). Point is , a Republican majority just might revisit that 'fairness' angle, a Democratic majority is less likely to do so.

    I could cite some things in the Army enlisted promotion system but my spies tell me that is in flux right now. So the status of a system or process -- and very current knowledge of it -- and whether it's embedded or in flux can have an effect on what one recommends...

    I mention all that only as a mild caution...

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    I'm not saying that all the inefficiencies can be laid at the feet of Congress; the Services are quite capable of doing some strange things but the really big things that immediately popped to mind are all Congressionally driven. I suspect that will make them difficult to change.
    A lot of the stuff that immediately popped into my mind falls into that category, so I'm going to spend some time thinking about things that are politically realistic.

  8. #8
    Council Member ODB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    278

    Default Mine's not a dinosaur.

    That might be because I am, in comparison to what I would like to see disappear: Future Combat System. Sorry but IMO the technology they are looking to, to be the solution in my mind is not the solution. Only after we pump billions upon billions of dollars into it will we still not have the answer. By the time this thing is done it'll make current bail outs look like chump change. Take that money and apply it to the platform that needs it. The soldier train the soldier. No matter how much technology you throw at the soldier if he doesn't know how to properly employ it it will be useless. What do I need an exoskeleton for? Been done for hundreds of years without it. So I can carry more UAVs to see the battlefield from 10,000. The picture up there does not let me know the feeling on the ground. I know I'll need it to carry the amount of batteries it will take for me to keep all my stuff powered up. Replacing individual knowledge and skills with technology will not make us more effective, we will only become more dependent.

    In reality this may be just a smaller piece of the overall bigger process for the DOD and acquistions. I look back at all the blunders from the Commanche to the XM8 and the amount of money wasted. Not sure what the right answer is. One thought I have for say the next rifle. Form a committee of actual end users and experts to test and develop what we need not what someone so far removed from the fight thinks we need.

    By no means an expert here, just my perspective on one of the largest misuse of funds IMO. Would like to learn from those in the process how we can fix this. I'm sure at this point there is no pancea for it, but maybe we can stop some of the bleeding.
    ODB

    Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:

    Why did you not clear your corner?

    Because we are on a base and it is secure.

  9. #9
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Silos and redundancy...

    DOD is filled with information silos that do not like to talk to one another and many, many layers of redundant management and functions.

    Being a product of the American military system makes me think in terms of staff functions. Having worked for the Navy (DPW) I also think about the reasons for distinctions between Line (Restricted and Unrestricted) and Staff personnel.

    Do we really need all of the different Communications, Personnel, Finance, and Logistics systems (USA, USN, USAF, USMC, USCG, Reserves and Guard)? How about a single Civil Service for all of DOD? Finally, and nearest and dearest to my heart: a standardized communications platform run by a single CTO organization. We need to break down Information Silo’s within DOD.

    Imagine the possibilities with regards to unity of command, training, and economies of scale.

    I shudder to think of the screams of protest and howls of outrage...
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 01-24-2009 at 11:21 PM.
    Sapere Aude

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Ken, you are right

    that many issues discussed here are major Congressional rice bowls. But, that is precisely the reason I phrased my proposal on merging the reserves (Army & AF) into the NG, not the other way around. There are precisely 100 Senators who have an interest in the NG along with 435 representatives and a bunch of non-voting Delegates. There is no such unanimous constituency for the Reserves. Nor are all reservists supportive of a separate Reserve. So, I really think you could win on this one.

    Regarding OPMS: I was still teaching at Leavenworth when OPMS XXI was being developed there. Based on what I saw, I don't believe there was much, if any, Congressional influence on most of the issues and changes made. It seems to me that this was - and is - largely a case of bureaucratic politics internal to the services as institutions. So, here's one where, in the immortal words of Albert the Alligator (of Pogo Possum fame), "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

    Cheers

    JohnT

  11. #11
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True. But -- he said...

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
    that many issues discussed here are major Congressional rice bowls. But, that is precisely the reason I phrased my proposal on merging the reserves (Army & AF) into the NG, not the other way around... So, I really think you could win on this one.
    Based on what you said, I agree. Then we get to the two 250 pound Orangutans -- the active Army and AF. Are they likely to agree to A Reserve component that is quite a bit larger than they are? I think that goes back to why there was ever a Medical Officer Reserve then an ORC that morphed into today's animal. I think it also points, again, to Congress -- if the majority of people (read: Voters) are with the RC, then Congress will favor the RC; the AC Generals know that...

    They're also sharp enough to get the Hamiltonians (who want big, all powerful federal guvmint) on their side and those people, in Congress, will undetected if possible short circuit their States to enhance federal power -- or, in this case, support the Federal entity as opposed to the State entity

    However, note also that while Congress can do really pretty much whatever it wants, the Constitution says they are empowered:
    ". . .
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ..."


    Note that they can pass laws about the Militia and can provide for calling them out -- and as you know, they sort of ignored the Constitution and said the NG was the Militia, the Constitution does not -- but as you know they can raise and support Armies (plural -- and thus the U.S. Army and that other organization, the Army of the United States) but must provide and maintain a Navy.

    The point is that Congress has been taken to court for ignoring the Constitution or twisting it to their benefit and that could happen if they play with the status quo to a too great extent. Not saying you're wrong or should not push the issue, just reminding you that it's a very complex bucket with a somewhat muddy history and many competing and highly vested interests.
    Regarding OPMS:...Based on what I saw, I don't believe there was much, if any, Congressional influence on most of the issues and changes made.
    May not have been, not that familiar with OPMS XXI -- I am however very familiar with DOPMA, know the principal author and am pretty sure that that the 'changes made' you mention were those rom DOPMA to OPMS -- and DOPMA was very much a Congressional baby. Further, OPMS was not able to change many of the legislated elements of DOPMA (Though I've been told the Army wanted to do that).

    Not trying to rain on your parade, John, really -- but just reminding you that the tentacles of Congress are awfully deep and sometimes hidden.
    Last edited by Ken White; 01-25-2009 at 01:04 AM.

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default As usual, Ken

    we agree more than disagree. While I still think that a concerted effort to merge the Reserve into the NG would succeed, (1) I know that the opposite would fail before it even got off the ground as it has on several past occasions, and (2) that it would be harder to accomplish than I first thought for the reasons you posit.

    Of course, DOPMA is the authority for the implementation of any internal system like OPMS. Changing DOPMA would, I think, be harder to do than tampering with the Reserves, except at the margins. But internal implementation policies and regulations - like OPMS - don't usually engage the interest of the Congress. When I discuss OPMS XXI, I talk about the FAO program because I know it and because it is a great case of both positive change and negative unintended consequences. I really did not enjoy having to tell promotible captains who were thinking about FAO that they were risking retiring as Majors. But it was my obligation to do so because it was unfair to them to let them think that their decision would not affect their careers. So, the plus side of OPMS XXI was that it made the career more predictable for the vast majority of FAOs. It even improved their chances for promotion to Colonel. That said, it was negative for the Army because it deprived the institution of the services of some really outstanding talent at the GO level because FAOs were never going to be looked at and had not done anything in their basic branch since they were Captains. (An example of a successful dual tracked FAO/MI officer pre- OPMS XXI was MG John Stewart who became Southcom J2 because of both his FAO and MI qualifications. Today's John Stewarts will retire as Colonels.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  13. #13
    Council Member Xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    MCB Quantico
    Posts
    119

    Default Real quick

    I want to second the motion to slay the Future Combat System, and add the people who came up with it as well. (Figuratively, of course)

  14. #14
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default You, as usual, are correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
    we agree more than disagree.

    ...Changing DOPMA would, I think, be harder to do than tampering with the Reserves, except at the margins. But internal implementation policies and regulations - like OPMS - don't usually engage the interest of the Congress.
    True, forgot that aspect. The rest of your comment is distressingly true and there a couple of other winners in OPMS needing a 21st Century thought process applied...

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Speaking as someone who never served above the battalion level (I don't mean to brag)...

    Get rid of all of those ankle-biter company-level programs, like safety officer/NCO; just a waste of time that gets pencil-whipped prior to command inspections and takes leaders away from more important things (like time with their Soldiers) so that they can attend 40-hour courses on whatever additional duty they are "responsible for" and fabricate a 3-ring binder full of paperwork.

    Those programs exist and have company-level personnel responsible for them because that is what Army Regulation dictates. Change the regulations. It is a tremendous drain upon companies that forces them into one of two alternatives: 1) obey the regulation and suffer the consequences of leaders being distracted from their work or being absent to attend random 40-hour courses -OR- 2) disobey the regulations in order to sustain actual readiness (versus paper readiness).

  16. #16
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    175

    Default company level programs

    I agree they are a drain on manpower, and often an annoyance, but what does not get checked, does not get done. As an XO during a Corps ORA, and then the BN OIC for a BN CI, most of these regs are not followed to the letter, and are too much detail for a BN to track. If company level reps didn't take the courses, do the paperwork, and "enforce" the regs, it definately would not get done. I don't know a better alternative, other than eliminating regs, but like most things in the Army, they probably exist for a good reason. Just because leaders are not enforcing the regs does not mean they don't serve a purpose. I hate the term eat the elephant one bit at a time (due to overuse in my unit), but if leaders actually worked their areas over the course of the year, not just during inspection prep, it would not be overwhelming. Units probably waste/lose more time going into inspection prep where all other training ceases.

    Don't know if it is a dinosaur per se, but stop changing uniforms for no good reason. The backlash against the new blue Army uniform continues, but doubt it will change anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Speaking as someone who never served above the battalion level (I don't mean to brag)...

    Get rid of all of those ankle-biter company-level programs, like safety officer/NCO; just a waste of time that gets pencil-whipped prior to command inspections and takes leaders away from more important things (like time with their Soldiers) so that they can attend 40-hour courses on whatever additional duty they are "responsible for" and fabricate a 3-ring binder full of paperwork.

    Those programs exist and have company-level personnel responsible for them because that is what Army Regulation dictates. Change the regulations. It is a tremendous drain upon companies that forces them into one of two alternatives: 1) obey the regulation and suffer the consequences of leaders being distracted from their work or being absent to attend random 40-hour courses -OR- 2) disobey the regulations in order to sustain actual readiness (versus paper readiness).
    "What do you think this is, some kind of encounter group?"
    - Harry Callahan, The Enforcer.

  17. #17
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by patmc View Post
    I agree they are a drain on manpower, and often an annoyance, but what does not get checked, does not get done. As an XO during a Corps ORA, and then the BN OIC for a BN CI, most of these regs are not followed to the letter, and are too much detail for a BN to track. If company level reps didn't take the courses, do the paperwork, and "enforce" the regs, it definately would not get done. I don't know a better alternative, other than eliminating regs, but like most things in the Army, they probably exist for a good reason. Just because leaders are not enforcing the regs does not mean they don't serve a purpose. I hate the term eat the elephant one bit at a time (due to overuse in my unit), but if leaders actually worked their areas over the course of the year, not just during inspection prep, it would not be overwhelming. Units probably waste/lose more time going into inspection prep where all other training ceases.

    Don't know if it is a dinosaur per se, but stop changing uniforms for no good reason. The backlash against the new blue Army uniform continues, but doubt it will change anything.
    After some thought, I think I agree with patmc on this one even if though I really like what schmedlap is saying. I think what would really help would be allowing officers to spend more then a year in a position Nowhere in the real world are you mandated to get a new job title every year.
    Reed
    Last edited by reed11b; 01-25-2009 at 04:37 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by patmc View Post
    I agree they are a drain on manpower, and often an annoyance, but what does not get checked, does not get done.
    I would further assert that what gets checked also, often, does not get done. It just gets fabricated. I'm not defending it - I'm just pointing it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by patmc View Post
    If company level reps didn't take the courses, do the paperwork, and "enforce" the regs, it definately would not get done. I don't know a better alternative, other than eliminating regs, but like most things in the Army, they probably exist for a good reason.
    You and I part ways at the word "probably." I think one can see why they exist by reading the article linked in this thread. Someone gets a bright idea and the authority to implement it to its fullest and they get so focused on their specific issue that they start to think it is the most important issue out there. Suddenly you've got someone in the Pentagon dictating the implementation of some administrative nightmare that reaches its tentacles all the way down to the company/battery/troop level.

    The COIN/conventional debate seems to assume that we are not able to train on both, due to time constraints and limitations on how many trades jack can be a master of. I think we far exceed those limitations when it comes to administrative programs. Just because we ensure that one NCO and/or officer in each unit is an "SME" on a program, that doesn't mean that the Soldiers in that unit will be any more capable of processing the slew of rules and regulations foisted upon them. It just means that 50 "SMEs" will be bugging them about 50 sets of rules that they cannot possibly remember. I don't see how you can get adequate enforcement of those volumes of regs without taking away from mission-oriented proficiency. I also don't see how we expect Officers to faithfully execute the 8 to 10 additional duties that they are saddled with, without detracting significantly from their other more important work. Realistically speaking, they don't. And I've never seen a commander get upset about it.

    "Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember that time I took a home wine making course and forgot how to drive?" - Homer Simpson

  19. #19
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by patmc View Post
    I agree they are a drain on manpower, and often an annoyance, but what does not get checked, does not get done. As an XO during a Corps ORA, and then the BN OIC for a BN CI, most of these regs are not followed to the letter, and are too much detail for a BN to track. If company level reps didn't take the courses, do the paperwork, and "enforce" the regs, it definately would not get done. I don't know a better alternative, other than eliminating regs, but like most things in the Army, they probably exist for a good reason. Just because leaders are not enforcing the regs does not mean they don't serve a purpose. I hate the term eat the elephant one bit at a time (due to overuse in my unit), but if leaders actually worked their areas over the course of the year, not just during inspection prep, it would not be overwhelming. Units probably waste/lose more time going into inspection prep where all other training ceases.

    Don't know if it is a dinosaur per se, but stop changing uniforms for no good reason. The backlash against the new blue Army uniform continues, but doubt it will change anything.
    But here is the problem identified by Shmed ...

    Dr. Lenny Wong "Stifled Innovation?" Strategic Studies Institute, 2002. A MUST READ if you haven't before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wong Study
    Of the 365 days in the year, approximately 109 days are unavailable for training due to weekends, federal holidays, payday activities, and the Christmas half-day schedule. This results in a total of about 256 available days for company commanders to plan and execute training.

    Requirements for mandatory training at the company level riginate from Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training, policy letters, command training guidance, and other directives. Scrubbing all levels of command down to the Brigade level, to include Department of the Army, Major Army Command (MACOM), Corps, Division, and installation level, for anything that generates a training requirement results in the identification of over 100 distinct training requirements. Table 1 shows a partial listing of the requirements.

    ... Note that, as expected, most directedmission-related training requirements come from Division-level or below. More importantly, most directed nonmission-related training requirements originate from DA and MACOM levels. This is critical since policy actions may be most effective in reducing the DA and MACOM requirements.

    Incorporating the amount of time necessary to execute each directed training requirement (for example, training on “The Benefits of an Honorable Discharge” takes about 60 minutes a year) results in approximately 297 days of directed training.

    Of the 297 days, about 85 percent (or 254 training days) is mission-related training and 15 percent (or 43 training days) is nonmission-related training.

    The number of days required by all mandatory training directives literally exceeds the number of training days available to company commanders. Company commanders somehow have to fit 297 days of mandatory requirements into 256 available training days.
    When you do this, and the chain of command expects it all done, you get integrity problems. I too shared Schmedlap's late 90's experience of personally observing flat out falsification of reports to meet this unattainable standard. It was a big reason for the exodus of CPTs in the 94-97 year groups before 9/11, given in the Army's 2001 study on officer attrition.

    Unfortunately, It took a war to get this shoved out the window. (for now)
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  20. #20
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default Get back in the box!

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophon View Post
    I want to second the motion to slay the Future Combat System, and add the people who came up with it as well. (Figuratively, of course)
    I'd second this if you get rid of the "Land Warrior" thing as well. The whole FCS thing is based on failing to understand the combined arms approach, and letting engineers think "outside the box." The box exists for good reason and often you need a better box, not the the box you are currently in.

    Classic example is the Stryker Brigade concept where the US Army ended up with a good answer to a problem, that did not exist so had to be invented to get the SBCT as the answer, which is very far from a good solution, though has some excellent traits.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

Similar Threads

  1. 5th Anniversary of 9-11 – Open Thread
    By SWJED in forum Miscellaneous Goings On
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-14-2006, 07:07 PM
  2. Open History and Education Thread...
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-25-2006, 12:58 PM

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
  •