Open Thread – Which US DoD Dinosaurs Would You Slay?

[Ken White]

First a request -- try to avoid posting lengthy quotes, to avoid copyright issue and to conserve bandwidth, it's better to provide a link if at all possible,

Also the National Guard exists as one of the last vestiges of The Sovereign State, which edifice of history the post Lincolnian, post Dick Act Federal Government remedied by eliminating their officers in 1933. Today all NG Os are actually AR Os assigned to NG units which seems to mean that during peacetime deployments (ref: US Constitution, The "wartime" clause) they have a different Commander-in-chief from the Soldiers they lead.

I'm not sure that's totally correct. As you know, they are Officers of the Army of the United States (AUS); one of the Armies (plural) the Constitution says that Congress may raise and fund. The AUS as opposed to the USA (as in US Army, the regular army that Congress has also raised and funded) consists of the ArNG (for Federal purposes), the USAR and the USA.

The issue of a 'declared' war is IMO a false one. Forces committed to combat operations constitute a war and if the Congress funds it, they have declared it a war; if, as is true for the current fights, Congress has passed a Resolution authorizing force then they effectively declared war. Thus, ArNG troops federalized for deployments have the same CinC as their Officers; the President.

Very significant however is the fact that every Governor disagrees with every President on who controls the National Guard. Yes; including Clinton & GW Bush disagreeing with themselves on they day they moved from the Governor's Mansion to The White House.

It is a fact though we disagree on its significance. The Governors are entitled to their opinions and political preferences but my suspicion is that as long as the US Government pays in excess of 80% of the costs of the ArNG, Congress and the Courts will not be sympathetic. Membership in the ArNG is totally voluntary; anyone who was in the Guard in early 2003 should have been able to see what was going to occur as sholud anyone who joined the Guard since 2003. The Governors have no case -- political pleading, yes; legitimate complaint, no.

That said, it is my opinion that the Guard has been misused to an extent in all this; that many Guardsmen and reservists have suffered due unexpected short notice and lengthy deployments and that the Guard has done a great job.

The State Control has been a big issue in OIF, although mostly in smoky back rooms. I assert that the Governor's collectively refusing "combat" assignments for their respective forces led Pres. GW Bush to begin de-escalation & Iraqification here, among other variables.

I strongly doubt that but do not know.

The name "National Guard" is at once an homage to our French co-liberators of 1783 & a rather deceptive indicator of non-ownership.

Let me remind you that the Constitution requires Congress:

"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;"

Seems to me that clearly states that Congress is to pay for a Militia -- and that said payment allows them to specify when the Militia may be called up for Federal duties AND that Congress may prescribe the training regimen. I'll remind you that the National Guard wanted to be the "Militia" and lobbied hard for the Dick Act; Dick himself being a MG in the Ohio Guard. That may be an example of "be careful what you want, you may get it."

Governor v. President arguments usually happen like this:
. . .
Gov: Well then if that's how it is why don't you finance them ?

Pres: I'm sorry I'm late for a.......meeting. Say hello to your family for me.

I think you should do a great deal of research into what share of your peacetime support is paid by your State (not counting add-ons like free College and other benefits that the State Guard got through the legislators) and what is paid by the Federal government. That guy at your State Headquarters is, after all, the 'US Property and Fiscal Officer,' not the ____P&FO

I feel this controversey was at work in the GW Bush administration's odd decision to defrock the US global military zone commander's of the title Commander-in-chief in favor of Combatant Commander which isn't even accurate or logical.

That wasn't the Administration, that was the then SecDef; his idea -- I ignored him, I still call them CinCs as did and do a great number of people.

To those who keep saying there's only 1 C-in-c now might I be so bold as to say actually 58 ?

Sarah Palin agrees with you. I agree with you -- until the guard is Federalized; then there's one Cinc at the top and the Joint Command Cincs a little lower.

In previous wars (again we could discuss whether we're at "war" per se Tm: Now) the Guardsmen were not federalized, not deployed, not op-conned, not called forth, not called up but "Drafted" into The National Army, WWI, or The Army of The United States, WWII, Korea, Viet-Nam; distinct from the United States Army, or regular Army. The Army of The United States is what AUS stands for.

Terminology varies widely and can be confusing. Facts matter. Like it or not, the US is involved in a war that the Congress has funded, it is thus deemed legal by most. You and others may not agree but you're a small minority. ArNGg units have been activated, deployed and done well. If you do not agree with that, it would seem your decision might be to leave the ArNG at the earliest legal opportunity. No sense staying in an organization that you believe is being wronged when it is a voluntary organization.

Seperately, I was highly offended by the statement: "People used to join the Guard for just that reason: to stay out of the regular Army that got shipped overseas and not used to bolster a destroyed dying military the way they are used now in Iraq"

I agree, that's offensive to me on several counts.

The States have lost so much power in the last century; most significantly the power of electing Senators; this is part of what leads to controversies like The Blogojevich Senate Auction & The Kennedy-Schlossberg Campaign for one vote & similar nonsense due to the Constitution being stood on its head in 1917 in order to even further advance Federal Totalitarianism.

Possibly true but that wanders off thread, into political territory and this is not a political board. Political aspects pertaining to war fighting are fair game, general politics should be left outside.

So needless to say the Governor's are in no rush to give up their National Guard Units.

I suspect some senior people in the Regular Army would like to see the ArNG absorbed by the USAR. Others would like to see both disappear and the resources they consume devoted to the Army. Neither of those things is likely to occur so I imagine that regular Army agrees with Governors; lets keep our Guard.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

totally agree Flournoy is an excellent choice for USD(P) but I think her real experience was perhaps better suited for the position of DSD (plus she has no 'big defense contractor stink' on her. IMHO anyone considered for a senior position in defense should recuse themselves if they have worked in any capacity for any of the top 10 defense contractor in the last five years, is it just me, or is it smart to let the wolves guard the henhouse?). At CSIS she cowrote BGN I & II and as DSD could actually have seen them put into effect quicker, although her position in USD(P) is also well placed for that, assuming POTUS, the SD, and DSD agree. While her ASD experience certainly makes her familiar with the inner workings of the building it is her subsequent work with CSIS and CNAS that IMO really saw her rise to the top.

I did note the the USDs should remain PASs since they are PSAs to the SD/DSD. It's the appointments beneath them that should not be political. Two reasons, one is that while they work for the SD they don't always feel that they answer to him. Second, RAND and CSIS studies have shown the average turnover in politicals is about 2.5 years. Not an effective way to provide leaderhip and governance for a vast enterprise that functions like a small country (as Sec Gates has noted).

Some of the career folks can additionally be a part of the problem since they are usually aware of the 2.5 year average and will take the stance that they can slow roll many issues until the political appointee leaves, then just let it die.

I have little faith my congressman would change things, but Jim Webb might.

Plus I might be in a better spot than either of them.

[Ken White]

and Senator (and the Pres, while you're at it). DOD political appointees(about 1300 in all) are there because the Congress and the Executive want them. they want to make sure the President's (and Congress') policies are followed and not misinterpreted by the permanent bureaucracy (civilian and uniformed) as happened in DS/DS with the PSRC. One of Pres Obama's best appointments, IMO, is Michelle Flournoy as USD-Policy. But where do you think she got her experience that qualified her for the post? In the Clinton Administration she was a DASD and Principal DASD (political appointments just below the level of Senate confirmation). So, there is reason for the political appointments as they stand, whether we agree or not. (BTW, the Brits do it kind of like you suggest but their career civil service has far more power than ours does.)

Totally correct and unlikely to change. Sadly.

The 'however' above is for the fact that all of them -- as often happens -- put a band aid on a festering problem which affects not only DoD but most government agencies and particularly including that agency -- politicization.

The Federal Civil service is bureaucratically constrained from doing a good job by a mass of conflicting laws and regulations. It has also become politicized in several senses of that word but one dangerous trend which Congress has fostered with well intentioned (mostly...) but dumb laws is their penchant for inertia and keeping the comfort of the status quo by simply stalling or obstructing, item dependent, until the political climate changes or sheer exhaustion overtakes those with a policy sensed by the SES types as 'wrong.' it makes little difference to them whether the grounds are moral, practical or a delusion -- they had the power to affect it because they're almost un-fireable.

Attempts to change that in many Administrations were thwarted by Congress on several grounds but the real issue is protecting congressional sources and pets in the CS system plus cozying up to the employee Unions and Associations (most of which are de facto Unions).

The correct solution is to fix Civil Service and hold the SES accountable. Those about 1300 appointees in DoD are matched by broadly similar numbers on a pro rata basis throughout the government and not only is their quality in many cases (Paul D. Wolfowitz, Douglas J. Feith.Michael D. Brown, George C. Deutsch, George Tenet, John M. Deutch and a host of others...) quite poor, the rotation factor and resultant lack of continuity is literally dangerous -- and inimical to every new Administration.

Not smart...

(Yes, I know some of those were in the 'ought to be Presidential appointee in all cases' category -- but all of them got their start in lower level jobs and went on to prove the Peter Principle works in later administrations.)

[Bullmoose Bailey]

I'm not sure that's totally correct. As you know, they are Officers of the Army of the United States (AUS); one of the Armies (plural) the Constitution says that Congress may raise and fund. The AUS as opposed to the USA (as in US Army, the regular army that Congress has also raised and funded) consists of the ArNG (for Federal purposes), the USAR and the USA.

.

Very good commentary, sir. Am in agreement on the "War Declaration", State Control & The C-in-c titular roles.

Also FYI: There has not been an AUS since 1975.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_United_States

[Ken White]

Also FYI: There has not been an AUS since 1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_United_States

Other than those who are still around who retired with AUS behind their name...

Quiescent until the Draft is reinstituted -- thus hopefully, never...

[Schmedlap]

As far as processes, my pet peeve as a Company XO was our antiquated ULLS procedures. As recently as 2006, my supply sergeant and I were hand-carrying 3.5" floppy disks and dot-matrix printouts (you know, the ones that you tear the edges of the paper off?) from our ULLS clerks, who typed on what appeared to be circa. 1995 486 computers running MS-DOS 5.0, to place our orders. Unfrickingbelieveable.

[Ken White]

from the World War II model but the Cl IX / ULLS process has not advanced from the Ford Motor Company parts supply to Dealers that McNamara imposed on DoD in 1962. It has never worked well, it has always been a burden -A training personnel and logistic burden) and has not done what it was supposed to do; provide an easy audit trail for the Bean counters. It is particularly bad at handling demand surges due to increased OpTempo; it can take almost a year to react with some items. We were able to afford that dealy in OEF /OIF -- will we be able to in future deployments?

Bad system. Why, then, is it still here? Inertia. Our training has progressed a bit but all of our 'systems' are way out of date and changes are resisted not because they don't make sense -- but because some are worried about erring, some about 'accountability' and others are worried about turf. Dumb.

We've been talking about 'just in time logistics,' cutting out middlemen and some good experiments have taken place -- no big changes though; "change BAD..."

Yeah, I know it costs -- everything does. Costs less if you do it right instead of doing it due to a false sense of saving money...

[Entropy]

Here's the short version of the longer post that was eaten by the internet ghouls:

Two basic concepts: standardization and centralization of some tasks/activities.

Move all ancillary training to a computer-based system that is centrally tracked. Servicemembers can complete the training online around their own schedules and on their own time - even at home. The system would track progress and send alerts when it's time for refresher training. This solves the problems of pencil-whipping training for inspection purposes and actually makes inspections much easier since there's no paperwork.

The Air Force has the beginnings of this kind of system now and is expanding it. At first I was skeptical, but it's been a huge time-saver for those of us in the Reserve and Guard components. No longer do we have to spend 1-2 UTA's a year on mass-gaggle, death-by-powerpoint training evolutions.

It also has the potential to limit the paperwork hassles where someone's "additional" duty ends up becoming their de facto primary duty. With a central computer-based system, there's no paperwork to track or go out of date, or have the wrong signature when a supervisor or commander changes. There's no three-ring-binder to get lost. When a servicemember changes units, he/she doesn't have re accomplish all the training he/she just did a couple of months ago in the old unit.

I see no reason why all training can't be tracked and managed this way. Not only does it ease the paperwork burden, but it also pushes responsibility downward.

A lot of similar benefits could be had by using centralized service or DoD systems for stuff besides training. In particular I'm thinking of medical and personnel records. As someone who had to go through the ass-pain caused by the personnel section losing my record (and having to rebuild it), I am all in favor of making them fully electronic. Make it possible to conduct most personnel actions online. Too often I've gone to the personnel section to find they're closed or "in training" that day and are unable to help me.

All that little queep takes a lot of time when added up - time best spent on real, substantive training. It also helps reduce the cost of support - with online records one doesn't need as many personnelists, for example.

The DoD could use a lot more standardization, especially since we are increasingly joint. Make standardized officer and enlisted evaluation forms - better yet, make it all online. It's not uncommon nowadays to have people from one service (ore even civilians) writing evaluations for someone from another service. I've seen good people get unjustifiably sub-par evals simply because their rater didn't understand the arcana of another service's system. A standardized format would be a good start toward preventing that

SIPRnet. I've said it before and I'll say it again - SIPRnet sucks. Especially for those areas of greatest importance for our current operations. The websites for many of the major players constantly and needlessly change format. A new unit or new commander comes in (and maybe someone needs an eval bullet), so the entire site gets redesigned. Usually the designs are unintuitive and difficult to navigate, not to mention they also confuse search engines and break links on other sites and our bookmark files, making it frequently impossible to find information.

Some units put out products on their own sites at lower levels, some do not. Some use password protection to horde their information, while the unit next door does not. All this taken together creates a ton of wasted effort and frustration, not to mention operational danger due to the high chance of missing some important piece of information.

And let's not get started on wasted bandwidth from poor site design (5mb logos on each page makes my slow connection cry)

What SIPR needs is some standardization and enforced continuity with an eye toward easing information exchange. Standardize site design and especially site organization. Mandate creating low-bandwidth versions of sites and/or important products. There's no reason I should have to download a gig of powerpoint slides every morning to figure out what's gone on in theater and my AO in the last 24 hours. Archive everything and maintain PERSISTENT links so search engines can archive it and links and bookmarks don't break. Each unit that is capable of producing information of operational or intelligence value should be given a turn-key sipr space to put their products and to keep them there.

Finally, there's procurement, which everyone agrees is a huge problem. Here's what needs to happen in my perfect world:

First, restrict the services so they are only able to buy equipment with technology that has already been developed. Currently, procurement programs are no longer about procurement - they are bloated R&D, creeping requirements sinkholes. In short, R&D and procurement must be separated.

Second, we have Darpa that does basic research in high-risk/high payoff areas. We need more of that, but more importantly, we need another Darpa-like agency that would do the R&D and engineering to take a promising technology to maturation. The services would provide their wish lists of capabilities, which would then be prioritized and developed.

Third, once those technologies reach some point of maturation, THEN they can be purchased by the services. This should reduce costs considerably as well as provide a lot less risk of a capability gap.

That's enough for now I think!

[Schmedlap]

Move all ancillary training to a computer-based system that is centrally tracked. Servicemembers can complete the training online around their own schedules and on their own time - even at home. The system would track progress and send alerts when it's time for refresher training. This solves the problems of pencil-whipping training for inspection purposes and actually makes inspections much easier since there's no paperwork.

I was in a unit that did this and my experience was entirely negative - but it was largely organizational culture, rather than a technical issue. However, that is why I oppose it - the Army organizational culture will repeat what I saw.

By making this training so easy to issue out, suddenly, it began to multiply. I must have completed 6 different anti-terrorism/force protection "training" modules online. Why 6 instead of 1? Because someone on staff kept finding new training available online and there was a general consensus that more is better. "Look at all of the training we've completed! And here's the documentation!" Everyday that I showed up at work, it seemed like we had two or three more of these time-wasters that would eat up 30 minutes each if you did them correctly. If you did them incorrectly, well, you could finger-drill it in 5 minutes. But, in that case, what is the point?

Most of the "training" consisted of disinterested Soldiers clicking through the modules as quickly as possible and largely guessing or taking educated guesses on the questions at the end, having neither listened to nor read the material. It was the ultimate finger drill.

I will say that allowing Soldiers to click-through and finger-drill many of these things on their own time is preferable to gathering them in one location for a full hour and having them sleep through a briefing. However, the former does not preclude the latter. On my last deployment, we deployed as small teams, so we were required to go through SRC (there's a lengthy gripe for another day). We brought all of the documentation with us of the click-through finger-drills that we did to satisfy our SRC briefing requirements. Didn't matter. We still had to sit through the briefings. So it did not save one minute of our time.

[Entropy]

Schmedlap,

I've seen the same sorts of failed efforts as well. What changed my opinion on the new Air Force system is that it is run at the service level, so idea fairies can't tack-on extra training and there is continuity no matter where you are.

I also hear you with regard to clicking through as fast as possible. I would only point out that some variation of that is going to happen regardless of how the training is given. The tests at the end are not difficult, but are sufficiently rigorous to ensure individuals know the important stuff. With the mass-gaggle briefings we had before, there was no testing at all - only an attendance record. So some kind of test is to demonstrate some level of knowledge is an improvement, IMO. The ability to click through to the end and take the test is a benefit as well since many people already know the subject and don't need to get into it in great detail. If they pass the test then that just shows they remember all the key points. If they don't, they have to go back and relearn.

[Steve Blair]

Schmedlap,

I've seen the same sorts of failed efforts as well. What changed my opinion on the new Air Force system is that it is run at the service level, so idea fairies can't tack-on extra training and there is continuity no matter where you are.

I also hear you with regard to clicking through as fast as possible. I would only point out that some variation of that is going to happen regardless of how the training is given. The tests at the end are not difficult, but are sufficiently rigorous to ensure individuals know the important stuff. With the mass-gaggle briefings we had before, there was no testing at all - only an attendance record. So some kind of test is to demonstrate some level of knowledge is an improvement, IMO. The ability to click through to the end and take the test is a benefit as well since many people already know the subject and don't need to get into it in great detail. If they pass the test then that just shows they remember all the key points. If they don't, they have to go back and relearn.

Uh...we're seeing issues with some of this in AETC. Good to hear that it's working in other places, though.

[Entropy]

Uh...we're seeing issues with some of this in AETC. Good to hear that it's working in other places, though.

My perspective on this is as a reservist/guardsman. We have very limited training time, so freeing up two days every year has, imo, a significant impact on what we're able to accomplish. The benefit for active duty isn't going to be as big and certainly the system isn't perfect, but I still see it as an overall improvement.

For another example, there is the information assurance training needed to get computer accounts. When I go TDY, and need a local account, my IA certificate is good at any AF unit. Previously, in many cases I'd have to do some kind of local or majcom-driven training at my TDY location to get an account.

We can debate the benefits of this specific case, but overall, I think a general move toward putting and tracking stuff online is worth the downsides.

[Steve Blair]

I agree that it's a good idea. AETC just has a tendency to over-complicate some things and not necessarily communicate them in an optimal manner. Hopefully they'll get the snags sorted out soon.

[Entropy]

I agree that it's a good idea. AETC just has a tendency to over-complicate some things and not necessarily communicate them in an optimal manner. Hopefully they'll get the snags sorted out soon.

No disagreement there. I don't know what it is about training commands, but they spend too much time on nitnoid crap. I saw the same thing in the Navy. Take lunches as just one example. For pipeliners post-boot training is a lot like boot. For lunch they have to form up and march to the chow hall. Everyone does this at roughly the same time, so they all arrive at the same time. It takes forever for them to get their chow and eat it. Then they form back up and march back to class. The whole evolution can take two hours. What a waste of time. No effort is made to either stagger arrival times at the chow hall or take some other measure so that lunch can be accomplished in an hour or less. When you're talking a six-month course, like the enlisted intel school, an hour a day adds up.

[ODB]

leads to nothing more than 1 person doing everyone's "mandatory" training. I see the benefits, but why do I need to take the same exact terrorism awareness course yearly? The same OPSEC courses? Bottom line, do it once then have shorten bulleted refresher courses.

I am not a fan of everything being moved to "distance learning". Sorry but the Army does not do a good job of putting good products together for these courses. My experience has been that I learn more from my peers than my instructors due to the constraints of the POI. Everyone says do it on your own time. I already use my own time to stay in shape, to become a SME or attempt to, and to pursue my college degree.

Above all when would I have time to add my .02 cents to these boards?

[Entropy]

I think the question of whether we should have a particular piece of training is one that is separate from how that, or any other, training might be managed. Like you, SFC B, I certainly have no love for a lot of the ancillary training out there, but as long as it remains a requirement I think that putting it online is the least bad option. Truly important training, for obvious reasons, should not be given online, but I think there are benefits to be had from moving the training management online.

[Courtney Massengale]

I would completely remove the current standards for gunnery/crew qualification for all weapons systems and replace them with a system that allows for input by Commanders.

Our ranges – from the M16 to the Abrams – are rote, unchanging, scripted exercises in play-acting instead of marksmanship. This has been addressed a dozen times in my career without any action. Everyone agrees that it needs to change, but nobody can seem to come up with a new standard.

I propose that the Army develop a core series of tasks for each weapon, then allow Commanders down to the Battalion level to decide which ones are required to qualify a Soldier, much in the same way you develop a METL. This would allow for differentiation between unit types (Light Infantry vs Heavy Mech) and also for METT-TC (Korea vs Iraq vs TRADOC).

For the "table" systems, this would train crews for what the unit's mission entailed; not tasks they will never do in combat. For example, the M1 Abrams: There could be a Korea-specific tank gunnery that focuses on firing from slopes. An urban gunnery that focuses on the crew serve weapons. And of course the standard gunnery but with different types, frequencies and distances for targets to shape crews proficiency.

This system would also do away with the requirement to "unqualify" a crew if it didn't meet specific manning gateways. The entire notion of "minimally manned and combat capable" is a joke. Either they can accomplish the mission with what they have or they can't. This would allow a less than fully manned crew to "prove" that they were qualified on the tasks their Commander views as essential.

[reed11b]

My peer and I were discussing what we liked and disliked about the Army the other day and I brought up my disagreements on unit manning and training and up or out. My peer stated "The Army does not do units, it does temporary collections of individuals." I think that sums it up about perfectly.
Reed

[Schmedlap]

Our ranges – from the M16 to the Abrams – are rote, unchanging, scripted exercises in play-acting instead of marksmanship. This has been addressed a dozen times in my career without any action. Everyone agrees that it needs to change, but nobody can seem to come up with a new standard.

I kind of cracked the code on that when I was an S-3. It took weeks of haggling with range control, enough memos to kill 3 ink cartridges and a forest of trees, a bunch of signatures, and enough BS to fill in the hole at ground zero, but we managed to inject a little bit of spontaneity, training value, and variety into our ranges and cut back on the safety-gone-wild. Obviously, this is not the preferred long-term solution, but it can be done.

When I finally obtained GO approval and range control's nod to allow Soldiers to holster loaded sidearms and do transition fire while moving, I felt as though I had moved heaven and Earth. The thought of holstering a loaded weapon nearly caused some safety nazis to faint. The thought of not having a safety rod your M-4 when you run out of ammo, before you draw that loaded sidearm and continue to engage? Heresy! Seriously, the contractor in the tower refused to let the range go hot even after I showed him the stack of memos. It took 15 minutes of bickering with him, range control, and some other yahoo before we were able to start training that day. I don't miss it.

We also added a little more free-play into our dismount lanes, made "shoot houses" more than just clearing one room (managed to get approval for hallways, multiple rooms, using up to two squads in a building at once), and even made table XII halfway realistic.

[Tom Odom]

The Unified Command Plan, which is neither unified nor a plan. It is rather a disconnected interlocking system of territorial and/or mission fiefdoms designed on communications capabilities from WWII.

The only thing more outdated than the UCP is the Department of State's continued adherence to country missions modeled on the days of wax sealed messages dispatched by sailing ships.

Tom