Army Officer Commercial

[CR6]

2. I never said anything about semesters abroad. Affluent people from the coasts travel the world because that's what affluent people from the coasts do. Some of it's just because it's easier to fly to Paris or London from NY than it is to Des Moines from NY, some of it's just because traveling is a way of life. That background, in and of itself, is useful. So are the accompanying language skills.

I guess I misunderstood your reference here:

Why wouldn't cadets who spent the summer of their jr. year traveling in the ME or Africa be more ready?

The reference to cadets and junior year threw me. Mea Culpa.

3. Since we are obviously talking in broad statistical generalizations, I'm not certain why some were bringing up specific individuals and their backgrounds. But if you're going to do that you might as well mention the origins of Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystal. But agreed that's all irrelevant.

I made specific reference to the leadership involved in Abu Grahib in response to your statement regarding lives lost due to retarded prison guards. I stand by my contention that this mess was a direct result of poor training and leadership, therefore I found that the background of the leaders involved was relevant. I referenced alma maters to demonstrate that east coast educations did not prepare these officers to inculcate cultural awareness in the soldiers for whom they were responsible

4. No one addressed a major point. No one. The coasts are filled with millions of first generation immigrants from around the world...places where the Army will end up. They have valuable language skills and cultural knowledge. We ignore the coasts to our detriment. (And I completely disagree with the statement that "cultural sensitivity is unnecessary for COIN." That's so wrong it's not even wrong.)

I believe my response was that I did not believe recruiting on college campuses was the best way to reach this demagraphic.

[jmm99]

hasn't changed that much since WWII, except for reduction of riflemen. See attached charts (both from 1 Jan 1945). Inf Coy = 6 O: 187 EM (5 pls; 3 rifle w/ 12-man sqds, 1 weapons, 1 HQ).

Looking back further, the "line" portion of a Roman Legion's century consisted of 3 "officers" (Centurion, 10 x basic pay; Optio, 2 x basic pay; Tesserarius, 1-1/2 x basic pay). So, 3 O: 80 EM; or, to compare with WWII and present, times 2 = 6 O: 160 EM.

To be complete, each "century" had a support unit of 20 men, which were spread among the 10 contubernia (each a 8-man tent team, including its decanus). So, the century was a century including its support group.

The higher Roman legionary officers were mostly "lawyers" (trained in rhetoric & Roman Law) - because the route to becoming a legate included being a magistrate as a tribune and higher offices as a senior tribune and legate.

The military professionals at the top were (from same link):

Praefectus castrorum, Camp Prefect: The Camp Prefect was third in command of the legion. Generally he was a long serving veteran from a lower social status than the tribunii whom he outranked, and who previously had served as primus pilus and finished his 25 years with the legions. However, Camp Prefects were also on occasion appointed from aristocrats, in the same way as tribunes.

and

Primus pilus, literally First File: The Primus Pilus was the commanding centurion of the first cohort and the senior centurion of the entire legion. He was called first file because he also directly commanded the first century of the first cohort. (Unlike other cohorts, the first cohort had only one javelin century, instead of a "front spear" and a "back spear" century). The Primus Pilus had a chance of later becoming a Praefectus Castrorum. When the primus pilus retired he would most likely gain entry into the equestrian class. He was paid 60 times the base wage.

So far as number of company-grade officers is concerned, the number has not changed much in the poor, old infantry.

BTW: the debate between recruitment of "aristocrats", as opposed to officers from the "ranks", also goes back to Roman times. So, this thread is nothing new - if we went back to a Roman legionary staff campfire.

[Cavguy]

Field Artillery is slightly higher than IN in the BCTs- a 44 man FA platoon has a PL and an FDO- a 39 man rifle platoon has only the PL. This evens out when you add the staff, med, CSS, etc.

Fires BDEs FA BNs will have a higher ratio (because MLRS sections are smaller), but they don't have FDOs, either. I'll have to find an MTOE and run the #s.

Echelons above BDE will have a higher ratio, as they are composed of HQs and staffs. Also, the Army sends alot more officers to school longer than enlisted, so, for example, approximately 20% of MAJs are at FT Leavenworth for CGSC/SAMS at any given time. There is also OBC, CCC and War College- the only enlisted comparison is the Sergeant Major Academy, which I think is 600+/- in any given class. All these #s will skew the data.

I used the FKSM 71-8, dated APR 2008. It doesn't exactly match the BCT I came from, or probably any other BCTs MTOE- it allegedly reflects the base TOE. I'd be interested in which you think I missed.

Yeah, MTOE's are rarely standard. Nice use of the statistic from the welcoming remarks the other day ...

My above on officer numbers for a line BN were an off the top of the head calculation, but +/- 10 or so. Most of the lowering of the overall army ratio comes from higher HQ and logistics staffs that in many cases support the joint force. (i.e. theater logistics, or HQs such as MNF-I, which are mostly Army) Whether they are overmanned or needed is an ongoing debate and favorite subject for Ken.

[JarodParker]

And for those interested or with nothing better to do (like me at the moment), visit youtube for a NZ army recruitment clip, a NZ army promo (note the reflective safety belt a quarter of the way through) and a NZSAS promo.

The first recruitment video was mehhh. The second video would've been uber awesome had it been shorter (less chow hall footage) and had better music. The last video, all I'm going to say is "Creed! Really?"

Thanks for sharing.

[Schmedlap]

I believe my response was that I did not believe recruiting on college campuses was the best way to reach this demagraphic.

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

[Cavguy]

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

I decided to join in college, and probably 25% of my commissioning class did. However, I didn't need a values adjust to do it.

That said, we had an outstanding program and some great cadre that really worked hard to bring people in.

[Kiwigrunt]

The first recruitment video was mehhh. The second video would've been uber awesome had it been shorter (less chow hall footage) and had better music. The last video, all I'm going to say is "Creed! Really?"

Thanks for sharing.

On the first, concur. And that's one of the better adds on TV. Maybe that's why we're having trouble recruiting!
On the second, concur again, but hey, they had to show a few nice looking chicks
On the third, maybe my English but not sure whether that's pos or neg.

And I think I found out why the RNZAF have so many officers. They are all busy coming up with better TV adds

[Courtney Massengale]

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

Way back when I was in ROTC, we had a lot of people who joined the program at the third year level...

... and most of them were prior service or in the Guard/Reserve. Obviously they had made up their mind about HOW they were going to become and officer prior to going to college (or at least ruled out four years of ROTC).

Perhaps rather than focusing on the "who" they need to relook the "how" and tie that back to recruiting?

[patmc]

I joined sophomore year, did "Basic Camp" at Knox, then did the regular program junior and senior year. Schmedlap, agree that most join early though. I sought out ROTC, they did not find me. My upbringing, values, education, and interests pushed me to the Army. A couple other people from my school joined over the next two years, but only 1 other stuck with it until the end (she is still in as well). Having more of a presence and exposure on campus could get those extra couple people who did not consider or know about their options before starting college, but the costs would be great for minor return. You would also need younger officers to recruit, not senior Captains or Majors, who though knowledgeable, can be ten or more years older than average college student, and can't really "rap with the kids."

Majority of officers (and SGTs and Soldiers) decide they want the Army and seek it out. The demands of ROTC are significant compared to a normal college schedule, and just the early mornings alone weed a lot of people out. That's good and bad. You don't want people who think its going to be just a job and easy, but it doesn't help draw cadets when you make them change their whole lifestyle. My roommates were proud of me, but they were not getting up and joining me at o dark thirty. Though I fell asleep in my afternoon classes sometimes, the regimen of ROTC was much better for me than what I was doing previously. It still is.

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

[Massengale]

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

oh, ROTC may not be the primary mechanism by which to reach this demographic (though if there was a serious CUNY ROTC program you might be surprised)...my post that started all this was just stating that Army culture in general is an issue. The fact that posters here don't think that both command influence and peer pressure relating to religion and politics isn't an issue in the Army simply shows that you're too used to it and see it as ordinary (I hear and statements which cross the line all the time, from LTs up to three stars).

BTW, I agree that the Army does a good job advertising its leave policies. It's effective propaganda. Too bad it's pretty misleading. Since weekend days count toward the 30 days of leave we're really just talking about 3 weeks of vacation. No different from other jobs. On the other hand, many units do get a fair amount of three and four day weekends in a garrison environment. But then plenty of private sector jobs are on a four day work week or offer the opportunity to work from home part of the time.
Then throw in the hassle that is involved in actually traveling somewhere (redundant, pro forma safety briefings, POV inspections and having to plan everything way in advance) and I can't say that military vacation policies are actually better than the civilian sector. It's worth it for other reasons, not the vacations.

[Massengale]

Majority of officers (and SGTs and Soldiers) decide they want the Army and seek it out.

You are way overestimating the exposure that many people have to the Army. When I went in I remember trying to explain it to one friend of mine in NY...her: "I don't know anything about the military. I'm Jewish!" (The reality is that a few people in our social circle had been in the Israeli military...but otherwise, yes, I'm the only person she had ever met who had been in any branch of the American military. And that's pretty standard there.) And the Army doesn't advertise there either. No advertising on the TV programs we watch, no web-ads on the sites we go to. None of that. People do, generally speaking, have to have some exposure to something for them to think of it as an option. Advertising works that way.

[Schmedlap]

The fact that posters here don't think that both command influence and peer pressure relating to religion and politics isn't an issue in the Army simply shows that you're too used to it and see it as ordinary (I hear and statements which cross the line all the time, from LTs up to three stars).

Or maybe you're just one data point out of many and their experience differs?

[Massengale]

Possibly.

But the few officers that I've met that come from a similar background as myself agree with me (and bring it up themselves)...in private anyway.

One of the things about having a monoculture is that the few who don't represent that culture are kind of forced to keep silent. And in the Army's case, that monoculture only represents a part of America. (The other services seem to do better.)

[Courtney Massengale]

One of the things about having a monoculture is that the few who don't represent that culture are kind of forced to keep silent. And in the Army's case, that monoculture only represents a part of America. (The other services seem to do better.)

I would disagree that there is any one "monoculture".

If you stick around long enough, you see everything come full circle. Religion was a third rail when I first came in; a couple years ago it was a requirement for promotion, now its sliding back down towards standard deviation. There are a couple different axis for Officer temperament and we tend to slip and slide between the two polar opposites from post to post, administration to administration, war to war.

The neat thing is that anytime something approaches monoculture, that means its about ready to tip over and fall flat on its face as the new cool kid monoculture comes up behind it.

[Steve Blair]

BTW, I agree that the Army does a good job advertising its leave policies. It's effective propaganda. Too bad it's pretty misleading. Since weekend days count toward the 30 days of leave we're really just talking about 3 weeks of vacation. No different from other jobs. On the other hand, many units do get a fair amount of three and four day weekends in a garrison environment. But then plenty of private sector jobs are on a four day work week or offer the opportunity to work from home part of the time.
Then throw in the hassle that is involved in actually traveling somewhere (redundant, pro forma safety briefings, POV inspections and having to plan everything way in advance) and I can't say that military vacation policies are actually better than the civilian sector. It's worth it for other reasons, not the vacations.

And how much private sector experience do you have? There aren't that many regular jobs that offer work from home, and the 4/10 schedule is still limited to a few sectors. And if you're in a company or environment that uses a time bank you have to balance any vacation against a possible need for sick leave (since time banks tend to lump all accrued "off hours" into a single pool that's used for both) and possibly any holidays in the bargain (yes...there are some places that make you take your earned hours to get paid for holidays). And if your job requires you to flex out, you have to use those hours to get paid. Last time I checked the military didn't require you to burn leave on a command-designated "down day."

Not saying that the military's policy is necessarily better, but what you read in the "Army Times" about private sector opportunities often doesn't square with the reality. Nor does elite coastal job experience. That's not the norm for folks out here...a point that is often missed.

And as for monoculture...if you think the Army's bad you should try academia sometime.

[Massengale]

I would disagree that there is any one "monoculture".

If you stick around long enough, you see everything come full circle. Religion was a third rail when I first came in; a couple years ago it was a requirement for promotion, now its sliding back down towards standard deviation. There are a couple different axis for Officer temperament and we tend to slip and slide between the two polar opposites from post to post, administration to administration, war to war.

The neat thing is that anytime something approaches monoculture, that means its about ready to tip over and fall flat on its face as the new cool kid monoculture comes up behind it.

Ok, that's a fair point. I haven't been around long enough to have seen it. Point taken.

[Massengale]

And how much private sector experience do you have? There aren't that many regular jobs that offer work from home, and the 4/10 schedule is still limited to a few sectors. And if you're in a company or environment that uses a time bank you have to balance any vacation against a possible need for sick leave (since time banks tend to lump all accrued "off hours" into a single pool that's used for both) and possibly any holidays in the bargain (yes...there are some places that make you take your earned hours to get paid for holidays). And if your job requires you to flex out, you have to use those hours to get paid. Last time I checked the military didn't require you to burn leave on a command-designated "down day."

Not saying that the military's policy is necessarily better, but what you read in the "Army Times" about private sector opportunities often doesn't square with the reality. Nor does elite coastal job experience. That's not the norm for folks out here...a point that is often missed.

And as for monoculture...if you think the Army's bad you should try academia sometime.

I have almost a decade's worth of major corporate experience in NY. (Agreed, that doesn't necessarily represent the norm across America.) And I was in academia once upon a time. Gave it up partially because of the monocultural miasma you suggest. Flex time/work from home does seem to be a sharply growing trend across the IT/media/high-tech centers....and I stand by the point that the 30 days (because of the weekends) is really only three weeks off. I don't dispute that the DOD's pass/leave policies are more generous than most private sector jobs (unless you're actually trying to use a pass or leave to actually go anywhere...)...but it's not just academia that offers comparable benefits.

(And, yes, academia is worse when it comes to the monocultural aspect!)

[Kevin23]

oh, ROTC may not be the primary mechanism by which to reach this demographic (though if there was a serious CUNY ROTC program you might be surprised)...my post that started all this was just stating that Army culture in general is an issue. The fact that posters here don't think that both command influence and peer pressure relating to religion and politics isn't an issue in the Army simply shows that you're too used to it and see it as ordinary (I hear and statements which cross the line all the time, from LTs up to three stars).

BTW, I agree that the Army does a good job advertising its leave policies. It's effective propaganda. Too bad it's pretty misleading. Since weekend days count toward the 30 days of leave we're really just talking about 3 weeks of vacation. No different from other jobs. On the other hand, many units do get a fair amount of three and four day weekends in a garrison environment. But then plenty of private sector jobs are on a four day work week or offer the opportunity to work from home part of the time.
Then throw in the hassle that is involved in actually traveling somewhere (redundant, pro forma safety briefings, POV inspections and having to plan everything way in advance) and I can't say that military vacation policies are actually better than the civilian sector. It's worth it for other reasons, not the vacations.

I have a couple of things I would like to add on the various points we are talking about here.

The first being that unlike the other branches the Army does not have it's own OSO's and from what I've read many Army recruiters who are enlisted and more used to that side of the armed forces. Are sometimes unprepared to deal with and answer the questions of perspective OCS candidates. Again this is only what I've read about other people's experiences in terms of being a perspective OCS candidate.

Also it seems the process of becoming an Army officer straight out of college without any prior experiences with the military, is alot longer then it is for other branches of the American military. This is due to OCS candidates having to go to basic training first then OCS. I figure while this can be a good process to add before going to OCS, it appears to makes things alot more longer then does for other branches.

Last bu not least even the Army is the most represented branch of ROTC on college/university campuses I agree with what alot of prior posters said that the Army ROTC needs to establish it's self more and reach out to students on college campuses as well as establishing more companies and battalions on college campuses .As even though the Army is the most represented branch of ROTC there is not nearly enough as there should be to attract more perspective Army officers. For example on my campus if I wanted to do Army ROTC I would have to make a nearly 2 hour drive to go to classes for it at another university. Also maybe the Army as well as other branches could establish military science and studies more prominently in terms of mainstream academics in colleges/universities. Because that subject is easily interchangeable with history, political science, sociology and anthropology as well as international affairs and a whole list of other subjects and fields. That way I feel it would add more flexibility in terms of providing credit and perspectives in the classroom towards a career as a military officer after college/university. If it would be possible to accomplish due to the attitudes some take towards the military on college/university campuses.

Overall though the commercial that started this subject is an effective tool to draw individuals with a college education to the Army.

[Schmedlap]

...and I stand by the point that the 30 days (because of the weekends) is really only three weeks off. I don't dispute that the DOD's pass/leave policies are more generous than most private sector jobs (unless you're actually trying to use a pass or leave to actually go anywhere...)...

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. You are correct that the 30 days of leave equates to 3 weeks if the leave is used in a manner in which it overlaps with weekends. That is a pretty simple issue to solve. Start your leave on a Monday and/or end it on a Friday. I did that for 9 years. When I ETS'd, I took 60 days of terminal leave - collecting BAH and BAS for those two months even though I was already beginning to grow my beard.

It is also worth pointing out how easily (and often) the leave process is abused. I knew Officers and NCOs who took weeks of leave and never had it charged against them. I was thought a jerk for raising this issue with the Battalion Commander - as though free leave were some kind of entitlement. This was not an issue isolated to our unit or our installation, as I saw it elsewhere and know of senior NCOs who arrived at the unit with the expectation that they only needed to become buddies with someone in the S1 shop and their leave would then be free.

Furthermore, passes are common and have been getting more common as the war has gone on. Oh no, POV inspection and some other minor administrative hoops? Geez, 30 minutes out of your life to take a few days off with full pay. That's rough. Ditto half days and three- and four-day weekends. Federal holidays are off. Small unit leaders often exercise discretion to just let a guy go home if something significant is occurring. A water leak, hotwater heater crapping the bed, sick child or spouse, car problem, or other unforeseen events often, if not usually, result in a guy leaving work early or taking a day off with no leave days incurred. One of my squad leaders used up all of his leave and went 10 days in the hole upon our return from one deployment because his mother was terminally ill. When he returned, his mother was on life support 300 miles away. I brought him into the battalion commander's office to try to obtain more leave. The BC took the old leave form (45 days of leave) ripped it up and said, "it looks like he's still got plenty of leave remaining." Find the me the civilian boss that can, and will, do that.

Then there is my personal favorite - attending to personal business while on duty. I cannot begin to describe the amount of pushback and indignation that I was up against when I started reigning in the amount of personal business that my Soldiers were conducting during duty hours. People were leaving during the day - or just taking the day off altogether - to get their license renewed, their registration renewed, to take motorcycle driving tests, etc, etc. When I ordered a stop to this, my NCOs reacted as though I was canceling Christmas (which, I guess I kind of was). I later learned that this was not just some phenomenon unique to that unit. It happens everywhere.

Okay, so 30 days equals 3 weeks. I have only scratched the surface of all of the intangibles that make the Army one of the most generous organizations on the planet when it comes to time off. Many of those intangibles are not sanctioned by the powers-that-be, but they are commonplace nonetheless and I suspect many power-that-be know about them. It would not surprise me if many of those powers-that-be partake of them. That may be a reason why more leave is not offered up.

But despite my different take on the issue, I do agree that the Army should not advertise the 30 days off. The Army is a service-oriented institution. The commercials and other promotional material pushes way too hard on the "what it's in in for me?" angle. I wish we pushed harder to emphasize the challenges, the demands, and high expectations. This may be a federal job, but it shouldn't be like the others.

[JarodParker]

But despite my different take on the issue, I do agree that the Army should not advertise the 30 days off. The Army is a service-oriented institution. The commercials and other promotional material pushes way too hard on the "what it's in in for me?" angle. I wish we pushed harder to emphasize the challenges, the demands, and high expectations. This may be a federal job, but it shouldn't be like the others.

Well put Schmedlap. I believe we have come full circle. I posted the video in the first place because I felt the army was finally heading in the right direction when it comes to its recruitment pitch. In a way the army is kind of like the artsy fixer-upper chick with the dorky glasses and walmart cloth from your typical high school flick... lots of potential but in need of a makeover.

On the third, maybe my English but not sure whether that's pos or neg.

That's definitely a negative. No military can expect to recruit fighting men with a video that has a "Creed" song as a soundtrack. The RNZAF video is good to go.