Results 1 to 20 of 124

Thread: TRADOC Losing Its Edge?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. 12-11-2009 #1
    Hacksaw
    Hacksaw is offline
    Council Member Hacksaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lansing, KS
    Posts
    361

    Default Ricks is a dope

    Wow so this is what happens when I guy excuses himself from the rigor of writing for a respected news agency...

    "yes, got it, adaptability is key for the future of the service -- but the points he makes getting there are just intellectually sloppy."

    Ricks accusing Dempsey of being intellectually sloppy is the pot calling the kettle black...


    Hmmm...
    "I mean, in interviews I did for The Gamble about how the counterinsurgency manual was written, TRADOC didn't come up much -- and when it did, it was portrayed as a minor obstacle."

    Let's see the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate (CADD) is a major subordinate organization of the Combined Arms Center... a Major Subordinate Command of TRADOC... so it is an organizational failing that the higher headquarters didn't get in the way of the subordinate organization's mission... if only it were so more often...

    I wonder when was the last time Ricks spent some time, beyond a stop and pop to pimp a book, to discover how TRADOC/CAC is organized and what it is up to...

    Rather you get this type of silliness (nicest term I could come up with)... recommend we just kill this one, it doesn't deserve much more...

    Oh by the way, I may be the biggest critic of TRADOC...

    Live well and row
    Hacksaw
    Say hello to my 2 x 4
  2. 12-11-2009 #2
    Fuchs
    Fuchs is offline
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    AWG - is that a TRADOC effort?
  3. 12-12-2009 #3
    IntelTrooper
    IntelTrooper is offline
    Council Member IntelTrooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    RC-S, Afghanistan
    Posts
    302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    AWG - is that a TRADOC effort?
    Wikipedia claims that they are.
    Last edited by IntelTrooper; 12-12-2009 at 12:37 AM. Reason: verb confusion
    "The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
    -- Ken White

    "With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap

    "We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
  4. 12-12-2009 #4
    Ken White
    Ken White is offline
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Huh?

    Check the LINK.
  5. 12-12-2009 #5
    Fuchs
    Fuchs is offline
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    I found no reference to TRADOC in that Wikipedia page or its links.

    TRADOC itself doesn't mention it as a subordinate unit.
    http://www.tradoc.army.mil/about.htm#MSOs

    The AWG is pretty much doing what TRADOC was supposed to do.
  6. 12-12-2009 #6
    Ken White
    Ken White is offline
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Not really.

    It is charged with developing new technologies and techniques in rapid fashion but aimed specifically and narrowly at asymmetric current and possible future threats which TRADOC isn't addressing. It is also charged with identifying (not in competition with the Intel community or SOCOM) such threats. That specifically because the formal mechanism is rather slow and ponderous while being directed at all threats. The focus, the inability to conduct major studies and such are quite different.

    AWG is supposed to be light and agile and is supposed to be to the Army what these guys LINK are to Lockheed Martin.

    It could be. It could also become hidebound, overcautious and simply another arm of the bureaucracy. Too early to tell
    Last edited by Ken White; 12-12-2009 at 04:25 PM. Reason: Typos, fix link
  7. 12-14-2009 #7
    Hacksaw
    Hacksaw is offline
    Council Member Hacksaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lansing, KS
    Posts
    361

    Default Hmmm.....

    AWG...

    AWG was established by then HQDA G3/5/7 Gen Cody... One of several efforts like JIEDDO that sprung up, I think, in response to operations after OIF 1...

    I would offer that AWG as currently organized makes little sense... the same as the 1st IO Command... they were aligned they way they were in order to take them "out of the system"... much like an AD HOC planning element, the lead for OEF in the early stages, in USCENTCOM once worked out of the J3 Exercises...

    The problem with these types of "extra-ordinary" C2 arrangements is that they are out of system... I will clarify... first, much like the human body... an organism/organization will fight against a foreign "element" inserted artificially... second, since they exist "outside the system" the solutions they develop are likewise outside the system; An ingenius box delivered to a deployed HQ in theater, with one time training, is a door stop within two rotations...

    As wikipedia indicates AWG is obviously not organizationally aligned to TRADOC, but does in fact work directly with TRADOC in order to accomplish some of its missions... they feed off established lessons learned structure... they team with other training elements... etc etc...

    I suppose Ad Hoc(ery) has its place, but it is terribly inefficient... and the question you have to ask is.... If the system is bad, why not fix the system as opposed to establishing yet another bypass... and I think the answer is that there are a lot of good reasons/advantages to a system that doesn't respond to every single bump in the night... maybe the institutional base shouldn't be easily moved to reflect the whims of a leader who is in place for 24 mths as a rule...

    TRADOC has real faults... needs to relook its internal processes (did so about 5 years ago, re-wrote the TR 10-5 series, and then ignored it) and adhere/act upon what they agree is the best way forward (that means moving resources to reflect their operational & organizational plans...

    got me lots more, but will spare all the bile...

    Live well and row
    Hacksaw
    Say hello to my 2 x 4
  8. 12-14-2009 #8
    IntelTrooper
    IntelTrooper is offline
    Council Member IntelTrooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    RC-S, Afghanistan
    Posts
    302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    I found no reference to TRADOC in that Wikipedia page or its links.

    TRADOC itself doesn't mention it as a subordinate unit.
    http://www.tradoc.army.mil/about.htm#MSOs

    The AWG is pretty much doing what TRADOC was supposed to do.
    If you click the link for G-3/5/7, it sends you to the Wikipedia entry for TRADOC.
    "The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
    -- Ken White

    "With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap

    "We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
  9. 12-14-2009 #9
    Pete
    Pete is offline
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Here in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia hocery pucks are hard to find.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

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
  •  

Forum Rules