Contractors Doing Combat Service Support is a Bad, Bad Idea

[Uboat509]

The better comparison is to how firefighters live while on duty: during that time they all take turns at the stove and the sink. None of them quit because that is part of their jobs and lives. In fact, as far as I can tell, they quite enjoy it -- it builds camaraderie amongst the personnel, they know the importance of a good meal, etc.

And CA guys also do that, but there is world of difference between picking up some unpleasant duties at the unit level and moving to to a place where you ONLY do those duties.

I might also point out that, until recently, such self-support was the norm in the army. Troops arranged themselves in messes, were given food, and prepared it themselves. Again, from what I've read, most enjoyed this setup.

How recent are you talking? Units have had sepparate mess sections at least since the '40s. In any case that does not solve the problem of all the other support activites that CSS takes care of.

The fact of the matter is that even for the trigger puller at the pointiest end today, most time is not spent engaged in combat. Most of the time is spent in a variety of tasks that are akin to housekeeping duties -- ie, not things for which anyone signed on the dotted line.

Again, there is a world of difference between doing unpleasant tasks around the unit that need to be done and being sent someplace where that is ALL that you have to look foreward to.

Finally, if folks enlisted knowing that this was the set-up, their expectations would not be a problem.

True. Many of them would simply not enlist.

SFC W

[Cavguy]

The better comparison is to how firefighters live while on duty: during that time they all take turns at the stove and the sink. None of them quit because that is part of their jobs and lives. In fact, as far as I can tell, they quite enjoy it -- it builds camaraderie amongst the personnel, they know the importance of a good meal, etc.

I might also point out that, until recently, such self-support was the norm in the army. Troops arranged themselves in messes, were given food, and prepared it themselves. Again, from what I've read, most enjoyed this setup.

The fact of the matter is that even for the trigger puller at the pointiest end today, most time is not spent engaged in combat. Most of the time is spent in a variety of tasks that are akin to housekeeping duties -- ie, not things for which anyone signed on the dotted line.

Finally, if folks enlisted knowing that this was the set-up, their expectations would not be a problem.

Regards,
Jill

Jill, lots of respect for you and your husband.

Most Infantry, Armor, Artillery, and engineer guys have zero desire to become CSS types.

Where you get the idea that combat guys helped in the mess is beyond me - KP was eliminated in the AVF by 73, and as Uboat said, we have had specialized cook sections since (and during) WW II.

Sometimes junior combat arms guys are detailed to BN support platoons, where they often work in the fuel/ammo resupply platoon under soldiers who have that MOS. Their PL is usually a combat arms type as well, though that is changing in the modular units. Often each staff section has combat arms augmentees, such as the S1 (personnel) and S4 (supply) sections to round out the supply types.

Officers and NCO's in the army do get "B" type billets, we just don't call it that. Post command, a CPT may work as an observer/controller, reserve component trainer, ROTC instructor, recruiter, branch school instructor, trainer/mentor, senior staff (generating force), or a host of other options.

Most E5's and above get an assignment in the training base as instructors or as recruiters at some point. Most E7's wind up in RC training, garrison staffs, senior instructors, drill sergeants, observer/controllers etc. after their PSG time. It works because in each they apply their combat lessons in the generating force.

Officers also rotate through staff assignments between troop duty - I was a BN S1, AS3, and S4, and BCT asst S3 (twice). Now I have my "B" job here at Leavenworth in the COIN center, applying my 29 months of OIF time to better the army.

I don't see what is to be gained by making combat guys pull KP, wash laundry, or any other service that outweighs the above. Ken and Uboat are also right - some jobs (like being a NCO cook - really a DFAC manager) are actually highly trained specialties. A good mess daddy is a true treasure, and I wouldn't want it any other way. I had additional duty as the Food Service Officer for awhile, and it's eye opening how complex it can be. Same with most other support MOS's.

The fact that we use contractors is a value decision that we can contract our short term need for lots of food service in Iraq, and don't need it in garrison. as I explained to SFC Hoh in another thread - it can be long term cheaper for the military.

Regarding your complaints about the fobbits getting steak and lobster and the guys in the COP's not, that's just whining. I venture I've spent as much time in COP's or remote locations as anyone else, and it's just the nature of the beast. You can't mermite lobster to COP's because it becomes unsafe in the 4-6 hours between it being cooked and delivered via LOGPAC to the field. We usually got steak though. The selection was much more limited than on the FOB, but hey, what do you expect? My guys did enjoy their platoon rotation back to the fob for maintenance/rearm/refit, where they enjoyed the bounty provided for about 48h every two weeks.

My company got 1 hot daily during OIF 05-07 in our COP, occasionally two, brought out by my 1SG and HQ det daily. Guys on the FOB got 3x hots a day. Lots of people here can talk about the M-M-M and M-M-A from OIF1. I know of no one who would prefer to do that again. (WOW! General Tso chicken! for breakfast!)

You seem to be deginerating the army guys as whiners, but you're doing just that regarding your perceptions from your husband. You seem to percieve injustice or poor leadership because CSS types live better than the line dogs. That's just reality, and all combat arms soldiers know it. We also may bitch about it occasionally, but I haven't met a motivated combat arms soldier who would trade it for the steak and lobster life. In fact, my soldiers during their rotations back generally got off the FOB whenever possible, and back to the COP where the tip of the spear stuff was done. The only time they complained was when they heard someone on the fob complain about some luxury not being available. Generally, most FOB soldiers know they have it well, and don't speak such things around those not living there. (Could bring a beating!)

I also served in MNF-W under I and II MEF during the latter half of my last OIF rotation, and the MLG guys had it good while the regimental guys and TT's out in sector lived spartan. It's simply the fact of life in the military, and not only in the army. I really don't see what is gained by your proposal, and strongly disagree that it's unique to the army.

Niel

[Schmedlap]

Just a few points...

- My company was tasked with providing 2 Soldiers to help the support platoon prepare food. We raised hell over that because we were only getting 2 hots meals per week, but were losing 2 men everyday for the tasking while we were were grossly undermanned and overtasked (neither of those attributes are unique to my situation - every unit in Iraq is undermanned and overtasked, particularly as Soldiers rotate to and from mid-tour leave). The XO threatened to cut off the food for LOGPAC if we didn't pony up. We said fine - we need men, not the brown lettuce. Eventually either the LTC or CSM put an end to the foolishness and we got our men back. The lesson here is that units are overtasked, overstretched, and having enough men is more important than having green eggs instead of poundcake.

- Leaders can handle cohesion in their own way. We don't need a designated time, place, or manner of feeding. Using that justification for revamping some aspect of our CSS makes no sense to me. Sounds like a rationalization for a conclusion already reached.

- While I agree with the comments about Soldiers likely opting to ETS if tasked with being a cook instead of an infantryman, I think it is more important to point out that it would simply be a bad idea, regardless of how enthusiastic Soldiers are about it. Specialization of skills helps to make us more effective. Every nervous system has a certain threshold of tasks that it can be trained to perform well in a given period of time. We've already got enough training requirements and time constraints. Adding in a duty completely unrelated to the skills or knowledge of a combat arms Soldier for a significant period of time does more harm than good. I have never heard a Commander or First Sergeant object to a tasking on account of morale. It was always due to it depriving the Soldier of training or depriving the unit of his exertions. It is tough enough to develop our future leaders. Swapping out a rifle for a ladle doesn't help - especially if it is for a year or more.

[Sargent]

And CA guys also do that, but there is world of difference between picking up some unpleasant duties at the unit level and moving to to a place where you ONLY do those duties.

Well, the model need not be so absolute. Furthermore, returning to such a way of doing things might argue for a lighter logistical footprint that did not require a level of work such as you described. Maybe you could make it part of a rotation out of the line for some period, to give a unit a rest while they do some easy work for a while. Since it's obvious that the troops can live on well less than what is found on the average FOB, such a reduction ought not be a problem.

"- Live among the people. You can’t commute to this fight. Position Joint Security Stations, Combat Outposts, and Patrol Bases in the neighborhoods we intend to secure. Living among the people is essential to securing them and defeating the insurgents."

One might also infer from this that the FOB-centric model is not going to work for a significant portion of the deployed population. Thus, a change is going to have to come in CSS.

How recent are you talking? Units have had sepparate mess sections at least since the '40s. In any case that does not solve the problem of all the other support activites that CSS takes care of.

Well, I'm an historian -- "recently" is last century, especially when there's several thousand years of military history against which the comparison is being made. Many of my colleagues call me a "wonk," because I do 20th century history. So I apologize for the confusion -- you and I just have a way different sense of time.

True. Many of them would simply not enlist.

You can be as inclusive or exclusive as you wish to be in defining the infantryman's job. And throughout history, how that was done never really stopped men from joining the armies of the world. The Roman Legions dug ditches and build roadways when they weren't fighting. You might get a slightly different enlistment mix. That may be a good thing right now -- I could imagine that an enlistment profile that included a degree of increase in interest in such matters might be useful in COIN.

Furthermore, this is what we are asking the Iraqis to do -- all the CSS comes out the battalions. It seems like we are making a pretty significant mistake in not providing a working model for how the job gets done. The IA can't just throw money at the problems. I would say we could make a lot of headway getting the IA on track with American units showing them how to do such things by example. Imagine that, the entirety of the American military in Iraq as a giant, CSS MTT.


Cavguy wrote:

Jill, lots of respect for you and your husband.

Gee, nobody ever complimented me for doing my doctorate.

Regarding your complaints about the fobbits getting steak and lobster and the guys in the COP's not, that's just whining. I venture I've spent as much time in COP's or remote locations as anyone else, and it's just the nature of the beast. You can't mermite lobster to COP's because it becomes unsafe in the 4-6 hours between it being cooked and delivered via LOGPAC to the field. We usually got steak though. The selection was much more limited than on the FOB, but hey, what do you expect? My guys did enjoy their platoon rotation back to the fob for maintenance/rearm/refit, where they enjoyed the bounty provided for about 48h every two weeks.

I am not so concerned about complaints -- although, given the history of attitudes towards REMFs, it's not something that ought to be dismissed too easily. What I am wondering about is simply best exemplified by the insanity of having steak and lobster on the FOBS when you don't have a decent system for those outside the wire. It is a very wierd set of priorities. When you hear from a defense consultant that the bounty on a FOB is excessive, you really have to wonder at what is going on.

I am also concerned at the costs and resource usage of our logistics tail. For how much longer will we be able to be profligate in the use of fuel to truck all of this stuff around? Or how about all of the generators that are running? Something is going to have to give soon, because we won't be able to afford this much longer -- just as Vietnam had to end because we couldn't sustain the dollar outflows anymore. This, though, could be a much bigger shift -- it won't just end a war, it will force a change in the way we do everything.

Look, here's the point -- I look at the contractor/cs/css issue, and for a variety of reasons I see a problem. If I haven't hit the nail on the head with a solution, well, forgive me, this isn't my day job. I may be wrong about the solution, but I don't think I'm wrong about the problem.


Schmedlap wrote:

My company was tasked with providing 2 Soldiers to help the support platoon prepare food. We raised hell over that because we were only getting 2 hots meals per week, but were losing 2 men everyday for the tasking while we were were grossly undermanned and overtasked (neither of those attributes are unique to my situation - every unit in Iraq is undermanned and overtasked, particularly as Soldiers rotate to and from mid-tour leave). The XO threatened to cut off the food for LOGPAC if we didn't pony up. We said fine - we need men, not the brown lettuce. Eventually either the LTC or CSM put an end to the foolishness and we got our men back. The lesson here is that units are overtasked, overstretched, and having enough men is more important than having green eggs instead of poundcake.

I could read this and say that the problem is that the contractor system is not meeting the needs and the units are not really well-prepared to deal with it. I would venture to say that such episodes will become more frequent and more ridiculous. Again, I may not have hit upon the right solution, but I think the problem is there. You can fight with me over tactics, but that doesn't change the strategic situation.

Leaders can handle cohesion in their own way. We don't need a designated time, place, or manner of feeding. Using that justification for revamping some aspect of our CSS makes no sense to me. Sounds like a rationalization for a conclusion already reached.

I've never heard of a great leader tossing a tool out of his kit. Most that I've read about and met will use anything at their disposal, will disdain very little that might give them an edge.

Consider that the most frequently offered advice on building a better family and enhancing relations between members is to sit down together for dinner. What is a small unit if not a family of sorts?

And if you think it too minor an issue to bother with, I would counter with the wisdom of Earl Wavell and others, who have argued that the daily, mundane things in the life of a soldier -- the "actualities" of the soldier's experience -- are important and should be studied. It's why I settled on the subject, because I had never read a memoir or work on the experience of war that did not discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of food-related experiences. They gave me the idea that this was important, they pointed out what was valuable and why, and what were huge, terrible mistakes.

If you wonder why I have such a bee in my bonnet over the contractor issue, blame General Washington -- his appointment of one of his best combatant commanders, Nathanael Greene, to the position of QM, and the two hundred years of subsequent history that followed his example, is the reason I question the current system. Greene didn't like the new job -- and he made Washington promise that after a year he could get back into the fight -- but he knew the importance to the war effort of what was being asked of him.

Regards,
Jill

[Steve Blair]

Actually the push for designated cooks began in the US Army in the mid-1800s (if not sooner)...mainly to improve the quality of food and cut down on wastage (as the position used to be rotated among men in a company and as a result quality was uneven at best). It's also worth remembering that one of the most frequently identified reasons for desertion in the Old Army was the number of construction and other work details piled on the troops. Many said they joined to be soldiers, not to build forts or dig ditches. Officers at the time complained loud and long about this, to no result.

Food is, of course, important. I'm surprised no one mentioned Napoleon's maxim about armies marching on their stomachs... At the combat small unit level, units do tend to eat together (unless they have serious internal problems), and those patterns have never shown many changes. Likewise, soldiers will always complain about the food. It's in the contract somewhere....

[Cavguy]

Well, I'm an historian -- "recently" is last century, especially when there's several thousand years of military history against which the comparison is being made. Many of my colleagues call me a "wonk," because I do 20th century history. So I apologize for the confusion -- you and I just have a way different sense of time.

You can be as inclusive or exclusive as you wish to be in defining the infantryman's job. And throughout history, how that was done never really stopped men from joining the armies of the world. The Roman Legions dug ditches and build roadways when they weren't fighting. You might get a slightly different enlistment mix. That may be a good thing right now -- I could imagine that an enlistment profile that included a degree of increase in interest in such matters might be useful in COIN.

As a historian, I would think you would know better than to compare a 21st century infantryman to a Roman Legionaiire. The number and complexity of skills a modern combat soldier is required to master far outstrips any relevant historical example. It isn't marching in formation and swordplay or even musketry - there's a ton of highly technical, highly perishible skills that must be maintained. You hire an infantryman today to be a highly trained infantryman, not a generalist slave. There's barely time to keep guys proficient in all the core skills required.

Gee, nobody ever complimented me for doing my doctorate.

There's a saying - being a military spouse is the hardest job in the Army (Corps). Somwehat exaggerated, but certainly some major truth.

What I am wondering about is simply best exemplified by the insanity of having steak and lobster on the FOBS when you don't have a decent system for those outside the wire.

Here we disagree. There is a difference between "luxury" and "decent system". We had a decent system in both my tours. Our guys received 1-2quality hot meals, laundry service, mail, and other services daily in the COP. No one was deprived. All it took was a little effort on the part of the chain of command. If someone's not getting that, it's not a logistics/fairness issue, but a leadership issue. We got everything except for the shellfish that the guys on the FOB did.

And the steak and lobster is exaggerated, it happens once every few weeks.

It is a very wierd set of priorities. When you hear from a defense consultant that the bounty on a FOB is excessive, you really have to wonder at what is going on.

Depends on excessive. Yes, there was some amount of overboard. That said, why live badly if you don't have to? I will also say the "bounty" is greatly appreciated by guys rotating off the line.

I am also concerned at the costs and resource usage of our logistics tail. For how much longer will we be able to be profligate in the use of fuel to truck all of this stuff around? Or how about all of the generators that are running? Something is going to have to give soon, because we won't be able to afford this much longer -- just as Vietnam had to end because we couldn't sustain the dollar outflows anymore. This, though, could be a much bigger shift -- it won't just end a war, it will force a change in the way we do everything.

Separate argument. One can argue the main argument FOR the FCS system is that it will reduce the supply tail requirements immensely - common parts, smaller crews, better engines, and more reliability all will significantly reduce logistics tail if they work as advertised (different thread).

Look, here's the point -- I look at the contractor/cs/css issue, and for a variety of reasons I see a problem. If I haven't hit the nail on the head with a solution, well, forgive me, this isn't my day job. I may be wrong about the solution, but I don't think I'm wrong about the problem.

It's also valid to point out an MCO war in the modern era cannot last beyond a few weeks/months - no one quite simply has a war-sustainable industrial base capable of supplying the munitions and equipment a la WW II, or the density of equipment. Therefore, the Army has assessed it only needs organic food support to sustain a 45-60 day war, and anything longer gets contracted. Almost all army "Class A" field rats are now "heat and serve" and not made from scratch, and the MRE is a constant process improvement.

One can argue no one (organizationally) thought Iraq would last this long, and recruiting extra CSS to support what were envisioned as short term demands would carry higher cost than contracting someone to do it.

Consider that the most frequently offered advice on building a better family and enhancing relations between members is to sit down together for dinner. What is a small unit if not a family of sorts?

Units do eat together at the team/squad level often. Especially in a COP. You also seem to assume that there's a lack of bonding going on - trust me, the main thing soldiers desire is often a little privacy from their unit for awhile. However, operations are ongoing 24/7, so an imagined BN mess all happily passing the gravy is a little dream-worldish.

And if you think it too minor an issue to bother with, I would counter with the wisdom of Earl Wavell and others, who have argued that the daily, mundane things in the life of a soldier -- the "actualities" of the soldier's experience -- are important and should be studied. It's why I settled on the subject, because I had never read a memoir or work on the experience of war that did not discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of food-related experiences. They gave me the idea that this was important, they pointed out what was valuable and why, and what were huge, terrible mistakes

.

Food is certainly not a minor issue - I could argue it's one of the most key components of morale. That's why I don't agree with your assessment of the problem or the solution - ensuring the guys get the best quaility of food possible in adquate amounts immensely contributes to morale. Nothing saps a deployment worse than constantly eating bad food. I never (organizationally) ate better than I ate while deployed to Kosovo in 2000-2001. Better than most all inclusive resorts. I know it significantly impacted my perceptions of the deployment, and made it much more bearable (back when I thought six months was a long deployment). Having high quality food is a morale multiplier. I wouldn't want to go to Army A's.

If you wonder why I have such a bee in my bonnet over the contractor issue, blame General Washington -- his appointment of one of his best combatant commanders, Nathanael Greene, to the position of QM, and the two hundred years of subsequent history that followed his example, is the reason I question the current system. Greene didn't like the new job -- and he made Washington promise that after a year he could get back into the fight -- but he knew the importance to the war effort of what was being asked of him.

I'm confused why you don't think we have the same ethos today - assigning a combat general to oversee a problem area just happened - look at Walter Reed. They took BG Tucker (a tanker) and made him DCO of WR to clean up the mess, which he did. Now he's headed back to the force that the WTU's and other reforms are underway. Shifting a general to oversee what were really leadership (not supply) issues is far different than taking an infantryman and making him pump gas.

[selil]

Sargent, what ever you do.... DO NOT GIVE UP....

[Sargent]

Steve Blair wrote:

Likewise, soldiers will always complain about the food. It's in the contract somewhere....

Oh, but they don't always complain -- there is probably more about what they thought was good, valuable, what made a difference at just the right point. Paul Boesch opened his memoir of fighting in the Huertgen Forest with a description of an artillery barrage so intense that the author felt “as if Satan himself urged the gunners on,” and then recalled the following: “From a dirty pocket I pulled a package of Charms, the fruit-flavored candy drops that came with some of our rations. Very slowly and deliberately I unwrapped one and popped it into my mouth – it tasted good.”

I've spent a lot of time thinking about those three little words, "it tasted good." Perhaps more than a normal person ought to, but that is the nature of the dissertation. But if you imagine that war itself is an assault on the senses, then it doesn't seem quite so strange to contemplate the meaning of a positive sensory experience amidst all that.

Jill

[Ken White]

Shifting a general to oversee what were really leadership (not supply) issues is far different than taking an infantryman and making him pump gas.

I think that's what several of us tried to say albeit less eloquently.

Interesting that you mention Nathaniel Greene who was indeed one of Washington's better Generals. I could say that his most successful battle at Guilford Court House was that simply because he copied another of Washington's best generals, Daniel Morgan's (arguably an even better General...) earlier and even more successful tactic at Cowpens. The interesting fact about both battles is that the Generals knew and understood the strengths and weaknesses of their various troops. I think there's a strong message in that...

I'm not a Historian but I am a student of war and an avid reader. History can teach us much, no question but one must be careful of the message one absorbs. One thing stands out over the millenia IMO. It's notable that all the good Generals understood the strengths and weaknesses of their troops and planned accordingly. They also were willing to adapt to the mores and technology of the time.

While there will always be occasional aberrations like the picture below, essentially, the use of the horse in warfare is sorta passé.



I'd be willing to bet big bucks that the guy shown would rebel at being told he had to go turn wrenches in the motor pool.

So, lacking a major war and a draft, is a heavy troop based CSS effort passé. All things considered, that's a good thing because the number of people who want to join the Armed Forces to do that is small and declining. Yes, some changes need to be made in the process -- and some are working; Armies change slowly -- but regression is not a good idea.

Nor is it beneficial. Getting elephants through the Alps today would arouse the Environmentalists...

[selil]

As a historian, I would think you would know better than to compare a 21st century infantryman to a Roman Legionaiire. The number and complexity of skills a modern combat soldier is required to master far outstrips any relevant historical example. It isn't marching in formation and swordplay or even musketry - there's a ton of highly technical, highly perishible skills that must be maintained. You hire an infantryman today to be a highly trained infantryman, not a generalist slave. There's barely time to keep guys proficient in all the core skills required.

Actually I strongly disagree with this Cavguy. The human being has not substantially changed and whether we use Maslow or others the basic requirements for the care and feeding of the soldier have not changed. The accessories may have changed (ipods versus harmonicas) but the actual human interactions are pretty stable.

When you add technology that tool or weapon is a metaphor for some technology lower on the ladder of sophistication. A main gun on a tank is only a bigger musket, and a musket is only a better arrow, and an arrow is only a bigger stick.

Sure there is training required and we have changed the window of that training for the military to later and later in life in the Western world. That does not change the human needs. It is quite possible to push much of the training back down the pipe into the k-12 system where it belongs, but the cultural dynamics currently will not allow it. That doesn't make the points of fixing what appears to be a brittle logistics path any less important.

There is another issue too. The political pundits, the military, the social story of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are testaments of doing without. The story of combat is of primal urgency and predation followed by ascetic lifestyle of the soldier. With domestic economic woe, high fuel prices, a country deep in recession (regardless of the media drivel), and national disasters, the stories of lobster thermidor, and movie night in the combat zone will not play well in Peoria.

Associations in the story of combat played out as soldiers staying in the former palaces of Saddam eating luxurious meals and serviced by concierge services will back fire on the military. The conscripted media and tight control of the information from flag draped coffins to embedded reporters clearance for stories will feed a blazing conspiracy. Never mind the current festering debate over contractor malfeasance, profiteering, and the political football of no-bid contracts by politicians with vested interests in the companies.

Some will get their backs all up and get pissed to the gills saying "but it's not that way". To true. But, the information and political motivations in an unpopular war that is tightly controlled feed the furnace of this firestorm. Just wait. I thought Black Water would be the one to tip the balance but it is sounding more like KBR. The USAF/Boeing KC136 tanker deal looked like it might break this open, but it didn't. Every soldier talking about FOBBITS, every story about steak, every story about contractor profiteering, paints a picture that the soldiers are complicit with the contractors using war as an excuse to live high on the hog.

I know let the recriminations begin. I would just point out that a WaPo reporter was hanging out here looking for evidence of malfeasance about the use of funds by soldiers for rebuilding.

How is that for busting the echo chamber?

[Old Eagle]

I think that you, s a historian, would have a difficult time substantiating that the end of the Vietnam War was due to an "outflow of dollars".

It also appears to me that you have developed your conclusion and are now looking for data to support it.

[Steve Blair]

Steve Blair wrote:



Oh, but they don't always complain -- there is probably more about what they thought was good, valuable, what made a difference at just the right point. Paul Boesch opened his memoir of fighting in the Huertgen Forest with a description of an artillery barrage so intense that the author felt “as if Satan himself urged the gunners on,” and then recalled the following: “From a dirty pocket I pulled a package of Charms, the fruit-flavored candy drops that came with some of our rations. Very slowly and deliberately I unwrapped one and popped it into my mouth – it tasted good.”

I've spent a lot of time thinking about those three little words, "it tasted good." Perhaps more than a normal person ought to, but that is the nature of the dissertation. But if you imagine that war itself is an assault on the senses, then it doesn't seem quite so strange to contemplate the meaning of a positive sensory experience amidst all that.

Jill

Of course they don't always complain. But if you look back on it, complaining about the food during quiet times has always been an honored passtime.

Perhaps I should explain something...I don't have ANY problem with having soldiers as cooks. Far from it. I think it's a good idea, especially when the cooks are linked to specific units. There used to be a time-honored tradition (or at least a good myth that had more than a small shade of truth to it) about the field kitchens looking after "their boys." Good for morale. Always has been. Problems usually started when the cooking duties were rotated or (as happened in some cases) when they were neglected or contracted out by default (as in local businessmen and women filling in with "pies and delicacies" that they sold for a nice profit when the rationing systems broke down).

Sam, the debate about soldiers being soldiers or laborers has been around in this country for some time. I have to admit I'm mixed on it in some ways. There are certainly functions that SHOULD be performed by soldiers (base guards, critical projects, bunker construction), but there are others that may be better contracted out. Have we gone too far with the contracting? Yes. I really think we have. Vietnam and the standard of living that was considered necessary in the rear areas (although not always in the field...or in all areas of Vietnam) accelerated this trend, along with other organizational changes.

You're quite right to bring up the festering backlash this could all cause. Especially when you have people working 2-3 jobs just to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. The last thing they want to hear are stories about lobster and steak (that they feel they're paying for) in a combat zone. I actually think that the lack of understanding on the part of many about the actual military has kept a lid on some of this, along with the things you mentioned. How long that lid will stay on is anyone's guess.

[Ken White]

Actually I strongly disagree with this Cavguy. The human being has not substantially changed and whether we use Maslow or others the basic requirements for the care and feeding of the soldier have not changed. The accessories may have changed (ipods versus harmonicas) but the actual human interactions are pretty stable.

And I strongly disagree with that -- in one aspect -- while you're correct that the the human hasn't changed, his or her expectations (environmentally dependent) certainly have. That affects the culture and the training as you noted.

That doesn't make the points of fixing what appears to be a brittle logistics path any less important.

I'd say that "appears" is the operative word with the caveat that the log system is a governmental function and our government has become broadly dysfunctional. Which is why this:

...the stories of lobster thermidor, and movie night in the combat zone will not play well in Peoria.

is IMO not a significant problem -- Peoria has other things on its mind right now.

Associations in the story of combat played out as soldiers staying in the former palaces of Saddam eating luxurious meals and serviced by concierge services will back fire on the military.

We can agree on that -- using those Palaces (and former Iraqi Army compounds) was bone stupid.

Some will get their backs all up and get pissed to the gills saying "but it's not that way". To true. But, the information and political motivations in an unpopular war that is tightly controlled feed the furnace of this firestorm. Just wait. I thought Black Water would be the one to tip the balance but it is sounding more like KBR. The USAF/Boeing KC136 tanker deal looked like it might break this open, but it didn't. Every soldier talking about FOBBITS, every story about steak, every story about contractor profiteering, paints a picture that the soldiers are complicit with the contractors using war as an excuse to live high on the hog.

There is a segment of the population that will do that; they would do it no matter what. Fortunately or unfortunately, viewpoint dependent, most will pay little attention to the majority of the things you cite -- that generally dysfunctional government thing again...

I know let the recriminations begin. I would just point out that a WaPo reporter was hanging out here looking for evidence of malfeasance about the use of funds by soldiers for rebuilding.

I think that makes my point about a certain segment...

How is that for busting the echo chamber?

I'll go about four on a scale of ten????

Not at all sure it's an echo chamber; maybe some disagreement on approaches -- and that's good -- and some disconnects about what was then and what is now.

[Cavguy]

Selil,

You say it won't play in Peoria. I actually think it plays well.

In all my travels in the USA, I have yet to hear one US Civilian complain that a soldier deployed for 15 months in a combat zone didn't occasionally deserve a nice meal, an occasional movie, or other luxuries. In fact, people often suggest that the Army isn't doing enough. If the American people were actually sacrificing anything for this war directly the case might be different, but they're not.

Let me dispel the notion, since it comes up often. The "Lobster Thermidor" (actually which are small frozen lobser tails, often dry) soldiers are eating is a special event every few weeks. By far the norm.

It only becomes a problem IMO is the soldiers are just relaxing and not accomplishing anything, or if it is exceedingly wasteful, which it is not. This is not the case.

[Ken White]

...Sam, the debate about soldiers being soldiers or laborers has been around in this country for some time. I have to admit I'm mixed on it in some ways. There are certainly functions that SHOULD be performed by soldiers (base guards, critical projects, bunker construction), but there are others that may be better contracted out. Have we gone too far with the contracting? Yes. I really think we have. Vietnam and the standard of living that was considered necessary in the rear areas (although not always in the field...or in all areas of Vietnam) accelerated this trend, along with other organizational changes.

I'm inclined to disagree to an extent on the 'base guard' aspect (very much base type dependent) but broadly agree on the others.

The 'standard of living' in the base areas in Viet Nam is an interesting phenomenon. The Navy initially had the support responsibility in-country and did a good job without getting too luxuriously inclined. The Army took over that mission in 1966 and actually ramped down a bit. Until mid '67 and then I think two factors coincided to cause the splurge. First, someone came up with the bright idea that by building big base camps, we could help the Viet Namese economy and provide jobs. I thought that was sort of a dumb way to do that and very detrimental OpSec wise but they didn't ask me. Secondly, I think Westmoreland decided he had a no-win proposition on his hands and decided to take the best care of the Troops he could. He had flaws as a commander but he did always take care of his people.

... How long that lid will stay on is anyone's guess.

Penalty of being old; seen all that before; it raises several minor media firestorms and most pay little attention to it. My guess has always been the 'wisdom of crowds' effect takes over and most people realize what's important and what isn't. Lobster may be sensational but Red Lobster has insured nationwide that it isn't exceptional.

[selil]

In all my travels in the USA, I have yet to hear one US Civilian complain that a soldier deployed for 15 months in a combat zone didn't occasionally deserve a nice meal, an occasional movie, or other luxuries. In fact, people often suggest that the Army isn't doing enough. If the American people were actually sacrificing anything for this war directly the case might be different, but they're not.

Unfortunately that isn't how it works. There are two vectors in magnitude driving the direction of public interest at least. The first vector is the tight media control by the pentagon on reporting from OIF/OEF and the stories that are allowed to percolate beyond that control. The second vector is the choice-reporting by that national news media which drives awareness in the public.

There is a third vector which over rides the other two nearly instantly as it is a personal versus national politics. That is the current state of the individual and their economic status. As that degrades (as it has the last four years) the pain threshold will be met and things will become "different" in their perspective.

I really doubt most people are going to look any Iraq war veteran in the eye and say you suck to their face. If the awareness and perceptions are changed by the media by sensationalizing largesse of the military in Iraq they will vote and actively pursue the replacement of decision makers. Unfortunately most of the patriotic drivel engaged in by the general public stops at their wallet.

I have to disagree while agreeing with Ken though. These things do run in cycles and I am sure he can remember the 70s and what Vietnam did to the military. Tipping points in the public can be tripped by a few key key things. Graft, failure, conspiracy, entitlement, and corruption all can lead to rejection of the current path and good or bad changing the course. Regardless of the pandering of the current media the American way is to hold the do'er accountable and replace the decider.

Please don't get me wrong here. I am not advocating that this happen, or that it reflects the reality (luxurious largesse in combat). However, I am surprised to see anybody argue that reality and the media, let alone the American public, have ever let reality intrude on perception. I am especially surprised to see anybody arguing against, "in all things public", anything but perception drives politics.

Didn't say I liked it but it will have to be dealt with sooner or later.

[Ken White]

...If the awareness and perceptions are changed by the media by sensationalizing largesse of the military in Iraq they will vote and actively pursue the replacement of decision makers. Unfortunately most of the patriotic drivel engaged in by the general public stops at their wallet.

For example, I agree with that statement except for active pursuit of replacement; I think the second clause negates that; that and the "Yes but he's my SOB" mentality...

Regardless of the pandering of the current media the American way is to hold the do'er accountable and replace the decider.

Agree that's the principle but our caste of permanently elected and quite venal and corrupt Senators and Representatives (the great majority, not all) says actual practice is quite different. I'd also suggest that the current American way is to punish the innocent all too often by enacting stupid laws and regulations in a futile and misguided effort to preclude recurrent wrongdoing -- and too frequently to promote the guilty to insure the Peter Principle is applied...

However, I am surprised to see anybody argue that reality and the media, let alone the American public, have ever let reality intrude on perception. I am especially surprised to see anybody arguing against, "in all things public", anything but perception drives politics.

Can't speak for others but that's not at all what I'm saying. Perception does drive the train -- but the wisdom of crowds keeps it from going too fast and frequently overrides the perceptions of some. Your wallet interest also intrudes though not totally, a lot of folks will vote against their economic interests to support a firm belief. As they should.

Didn't say I liked it but it will have to be dealt with sooner or later.

Later. Much later. It's the American way...

[Schmedlap]

Jill,

Earlier, I wrote this...

My company was tasked with providing 2 Soldiers to help the support platoon prepare food. We raised hell over that because we were only getting 2 hots meals per week, but were losing 2 men everyday for the tasking while we were were grossly undermanned and overtasked (neither of those attributes are unique to my situation - every unit in Iraq is undermanned and overtasked, particularly as Soldiers rotate to and from mid-tour leave). The XO threatened to cut off the food for LOGPAC if we didn't pony up. We said fine - we need men, not the brown lettuce. Eventually either the LTC or CSM put an end to the foolishness and we got our men back. The lesson here is that units are overtasked, overstretched, and having enough men is more important than having green eggs instead of poundcake.

And then you responded...

I could read this and say that the problem is that the contractor system is not meeting the needs and the units are not really well-prepared to deal with it. I would venture to say that such episodes will become more frequent and more ridiculous. Again, I may not have hit upon the right solution, but I think the problem is there. You can fight with me over tactics, but that doesn't change the strategic situation.

Your first sentence there seems to ignore almost everything written on this thread. The problem was fixed, so I am not sure what problem you referred to. We got our KP's back.

My only other guess for what problem you referred to would be that you see a problem in that we are eating lots of MREs? That's not a problem either, so it doesn't need fixing. I know that you have pointed out that MREs are not intended for long-term consumption. Perhaps the objective should be to make MREs that are intended for long-term consumption. Because the simplicity and ease of shipping MREs to a PB/COP is pretty sweet.

[Sargent]

Steve Blair wrote:

It's also worth remembering that one of the most frequently identified reasons for desertion in the Old Army was the number of construction and other work details piled on the troops. Many said they joined to be soldiers, not to build forts or dig ditches. Officers at the time complained loud and long about this, to no result.

They also weren't be clothed, fed, or paid with any sort of reliability -- and by the 1830s, the Army had eliminated the alcohol ration. So sure, maybe the soldiers said they were quitting because of the fort building, but I'd venture to say that it was more a case of that being the straw that broke the camel's back.

When all else was equal, commanders didn't have such a hard time getting the soldiers to build forts -- offer up a few jugs of whiskey as a bounty and the job got done post haste.

Regards,
Jill

[Steve Blair]

Steve Blair wrote: They also weren't be clothed, fed, or paid with any sort of reliability -- and by the 1830s, the Army had eliminated the alcohol ration. So sure, maybe the soldiers said they were quitting because of the fort building, but I'd venture to say that it was more a case of that being the straw that broke the camel's back.

When all else was equal, commanders didn't have such a hard time getting the soldiers to build forts -- offer up a few jugs of whiskey as a bounty and the job got done post haste.

Regards,
Jill

Sorry...but there's way too much out there to suggest that especially after the Civil War the fatigue duties had a major impact on retention. It's a concern that you see echoed constantly both in Congressional testimony at the time and in the pages of The Army and Navy Journal, which wasn't known for pulling punches. You saw a huge spike in desertions when Congress reduced base pay in about 1870, but I don't think that eliminating the whiskey ration drove many over the hill. Sutlers still sold whiskey on post (and continued to do so until the 1880s).

I'd also submit that the threat of being bucked and gagged or standing the barrel had much more to do with motivating soldiers to build posts than the possible promise of whiskey. Besides, there's a good chance that the officers themselves would have consumed the whiskey before it ever made it to the laborers. Troops would suffer a great deal if they thought there was an objective behind it (just witness the trials that anyone who served with Crook went through...), but most didn't see the point in building quarters for officers (or certainly didn't seem to).

Anyhow...we're off track now.