Ken,
A slight majority of CSM's I have endured have "taking care of soldiers" back-assward in my view. They think their role is to enforce discipline. Rather than focus on the important things, they equate discipline to "enforcing the standard", usually evidenced by unusual concern with police call, uniform quality, haircuts, speed limits.
I have rarely seen them concerned with weapons maintenance, vehicle maintenance (other than making sure chalk blocks and drip pans were down), soldier food quality, supply availability, or things that really matter to combat survival.
I have had some MAJOR exceptions to this. But somewhere between E-7 and E-9 many lose perspective of their role in the unit, and go through motions rather than helping with what really matters.
I think the Parameters article from 15 years ago arguing for the abolition of the CSM (not SGM) rank above BN level had some merit. The higher level the CSM the more they focus on BS, typically.
Ken, I think it's the constant exposure to danger (in and out of the line), not the intensity, that creates the combat stress. Multiply x2 to x10 for those in leadership positions. One can only handle the weight so long, that is why I advocate regular rotation to rear areas, which is something learned in WWII and I read about as well in Korea. And yes, each individual is different. It is also directly related to unit morale and perception of winning/progress. It is worst when it appears you are taking casualties for no gain.I'm not sure whether the tedium and long term pressure of COIN operations are worse than MCO. My sensing is that each affects different people in different ways; some can tolerate one and not the other, some tolerate neither and some can tolerate both fairly well. There are studies which posit 200 days of combat is the determinant but that's a median and I think it's still a very individual thing.
Bookmarks