Contractors Doing Combat Service Support is a Bad, Bad Idea

[Sargent]

I disagree completely. I think that you have drawn the conclusions that best fit your idea of how things should be. Comparing men who have voluntarily chosen to do the most demanding a dangerous jobs there are to petulant children is not "blunt," it's insulting.

Anybody who threatens to quit a job -- even the most heroic of jobs -- if they are asked to anything that exceeds their comfort zone is vulnerable to a degree criticism. If you think that is insulting, well I can't do anything about it. Go back and read the descriptions of the soldiers offered up as evidence for why such an idea as I presented would not work -- none of them are particularly flattering. Perhaps you could share the joy and direct some of your ire at those who wrote the unflattering comments to begin with. They were, after all, the sine qua non of my conclusions.

Bottom line, "PFC Schmuckatelli will quit because he didn't sign up for that" is a bad argument against the idea, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it does not reflect well upon PFC Schmuckatelli -- and I think this last part is important (hint -- that ought to suggest that I am not altogether keen to insult the good PFC to begin with). The bureaucratic, work specialization, and others are better. None of them are deal breakers, but they require additional thought.

Regards,
Jill

[Uboat509]

Tell a cop that he has to spend two years stocking the shelves at Safeway or a firefighter that he has to spend two years as a frycook and you are going to get the same answer. For that matter, tell the average stockboy at that Safeway that he has to risk his life to spend two years arresting criminals or a frycook that he has to risk his life putting out fires and you will get a similar answer. Few people are suited to the types of jobs that CA entails and fewer still are willing to do them. I hardly think that it is unreasonable for those individuals to expect to be allowed to do those jobs. I would take a guy who wants to to the job over a guy who has been forced to do the job. This is precisely why the draft is a non-starter.

SFC W

[selil]

Tell a cop that he has to spend two years stocking the shelves at Safeway or a firefighter that he has to spend two years as a frycook and you are going to get the same answer.

Most California sheriffs offices required patrol to do 2 years in the jail before going to the street and then 1 year in five after that in the jail. Of course that was the late 80s early 90s.

[Sargent]

Tell a cop that he has to spend two years stocking the shelves at Safeway or a firefighter that he has to spend two years as a frycook and you are going to get the same answer. For that matter, tell the average stockboy at that Safeway that he has to risk his life to spend two years arresting criminals or a frycook that he has to risk his life putting out fires and you will get a similar answer. Few people are suited to the types of jobs that CA entails and fewer still are willing to do them. I hardly think that it is unreasonable for those individuals to expect to be allowed to do those jobs. I would take a guy who wants to to the job over a guy who has been forced to do the job. This is precisely why the draft is a non-starter.

SFC W

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Ken White]

Anybody who threatens to quit a job -- even the most heroic of jobs -- if they are asked to anything that exceeds their comfort zone is vulnerable to a degree criticism.

That may be your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. Others may not agree but that's really irrelevant in both cases. What's possibly relevant is that the issue isn't a comfort level on the part of those who want to do a particular thing, it's whether you can attract the numbers to do some things. As several stated above, we aren't doing too well at that in part because civilian industry pays better for the good stuff and not many really want to do the bad stuff.

If you think that is insulting, well I can't do anything about it. Go back and read the descriptions of the soldiers offered up as evidence for why such an idea as I presented would not work -- none of them are particularly flattering. Perhaps you could share the joy and direct some of your ire at those who wrote the unflattering comments to begin with. They were, after all, the sine qua non of my conclusions.

Unflattering? Unappealing to you perhaps but not necessarily unflattering, it's simply reality. Personally, I see nothing wrong in a person wanting to hew to a particular line of work -- because that's what's at issue. You see it as being a Marine -- he may see it as being a Grunt, period. I don't think either of you are wrong but you do have different perspectives and unlike you, he has to live with his.

Bottom line, "PFC Schmuckatelli will quit because he didn't sign up for that" is a bad argument against the idea, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it does not reflect well upon PFC Schmuckatelli -- and I think this last part is important (hint -- that ought to suggest that I am not altogether keen to insult the good PFC to begin with).

Schmuckatelli will not quit -- he signed a contract and will do what he's told until his enlistment is up. The issue is not that, it's whether he will reenlist or not if you do that to him. You say he should or it will not reflect well on him. Frankly, I don't think he gives a hoot what others think. He's got to live with himself and by the time he comes up for reenlistment, he's old enough to have figured out that the opinions of others merit some consideration but cannot -- should not -- be a determinant for what he does.

There are a lot of combat arms NCOs in both the Marines and the Army who are perfectly capable of getting a commission -- and they opt not to do so simply because they know they'd have to 'generalists' and do desk things (and social things, for some... ) -- and they'd really rather not. As mentioned above, many CSS guys get reclassified to the combat arms when numbers get tight, most adapt pretty well to that switch but that is not true in reverse. My guess is that a healthy majority of combat arms guys would not reenlist if they were to be reclassified or had to serve in CSS positions. I would not have and as a Navy junior, I got a reasonably good grounding in responsibilities and duties. People are different...

None of which addresses the real issues -- raw numbers of persons available and the number who will enlist to do the CS/CSS jobs.