Ken,
Also having been both sides of the house, one thing that Active side could do to gain some of the advantages of the reserve side is reduce the amount of movement from unit to unit. Keep people in a unit longer. The big advantage of the NG over active is that the soldiers know each other and how to work w/ each other and when they do have a deployment, that experience and knowledge stay w/ the unit for a long time. In the 41st BCT ORNG that I used to belong to, you could no longer tell the difference from prior service soldiers and those that had only served in the guard once we returned from OIF. Us prior service guys shouldered a lot of the weight early on, but this diminished fast. By the time we returned from Iraq, I would say that the M-day soldiers were every bit as skilled as the active side of the house.
Reed
Originally Posted by sapperfitz82
I agree, Reed.
All your points are correct. Too much AC movement and the continuity in RC units gives them an edge in many things. I know some FA units that have six Chiefs of section in a Battery that have all been in that job over 15 years -- they are good!
BTW, by both sides, I meant Abn and SF; my RC time is more than limited and was over a half century ago -- but I did learn much about them from working with them for years in uniform and as a DAC.
We're all one Army...
Last edited by Ken White; 01-20-2009 at 06:33 PM.
off topic, I know, but I have respond to Reed
Having been on both sides of the house myself, I disagree with you. I think active duty has the right idea. It prevents buck SGTs from calling the 1SG by his first name after being in the same unit for 10 years (just what I experienced in the NG). In AC, just about the time that folks get TOO comfortable with each other, they move on.
On active duty, it is also possible for folks (NCOs in particular) to homestead on posts forever. My last 1SG had been at Campbell for 12 years, most of it in the same BCT and BN. There were several NCOs in my BN at Campbell that had been there for 5+ years.
Also consider that active duty work together every single day, as opposed to just drills. In my own experience, I developed much closer relationships with peers, superiors and subordinates much more quickly than I did in the Guard unit I was in for 4 year. Relationships forge quickly in the military, from what I've seen. Maybe they don't work and live in the same town like NG, but professionally, relationships on active duty flourish pretty quickly, IMO...it makes sense, you work with them everyday.The big advantage of the NG over active is that the soldiers know each other and how to work w/ each other and when they do have a deployment, that experience and knowledge stay w/ the unit for a long time.
I'm glad it went well for your unit. In theory, it should work that way. Not sure it ends up being that way across the board. Not sure if the NG/RC SOF dynamic works differently. With that being said, I never met a CA guy or PSYOPer that wasn't RC...In the 41st BCT ORNG that I used to belong to, you could no longer tell the difference from prior service soldiers and those that had only served in the guard once we returned from OIF. Us prior service guys shouldered a lot of the weight early on, but this diminished fast. By the time we returned from Iraq, I would say that the M-day soldiers were every bit as skilled as the active side of the house.
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
further off post...
To be honest that sounds more like culture shock then anything else to me (and believe me, I had it as well), how does a buck sergeant calling the Top "Bob" prevent him from effectively completing his mission exactly? Also keep in mind that it is more likely to be due A) poor discipline in a unit that only meets one weekend a month-two weeks a year or B) lowly SGT works w/ "Bob" the 1stSGT in the real world then because they have been in the same unit too long. As for your second point, that may be true, but you can't guarantee it, and how quality were those particular NCO's? If you have to sacrifice your commitment to the job in order to remain in a location (my experience w/ homesteading NCO's) then those soldiers are not very good examples of the benefits or liabilities of allowing for a more stable roster.
True, but personal relationships have little to do with effectively working together and placing the best person for the job in the job. I disliked several soldiers in my squad and even on my team, but I knew there strengths and weaknesses and could lead them effectively. My RTO had been an RTO for 3-4 years, on active duty they usually had been an RTO for less then 6 months.Also consider that active duty work together every single day, as opposed to just drills. In my own experience, I developed much closer relationships with peers, superiors and subordinates much more quickly than I did in the Guard unit I was in for 4 year. Relationships forge quickly in the military, from what I've seen. Maybe they don't work and live in the same town like NG, but professionally, relationships on active duty flourish pretty quickly, IMO...it makes sense, you work with them everyday.
Again CA is making a big recruiting push, so perhaps we will see that change. I would also guess that the culture shock between SF and RC is much less due to the SOF communities less formal operating mode to begin with. Of course I have never been or worked with the SF community, my knowledge is all second-hand through peers in the community.I'm glad it went well for your unit. In theory, it should work that way. Not sure it ends up being that way across the board. Not sure if the NG/RC SOF dynamic works differently. With that being said, I never met a CA guy or PSYOPer that wasn't RC...
Reed
We've had this discussion before so no sense in revisiting it
but if a 1SG is really competent he won't really care what SGT Heebly calls him, he will care how Heebly performs and if that's good, then Heebly can call him "SOB" and get away with it...
More to the point, that 'move on' bit also prevents a lot of accountability processes. For example; if one is a BC and has a mediocre 1SG (there are a lot of them about) but one knows the 1SG's leaving in six months, there is little incentive to fix the problem. If one is himself leaving in a few months, there's no incentive to get rid of bad apples that will not be moving with one.That propensity for staying tends to make one police the ranks a little better, poor performers get noticed and zapped......My last 1SG had been at Campbell for 12 years, most of it in the same BCT and BN. There were several NCOs in my BN at Campbell that had been there for 5+ years.
That's one factor that gives both the 82d and 101st a little bit better overall performance capability than many units (having said that, all units go through cycles -- I've seen both Divisions in sad shape).
Both sides of the AC / RC mix have good and bad points and traits, in the end, it's all about the quality of the people -- and, mostly, there is little difference between them and they're pretty good. For which we should all be thankful.
Are you saying the numbnuts who run CA have decided to grant an exception to Reserve Officers living overseas for the transition course? This is the kind of brain dead idiotic decisions that I'm familiar with vis-a-vis CA.As for 120mm's observations, some are valid and some not so. We in the CA community are looking for good, smart soldiers...send me a PM and I will get you linked up with someone who can help you sign up and then you can straighten things out.
My complaint about that dates back to earlier this year. I doubt it has changed since then. If CA cannot or will not recognize the unique asset that ex-pat Reserve Officers could potentially be, I have nothing for them. And if they think that it is reasonable for an ex-pat Reservist to give up their tax exempt status to rebranch CA, they are smoking weed.
And not thanks, I believe that CA is beyond straightening out. Making CA a branch was a mistake.
So we've clearly identified a problem with Reserve CA and PSYOP troops then. Given that brand new units are being stood up and soldiers are being brought in from other MOS, with seasoned MPs becoming amateur PSYOP and CA RC's, it seems that some of the blame lies with a faulty reserve model. It may work fine for a logistics unit, or even an MI unit, but if we were to rebuild CA and PSYOP, or even reintroduce RC SF, what would we do different? I've heard great things about the NG SF units, what are they doing different, and how can RC CA and PSYOP benefit from whatever it is that they are doing differently?
We have?
Seems to me we've heard that they don't hit the weight standard and that they have arcane personnel management rules (as does the entire Army -- both items...). I'm not sure that equates to a problem. Reserve CA an PsyOps folks generally work full time in allied fields as civilians and thus develop a day-to-day expertise that few active duty people will achieve through training or education.The two USAR SF Groups left the structure as a result of a political deal between the ARNG and the USAR. That deal saw all combat arms units in the ARNG and the USAR convert to CS/CSS. Dumb idea IMO but it's done. I'm not at all sure that the reserve CA/PsyOp element are in as much disarray as you seem to think......it seems that some of the blame lies with a faulty reserve model. It may work fine for a logistics unit, or even an MI unit, but if we were to rebuild CA and PSYOP, or even reintroduce RC SF, what would we do different? I've heard great things about the NG SF units, what are they doing different, and how can RC CA and PSYOP benefit from whatever it is that they are doing differently?
But I'm old and retarded so I'll yield to someone who's there now...
Thanks for the CA baton...
Chores permitting I'll see if I can set aside some time this weekend to research and add a post on military government/civil affairs history. I will also try and address in a short space why it's still around and why it's a fun/rewarding specialty for those of us who practice it...
Somebody else will have to take the the SF and PSYOP batons.
Last edited by Surferbeetle; 01-21-2009 at 05:51 PM.
Sapere Aude
disarray
I dont think I would ever say its disarray, but its been pretty well established that we have a mixed reputation. Its incumbent on us to turn that around and leave every supported unit from here on out thinking 'damn, those guys were great, how did I ever do my job without them?', so I'm just engaging in a creative thought experiment.
Not even sure it's that.
Admitting that I'm not current, I did play with those kinds of folks off and on for a long time. Then the problem was not that they were incompetent -- they were quite competent. The problems were, in order of importance:
- Too many combat arms commanders didn't know how they were best employed and a good many of those were too ego driven to listen to good advice.
- They were scruffy Reservists, many needed haircuts, etc. etc.
While I'll acknowledge that there are some poor performing types in the CA / PsyOps world (no field of endeavor is filled with perfect people), I think, based on my observations that the issue is not so much your guy's reputations as it some people prejudices and lack of knowledge (attributable to poor training).
Bet the Combat Arms Officer Basic Courses offer little instruction on the use of either one of those force multipliers. Yet, almost every graduate thereof will work with them before he sees another school...
And we have known that for over 63 years.
Can you qualify this statement? What great things have you heard about NG SF? You want to see if anything they do differently would transfer to the reserve CA forces but I am not sure that there is really anything to transfer.
SFC W
This is something that I have seen more than once in the last few years. As ken notes, it is an old problem. Prior to OIF, Big Army really didn't want to have anything with the type of missions they routinely do now. They didn't want to do FID, they didn't want to do COIN and they damn sure din't want to have spend time worrying about the indig except as obstacles on the battlefield. That was all stuff to be left to the "snake eaters" and good riddance. CA clearly fell into that group. SF was off doing FID and UW and building rapport with the indig while Big Army was concerned with defending against 20 Guards Tank divions rolling out of the Fulda Gap. Both groups sort of looked down their noses at one another but they were more or less happy with way things were divided, and that included CA assests. Then along came OIF and everything changed. After the invasion, Big Army found itself doing alot of those tasks that they has outright disdained for years and SF found itself sharing those tasks with the Big Army. That has created a lot of the friction that has occured between these two groups in recent years. Now Big Army wants more CA. Fine. I whole heartedly agree that have more CA available to Big Army is a good thing. I do get annoyed, however when I hear people complaining about how SF gets more of the AD CA guys when, for years, SF was the main user of CA assets. I also can't help but wonder if, after OIF ends and OEF draws down if you won't see a return to the old division of labor between SF and Big Army.
SFC W
It's above our paygrade but
somebody needs to work on both those problems There's no need for either. The structural imbalance is an easy fix.
While a certain degree of professional jealousy will always exist and is even healthy in small doses, when it gets in the way of getting the job done, it should be fixed. It seems that there's a fair degree of cooperation and understanding at the working level, be nice if it could be raised to the echelons above reality...
I've just heard great things about them. People who have worked with them that I know have said they were top notch. I don't know why - I can only assume that they train very effectively and are good at their jobs.
As far as RC CA/PSYOP being scruffy and needing haircuts, I think there is a need for these groups to culturally distinguish themselves from the high and tight 82nd types. In the Arab world, for instance, facial hair and beards are immediate symbols of virility, power, and trustworthiness. I cannot stand facial hair on myself, and I look absolutely retarded with a mustache, but bet your britches I'm growing one out when I get deployed (hopefully I can stand it). From what I've seen there's an intentional cultivation of that scruffier look specifically in order to present a less militant and hostile image to the population.
Does this come across as lazy or rebellious to Commanders?
All units have
good periods and bad periods; all of 'em have subordinate elements that vary from good to bad. The 19th and 20th did and do train hard, they did and do get a lot of active SF guys who get out and want to go to the Groups; so they are pretty good -- but nobody's always great. Nobody. Nor any unit...Partly true, I think but I suspect the average Co Cdr in the deuce won't agree.As far as RC CA/PSYOP being scruffy and needing haircuts, I think there is a need for these groups to culturally distinguish themselves from the high and tight 82nd types.Uh, yeah -- for them selves. Since they mostly watch a video or TV once in a while, they know that westerners generally don't do that, you simply become someone who's trying way too hard to fit in -- and, in most case unless you're really fluent in the language and really like the culture and adapt to it thoroughly (which, unfortunately, can sometimes cause chain of command problems...), they won't five uyou much credit for facial hair. The Marine unit that went in to Fallujah with OIF 3 all grew mustaches, I heard they pretty well shaved 'em off after a few weeks. A lot of SF guys do the beard thing -- for them it's an advantage in delaying their identification as US for a few minutes; they may think it's a cultural in but folks in Afghanistan tend to call them 'the Jews' on the rastionale that only Muslims and Jews were beards...In the Arab world, for instance, facial hair and beards are immediate symbols of virility, power, and trustworthiness.
Wait 'til you get there to decide. As to presenting a less miltant look, the flip side of that is that Arabs do weakness, OTOH, if you look like you know what you're doing, they tend to leave you alone if possible.I cannot stand facial hair on myself, and I look absolutely retarded with a mustache, but bet your britches I'm growing one out when I get deployed (hopefully I can stand it). From what I've seen there's an intentional cultivation of that scruffier look specifically in order to present a less militant and hostile image to the population.It will to some, those with enough self confidence won't worry about it, may even encourage it IF they know it does in their AO what you think it might.Does this come across as lazy or rebellious to Commanders?
Overrated
I've done long hair, mustache, beard, high and tight, and shaved head thing in my tours. Some out of necessity and water conservation, some out of pure experimentation and attempts to do what you're talking about.
I've found that competency and sincerity count more to the Arabs than follicular exuberance.
Example is better than precept.
Ditto what RTK said. It's all a bunch of crap.
Guys will try and go "scruffy" on deployment because there's some misnomer that looking like that is cool. I don't really get it.
You're an American Soldier. Arabs all know it and could care less if you grow a mustache. They will be more impressed with your sincerity, effort and patience.
I will admit that for 6 weeks during deployment #2, I grew a mustache and went sans haircut. I did not do so to impress any Arab I worked with, but too infuriate and annoy my commander (who hated both long hair and mustaches), which I enjoyed doing very much.
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
Its a Kodak Moment
For the most part I agree with the criticisms about the long hair and facial hair. It has simply been over done. When you see some of these kids on the FOB everyday with their Jihad beards or ungroomed (and not so bushy) mustaches with long side burns, yet you never see them on patrol you have to stratch your head and wonder what the real purpose is. Everyone wants their cool guy photos I guess. Did GEN Petraeus grow a beard or mustache? Was he disrespected because he didn't?
RTK pegged it quite well,You know it went too far when you're in Afghanistan and the U.S. dudes are bearded, but their ANA counterparts are relatively clean shaven because they're enjoying their freedom from Taliban rule. We claim it is so we can fit in better, but that argument is frequently superficial for the most part, because that is as far as many are willing to go to fit in better.I've found that competency and sincerity count more to the Arabs than follicular exuberance.
On the other hand, there are definitely times when it is required (or sometimes it is just helpful), and adult leadership can figure that out. If you need it, then by all means go for it. F@#* a bunch of worthless of regulations that aren't applicable and the morons who mindlessly enforce them, but on the other hand if you don't need it for operational purposes, stop making the force look stupid. Just do the right thing for the right reason.
And let's not even get started on the dreaded rolling of sleeves. Folding back the cuff of one's sleeve about two inches? That has scarred many mens' souls...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks