Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 361

Thread: Officer Retention

  1. #181
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Correct me if I am wrong, which does happen often, but haven't the militias always been healthy? If this goes back to a national identity and ethos, wouldn't the NG still be at healthy levels?
    What Steve said, also said militias were rarely if ever deployed for true "expeditionary" service in combat zones, and certainly not for 12-15 months (or longer).

  2. #182
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Yes, it is terrible,but not for the people who are on active duty, and who have become part of the system.

    It's terrible because the country has significant geographic holes with active duty forces, especially the Army. The Mid-Atlantic, from Philadelphia north, through New England, has one major Active Army base, and that's Ft. Drum which is isolated on the Canadian border, hours from a major population center. As far as I can remember, the only other Army bases in New England/MidAtlantic are Pickatinny Arsenal, and Ft. Monmouth, and Monmouth is being brac'd and most of its functions moved to other bases in the South.

    This is a problem because the Northeast is the most densely populated part of the country, yet the Army has almost no representation there. Most of the populace are like Maggie - they don't know how we live - because we either restrict access or simply aren't there.

    Look at the number of ROTC dets in the NYC area...the biggest city in the entire country, the biggest metro area...and there is a single ROTC det. When the volunteer Army is dependent on, well, volunteers, wouldn't it be prudent to show the people you depend on how a soldier spends a day? Almost no one in the Northeast has this chance unless they actually join or have a family member who is in.

    So, yes, it's a terrible problem. Isolation is never healthy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adam L View Post
    I agree completely with your comment. Yes, the isolation being experienced must be terrible.

    Adam
    "Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"

    The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

  3. #183
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    The United States, on the other hand, never maintained a large army until the end of World War II. If you look back, the early days of the Republic are littered with debates regarding the need for (and threat of) a standing army. The army was viewed as a dumping ground for new immigrants and the riff-raff of civilian life (witness the line from the 1800s - "soldier, soldier will you work? No indeed I'll sell my shirt"). Only in recent years (since possibly World War I and certainly since World War II)

    This is a point I have been wondering about. We have never had a large standing army, in fact it seemed to me that it has been almost a point of pride NOT to have one, and the "citizen soldier" was held up as an ideal. Once the wars were over everyone went home.....

  4. #184
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Maggie,

    I liked your post because it points out something else as well...there are some folks within the military who don't know how civilians live these days. I say that because I work with military guys and see firsthand just how many problems they're going to have when they transition into jobs that don't have housing allowances, cost of living adjustments, or insurance plans (even though Tricare isn't great, it's better than what many of them will be facing). Being an Air Force brat I got to see both sides of the picture, and I'm convinced that there's almost as big a disconnect between the military perception of civilian life as there is the civilian perception of military life.

    That's always something worth keeping in mind.
    Um, yeah. But it goes back to being innies and outies--as it were. Each in group talks to each other. I've been at the fringe and blink at both sides, frankly. But it's that communication gap that's gonna get everyone.

  5. #185
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ski View Post
    Most of the populace are like Maggie - they don't know how we live - because we either restrict access or simply aren't there.

    Exactly. I don't know any anti military people, frankly. Most I know are perfectly willing to support the troops--except no one knows exactly how to do that either since most of us don't know military personally, nor have any knowledge of what goes on--or doesn't go on--within the DoD.

  6. #186
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Not trying to be flip, Maggie, I've been following

    your comments with interest, however, re: what goes on -- or doesn't go on -- within the DoD; most of us (including many working in the Pentagon) are in pretty much the same boat...

    Having a Navy father (before, during and after WWII) and then myself been in uniform for a long time but in a different era (where, rightly or wrongly, the attitude to all travails was 'suck it up'), having gone to 12 schools (only one DoD) in 12 years and having four kids who hit almost as many (no DoD) with no apparent lasting damage and then having retired and gone to work as a civilian in the midst of large city that hardly knew we had any armed forces, I can see both sides.

    I know where you're coming from and I also know where the guys are coming from. I'm not sure there is a way to bridge that divide. Nor am I at all convinced that it is a problem; certainly am not disposed to believe it is a significant problem. Still, discussions like this are the best possible thing for everyone involved.

    In any event, thanks for your good posts and stick around -- ping us for some of the things we might take for granted that you do not.

    Thanks.

  7. #187
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post

    I know where you're coming from and I also know where the guys are coming from. I'm not sure there is a way to bridge that divide. Nor am I at all convinced that it is a problem; certainly am not disposed to believe it is a significant problem. Still, discussions like this are the best possible thing for everyone involved.
    Urk. How shall I count the ways............

    I'm not talking about singing Kumbayah together (I hate that song and I was never a flower child even when I was the right age) when I talk about "bridging the gap." I am simply talking about getting past the automatic shutdown that occurs when "Soldier" and "Civilian" meet, all too often. Talking about "Quality of Life" as re the retention issue is what got me interested enough to actually post because there didn't seeem to be many "real" civilians here

    I think it was Rob who pointed out that the military is OUR military and is drawn from the general population at large--who is then urged to support that military. Therefore, it would seem to ME that it's not in the best interests of either "side", particularly NOW, to either ignore or reinforce the growing separation. I am not a particularly complicated person: military comes from civilian, military needs support from civilian, military and civilian need to talk to each other at some level seems a pretty obvious chain.

    In practical terms civilian votes outnumber military votes. For civilians to have any positive impact on issues affecting the military civilians need to

    a)KNOW about the issues
    b)have some idea about how the military feels about the issues
    c)have some idea about how each option affects whatever the issue is

    In other words--get a look inside the military world. To give a probably trite example....

    I belong to Soldiers' Angels and it's been a real eye opening experience. I bring it up because it's a good example of how if people know there is a need within the military an awful lot of us will step up. That group has grown largely by word of mouth, although at this point it's hitting national radar. From my side it's very frustrating to hear there is a need for "support" yet have no idea how, what or why.

  8. #188
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Depends on what ways you want to count

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie View Post
    Urk. How shall I count the ways............

    I'm not talking about singing Kumbayah together (I hate that song and I was never a flower child even when I was the right age) when I talk about "bridging the gap." I am simply talking about getting past the automatic shutdown that occurs when "Soldier" and "Civilian" meet, all too often. Talking about "Quality of Life" as re the retention issue is what got me interested enough to actually post because there didn't seeem to be many "real" civilians here
    I think.

    Agree on Kumbayah but I think the shutdown is simply adaptation on the part of both groups. While I was growing up, we lived both on and off base and like all service kids, I quickly discovered the "When in Rome..." rule. Things one did, talked about and the extra curricular activities one engaged in differed depending on where one lived. Some of the on base stuff simply didn't translate to the average civilian; that wasn't arrogance on either part, it was simply reality. Very different frames of reference.

    After I entered the service I found the same pattern as an adult. The average civilian had little interest in the things one lived with, the minutia of life was totally different. During most of that time, the very artificial Cold War was ongoing and the draft brought in people who adapted, served well and got out. The armed forces were fairly large, most folks remembered WW II and the services were generally respected an there was some knowledge of service life around the nation.

    After Viet Nam, no draft, services generally frowned upon by the vales of academe -- and thus, some inculcation of that in the kids in school -- all led to a lapse in knowledge and acceptance by many civilians. The services got defensive and did not help in some respects. As the services got smaller and as those civilians who were very supportive of the armed forces grew older, the rift grew deeper and wider.

    Military folks are conservative. Not politically necessarily, my sensing is that the political liberal / conservative mix is broadly reflective of the nation as a whole but conservative in approach to most things. This is caused by a tendency to stick to things that have been proven to work as experimentation with new techniques or gear might fail and thus cause unnecessary deaths; thus 'new' stuff is regarded skeptically until it is proven to work and not be detrimental. Too conservative? Yeah but it's really deeply embedded in the culture.

    This leads to a perception of Colonel Blimps and fusty Admirals that is not totally incorrect. That trickles down. Add to that a certain arrogance, the belief that what the services do is important and thus should be above question and you get a stand off attitude from the service people who are confronted with a civilian populace that is essentially skeptical of not only the armed forces as an entity but of the desirability or even the need for their existence. War, after all is evil. Simplistically, if there were no armed forces, there would be no war.

    Doesn't work that way. As the Marines say, "Nobody wants to fight a war but somebody better know how."

    Long way of getting to the point. The Armed Forces entail a vastly different life style and a slightly different view of the world. It is too easy to slip into a "The enemy is everywhere" mode and simply decide it is not worth trying to communicate with those who appear to be skeptical about ones net worth.

    Back to that conservative thought process -- the armed forces try to connect with civilians at all levels. Sometimes the efforts succeed, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they blow the message but they do, as an institution, try to bridge that gap. They frequently -- not always but frequently -- do not see that concern reciprocated. I think there plenty of fault on both sides but I do not think either side, for the most part, is malicious in sustaining that divide.

    I think it was Rob who pointed out that the military is OUR military and is drawn from the general population at large--who is then urged to support that military. Therefore, it would seem to ME that it's not in the best interests of either "side", particularly NOW, to either ignore or reinforce the growing separation. I am not a particularly complicated person: military comes from civilian, military needs support from civilian, military and civilian need to talk to each other at some level seems a pretty obvious chain.
    He did and he's right, the military broadly reflects the nation from which it comes. While I think there are a very few people on both sides who want and foster that divide there are more on both sides who do not want that divide and really work to eliminate it. Unfortunately, I think the majority of folks on both sides are too busy or preoccupied to give it much thought. Thus I think its less a matter of design and more of one a lack of understanding created by the fact that it is not seen as a pressing concern by most.

    My earlier statement that it was not a terribly bad thing was based on the fact that, other than the Cold War period, that divide has been there throughout most of our history and the nation has survived. That does not mean it's a good thing, it isn't. Nor does it mean that we shouldn't work to correct it -- we should. The good news is that a combination of todays immediate and visual communication, a chance to learn more exists. The bad news is that the DoD and armed forces public relations machine was slow to get to work on the issue. I think I see some movement in that direction and hopefully, they'll do a better job than they have in the past. If so, that will help with this:

    "In practical terms civilian votes outnumber military votes. For civilians to have any positive impact on issues affecting the military civilians need to

    a)KNOW about the issues
    b)have some idea about how the military feels about the issues
    c)have some idea about how each option affects whatever the issue is

    In other words--get a look inside the military world..."
    I agree and also think the initiative has to come from the services. I also believe they are starting to realize this and work on the problem.

    "...To give a probably trite example...

    I belong to Soldiers' Angels and it's been a real eye opening experience. I bring it up because it's a good example of how if people know there is a need within the military an awful lot of us will step up. That group has grown largely by word of mouth, although at this point it's hitting national radar. From my side it's very frustrating to hear there is a need for "support" yet have no idea how, what or why.
    Not trite at all and that is a great program. Thank you for joining them.

    No easy answers. You have a valid concern, you've identified a problem and you're doing something about it. That's what it'll take to fix it.

    Regards,
    Ken

  9. #189
    Council Member Sargent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    178

    Default Comments on Various Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by AdaptAndOvercome View Post
    I don't think one proficiency excludes another. Anyone who can not perform basic tasks needs to be remediated, but I hope the people who are the best at basic tasks can also understand higher levels of war. As we said before, the promotion rate is so high that most lieutenants will become lieutenant colonels if they stay with the Army.
    I am coming late to the discussion, but as I was reading through the logs, I found this comment interesting.

    The lieutenant's responsibilities are no more "basic" than the general's. They simply have a different point of view to deal with. Strategy is not, per se, more complex or difficult than tactics. Perhaps because the one is associated with a junior rank while the other is associated with senior rank and experience the assumption is easy to make -- this division of labor probably has more to do with physical, rather than intellectual, capabilities. However, from an intellectual perspective, there is nothing that defines one as "basic" and the other as "advanced."

    Personally, I've learned more from Rifleman Dodd than I have from many works of big thinkers. I prefer the memoirs of company grade personnel to the big chessboard histories.

    As you continue your personal education in these areas, consider Earl Wavell's advice to Liddell Hart, on how the latter ought to do military history: "I think I should concentrate almost entirely on the 'actualities of war' -- the effects of tiredness, hunger, fear, lack of sleep, weather... The principles of strategy and tactics, and the logistics of war are really absurdly simple: it is the actualities that make war so complicated and so difficult, and are usually so neglected by historians." (Quoted in Holmes, Acts of War, p.7)

    ===

    Retentions issues...

    More money will always be welcomed, but we've made our commitment, so it's not a deciding issue.

    I also don't think it's the pace of the deployments that is really the problem. Rather, what is truly difficult is the inability to plan beyond this week. Example: my husband just finished a deployment at the end of July. His parent unit to which he was returning turned down his request to forego dwell time and take another deployment that would have started in October because he was told he was needed at the unit. Fine, so we moved from RI to CA and had an expectation of some stability. On his third day back at work he was told he'd be deploying again in April. Add in a few other complications, and now my son and I will be moving back east. While this move will make my dissertation work a bit easier (school's in DC and I'll be in Newport, so I'll have the War College's resources at hand), it's a whole lot of upheaval we did not need and could have avoided had we known that this was going to happen.

    We would be willing to accept deployment "for the duration." It would be a cost and a burden we could plan for. But the current system just whipsaws us around, making everything that much more difficult.

    ===

    Civil-military divide...

    On the one hand, I know first hand that even the most tree-hugging, liberal New York civilians can have great respect for military personnel and show a tremendous level of support. The wide and diverse group of my family and friends who supported my husband's first MiTT deployment was truly astounding.

    I do think it's difficult for anyone not living the life to understand the full range of complications and burdens associated with the life. However, I think even within the military there can be a bit of ignorance of what some folks are going through. For example, if a person knows someone who's been deployed primarily to a FOB then it's going to be very hard for them to understand the stress of a different, more combat-intensive deployment. Most of them would be horrified at the idea that, after so many days of waiting for the knock on the door that you begin to wish it would just happen, if only because then that stress would be gone.

    And we ought to remember that the majority of the families are _not_ associated with the military -- the demographics of the Marine Corps, for example, are such that the majority of the guys deploying are single, and so the families are civilians living all over the country. Many of the people going through the stress of deployments have no military community upon which to rely for support.

    Alternatively, I think that there is even difficulty for the military member to understand the stresses the families are under. My husband has no idea what it's like to attend a funeral, sit at a hospital bedside, or help a young Marine cope with being taken away from his buddies because he's been wounded.

    ===

    And that's enough from me for now -- I have to go wash my car, to clean off the ash and get it ready in preparation for trip number four across the country in as many months. I am running out of routes to take...


    Cheers,
    Jill

  10. #190
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sargent View Post
    Retentions issues...

    More money will always be welcomed, but we've made our commitment, so it's not a deciding issue.
    I always wonder how much dissonance occurs in discussions not by conflicting ideas but by unrealized differing definitions of words. Been thinking about this one....

    My kids are 25 and 29. I've watched and listened to them and their friends as they've grown up (at times). They are bright, conscientous and hardworking--but their ideas about careers and "life plans" differ greatly from my parents' generation. They are definitely committed to whatever job they have at the moment, but not one of them envisioned staying with one job or one company for their entire working career. One of my daughter's friends went ROTC in college and right at the moment is very happily engaged in learning to fly C130's. He is totally committed to this activity, is happy to be in the AF()--but has no plans to make the military his entire career. I've read that the services are losing their academy graduates at an alarming rate in the 'mid-level' years, so to speak. I wonder if both money and quality of life issues are irrelevent for this generation? That if perhaps there isn't something else, at least in part, behind this? From listening to them I can see quite easily that an individual would decide to go military for a certain period of time, commit fully to that path for X number of years and then move on, having completed that piece of a career path. Doesn't even conflict with patriotic reasons for serving, in that they've done "their part" and it's someone else's turn. This in fact was part of the discussions I had with my son while he was going through the process for the Naval Academy. He wanted to serve, he wanted to go with Navy--but he seemed to think that perhaps two tours would be "enough". Many of the recruitment ads in fact foster that idea, in that they talk about serving one's country while getting an education that would serve them in civilian life later on. The implicit (sometimes explicit) assumption being that they would in fact move on.


    On the one hand, I know first hand that even the most tree-hugging, liberal New York civilians can have great respect for military personnel and show a tremendous level of support. The wide and diverse group of my family and friends who supported my husband's first MiTT deployment was truly astounding.
    Yep--but given the oft quoted number of 1% actually serving even a circle of family and friends doesn't raise the "actual contact" numbers by much. And support of someone known personally doesn't automatically translate into support for the military in general.

    I do think it's difficult for anyone not living the life to understand the full range of complications and burdens associated with the life.
    Actually, in a literal sense I don't think it's possible for anyone to fully understand someone else's life. My POV IS skewed on this; I was in high school when the Vietnam War imploded and I don't ever want to see what happened to military members then happen again. What I am talking about here is letting the civilian into the circle where those efforts can help or ameliorate the problems. I think the Valour-IT program going on now is a good example--laptops and voice activated software is being purchased for wounded soldiers. Whether the military should provide them is another question, they aren't right now. In the past the need wasn't known "outside", nor was the support offered to help out.

    And we ought to remember that the majority of the families are _not_ associated with the military -- the demographics of the Marine Corps, for example, are such that the majority of the guys deploying are single, and so the families are civilians living all over the country. Many of the people going through the stress of deployments have no military community upon which to rely for support.
    And these days the National Guard is being deployed for "regular" combat tours--and those elements don't even have a home base with a community at all, like the active duty military does. Which makes it even more important these days to get the rest of us involved.

    [QUOTE]Alternatively, I think that there is even difficulty for the military member to understand the stresses the families are under. My husband has no idea what it's like to attend a funeral, sit at a hospital bedside, or help a young Marine cope with being taken away from his buddies because he's been wounded.[/QUOTE}


    No. But that's where we can help, at least assist those of you who are doing just that.

    Maggie

  11. #191
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    After I entered the service I found the same pattern as an adult. The average civilian had little interest in the things one lived with, the minutia of life was totally different. During most of that time, the very artificial Cold War was ongoing and the draft brought in people who adapted, served well and got out. The armed forces were fairly large, most folks remembered WW II and the services were generally respected an there was some knowledge of service life around the nation.

    Yep. There are 21 in my generation--about half did at least one tour, only one did 20, the rest were scattered in between. I would say here, though, that the attitudes could be vice versa. When I would complain about moving my sister wouldn't get that moving my household several states COULD be a bit more complicated that her having the AF move her household several states.

    [QUOTE]As the services got smaller and as those civilians who were very supportive of the armed forces grew older, the rift grew deeper and wider. /QUOTE]

    I think what I'm reacting to the active dislike for the military and the circling of military wagons reactions that occured after Vietnam.

    This leads to a perception of Colonel Blimps and fusty Admirals that is not totally incorrect. That trickles down. Add to that a certain arrogance, the belief that what the services do is important and thus should be above question and you get a stand off attitude from the service people who are confronted with a civilian populace that is essentially skeptical of not only the armed forces as an entity but of the desirability or even the need for their existence. War, after all is evil. Simplistically, if there were no armed forces, there would be no war.
    That simplistic attitude is all too common to too many areas. It's THE big reason I never turned into a wild eyed college student.

    Have you ever come across a book __Voltaire's Bastards__? I can't find my copy at the moment but I seem to remember some discussion of this in re the military as well as beauracracies in general. This is, however, not a practical attitude in my opinion--on either side.


    I think there plenty of fault on both sides but I do not think either side, for the most part, is malicious in sustaining that divide.
    No. And perversely, that makes it harder to get around.

    My earlier statement that it was not a terribly bad thing was based on the fact that, other than the Cold War period, that divide has been there throughout most of our history and the nation has survived.
    I can understand that--but. It appears to me, on this side, that conditions have and are changing. I think it's the increasing activation for and use in combat now of our National Guard units that began to raise the questions NOW for me. Military service--in peacetime--was "ordinary" for my family and there weren't the problems that are now coming up. For whatever reasons the existing standing army with its core of career professionals was not enough and we need a broader base now, simply because the National Guard units in general don't have even the support of base communities to come back to. They have to depend on the civilian communities they live among *as civilians* before they were activated and to do that those communities need to be more cognizant of what's going on in the military world. Learning what these units lack has made me more curious about just how things are going in the regular forces too, and it's been a bit eyepopping curiosity trip to find out.

    And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that it was National Guard troops lacking and not 'regular' military that got me involved. It was the fact that returning National Guard troops and their families were more vocal that let me know that there were problems.

    Regards,

    Btw--it isn't just the DoD PIO's are slow, government PIO's are not on the ball generally. NASA's has been a dud for years.

    Maggie

  12. #192
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yeh, but (he said...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie View Post
    ... When I would complain about moving my sister wouldn't get that moving my household several states COULD be a bit more complicated that her having the AF move her household several states.
    Obviously a lot of variables, moving with a rental truck versus full service and such but the principal difference it would seem to me is the cost factor and even then some companies (and Civil Service, if they pay for the move) do that and give you more per diem as well. Moves are moves and they all have hassles, service frequencies can get to you...

    Have you ever come across a book __Voltaire's Bastards__? I can't find my copy at the moment but I seem to remember some discussion of this in re the military as well as beauracracies in general. This is, however, not a practical attitude in my opinion--on either side.
    Yeah, read it when it first came out back in the early 90s IIRC. wasn't too impressed, Saul made some good points but he's unnecessarily pessimistic in my view. You're right, though, it is not a practical attitude and both side IMO seem to inadvertently work to stereotype their differences...

    Weird.

    No. And perversely, that makes it harder to get around.
    That's the crux of it, road to hell is paved with good intentions -- and flawed judgment.

    I can understand that--but. It appears to me, on this side, that conditions have and are changing. I think it's the increasing activation for and use in combat now of our National Guard units that began to raise the questions NOW for me. Military service--in peacetime--was "ordinary" for my family and there weren't the problems that are now coming up. For whatever reasons the existing standing army with its core of career professionals was not enough and we need a broader base now, simply because the National Guard units in general don't have even the support of base communities to come back to. They have to depend on the civilian communities they live among *as civilians* before they were activated and to do that those communities need to be more cognizant of what's going on in the military world. Learning what these units lack has made me more curious about just how things are going in the regular forces too, and it's been a bit eyepopping curiosity trip to find out.

    And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that it was National Guard troops lacking and not 'regular' military that got me involved. It was the fact that returning National Guard troops and their families were more vocal that let me know that there were problems.
    Yes and maybe. I think a lot depends on the location. In most of the south where the Guard has strong support, the whole community effectively becomes the 'base support structure.' IF it's not a major urban area; if the unit is from a large city, it gets lost. I suspect that is true across the country and if you live in the DC-Boston corridor, you are nothing but a large city...

    Where I live, when units have been activated, the newspaper and TV stations go all out in support, letter and package drives while deployed, reporters go visit, the whole bit. Always a big well attended farewell and welcome home parade or ceremony. Couple of badly wounded guys have had new, handicapped equipped houses donated. Different world...

    Having said that, the urban units do have a problem, no question and the armed forces vary widely (and from locality to locality) in how well they support the Reserve Components. Generally that's been spotty at best, it is improving but not enough and not rapidly enough IMO.

    Btw--it isn't just the DoD PIO's are slow, government PIO's are not on the ball generally. NASA's has been a dud for years.

    Maggie
    I know, the whole government PIO effort has been steadily sinking into the gutter, I think. This administration is the worst I've seen for getting message out but none in the last 40+ years has been very good IMO. They are slow, way too politicized and just aren't very bright. Just like the media they work with.

    Regards,
    Ken
    Last edited by Ken White; 11-06-2007 at 07:08 PM. Reason: Typo

  13. #193
    Council Member Abu Suleyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    131

    Default More Bad News

    I usually like to be a problem solver, but in this case I have no suggestions. Unfortunately, this is a vicious cycle. Many people who get out of the military do so because of a poor command environment (including me). Do you suppose that more or fewer people will want to stay in under these automatically promoted buffoons?

    I am reminded of a man who went through his Officer Basic Course three times, because he was such and idiot. The military offered him a medical honorable discharge, which he refused. When I asked him why he didn't take it, since he was obviously so ill suited to life as a soldier, he replied that he knew he couldn't get a job outside, so he had to stay in. That man is now a Captain. How many people are going to want to stay in after working with him?

    I suppose that the upshot of this is that something has to be done soon, and it will have to be drastic.
    Audentes adiuvat fortuna
    "Abu Suleyman"

  14. #194
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ocean Township, NJ
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
    I suppose that the upshot of this is that something has to be done soon, and it will have to be drastic.
    Such as...?

    C'mon, don't leave us hanging! You've got me envisioning shooting every nth O-3 at random until we've thinned out the herd sufficiently.

  15. #195
    Council Member Abu Suleyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    131

    Default Drastic Measures

    Quote Originally Posted by Penta View Post
    Such as...?

    C'mon, don't leave us hanging! You've got me envisioning shooting every nth O-3 at random until we've thinned out the herd sufficiently.
    Fair enough. How about every tenth O-3, instead of at random. That seemed to work for the Romans.

    I think there are several possibilities, but all of them include either dramatically altering the structure or size of the military or both. Including but not limited to:

    Conscription including of officers
    Mass direct commission (recruiting your battalion, brigade, division commanders directly from the civilian world)
    Contract military (Think of the signs from the 1800's 'join the xxx brigade', the privateers, or perhaps even Blackwater type)
    Dismantling the current military education structure
    Mass recalls of past officers (basically a draft of people who have already served)

    Now I am not necessarily advocating these measures, but they are illustrations of what I mean when I say drastic. They have all been done in the past in the United States, and with varying degrees of success.

    The real solution is probably something I haven't listed here though. I believe that with as small a pool to draw from, and with as small a mentor pool as we have that the changes that will be needed can't happen without massive influx of new blood. Otherwise, we are merely inbreeding the same problems, over and over again. What makes the good people get out, makes more good people get out, leaving more bad people to set the policy, and then making more good people get out.

    It occurs to me that we could also simple RIF out everyone that doesn't measure up, and build a force from there as well, but that would leave our country woefully unprepared as well.
    Audentes adiuvat fortuna
    "Abu Suleyman"

  16. #196
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
    I am reminded of a man who went through his Officer Basic Course three times, because he was such and idiot. The military offered him a medical honorable discharge, which he refused. When I asked him why he didn't take it, since he was obviously so ill suited to life as a soldier, he replied that he knew he couldn't get a job outside, so he had to stay in. That man is now a Captain. How many people are going to want to stay in after working with him?

    I suppose that the upshot of this is that something has to be done soon, and it will have to be drastic.
    I think there was a solution used in 'Nam that is applicable to this individual .

    Seriously, though, how could he be allowed to remain? I know that some people who can work well in the military are hopeless at civilian jobs, but this is just ridiculous!
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  17. #197
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rocky Mtn Empire
    Posts
    473

    Default Love company?

    I hope that through forums like this you can find support and understanding. Many of us have shared your frustrations at various times in our lives/careers. All I can offer is that it usually gets better and the dedicated folks like you are the key to the future.

    Some of us lived through the dark days at the end of the Viet Nam war. The Army was not a happy place to be. In dealing with the personnel challenges the Army, Like Thos. Edison in discovering the light bulb, never failed, but discovered many potential solutions that didn't work. We upped direct commissions (not always a bad solution), increased OCS, went to 24 mo. TIS promotions to CPT., and numerous other techniques. The overall quality of the Army also sucked. Race riots (Yep, I said riots), drug cartels, lack of training and equipment. Pretty ugly.

    It took years to return to equilibrium. After we threw out hundreds of officers, we ended up short. 10% of my IOAC class were active duty recalls. One of the other co cdrs in my bn was an RC "volunteer". But eventually, we got back on track through a lot of hard work.

    Hang in there. Vent to us. Be part of the future.

  18. #198
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Old Eagle has some real wisdom there. I've done my share of venting and working my way through problems within the SWC community (which BTW has provided me a place to think on things and get feedback and insights). It amazes me though that I always come back to the idea that I have a hard time imagining myself doing something else besides being a soldier - its the company we keep I suppose, or the idea of doing something that matters.

    I got an encouraging "mass" email from HRC today regarding some of the incentives for CPTs - I say it was a mass email, but it did appeal to me on an individual level. I'd like to post an excerpt from that email & highlight some of the positive things within it. I believe it signals a strong commitment by the Army to retain its its company grade leadership.

    The most encouraging feedback we hear from our captains is how much they appreciate their senior leaders taking the time to just sit them down and say thank you. They pass along their gratitude for being appreciated and for the recognition of their many contributions this program provides.....

    Our young captains need to know there is full understanding of the great sacrifices they have made and a focused effort to address these long deployments.
    There was a good deal more in the email regarding the incentive menu available to CPTs of the target year groups, but the most important thing I think is the emphasis placed on people, and the invaluable role leadership plays in retention. This is going to take a little time to gain visual traction, but I think we'll see it. I don't think within my 11 years as an officer I've seen a more personal appeal from HRC - to me this means retention of officers has become a real priority - for the right reasons. What I mean by that is that the message was not a generated response to a shortage of officers in a given grade, but as an acknowledgment that the role of leadership has regained its rightful place within our Army culture as the fulcrum by which other things are accomplished.

    The appeal of more senior leaders to reach out to more junior leaders is not an act of desperation, but one to extend the type of "taking care of our own" philosophy that we normally only see in tactical level families to the broader installation and institution - or the Army as a whole. I think we have to adopt the idea that "we" are the Army, and if we want it better we're going to have to look after each other. If a more senior leader discovers or is told of a problem he or she may be the only person who can help solve it, or at least make it visible and consider the broader implications - we can't wait for the "bureaucracy" to catch up - taking action is not what bureaucracy does - it just provides the framework through which leaders can act.

    We have a host of challenges ahead - there is a whole generation of junior leaders whose entire life in the Army has been the cycle of deployment to war. They have done incredible work often with the most spartan resources - time in particular. Sooner or later we're going to have to go back to something that will not feel normal to that generation of leaders - one that where its OPTEMPO will still make for some deployments, hopefully will also account for some time to refit, train and bring ourselves back into balance. It will create its own brand of friction, and we will need leaders like you around to lead them.

    Best Regards, Rob

  19. #199
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default Too much is never enough...

    Do we really have a retention problem with Captains or do we simply have too many staff positions for them to fill?

  20. #200
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Do we really have a retention problem with Captains or do we simply have too many staff positions for them to fill?
    Both. In reality, we have a shortage of captains to available assignments. The attrition rate is horrendous right now - the guys exiting have been run into the ground since 9/11 and are voting with their feet. I've read over sixty percent of the West Point 2002 class filed exit papers as soon as eligible. That's striking.

    It is true the COIN enviornment has created many more captain staff positions previously unknown - Battalion IO Officer, Battalion S5, Battalion S9, extra Battle Captains, planners, etc. MiTT teams are an unresourced requirement pulled out of existing authorizations. I haven't even started on all the TDA (stateside training) assignments such as basic training companies and staff, reserve training billets, observer/controllers, recruiting command, and garrison staff not getting filled because of the priority to "deployed" assignments out of necessity. And it's not limited to captains - for example Fort Leavenworth is working at a fraction of its pre-2003 authorized military manpower - mostly due to MiTT assignments. I read from Armor branch that the equivilant of eight combat brigades worth of Armor officers are on MiTT assignments.

    One can argue whether there are too many staff billets - you don't have to look far to find some fat to trim. But largely those have been eliminated and muscle is being cut, especially in TRADOC. That muscle is being replaced largely by contractors that generally don't have the OEF/OIF background to add to the training base, and other issues when you replace serving soldiers with retired ones.

    Finally, there's the "Special Olympics" of promotions like my year group. The YG 97 Promotion rate to MAJ was a year early and over 99% were selected. Every Armor officer in my YG was selected. Not all of us deserved to be promoted.

    All these choices have long term effects on the force. The debate is whether the Army has reached the "tipping point" where the costs of these decisions become irreversable for a generation ...... some say we've already tipped, some say we're on the cliff, and some say the army will hold together. I personally think we are at that point now. I came within a hearbeat of leaving and was convinced to stay in with an assignment giving some family stability - during my assignment to Germany since 2001 I spent 46 of 70 months deployed away from my wife and son. I loved the Army - but there comes a point when the cost is too high, especially when the nation has not made the war a true national priority or asked service from anyone else.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •