Posted on Feb 21, 2014
A compelling argument worth sharing: Is the Army wise to downsize from the ranks that entered service because of GWOT?
7.19K
16
11
2
2
0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-army-should-fire-some-generals-and-promote-some-captains/2014/02/21/7921a234-9802-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html<div><br></div><div>Those who have tactical-level experience in GWOT are the demographic at risk of being let go early. Those senior to them grew up in a Cold War and/or 1990's Army. Those behind cannot even expect to deploy anymore. Did the GWOT generation of Soldiers and officers gain distinct skills? Almost surely, they did. Will losing those skills be a detriment to the Army? Or, does this come down to rewarding seniority at the expense of the next generation; a first-in-last-out scenario? </div><div><br></div><div>Combat skills are not the only generational peculiarities that will be lost. The article points out that those Soldiers in their 20s and 30s are more likely to wholly include female Soldiers in all MOSs and gay Soldiers altogether. </div><div><br></div><div>If I had to weigh the strengths of the mid-grade generation against those of the senior-grade generation, I would say that the GWOT generation can learn how to do the more senior jobs while the upper ranks stand little chance of gaining the tactical skills we learned in GWOT. Everyone's service is worthy of respect, but the Army must make cuts.</div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_2048w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/02/22/Web-Resampled/2014-02-21/PentagonRetirement-U [login to see] [login to see] .jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-army-should-fire-some-generals-and-promote-some-captains/2014/02/21/7921a234-9802-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html">Modernize the Army’s leaders</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">The military should carefully consider what ranks to reduce in size.</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>
Downsizing
Army
Budget
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
The year group I came in with is the one on the chopping block. True, a lot of us made Officer ranks (or got in at all) on bent criteria* so we are by no means the best of the best. However, we answered the call and went way above and beyond when asked. My OCS roommate just came home from her third year-long deployment and she had deployed twice as an enlisted Soldier. As a logistician, how would the Army replace her 5 deployments worth of experience? Well, they will need to figure it out because her years of service put her on the bubble.
In the Army's attempt to avoid the criticism and complaints that could come from a qualitative assessment, they are once again, looking at quantitative factors so that they can be "fair." How stupid. I lost some great 35M in the culling of 2010 where they just used rank and years in service to butcher the MOS.
If you told every BN CDR, "give me your bottom 10%" I know each could easily do that and sleep well at night. But fears of the good-ole-boys network and other potential discrimination stop us from doing that. I wish I knew the right answer, but my battle buddies are stressing big time and even if they are not cut, there's harm in showing them that the Army feel no gratitude for their sacrifices. It will be hard to ever fully get the trust back.
*full disclosure: I entered the military on an age waiver, but now in the Guard, I am no longer part of the year group I entered with so I am not directly affected.
(6)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Wolfer; absolutely. Showing the door to people who have sacrificed is no way to build trust and improve culture. I think the article speaks to that point; if it has to be done, it should be done fairly.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir,
The problem is defining "fairly." In my opinion, fair shouldn't matter. What are our mission objectives? How do we need to be staffed to accomplish that? Without a specific framework, what are you cutting? Really, you don't know.
(1)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
CPT (Join to see) just saw this and totally agree. As the old saying goes - and it's the fifth time I've used it today between here and other forums - "Remember, the Army does not love you..." The simple truth is that the Army will do what the Army thinks is in its best interest. And that is what it is SUPPOSED to do. Of course, the Army might just decide to be expedient rather than clever....
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir, I agree that the Army puts the Army first, and needs to. However, I disagree with adulterating that principle with the idea that taking care of Soldiers and their careers falls short of being in the best interest of the Army. That is untrue and it is why we keep losing some of our best and brightest. In my opinion, our leaders need to champion mentorship and guidance, and drop the “Army doesn’t love you” line. It doesn’t serve the Soldier or the Army. There is no Army without Soldiers.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
why should we be cutting anything? the millions of dollars invested in training soldiers to meet a standard and the experience of warfighters is priceless. so we waste our investment and experience to spend more to train others. dont make much sense. hagels ideal of technology will replace them is just ignorance, does he remember vietnam and korea? technoogy only goes so far, great for desert warfare, but limited in jungle and mountain warfare, you need soldiers with experience.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google