A compelling argument worth sharing: Is the Army wise to downsize from the ranks that entered service because of GWOT?

2014-02-21T21:39:18-05:00

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>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2014 10:21 PM

2014-02-21T22:21:04-05:00

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.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Mar 16 at 2014 4:55 AM

2014-03-16T04:55:56-04:00

The author of this article is Adrian H Boneberger, who was an infantry officer from 2005 to 2012, writes in a 1997 Freshman All-College paper, that chivalry in war is a social characteristic, part culture-based, born to become into a hereditary profession (Bonenberger, 1997). His paper Chivalry, 1997 sets the stage for his current article Why the Army should fire Generals and promote Captains, 2014.<div><br></div><div>Based on his paper on 1997 chivalry, and current 2014 Generals are too old, lack chivalry values and a Captain who is junior in grade can do the job. Because of chivalry? I argue also that this article shows bias toward an infantry officer's insight of downsizing rather than a diverse population of NCO's or lower enlisted, Service member's viewpoint. Serving 1 term as compared to a 20 year SM, he has limited to no credibility on the subject matter and IMO stuck in years 1100-1300 England history, hence he's damaged goods in that department.</div><div><br></div><div>He does write well though, and may do well with Dr. Seuss or Peter Pan types in children books. </div><div><br></div><div><div><div><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">Bonenberger, A.H. (2014). Why the Army should fire Generals and promote Captains. Retrieved from website 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</span><br></div><div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;">Bonenberger, </span><span class="h1r1a" id="h1r1a_5" style="border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-top-color: transparent; border-right-color: transparent; border-left-color: transparent; outline: 0px; font-size: 11px; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none; float: none; text-decoration: underline; color: rgb(76, 76, 255); cursor: pointer; font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; display: inline !important;">Adrian</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;"> H., "Chivalry: Legend or Realistically Relevant Code?" (1997). </span><em style="border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 11px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">All-College<span class="h1r1a" id="h1r1a_3" style="border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-top-color: transparent; border-right-color: transparent; border-left-color: transparent; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent; list-style: none; float: none; text-decoration: underline; color: rgb(76, 76, 255); cursor: pointer; display: inline !important;">Writing Contest</span>.</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;">http://publications.</span><span class="h1r1a" id="h1r1a_8" style="border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-top-color: transparent; border-right-color: transparent; border-left-color: transparent; outline: 0px; font-size: 11px; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none; float: none; text-decoration: underline; color: rgb(76, 76, 255); cursor: pointer; font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; display: inline !important;">lakeforest</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;">.</span><span class="h1r1a" id="h1r1a_6" style="border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-top-color: transparent; border-right-color: transparent; border-left-color: transparent; outline: 0px; font-size: 11px; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none; float: none; text-decoration: underline; color: rgb(76, 76, 255); cursor: pointer; font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; display: inline !important;">edu</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;">/allcollege_writing_contest/74</span></div></div></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><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>

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2014 7:15 AM

2014-03-16T07:15:00-04:00

Ryan, multiple points to consider on this. 1) Where were the CPT's when GWOT started? 2) Where were the generals when GWOT started? 3) What training is necessary to prepare an Army for both conventional and "unconventional" war? 4) Are the "grapes sour" here? First, the junior CPT's never served in the Army that trained prior to our longest unconventional war. Of course we can get into the definition of unconventional and deliberate over the fact that it is only defined by what a nation refers to as conventional war, but let's let that lie since we know how we (and most modern armies in the west) define it. So...are they really prepared to train an Army for both AND are they as tactically flexible as the article really proposes. Flexible enough to maintain what they have tactically AND dig into the manuals and regain the skills lost. If we believe they haven't lost those skills, WE are wrong. Coming out of the National Training Center recently on a DATE rotation, I'll tell you first hand we have lost those skills from the MAJ down and from the MSG down. We'll learn it fast though, but it takes those from the LTC and up and the SGM/CSM up to ensure we are doing the right kind of training, with the right kind of rigor to make it happen. Second, those generals, especially the 1 and 2 star (and the COL's right now) were CPT's and MAJ's when the war kicked off. They were working at the tactical through theater strategic level at the ground level translating years of conventional training into what would become COIN doctrine. They are the ones that shifted the military, created the design methodology and made all of those changes happen. The author executed it all at a VERY tactical level. Hell, I didn't think I was an expert at conventional war after 6 years of training for it...he shouldn't think he knows better than someone with 20 years of experience, 11 of it being from COIN from the CPT-COL ranks. That's not insight or brilliance, that's straight-forward arrogance and self-promotion. He might have a point about some 3 and 4 stars, but I'd have to go with my points previously and say that for their level of leadership, they have the experience in both realms that makes them relevant for the task at hand today. Third, if we are going to train for both scenarios, which of these peer groups has experience in both worlds? Certainly, we'd come to the conclusion that the experience factor goes to those from LTC on up. The question he posits in not that the seniors don't have the experience, but that the juniors are more flexible, adaptable and agile. That will always be the case. Someone new will always be more flexible...in general...but not all the time...and not in the right ways to face the challenges of senior rank. A senior CPT might make a good field grade, a senior MAJ might make a good LTC, but skipping on up the ranks willy-nilly is a really BAD idea. Finally, this guy is out. He lost his vote. We've had quite a few guys come to me and say, "This training thing just isn't for me, sir. I joined the Army to fight a war, not train for one." That isn't flexibility...it's myopic. The author lost his vote. If he could do well, he should have stayed in. You can throw all the paper you want at the big-green-machine. It will keep churning on and it will be ready for the next war...with the CPT's that remained...and they will be prepared.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 3 at 2014 8:45 AM

2014-04-03T08:45:34-04:00

Excellent article, thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Response by 1SG Michael Minton made Apr 4 at 2014 9:52 AM

2014-04-04T09:52:23-04:00

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2014 2:08 AM

2014-08-06T02:08:25-04:00

FY14:
1,188 captains involuntarily separated.
550 majors involuntarily separated.
136 lieutenant colonels eSERB'd.
103 colonels eSERB'd.

= 1977 O-3, O-4, O-5, O-6 cut.

FY15:
OSBs and eSERBs planned for O-3, O-4, O-5, O-6. Numbers to be cut unclear. But for fun let's say the same as FY14.

1,188 captains involuntarily separated, x 2 (and rounded) = 2,400
550 majors involuntarily separated, x 2 (and rounded) = 1,100
136 lieutenant colonels eSERB'd, x 2 (and rounded) = 275
103 colonels eSERB'd, x 2 (and rounded) = 210

My math skills aren't great, but that's a lot of officers!

Now, let's imagine the formations that 210 O-6, 275 O-5, 1,100 O-4, and 2,400 O-3 can fill.......I'm going to estimate an Army Corps, just for comparison. For fun, let's pick III Corps at Ft. Hood....or, better, let's just focus on Ft. Hood, as I'm guessing that about 4,000 field grade and senior company grade officers are stationed at Ft. Hood. Again, this is just for comparison.

Now, about how many generals are at Ft. Hood? I'm going to guess about 20, all told. I could probably do the research and figure this out exactly, but who has the time....

Out of 20 generals (or 15, or 10), if 5 to 10% of the subordinate ranks are being cut, do we still need all of these generals? Maybe. Perhaps the Army could include a discussion about this in its (non-existent) strategic messaging plan. Maybe generals are being cut at the same rate as every one else. But until the Army communicates, we'll never know.

A different way to look at this might be to look at the number of generals in the Army. (This is active duty only, I couldn't find / didn't look for data on USAR and NG).

As of 30 June 2014, there were:
11 x O-10
49 x O-9
114 x O-8
141 x O-9
=315 generals in the Active Duty Army.

Assuming a 6.5% cut rate (based on the MAJ OSB rate), the proportional reduction in general officer ranks would be 20.475, so let's round up to 21. Proportionally the cuts would be distributed equitably across the 4 x GO ranks, so the Army would need to cut (approximately) 1 x O-10, 3 x O-9, 8 x O-8, and 9 x O-7. (You'll note that 21 comes pretty close to my estimate of 20 generals at Ft. Hood). You can find active duty numbers at: https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/reports.do?category=reports&subCat=milActDutReg

I suppose my overall point is that in a shrinking Army, if the Army doesn't cut generals at the same rate as it cuts all other ranks, we'll end up with an extremely top heavy Army. The following may not be a great source, but its adequate (as I've seen similar comparisons elsewhere): http://fabiusmaximus.com/2012/09/10/american-military-force-changed-43153/. Essentially, the ratio of general officers to other ranks has increased rapidly since WWII. An adjustment is needed.

I'll end with a cynical suggestion....maybe the reason the Army is cutting O-3 to O-6 at such a high rate is to create jobs for all the GOs who are no longer needed. Perhaps soon we'll see GOs leading BNs and BDEs.

Again, the Army could clarify with a simple, transparent strategic communication plan.