Posted on Nov 10, 2014
Are Regionally alligned units worrth it in the long run?
1.7K
3
1
1
1
0
As the Army continues to downsize and deactive BCTs, is the Regionally alligned concept really worth it in the end. From what I see, units are going to stay on a constant rotation basis ensuring that Soldiers continue to deploy throughout their careers. There will be continued instability with families and an associated cost with moving each unit back and forth. Why not just maintain units abroad like we have done and provide stability for families and reduce costs.
http://www.army.mil/article/113660/Regionally_aligned_forces_continue_to_organize_despite_budget_uncertainties/
http://www.army.mil/article/113660/Regionally_aligned_forces_continue_to_organize_despite_budget_uncertainties/
Posted in these groups: 
Family
Family
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
No.
Why?
Because the Army won't stick with the concept long enough to gain the benefits associated with habitual regional alignment of units, and because the Army assignment system doesn't align with the regionally aligned concept. The Army haphazardly assigns individual Soldiers, taking them from one unit and moving them to another location based on the concept that as Soldiers advance they need a range of experience to be successful. So what we'll end up with, in the best case, is a regionally aligned unit filled with individual Soldiers assigned to that unit for at best a couple years, in which time they could feasibly build some regional expertise, but then they'll get assigned to a completely different regionally aligned unit....and regionally aligned units will only be regionally aligned if they don't have other missions (ie, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ebola response, wherever we go next)....so, while the regionally aligned concept briefs well, I don't think it will work over the long run.
How to make it work?
Build truly regionally aligned units; let individual Soldiers stay in a regionally aligned unit throughout their career, with minimal out-of-unit assignments; invest in foreign language training for all (or, at least, most; or, at least, some!); invest in advance civil schooling focused on area studies for officers and senior non-commissioned officers assigned to regionally aligned units. Essentially, make mini-FAOs out of at least some folks assigned to regionally aligned units, and keep these folks in the same regionally aligned unit for the long run.
Why?
Because the Army won't stick with the concept long enough to gain the benefits associated with habitual regional alignment of units, and because the Army assignment system doesn't align with the regionally aligned concept. The Army haphazardly assigns individual Soldiers, taking them from one unit and moving them to another location based on the concept that as Soldiers advance they need a range of experience to be successful. So what we'll end up with, in the best case, is a regionally aligned unit filled with individual Soldiers assigned to that unit for at best a couple years, in which time they could feasibly build some regional expertise, but then they'll get assigned to a completely different regionally aligned unit....and regionally aligned units will only be regionally aligned if they don't have other missions (ie, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ebola response, wherever we go next)....so, while the regionally aligned concept briefs well, I don't think it will work over the long run.
How to make it work?
Build truly regionally aligned units; let individual Soldiers stay in a regionally aligned unit throughout their career, with minimal out-of-unit assignments; invest in foreign language training for all (or, at least, most; or, at least, some!); invest in advance civil schooling focused on area studies for officers and senior non-commissioned officers assigned to regionally aligned units. Essentially, make mini-FAOs out of at least some folks assigned to regionally aligned units, and keep these folks in the same regionally aligned unit for the long run.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google