Posted on Oct 30, 2013
SFC Customer Care Representative
15.3K
6
4
2
2
0
Many of us don't like or agree with it, but the hard truth is that due to budget constraints, current downward trend is operational tempo and less political support than at the height of the post-9/11 era of war we are and will continue to experience a downsizing of the force.&nbsp; There is some tug-of-war between the components for resources and missions, and there has been some discussion of changing the mixture as far as the size and scope of Active Duty, Reserve and National Guard overall.&nbsp; What do you feel should happen and why?&nbsp; Where should the balance be between training, readiness and cost?<br>
Avatar_feed
Responses: 3
SSG Mike Angelo
2
2
0
Is there a piece for the Army Corps of Engineers in your question? they r downsizing too; this is it...they r done; who and what is left are bare bones and clean ups. These are civilians who are building bridges, highways and roads and schools.

I believe that we need to look at what is it that we would like to accomplish, a shared vision.

Next would be to strategize the "mix" to include other partners into the party.

Realistically, the active component is getting smaller, but the people and equipment left behind should have a mission capacity adjustment strategy to minimize doubling up on tasks to hold a specific mission. We need to get real here. Current capacity needs to be assessed with a desired outcome at the end.

We cant expect the AD and DoD Civilians...people left behind to hold the line with the same mission with bare bones and expect miracles.

Reserves and National Guard units can be integrated for filling in those gaps. How will we measure their performance if they get called up on-the-fly? There has to be a plan and shared vision for desired outcome.

too many broken visions may warrant different collaborative approaches to achieve optimal performance.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SSG Mike Angelo
SSG Mike Angelo
>1 y
I would like to see a new and robust future Army force collaborative with each participating State. Abroad, I would like to share an educational/training vision with US friends and partners in the various global regions.
I would like the Army to establish a robust "Pass the Hat" campaign in raising its own capital investitures for collaboration, recruiting new partners and aligning the vision for all.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
LTC Branch Chief, Deliberate Fires
2
2
0
SSG Leaver, It's hard to pin a proportion onto the AC/RC mix.

The first issue is the priority of use for the military. The old model was win two wars in two different theaters (cold war). The new model is win one war and defend in a different theater.

How big a war are we going to win while blocking who/what in the other theater? The number of maneuver troops required for these fights will drive the rest of the model. The number of maneuver forces and ALL of the supporting forces will make up the operational force. The operational force will then drive the required generating forces (basic, AIT, WOCS, BOLC, NCOES, OES, WOES).

How fast do you need ALL of the forces? That will then drive the number crunchers to look at how many Compo 1 (AC) forces we need and how many can be moved into Compo 2 (NG) and 3 (USAR).

You have asked the $20 question that no one right now has the right answer to. My guess is leave Compo 2 and 3 alone in numbers with some restructuring of MOSs and units and shrink Compo 1.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small
SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM
0
0
0
Very interesting!
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close
Seg?add=7750261&t=2