Is the Army focusing on the wrong areas during downsizing?

2014-04-10T18:21:39-04:00

I have edited my post because it was poorly written.

I think the Army is focused on the wrong things, and as a result may not retain everyone that they should be retaining.

I think they are worried about the sideburns (stupid and trivial), the tattoo policy (I had one of the best developmental sessions with CSM Graca, the FORSCOM CSM, who was covered in tattoos - he's not a bad Soldier...he, at least from my initial impression, seemed like an AMAZING CSM), trying to change the APFT (unsuccessfully for two years and at the great cost to everyone), and a lot of other minor inconsequential things.

How often, in the grand scheme of things, do you see a toxic senior leader removed from a formation? Aside from MAJOR incidents? How often do you see someone in trouble from failing to counsel an NCO? I'm talking, you violated where it says you are to counsel people for their OER/NCOER in the regulation.

There are a lot of very serious things that we aren't really focused on.

I do see a Soldier going "I can't get counseled and I'm treated poorly by my leadership and they aren't getting removed or reprimanded" but I have to (insert trivial thing here).

There's a lot of things we SAY are good for "getting back to basics" but we are more focused on other things.

I also disagree that the past is what we need to get back to. This post was mainly written because I disagree when I listen to how awesome the Army was pre-2001. This was when it was ok to have a negative SHARP environment, it was ok to harass, publicly humiliate, or belittle your peers or subordinates, ok to deploy in flak vests from Vietnam, etc.

No, what we NEED to do is simply enforce the regulations in place and weed out the substandard Soldiers. I think we are using the wrong metric(s) for doing so.

Yes, they are weeding out people with Article 15s, but just because a SFC got a minor A15 X years ago doesn't make him a worse leader than X person who is just a mediocre space-waster (no, I do not have anything that would qualify me for QMP).

**************
It should be noted that my main issue isn't necessarily with "getting back to basics" but the discussion that usually surrounds it. The irony is that we (as in senior leaders, no one specifically) talk about enforcing standards that were already in place and going back to standards that existed when we were more junior and yet "we" were the ones that let those standards slip in the first place. Usually I hear "because of war". My pre-9/11 leadership would say to that "Boy, Soldier, that sure sounds like an excuse."

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Apr 10 at 2014 6:26 PM

2014-04-10T18:26:02-04:00

The last time we did this in the 1990s, the Army screwed up in a weird way. They let all the juniors attrit out and kept the top heavy. Now, it seems like their cuts are targeting the higher-ups now. It's a bit frightening, especially when you are close to retirement.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Apr 10 at 2014 6:27 PM

2014-04-10T18:27:38-04:00

Not really, we did lose a few more quality NCOs that the Army wanted to after DS in the mid-'90s, but the quality of Soldiers enlisting and serving didn't take a nosedive like was feared. That's do to those of us NCOs that did remain ensured that there was no overall breakdown in the discipline and training that we did.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 9:29 AM

2014-07-12T09:29:35-04:00

Wow. Let me take that out to it's logic caboose here for you. That's a hell of a statement and there's a lot of it going around unfortunately. I tell those pessimists to pack their crap, because it spreads...even if you are on here and networked. The Army pre-2001 is what enabled us to do what we did over the last 13 years. Let me rephrase...that crappier Army you are describing...is the Army of 2001, the one that made all the officers and senior NCO's that started fighting in 2001 and are now BN CDR's, BN CSM's through Division and Corps level commands. So by your logic, those dirt bag leftovers from a non-war military are the dregs of what could have been a better military...or they are the cream of the crap. There are some good people getting out, BUT there are ALWAYS good people getting out. As with everything it's about leadership. I like the comment by SSG Johnson. I concur with her assessment. Now, I don't HAVE to keep all of the absolute worthless skin bags that joined the Army between 2001-2011...I can be picky and keep only the good ones. We can weed out the undesirables who were allowed to join when numbers where all that mattered. WE have the opportunity to shape the Army at ALL levels. You at yours and I at mine. You can either look at it like you are...or you can look at it like SSG Johnson has. As a SFC, you are the first line of defense in making sure you don't let "Joe Average" reenlist if you only have 12 REUPS over the next 6 months. Keep the best and train them.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Jul 12 at 2014 12:28 PM

2014-07-12T12:28:52-04:00

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member In my honest opinion, your argument is reasonable. It has been a long time since I served, but I know from a civilian standpoint that anytime there is downsizing it only hurts the company in the long run.

The tendency is to trim the fat to make the organization more lean and trim, more proficient. The problem is, sometimes there is more meat trimmed off than fat and the organization suffers for it.

I do pray this is not the case for the Army or any other branch facing cuts. The war on terror is not over, and will probably never be over. With all that is going on in the world, the possibility that America may have to fight multiple wars, such as we have the past decade or more, is as much a possibility as ever.

Can the United States sustain a war on multiple fronts when the main component, it's members, are reduced?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2014 12:30 PM

2014-07-12T12:30:08-04:00

The Army will screw the downsizing up and keep the wrong people. We have a history of doing that.

If we are going to have a smaller army, then it needs to a highly trained, quickly expandable Army. One where everyone knows the job of the next 2 levels above him.

As an example:

If a E-5 Infantryman is a Fire Team Leader, then he should be able to run a Squad easily and even a Platoon in a pinch. It should be a very physically fit, mentally sharp and morally straight outfit. Reduce the annoying silly garbage that accompanies a peacetime army. Risk assessment matrixes to give a APFT….waste of time and paper for example. I won't even start on reflective belts.

The officer corps should encourage risk-takers and young officers who can think outside the box. We don't have huge staffs ether. I thought that was point of all the technology was to reduce the size and make more responsive HQ elements among other things. Rommel ran the freaking Afrika Korps out a staff car, 1 Command & Control truck and a light plane. If he had had enough logistics support he would have defeated the British 8th Army.

We have allot of fat in the Army and it needs to be cut! But its making sure the cuts are in the right places.

Response by SSG Jeremy Siebenaller made Jul 13 at 2014 4:35 PM

2014-07-13T16:35:18-04:00

I know I'm out of line here, But I just want everyone to sit back and think about an Army led by a GREAT leader such as CSM Greca!!! I know this is out of context to this discussion. However the more I think about it, the more I can't top thinking about an Army that has 100% confidence in their leader at the top, and not think he is some "meme" subject on Facebook as CSM Chandler is. Think about it! Sorry....Now back to intelligent conversation!

Response by SSG(P) Auston Terry made Aug 31 at 2014 11:48 PM

2014-08-31T23:48:37-04:00

You certainly had more interaction with him than we did but CSM McGraw had a good way of explaining how reductions would be made as a report card. The Ds and Fs take care of themselves, the Cs are supposed to be scrubbed up by the QSP and QMP with retention playing its part. and If it comes down to it, the B's are next. CSM considered himself a B+; my impression of him was always somewhat higher.

The Grooming policy that has been implemented is mutable; people seems to get hung up on the fact that tattoos are being restricted rather than seeing that we've had ACU's for 8 years and not even a RAR to cover them in an actual regulation. I understand that grooming standards may seem petty, but they exist and they need to be enforced. Just like counseling standards. It's easy to say you can't pick and choose what standards to enforce, but let's be real there's only so many hours in the day. If you think the Army is focusing too much on the wrong things then you should focus on the "right" ones within the regulatory framework of the Army. Because as a senior leader what you think is important and the standards you personify and enforce ARE the Army's focus as far as your Soldiers are concerned.