Posted on Apr 10, 2014
Is the Army focusing on the wrong areas during downsizing?
17.3K
36
17
6
6
0
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."
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."
Posted in these groups: 
Downsizing
Army
Downsizing Army
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 7
6
6
0
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.
(6)
(0)
COL Randall C.
What you left out COL (Join to see) is .... Hmm... Well, nothing. Couldn't have said it better at all ;)
(0)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Sir, I believe that I did a VERY poor job of writing my initial post, and therefore I edited it. I would have responded in whole to people, but this is RallyPoint, and I can't do that on this website because of the format used.
I certainly don't think you'll agree with me but hopefully I am able to convey better what I was trying to say.
I certainly don't think you'll agree with me but hopefully I am able to convey better what I was trying to say.
(3)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
A much more precise and better written statement, and I concur with the majority of it. What you are talking about now are leadership failures across the spectrum. Focusing on some things that are trivial and possibly detrimental to the morale of the force as well as junior leader failure to properly counsel and build the Army we need for the next fight while maintaining the right force.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
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!
(2)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
I've never worked for him but he gave an AMAZING development class to us 1SG and CSM when I was at Bliss. Very impressed
(1)
(0)
SSG Jeremy Siebenaller
SFC Jones I feel like we could start our own discussion on just how impressive he really is! Not to have a man crush or anything....but he is definitly one of the most intelligent, straight shooting, tactically and professionally developed leader I've ever spoke with. He came to Rustimiyah Iraq and spoke at my NCO Induction and I was in awe in how smart he really was. How important his soldiers were to him. How willing to stand by your side in a fight he was. Totally changed my leadership style. I kind of Idolized him and based my leadership off of what I saw from him and what I thought he would do
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google