Posted on Apr 10, 2014
Is the Army focusing on the wrong areas during downsizing?
17.6K
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 11 y ago
Posted >1 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)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
If they don't know why, then their leadership didn't do a good job reading MILPER messages or listening to their AG personnel. This stuff has been pretty well laid out. There has to be a review of people's files. If you have an NCOER that is a 3-3...you're at risk for non-select and QSP. People need to start reviewing their subordinate's rating history, or we are going to hear more of this.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
MAJ Ballinger,
I came in at the tail end in 1997. At that time, points for E-5 and E-6 were maxed out and stayed that way for a few years. That's what I was referring to. I only caught the end of the reduction so my perspective was a bit limited. It actually didn't affect me at all since I was just a PV2 making my way up through SPC. By the time I was up for SGT, the points were at the minimum and the same was true for E-6.
I completely agree that a RIF is bad for the force. We are losing very talented Troops right now for terrible reasons. Two-time non-selects can rid the Army of very good people. I get the reasons for the rule, but the blind application is leaving some serious deficits in our seniority. I am speaking about MI since that's what I do, but I imagine it is the same across the branches.
I came in at the tail end in 1997. At that time, points for E-5 and E-6 were maxed out and stayed that way for a few years. That's what I was referring to. I only caught the end of the reduction so my perspective was a bit limited. It actually didn't affect me at all since I was just a PV2 making my way up through SPC. By the time I was up for SGT, the points were at the minimum and the same was true for E-6.
I completely agree that a RIF is bad for the force. We are losing very talented Troops right now for terrible reasons. Two-time non-selects can rid the Army of very good people. I get the reasons for the rule, but the blind application is leaving some serious deficits in our seniority. I am speaking about MI since that's what I do, but I imagine it is the same across the branches.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
It's a vicious cycle. I was recruiting from 2003-2006 and we opened the doors to everyone. I once put a guy in who got a 9 on the ASVAB. Not kidding. On the one hand, I think it's best to get rid of people who aren't as top-shelf as most... but on the other hand, we lowered the standards to let these people in. Is it fair to now raise those standards and force them out? I don't think so. They deployed, they fought, and many died. They fought alongside everyone else in uniform and are now being shown the door.
One aspect of this that really pisses me off is the change to AR 670-1 that limits people from going WO or O if they have tattoos on their arms and legs. Again, we changed the standards for tattoos so we could get more people in the fight when we needed them most. Now, we are limiting their careers. That's just blatantly unfair. I have two exceptional candidates (One for Warrant and one for Officer) who are now DQ because of the tattoos that they had when they were allowed to enlist (And potentially commission). I know using the word 'unfair' is flypaper for life isn't fair comments, but seriously; it's pretty low what the Army did with that Reg. I fully support making it the standard for new Troops, but to screw over thousands of men and women who could be excellent officers after they are already in is just disgusting. That's not how we should treat our own. The Army is already suffering from this change. Leaders who should be in positions of higher authority are now choosing to get out instead of advancing their careers with a commission they would otherwise have been able to achieve because they have a dragon on their arm. That's not just unfair it's stupid.
One aspect of this that really pisses me off is the change to AR 670-1 that limits people from going WO or O if they have tattoos on their arms and legs. Again, we changed the standards for tattoos so we could get more people in the fight when we needed them most. Now, we are limiting their careers. That's just blatantly unfair. I have two exceptional candidates (One for Warrant and one for Officer) who are now DQ because of the tattoos that they had when they were allowed to enlist (And potentially commission). I know using the word 'unfair' is flypaper for life isn't fair comments, but seriously; it's pretty low what the Army did with that Reg. I fully support making it the standard for new Troops, but to screw over thousands of men and women who could be excellent officers after they are already in is just disgusting. That's not how we should treat our own. The Army is already suffering from this change. Leaders who should be in positions of higher authority are now choosing to get out instead of advancing their careers with a commission they would otherwise have been able to achieve because they have a dragon on their arm. That's not just unfair it's stupid.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
I think we kind of agree/disagree on the same thing here. My point is that the standards shouldn't affect the Soldiers currently serving. It's like pulling the rug out from under them. For new Soldiers, I don't have issue with it.
On your second paragraph, I don't disagree with you at all. I was talking more about tattoos and stuff like that.
On your second paragraph, I don't disagree with you at all. I was talking more about tattoos and stuff like that.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CW2 (Join to see) 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?
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?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Amen. It's still about leadership and frankly the kind of pessimism laid out in the original post is counter productive.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
