1
1
0
Posted in these groups: 
Failure
Failure
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
5
5
0
MAJ (Join to see)
Interesting article. I tend to agree that there are too many generals in the Army, I also think there are too many Sergeants Majors. Seems that every division level and above element needs a SGM or two in each G/J-section and of course every general needs a senior enlisted leader. I work in a division headquarters and there are like 20+ SGMs running around, it's ridiculous.
I have been in the Army for almost 30 years and about every 10 years the Army goes through a major shift/change. It usually has to do with money and war. It takes the Army all of those 10 years to unscrew itself from the change before it starts acting right. My opinion is that we are in that first year and have nine more to go before the ship rights itself.
I have seen it three times, I won't be around to see this one.
Interesting article. I tend to agree that there are too many generals in the Army, I also think there are too many Sergeants Majors. Seems that every division level and above element needs a SGM or two in each G/J-section and of course every general needs a senior enlisted leader. I work in a division headquarters and there are like 20+ SGMs running around, it's ridiculous.
I have been in the Army for almost 30 years and about every 10 years the Army goes through a major shift/change. It usually has to do with money and war. It takes the Army all of those 10 years to unscrew itself from the change before it starts acting right. My opinion is that we are in that first year and have nine more to go before the ship rights itself.
I have seen it three times, I won't be around to see this one.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
This line tells me everything that I need to know about the article: "In March 2014, when 80,000 Russian armored combat forces were poised to invade Ukraine, the U.S. Army was incapable of deploying an effective combat maneuver force to Europe or anywhere else."
We weren't "incapable" of deploying an effective combat maneuver force. We decided not to.
End of.
We weren't "incapable" of deploying an effective combat maneuver force. We decided not to.
End of.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
MAJ (Join to see) - Sir, I think the biggest issue facing the Army doesn't begin at the flagpole, but with the uniforms.
What do I mean by this? Contractors. GS. Outsourcing. This does ultimately lead back to GOs, because many of these contracts are awarded to former GOs or some nepotistic relationship to a friend. I served in a Medical Support Unit, so our METL was more specific to the Periodic Health Assessment (PHAs). What do we do for our PHAs? Contract to LHI. The effect on this is twofold. First, my Soldiers do not feel prepared when we are mobilized to perform Soldier Readiness Processing (SRP) missions because many of my enlisted are NOT medical on the civilian side. How's a hairdresser going to maintain her skills as a medic?? Second, the Army fails to capitalize on paying itself.
How about sick call? My providers aren't allowed to do their own sick call. Don't feel well? Go to the ER. Yes....the ER. At $1500 apiece, someone has been sent because they had an upper respiratory infection and felt that they could not complete the APFT. Instead, it could have been a stethoscope, an SF600, and a $20 prescription for antibiotics. Why not let the medics do their own preliminary sick call, then from there determine the need to seek further care.
Why are we contracting medical and mechanical assets outside of the military, paying benefits and STEEP salaries when you can't work them overtime like you can a Soldier. When it came time to sequestration, they sent our contractors home....some places created a contract to replace the contractors that they sent home. What kind of logic is this??
Bring business back in house, because even if you save money on benefits, placing someone on orders with the knowledge that you can work them beyond 40 hours without paying extra at a pricy cost to take care of the Soldiers ultimately wins.
v/r,
CPT Butler
What do I mean by this? Contractors. GS. Outsourcing. This does ultimately lead back to GOs, because many of these contracts are awarded to former GOs or some nepotistic relationship to a friend. I served in a Medical Support Unit, so our METL was more specific to the Periodic Health Assessment (PHAs). What do we do for our PHAs? Contract to LHI. The effect on this is twofold. First, my Soldiers do not feel prepared when we are mobilized to perform Soldier Readiness Processing (SRP) missions because many of my enlisted are NOT medical on the civilian side. How's a hairdresser going to maintain her skills as a medic?? Second, the Army fails to capitalize on paying itself.
How about sick call? My providers aren't allowed to do their own sick call. Don't feel well? Go to the ER. Yes....the ER. At $1500 apiece, someone has been sent because they had an upper respiratory infection and felt that they could not complete the APFT. Instead, it could have been a stethoscope, an SF600, and a $20 prescription for antibiotics. Why not let the medics do their own preliminary sick call, then from there determine the need to seek further care.
Why are we contracting medical and mechanical assets outside of the military, paying benefits and STEEP salaries when you can't work them overtime like you can a Soldier. When it came time to sequestration, they sent our contractors home....some places created a contract to replace the contractors that they sent home. What kind of logic is this??
Bring business back in house, because even if you save money on benefits, placing someone on orders with the knowledge that you can work them beyond 40 hours without paying extra at a pricy cost to take care of the Soldiers ultimately wins.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
GySgt Austin Belanger
I never said that you were the enemy, nor that you didn't work hard. However, the contractors/GS that we have were only able to work the 40 hours, but our Soldiers were able to work longer hours without financial changes. Our contractors are authorized overtime, but the overtime is expensive (additionally, I do know of contractors -and GS- that have abused the system to get paid extra for not doing extra work per say. No, that's not everyone....but I've seen it.)
If there are NEEDs for augmented personnel via contract, that's one thing. However, I cannot find one reason why our medics are not allowed to do sick call, PHAs, and other medical duties vs. having to send our stuff "out of house" to Logistics Health, or even worse the EMERGENCY ROOM for stupid stuff.
I am not looking for a scapegoat, and am not trying to demean your service/contributions. However, it makes more sense to "pay yourself" than to have contracts for EVERYTHING. If there is a need that would warrant a supplemental contract (I can only speak for Army medicine in our own neck of the woods) then that's fine, but if it can be kept in house then that is cheaper. ESPECIALLY regarding the medical side of the house. Utilization of community medical assets at the expense of our medics training serves no purpose.
Please understand that I have no direct objections to the people that I worked with, simply that when making cutbacks, let's look at where the expenditures are rather than cutting slots. You and I both know that a GO isn't going to cut his own slot.....and I don't think cutting out the experienced people in uniform is a great idea either.
I would rather get rid of the reciprocity that comes with the bureaucracy before we start cutting jobs.
v/r,
CPT Butler
I never said that you were the enemy, nor that you didn't work hard. However, the contractors/GS that we have were only able to work the 40 hours, but our Soldiers were able to work longer hours without financial changes. Our contractors are authorized overtime, but the overtime is expensive (additionally, I do know of contractors -and GS- that have abused the system to get paid extra for not doing extra work per say. No, that's not everyone....but I've seen it.)
If there are NEEDs for augmented personnel via contract, that's one thing. However, I cannot find one reason why our medics are not allowed to do sick call, PHAs, and other medical duties vs. having to send our stuff "out of house" to Logistics Health, or even worse the EMERGENCY ROOM for stupid stuff.
I am not looking for a scapegoat, and am not trying to demean your service/contributions. However, it makes more sense to "pay yourself" than to have contracts for EVERYTHING. If there is a need that would warrant a supplemental contract (I can only speak for Army medicine in our own neck of the woods) then that's fine, but if it can be kept in house then that is cheaper. ESPECIALLY regarding the medical side of the house. Utilization of community medical assets at the expense of our medics training serves no purpose.
Please understand that I have no direct objections to the people that I worked with, simply that when making cutbacks, let's look at where the expenditures are rather than cutting slots. You and I both know that a GO isn't going to cut his own slot.....and I don't think cutting out the experienced people in uniform is a great idea either.
I would rather get rid of the reciprocity that comes with the bureaucracy before we start cutting jobs.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I recently had a disagreement with LHI over their business practices. During my VA evaluation, I was disturbed when I discovered the non-bias third party LHI physician that reviewed my X-Rays was discovered to be duel employed in both LHI and VA. Why not just have VA do the entire screening. I was told they needed an external opinion. LHI hummm...
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - I am wondering if we are contracting to LHI for PHAs, why we have medical support units instead of incorporating them into USAH (Backfills) or other units. It frustrates me to no end to see the Army send these people to BCT and AIT, and when they come back....after 12 months they are unable to start IVs or administer SQ shots because they aren't allowed to do that at their unit. Then we are paying LHI to enter this stuff.
The ONLY benefit I can see is that there is no way that a unit can "protect it's own".....but that is a command problem, not something that should be avoided by pulling the power away from the units. I don't want my medics getting cross leveled to go overseas and a Soldier dies because the medics weren't confident enough in their skills.
v/r,
CPT Butler
The ONLY benefit I can see is that there is no way that a unit can "protect it's own".....but that is a command problem, not something that should be avoided by pulling the power away from the units. I don't want my medics getting cross leveled to go overseas and a Soldier dies because the medics weren't confident enough in their skills.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
It is counter intuitive and I was adding the added irony of a VA doctor not doing her job for VA so she can get doubled paid by LHI to do the same.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
TL/DR: Not a fan.
Me thinks somebody is getting ready to release a new book!
The author of the article is a perennial gadfly on the Army. I have two of his books that he mentions in the article - "Breaking the Phalanx" and "Transformation Under Fire" - within arm's reach right now. Sounds like he wants me to have another...ah yes, here it is... "His newest book, Margin of Victory: Why Some Nations Win and Others Lose Wars, will be out next year."
There is nothing in this article that adds to the strength of his prior books' arguments. While I consider those arguments worth examination (hence owning the books), I see a lot of magical thinking in the books. Somehow his magical BDE+ Div Slice orgs are different in some wonderful way by putting a 1 star in command, making all the cross-coordination, etc. go..... down.... We have tried that, and found that formations that size are simply NOT capable of self-sustainment. But that's OK, the little generals will all just network together and make it all work out, as opposed to the current situation, in which I assume no commanders talk to each other or their higher.... We have tried his ideas. While being swell, they fail to work in organizations made of people.
Also, pointing to the JDF - an organization that is NOT expeditionary, doesn't have global policing responsibilities (whether we should or not is another discussion), and which has both a no-attack policy and no need to defend - because the US ensures that country's security - as an example of "what right looks like" seems odd.
Me thinks somebody is getting ready to release a new book!
The author of the article is a perennial gadfly on the Army. I have two of his books that he mentions in the article - "Breaking the Phalanx" and "Transformation Under Fire" - within arm's reach right now. Sounds like he wants me to have another...ah yes, here it is... "His newest book, Margin of Victory: Why Some Nations Win and Others Lose Wars, will be out next year."
There is nothing in this article that adds to the strength of his prior books' arguments. While I consider those arguments worth examination (hence owning the books), I see a lot of magical thinking in the books. Somehow his magical BDE+ Div Slice orgs are different in some wonderful way by putting a 1 star in command, making all the cross-coordination, etc. go..... down.... We have tried that, and found that formations that size are simply NOT capable of self-sustainment. But that's OK, the little generals will all just network together and make it all work out, as opposed to the current situation, in which I assume no commanders talk to each other or their higher.... We have tried his ideas. While being swell, they fail to work in organizations made of people.
Also, pointing to the JDF - an organization that is NOT expeditionary, doesn't have global policing responsibilities (whether we should or not is another discussion), and which has both a no-attack policy and no need to defend - because the US ensures that country's security - as an example of "what right looks like" seems odd.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
That is pretty deep. However, I think if we were to go war that the nation needed we would have enough to fight and then quickly recruit to gain enough. If World War III, hello draft. I do agree that it is interesting that we have way more 4 stars around now, but back then we also did not station ourselves around the globe or have a "smaller world" feel. Only time will tell who is right.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I did find it funny when the word of down size came up COLs amd above said good luck and the Army found away to hold on too Generals. I wondered about the chief to indian ratio.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Of course, it it drives some excellent points. I don't think any branch will ever get to the point of collapse, but a major shake up. This is a cyclic event for the services as each conflict draws to a close.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
GySgt Austin Belanger, that is exactly what I am talking about. Do more with less only goes so far. There is a limit on how much you streamline a process. At some point you simply are doing less with less.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
First, no one was successfully prosecuted following the 1929 crash (or the 1932 crash, either).
Everything else, I am four square behind. The only criticism I have of Col MacGregor's thinking is that, in my opinion, based on the few comments he makes on them, he doesn't fully understand the Reserve Components, so he leaves them out of his plans.
Everything else, I am four square behind. The only criticism I have of Col MacGregor's thinking is that, in my opinion, based on the few comments he makes on them, he doesn't fully understand the Reserve Components, so he leaves them out of his plans.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Reminds me of the 80s in the post war period after Vietnam when everyone was asking if the military was up to task. And then we hit the 90s with two decades of conflict. I think the Army and services in general will be fine. The troops always step up.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
GySgt (Join to see) -My only concern regarding the longevity and effectiveness of the military services consists of the economic impact. The GBU JDAMs are around $23,000, Hellfire Missiles are $58,000, Tomahawks are $1.1m apiece.
Never before Iraq/Afghanistan have smart weapons been utilized in a major full scale operation. The economic burden I think will be the most telling "limiting factor" in future military operations.
v/r,
CPT Butler
Never before Iraq/Afghanistan have smart weapons been utilized in a major full scale operation. The economic burden I think will be the most telling "limiting factor" in future military operations.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(1)
(0)
GySgt (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) Understood. The cost of warfare "American Style" has gone up a lot over the years. We lamented when we replaced the 90mm "anti-tank" recoiless rifle for the guided missiles like the Dragon (was on its way out too) and the TOW. the 90mm round was like a hundred bucks and the guided missiles were a lot more. And we couldn't just fire and forget with the missile either since you had to sit and guide them (I hope things have changed and the services using a fire and forget man-packed missile. We als used to have the LAAW.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
It is a very interesting article and from my 22 almost 23 years associated with the Army active duty and contractor I have to agree with CSM (Join to see) that there are too many GO and SGM and on the government civilian side too many SES. I work in a MACOM HQ and in one staff section alone there is a MG, SES-2, and BG and at least two SGM in that group. We need to trim the numbers of senior leaders and trim the unnecessary boon-doggle TDY trips and leverage technology. Most TDY trips these senior leaders take can be done via video teleconferences.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I will say there are excellent points there. I will also point to a culture of corruption in the flag ranks. See the Navy bribery scandal.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google