Purging leaders. Is the Army doing too much, too fast?

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:00:28 -0500

It seems as if the Army is putting a lot of effort to get rid of leaders due to downsizing. I understand that attrition is necessary occurance after a prolonged conflict. The methodology to do it seems to be an attempt to purge the experience of gathered during these conflicts and reinvent the wheel. Who will teach and lead the next generation of Soldiers and Officers if the knowledge, skills and TTPs learned from a decade of war is eliminated. There are some things that can't be taught or replicated from a book. This attempt at being politically correct and super equal may not turn out as well as some may think.

Response by SGT Timothy Sowers made Jan 30 at 2014 10:05 AM

SGT Timothy Sowers — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:05:45 -0500

I agree with you. The more of the "seasoned" leadership that you loose, the more (to me) unqualified soldiers you get "fast tracked" into those positions. Maybe they do that to save money... but you sacrifice that knowledge and experience.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 10:10 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:10:17 -0500

Does the Army not have a plan of action for who exactly is being cut? I wouldn't mind seeing what MOS and who exactly were being cut before commenting on the training ability of future soldiers.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 10:36 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:36:02 -0500

The Army will always sacrifice quality to save a buck; I remember when there was talk of taking SDAP away from Drill Sergeants, then got rid of DSs altogether in Advanced Individual Training, making them "AIT Platoon Sergeants". This step alone caused a huge shift in discipline. Not saying that a special pay is warranted in order to maintain good order and discipline, but why must it always start with us?

They took curricula out of our NCOES, and then try to supplement the gaps with all these SSD courses to save money...training is priceless, and well worth the cost! I miss the idea of an open bay for 30 days, being reset and rebuilt all over again to keep things in perspective and to foster humility in one's self. That supplemented with having supportive peers and Seniors made for some of the best men and women to wear chevrons.

At this point, I feel if the Army wants to downsize us, let people leave who don't want to be here and work with the ones who do, at all levels of leadership; they shouldn't retain someone against their will simply because they are a exceptional leader. I remember MSG (P) Quick asking to the effect of "Let them leave? What if good NCOs/leaders want to leave, we should just let them?" If the Army was somewhere people wanted to stay, they would stay, but sometimes it is just a stepping stone of greatness for some.

The Army will lose a lot of experience and character with this purge, but there never seems to be a contingency plan put in place aside from raising the TIS/TIG in a system that is supposed to promote fairness across peers based on potential, which can end up screwing some people based simply off of their date of rank. In the end its the Army's loss, and the Soldiers as well.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 10:53 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:53:21 -0500

I don't think that political correctness or super equal has anything to do with it. The fact of the matter is that the Army has been told to slash its budget and to shrink its numbers. The Army must act upon this. They must maintain a lot of institutional knowledge (TRADOC) and higher echelons (The Pentagon) because those are necessary for longevity and institutional knowledge. Also, if we need a call-up there is a necessary cadre to train the new recruits.

The cuts come at the operational and tactical levels. Those are decided upon from on high, and cuts are in accordance from losing those elements. So, when the Army loses a BCT, those 3500 paragraph and line numbers on the MTOE must go. Now, you don't get rid of those Soldiers, but you must get rid of X amount of 00Zs, and X amount of 11Bs, and X amount of 42As, etc. From there, you decide those in the force who qualify for downsizing, and then you hold a board (Separation Board) to decide from the notified personnel who is staying and who is leaving. The Army is shrinking to 420K. We have over 500K right now. There are bound to be great Soldier separated. But, there will also be a lot of dead weight gone, and a lot of natural attrition. The Army will keep rolling along, and there will be great leaders left, both commissioned and non-commissioned, who will lead and train the next generation.

Also, there are a ton of E-4 and below (and, frankly, E-5) who have not deployed because our footprint is getting every smaller.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 3:14 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:14:00 -0500

Doing this and implementing females at the same time is the political correct part I was talking about. The Army is trying to do too much at once. We are not great at multi-tasking, things tend to get overlooked or discounted. In the end we all end up paying the price due to lack of planning, lack of contingencies and lack of oversight.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Jan 30 at 2014 3:20 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:20:00 -0500

Yes and no.

The last 12 years has taught a lot of bad habits to a lot of leaders. A purge is not necessarily a bad idea if you are interested in rebuilding a professional ethic among the next generation rather than the "just get the mission done" of the last 12.

But the emphasis on the Senior enlisted without a comparable purging of the Field Grades and Flag Officers is just another symptom of special treatment.