Posted on May 5, 2015
Should SHARP be the #1 priority for the Army right now?
21K
166
55
0
0
0
So we are all very aware of SHARP, hence the 300 hours or more of training a year. However, What do you personally feel should be the Army's number one priority at this present time?
Take the survey below: If the response you wish to select is not there, then by all means place it in a comment. I am really interested as to what the masses think about this subject.
Take the survey below: If the response you wish to select is not there, then by all means place it in a comment. I am really interested as to what the masses think about this subject.
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 34
SHARP is important. Suicide to me is more important understanding it not training. The fact that we are all part of a team regardless of branch. The stigma of seeking help is still out there. We need to prevent suicides, for the military and for civilians, this means expanding access to care and making sure that people feel comfortable seeking it.
(1)
(0)
This is the thing. It can't be as cut and dry as you are framing the question. You can be the most cutting edge military and top notch training, but if there is constant sexual harassment and unfair treatment the foundation of the complete organization has been severely damaged. There must be a good balance to these problems faced by the military. Also a more proactive approach vs the reactionary measures must be taken. Instead of force feeding hundreds of hours lead by example and hold people to a standard and take sexual harassment and assault seriously
(0)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
MSG,
The question is not to alienate sexual harassment or its existence in the military. The question leans toward which issues require more emphasis and attention by top leaders, if they are more than that of sexual harassment. Said leaders, have voiced their agendas, clearly stating that sexual harassment is the #1 priority. Therefore, is this issue the one we should be lazer focused on ?
The question is not to alienate sexual harassment or its existence in the military. The question leans toward which issues require more emphasis and attention by top leaders, if they are more than that of sexual harassment. Said leaders, have voiced their agendas, clearly stating that sexual harassment is the #1 priority. Therefore, is this issue the one we should be lazer focused on ?
(0)
(0)
CSM Carlson C.
I think that you have to attend to the items equally... Just my opinion, because if you focus on one without the other then you flounder on the focus needed to alleviate the problems that are current in our Army, hell, our military. The number 1 mission should always be accomplishment of the mission and welfare of Soldiers. Then spread resources as needed. There is no right answer. Its the answer at that time.
(0)
(0)
Training to fight our nation's enemy while learning to respect the differences of those we serve with by observing their abilities during tough training.
(0)
(0)
The Army's (and all military services) number one priority should be now and always combat readiness. Any activity or program that detracts from that goal is wasteful and counterproductive.
I have read that veterans (including serving service members) commit suicide at the rate of 22 per day. This issue certainly needs attention from all levels of leadership. Junior service members must be able to report aberrant behavior without fear of repercussions.
Pay and benefits are certainly important, and necessary to attract and retain the all volunteer force. People must be well compensated to put themselves in harms way.
Sexual harassment and sexual assault have long been a problem. Effective discipline toward offenders is imperative. One of the greatest problems is the credibility of allegations, particularly when alcohol is involved.
Equal opportunity programs are hardly a new thing. One would have expected some improvement over the last 40 years. Human nature will always be human nature.
The draw-down is, as usual, a political issue and very short-sighted. The military must ensure that a rapid response to external threats is possible. We've been caught flat-footed too often before: 1941, 1950, 2011.
I have read that veterans (including serving service members) commit suicide at the rate of 22 per day. This issue certainly needs attention from all levels of leadership. Junior service members must be able to report aberrant behavior without fear of repercussions.
Pay and benefits are certainly important, and necessary to attract and retain the all volunteer force. People must be well compensated to put themselves in harms way.
Sexual harassment and sexual assault have long been a problem. Effective discipline toward offenders is imperative. One of the greatest problems is the credibility of allegations, particularly when alcohol is involved.
Equal opportunity programs are hardly a new thing. One would have expected some improvement over the last 40 years. Human nature will always be human nature.
The draw-down is, as usual, a political issue and very short-sighted. The military must ensure that a rapid response to external threats is possible. We've been caught flat-footed too often before: 1941, 1950, 2011.
(0)
(0)
No, I don't agree that SHARP should be our focal point. Maybe how to mitigate needless spending in the Army should take it's place.
(0)
(0)
None of those should ever be the top priority of ANY military organization. It should be conducting or training to conduct war time missions. I shouldn't have to cancel mission essential training and counseling so that we can sit through another lecture because some service member did wrong. It's no wonder we are becoming a weaker force.
(0)
(0)
Constantly reiterating the military's position on sexual abuse is an effective way to remind potential predators of the consequences. Just reminding people that this kind of action will not be ignored averts many from making a bad choice. If all of this SHARP training we all have to endure prevents even one rape it makes it all worth it. If we were aware of an imminent assault we would do whatever we can to stop it from happening. I do not know what should be the number one priority but I do appreciate the importance SHARP as annoying as it may be. The victim is our comrade
(0)
(0)
SHARP training and suicide prevention are a complete waste of time and prove the army is bending to political correctness and box checking. Has SHARP training and suicide prevention decreased harassment or suicides, no.
(0)
(0)
I picked 'pay & benefits' because I feel that, with such a rapid draw down, that certain processes may inherently be screwing over Soldiers. Separating Soldiers is already an unpleasant task; I believe we should at least treat Soldiers with at least some dignity and respect during that process.
I was fortunate to be involved with the logistics surrounding the draw down of Iraq.
The intent was for this draw down to be a "responsible draw down", as it related to moving equipment/supplies out of Iraq.
...I strongly believe that the draw down of PERSONNEL also needs to be a "responsible draw down".
There will be difference of opinions here, but, one case I came across recently revolved around an AF officer who, via 2 x Non-select for promotion, was forced to involuntarily separate from the service.
Before being involuntarily separated, he had agreed to serve an additional 4 years in order to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his spouse. With every intent for him to serve 20 years, his wife proceeded to start utilizing the benefits--she actually used upwards of $24,000+ dollars before he was non-select the 2nd time, and forced to involuntarily separate.
Likewise, because he was unable to serve those 4 years--even though it was due to his involuntary separation--it was decided that he would have to pay back that $24,000, as an "overpayment" in benefits.
(Now, one could argue that he 'should have seen it coming', but with selection rates dropping, I would argue that even great Soldiers--with no derogatory information/bad evaluations--are being separated, as well....making it increasingly difficult to actually predict whether one will be selected or not. As far as I understand that particular case, that officer had no derogatory information in his file.)
I can't say whether some things are being done, deliberately by design to incur a cost savings....but, I do think we need to be very careful. Soldiers just bore the burden of war for a decade+....I think we at least owe it to them to give treat them with dignity and respect during the separation process.
I was fortunate to be involved with the logistics surrounding the draw down of Iraq.
The intent was for this draw down to be a "responsible draw down", as it related to moving equipment/supplies out of Iraq.
...I strongly believe that the draw down of PERSONNEL also needs to be a "responsible draw down".
There will be difference of opinions here, but, one case I came across recently revolved around an AF officer who, via 2 x Non-select for promotion, was forced to involuntarily separate from the service.
Before being involuntarily separated, he had agreed to serve an additional 4 years in order to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his spouse. With every intent for him to serve 20 years, his wife proceeded to start utilizing the benefits--she actually used upwards of $24,000+ dollars before he was non-select the 2nd time, and forced to involuntarily separate.
Likewise, because he was unable to serve those 4 years--even though it was due to his involuntary separation--it was decided that he would have to pay back that $24,000, as an "overpayment" in benefits.
(Now, one could argue that he 'should have seen it coming', but with selection rates dropping, I would argue that even great Soldiers--with no derogatory information/bad evaluations--are being separated, as well....making it increasingly difficult to actually predict whether one will be selected or not. As far as I understand that particular case, that officer had no derogatory information in his file.)
I can't say whether some things are being done, deliberately by design to incur a cost savings....but, I do think we need to be very careful. Soldiers just bore the burden of war for a decade+....I think we at least owe it to them to give treat them with dignity and respect during the separation process.
(0)
(0)
It is important but there are other issues as well that shouldn't be supplanted by this.
Also in response to the sexual harassment/assault problem the army has gone back through recruiters, drill sergeants, sharp reps, victim advocates records and flagged many with type 1 and type 2 violations. Some of these violations existed prior to said soldier becoming recruiters, drill sergeants, etc and were waivered and or acknowledged that some issues existed.
Essentially resulting in soldiers that were allowed to pursue and serve honorably in these positions are now being told that they can't be trusted in those positions.
Also in response to the sexual harassment/assault problem the army has gone back through recruiters, drill sergeants, sharp reps, victim advocates records and flagged many with type 1 and type 2 violations. Some of these violations existed prior to said soldier becoming recruiters, drill sergeants, etc and were waivered and or acknowledged that some issues existed.
Essentially resulting in soldiers that were allowed to pursue and serve honorably in these positions are now being told that they can't be trusted in those positions.
(0)
(0)
If we are to follow our leaders intent then yes. Background: in October 2014, SECARMY published his priorities listing. Sexual assault was at the top of that list.
(0)
(0)
PFC Alex Rivers
It shouldn't be sergeant. There should be no need to hold a soldiers' hand and tell them that sexual harassment is not okay. It's a common sense thing, if you don't have the integrity to keep your hands to yourself, you really shouldn't be wearing the uniform.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next