1
1
0
I like to know why is it that the greater majority of the SMA's selected are Combat Arms (ie..Infantry)? I understand that the primary mission of the Army is to close with and destroy the enemy but I think that once you get to that level of leadership, it shouldn't matter too terribly much what MOS you were prior to. Granted, combat arms have most often held the job, but when and where do we expect to see a change in that?
Posted in these groups: 
NCOs
Leadership
NCOs Leadership
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
I appologize, but I'm lazy...here's my response to another comment, below...my concern would be that, as you stated, the purpose of the armed forces is to apply the will of America on its enemies...violently. This action is the realm of the Combat Arms. I would want a CSM who understood that. Not just peripherally as something he/she has seen, but something they have practiced and trained for. Diversity in this instance is not a reason to select someone for a position in which will exert amazing influence over how the Army trains and equips its fighting force. We certainly need a CSM in the Cyber Command...oh wait...CSM Rodney Harris is an infantryman. We deal in the application of violence. I want a CSM who is a master at its application. Diversity to me would be seeing an african american CSA, or a hispanic CSA, or a female CSA. As long as they came up in the Combat Arms and were experts at the use of high velocity munitions to end the life of another human being.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
For starters, I'd say that part of it is sheer numbers. Think of it from the Battalion up. There's maybe one support Battalion for every three or four Combat arms Battalions....so on up the line for brigades to divisions, etc.....sheer numbers are dominated by combat arms.
Then there's tactical experience at progressively higher levels. A CSM doesn't ONLY advise the commander on morale and welfare. Combat Arms produces CSMs who have "closed with and destroyed the enemy" all the way from PV1 to CSM.
Then there's tactical experience at progressively higher levels. A CSM doesn't ONLY advise the commander on morale and welfare. Combat Arms produces CSMs who have "closed with and destroyed the enemy" all the way from PV1 to CSM.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Numbers, yo.
Look at the CSM positions, they're all 00Z, right? That means they're MOS immaterial. However, they're staffed by DA boards that pick people based on their CMF. Very few CMFs have multiple 6O MOS fields. 89 series is one of them. The slots for BN and BDE are based on your CMF. If you're a 36, 42, 88, 89, 91, or 94 (sustainment); welcome to the BSB/CSSB/TRADOC equivalent.
Who is the senior raters for every BSB (BN) and SB (BDE) CSM? A commanding officer in Maneuvers, Fires, and Effects (MFE).
The development CSM positions that give you the sweet ASIs for senior enlisted progression (seriously, read DA PAM 611-21 on milsuite.mil, your mind will be blown) aside, let's look at the SGM spots. DA PAM 611-21 chapter 9 mandates a "within CMF percentage of paygrade to paygrade" of less than one percent for each SGM specific CMF, but here's simple numbers: FMSweb (https://fmsweb.army.mil) lists 600 (!) SGM positions for 11Zs and 9 for 94Zs.
EDIT: The final paragraph of the original post was a jab at the combat arms and support divide. My wording was flippant and poorly chosen. This was wrong and I apologize.
Look at the CSM positions, they're all 00Z, right? That means they're MOS immaterial. However, they're staffed by DA boards that pick people based on their CMF. Very few CMFs have multiple 6O MOS fields. 89 series is one of them. The slots for BN and BDE are based on your CMF. If you're a 36, 42, 88, 89, 91, or 94 (sustainment); welcome to the BSB/CSSB/TRADOC equivalent.
Who is the senior raters for every BSB (BN) and SB (BDE) CSM? A commanding officer in Maneuvers, Fires, and Effects (MFE).
The development CSM positions that give you the sweet ASIs for senior enlisted progression (seriously, read DA PAM 611-21 on milsuite.mil, your mind will be blown) aside, let's look at the SGM spots. DA PAM 611-21 chapter 9 mandates a "within CMF percentage of paygrade to paygrade" of less than one percent for each SGM specific CMF, but here's simple numbers: FMSweb (https://fmsweb.army.mil) lists 600 (!) SGM positions for 11Zs and 9 for 94Zs.
EDIT: The final paragraph of the original post was a jab at the combat arms and support divide. My wording was flippant and poorly chosen. This was wrong and I apologize.
(2)
(0)
SSG Sara Sutton
I think that this may be one area where you and I may just agree to disagree at one of the finer points. I swore the oath 18+ yrs ago (and several times since) and I am very aware of the words. I will always respect the officers appointed over me, in my field I have direct access to both officers and senior enlisted. So I'll just leave it at that.
(0)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
SFC Jones, thank you. I was mad when I first read your reply and then I realized that you're completely right.
I reread what I wrote, it was crass and objectively disrespectful. My intent and message were lost to me being a raging a-hole. I'm sorry for what I did, but that doesn't make it better.
What I meant to say was this:
I am worried that the average Soldier will not heed the guidance (as differentiated from the orders) of a non-Combat Arms SMA. I heard the vitriol that people are spewing toward SMA Chandler and I remember some of my seniors remarking that SMA Preston was a "damned leg" with no special schools or assignments that they respected. I can only imagine the pushback an AG, TC, or QM SMA would face.
I reread what I wrote, it was crass and objectively disrespectful. My intent and message were lost to me being a raging a-hole. I'm sorry for what I did, but that doesn't make it better.
What I meant to say was this:
I am worried that the average Soldier will not heed the guidance (as differentiated from the orders) of a non-Combat Arms SMA. I heard the vitriol that people are spewing toward SMA Chandler and I remember some of my seniors remarking that SMA Preston was a "damned leg" with no special schools or assignments that they respected. I can only imagine the pushback an AG, TC, or QM SMA would face.
(3)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Gotcha, much better (my post edited as well). And quite frankly, I was a little over the top in my correction, but I looked at your profile and saw all these officers that thought highly of you...and to see you say that wasn't the best way to convey your message.
I'm sure we all think it sometimes, and honestly they think it of us (we say they are young and stupid in our head and they say we are old and uneducated and won't change in theirs) just as much.
Aside from good natured ribbing, we just gotta be careful what we say (all of us, officers included).
Thumbs up
I'm sure we all think it sometimes, and honestly they think it of us (we say they are young and stupid in our head and they say we are old and uneducated and won't change in theirs) just as much.
Aside from good natured ribbing, we just gotta be careful what we say (all of us, officers included).
Thumbs up
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I would imagine that it has a lot to do with the leadership skills and mission-specific experiences that combat arms soldiers have.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Doesn't bother me. The only requisite I would want for that position is a fighter. An advocate for the troops. Hopefully the new SMA is that.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Are there any other MOSs with CSMs??? Just kidding.
In all honesty, it's more than likely the route CSM usually progress. As CSMs move from BN to BDE and higher, there are fewer opportunities for all...even less with low density MOSs BDEs. Because of that, the exposure for those CSM that are not combat arms is reduced. Just a thought!
In all honesty, it's more than likely the route CSM usually progress. As CSMs move from BN to BDE and higher, there are fewer opportunities for all...even less with low density MOSs BDEs. Because of that, the exposure for those CSM that are not combat arms is reduced. Just a thought!
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Things are great, thanks for asking! The Marines are a totally different beast and I am learning a ton! How's Fort Hood these days?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
We're doing good. Brigsde is headed to Korea next summer sometime. Other than that nothing much to write home about.
(0)
(0)
SSG Christopher Freeman
That's very true. For PAO, we have 22 SGM billets. Of those, I believe only 3 are CSM ones. Our CSMs serve in the PCH which has about 40ish people. That's a very different level than even most BN CSMs
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have wondered the same thing here lately. To add onto that, what other MOSs do you think would be good fits for SMA? Personally, I believe a PAO SMA would be an interesting concept. Will it ever happen, doubtful.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Logistics, Signal/Cyber....especially with the the ever growing cyber threat and so on. We brag about being diverse...lets make it a truth.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I'll address it in my main response, but my concern would be that, as you stated, the purpose of the armed forces is to apply the will of America on its enemies...violently. This action is the realm of the Combat Arms. I would want a CSM who understood that. Not just peripherally as something he/she has seen, but something they have practiced and trained for. Diversity in this instance is not a reason to select someone for a position in which will exert amazing influence over how the Army trains and equips its fighting force. We certainly need a CSM in the Cyber Command...oh wait...CSM Rodney Harris is an infantryman. We deal in the application of violence. I want a CSM who is a master at its application. Diversity to me would be seeing an african american CSA, or a hispanic CSA, or a female CSA. As long as they came up in the Combat Arms and were experts at the use of high velocity munitions to end the life of another human being.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SSG Victor Jones, A recent article re: Possible nominees for SGM of the USMC included maybe 10 ea SGMs, I did not make a note, but I want to recall that ? 6 or 7 of them held Navy Crosses. Guess what the Marines want!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google