Meet Command Sgt. Maj. John Troxell, the voice for all enlisted military personnel

At the highest levels of power in Washington, when top national security officials meet behind closed doors, there is often only one enlisted service member in the room: Army Command Sgt. Maj. John Troxell.

As the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Troxell is the military’s highest ranking noncommissioned officer. It’s a unique post that was created just a few years ago and is only vaguely defined by law and tradition.

With an office just down the hall from the chairman, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, Troxell accompanies the military’s top officer on trips overseas and visits to the White House, where he speaks on behalf of more than a million enlisted troops. He offers input on issues such as gender integration within ground combat units, the military's new policy allowing service by transgender troops, the impact of budget cuts, and the overall state of morale and readiness.

“When I’m sitting in there, I’m representing every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman,” Troxell said of his meetings with senior commanders and top civilians. “I have a responsibility to gain, maintain and report the pulse of the joint force. And I have to bring their voice into these meetings, so that their voice is heard in terms of where we’re going in the future.”

An 52-year-old Iowa native whose war-fighting career began as a tank commander parachuting into Panama in 1989, Troxell met with Military Times for a wide-ranging interview about today’s military challenges and how the enlisted force is evolving.

Excerpts from the interview, edited for length and clarity:

Q. You just returned from a trip to Iraq. We often hear from service members who say they want to do more in the fight against the Islamic State group. Many of them personally want an opportunity to deploy, and they worry that today’s strategy is not aggressive enough. What is your assessment of the fight against ISIS and how service members feel about it?
A. The strategy we have now is working, and it’s successful. It’s at an Iraqi and a Syrian pace, no doubt. It’s not at an American pace. But it’s working, and the risk to the men and women of the United States military is significantly lower than it was just five years ago.

Now, having said that, when I go out and visit the troops there, whether it’s Marines in guard towers at Al Assad Air Base, or airmen and soldiers in Union Three [in Baghdad], or wherever, they would much rather be out engaging the enemy themselves. But I remind them of the price we have paid over the past 15 years.

[On a trip to Iraq in July] I looked this one young Marine in the eye and I said, "I’m glad you’re complaining about it. And I want you to complain about it when you go back home. Because you know what? You’re going to have the ability to complain about it, because there’s not a chance of you going out and getting blown up, or killed out there. And to that end, your parents will thank the leaders of the United States military, that we are using this strategy."

I’m a career recon guy, and I’m a career war fighter, and I like nothing better than, if there’s a threat to my homeland, I’d love to get out there and put two in their chest. But I understand the nature of how we get after business, and in Iraq it has to be an Iraqi solution. It has to be a coalition solution in Syria. It cannot be a U.S. solution. And so I absolutely am a fan of the strategy that we have right now.

For someone who has sent plenty of flag-draped coffins home to include one of my own personal security [detail], any time we can reduce the risk to the men and women that are fighting in combat, I’m a fan of that.

Q. After five years of defense budgets constrained by the threat of sequestration, how do you feel about the size and readiness of today’s force?

A. We have to be concerned, but I think in the end, right now we’re OK. ... Any time you adjust force structure, and adjust it in terms of reducing it, readiness is going to be affected. But as I look at, right now, the current numbers we think we’re going to have in the future, [450,000 in the Army, 321,000 in the Air Force, 330,000 in the Navy and 182,000 in the Marine Corps], I think those numbers will allow us [to be] not only developing readiness, but maintaining it.

For the past 15 years, we’ve consumed readiness as fast as we’ve been developing it, but I think as we move forward, smaller formations doing different things out there, major formations not in combat, we will be able to get after more sustained joint readiness.
Q. During the past several years, the Pentagon and Capitol Hill have tried to cut costs from military personnel accounts by scaling back pay and benefits for service members — smaller pay raises, a shrinking housing allowance, new health care fees. How do you feel about those changes?

A. I absolutely believe we do need to take a look at pay and compensation reform. I think it’s something we have to do, especially in a fiscally constrained environment. ... I think we have to look at that and see — can we gain efficiencies without degrading the service member’s quality of life and their family’s quality of life?

I think we have to look at Tricare reform … like co-pays for pharmacies off post; I think we have to look at some of these things. And we have to be open to saying, "Hey, you might live off post, but we need you to drive into the medical treatment facility to get your meds so that it would be free." I think if you’re electing just to go to the CVS, maybe it’s OK that we make you pay a co-pay for that.

But … when it came to [the proposal on Capitol Hill to end dual Basic Allowance for Housing payments for dual military families] we drew a red line there. That was a line in the sand that we said, "OK, this will not pass the common sense test."

You take them down to one BAH, now the question comes up — and I’ve talked to service members around the globe about this, that are dual military — and they’re saying, "Which one of us is going to get out?" So we’re countering trying to retain people. ... It’s absolutely counter to what we’re trying to do for the future.

Q. The military services are implementing two big cultural changes by integrating women into combat jobs and allowing transgender individuals to join and serve openly in the military.
A. As I go around the force, the troops are beyond it already. ... In the end, this is how they’ve grown up, and they’re about "hey, that’s my battle buddy. I don’t care."

From my perspective, a warrior is a warrior is a warrior. We have standards on what we expect out of an infantryman, an artilleryman, an armor crew member, a reconnaissance person, and those standards have to remain sound. Because those are the standards and the skills necessary to be able to defeat an enemy.

It’s all about talent management ... and regardless of what gender they are, if they can execute that standard, then we’ll allow them to do it.

Q. What might you say to those service members who still have concerns about these changes?

A. The key thing about being a leader is, first and foremost, we execute the orders of our elected officials and the leaders over us. And so, the secretary of defense said we’re going to integrate transgenders. And we’re going to allow women to serve in combat roles. So the message all the way down to the lowest leader is we’re executing this. So get beyond having this personal opinion about it and figure out how you’re going to get after it.