Notes on the redesign of the Army

Unit manning - there are lots of reasons that units are not manned to authorized levels. Soldiers in school, on leave, moving duty stations, medical reasons, leaving the service voluntarily or involuntarily, accessions gaps (just because you meet your annual goals doesn't mean your fill rates are constant) and the fill of the 'institutional army' as opposed to the fighting army. And, in wartime, casualties. Plus, wartime casualties can produce MOS-specific gaps, as soldiers (like Donnie) suddenly find themselves no longer physically qualified for the jobs they held prior to wounding or injury. As for the civilian conversion piece, you need a broader vision. It's not just jobs that require no military experience, but also jobs that require military experience. (Full disclosure - I'm a beltway bandit defense contractor). Nor do most of those jobs require emergency management experience. We aren't talking the personnel clerk in an infantry battalion. We're talking the personnel clerk at CENTCOM headquarters, in sunny downtown Tampa, Fla. Then there is my current work. In the 90's, my government agency lost about half it's uniformed positions. Those positions were in this analysis agency precisely to provide a 'green' outlook on the development and conduct of analysis activities, most of which are handled by long-service government civilians - who may or may not have any military experience. So, what do they have now? A bevy of retired field grades, who can be fired at any time, with over 160 years worth of military experience, from SOF, to conventional, to intel and logistics. Per each at less cost of an active duty Major, with no retirement obligation, etc. And guys like me still get to play army. The 'fighting core' of HQs won't change (but you'd be surprised how many guys like me are sitting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Doha-Kuwait and Doha-Qatar, lending our expertise and at the same time staying current. The real problem comes from the fact that the drawdown is over, and with a smaller army, the available pool of guys is shrinking. Unanticipated consequence - just as you want more, fewer qualified guys are available - but it's working Jack. Not too worry - I'm not walking point anywhere, or manning a howitzer, or driving a tank. I'm using the last bit of me that works - my brain. Shut up, Donnie, you too, Matt!

Welcome aboard, FTP! We cut Jack slack around here. He's youngish, and perhaps the victim of a somewhat slanted education... but some of his favorite bloggers are milbloggers. I chose to let his comment go unremarked, I did think about a gentle chiding. I'm hoping that through his association with us, he'll come to realize we *aren't* what Indymedia sez we are!

That wasn't intended as a "Marxist" remark. In ANY organization, military or not, there is a tendency to *not* recognize that information is most accurate at the lowest level, and as one moves up the chain (command or management) the quality of information deteriorates. I took the recognition in the presentation that the "soldier" (which appeared to mean the folks ON the front lines, mainly the non-coms and the "Joes") has the BEST information and is BEST suited to act on it, and I was happy to see that the Army command understands this. My remark was NOT MEANT to imply any Marxist tendencies, nor to imply that officers do not care. If you read my blog, you would realize that I am NOT Marxist in the least. I have several friends currently or formerly in the Armed Forces at the officer level and at the "Joe" level, and NONE of them have ever said I was "Marxist". Geez... No wonder our nation is so divided... I'll try not to be insulted.

So if "soldier" is always used for everyone in the Army, what term do you use for those who are NOT commissioned officers and NOT non-commissioned officers? My friends who are/were in the Army, not officers, and not NCOs always refer to themselves as "soldiers", the officers as "officers", and the NCOs as "NCOs". I was not implying that officers do not go out and get shot at, I was using the same terminology that my friends in the Army use around me. On slide 16 of the presentation that John posted, it states "The Soldier is the Centerpiece of all our Units". It seems clear that slide is referring to that class of folks that are NOT officers and NOT NCOs that my friends refer to as "soldiers". If that slide is referring to the entire Army, then it does not make sense in the context of the presentation. I suggest if this discussion is to continue, we take it off of John's comments page. This is his blog, and I don't think it's very polite to clutter up his comments with a pissing match over definitions when both parties are not really disagreeing over fundamentals.

Hi there, You're right Jack, we don't seem to be disagreeing on "fundamentals" or anything...In fact, I don't think this is much an argument at all (at least about the topic at hand--I didn't even comment on the army structure plan). the comment I quoted from you above (about "soldiers, not officers")just stuck out in my mind, and while it didn't necesarily offend me...it sorta bothered me. The blog entry or powerpoint brief wasn't about my digression, nor were the coments to this entry...and in the end maybe this back/forth (even if it was only 2-3 posts long) seems excessive. The presentation seems to note the "solider" (as the individual) should be the focus, as opposed to the structure of the organization. THe individual tanker, scout, rifleman, whatever...but NOT the chain, not the titles, not the bureuacracy. I think that was the point of that slide. I do not believe it was distinction between officer and enlisted. And I concur with our gracious host's post..."soldier" is rather universal. I think an anology would be that both males and females can be "Actors" by trade...but females can be called actress by classification...they're all "actors". Ok my analogy is hokey and confusing, and lame. eh. My silly brain can't think of a better one right now. I'm sorry if i offended you by the "marxist" thing. Again, i was being facetious. it wasn't really meant as a derogatory thing...more of a gentle ribbing thing. I know I'm a complete stranger, so maybe I shouldn;t have gone that route...but I wasn't sure at the time on how to tackle the "soldier, not officer" remark. I guess I should have just left my first post as "an officer *is* a soldier". well, sorry again. peace, shalom, et al.