Army's Top Officer Signals Pentagon Budget Revolt

LA Times ^ | September 24, 2006 | Peter Spiegel

[quadrant]

Have you considered the military costs of an invasion of Iran? Iran is not a agglomeration of disparate groups, such as Iraq, a collection of tribes like Yemen, or a family enterprise such as Saudi Arabia. Iran is a country with a cohesive history that dates back thousands of years. The invasion of such an area would make an unpopular regime the focus of national unity. The possibility that Iran might develop nuclear weapons is frightening, but whatever the solution to that problem, invasion is not it.

[Jim Noble]

Have you considered the military costs of an invasion of Iran?

Yes, I am very well aware of the costs of the war which has been thrust upon us, which is why I am filled with foreboding with regard to the next ten years.

I think, in terms of military preparedness, that the last five years has been wasted. I am concerned that it may be too late.

[cowdog77]

Cut all social programs by 1/2%
That should provide billions!
_________________________________________
Great idea~!

Let's start with the 180 lb single mothers with 6 kids sitting around eating Doritos all day watching the tube and thinking up new ways to work the system.

[quadrant]

I agree that the next decade will be a dangerous one, and the danger will increase immeasurably if the Army does not devote itself right now to the task of internal reform.

[TWfromTEXAS]

Courtmartial him for insubordination.

Are you clear about who would sit on that Court?

[Axhandle]

"That's an incredibly stupid idea."

I've got a ton of them. I keep them on file here.

[Axhandle]

"Why does the Army continue to rotate officers through command and staff billets?"

What else would they be rotated through?

[leadpenny]

Divisions are becoming administrative Hqs. The Brigade is the stand alone maneuver unit. They have a slice of everything they used to get from Division. Some think the combat brigade will eventually become an 07 billet. Not all of this is happening overnight.

[leadpenny]

Then, how about doing all a favor. When you see a thread is based on the NYT or the LAT or any other source you can't stand to read, just move along. If FR management allows it on FR, that's good enough for me. Pound sand? Right! You lose.

[quadrant]

Why rotate them at all?

[rlmorel]

"...You lose..."

No, we are all going to lose on account of it.

You apparently think that there are no limits on free speech, whereas I think there are. What is happening in this war (and far too many do not understand we are at war) is that there are entities in this country that do not have our best interests at heart.

Freedom of speech brings responsibilities with it, and as I said before, the American press has show itself to be thoroughly untrustworthy with that responsibility. You do not think that is a problem in war, but I do.

I see this damage caused by the inclination by a "free press" to give intelligence to our enemy as an insidious erosion that is going to eat away at the riverbanks of our national resolve and ability to wage this war until they begin crumbling and falling into that river. If you don't think information like this is intelligence to an enemy, then you don't understand what information is needed by an enemy to defeat us.

As surely as the media caused the defeat of the USA in Vietnam by relentlessly sapping our national will to fight and sowing division amongst the citizenry with disinformation (Tet Offensive as primary example), it will cause the defeat of our cause in the Middle East with the incessant drumbeat of negativity.

I lived through it once, and vowed never to be a submissive party to it again. So, no. I am not going to just "Move On" in your parlance. You and others are free to post whatever is allowed, and I am free to say my piece about it.

You think it is a minor thing, and that the NYT or LAT are free to air whatever information about anything they can glean from their "unnamed sources", even if it means the loss of American lives and a prolongation of the conflict.

I think it is one of the greatest dangers to the Republic, and more so because the bar has been raised so high that there is no such thing as treason anymore. The founders of our nation had a good reason for placing the bar of treason very high, in order to prevent misuse of the charge. But when Jane Fonda and others went to North Vietnam and gave aid and comfort to the enemy without repercussions, that set the bar so high that nothing can go over it.

And here we are today with the NYT giving information to our enemies about how we gather intelligence from them, how we monitor their communications and so on, allowing them to make successful adjustments to diminish our available intelligence. That means my fellow citizens in the military are going to have to stay in the battle longer with less intelligence, and cost me more taxpayer dollars, not to mention the loss of life that is inevitably going to occur in the civilian populace in this country.

So, fine. I disagree with you.

I will, however, apologize for being uncivil in response to what I perceived as a snide and smarmy tone in your posting. I try to keep it civil, but I failed. Sorry bout that.

[Axhandle]

To round them out in preparation to command at the next higher level. Company Commanders have done time as platoon leaders and usually XO's or specialty platoons and staff officers. Most manuever battalion commanders have been S-3's and XO's. They've also likely been an S-1 or S-4 and definitely commanded at least one company. Brigade commanders have commanded battalions, been primary brigade staff officers, done joint time, etc, etc. This seems very logical to me.

[quadrant]

Why do they need "rounding out"?

[Axhandle]

"Rounding out" is generally meant that someone is given the necessary professional education and experience to be fully prepared for the next level of command. This, in obvious, self-evident terms is a good thing. Also, during this process, the individuals are able to be observed and evaluated, ensuring that they not only have the professional education and experience, but also sufficient leadership potential.

[quadrant]

A self-evident proposition is one the opposite of which is impossible to imagine.
It is possible to imagine an Army where preparation for the next level of responsibility - that is, career development - is relegated to second place behind successful prosecution of a war.
Max Boot's SAVAGE WARS OF PEACE relates that in June, 1966, then Col Harold Moore's tour as a commander in the 1st Cav was scheduled to end while his troops were engaged in combat. He refused to relinquish command and was allowed to hold onto his billet but only for an additional ten days.
A month later his inexperienced successor blundered into a battle - a mistake that Moore would have avoided - that cost the lives of twenty-five soldiers.
It must be of great comfort to the families of the dead to know that Moore's successor was being prepared for his next level of command and his leadership potential was being evaluated.
Is the Army's personnel system designed to serve the needs of the troops in the field or are they props to be rotated around to serve the career development of the officer corps?

[Axhandle]

"It is possible to imagine an Army where preparation for the next level of responsibility - that is, career development - is relegated to second place behind successful prosecution of a war."

A good point and a valid concern. Your example from Vietnam is a good one, because it illustrates what was wrong and it is also a good example of what we learned not to do after Vietnam.
For example, as we prepared for OIF I, we instituted a stop-loss and a stop-move. Commanders who were scheduled to change command were held in place because they knew their jobs well and were seasoned. This paid enormous dividends in Iraq. No sane person could argue that changing out company, battalion, and brigade commanders according to their timelines would have made any sense. The effectiveness of the unit was exponentially greater by retaining those leaders in their positions.
After the invasion, changing battalion commanders did occur, though only among units that were in redeployment mode. I can't imagine any leader worth a damn allowing a battalion commander or higher to change command in Iraq if his unit is still potentially operating in harm's way. I am unaware of this occuring, other than instances of the outgoing commander being relieved for incompetence. Company commanders, occasionally, do change command in country. It is the exception, not the rule, but largely occurs, as with BC's, due to the outgoing commander being relieved for incompetence or scheduled changes in situations where the incoming commander has a close working relationship and can make a smooth transition (this was the case in my battalion in OIF III, when a company largely responsible for conducting section and platoon sized patrols on the MSR did a change of command - there was no concern in this case of a lack of experience, as the incoming commander was not going to make any decisions that he was any less prepared for than the outgoing commander).
The same can be said for other key positions. My S-3, for example, was scheduled to move into an XO position while in Iraq. No big deal, since those are staff positions. But S-3 work is tied very closely to tactical decisions and daily operations made by the battalion and company commanders. He, like LTC Moore in your example, refused to change positions, insisting that continuity was more important. The commanders agreed and he remained as our S-3.
This was also the case with company XO's. Because operations in Iraq are 24/7, commanders occasionally need to sleep and let the XO take over. Most company XO's returning from Iraq are Captains, but they retain their XO positions because it is important to ensure that the guy acting in place of the commander be as familiar with the situation and experienced as possible.

"Is the Army's personnel system designed to serve the needs of the troops in the field or are they props to be rotated around to serve the career development of the officer corps?"

I would say the former. But, like any other system, it is only as good as the people who administer it. I have seen it administered very well. The real weakness of the system, in my opinion, is the evaluation system. It is difficult to give someone an evaluation that is negative, due to the legal crap that the Army subjects itself to. Evaluations also give very little insight into anyone but the most exceptional because of the glorifying prose that is expected for even average performers. The Army continues to tweak this.

[Axhandle]

Bump post 71 to the top. You should publish that somewhere.

[rlmorel]

Thanks for saying so, Axhandle. I really hate how this stuff divides us up, when we really should be pulling together. I feel pretty stongly about this, but it just seems that so many people do not understand what we are up against, and that we are at war.

And then you get idiots like some liberals who say "Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? What makes us so special that we can have them and they can't..."

Sheesh. But anyway, thanks.

[quadrant]

Regardless of your testimony, I find no rational reason
for changing command during wartime, except for unusual circumstances such as incompetence.
If an officer is promoted, then a replacement is necessary, but under normal conditions it is essential that commanders (and senior NCO's) remain in their jobs, especially since many of the experienced junior enlisted men leave the service, and their replacements will have little if any combat experience.
The lives of the junior grunts - you know those guys that the Army spends so much money to recruit and complains so loudly when the ranks cannot be filled - are too valuable to sacrificed on the altar of a personnel system or for the career development of an officer corps. We ask grunts to take enough risks. Being led by an inexperienced officer should not be another one.
If you were a junior grunt, would you rather be led by an O-5 who already spent a year leading a battalion in Iraq or Afghanistan or by one fresh from the CGSS at Fort Leavenworth (or some other staff billet) who has no combat experience? Try to put yourself in the boots of a grunt. Or if you cannot stretch your imagination that far, try this: if you were a parent, with whom would you prefer to trust the life of your son?
By your logic one should remove the CG in Iraq after a year. Perhaps the Army should have removed MacArthur after a year as CG of the Southwest Pacific Theatre or Ike as CG in Europe. That, of course, would have been ridiculous.
If its important to have continuity at the top, its no less important to have it at the middle level. In fact, it is more important to have continuity at the middle levels, for as is known by everyone with experience in the military, company, battalion, and brigade command are the locations where real life and death decisions are made, especially in wars such as Vietnam and Iraq.
Frankly, I don't give a rip about the career development of officers. I care about the lives of the troops and the success of the mission. To care about anything else is dereliction of duty and is a stain upon the honor of the Army. The current system is damn near criminal.

[Axhandle]

"By your logic one should remove the CG in Iraq after a year. Perhaps the Army should have removed MacArthur after a year as CG of the Southwest Pacific Theatre or Ike as CG in Europe."

No, that is not the extension of any logic that I presented. I pointed out the benefit of our stop-move in OIF I and further opined that no leader worth a damn would allow a change of command of a battalion commander or higher while the unit is in harm's way.

"... as is known by everyone with experience in the military, company, battalion, and brigade command are the locations where real life and death decisions are made, especially in wars such as Vietnam and Iraq."

Iraq is far, far different from Vietnam. My experiences are not much different than most of my peers and my unscientific estimate is that 99% of life and death decisions on my last deployment were made by platoon leader and below. The other 1% of life and death decisions were made by company level leadership (CO or XO) and largely were decisions about whether to kill a terrorist now or in 5 minutes.

"The current system is damn near criminal."

I don't know what books you're reading, so I doubt that I will change your mind or address all of your real or imagined concerns. I'll just say that the leadership changes that we were most concerned about were the company level and below and those changes, in my unit, were only made in exceptional cases. The sky is not falling.