How To Fix My Army: A maverick officer s plan to overhaul the service s culture

Army Times | July 8, 2002 | Sean D. Naylor

[mad_as_he$$]

Some interesting ideas. Many of these problems existed in the VN era Army and I personally witnessed them. However, they have become crucial now with small leaner forces and high tech information control. As for Irwin. Armor is dead and just hasn't fallen over yet. Even the Russians do not want to get into an armored conflict with us. We would kick their a$$ before lunch with the Hawg's and the Apache. Even the F-16 is a serious tank killer these days. Just ask Omar what one AC-130 can do to an armored column.

[wita]

Tell the boys we left in mogadishu, Somalia that armor is dead. Tell the foot soldier that the air forces will protect him. Armor isn't dead in the forest, armor isn't dead in built up areas. Armor may be at a disadvantage in the open plains or desert, but with proper anti-aircraft, armor is not the one disadvantaged. Never go into a fight with numerically smaller numbers or caliber of weapons than the enemy, especially in an aircraft.

[B-Chan]

The Navy could also benefit from these reforms. Applying his battalion-based cohesiveness strategy to ships and other commands would be extremely beneficial; as it is, crewmen rotate in and out of afloat commands so rapidly that they never have a chance to develop any loyalty to the ship or its CO. As any military vet can tell you, it's esprit de corps that wins the battles, not weapons or technology. Serving one's entire four-year hitch as a part of one ship/ashore command would discourage excess careerism and encourage working for the team.

And I've long thought that all officers ought to have to serve some time as an enlisted man. Nothing like a little chipping and painting to give you an appreciation of how the other half lives. I'd also recommend giving all enlisted personnel an automatic shot at a commission one they reach E-6. By the time a guy makes PO1/SSGT, he's got an incredible amount real-world experience, and it's a crying shame to waste it. Why should a born leader with ten years of hands-on experience end up pushing paper at the division level just because they lack a book education?

My two cents as an Army brat and a Navy vet...

B-chan
Former MM3, USS ENTERPRISE (CVN-65)

[capydick]

Some great ideas here. My experience has been that enlisted soldiers make better officers. For the most part, they get more respect as well.

Another small place to start would be to get rid of putting that (P) after a soldiers rank. It adds little value and seems to be there for an ego boost.

[mad_as_he$$]

When I say armor I mean heavy tank brigades. The day of major tank battles is over. The Apache and the Comanche (sp?) (in the future) will wipe out armor, even in the forest, before they can even get their motors started. Armored personnel transport will always be needed. As far a grunts and the Air Force - they have been protected in almost all of the war in Afghanistan WITHOUT heavy armor by the AF - in most cases with no armored personnel transport.

As far as the battle of Mogo goes. It was ENTIRELY Garrison's fault that it took so long for a armored personnel transport rescue to be organized. He should of briefed the Paki's BEFORE going in. FWIW Abrams (M1A1) in Mogo would have been severly hampered by the close streets and adjacent buildings. My first choice would have been for the AC-130's stationed in the Gulf to clean house - but half-Aspen was worried about public opinion of 5000 dead Skinnies - instead he got 1500 dead ones and a bunch of Rangers and D-boys KIA

[cynicom]

Stand...

Vandergriff knows full well that not being a grad of West Point dooms his effort before it starts. The many perfumed gentlemen from West Point will never allow a former enlisted person to transform THEIR army.

[cynicom]

mad...

I bet if Omar had SAMs and fighters, the AC-130 would have been dead meat.

[mad_as_he$$]

humm maybe but as far as I know none were brought down in Nam or the Gulf War.

[genefromjersey]

This gent started out in the Marines, and much of what he says is Marine Corps doctrine : based on leaner, meaner necessities.

[Snickersnee]

I believe there have been three Spectres that bit the dust from hostile fire -- two in VN and one in the GW. Maybe it was the other way around.

[RetiredArmy]

He is correct on the up or out thing. I knew an E-5, Specialist Five once, who was in transportation. He was an excellent mechanic and heavy equipment operator. The guy genuinely loved to operate the big rigs and heavy equipment. He loved to "play in the dirt" as he put it. He was sent to the Staff Sergeant E-6 board, which he did outstanding. He made E-6 and then got the bad news. He was now a supervisor of the E-5s and below and thus, no longer got to play on the equipment or worked on it. He was to supervise others doing it. Even when he tried to get dirty hands, his motor maintenance officer got on his butt. The guy was crushed. Everything he'd ever wanted to be or do was gone because he was good at it and had been promoted. He said he would gladly have not gone up for E-6 if he had known that he would never get to operate the equipment again. But, he also knew that if he did not GO UP, then he would be OUT. Basically, the Army lost an outstanding operator and mechanic and probably got a poor supervisor because his heart was not in it.

Once there were also career privates. Men who beat the bush and carried the load. The Army did not want those kinds any more and made it up or out. What is wrong with a guy who is a 10 year E4 or E5, but is a damned good E4 or E5. Everyone is not made out to be a supervisor or leader of men/women, yet could still be a totally productive soldier in his/her MOS? These people want to be soldiers and want to do a good job, but might not have the "head space and timing" to be a leader in a critical combat job.

Training is the name of the game. Our people do spend short times together and very shorter time in the field. Actually, I loved to go to the field. But, I knew others who would try any excuse to try to stay out of the field. I know that as my career developed, I learned that there are many things I would have done much different if I had known better. Like most adults, I wanted to get married and have children. Little did I realize how much time I would spend away from those children and my wife. It lead to me not seeing my kids much or being around much. It was bad for me and bad for my kids. I missed out on so much of their young lives, and they did not see much of me from time to time. Makes the mother be almost like a single parent. Would I have stayed single if I had known better or more, probably. But, married troops, with large families, have many distractions. In today's world, what I am saying probably would not work, but would probably be better.

On a side issue, has anyone seen the stupid commercial for MTV where the female sailor says she did not join the Navy and expect to go to war? Jesus, Thelma and Louise, what kind of people do we have on the lines defending this country? People along for the pay check, not people who are there to defend the country. At times like this, I wish I were young enough to put the uniform back on and hit the field again. This is very sad. Sad for our Nation, and someday sad for those who will die because of stupid attitudes like this broad's. (Sorry ladies, that is how I feel. This gal ain't no Lady.)

[Richard Kimball]

Once there were also career privates. Men who beat the bush and carried the load. The Army did not want those kinds any more and made it up or out. What is wrong with a guy who is a 10 year E4 or E5, but is a damned good E4 or E5. Everyone is not made out to be a supervisor or leader of men/women, yet could still be a totally productive soldier in his/her MOS? These people want to be soldiers and want to do a good job, but might not have the "head space and timing" to be a leader in a critical combat job.

Don't have any military service, except watching "Heartbreak Ridge" 3 times, but your observations totally square with what I've seen in the fire service. For some reason, we seem to have lost respect for the tradesman who does his job well. BTW, NOTHING is nicer than having 3 experienced hands with you when going into a structure fire.

[arm958]

This gent started out in the Marines, and much of what he says is Marine Corps doctrine : based on leaner, meaner necessities.

More and more people are starting to listen to MAJ Vandergriff. I retire from the Army in a few months, and I think that most of his points are valid. Their are a lot of junior and mid-grade officers, as well as NCOs, who would love to see the Army shaken to the core and rebuilt. Incremental change won't cut it.

[arm958]

Armor is dead and just hasn't fallen over yet. Even the Russians do not want to get into an armored conflict with us. We would kick their a$$ before lunch with the Hawg's and the Apache. Even the F-16 is a serious tank killer these days

You still need armor and artillery. Aviation is critical, but not the panacea some would think. If it was, then the 2nd ACR wouldn't have had to knock out two Republican Guards Tank Divisions with their Abrams tanks during the Gulf War. There is a dangerous tendency to think that any land war can be won with a combination of air power and special operations troops / light infantry on the ground. It just isn't so; we'd be nuts to get rid of heavy metal.

[BluH2o]

Vandergriff would keep battalions together for four-year cycles. A cadre of officers and NCOs would greet enlisted soldiers straight out of Advance Individual Training.

This is not a new concept, but certainly one that would go a long way to establish unit pride and cohesiveness. The British, at least at one time, adhered to this philosophy. Battalion commanders actually knew the men in their command by name (before name tags). It would make for a much more professional military, both in the officer corps and the enlisted ranks.

[mad_as_he$$]

Well as far as I can tell the Army has a plan to get rid of heavy metal in favor of smaller and lighter (30,000lbs) tanks. Discovery Channel has a show about the development of the "new" armor. I still think that moving heavy stuff is dead in the next 10-20 years.

[Britton J Wingfield]

"Do you really want an officer who’s not willing to be an enlisted man first?" Vandergriff said.

Heinlein would love this guy.

[Trombone]

Not only would this create cohesiveness in units, something sorely lacking today, it would save untold millions of dollars by simply not moving families every 2-3 years.

I listen to lots of speeches from Battalion level commanders and very rarely do they even mention that it's the troops on the field in front of them that made their career even possible, and I'm sure that for most of them effective and professional NCO's have bailed them out time and time again...

As regarding a General Officer for every 1090 troops--no wonder the lower enlisted are on food stamps (upper enlisted with three kids here in my town qualify for reduced meals at school...), their salaries are docked to pay the O7 or above with over 25 years.... To say nothing of the wasted salaries of his drivers, cooks, the Major who walks behind him to carry his hat etc.

Oh well, I could rant for days, but I don't know what good it would do.

[OldEagle]

Have to agree. I have seen many EM, NCO's and Officers who were really great in their rank but who were unable to be promoted to the next higher grade. What would be wrong for example to have a "Career Captain" as a company commander if he is truly suited for the job and has no aspirations to be a Major? Same with other troops. It is a serious shame to give up this experience and ability. Everything in the army happens at UNIT level. Higher headquarters and other personnel exist ONLY to provide for the unit.