|
1
Nerd-It
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by My most recent experience in the U.S. Army has left me doing battle with the Army's Bureaucratic Machine. I'm a Rear Detachment Commander and find my daily duties and responsibilities (among others) are largely related to:
- bringing new soldiers into the Army and sending them to the war, and
- kicking bad or broken soldiers out of the Army.
This experience opened my eyes to a world of anachronism and wasted resources I never imagined possible. For instance:
- I recently removed a soldier from service for gratuitous use of cocaine and marijuana. The Army previously granted him a waiver for felony assault on a police officer so he might enlist.
- To remove said soldier from service, I had to get a series of physicals and evaluations for him, and then argue with a Lieutenant Colonel about why he was unfit for service.
- During that 4 month period, he spread cocaine like a cancer throughout my formation, and brought members of a prominent Mexican Gang on to the Base where they abducted other soldiers.
My point is the Army Recruiting System went out of its way to recruit a convicted felon and probably gave him a bonus. Then, when he continued his career in crime, the Army Personnel System went out of its way to fight removing him from service. I even had to get this soldier to a briefing so his benefits and taxpayer supported entitlements could be explained to him. Is this the most efficient way to field a fighting force in a capitalist economy?
A quick search of the Internet tells me there are approximately 21 thousand private security contractors in Iraq, and 25% of the U.K.'s aid budget goes to security contractors.
I looked a little further, and found Blackwater not only has a training facility, but also a production plant that cranks out one armored vehicle a day for private military operations. They have fixed and rotary wing aviation, small boats, and an internship program. Moreover, if they have a contractor mixed up with cocaine, he or she is simply told to seek employment elsewhere.
Is government control over the military worth gross examples of fraud, waste, and abuse? Or should we reduce the amount of active duty military to essential services and rely on the private sector to fill in the gaps?
Add a Comment (17)
Email This
Message Author
I have a small contention here on your characterization of the situation. First of all, it's almost preposterously difficult to get someone with even a felony CHARGE (i.e. he was sought for it, but oops, it wasn't you...not to mention conviction, as with your soldier) into the Army, even now. For this guy to get in, there had to be enormous mitigating circumstances, meritorious exception, etc. I've known a few guys that tried to get kids in who were charged with Arson at age 9 for playing with matches "to scare them straight". Many states and their DA's will drop the hammer on young kids and tell them that if they keep their nose clean, when they turn 18, it will be like it never happened. This is completely false. In both cases, the DA in question even wrote a letter clearly stating that this was the case--that the kid really didn't do anything willfully wrong. I just don't buy that a significant number of felons are getting into the Army, and it's not the decision of the recruiter or even Recruiting Command for that matter whether the kid gets in or not. In a way, I guess it is because the recruiter has to pursue getting the approval, but doing so is certainly not pursuing the low hanging fruit--there are a lot of easier and more accessible fish in the sea. Some pin-head obviously found some merit in your guy's case to fight for him really hard for some reason.
Now, once we have a dirt bag in the system, I can't agree with you more that we have to get better at getting rid of them expeditiously and without the massive arguments. They do the physical and mental exams you mentioned so your guy doesn't come back in two years and try to claim a ton of "service related" disability, or go on Oprah and claim that the Army didn't do anything for his problems, or that he was kicked out because of physical or mental conditions outside of his control.
All of this said, I am very skeptical of contractors, and government civilians for that matter. When the shooting starts and things get dangerous, what is their real level of loyalty? What is their desired end-state? Ever hear about the contractors in Iraq and some of their behavior that was deleterious to the overall mission (I'm thinking specifically of truck drivers who had and used unauthorized weapons in a manner in total discord with our Rules of Engagement)? Maybe I'm a little cynical, but there's a poster that fits here: "Consultants--If You Are Not Part of the Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made Prolonging the Problem". I just don't have a warm-and-fuzzy that the civilians will be there for me when things get tough. DA civilians are also great for preserving continuity in some jobs whereas military people rotate through them, and therefore DA civilians can become very competent at their jobs--but they can also become very entrenched and intransigent in the bureaucracy rather than focused on the objective.
I also agree with your assessment elsewhere in this thread that we need to focus more on quality soldiers. We've done a great job in years past on improving the intellectual quality with test scores, but now we really need to improve on maturity and overall responsibility, etc. I keep hearing about the so-called "Strategic Corporal", and the pay and selection needs to reflect that. I think the Army (and USMC for that matter) need to become more Special Operations-like, improving our cultural savvy, the ability of junior leaders to make sound decisions without guidance, the ability to comprehend their actions in the strategic context, etc.
The bottom line is that the military exists to serve the civilian leadership and achieve our political objectives. This is something we cannot deligate away, except for tertiary supporting tasks not directly related to achieving our objectives, such as RTCH (Rough Terrain Cargo Handler) operators, which are not gainfully employed very often, but occassionally we need a lot of them. Oh, by the way, I think this also applies to the development of strategy and advising the national leadership on military affairs--I think we've given too much ground to academics and WAAAAY to much to political cranks here.
Since my days back in Desert Storm Im sure that there have been massive changes in the Military, for good or worse. But since 1776 there has always been waste in our military, incompetent soldiers and criminals. Ive met all of these sorts back then and could name dozens of other probs. But a smaller army at the time being could never be an answer, especially since a war in Iran is knocking on the door. we should have done that one first,esp. since they finance so many terrorists. but aside that fact do you really want to trust the defence of the western world in the hand of Mercs. who only fight for money, who says that they wont jump ship for the next highest bidder.
I sure dont, sometimes dogs do bite the hand that feeds them, see Osama or Saddam. I agree that the soldiers should be better paid, but that will not help to keep out the bad apples, nor will shrinking down the size do this. I personally joined out of patriotic reasons, and left with a bad taste in my mouth after seeing alot of what you described. To put it short I say yes to more pay and benefits, and a big no to Mercs. and Co. that cant be the answer, the first change has to start in the Command.
RSS
I feel your pain.... by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 11 April 2007
but does the U.S.A. really want to start hiring mercenaries to do the work of national security? It sounds like a short-term fix that could create some serious problems down the road. My other question is if a private company can effectively deal with poor performers, why can't the US Army adopt the same procedures?
RE: I feel your pain.... by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 11 April 2007
It's not that simple. Aside from the trigger pullers and the bullet bringers, the bulk of the Army is contractors, Department of the Army Civillian workers, or soldiers assigned to jobs that do not involve what most people would consider an Army mission. I will link two examples.
1. The BOSS Program. Entertainment for soldiers actually has soldiers and contracted civillians paid to work for them. This is something that grew out of the need to entertain soldiers in WW2, USO and all that. This is sort of a union for single soldiers that live in the Army Dormitories.
2. Army Community Services. These guys provide a variety of services to soldiers, such as Loans and counseling. Think of it as social welfare for the Army.
I am not attacking these programs, or saying they are doing a bad thing. However, the Army makes quite a show of how we are a professional fighting force. Based on programs like the above, I would say that is only partially true. Blackwater is a professional fighting force. From what I can gather they are expected to each maintain a professional body of knowledge and show up ready to work. In this case train away from home or provide a military formation on another continent. They seem to be able to do this without any sort of welfare system that consumes resources like this happy fellow.
Sam Huntington tells me that the State has a moral obligation to maintain at the very least a body of professional cadre capable standing up and training a military force; and I believe him. I do not think that means we need an Army whos professional fighting men are vastly outnumbered by people who neither shoot nor support. You ask why not simply adopt their system, I tell you to adopt it means to cleave globs of useless fat off a side of beef. I believe our Army should be reduced to the size of the Marine Corp, or even to the pre-WW2 level. The private sector should be able to provide the rest.
This small force could do things we cannot currently do. For instance:
1. Not recruit convicted felons.
2. Pay highly trained soldiers what they are worth, and expect them to look after themselves and deploy when they are told.
3. Focus on warfighting, instead of spending crazy amounts of time with Equal Opportunity training and Sexual Harrasment training.
This leaner Army, along with the other branches of service would be able to respond to immediate threats and destroy a State Centric Center of Gravity. For anything larger the National Guard and Reserve could be mobilized. Unless anyone thinks the Russians are going to drive across Europe anytime soon, I think this is a more realistic goal.
RE: I feel your pain.... by Xtremegene :: NR5 :: on 15 April 2007
I'll have to ask for more clarification in how having a smaller Army in itself will improve the number and quality of recruits. I would think that those who want to be in combat or combat support roles pretty much know it when they first sign up...?
RE: I feel your pain.... by nickfranklin :: NR5 :: on 18 April 2007
how having a smaller Army
it's a labor market thing, right? the army needs X number of people and can only pay Y price--at Y price, only X many people are available at Z quality. (somebody add a whiteboard to omninerd. please, for reals.)
ryan's right in that the army is covered in bloat. i don't think the right answer is blackwater--sorry, but i gotta go with rome on this one, those guys are a constant accident waiting to happen--but there's an assload of dollars and quite often uniformed billets being spent on programs which don't win wars, and sometimes even just plain screw soldiers more than the civilian equivalent. and what about money spent prolonging systems which probably didn't even work right in the 1950s? (not completely agreeing with the last article, but it raises interesting criticisms of the monster that's in place.)
lastly, forgetting even the absolutely ridiculous felony waiver issue... there's an awful lot of people kicking around my organization who don't know their jobs. the Army eliminated the SQT in the nineties. (Scroll down to "training management"--read the whole article if you have time, it's interesting.) why? honestly, i'm not completely sure--i was still playing with my ninja turtles before the test disappeared--but my understanding, based on a conversation with a crusty E9 one night at a checkpoint, is that people just weren't passing it. if that's not a quality-of-labor issue, i don't know what is.
i think the solution to a lot of these issues our force is facing and is about to force is not making the Army smaller, but increasing the front-line shooter-and-supporter-to-chaff ratio, both in terms of manpower and the way money is allocated.
your thoughts?
RE: I feel your pain.... by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 18 April 2007
I am not proposing Blackwater as a replacement for the Army; they were just the easiest to look up information on.
What I propose is eliminating all of the social programs in the Army, all of things that eat up resources, and redirecting that money to the force on the ground. Pay soldiers a high wage and expect quality. If that results in a smaller force so be it.
RE: I feel your pain.... by nickfranklin :: NR5 :: on 18 April 2007
well then. sir! we agree. all we need to do now is to get the CoS on our side.
RE: I feel your pain.... by romanizzo :: NR6 :: on 20 April 2007
Good day to you sir! That certainly appears to be a very different opinion than you originally espoused, and I stand with you at this point.
More focus on the mission - check.
Really taking care of Soldiers - check.
Cutting out the sycophants and freeloaders - check.
Trimming down on the 9-5 support MOSes - check.
RE: I feel your pain.... by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 20 April 2007
That would have made a very poor coffee shop conversation however. Wasn't this much more betterer?
RE: I feel your pain.... by romanizzo :: NR6 :: on 17 April 2007
You are out of your damn mind.
First, calling Blackwater a professional fighting force is an utter insult to the rest of us. Having not inspected their entire organization, I will say that I might not be entirely right. But as for the hoodlums they have running around Iraq that like to randomly discharge their weapons and spray 'n pray, well, I suppose they fill the same void that a Marine Special Forces company could fill. Gross generalization? Sure. But just because they were the cool guys that had the little birds flying around the Green Zone by our house back in 04 doesn't make them a professional fighting force.
Second, your perspective on the Army is skewed drastically into the negative for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is being rear-D commander and in the Worst Cavalry Division at the same time. There's good soldiers and there's bad soldiers, like there's good outfits and bad, but establishing your position based while you're in, arguably, the most miserable job in the Army is probably going to lead to a flawed opinion.
Third, shrinking the size of the Army would be a disaster for dozens of reasons outside the purview of this conversation. Consider, however, that the number of shooters in Iraq right now is somewhere over 80,000 (don't have a link, remember reading it though) and that is round about 50%, depending on the month and whether or not we are surging. 50% is phenomenal. We were lucky to get a 10-to-1 ratio in times passed. I will agree that the Support Battalions and PSBs that work 9-to-5 and take weekends off while in Iraq make me utterly nauseous, and that the thousands of KBR contractors skew the ratio some more. However, all things being considered, we're doing well. How small would you want to shrink? There's 80,000 we clearly need right there, and they need to rotate every 12 to 15 months, so thats 160,000. Then we need to train em and send em to schools, and they really need more of a break, so lets call it 240,000. Then, in all honesty, we should have twice the reserve standing by for another conflict, so now we're up to 400,000 in just shooters.
Of course the military looks like fraud, waste and abuse from the cynics viewpoint. It takes 8 gallons of JP8 to start an M1A2 tank, the tank burns 12 gallons an hour at idle, and is lucky to get a mile in 3 gallons. Bombers cost billions of dollars. All this is why its a state function. No private industry could possibly support this, even on a government contract. The reason Blackwater and, similarly, the tiny little Australian Army look so much better on the surface, is because they have so few moving pieces, constraints and complications to deal with. They have the luxury of not having to worry about all the problems you point out.
But I guess it goes back to what the mission is. To fight and win our nation's wars. It would be criminally negligent to assume that conflicts we need or choose to engage in could be won by the small cadre you describe. And, as much as I love our citizen-soldiers in the Guard and Reserves, lets remember where a lot of the problems have come from ... cough ... Abu Ghraib ... cough. You, of all people, remember what its like to deal with Guard units. I appreciate their sacrifice, but I'll be damned if I can, with clear conscience, let the security of this nation rest on their shoulders. We couldn't have done Afghanistan or Iraq with what you describe (the argument of whether or not we needed to is neither necessary nor welcome.) Can you accurately forecast what the next conflict we'll be in looks like? I can't. And old Donny Rumsfeld sure was adamant about the smaller quicker Army ... and he turned out to be wrong as two boys kissing in church on Sunday.
RE: I feel your pain.... by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 18 April 2007
Hold on a second, the small cadre I am speaking of managed to create a giant Army fairly quickly in the early '40s. They even managed to win a couple battles.
I am currently stationed at a TRADOC post, which has some interesting quirks you may not be aware of if you have only been at FORSCOM posts. For instance, if you happen to be conducting maneuver training at sunny Fort Bliss your deliberate attack or route recon can be halted by a contractor and a maintence tech to inspect your maintenance log and quiz your PMCS.
You mentioned taking weekends off in Iraq, which is funny, because it takes an act of god in 3rd corps to simply come in early on a Monday morning to go to the field; and you better be back in garrison by 1700 on a Friday.
I am not just talking about cutting back on uniformed servicemen; I am also talking about cutting away the contractors and helpers. Maybe your familiar with the Family Readiness Group. This is a great idea that has grown mounstrosly out of proportion. For instance, this program provides a paid FRG leader to fill out various reports on what the FRG does, to send to a higher paid version at garrison, who in turn sends it to a mysterious office somewhere, then the office gives the garrison FRG money based on volunteer hours. Why? The most important functions of the FRG, in my opinion, are:
1. Passing information up and down the chain.
2. Providing assistance to the families of the dead and wounded.
3. Helping out the families of young soldiers new to the Army system.
Your on your second command so I won't patronize you by asking if your familiar with this or even this beauty. The end result of those two beauties is that I have an FRG Leaders book on my desk so large it rivals my actual Army Leaders Book that contains things I need to support the war effort. The Army actually pays someone to come down and inspect this book and audit my FRG wheelings and Dealings. I see them more often than the people who inspect my Arms Room. Where I keep weapons. And this is just one program eating no end of resources.
BTW, The Guardinan thinks there are only 15 thousand security guys in Iraq. And I have heard all the stories about the spray 'n pray Triple Canopy guys, but have never met a soldier who saw it, or had it happen in his/her AO. Granted I have not been to Iraq in 3 years and alot of you are getting ready for a 3rd tour, but I suspect that alot of these stories are just that.
As far as mercenaries not being professional, I would like to point out that these happy fellows waged war and occupied countries quite well.
Your last bit about the smaller quicker Army is flawed. It was not the smaller quicker Army that was unable to do its job, it was the follow on actions. Rather we simply did not follow up on its success with an overwhelming occupation force.
I am not advocating cutting the Army down to ridiculous proportions, but think we could do without alot of the dead wheight. Surely you can agree with me that assigning full time soldiers to this endeavor is waste.
RE: I feel your pain.... by romanizzo :: NR6 :: on 18 April 2007
You could make the argument that we succeeded in the 40s despite our horrible pre-war plan, not because of it. Throw enough money and tanks at any problem and you'll get it in the end. Granted, a lot of good units and plenty of fine officers came out of that cadre, but that is not the model we need to follow. The point is to avoid or deter the crisis, not have to mobilize the nation to defeat it.
I'm in III Corps, and will admit that there is a lot of silliness. I will also cede the point that civilians have made quite the mess of the Army with their niceties, FRGs and BOSSs. These are all examples of good ideas that have gone horrible awry due to a lack of focus on the mission. I'd refer you to a discussion from many months back here on the O regarding females in the military. I am the first to say that the Army has more problems than I have pennies, but the solution is not shrinking it.
When I said 80,000 shooters I meant American soldiers in a combat arms role, not contractors. The British East India Company is so far removed in both concept and execution from DynCorp that the comparison is moot. Had the US contracted out the invasion and subsequent pacification of Iraq in its entirety, we might be able to discuss professional mercenaries. Now, however, we have mercenary PSDs and security guards running around, and it is still an affront to my soldiers (and hell, to your tour in Iraq) that you would consider these guys professionals in the same sense.
Your last bit about the smaller quicker Army is flawed. It was not the smaller quicker Army that was unable to do its job, it was the follow on actions. Rather we simply did not follow up on its success with an overwhelming occupation force.
You think, then, that the solution is to mobilize the reserves as that occupation force? And that we would be able to get this force into place quickly enough to be effective and get the results we need from them? You've forgotten too much from FOB Kalsu, my friend.
I think we're in agreement about the problems the Army has - although my point about you being at the bad end of the spear holds. In my tank company of 73 soldiers, I am absolutely not experiencing the same issues. I have the luxury of telling these inspector people to go pound sand, as we are getting ready to roll again. A smaller Army is not the solution. The solution is about 10 years away - when all of us youngsters that cut our teeth in Iraq and Afghanistan start to come into positions of being in charge and can do away with some of the stupid.
RE: I feel your pain.... by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 19 April 2007
For the record! My end of the spear is the one the centurion sticks in the manure of the cavalrys' horses prior to combat!
I am not talking about scrapping the Army and the green suiters. I personally have a deep affection for the massive legacy force army with all of its crazy COSCOMs and giant formations. My point, apparently poorly made, is that we should scrap the niceties, as you called them. If those programs were cut, it would likely hurt retention. All of the soldiers that stay in the Army for the social welfare benefits would probably find welfare in another line of work. The shortfall caused by that exodus could be filled in the private sector. In retrospect a more support oriented firm would have been appropriate. Mayhaps not as attention grabbing, but blandly appropriate.
As far as the initial push goes, I am not talking about the mobilization of the reserves, rather that there should have been a larger follow on force than 1AD, 2ACR, etc. One mech infantry division some Brits and a MARDIV may be sufficient to break the egg, but not put the pieces together again. This is a fairly common viewpoint, and not note-worthy; perhaps I did not express it clearly. Regardless; I am about to go upstairs and drink Bombay Gin for the later 1-35, and think about FOB Kalsu.
RE: I feel your pain.... by nickfranklin :: NR5 :: on 19 April 2007
we need more than gin, brah. i'm drinking at work right now, and it's not even taking the edge off.
RE: I feel your pain.... by romanizzo :: NR6 :: on 20 April 2007
Last comment on this thread. I contend that trimming the niceties would enhance retention, not hurt it. I have more than a few of my 19K warriors tell me that the only way they would re-enlist was if we would invade Iran.
Gentlemen, John Wayne may be dead, but his spirit survives among at least a few of our youngsters. A lot of them fit the cowardly, pacifist profile, but there are still some that can embrace the concept that this country was founded on.
RE: I feel your pain.... by Occams :: NR6 :: on 04 May 2007
Now you are getting to the truth.
The war on terror is a battle between the economy of the USA and a band of terrorists supported by several countries that hate us. The economies of our enemies are not at stake because this kind of war does not balance things like that.
We try to use our economic strength by pouring in an excessive amount ot force, most of which is unable to be exerted against this kind of enemy. This costs our taxpayers crippling amounts of money for which there is no return and no real impact on our enemies.
All they have to do is stir up religious fanaticism and fund the inexpensive IEDs and give surplus small arms. They have an endless supply of suicide bombers because they fight no battles.
We play along with this by spending more and more, but that spending is their main weapon against us. If we keep going they will inflict more serious damage on the USA than could have been achieved by weapons of mass destruction.
They have a great plan, but it has a serious weakness. It relies on us continuing to be stupid.
It seems to be working well so far.