BolandJD,

Many of the positives you cite are actually parts of the problem. While it's great that "operational experience" is at an all-time high, it's also important to recognize that institutional and "generating force" experience is at an all time low. This is very problematic because it is precisely these experiences that the Army will need in the years ahead. OEF has been going on for almost a decade and the need to support the fight has created an "all in" mentality that has, often out of necessity, starved everything else.

The challenges faced by the institutional Army cannot be understated. Critical roles in the generating force are being filled by contractors, IRR recalls or retiree recalls. This is unsustainable.

Your criticism of those who join for monetary reasons as "sunshine patriots" is quite misplaced. Even with OEF/OIF, educational benefits, skills training, healthcare and job security are the primary drivers of Army enlistments. More to the point, your embrace of those who join for what you categorize as the "right" reasons (i.e. to deploy and kill) ignores the fact that this is a very small subset of American society. By lionizing this small group, you ignore all of the other attributes, attitudes and talents that are being discouraged to join as a result of a historically insane PERSTEMPO and OPTEMPO.

The "warrior class" that you extol is actually a very un-American concept and represents a trend that is in sharp contrast to the vision and ideology of our founding Fathers. Moreover, this mentality that embraces repeat deployments and prioritizes "dusty boot" time contributes to some of the trends LTG Dubik identifies as problems, namely, the shrinking representation of combat arms officers in PME.

IIR Soldier - I think you are adding some hyperbole I did not mean to imply. I wasn't "deriding" or "extoling" anybody - just making an observation. Maybe my use of loaded terms for color was too loaded for what I meant to say. But I'll explain. As a LT in the 2003-4 timeframe, a significant subset of Soldiers had a "I didn't sign up for this - I never thought they would ACTUALLY send me to a war" attitude. When I was in command in 2006-8, I found that attitude gone, in the main. I think that is a healthy development for an Army at war. I'm not discounting the value of financial compensation. It is right and proper for Soldiers to be compensated according to their skills. There's nothing un-American about a "warrior class". George Patton said it best when he said all real Americans love a winner and won't tolerate a loser. Or something like that. I think that's still true, even outside of military circles. Even in places like Hollywood, we are basically a dog-eat-dog society.

I would concur with you that the Army is out of balance right now with respect to the generating force. As the Army "rights the ship", as it were, the increased operational experience of the officer and NCO corps' will benefit the institutional Army as well.

JDBoland,

In your haste to embrace the ill-conceived "warrior ethos", you cannot forget that no matter what GEN Patton may have said, the basic fact is that he commanded a citizen army comprised of citizen-soldiers. In fact, the great majority of solsiers in WWII were draftees - another fact that gets glossed over by the "Greatest Generation" meme.

Rubber Ducky and others can more eloquently state all the problems with the emergence of a "warrior caste", but I will simply state that it is a danger to our democracy when an insular, self-selecting, standing Army doesn't approximate the society it represents; when its officer corps is geographically drawn from areas that do not reflect their percentage of overall college graduates; and when something like half of our active duty forces are stationed in 6 states.

The Army is not Hollywood and its not a business. It's an instrument of national power enshrined in our Constitution. The authors of that Constitution, from what we can tell, did not express much enthusiasm for a large standing Army that seeks to separate itself from civil society - through words, deeds or physical distance.

Great, I'm glad to hear that anecdotally soldiers are griping less about "not expecting to fight." I'm not so sure the dominant motive for enlistment has changed (i.e. education and jobs), just that it is part and parcel of being in a strained Army that junior enlisted and junior officers must deploy again and again.

I think you are entirely too optimistic about the Army getting back into "balance", whenever that is. We have gaping holes at key grade levels that can't be filled. modularization has exacerbated this supply-demand problem. Further, how do we fill the generating force if we have a finite supply of MAJs and LTCs that are already too few to fill necessary MTOE positions? How do we ease the contractors out of "inherently military" responsibilities in TRADOC if we can't even man the shruken number of "green suit" slots we still have? LTG Dubik raises some good points that need to be aired. Some of us were concerned about these trends over 5 years ago.

". Even with OEF/OIF, educational benefits, skills training, healthcare and job security are the primary drivers of Army enlistments"

I disregard that stat. Every survey I have taken about why I am in or stay in the Army doesn't let me choose "OEF/OIF"--the reason I joined. And, it lets me choose "Frequent deployments" as a reason for getting out....despite the reason I got out (a few days ago) being not frequent enough deployments.

Combat Arms officer's attendance in PME, is not a good metric to use. That the Army is putting its talented people in the field, where they are needed, and not in school is one of the rare examples of good personnel management by HRC.

We would be better served if we re-evaluated the totality of positions in the generating force and cut mercilessly.

It is true that many billets go unfilled in the generating force. But it is also questionable whether all those billets are necessary. The fact that we seem to be getting on well enough with many of them unfilled tells me that they might not have been necessary in the first place.

I've stated many times on this forum that we should be seriously re-evaluating all of the unnecessary kingdoms that we maintain in the generating force (and for that matter the operational one). Extraneous layers of command and redundant bureaucracies and staffs all have to go - in a holistic view of the total force.

There was a recent article in the MilitaryTimes magazines about SEN Webb questioning the ratio of Generals to soldiers. In WWII it was close to 1 to 6000. Currently it is 1 to 1400+. I've seen recent Battalion task forces - led by LTCs - deploy with close to that many soldiers. There is something seriously wrong here.

Attack that problem first - re-evaluate the slots and their legitimate need - before just crying that the generating force is going unfilled and unfulfilled. As others have pointed out our soldiers are leanring much more in the school of Hard Knox then they ever will in the NCOES, PME schoolhouse (which has proven they willnot adapt or cannot adapt fast enough for the current conflict).

FreemanMF,

In most surveys used to gauge soldiers/applicants reasons for enlisting, the catch-all category "service to country" would probably include OEF/OIF as a motivator.

Let's be serious here, the lack of a specific choice of OEF/OIF on an Army survey, is not the reason most people have historically (and continue) to cite educational, career and job security concerns as their main catalyst(s) for enlisting. The decision to serve is complex and many factors influence an individual's decisions to do so. Ignoring the fact that financial and educational incentives are the reason the Army can even make its endstrength is a fools errand. If OEF/OIF were such great marketing tools for USAREC, we would not have had the enlistment quality issues we had from 2004-2007 when OIF was raging. The economy has contributed significantly to our ability to tighten accessions standards, reduce certain waivers and be selective in who reenlists.

Your dismissiveness of PME and its importance underscores the nihilism that has consumed much of the officer corps and that LTG Dubik is concerned about. We are going on a nearly decade in Afghanistan and over 7 years in Iraq. These are not discrete, short-term crises where we can suspend normal continuing education requirements just to "get the job done." The Army has had nearly a decade to figure out how to juggle chronic requirements, shape its personnel requirements and maintain its institutional health. It has continued to treat OEF/OIF as anomolies where we can just "suck it up and drive on" till the "job gets done." This cannot work and will not work in the long term.

By shortchanging officers of education and by inculcating a culture where it is not important, the Army is jeopardizing its future health and readiness. This culture of anti-intellectualism, nihilism and TOE-provincialism must be challenged. i'm glad LTG Dubik is doing so.

Hunter,

Are you kidding me? Part of the problems that Tom and others lament are directly atributable to the gutting of the institutional Army over the last 2 decades. The very reason that TRADOC and similar organizations are not nimble and adaptive enough is because we have largely contracted out those functions to retirees and contractors. The few "green suit" positions that remain are skewed to higher ranks and do not inject the experiences of younger officers and NCOs into the organizations. This is problematic. I'm flummoxed at how any sentient observer could say that we have "too many" people in the Generating Force - especially at the SSG/CPT levels.

Many critical generating force positions are either being contracted out to retirees with dated experiences or being assigned to third-stringers: IRR Recalls, Retiree Recalls or "mob bums" seeking to stay on the Army payroll. Go behind the HRC-STL firewall and see the once nominative positions at ARCIC, Cadet Command and, yes, even the ITB at Benning which are being advertised to any officer with a pulse who will take them.

Ah, yes, the old "too many Generals" meme. This is such a tired argument that ignores 1) the reality of the interagency process; and 2) all of the non MTOE functions the Army performs. The reality is that in an interagency environment, GOs are considered the military equivalent of the Senior Executive Service. The government as a whole has seen a tremendous rise in "grade inflation" - especially in DC - over the last few decades. The Army's experience is nothing new or unique. It's the same way over at DHS, HHS and throughout the Intelligence Community. Unless the whole government is going to be forced to reevaluate the grade levels of its personnel, the Army should not be forced to unilaterally "disarm." This is akin to shooting yourself in the foot in the interagency.

The classic philosophy of "train for future war not past wars" should not be confused into "train for future wars don't bother with the current one."

OEF/OIF has been a motivator for retention. And, while current conflict may deter more people than it attracts, I would argue the people it does attract are the sort of people the Army needs.

Education is important. MCCC, ILE, pre-battalion command course, Company Commander/1SGs course, ect. are not the best use of our talented officer's time.

Practicing Army PT commands and drill and ceremony is not the best use of our talented junior NCOs time.

And on a tangent: "service to country" is a funny catch all To quote an exchange from GEN Petreaus said in his testimony to Congress in 2007 on the surge:

Senator Warner: "If we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?"
GEN Petraeus: "Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq,"
Senator Warner: "Does that make America safer?"
GEN Petraeus: "Sir, I don't know,"

FreemanMF,

I'm sorry, but your latest post confirms your nihilistic view towards education and the future health of the Army.

We can't spare 30 days of a young SPC or SGT's career to send them to PLDC/WLC? Give me a break. Such a view is preposterous. The PLDC/WLC POI is a lot more than PT Commands and D&C - it's the educational foundation of NCOES and ensures that its graduates are at least trained to TAKE CARE OF SOLDIERS.

NCOES is one of the best things to come out of the aftermath of Vietnam. What you are advocating is the ad hoc, inconsistent and widely varying NCO "development" system we had prior to the 1970s. Sorry, that's not a good idea. There is too much variation from unit to unit and CMF to CMF. We need standardized training and the value of NCOES hopefully should be evident. The quality of our current SFCs and above are the validation and credentials of NCOES.

Ditto for officer training.

We can bicker back and forth, but you are telling a whopper when you suggest that OEF/OIF has been a motivator for retention. You don't need to listen to me. This very blog's comments sections abound with tales - anecdotal and published - confirming the adverse impact OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO have on retention.

You seem so blinded by the certainty of your nihilistic worldview that you can't see that we may be missing the mark. The Army needs all sorts of people to achieve its mission - particularly in a COIN environment where things like heritage language ability, cultural competency and diplomacy are important elements. The Army is poorer if it adopts the view that the self-selecting, geographically imbalanced and ideologically narrow "warrior caste" of AVF families provides the only talent the Army needs in OIF, OEF or future challenges.

Again, the notion that training time for NCOES is a "luxury" we can't afford is patently ridiculous. We have been in OEF for almost NINE YEARS! We promote and pay senior leaders to solve these sorts of problems. they have neglected these problems and failed. We should not be using IRR and Retiree recalls in year 7 of OIF to man positions in deploying, Active Duty Divisions.

I believe the answer to our military's problem is very simple to state and almost impossible to plan, program and execute......Compulsory three year Federal Service for all young men and women with participation in a branch of the armed forces based on physical capabilities; those not meeting these requirements would serve in other areas of our government. An earlier writer got it dead right, the military is insular and I feel there is an definite "us vis-a-vis them" attitude/view toward the civilian populace. I believe University of Maryland sociologist David Segal identified much of the current problems facing the Services when he said "The military is at war, but the country is not, and the military resents that."

No, Freeman is right. In times like these, you've got to do what you've got to do. But I happen to know that the majority of units are bending over backwards to get their NCOs to school. Not just, NCOES, but also Master Gunner, Jump Master, and other specialist schools. The institutional Army is implimenting ARFORGEN to help with that. While it isn't perfect, it is a step in the right direction, I think. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Army has lost its commitment to education. Ten years ago, before the GWOT, only a select few were allowed to go to resident CGSC. Now everybody goes. Ten years ago an assignment to teach at West Point was regarded as a career kiss of death. Now it is highly career enhancing. A couple years ago, the Army started a program to send officers to Advanced Civil Schooling. Usually ACS was reserved for specialized functional areas, but now its open for anyone who wants to apply to go. Educational oppurtunities are out there and encouraged. Do most officers still want to get out and get their "boots muddy"? Damn right. I'd be more worried about the future of the Army if they didn't. But with the rise of guys like Petraus and McMaster, an academic background is not thought of as a bad thing anymore. Maybe in some corners, but not in the Army as a whole. At least, that's the view from my foxhole.

BTW, I like the idea of bringing back the Spec 5, Spec 6, Spec 7 ranks. Not everyone is cut out to be an NCO, but that doesn't mean that we don't need whatever skill set that they DO have. I think a good model would be the career field system on the officer side. I think that has been successful in retaining quality officers for functional areas who don't necessarily want or need to command BNs and BDEs. By the same token, enlisted MOS's could be reworked to provide a career path for Soldiers to become experts in a particular field without having to send them to a "ticket punching" leadeship position for which they are ill-suited. I don't know if that's being considered by the senior leadership. But I think it would help with retension and eliminate some of the contractor support that every unit seems to need these days.

In my 5 years as an Infantry Officer I have never had a Soldier that thought WLC was a valuable experience. I have had phenomenal Soldiers I wanted to promote to E-6, but couldn't because they had not had an opportunity to attend WLC. I have lost outstanding Soldiers mid-deployment to attend WLC or other schools. I have seen families strained by having their husbands gone to attend NCOES immediately upon returning from a deployment.

I have had many great Soldier upon returning from deployment request to transfer to another deploying unit (on the same base), and had that request denied so left the Army. I have had new Soldiers join the unit and upon hearing we jut started a 2 year dwell ask to transfer to a unit deploying sooner. I have had many Soldiers who have re-uped or joined specifically to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. Soldiers with families are in a different boat, for us single Soldiers our perspective on deployments is a lot different.

Me and many of my peers joined to serve in OIF/OEF, we did not join to plan post/pre-deployment balls, make promo videos, or take care of other peoples' families. Let us do the job we want to do, not have us practice writing battalion FRAGOS in MCCC...we already got plenty of experience doing that in Iraq.

"The Army needs all sorts of people to achieve its mission - particularly in a COIN environment where things like heritage language ability, cultural competency and diplomacy are important elements. The Army is poorer if it adopts the view that the self-selecting, geographically imbalanced and ideologically narrow "warrior caste" of AVF families provides the only talent the Army needs in OIF, OEF or future challenges."

I don't know any comment I have made contending any of that...I think the main-stream few is that compulsory service is bad and the AVF is preferable. I think you have the fringe view to contend that and so the burden is on you. And, I don't think NCOES does any thing to help recruit or retain people with those skills.

Soldiers demonstrate their ability as leaders by doing their job and being leaders. They are developed by their unit; not by some instructor in a short course. The validation and standardization schooling provides is useful, but lets not over-exaggerate its benefits. My experience is that Army school are more of an inhibitor than an enabler to getting qualified leaders where we need them.

I think you are the one displaying a nihilistic view. Winning is what matters, Army schooling is secondary. I have never advocated abolishing Army schools, I am simply saying they are a supporting effort. Ergo, school attendance should not be used as a measure of if the "Army is broken." Army schools are not of such amazing quality that they are vital to the development of leaders. ILE does not make great S3s/XOs their experience in key positions of responsibility is what develops them. MCCC does not make great company commanders, it is their experience as platoon leaders and on battalion staff being mentored that makes them. WLC does not make great Team Leaders, it is their experience leading Soldiers in Combat that does.

in the words of Inago Montoya - "that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Hidebound is the word I might choose for you IRR soldier. The single biggest conflict of our time deserves, neigh demands that we re-evaluate all of our priorities. I am not suggesting cutting all schools - perhaps reconstructing them is required. But I am very much in favor of reviewing what we do to support those schools and all the rest of the generating force. Really it is the overhead that does little or nothing - esp. the re-evaluation that this situation demands - that is ripe for the cuts.

You dismiss my commentary on General (and their bloated Staffs) but the truth is that that is where the force has the most fat. I give not a shit about interagency bloat. If you feel you need an extra star on your collar to get what you need in the world today you aren't worth a damn anyway. Fact is we got too damn many Generals, doing too little other than cover themselves and their own cushy billets.

I support the other comments here too. Sadly I know very few soldiers who return from PLDC or BNCOC (or whatever pithy new acronym they call them today) and say "Wow I am glad I went to that school, I learned so much." I could say the same about their OES equivalents of which I have been an unwilling victim. Their curriculum's are dated and irrelevant. They need to be there for when we have to rebuild this force post-war, but until then they seem doomed to be too little, too late of the wrong thing at the wrong time

seriously? you win the "most depressing comment of the thread" award. i've noticed that your ire seems to be consistently directed at the people in uniform, rather than the suits in washington. what's the deal?

it's our inability to fight and win two wars that's so depressing. Me? Messenger.

Ah, the suits. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. They got us into these mess with no thought on how to get out. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan. They invented a casus belli in Iraq, won the war, and then lost the peace. And they did it all in a way so painless that we were able to afford two wars and only crater the economy. But until those suits are brought before an international tribunal for war crimes, they've skated.

The current suits - let's say it: Obama - have us on the glide-slope to withdrawal in both theaters. That's the right prescription and no blame for that. Where blame comes in is later if the current Administration fails to undertake fundamental reform in the AVF (which has not worked) and the military Services, especially the Army, which seems utterly clueless on its future and shows signs of coming apart at the seams now.

You want cheerful? Give us something to cheer about.

Seriously,

Your arguments are the same sort of stuff being spouted by SMA Preston. I didn't buy them when he started saying them and I don't buy them now.

NCOES is critical because it is 1) the bedrock of a professional NCO Corps; 2) ensures a common body of knowledge and experience across CMFs and assignment experierences; 3) ensures that our NCOs are equipped to perform their most vital mission - TAKING CARE OF SOLDIERS AND THIER FAMILIES.

For God's sake, given the current operating environment and the large number of soldiers performing wartime duties outside of their MOS (CMF 13 anyone??), NCOES strikes me as important as ever.

There is such a huge disparity between CMFs and units. It's both convenient and wrong to assert that every soldier, in every unit, on every deployment will have the experiences necessary to replace what is taught in NCOES.

NCOES is a critical part of maintaining standards and allowing soldiers and NCOs to "reset." Furthermore, it ensures that TTPs, experiences and best practices are shared across the force and across CMFs. This is especially important at the BNCOC and ANCOC levels and may be the first time NCOs get back to the "schoolhouse" since AIT/OSUT.

If we are going to really stand by the words of the NCO Creed - "no one is more preofessional than I" - than we owe our NCOs and the soldiers a worldclass NCOES system. Our NCOES was the envy of the world and now it is in crisis because of "leaders" who try to assert that deployments - regardless of MOS, unit or duty position - are an effective substitute for professional education.

most of my peers (newly minted captains) have no interest in command based on bad experiences with leadership at the BN level. eight out of eleven captains in the yg ahead of me got out because of a shitty BC. also, let's be honest...the COIN missions sucks in the sense that you lose the offensive initiative and no one likes that.

and i'm probably going to get dumped on for saying this, but in my experience COs in garrison spend most of their time going to meetings and doing UCMJ, and in theater (iraq, anyway) getting beat up for not having their powerpoints properly formatted (thanks alot, 82nd) or not having cookies out when the fat brigade commander comes to meet with the grand IA muckety-muck. not appealing in the slightest.

on a different note, i was fortunate enough to hear CSM Mary Sutherland speak before she died. when asked what she would change about the army, she said that she didn't think that everyone deserved to be a sergeant, that we were promoting people too fast...and this was in 2004. i didn't understand it at the time, but now i get it - we're promoting these guys way too fast...promoting them before going to ALC and SLC and it's going to end up doing serious damage in the end. our foundation is shaky...

Soap,

I concur completely. I genuinely believe that the Army needs to take a good, hard look at resurrecting the SP5, SP6 and SP7 ranks. Many soldiers add tremendous value to the Army and units, but are not cut out to be small unit leaders. We must find a way that allows these folks to stay in the Army and contribute in the way that best utilizes their talents.

It is dangerous to maintain the "fiction" that every SGT, SSG or SFC is an interchangeable leader. They are not. In the officer corps, after Company Command, we know and recognize that the vast majority of officers will never command a Battalion BCT, and we know this by year 7 or 8 of a 20 year career. For our NCOs, we perpetuate the fiction for their entire career that they are all prepared to be interchangeble and excel as squad leaders and platoon Sergeants - despite the fact that many demonstrate potential for further service but not further leadership.

We promote our enlisted entirely too fast and while I don't advocate the miserly promotion policies of the USMC, I do think that we could utilize the SP5 and SP6 rank as a "release valve" allowing us to further evaluate potential for service as a "hard stripe" NCO.

The NCO's first vital mission is accomplishment of the mission. Taking care of soldiers and families is important to that mission but always secondary.

Don't quote the NCO creed lest you cover the whole thing.

See my comment on the Barno item.

He has often brought up strains on the force and costs and has never been a willing supporter of the war in Iraq. He's conceded that it may be necessary to remain in Iraq - only recently.

Regardless Ricks is a journalist, he ain't the guy who is gonna fix these problems. He's just a canary in the coal mine cheeping away. If you got a beef take it up with an elected official or the Generalissimo of your choice.

(P.S. I don't think Tom needs anybody to defend him on his own blog, I just get irritated at failed logic)