via the Lexington Institute Blog.
Do they leave the Army? Get reassigned?
I don't know any soldiers but if I did I'd tell them to take a serious look at their MOS, their SRB and their personal finances. This is all lining up to that massive downsizing in the force I've been screaming about.
Note: Please refrain from sending me messages about how this has always been planned. Yes, reductions in the force were always planned but the downsizing was planned to be gradual and primarily based on attrition. We're heading into full scale firings. What will be interesting is how they handle it. Will CO's be calling in soldiers telling them that their services are no longer needed? Battalion Commanders? I don't know but he better have some armed guards around. Assaults against leadership will probably spike soon...especially when some hard-charger sees his spot taken by a lady that didn't even meet the same standards that he had to.
In a move which belies the often-heard canard that it is slow to make decisions, the U.S. Army is moving out decisively to reduce overhead spending and protect as much as it can of the fighting force. In an August 14 memorandum to every major command and agency, the Secretary of the Army, the Honorable John McHugh, and the Chief of Staff, General Raymond Odierno, informed their service that they were directing the 2013 Focus Area Review Group to identify areas for major reductions in personnel and expenditures. In what can only be described as a shot across the bow to the institutional Army, the memo states:Whats being left unsaid is what happens to the people that suddenly don't have work at these Headquarters Units?
“Let there be no mistake, aggregate reductions WILL TAKE PLACE. The money is gone; our mission now is to determine how best to allocate these cuts while maintaining readiness. We expect Army leaders, military and civilian, to seize this opportunity to re-shape our Army. This effort will take PRIORITY OVER ALL other Headquarters, Department of the Army activities.” (emphasis in original)
The tasking provided to the Review Group is another indication of the seriousness with which this effort is viewed and the determination of the Secretary and Chief not to let entrenched interests sidetrack the effort. The Review Group has only a month in which to report back with comprehensive recommendations. The memo directs that except in extraordinary circumstances, recommendations to conduct further studies or assessments are not acceptable. Also, to meet the tight deadline, to the extent practicable, the Review Group will rely on existing data, studies and reviews. In recognition of past efforts at cost reduction that achieved major savings by double counting cuts, there will be an integration cell to aggregate all the reductions.
One goal explicitly called out is to reduce Army Headquarters (both institutional and operational, at the 2-star and above levels) in the aggregate by 25 percent. The impacted organizations were given two weeks - that’s right, just two weeks -- in which to present their plans to cut headquarters by the target amount in terms of both funding and manning.
This move has to rank up there with some of the boldest institutional reform efforts by great Army leaders of the past -- individuals such as Marshall, Taylor, Abrams, Marsh, Vuono and Sullivan. Secretary McHugh and General Odierno deserve recognition and support for this bold effort.
Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
Do they leave the Army? Get reassigned?
I don't know any soldiers but if I did I'd tell them to take a serious look at their MOS, their SRB and their personal finances. This is all lining up to that massive downsizing in the force I've been screaming about.
Note: Please refrain from sending me messages about how this has always been planned. Yes, reductions in the force were always planned but the downsizing was planned to be gradual and primarily based on attrition. We're heading into full scale firings. What will be interesting is how they handle it. Will CO's be calling in soldiers telling them that their services are no longer needed? Battalion Commanders? I don't know but he better have some armed guards around. Assaults against leadership will probably spike soon...especially when some hard-charger sees his spot taken by a lady that didn't even meet the same standards that he had to.
The current percentage of how many Officer are in the Army is over 13%.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but that is absolutely absurd. This the holdover of Frederick Taylor's method as applied to the Army. The Army is obsessed with the idea that if the SHTF and WWIII breaks out, it needs officer cadres for new units. Take Cadre, add conscripts, and Voilà, instant unit.
The Army should be reduced to no more than 5% officers at most, ideally closer to 2-3%.
Some folks will need to transition to the Reserve component or retire.
i totally agree but whenever i see moves like this i read it as the big wigs lining up the lower ranks for an alpha strike.
Deleteif you're a major and below (with the exception of SgtMajor) you're about to get raped. the Army is about to fuck its troops and this will be another way that they justify wrecking people.
the worse thing about this is that the people that sacrificed the most will be the most vulnerable to the actions coming down the pike. those jokers that homesteaded at a base sitting out the war will be safe and will reap the benefits of having friends in the right places. this is about to get nasty but most people don't see it.
Rarely do entrenched bureaucracies reform themselves nor do managers lay themselves off. I think it could be a setup for reducing the force on whole. I wouldn't be surprised to see the officer percentage shoot up to 20% as they start cutting muscle and retiring BCTs.
DeleteIf they were smart, the Army leaders would realize they have a golden opportunity to transform the Army into a leaner, more responsive and more lethal force than what it is now.
And really, it shouldn't be just an across the board 25% reduction in staff, they need to look at each command and every echelon to ask whether it is even needed. It doesn't need Army, Corps, Divisions echelons, so replace them with a Joint Corps equivalent that can support multiple BCTs. The greatest mistake the Generals could make is just keeping the same structures in place and shrinking the size of them instead of re-organizing it. Instead of flattening the pyramid they'll just make the entire pyramid smaller.
hmmmm wonder if DHS is planning to hire a few thousand of them for "domestic" duties?
ReplyDeletei don't know but somebody better be hiring. 400,000 servicemen (total ... if not more) walking around disgruntled, pissed off, angry and combat capable is a recipe for unplanned "change"
DeleteOne of the most dangerous things in any society is a large amount of trained soldiers who are unemployed, bored and ticked off. There's a reason why the Romans offered each retired soldier a plot of land and citizenship. It provided a source of income for the former soldiers, it helped populate the frontier with veterans capable of defending their communities while it also expanded the boundaries of the empire.
DeleteThis was part of the reason behind the original GI Bill post-WWII, so the nation didn't have a massive Bonus Army camped out in Washington DC or anywhere else.
hmm. forgot about the bonus army. can you imagine that today? there would be bloodshed. time to do a post!
DeleteWith so many institutions (home ownership, employers offshoring jobs, political gridlock, wealthy hiding their money overseas) in this nation on the ropes and deep skepticism of "the System", I could easily see a Bonus Army take root.
DeleteLook at how many new veterans advocacy organizations there are who are politically active either as lobbyists or to promote issue awareness? What if that energy was channeled into something overtly political? What if other groups did worse things covertly like some Snake Plissken wannabe?
It seems like the US Army should simply transfer them to the Reserve or National Guard Units. They should simply reduce the Officer Corp down to 5% to the max 2-3%. At the same time expand the Warrant officer pool because a warrant officer is cheaper than a commissioned officer. Enforce an Up or out policy on the Officer Corp. Stiffen the Requirements to become an Officer. At the same time put mandatory transfers to the reserve and National Guard units for any NCO, Warrant or officer who is within 5 years of retiring from the army. I would draw down active duty units and stand up more National Guard & reserve units. I would even put a Mix units with a combination of Active, Guard and reserve for curtain units.
ReplyDeletei'll leave the other issues up to debate but i don't think you can force someone into the guard or reserve when they leave active duty.
DeleteYou make offers that they can refuse such as top priority for Specialty schools or cash offer for reserve/Guard time
Deletewell that's part of the problem. don't get me wrong. i enjoy the money but the pay raises that kept coming during the wars is part of why we're here. i'm talking about the stuff above the cost of living. of course the military is under the microscope and not the rest of the federal government (and the rest of the govt should get examined) but pay raises and bonuses is finally coming home to roost for us and those in uniform today.
DeleteThe problem with Pay raises, is that they should be tied to cost of living
DeleteAgain, a golden opportunity to look at the role of the reserves. There are no combat units in the reserves, only CS/CSS units. The combat units were all transferred to the Guard. Is it time to review that?
DeleteShould the Guard should be a force that rarely deploys except in the case of the 'Big One', not Afghanistan or Iraq?
Would it better to have the Federally controlled Reserve Component as the units that first deploy to support Active duty forces?
Should the Reserves be composed of only former Active Duty personnel who have more experience and training than NG units? Should they be trained more often than NG units?
What if a six-year service option was offered?
2 years Active component and 4 years in Reserve/NG component OR
4 years Active component and 2 years in the Reserve/NG component OR
3 years Active component and 3 years in the Reserve/NG component.
With change comes opportunity, but will the General make the most of this opportunity?
To me the best option would be maintaining a large standing Army but thats not going to happen. This is a good idea and discussion, Personally I signed up for the 2 active 6 reserves option when I enlisted. My reserve unit was a training unit that trained National Guard units preparing to deploy. I wound up doing 3 and 5 but if we stopped recruiting off the street for the reserves and trimmed some of the fat we would definitely see an increase in capability. National Guard units seemed to have a much higher percentage of "off the street" people compared to prior service and you could tell the difference in unit quality. If you so increased the quality of the reserves and made certain they maintained a full MTOE you'd have a somewhat better prepared force that could deploy earlier than the guard currently can. It would be a hard sell because people have issues with civilian employers as it is but I would argue that Reserve component should train more often too. Those National Guard units needed more than a year of mobilized training in most cases before they were considered ready to deploy.
DeleteThat's why I am all for reducing the officer pool to 5% and enforcing an up or out policy that the US Coast Guard has in place. At the same time increase the Warrant Officer Corp and open more Army MOS for Warrant officers. At the same time increase the NCO pool and allow more Senior NCO's to run smaller units.
DeleteI would still offer a 6 year enlistment option for those who want to do a combined active and reserve/NG enlistment. They can split their time between active duty and Reserve/NG units.
One thing I am all for is total integration of the State Guard and state milita units into the National Guard system. The State Guard and State Milita units would fulfil missions that are Similiar to the IDF Homefront command, Swedish Home Guard and Danish Home Guard. They would not have a combat mission, but would have a CS/CSS mission.
Up or Out is already the standard and that has been part of the problem. People who might not be suited to being a Battalion commander, but might be a fantastic company commander, are forced out because of the Up or Out system.
DeleteI would refer people to Don Vangergriff and his very well-thought out proposals for changing the Army's personnel system.
He is one of the author's of this great book by several military reform thinkers like Pierre Sprey, Doug MacGregor, William Lind, etc. who put forth an 'alternative' version of what America's military and grand strategy should be. It is a 2008 piece, but it rocks.
American Defense Meltdown
http://www.it-aac.org/images/AmericasDefenseMeltdownFullText.pdf
Sol, you might want to start a new thread on the what a Reserve Component should look like.
Pierre Sprey is a goddamn clown.
DeleteHe has NEVER designed a jet in his life, and is a self described amateur.
Most of these "reformers" are fools who believe anything more advanced than a WW2 era weapon is a technological nightmare.
Perhaps you could deign to share with us your wisdom and enlightenment as to which reformers you characterize as 'fools', because otherwise your statement is bullshit. Several of those authors don't have any interest in technology and are more concerned with the human element in warfare.
DeleteI will assume you are referring to the Boyd Acolyte's, Sprey, Wheeler, Richards, etc.,. They are not concerned so much with technology as they are with the whether the technology a.) deliver results as promised AND b.)is worth the cost. If the technology meets said requirements, they have no problem with it. They are all veterans of the acquisition war within the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace and are familiar with the tricks, gimmicks, and outright lies used to justify purchases of technology. They want to see hard data and not some project manager's report or the contractors' shiny PR presentation. Their motivation lies in protecting the nation from technology that is ineffective and/or expensive.
As for Sprey 'designing' planes, you are right, he didn't. But he did analyze the data and helped create the specs for the contractors to design the planes. Those planes were the F-16 and A-10.
The F-16 was designed according to the Lightweight Fighter specs that he and Boyd devised because the F-15 was too heavy and too expensive to be purchased in adequate numbers to replace the A7s, F-4s, etc. on a 1-to-1 ration, so they drew up specs on what an inexpensive, lightweight air-to-air fighter that had excellent Energy-Maneuverability ratings would look like. From that the USAF got the F-16 and the Navy/USMC the F-18. Based on that alone they've earned their keep because I can't imagine a Cold War without thousands of F-16 and F-18s being purchased by the USAF, Navy and our allies.
And the F-16's fly-by-wire avionics were state of the art, so you're attacks on them for being technophobic are unwarranted. It's not the technology, it's whether it delivers on its claims and can be had in effective numbers.
Besides, machines don't fight wars, people do and that is why people need to be the primary concern of the military, not expensive platforms.
People, Ideas, Hardware
The Guard and Reserve can't take them. They are already overmanned in most places.
DeleteI get the feeling that a lot of Mexican drug cartels are going to have many of their hitman positions filled very quickly at this rate.
ReplyDeleteIf you let loose someone with combat expertise and no job it would be foolish to think that they would not want to use their skills to acquire cash. If they become desperate for money then they become all the more vulnerable to this situation.
i don't know if you're joking or not but the police like to run around in combat gear...they might learn the difference between being a warrior and playing at one.
Deletecartel hitman, gang member, the whole crime structure is about to get recruits that are trained, disciplined, experienced and desperate. i don't know if the authorities have war gamed what would happen if 10 percent of the force decides to go rogue after being released but it could change society.
of course this is all worse case scenario thinking but six buddies that decide to get together to do the deed on the local bank would be hell on wheels for the average SWAT team. as a matter of fact if they can get the right weapons and equipment i would bet on the combat vets everytime.
Sol, you are correct. The Guard and Reserves are purely voluntary. You got to go to the career councilor and sign paperwork to transfer to the reserve component. I know the reserves are cutting at senior NCO and field grade officers with quality retention boards.APFT, Height and Weight, Professional Development (education) is being enforced in the reserves.
ReplyDeletethat makes it even worse for the guys in the line of fire. that means the REserve are no longer a safe zone for bubbas that want to coast.
Deleteif the reserves are even getting hit then things are worse than i imagined.
Yep, I just retired when I saw the hand writing on the wall. Lots of Mickey Mouse and starting to get political, while some are getting sent to Afghanistan again or collecting their 3rd, 4th or 5th tour. I left the guard many years ago, but only can imagine what it is like.
ReplyDeletethe promised change is almost complete. the military is being transformed.
DeleteI know a lot of thought has been put into the Brigade Combat Team (with some success) but I have always been interested in a... Regimental Combat Team. Also, I think modified M-113s and the new LockMart expeditionary-role replacement for the Humvee makes for some interesting TO&E thoughts so the Army would be much more useful for Pacific Pivot ops. Get rid of Stryker, Bradley, M-1 and make a new main battle tank that is not a logistics hog, is not too heavy and well, makes sense. There are still a lot of good things the Army has today, that, with some low stress adjustment, would make it really great.
ReplyDeleteSol, One last thing that I told my team before I retired was that when I joined there was 17 divisions now we are down to 11 plus USASSOC and still real good, so good we still put the fear of Jesus into our enemies on the battlefield and allies alike. I think we are better prepare for this drawdown than the post cold war since we are coming off a fresh war and we (not the country but miitary) know where we want to go. We have CALL (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/call/) as a refernce or repository of knowledge.I know the other services have the same, so the brain drain will not be as bad as the past.
ReplyDelete