DS Rob and Birdie have been going back and forth through email and the Drill Sergeant’s blog. Birdie has finally started spelling correctly.
Birdie’s assignment to Ft Sill got cancelled. Apparently the 82nd can’t do without his talents for at least another year. He’s taking it out on the Drill Sergeant–HA! Who in their life ever took out anything on a DS?!
This woman is no general. How she ever got a star is beyond my comprehension.
Slice is moving west as he does his logistics thing:
I have arrived in [Kuwait] finally. We had a plane catch fire on the way, so our arrival was delayed as we had to make an emergency landing and switch flights. No big deal, really. The funny thing was that when the crew began putting on breathing aparati, one of the guys I was traveling with says, “I think there’s something wrong.” Captain Obvious…
Marine. You have the advantage of having been in the Air Force for 18 years.
Drill Sergeant can clue us all in. If the Army sanctions this, which I have to believe if the report is true, someone needs to go to jail.
Here’s a name that’s become familiar to us all lately:
The advisory board at one company, First Command Financial Planning in Fort Worth, includes Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the retired commander in chief of the United States Central Command.
I’d say the general needs to rein in his troops.
I picked out an article from Early Bird this morning that was written by Richard Whittle for The Dallas Morning News this weekend. DMN requires registration, and I couldn’t find this particular article on their site (perhaps it will be up later today).
Donald Rumsfeld’s relations with the military are the worst of any defense secretary since Robert McNamara’s during the Vietnam War.
So say Mr. Rumsfeld’s critics.
Donald Rumsfeld is wildly popular with the military, who revel in his aggressive, combative style and appreciate his determination to transform the armed forces for the 21st Century.
So say his defenders.
Two of Rumsfeld’s detractors are retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Two gentlemen who served their country well and admirably. Both highly qualified warriors. Yet they have issues with Rumsfeld.
I had issues with bosses in the military. I had some heated arguments with superiors. I also had credibility, and they listened to what I had to say whether they agreed or not. Me too. I think that is something most civilians don’t understand about the military. Dissent is considered to be good. It keeps everyone on their toes. But dissent is also expected to be coherent and offer solutions. Chronic complainers don’t survive. Shinseki and Zinni aren’t chronic complainers, else they never would have achieved stars on their collars. And they are both professionals who aired their grievances publicly only after leaving the military. You can bet they aired them in private before that, and voiced that disagreement face-to-face with whomever they disagreed with.
It is definitely time to reassess our military structure, and that is precisely what Rumsfeld is trying to do. Unfortunately, there is a bureaucracy in the Pentagon for which inertia is the standard. Face it, every bureaucracy has it, and it makes people comfortable. In particular, the Army likes large formations of heavy weaponry. It is how the Army had been structured since its inception. The Navy has had to change from battleships to carriers to…? Don’t even think of taking away their carriers. The Air Force has always loved bigger and faster aircraft, preferring bombers over all, although the focus has become bigger fighters that fly very fast but carry big bomb loads. And the Marines want nothing to do with administrative and logistics functions except as they directly apply to boots in the sand.
The National Security Act of 1947 combined all the military into the Department of Defense and created a Department of the Air Force to match those of the Army and Navy. It was considered radical, and the original intent was to create a single military organization combining all the services. But the same inertia was at work in 1947 that is in place today. The Army and Navy didn’t go away, they were simply joined by yet another entity under the umbrella of Defense. And the cooperative effort that won the war went away in the push for budget dollars. Cross-service training fell by the wayside until it became obvious to all it was essential–at Desert One.
Each service has its own particular expertise, but they must be merged much better. The Navy and Marines do this well, as do all the special operations units. And that needs to be the template for the future. We have need for heavy units, as the invasion of Iraq showed. But their utility is limited, as the occupation of Iraq has shown. There is some difficulty in breaking down a heavy unit into smaller groups for this type of operation as they have trained to do otherwise. They are accustomed to supporting one another rather than operating independently. That doesn’t mean young officers and NCOs don’t adapt. That creativity has always been the hallmark of American soldiers. But it is difficult to adapt a bigger mentality.
And that is the rub. People complain that we don’t have enough troops in Iraq, but they offer no solution. How would more troops be used? What is the ratio of shooters to supporters? Perhaps we have the wrong troops in place. Light, fast, responsive forces are required. We have few of those, and they have been on constant rotation to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Rumsfeld wants more of these forces, and what I would term as traditionalists like the structure as it now exists. Others want to see change. From what I see, that is where the dividing line exists. I don’t think we can eliminate heavy forces, but their utility in this type warfare is limited. If there is to be any expansion, it needs to be in the small unit area with a focus on light units. And that includes the Air Force and Navy. That makes me a Rumsfeld supporter.
Traditionalists would like to see Rumsfeld gone. They have their chance in November.
John Ray linked to this letter in the Pasadena Star News:
“I see in the news that an American soldier is going to be court-martialed for killing a wounded terrorist in Iraq. Well pardon me but isn’t that exactly what John Kerry did in Vietnam and he got a Silver Star for it! While in Vietnam, John Kerry finished off a wounded Viet Cong after beaching his boat and putting his crew in great jeopardy. He wrote himself up for a Silver Star and got it. I question why this soldier should be tried for murder while John Kerry, hero of the liberal left, was decorated for doing exactly the same thing. In accordance with International Law, terrorists are subject to immediate summary execution. Perhaps that is the policy that we should adopt. Instead, we are incarcerating these clowns and are criticized for abuse, while they behead American prisoners. And the international press says nothing. We really need to grow up and stop fighting this war like a bunch of liberal social workers. If we do not get things in a proper perspective and start supporting our President and troops we are going to lose this war!”
Why didn’t I think of that?
Birdie arrive today with some interesting news. He has orders for a new assignment, only his second ever outside 82nd ABN (he was on the UN Honor Guard in Korea for a year). This fall he will move on to a new job as a Drill Sergeant at Fort Sill.
I was curious why an infantryman would be assigned as a Drill Sergeant to the artillery training center for the Army. Apparently they want a third of all Drill Sergeants to be from the infantry.
That puts him only eight hours away instead of twenty. Drill Sergeant, I told him to get in touch with you for some expert advice.
Powered by WordPress