Re: More with Less
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: texasvmi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am currently a student at the US Army Command and General Staff College. One of the requirements during the course is to conduct Strategic Communication. I have chosen to throw myself to the lions and post a question Blog on my favorite discussion site. I am a shooter and know a few of you personally. I am proud to be a member of this community.
My question to the readers is "'Recently the DOD has been dealing with the future reduced budget. 'Do more with less' is quickly becoming the mantra within the ranks of the military. How do the tax payers, veterans, and service men and women parents feel about the 'do more with less' idea? With Iraq drawing down and a political promise of a draw down in Afghanistan, do you think the military could in fact do more with less? I am interested to hear all opinions, possible solutions, or opposing ideas. Please keep the hate comments, or flaming to a minimum as they will be reviwed by my classmates. Thank You.
David W. Gray
MAJ, AR
CGSC SG20C
Veteran: Iraq 03-04, 05-06, Afghanistan 2008-2009 </div></div>
I think they absolutely can do more with less. The most major way to save money is not in combat arms but in logistics.
In 2004/2005 there were rec leagues playing vollyball, basketball, softball, and other sports on LSA Anaconda. There was a juice bar with salsa dancing.
The combat arms guys I was with were in Samarra getting one hot meal every other day.
What really bothered us was that the point of LSA was (logistics support area). That implies it was an area to ship supplies for dissemination to troops- IE support of troops.
Most supplies never left Anaconda- we ate a steady diet of frozen pizza. Things like lunch meat or cheese slices were considered scarce luxury items. Most of those support troops never left anaconda.
You can't really reduce the number of combat troops without taking the heart out of the fight, but you could certainly reduce the number of support troops playing recreational league sports, and maintaining swimming pools, and doing all the other time wasting that goes on in logistics areas.
On a second deployment, I realized the same supply issues and wasted resources are also a reality within CJSOTF- where deployed combat personnel might run out of toilet paper or eat pie for a week because they run out of regular food. Again, they have a nice well supplied support area where everything is in plentiful supply.
<span style="font-weight: bold">My intent is not to rag on support troops but to say oversight is terribly lacking in that area, and it costs the army a lot of money.</span>
Another good money saver would be to hire contractors for base security rather than put Infantry soldiers in those positions. Ugandans make $20 a day, US soldiers make $130 a day and have insurance, disability, school loans, the GI bill, and other incentives- IE they are not cheap, and the job of glorified mall cop, is a job the Army should be giving to mall cops.
Another money saver would be to absolutely rigidly adhere to fitness standards. The obese soldiers in guard units especially are the only reasonable excuse for 3-5 month train ups. Your more fit personnel will be deployable in 4-6 weeks, seriously enhancing the forces ability to do more with less.
Sometimes management will do a lot- when an OP is manned by 7 soldiers and can be manned with 3, you're wasting 50% of the force.
Training and utilization is another area of poor efficiency- Snipers are often not employed by the Army. They are an incredible force multiplier. That training is solid gold for anti-terrorism. No soldier can control more ground or gather more useful intel on it, than a sniper.
Manning bases will not win wars. It takes creative combat leaders to figure out how to take the war to the enemy and a winning strategy will most likely involve Op's in areas home to the enemy. A network of ever changing, hidden observation posts is probably the best way to catch terrorists. Patrols take ownership of ground so temporarily, the primary purpose they seem to serve is to expose troops to enemy bombs and ambushes.
Sometimes a calculated risk like wearing a plate carrier and patrol cap instead of 30 lbs of stifling movement inhibiting armor makes the difference between a mobile, useful and alert soldier, and a not mobile, not useful, and totally fatigued waste of space. Command policies regarding body armor leave our soldiers at an extreme disadvantage when fighting highly mobile, indigenous terrorists armed with an AK, a few magazines and no other encumbrances.
Power point is not a replacement for training. It's more often a waste of valuable time that could be spent training soldiers how to fight, move, shoot, and work together. CTT training, checking the box, and powerpoint are a waste of time.
Hell- there are entire training FOB's built on military bases. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A TRAINING FOB?? It's like a practice apartment for children on their way to a real apartment. The base is where you live- not what you do.
The Army has tools- like the basic rifle marksmanship "Weaponeer" that do a great job of teaching soldiers to shoot. Why a soldier only gets to spend 10 minutes on one in his entire career is beyond me. It looks like cheap valuable training to me. Instead they seem to have adopted MMA fighting as a way to enhance the self image of soldiers who haven't learned basic proficiency with small arms. The fight is a cruel reality- you shoot better or risk death. MMA is not a coping mechanism for a soldier who can't operate his weapon proficiently.
Give your combat troops the best gear. It's a small investment that goes a long way- If you see SF doing something, that's a good indicator it has some value you're failing to understand. Like Sound suppressors. Why haven't they trickled down to line units when every other piece of gear has (ACOG's, eo-techs, rail systems, IR lasers, IR scopes, better helmets, etc). The Army needs to stop taking a command attitude that "this is the way something is supposed to be done" and start letting their NCO's and soldiers have some input.
In some areas we have awesome gear that needs to be improved. The RWS (remote weapon system) great tool- the camera imager however- is absolute crap. Why combine a miracle engagement system with an electronic eye that can't determine friend or foe at 75 meters?
<span style="font-weight: bold">My 9 years in the Army convinced me that the Army was poorly managed and that I could not change anything about it.
It was disappointing coming to the realization that the people in charge were going to reduce the lethality and efficiency of the Army every year and that I would have to watch as the Infantry was slowly bastardized.
</span>
