Posted on Sep 27, 2013

What's the most important thing the military should do while going through this downsizing period?

63.5K

1.87K

661

As the military enters a significant downsizing period, it's important to talk through relevant issues and solutions.  Enter your response below, and if it gets the most Up votes, you win a free iPad Mini and we will personally deliver your thoughts to our Advisory Board, which includes retired Generals George Casey and Norton Schwartz, the recent Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force, respectively.<div><br></div><div>Tip: Get all your friends to vote Up your response by the end of the contest on Oct 7, 2013.</div>

Posted in these groups: 702767d5

Downsizing

Posted 11 y ago

Follow this discussion

Responses: 502

Show most popular responses

SSG Todd Halverson

Posted >1 y ago

I agree we should chapter those who want out....out. But let them know they will not get all the benefits as someone who has completed their full enlistment. Next revamp the promotion system. Bring back the SQT(Skills Qualification Test) and make PT less critical in the promotion system. I would put more emphasis on advanced leadership schools, college and basic Soldier knowledge. Also make the NCO squad book a part of the rating system. Because if you they are unable to tack a team / squad how would they be ready to lead at the next level...... just my 2 cents.

(0)

Comment

(0)

COL Robert Davies

Posted >1 y ago

The real answer is to start showing integrity. All the old timers with a backbone know that OER's are a total joke and an abysmal failure. As an O-6 I wrote a number of OER's and had them kicked back by DA and the "puzzle palace" because they were honest and true. They could never be called inflated, removal for cause. These people are for the most part still on AD and being promoted. Why? It is called reversed discrimination. You can have all the degrees you can acquire from matchbook covers and you are good to go. Education does not prove to be a promotion discriminator.

(0)

Comment

(0)

SPC (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

the military should focus on keep the top personnel overall in all qualifications not just PT Studs, which seems to be the deciding factor. I know several people that are not PT studs but are great Soldiers/NCOs, great shooters, mentors, all around great people, but they are being targeted by the downsizing because they do not meet weight but pass tape, or they have tattoos. Some of the best NCOs/Officers i know are like this but i dont think they will stay much longer

(0)

Comment

(0)

2LT (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

I would suggest that a solid response to downsizing is to reduce personnel, which is a painful thing to do, but retain the infrastructure and benefits of the US military. The key here is that those benefits are major attractions for recruiting. Should the military need to grow, without solid benefits to offer, rapid recruitment would be much more difficult short of massive bonuses. Yes, any removed benefit could be re-instated, but that challenges individuals confidence in their employers if benefits come and go rapidly, not to mention that re-instating benefits is much more difficult than removing them. We keep a smaller active force, bolster the reserves and guard with the outgoing active Soldiers, then use the surplus there to weed out the deadwood in those reserve components. This gives us a small, agile, and capable force that is both cheaper than a large one but also has all the individual benefits making it just as enticing to new recruits allowing the US Military to be more picky, have higher standards, and generally improve the force. Should the need arise, we can lower the standards to previous levels and bolster the force rapidly. Should benefits drop, the standard is more difficult to raise and we keep junior and senior leaders but we lose chunks of our "mid-career" Soldiers who are not indefinite yet but have enough time to benefit them with getting jobs. Overall, it makes the attrition less controlled because people are leaving instead of being separated. If we separate Soldiers, we have the ability to selectively "cull the herd" and keep only the top.

(0)

Comment

(0)

SSG Trevor S.

Posted >1 y ago

If we absolutely have to draw down personnel then, the personnel who served in more than one duty station but did not serve a combat tour should be the first in line.

(0)

Comment

(0)

CPT James Repshire

Posted >1 y ago

A smaller force will need to maximize talent: Implement a system of officer promotions that is truly performance based and not time in service based. One of the strengths of our NCO corps is that the promotion system (in the Army at least) allows truly-talented soldiers to rise through the ranks quickly, while those who need more development promote more slowly (though they are not necessarily less valuable to the organization).

A system must be developed to identify this talent that is more dynamic than the current OER system. This will mean that OERs will have to start being true - no more of the current system where negative comments are not allowed on the form (aside from rare cases). Commanders should use the OER to highlight where an officer stands out and where he/she needs improvement - the true test of his/her character will be seeing if the next OER demonstrates that improvement being made. Balancing the positive and negative attributes will allow senior officers to place the rated officers in positions that they will be more effective and influential in, or positions that can challenge and develop those who need it.

With a smaller Army, it will also be possible to keep officers in positions that they excel in for longer times, as there will be less need to get more junior officers into developmental positions. This would be especially useful with officers who are innovators, to give them time to implement changes in their organizations that could in turn be developed into doctrine for the whole force.

(0)

Comment

(0)

SPC Geoffrey Jenkins

Posted >1 y ago

The military should look at the service members service records to see that they are not eliminating good leadership of highly trained soldiers.The military needs experienced leadership.

(0)

Comment

(0)

SGT Craig Northacker

Posted >1 y ago

I found when I was in that effective leadership set the stage for effective motivation. If things are tempered by stupidity by inappropriate command edicts and/or policies, it is imperative that there be interdiction by IG or Chaplain to intercede on behalf of aggrieved personnel. Otherwise, the downward spiral begins in service that is difficult to pull out of as a civilian. Therefor, the concept of solid training and preparation for management and promotion is important, so if and when there are force reductions people are prepared to move on. There was a group at a small post in Virginia tasked with determining appropriate career paths based on testing and review. That group should be expanded as one of the largest cost-saving groups by tasking people to positions, and not leaving them in limbo, dangling in career black holes, or otherwise be disenfranchised. Other suggestions regarding retirement policies needing updating are excellent.

(0)

Comment

(0)

1SG (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

Thier main reason to downsize is becasue of the buget, ok fine, but they are downsizing the wrong part of the force. They are downsizing Soldiers when they should be downsizing the civillians. How much money could we save if we cut out the contractors?

Do we need civillians in the chow hall? Last I checked, a Contanerized Kitchen Trailer (CKT) and its crew is capable of feeding 400+ troops. Why not put that crew or 2 into the chow hall stateside or downrange. What are the Soldier cooks doing now in garrison?

We have 42As (personel) why are the not processing my work?

We have Engineers who do plumbing and electrical and such, yet when I was in Afghanistan, it was some civilian electrician banking 6 figures who inspected my building for compliance....Seriously? Same with the civilians working S6 shop.

How about stop wasting all this time and money on "Research" for a new camo. Team Real Tree and Mossy Oak have just about every type of terrain AND seasonal camoflauge covered. Juat ask anyone who hunts.

We dont need all the research on weapons either. The Army already uses SIG and Berretta. we all know how the Soldiers feel about the 9mm. For those that have used/fired a SIG know that it is a better weapon. Why not just make the SIG in at least .40/.45cal Standard Issue. As for the M4, we already know the piston sytem is a better operating sytem then the direct gas impingment. Just take off the shelf. The FN SCAR and HK 416 are proven, there are cheaper in price type weapons such as that from Bravo Company. Also, instead of buying a whole new weapon you could just purchase and field just the "Uppers" as well. Besides, most AR companies already build thier weapons to meet or exceed Mil-Spec resulting in no need for addtional "Research"

If you INCREASED the MP Corps, you could leave MPs for Post Secruity while you have MPs deployed. O, r at least put Units in garrison on a rotaional Guard Duty detail for the gates and have MPs patrol the post. Last I checked, any Soldier can be a Sentry. (General Order #1) This would eliminate the need for those private security companies.

As for the Force-If you are going to cut personel, we should be cutting from the TOP. How many GOs do we really need? There are too many Cheifs .These higher ups with 30 years or so....time to go..make room for someone else.

Also with some of these guys in really high positions, they are the ones who have a brother who has a son who works for this company and they get a contract.

I think I just saved the Army a few bucks.

(0)

Comment

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

Make sure PT belts are worn every where at every time of the day (even while you are sleeping).

LOL

No honestly, speaking from the intel side of the house, we need to be focused more on preparedness. Having worked for FEMA on the civilian side. The army tends to focus more on "customs" then actual operations when these downsizes occur.

Having been a contractor, I can tell you I knew more than my counter part who was an LTC, that being said this is my experience with active duty staff. Not all contractors know their stuff, and alot of them need to be vetted more.

(0)

Comment

(0)

What's the most important thing the military should do while going through this downsizing period?

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.