Posted on Sep 27, 2013
What's the most important thing the military should do while going through this downsizing period?
64.7K
1.87K
661
49
49
0
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: 
Downsizing
Downsizing
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 502
3
3
0
A balanced approach for any cuts is going to be the key to success for all branches. The military unlike corporate America does not hire straight into middle management. Everyone starts at the bottom, education may make the difference of someone starting at a LT or a PVT but both start at the beginning. This is where we had problems after the Gulf draw down we offered early retirements and SSB VSI incentives to get out. It created a void in the force that we must avoid this time around.
Selective initial entry and retention for only the best quality individuals based on the re-structure of a post war force. We will need to transition some of those combat arms jobs back to the admin, and CS/CSS force to lessen the need for contractor support. Keeping total force numbers in line with where ever the number stops falling at. This also will free up some of the money that there will be less of for the foreseeable future.
This also means that we need to cut at the top. SR NCO's and Officers will have to downsize to maintain the balance in order to stay in line with Congressional approved force numbers. Will it be easy? No. But we cannot have as many Sr. leaders as we do jr leaders and Soldiers or we will not be able to get anything done.
The last part is slowing the promotions to match the balance of the cuts so that the force as a whole can get back on target with the new structure and move forward continuing to prepare for world wide operations.
Selective initial entry and retention for only the best quality individuals based on the re-structure of a post war force. We will need to transition some of those combat arms jobs back to the admin, and CS/CSS force to lessen the need for contractor support. Keeping total force numbers in line with where ever the number stops falling at. This also will free up some of the money that there will be less of for the foreseeable future.
This also means that we need to cut at the top. SR NCO's and Officers will have to downsize to maintain the balance in order to stay in line with Congressional approved force numbers. Will it be easy? No. But we cannot have as many Sr. leaders as we do jr leaders and Soldiers or we will not be able to get anything done.
The last part is slowing the promotions to match the balance of the cuts so that the force as a whole can get back on target with the new structure and move forward continuing to prepare for world wide operations.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I am sorry to say this, but the plans of getting rid of the dead baggage and keeping the good Soldiers is failing. I have seen too many good Soldiers let go because one person above them didn't like them for one reason or another. The fat, lazy, Card droppers, or 'just enough to get the job done' are not the ones to keep. Some of the best Soldiers are 1. Willing to take a risk to accomplish the mission, 2. willing to take an ass chewing to protect his Soldiers, 3. Call out the cadre of a school for failing to properly do their job when an injury was involve...... we are getting rid of good Soldiers who want to stay and do the right thing. Their needs to be a way to appeal a commanders decision to not reenlist thoem just my 2c.
(3)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Use the historical data from the 1990 drawdown so as to not repeat the failures of the past. Many great service members separated from the armed forces in the previous drawdown and this left a vacuum and lack luster leaders to head the formations. The stellar leaders that stayed had to fight to rebuild the fighting force we have today and it would be a shame to digress. In the mid to late 1990's we incentivized "service to country" and with this we were able to further leverage a more educated and resilient force. We rebuilt the ranks into a sound fighting force and although we have new garrison challenges to contend with, we prevailed during our protracted wars.
So what do we do? Apply deliberate sensibilities to who goes and who stays. This is not simply a matter of creating a metric base on evaluations, infractions, Education, HT/WT and APFT scores. It's time for a paradigm shift where we flip that ideology upside down and review risk factors on the Soldier's current and future contributions to the fight. GO BACK TO THE BASICS - BE, KNOW, DO!
3
3
0
We need to get rid of the "use it or lose it" approach to military spending. Units should not be penalized for coming in under-budget by having their budget reduced for the subsequent year.
More applicable to the issue of budget downsizing than personnel.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Just Soldier on! We've been through a lot as a nation and as an Army. We'll continue to go through a lot more, because we are an ever-changing professional group of people. I've got 23 years this month...only 7 more to go. My friends & family and other Soldiers inquire as to why I keep going. My answer is always the same. I still enjoy putting "Boots on Ground"; I still enjoy going to work in the morning and working with the troops; I still enjoy serving my country. When I tire of doing these things that I enjoy, then I'll retire and move on with the next chapter of my life.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Retain the top personnel
Get contractors off military posts. Soldiers are going to need jobs. give those jobs that are being done by the contractors to the soldiers. This is especially true in the National Guard. Soldiers come back from the deployment and don't have a job or don't want to go back to working with civilians. I work on Fort Custer in Michigan and there is more civilian contractors on this post than military. The contractors are the people who are on this post just doing basic things to make the Fort operational. Why can't soldiers who would be doing this on deployment still do this once they come back home. Soldiers have jobs and the Army gets to cut cost of having to pay a third party contractor.
Develop the lower enlisted. for years the lower enlisted have been sunned by the higher Army leadership. why are we not developing these soldiers into leaders? Send these Soldiers to schools and allow them to grow into the leaders that the army needs. Actually use the rank of Specialist. What is the purpose of the Specialist if it is not to specialize in some thing with in that soldiers MOS?
(3)
(0)
CMC Robert Young
Amen. When I entered the service, we didn't need or have contractors. The difference ....contractors want a paycheck. Service members feel ownership for their world. Supply us with what we need to do for what we can for ourselves, and send the contractors packing.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
My only input is that we stop spending our cash like a fire sale at the end of the year. We should award units that have left over funds; not punish them.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
1LT Paul M. " In my experience, the more knowledgable soldiers had the most certifications and I am not talking about Security +. ie CCNA, CCNP, CISSP. they are usually the ones that get out since they do all the IT work for the whole s6."
Certifications are already required by the DoD for all IT staff! The DoD has provided a massive amount of classroom and CBT Training programs for these certifications but all the training push will not be able to force them to actually get the certification or instill a desire to perform the work.
Creating mandatory after hours training programs and forcing them to take the exams will help some. They after all are requirements they need to meet. Whenever these requirements are instituted into the promotion system as requirements for promotion then they will start to be met.
Restructuring the DoD certification program would help to achieve this.
One of the big problems in IT is that a lot of inexperienced people think working in IT is a good career path and then they find they do not really like it so they essentially take up space.
It is also a career field for mature members not members right out of high school. Simply changing recruiting to no longer offer IT as a first term enlistment unless already experienced with a degree or applicable certifications would help this issue as well.
IT is a demanding Career that requires a massive amount of time and money to learn and hone skills! I used to spend a large chunk of my military pay to purchase books and other training products for myself when I was in. Then of course you need the discipline to spend the time reading, studying etc.
The IT career fields are also to broad in order to make them more effective they should be separated even further to create more IT specialties and less broad creating a massive learning curve. This would help substantially! Implementing more position requirements with this would also be useful. The Air Force while some what ineffective attempted this with internal Crew Position certifications that they created themselves.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Our military became too dependent upon contractors from previous reductions in force. I can remember when you rarely saw a civilian working in personnel or finance as all those positions were filled with military personnel with the appropriate MOS. Many units lost their mess sections years ago and their dining facilities were manned by contractors. When units deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, the dining facilities were first manned and operated by KBR at great expense. I believe they were reimbursed at a rate of $30 per meal. Many of their kitchen employees were paid $80K a year salary before overtime. The cost of just feeding the troops using KBR was far more expensive than it would have been if those dining facilities had been run and operated by military personnel.There are several things DoD needs to look at for future RiFs. A analysis must be conducted in comparing the cost of contractors operating dining and repair facilities to increasing troop strength to man and operate those areas. If a BCT is currently dependent upon contractors for dining facilities and mechanics while not deployed, how much is it going to cost to deploy and have to utilize contractors in the deployed area? Would it not be less expensive to increase the troop strength of a BCT to make it even less dependent upon contractors when deploying?The same type of analysis has to be conducted for each area where military units are currently dependent upon contractors. In highly specialized areas like IT, we may still have to depend upon contractors. We can spend a lot of money on training soldiers in this area, but let's face the fact that once they near their ETS date, they see more money utilizing that training in the private sector. DoD also needs to look at how to more efficiently utilize the Guard and Reserve in national emergencies and war. Each Guard and Reserve unit should be assigned to specific active component Divisions and BCTs for deployment purposes. That would require annual training with those active component commands and constant communication. Every Army Reserve Military Intelligence Battalion should be designated to an active component MI Brigade or Division. If that Division or Brigade were to deploy, then that Reserve MI BN would go with them.These are just a few of the things I believe DoD and DA need to take a look at.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Personally, I plan to step aside and retire since I am eligible so there's one the Army doesn't have to worry about this time. However, I am proud to have served with all of you over the years even if I never knew you. You are the heroes who answered the Nation's call when others did not even if you recently joined. Now the next generation can step up and take care of business. In the near future, I believe the Army leadership should get with our political leaders and decide on the final end strength based on strategic projections and then provide soldiers realistic information on the projected promotion rates with the changes. They should also decide which units to deactivate and publish it so people can get ready. Then they should focus on retaining those people who volunteer to stay in the correct proportion, separated by performance of course. Also, provide incentives for those leaving and ensure their service is honored and respected. Ensure that the units remaining have money to train properly and that they are properly staffed. I served in the last draw down in the early 90s and morale suffered in many units because of this. Many of our units went undermanned in the conventional force and training was often cut below minimums allowed in our training SOPs. A lot of good people left the service and it demoralized a lot of the ones who stayed until their commitments expired - especially the mid-level leaders. It is why I assessed for and joined a SOF unit. I knew that in SOF, they would be manned and funded better than the conventional units I had belonged to. Finally, let's use selective service to fill the ranks when there are not enough qualified volunteers to man the Army by using a lottery system with no exceptions. Let's make sure all Americans face the possibility of serving their country alongside us volunteers or lose their citizenship. Perhaps then we can get back to having the people support their military and ensure we have the resources required to execute the foreign policy they truly support. Besides, we have the lowest veteran representation in government we have ever had in our Nation's history. We need to reverse that trend to preserve our democracy.
(3)
(0)
SGT Leigh Barton
Leave it a volunteer force, better a rifle left in the armory than manned by a uniform with the conscript syndrome.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google