This is an article in which I was quoted regarding IED makers in Iraq during the '03-'04 timeframe. It appeared in the New York Times - article below.
New York Times Article
2008-08-29
Assured mobility article
This is an article my supervisor, MAJ Heath Roscoe and I wrote on engineer support in 3/2 IN SBCT during my first tour in Iraq Nov '03-Nov '04.
Assured mobility
Assured mobility
2008-08-27
Thoughts on the UN
We, the American people, rely on our elected officials fix problems. The only tool our elected officials have available is to make a law.
In the international arena, we also ask or demand that the governing body (the UN) fix problems. The way the UN does this is through UN resolutions. These UN resolutions expect/demand other nations to behave in certain ways.
However, if you make a rule or a law, there has to be an organization to enforce the law. For the US the 'rule enforcer' is the local police force, FBI, etc. Who is the rule enforcer for the international community that works on behalf of the UN? There is no organization to fill that role - other than member-nation volunteers. But in a realist world view, nations will only volunteer if it is in their self interest.
In the absence of this international capability, the US has often taken on the role of 'rule enforcer'. One could argue that the US does this out of self-interest as opposed to an idealistic desire to enforce international laws. For example, many individuals have made the argument that we went to war in Iraq over oil. I am not discussing the supposed or stated purpose of any historical US intervention. This discussion is to explore an international 'rule enforcer' created to be free from the perception (or reality) of self-interest.
One possible solution is that each nation sends X soldiers as a percentage of their population and pays X dollars as a percentage of their GDP to create a truly international fighting force that only answers to the UN. This fighting force would be separate from the self interests of the member nations. However, looking at instability in the world, the size of this force would be incredible. Also, member nations may not support this plan; in particular, the US has fought any type of scenario in which US forces would be commanded by a foreign general.
Any other solutions to the international 'rule enforcer'?
In the international arena, we also ask or demand that the governing body (the UN) fix problems. The way the UN does this is through UN resolutions. These UN resolutions expect/demand other nations to behave in certain ways.
However, if you make a rule or a law, there has to be an organization to enforce the law. For the US the 'rule enforcer' is the local police force, FBI, etc. Who is the rule enforcer for the international community that works on behalf of the UN? There is no organization to fill that role - other than member-nation volunteers. But in a realist world view, nations will only volunteer if it is in their self interest.
In the absence of this international capability, the US has often taken on the role of 'rule enforcer'. One could argue that the US does this out of self-interest as opposed to an idealistic desire to enforce international laws. For example, many individuals have made the argument that we went to war in Iraq over oil. I am not discussing the supposed or stated purpose of any historical US intervention. This discussion is to explore an international 'rule enforcer' created to be free from the perception (or reality) of self-interest.
One possible solution is that each nation sends X soldiers as a percentage of their population and pays X dollars as a percentage of their GDP to create a truly international fighting force that only answers to the UN. This fighting force would be separate from the self interests of the member nations. However, looking at instability in the world, the size of this force would be incredible. Also, member nations may not support this plan; in particular, the US has fought any type of scenario in which US forces would be commanded by a foreign general.
Any other solutions to the international 'rule enforcer'?
Engineer Route Clearance Companies
The Engineer branch has decided to enact a modular capability within the engineer force called a "Route Clearance Company". This new organization is in direct response to the frequency and effectiveness of the IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) in Iraq.
However, a traditional 'sapper' company already has route clearance as a METL task (Mission Essential Task List) .
Does creating this new organization actually decrease flexibility and versatility? The route clearance company will not train on or be equipped for other engineer missions; thus constraining options available to the commander.
Are we as a branch (or even as a service) focusing too much on the Iraq war and not other threats that will require more of a 'full-spectrum' flavour? If the recent events in Georgia are an indicator that Russia is again flexing her muscles, engineers will need to maintain their conventional skill set - a skill set that will be completely absent from the Route Clearance Company formations.
However, a traditional 'sapper' company already has route clearance as a METL task (Mission Essential Task List) .
Does creating this new organization actually decrease flexibility and versatility? The route clearance company will not train on or be equipped for other engineer missions; thus constraining options available to the commander.
Are we as a branch (or even as a service) focusing too much on the Iraq war and not other threats that will require more of a 'full-spectrum' flavour? If the recent events in Georgia are an indicator that Russia is again flexing her muscles, engineers will need to maintain their conventional skill set - a skill set that will be completely absent from the Route Clearance Company formations.
2008-08-18
MAJ retention
Facts:
The army is short Majors (MAJ) - Washington Post article
However, retention levels are consistent with historical norms
Thoughts:
Based on this information, no monetary incentive is needed to increase retention levels. In addition, deployment optempo is not affecting retention levels. However, the Army did initiate monetary retention incentives for Captains (CPT).
Why? What are the consequences?
Does this create a mercenary type environment? Or a sense of entitlement vs service?
Will future year groups demand ever increasing monetary rewards?
What does this do to other year groups who were not offered the incentive? Does it cheapen their service?
My feeling is that if the officer was going to get out - he will still get out regardless of the size of bonus offered. There is no amount of money that can compensate for being blown up and shot at or even being separated from your family for 12+ months repeatedly.
Previously the highest reward for an officer is the chance to lead and command soldiers at higher levels of responsibility. Now is the reward money? The Navy and Air Force do reward their officers with monetary rewards. However, those services are more technically oriented towards their weapon systems (airframes or naval vessels) whereas the Army is people oriented. Rewarding a technical expert monetarily makes sense, rewarding a leader whose character and integrity are critical is a completely different matter. The leader's motivation should be service to the nation and the welfare of the soldiers under his command - not the almighty dollar.
The army is short Majors (MAJ) - Washington Post article
However, retention levels are consistent with historical norms
Thoughts:
Based on this information, no monetary incentive is needed to increase retention levels. In addition, deployment optempo is not affecting retention levels. However, the Army did initiate monetary retention incentives for Captains (CPT).
Why? What are the consequences?
Does this create a mercenary type environment? Or a sense of entitlement vs service?
Will future year groups demand ever increasing monetary rewards?
What does this do to other year groups who were not offered the incentive? Does it cheapen their service?
My feeling is that if the officer was going to get out - he will still get out regardless of the size of bonus offered. There is no amount of money that can compensate for being blown up and shot at or even being separated from your family for 12+ months repeatedly.
Previously the highest reward for an officer is the chance to lead and command soldiers at higher levels of responsibility. Now is the reward money? The Navy and Air Force do reward their officers with monetary rewards. However, those services are more technically oriented towards their weapon systems (airframes or naval vessels) whereas the Army is people oriented. Rewarding a technical expert monetarily makes sense, rewarding a leader whose character and integrity are critical is a completely different matter. The leader's motivation should be service to the nation and the welfare of the soldiers under his command - not the almighty dollar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)