Restructuring the army.

Post Reply New Topic

Im in the Marines. (Kind of thought the overly motto name gave it away...). Im not really a big fan of talking about my MOS, though....

well then, just so you won't have to kill me, i won't ask further. and my cat knows more latin than i do. my oldest brother was a marine in the late 60s, electronics specialist. he had a lot of tales to tell about his fellow marines.

A unified logistic command makes perfect sense, 4 different branches having 4 different uniforms is redundant, and transportation of equipment is a nightmare in the us military involving multiple branches and civilian contractors. Army basic involves being able to. Handle misery for 9 weeks. I'm not sure how you could combine the weeding process, I mean the Army throws so much repetitive, abstract information at its trainees that they actually comprehend very little of it. If you can hit 26 out of 40 targets and run fast enough, you meet their standards.
With the navy, you have a crowded / confined working environment and safety is an issue. It is important for the recruits to understand the concept of working safely together as a simple mistake could cost lives and equipment, at least that's how it was explained to me.

I was at Ft Sam (sham) in 2003, I remember their DFAC, I think it was the rock and roll cafe or something, I had to force myself to not eat their cheeseburgers at one point.

It's called "Army Reserves" and "National Guard".

As far as screening out recruits who do not want to be in the military, it's called "Not Enlisting" - a process used by slackers everywhere.

Part of the problem can be attributed to unrealistic promises made by recruiters, but slackers join, they meet the standards, they need constant supervision to get anything done, and the army makes them stay around until their enlistment is done. I think after initial training, a portion of the guys who signed on for active duty regret their decision and try to raided it out or just meet the minimum standards.

What I'm saying is maybe the decision on what MOS, component, and length of service should come after initial training to keep uncommitted troops in less committed positions. The reserve component is a good alternative, but the current one takes an ungodly amount of paperwork to put anyone on active duty. If the herd was thinned out, there would be fewer troops for the extra duties that pop up, that's why I thought it would be a good idea to tap into the short time volunteer work pool to get that work done.

When a state needs ready workers, the governor can call out the National Guard. If an emergency is critical enough, the President can call out the Reserves.

Really, this has already been thought out.

I know that, I'm not talking about an emergency response force, I'm talking about a supplement to active duty operations (mainly training). It has been my experience that there are more duties related to set up and equipment accountability than to actual training. Seeing how most peace-time armies train, and anything the army does involves distracting amounts of preparation and paperwork, I feel that making a few changes would help take care of this and keep troops who aren't ready for 3-6 year commitments in a more useful short time role.