Life in the Military today

James48843

Well-known member
From: http://www.thecommandtoc.com

Life in the Military today:

I am on many bulletin board sites interacting with soldiers to collect first hand what it is like to be in the Army today. I was recently shocked by the description of the career of an officer, who screwed up it is, and why they are all getting out. Here, I re-post this entirely and hope you read it. It should tell show you that even if this officer is 1/2 right, the Army is a disaster and not just stretched but actually broken. Here goes:
"For the benefit of those who haven't been in active service for a while, here is a look at lifecycle management's effect on officers.

Most BCTs fall under what is called lifecycle management. This was created to provide stability and predictability and intended to be a 3-year cycle from stand-up thru deployment, however in practice its more like 2 to 2.5-years (much to the chagrin of HRC). Lifecycles are stop loss/stop move environments. Once you're in, it is difficult to get out (possible, but not likely. Its ultimately up to the BDE CDR). Lifecycles culminate upon redeployment. To help you understand the lifecycle, I'll use an example of a new BCT."
"Unit stands up, receives soldiers (officers, ncos, privates), fields equipment, and trains for its deployment. This is supposed to be a 2-year process, but has generally become a year (especially for IBCTs). All CPTs come directly from the Career Course and most walk right into a command while the remaining CPTs go to staff positions to await command (as is traditional). Selection for company command resides solely with the BDE CDR. 2LTs fill all other company grade positions, to include company XO and various unfilled staff positions.

The unit hut, hut, huts through train up and CTC rotation.

During the course of this, each maneuver BN will likely Chapter out approx a company-sized group of unfit Soldiers. The green-LTs drink heavily from the firehose. Prior to deployment, much of the equipment fielded for training is returned to AMC for use by other BCTs on another installation, some equipment goes on deployment. This is serious azzpain for 2LTs in XO positions.

During the deployment, some of the LTs will rotate between PL and XO positions, some will be stuck as Battle Captains in the TOC. Depending upon the BDE CDR's take on his CPTs, some will rotate out of command, some will get a second command, some will remain in their present command. (In my BCT, approx 7 CPTs had over 30 months of CMD time, while others had none. Again, this is totally up to the BDE CDR) LTs are boarded and all become promotable to CPT (unless they have a General Officer LoR or other serious infraction). Field Grades likely remain in their positions for the whole lifecycle (e.g. 2.5 years as the BN S3).

Redeployment: 60 to 80% of the unit goes away (PCS/ETS/RET). All LT(P)s move. There are two catagories of LTs: those staying in and those getting out. Regardless of their choice, they either go to the Career Course or to another assignment of some kind to serve out their ADSO (ITB, Old Guard, RTB). Post-CMD CPTs go on to the usual assignments (AC/RC, JRTC/NTC, Recruiting) unless they Functionally Designated into an FA. Those officers go to the training for their respective FAs. Non-post CMD CPTs may stay as the continuity for the next lifecycle. If they've been on-station for 24-months they can move, but will likely stay, as they SHOULD be going into command during Reset.

Reset: This is a period of time (about 3-months) between redeployment and the new lifecycle and contains Changes of Command, Dinning Outs, Hails and Farewells, PCS/ETS/RET clearing, etc. Red Cycle (Post Support) begins. This is also when the unit begins receiving its new Soldiers - Field grades from ILE, Career Course graduated CPTs, and new 2LTs.

Rinse and repeat.

So, the old model is gone. Now, a new officer completes his commissioning and training and goes to his new unit. If he's married, he settles his family in and will get to spend approx one-year with them (CTC rotations not withstanding). If he's single, he gets an appartment (doesn't make sense to buy). Then he deploys for 12 to 15 months. Then he comes back and if married moves his family to where ever his Career Course is (for 5-months), if single he finds temp lodging until he PCSs to the Career Course. Then he moves them to his new post, settles in for a year and deploys again.
Young officers who are family oriented do not see the Army as a good career option. Depending upon their family/personal situation, they will typically do 1 or 2 lifecycles prior to resigning.

Resignation is now a different process too. There are no more REFRADs, as all officers are now RA. Resignation is simply telling the Army you want to ETS. You can submit your resignation NET 12-months prior to your ADSO completion date or NLT 6-months prior to the date you want to ETS. BN and BDE CDRs have no say in this other than a requirement to counsel the officer on the benefits of continued service.

So that is a snap shot of what its like these days. As someone who served as an enlisted soldier in the 1980s, I can tell you that the Army has changed a great deal. Maybe its a function of my age and stage of life, but I can tell you that it certainly isn't "fun" anymore, and as always, you probably love the Army far more than it loves you. I cannot say that I will stay in until I can achieve an AC retirement, but I will do another lifecycle. After that, I will likely return to the USAR where there is a great deal more flexibility and opportunity to do different things."


Read more interesting stories of what is going on in the Army today at http://www.thecommandtoc.com


 
Spaf, for shame on you!

You act as if we're laying down on the job :mad:

image001.gif
 
I always presumed our guys got a refresher in the basics of the Constitution during Basic Training so they would know what they are swearing to defend. Apparently not.

Pocket Constitutions for U.S. Army Soldiers
Posted October 22nd, 2009 by Michael Nystrom

I received the following email at the inbox of the Daily Paul.
Dear Daily Paul:
I'm an Army 2LT at an AIT unit in Fort Sill Oklahoma. I've noticed that there is no training of Soldiers on the Constitution that they are sworn to defend. Although I cannot modify our Soldier's training schedule, I am in a position to give away pocket copies of the Constitution.
If your readers would like to donate pocket copies of the Constitution to U.S. Army Soldiers I can ensure that they will be distributed fairly. Our unit processes approximately 60 Soldiers a week.
The address to send them to is:
Commander
Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 78th Field Artillery
428th Field Artillery Brigade
Fort Sill, Oklahoma 73503-6202
[If] RJ Harris can get elected to congress, [he will] propose [a] bill to make constitutional training mandatory at basic training, [in the meantime] this may be the best way to move forward. I would appreciate your support.
I must also ask that you understand I am NOT requesting a donation, but rather informing you that I can distrubte Constitutions to Soldiers. If you feel you can share some version of this on your website, I would appreciate it. Anonymity would be preferred, as well as re-stating that I am NOT asking for donations. I am merely hoping that the concerned citizens who want to make a difference are aware of an opportunity to make a difference.
Thank you

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111764
 
Things have probably changed since my army days,('67 - '70) but what I remember is that a soldier's "constitutional rights" only went as far as the superior in charge. We were drilled in basic on the "code of conduct", the Geneva Convention rules and were taught to only give name, rank and serial number if captured. The US Constitution does not apply when we're not "in country", but what's in it is what we swore to defend. God Bless America! :)

I always presumed our guys got a refresher in the basics of the Constitution during Basic Training so they would know what they are swearing to defend. Apparently not.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111764
 
I always presumed our guys got a refresher in the basics of the Constitution during Basic Training so they would know what they are swearing to defend. Apparently not.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111764

Can't say that I remember any training on the Constitution anywhere through a 20+ year military career. It was pretty much assumed that since it was taught in elementary and high school, that anyone coming into the service had a pretty good idea already. I guess these days public school may not spend as much time on it, so I guess having pocket copies to hand out wouldn't be a bad idea.

Peter Jennings always used to carry around a pocket CATO Institute version, as does Michigan Senator Carl Levin (Armed Services Committee head), and WV Senator Byrd.

CATO sells them, as does Heritage.

CATO's have a high quality cover and includes the Declaration of Independence. Heritage's version is slightly smaller, and cheaper in bulk- You can buy large quantities of Heritage version for less than a buck a piece.

CATO's: http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&pid=144278-A


Heritage: https://secure.heritage.org/pocketconstitutions/
 
Life in the military -- they VOLUNTEERED. They thought they could do a few years, get some training, maybe get some college credit and some GI Bill, then get out with that feeling of patriotic righteousness. Whoops! They miscalculated and now they're in a war zone humping 60lb packs in the desert. I should feel sorry for them? Who was sorry for me when I was DRAFTED? No one.

I have good friend, much younger than I, who graduated West Point and is on his way to Afghanistan as a Major, hoping to make Colonel and retire with 20. I told him to make G-D sure of his target before he pushes the button! But I'm not sorry for him, no.
 
Hmm. Further research below, I found the answers to the question I was really wondering about.

Jimi, Re knowledge of the Constitution and our guys knowledge thereof, I was actually more wondering about whether they know enough to recognize possibility they've received an illegal order or not and how they are expected to deal with an illegal order. I posted what I learned, down below. What I learned: Officers should certainly be more knowledgeable of the law and Constitution, since they have even greater responsibility than their guys and gals. There was a situation recently in Alabama (described below) where an officer issued an illegal order due to lack of knowledge of the law and Constitution. The order was obeyed. The officer is now being disciplined. Bet he knows the law and Constitution a lot better now than he did. Unfortunately he didn't know it well enough prior to issuing the order. Gap in military education for officers?

Officers are given training in what is legal and illegal in war and are requried to contradict an illegal order. Thus if a captain (commanding a company) gave an illegal order to a lieutenant (commanding a platoon), the lieutenant would be required to question the order.

If the intent is to ask about illegal orders, the lower enlisted are not given the training to know what is legal or illegal (except for some obvious ones), thus they aren't encouraged to consider the legality of their orders. That won't save them from prosecution, though (catch-22, yes).
The recruit must obey his immediate officer (the captin in this case). If the captin's superiors are upset, only the captin will get punished.
The only exception is when the command is clearly immoral. In that case the recruit will be punished even if he was ordered to commit the immoral act.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-329163.html

On March 10, 2009, active duty Army military police troops from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama in response to a murder spree. Samson police officials confirmed the troops' presence, but it remains unclear who requested the troops and under what authority they were deployed. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance and President Obama did not authorize their deployment. According to police officials, the soldiers were involved in traffic control and securing the crime scene.
An Army investigation found that soldiers should not have been sent to man traffic stops in a small Alabama town after 11 people were killed in March during a shooting spree.
An Army report released to The Associated Press on Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request said the decision to dispatch military police to Samson from nearby Fort Rucker broke the law. But an Army spokesman said no charges have been filed following the Aug. 10 report.
"As a result of the findings of the report, the Army took administrative action against at least one person," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said.
The action was less than a transfer or discharge but Garver would not elaborate.
The report from the Department of Army Inspector General found the use of military personnel in Samson violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal troops from performing law enforcement actions. The names of those involved were redacted from the report.
The officer who made the decision to send the soldiers thought he had the authority based on his experience with responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Andrew, the report said.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010095847_apussouthalabamashootings.html


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Is the Posse Comitatus Act totally without meaning today? No, it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter. Although no person has ever been successfully prosecuted under the act, it is available in criminal or administrative proceedings to punish a lower-level commander who uses military forces to pursue a common felon or to conduct sobriety checkpoints off of a federal military post. Officers have had their careers abruptly brought to a close by misusing federal military assets to support a purely civilian criminal matter.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm
 
... What I learned: Officers should certainly be more knowledgeable of the law and Constitution, since they have even greater responsibility than their guys and gals. There was a situation recently in Alabama (described below) where an officer issued an illegal order due to lack of knowledge of the law and Constitution. The order was obeyed. The officer is now being disciplined. Bet he knows the law and Constitution a lot better now than he did. Unfortunately he didn't know it well enough prior to issuing the order. Gap in military education for officers?....

Yes, you could see it that way. It wasn't a Constitutional prohibition. It was a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Posse Comitatus was talked about briefly in my OCS training (1990). As a National Guard OCS candidate, we had a little different angle on it. National Guard is under State control normally, and under State Control, it is part of the duty to respond and secure areas under orders of the Governor. We learned that this changes when we were federalized, in that Posse Comitatus kicked in then, and prohibited use in rebellion/riot/etc when under federal control. In National Guard OCS, we spent a one-hour block on authorizing civil law enforcement control under orders of the Governor, and what changes when federalized.

In the case you cited- the order deploying the soldiers was legal, and had to be obeyed. Nothing wrong with a simple federal officer saying "Go there". The legal question comes after that- They get until trouble the moment they try and do traffic control- that's a civilian law enforcement action. Without order from the Govenor, using federal forces for traffic control would have been a violation of Posse Comitatus.

You might remember that there was a big discussion over that during the response to Katrina. Everybody was yelling for G.W. deploy federal forces into New Orleans. The problem was---what exactly did you want those federal forces to do? Rescue people? Ok. You can do that legally. But secure a block from looters? With active duty military? That would be illegal under Posse Comitatus.

I don't know if that is part of Federal pre-commissioning training today, but I presume it probably still is. It also has generally been included in "Major" level training courses (Army Command, Control Communication course CAS3), and senior Army War College classes for those chosen for Lt. Col. to Col. promotions. So I think the education inclusion is pretty robust. I think that was more likely probably just a case of one guy who screwed up, and responded without really thinking, or without getting his actions cleared from above.
 
Last edited:
There remain real problems with constitutionality, and with the Geneva conventions. I think that the former administration referred to the conventions as being "quaint" with respect to the modern insurgencies. However, that's not right either.

It's what happened at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Soldiers simply forgot what the Geneva convention dictated.
The military tribunals convicted the wrong people. The people who created the policy should have been punished. Schlessinger and Brown came out with some severe criticism for the former Secretary of Defense.
 
OK,

Here's one that will throw you for a loop.

Constitution studies for the military....
*Not required...They'll give you a copy on Constitution Day. Talk about certain aspects of it and play a video.

Laws of Armed Conflict
*This is a Computer Based Training (CBT) program that is required once a year and before deployment. Every soldier, Sailor, marine and airman are made to take this training and show some form of retention.

In my squadron, I took 45 minutes out of normal training for the day to cover the Constitution. I was amazed that my Hispanic airmen new more about the Constitution than most. It seems in their family, their parents had instilled upon them the rights that make up the country they were in. They knew what their country was versus their culture and still wanted to defend it.

Anyway, thought you'd like to know.
 
Yes, you could see it that way. It wasn't a Constitutional prohibition. It was a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Posse Comitatus was talked about briefly in my OCS training (1990). As a National Guard OCS candidate, we had a little different angle on it. National Guard is under State control normally, and under State Control, it is part of the duty to respond and secure areas under orders of the Governor. We learned that this changes when we were federalized, in that Posse Comitatus kicked in then, and prohibited use in rebellion/riot/etc when under federal control. In National Guard OCS, we spent a one-hour block on authorizing civil law enforcement control under orders of the Governor, and what changes when federalized.

In the case you cited- the order deploying the soldiers was legal, and had to be obeyed. Nothing wrong with a simple federal officer saying "Go there". The legal question comes after that- They get until trouble the moment they try and do traffic control- that's a civilian law enforcement action. Without order from the Govenor, using federal forces for traffic control would have been a violation of Posse Comitatus.

You might remember that there was a big discussion over that during the response to Katrina. Everybody was yelling for G.W. deploy federal forces into New Orleans. The problem was---what exactly did you want those federal forces to do? Rescue people? Ok. You can do that legally. But secure a block from looters? With active duty military? That would be illegal under Posse Comitatus.

I don't know if that is part of Federal pre-commissioning training today, but I presume it probably still is. It also has generally been included in "Major" level training courses (Army Command, Control Communication course CAS3), and senior Army War College classes for those chosen for Lt. Col. to Col. promotions. So I think the education inclusion is pretty robust. I think that was more likely probably just a case of one guy who screwed up, and responded without really thinking, or without getting his actions cleared from above.
Great post, James! People forget the limitations of Posse Comitatus on the military when a natural disaster strikes.
 
Back
Top