Old 04-01-2016, 12:53   #1
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,531
Lots of Generals

I am curious whether anyone has comments on this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-s-denies.html
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 14:57   #2
JimP
Quiet Professional
 
JimP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of confusion
Posts: 1,197
Typical - at one point early in the war, I'm thinking 2003-2004, there were over 200 GO/Flags in the Green Zone (or what was to become the Green Zone).

No wonder you couldn't get jack done.....
JimP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 15:56   #3
PRB
Quiet Professional
 
PRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,726
Getting military senior leadership to cut GO positions is like asking a crack head to cut his dose in half.
Ain't gonna happen.....it has to be forced from outside and even then they find 'hiding spots' for GO's in these kind of expeditionary slots.
PRB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2016, 11:43   #4
bailaviborita
Quiet Professional
 
bailaviborita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pineland
Posts: 538
There are all kinds of bureaucratic studies done to show how red tape increases- and effectiveness decreases- the more chiefs you have and the less indians you have. There is something to be said that where we have the most generals- we seem to be making the least amount of progress. The micromanagement of our troops in Iraq/Syria and the amount of information all of these GOs and their staffs/HQs require is probably the #1 reason we are failing IMO...
__________________
To an imperial city nothing is inconsistent which is expedient - Euphemus of Athens
bailaviborita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2016, 12:08   #5
Joker
Quiet Professional
 
Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2,174
The Army has 14 active duty 4-stars.
Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2016, 12:39   #6
Trapper John
Quiet Professional
 
Trapper John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 3,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by bailaviborita View Post
There are all kinds of bureaucratic studies done to show how red tape increases- and effectiveness decreases- the more chiefs you have and the less indians you have. There is something to be said that where we have the most generals- we seem to be making the least amount of progress. The micromanagement of our troops in Iraq/Syria and the amount of information all of these GOs and their staffs/HQs require is probably the #1 reason we are failing IMO...
BINGO!! When the commodity of exchange is power and influence the false metrics for success always emerge. Case in point the metric of 'body count' in the VN conflict.
__________________
Honor Above All Else
Trapper John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2016, 21:11   #7
bailaviborita
Quiet Professional
 
bailaviborita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pineland
Posts: 538
I personally witnessed recently something that, if it had happened during WWII during the Battle of the Bulge, would have gone something like this:
Quote:
Brigadier: We’ve identified four German armies and our immediate concern is that one of them has the 101st trapped at Bastogne.
Smith: Bastogne is the key. Ike wants to know if somebody can get there and relieve the 101st.
DeGuingand: I’m afraid there’s nothing Field Marshal Montgomery can do.
Smith: George- what about you?
Patton: Well, recently I visited our rear area and we set up the first allied first aid station.
Bradley: Huh?
Patton: There was a speech and everything. Really, guys, I think we’re turning the tide here with these aid stations.
Smith: Ike wants you to be realistic- what are you talking about aid stations for?
Patton: Well, I’m thinking our efforts have set the enemy back at least a few days for this offensive you’re talking about. That’s all I can report at this time, pending questions.
Smith: Actually , George, if you could elaborate on the C2 relationship between that first aid station and you, that would be great. Where does that relationship stop- and who is in control of it?
Patton: Sure, Bedell, we had a medical company C2ing that first aid station, and they reported to a medical battalion, and that medical battalion reported to me.
Smith: Thanks, really appreciate that.
__________________
To an imperial city nothing is inconsistent which is expedient - Euphemus of Athens
bailaviborita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2016, 17:02   #8
I am Al
Asset
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 45
Not just the military

If I'm taking the thread off-topic, please delete, but IMO, this parallels exactly what's happening in U.S. industry.

In the industries I typically consult in (healthcare/finance), strong leadership has almost totally been pushed out in favor of bureaucratic consensus management. Lot's of "Double Triple Super Executive Vice President of Nothing Much" positions that a couple decades ago would have just been a staff role in a back office somewhere. Simple decisions require consensus from a large pool of people that don't have a clue what's happening in the field.

If this keeps up with military and civilian organizations, I wonder in the future how we'll be able to win global conflicts or compete in global industry.
I am Al is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:29.



Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies