|
How does a drawdown effect the recruiting of quality soldiers? My thought process is that it IS an Army problem in having a large pool of quality soldiers for SF and SMU's to draw from. I think its good that the problem is currently being addressed.
I can see how to each of us that our view and perspectives of the quality of soldiers under the current force may differ vastly. From my experience in the field of Intel, there are few and rarely any that have the skills or qualities of what is to be expected of even the most basic soldier. A powerful statement, yes, but believe me, I have the stories to back that up over the years.
In a number of instances I have questioned how so many soldiers of many ranks from the lowest private to field grade officers and CSM's have managed to stay in the Army at all. Respectively, to each of them, for their blatantly evident shortfalls. This is my opinion of course and I recognize I am not perfect either. I see this problem of a lack of even minimal skills, as a cross section of the Army from the perspective of the branch to which I serve. This means to me this problem is likely not just secluded to my branch and is frighteningly an Army wide problem.
What I mean by all of this is that if the Army wants to look at the definition of a Soldier and retain only the best, brightest and strongest to a reasonable standard of combat readiness, would this not improve the pool of recruits to draw from?
To me the idea makes sense. A smaller but significantly more competent force in the Army seems more useful. A surgical necessity in fact, for the Asymmetrical threats of a modern world. With less money wasted on those skating by, there should be more of the budget available for those units in critical areas.
Of course this is all in a perfect leadership scenario of whom and how each level of necessity is defined. If the concept does not fail in implementation and execution of orders, I would support the smaller force on those terms. That in the end, I believe would help support better soldiers suited for SF and SMU recruitment.
To disclaim, no, I am not SF nor have I ever claimed to be. I am not trying to impose or imply that I would know what is best for SF or any of our SMU’s. My point of view is that my draw and fascination to SF or any other SMU is not because of the “Special” factor. To me, the types of personalities of SF and SMU’s alike should be a model for the entire force. A level of common sense leadership and professionalism that is difficult to find in the common conventional force. Please take no offense to this and understand my meaning, but to me, the only normal soldiers in the Army ARE SF.
|