In praise of the noncoms

BMT (RIP) · 10-25-2005, 03:53

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions

BMT

**Pete** · 10-25-2005, 06:38

Good Read

Thanks for posting it.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 10-25-2005, 06:48

So Pete, when does F-O-G-dom officially begin? 50?

BMT (RIP) · 10-25-2005, 07:03

RL would you call a man an FOG,who ran 50 miles on his 50th birthday?

BMT

**Roguish Lawyer** · 10-25-2005, 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMT

RL would you call a man an FOG,who ran 50 miles on his 50th birthday?

BMT

Yes, but I would be very impressed! LOL

I saw that Pete's 50th is this Saturday, so I was just giving him a hard time.

Want to guess how many shots I had on my 21st birthday?

**Kyobanim** · 10-25-2005, 07:24

Quote:

Want to guess how many shots I had on my 21st birthday?

This isn't related to your sexual escapades is it?

**Roguish Lawyer** · 10-25-2005, 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

This isn't related to your sexual escapades is it?

Solid · 10-25-2005, 08:03

And what of your 20th birthday, counselor?

**Roguish Lawyer** · 10-25-2005, 08:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid

And what of your 20th birthday, counselor?

Nothing that memorable. Well, memorable until I blacked out.

LOL

BMT (RIP) · 10-25-2005, 08:29

Now let's get SERIOUS!!

This is what's expected of anyone in the pipeline.

BMT

**Pete** · 10-25-2005, 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

So Pete, when does F-O-G-dom officially begin? 50?

I plan on spending this weekend in the woods, sleeping near a fire and doing "guy stuff". Crude male bonding stuff, smoke, chew, fart and scratch stuff with a nip of "snake bite" for the cold.

When I can't sleep outdoors on the ground I'll consider myself an FOG.

Pete

**Razor** · 10-25-2005, 10:29

While I agree with the basic premise of the article, I do have a few issues with some of his specifics. I believe this stems from the fact that while he observed particular units in theater, he still doesn't fully understand them, not does he have a solid historical background in U.S. military operations.

Quote:

Never before in military history have noncommissioned officers — who deal at the lowest tactical level, where operational success or failure is determined — been so critical. This is because of the changing nature of conflict.

Never before in military history, huh? I'm thinking the Marine and Army NCOs working in Central America, China and the Philippines at the turn of the century are spinning in their graves over this claim. Sergeants were leading team and squad-sized 'meet & greet' patrols through villages and towns over 100 years ago, and doing tremendous work in quelling insurgencies and guerrilla actions because of it. I don't buy the 'changing nature of conflict' cries from the media; they simply don't put any effort into researching what 'conflict' was to a US soldier, Marine or sailor (I'm talking bluejacket landing forces here, not the 'never get off the boat' variety) prior to WWI.

Quote:

But the captains and lieutenants are useless without their sergeants.

I admit part of my dislike of this quote is visceral, but I'd like to think that's my feeling is also supported by some reality. I believe 'useless' is pushing the adjective envelope a bit far. Surely, the NCOs are the technical experts of their jobs, as it should be. I know that I couldn't even begin to hold a candle to the technical expertise of even my newest ODA member in their field, but at the same time, that new E-5/6 probably didn't have the training or experience in mission analysis, planning, briefing, or creating orders that I had gained in the five years prior to getting to a team. Technical work is the focus of tactical units, but the reality is that work needs to be integrated into a larger operational picture, it needs to be coordinated up, down and laterally, it needs to be supported logistically and with fires -- very rarely can it stand completely on its own, and that planning, coordinating and integrating is where officers earn their pay. I doubt there are many instances of an E-6 or E-7 going to his commander and saying, "Hey sir, you mind if I go take the ops brief today in your place? Oh, and SFC Brown wants to do all the NCOERs that are due this month." Officers may not be critical, but I'd like to think they're far from 'useless'.

Quote:

In many a Third World army, the gulf between officers and enlistees is that between aristocrats and peasants. Because such class distinctions do not really exist here, the consequence is an NCO corps that deals confidently with its superiors...

Had Kaplan spent his time observing the crew of a US Naval vessel, I bet he'd have come away with a different perspective.

Quote:

But NCOs are not sufficiently listened to. The three most desperately needed items in Iraq today are ones that NCOs have long been emphasizing: armored Humvees, "blue-force" trackers for situational awareness of the battlefield and SAPI plates (small-arms protective inserts for flak vests).

NCOs now complain about the heavy equipment they have to carry: all the latest gizmos merely make it easier for an insurgent in flip-flops and armed with an AK-47 to outrun the fittest Marine.

Here's a telling sign that Kaplan doesn't fully understand what he's saying. In the first paragraph, he's simply repeating what he's been told--'we need this or that widget to make our jobs easier'. He then immediately follows with another complaint he's heard about a soldier's fighting load being too heavy, especially compared with the enemy. Well, which way do you want it, Mr. Answer-man? Those BFT receivers and SAPI plates add to the weight being carried. This is where those 'useless' leaders have to make the hard decisions on balancing a reasonable fighting load with carrying equipment to enhance capabilities.

I'm thinking after reading 'Imperial Grunts' and this piece, I'll be checking Kaplan's book out of the library, so that I can gladly return it after I'm finished.

CoLawman · 10-25-2005, 12:25

Quote:

I'm thinking after reading 'Imperial Grunts' and this piece, I'll be checking Kaplan's book out of the library, so that I can gladly return it after I'm finished.

Subtle and succinctly summarized Razor! Or were you addressing late fees?

longrange1947 · 10-25-2005, 19:31

Razor - Me thinks you protest too much.

All of your claims as an officer, I and all the other team sgts, of my time, performed quite well. NCOERs were ONLY written by Team Sgts and endorsed by officers, never written by them. Op Meetings were held with the Team Sgts as well as Team Leaders. My team performed many a mission without an officer and performed quite well at our missions. That included ops, log, resource management, (something that I now find totally lacking in many of today's leaders), coordination, (both joint US and foreign national), and integration of forces both national and foreign.

It is all too often forgotten that the officer is moved around to be given a breadth of knowledge so he may conceptualize while the NCO, who has been working his team, squad, Platoon, etc for years KNOWs how to do what the officer thought up, OR tell the officer that it may not be such a good idea in that form.

Each has his place, and each needs each other, BUT, in SF, the team will and does perform without the officer. I know, as I stated, I did it many a time.

Sorry Razor.

**Razor** · 10-25-2005, 20:59

No argument with what you say at all, LR. We 'summer help' were by no means essential to the team to get the job done, but you have to admit that as a team sergeant you were pretty happy not to have to do all the paperwork, attend the meetings, prepare the briefings and so on when you did get an officer on the team dump all that on.