U.S. enters 2024 with its smallest military in over 80 years as active-duty troop numbers sink to le

Yes... you can destroy things with unmanned technology. But you can't CONQUER anything without people. We used to joke that the mission of my beloved Field Artillery was to "kill the Godless enemy by the thousands, rearrange terrain and make cave dwelling an acceptable standard of living in the homeland of our enemies." But the fact always remains that "unoccupied enemy territory is still... enemy territory'". The end game of any war is an Infantryman standing in the "Oval Office" of our enemy.

I understand robotics full well. There will come a time when robotic ships will launch robotic aircraft. Robotic scouts like TALON will carry surveillance, imaging, communications and weapon packages into our enemy's territory. But as the enemy hunkers down, it will take an Infantryman to clear the are... the basements and the tunnels... the bunkers and the hidey holes. It wil take an Infantryman to do more than destroy people and things. It will take an Infantryman to CONQUER and establish VICTORY.

 

We are a very long way from the droid army you envision.




In the meantime we need to fill these positions.

 

No - we're not very far away at all.
We have the equivalent of a room sized computer in 1990 in our pocket right now.
If you've studied robotics at all, you know the tech is already there. Drones are already replacing pilot operated craft.
We just don't need huge on ground forces like we used to.

 

OK well no, the technology isn't there yet. Sorry.

 

One thing I told my best friend's son was this: I served in the Army from 1974-1977. I never saw combat. But I served my country on active duty for 3 years, and no one can take that away from me. I'm proud of that. And I did not go through life wishing I had done it or wondering what I missed. And if I could do all over again, I would.

I remember after the 9/11 attacks I wished I could serve again, but at age 46, I was too old.

 

@Lil Mike @AARguy I have often thought that we could re-imagine the U.S. Army. Currently, it has 10 active divisions. I could see it as a much smaller Army with perhaps half as many active divisions and a far larger number of Reservists. I envision that Army as being the best of the best, highly trained, elite, nimble, and lethal. In the event of a protracted ground war, the Reservists could be called up to augment the active divisions or to reconstitute into active divisions.

It is true that you need soldiers on the ground to hold ground, but I think far more ground can held by far fewer troops today than in previous wars, owing to far improved intelligence capabilities, air superiority, and smart weapons that almost never miss.

I note that the Marine Corps consists of 3 active divisions and 1 reserve division. And let's use Ukraine as a scenario. And let's ignore the reality of the nuclear threat and just look at conventional force vs conventional force. So let's say the Russians were massing at the border of Ukraine for a couple of months, telegraphing their intention to invade. We of course would see that and get ready. And let's imagine that our opposing force was going to be those three active Marine divisions supported by the USAF, USN, JSOC, and perhaps, and a wing of Apaches from the Army. What I think would happen would be that Russia's air defenses (radars and SAM sites) within range of Ukraine would get destroyed, and then our better trained pilots with superior aircraft would establish air dominance over Ukraine. After that, Russian tanks, armor, and infantry formations would become target practice. I think our ground troops would be doing mop-up operations mostly. (Frankly, I don't think the Russians would even cross the border while faced with this inevitable outcome.)

What makes our forces so much better is not just one thing, but instead, a whole host of things complimenting each other. Intelligence, logistics, leadership, training, air superiority, technology. Honestly, if we didn't have to be circumspect about the fact that Russia is a nuclear power, I would bet that we could push all Russian forces out of Ukraine in a month or less using only conventional weapons, and using far fewer ground troops than we've needed in previous wars. And in my vision, while this was going on, the Reservists would be called to active service as needed at home and to fill in at other venues abroad.

And another thing in my vision of a re-imagined military (and this directly relates to the recruitment problem) is a completely different pay scale. I imagine E-1's and E-2's receiving about what they receive now. They are in a training mode. But by the time they reach E-3, they have acquired some skills and experience, and they are capable of doing their jobs. I could see granting a large pay jump upon a promotion to E-3. From E-4 and above I could imagine a pay scale just slightly under the officer pay scale. (Yes, you read that right.) These ranks are your skilled members and leaders. To me, pay should not be about who you salute or even the size of the unit you command. It should be about your actual worth to the mission of the military. I have nothing against officers. They fill a necessary role. But I don't necessarily value them to the mission more than I value a skilled and experienced Corporal, Staff Sgt or Platoon Sgt. To my mind, it is unconscionable that a married E-5 with two children can qualify for food assistance.

So this vision I have is of a smaller but elite active Army, a more robust and expanded role for Reservists, and a military that is paid far better, particularly in the NCO ranks. If our services were transformed as I envision, I think we would see recruits competing to get in rather than the services struggling to get recruits. And last, but not least, I don't think our national security would be compromised.

 

Interesting post... thank you. First, let me clarify a couple of things. First, there are no "wings" in Army aviation. That's an Air Force concept. Apaches are integrated with ground forces. In a general sense, there are three "maneuver" brigades in a division (Armor/Infantry). Three brigades mean nine battalions. If, in a division, there are five armor battalions and four infantry battalions... its an armored division. Five infantry battalions and four armor battalions makes it an infantry division.
In addition, there is a brigade sized unit of field artillery called the "DIVARTY". And there is a brigade of aviation assets... attack (Apaches), utility (Blackhawks) and cargo (Chinooks). Its not quite that simple, but you get the idea. There are also support units to provide stuff like water, food, ammunition, replacements, etc. (I'm not forgetting air defense.) Airborne divisions and airmobile divisions have modified organizations (TO&E). There are also Independent brigade sized units with "slices" of all these assets, then of course the Ranger Regiments (Regiments are the equivalent size of a brigade), tailored Special Operations units and more.

Enlisted personnel and Officer personnel have distinctly different missions. Officers decide how things need to be done, Enlisted folks EXECUTE their orders. Enlisted folks carry out the missions. They man the weapons, maintain everything, keep everything and everyone supplied and do the "heavy lifting". Officers oversee all these efforts, handle the administrative issues and handle the planning... at both the tactical and strategic levels. I was both an Enlisted guy and an Officer. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the experience and wisdom of NCO's (NonComissioned Officers). In my first assignment as an Officer I found myself Commanding a Company with tremendously valuable NCO's, some of whom had been in the Army almost as long as I had been alive. They taught me a lot and I had the common sense to listen. Not everything was perfect. There was that one Sunday when a drunken Platoon Sergeant fell out his Platoon to show his son what a (racist description deleted) was. Then there was the time when one of my senior NCO's was screwing the Supply Sergeant, helping her make up losses of equipment she had negligently "misplaced".

When I was a brand new E-1, I was happier than the proverbial "pig in shiite". I earned $99/mo ($78 after taxes and other things). I lived in the barracks and ate in the mess hall. That $78 was pure "fun money". Few folks even thought about marriage at 18-19 in those days. Actually, if you were not at least an E-4, you had to get your Commander's "permission" to get married. No one was on food stamps, because maturity prevented such things.

But anyway... I agree that armies will be smaller than traditional sizes in the future. But let's not get carried away. Air superiority breaks things very effectively, but it has little to do with gaining and holding ground. (That's why we could never quite "defeat" the Taliban... they were hard to discern from ordinary citizens.) When I was in Iraq we were trained to look for civilians in running shoes rather than sandals... its hard to tun in sandals. The terrorists had to be able to run.

Marines do not have the same mission as the Army. Marines are faster and more agile. They move around better. When it comes to a heavy force conflict, the Army is well suited. It has the "tail" to stay in long term conflict. The Marines are more about a quick deployment to a more low intensity conflict. The Army has a more massive support organization, heavier transport and theatre weapons like Patriot... which the Marines don't. In a pinch. both can do the job.

"Smart weapons" like Hellfire, TOW, and such need a human operator to guide the weapon to their target. "Brilliant weapons" need an operator to launch, but guide themselves to the target without the need of human assistance (like Javelin does).

Reservists are esential to the military. But its not simple. Units are graded C1 to C5 on a scale which reflects their readiness to go to war. Training occurs in stages from "Individual" (marksmanship, marching, first aid, "two man rushes", and all the other entry level training. Sometimes this is a stand-alone period of instruction or it may include specialized training for your particular job (MOS). This moves on to "Team/Crew" training where you learn the skills to operate with others doing your job. Next comes "Collective" training where you learn to operate with other UNITS of your type on the battlefield. Then there is COLLECTIVE TRAINING where Infantry learns to team with Armor, Field Artillery and other forces of different types. Finally, there is JOINT training where Army folks learn to work with Marines, Air Force and Navy assets.

This all takes a long time. Reservists don't just jump into the fray and go to war. They train at home station through these stages and finally get evaluated for their readiness at places like the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA. It takes time. Heck, it takes two years to train an Apache crew, even when you start with experienced helicopter pilots. So it gets very complex.

Forgive the disjointed nature of this post. There is so much to address.... so many aspects of training, readiness and more before deployment can occur.

Then there are the requirements of war. We all too often get wrapped up in our technology and change our rules. The enemy, however, doesn't always agree. War is totally unpredictable. As GEN Norman Scwarzkopf once noted:
War is like as ballet. You seek out the best talent. You organize and practice. You make sure everyone has the right things ,,, costumes and props. Then you rehearse and rehearse again. When you are totally ready yo have a full dress rehearsal (like or military does at TOP GUN, Ft Irwin, Twenty-Nine Palms, etc.) On the opening night of the ballet, everyone is ready. Everyone knows what they to do. The curtain comes up! AND SOME ***** WITH A BAYONET JUMPS OUT OF THE ORCHESTRA PIT AND STARTS STABBING EVERYONE!

That is how Schwarzkopf described war.

There are no simple solutions.

 

It's fun to reimagine the Army. I've done that many times while in the Army, most particularly while doing some sort of Army drudge work, but before we reimagine the Army, we have to imagine the threat and the national security responsibilities that the nation has. With the promise of a peace dividend and the end of the Cold War, we slashed the military size tremendously during the 1990's. Unfortunately we didn't slash our national responsibilities, as we have the same defense alliances and obligations that we had in say, 1992, but a much smaller military.

We actually put our smaller military to the test when we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously. It was supposed to be a test of our ability to execute our two war strategy, and it seemed to be a failure.

Now we're facing conflicts or potential conflicts on three fronts, in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan. We may not need as big a military as we had in 1992, but we sure need a bigger one than we have now. So with all due apologies to the droid army apologists out there who think we can replace soldiers with robots right now, to meet our obligations we need either a much bigger army (and other services of course) or rethink what our obligations should actually be.

As far as your Ukraine sans nukes scenario, yes I think the US could match and defeat the Russians. Man for man, our conventional forces are far superior. But if we didn't win quickly, and got bogged down the way the Ukrainians currently are, I think the Russians could outlast us. We would run out of troops before they did.

 

@AARguy Thanks for your response and for bringing my mind up to speed on the way the Army is organized. And yeah, I knew "wing" was the wrong term for the Army, but you know what I meant. I was in the 25th ID when I was in the Army stationed at Schofield Bks, and the division had a large contingent of helicopters located right across the road at Wheeler AFB that were all a part of the 25th.

Your explanation of the way armor, infantry, artillery, and aviation assets are integrated into single divisions was interesting. As I read that, I thought about how it fit in to my concept of a smaller active force - fewer total divisions, but with all the necessary capabilities integrated into each one.

I should emphasize that what I'm talking about here is just a general concept. The vision I have includes a re-imagination of not just the active force, but the reserve force as well. In my mind, the "how" it would be implemented is the challenge.

I note that the South Korean military has a total active force of 500,000, but that they have 3.1 million reservists, some 6 times the number of active duty personnel. Contrast that with the configuration of the U.S. military where we have some 1.3 million active personnel, but only about 800,000 reservists (a total of about 2.1 million). The concept I have might bring us to a configuration somewhat similar to the South Koreans. Not the actual percentages of South Korea (remember, this is just a general concept I'm talking about) but similar in that there would be a much higher reliance on reserve forces. I also entertain thoughts of tweaking the active-reserve commitment. For example, if a person wants to be a reservist, perhaps they should serve a 12-24 month active duty period first, rather than just going through Basic/AIT and then going straight to a reserve status. By spending a year or so on active duty, the reserve unit he went to would be receiving a more fully trained and experienced member, rather than someone fresh out of AIT. I could also entertain thoughts of a greater yearly training time commitment for reservists, the goal being to keep them at a more advanced level of experience, readiness and capability.

I remember that my enlistment commitment was for 6 years - 3 years active, 3 years in the IRR. When I was in the IRR, I didn't have to train, I didn't have to report, I didn't have to do anything in the Army anymore. I was a reservist on paper only. I didn't even have a uniform or any gear. In the event of a national emergency, there was no way I could just pick up and join the battle. As far as the Army knew, I might have gone from a lean, mean fighting machine to a big lazy out-of-shape fatty in those 3 years. (I didn't, but the Army had no clue.) As far as I know, it's still the same today. In this concept I envision, we might do away with the IRR in favor of active reserves only.

Anyways, the thread was about the struggle the services are having with recruiting. My answer to that is a vision of a smaller active force with the cost savings going towards much higher pay, particularly, as I said, to the E-4's and above in the enlisted ranks. Those service members are invaluable, and they shouldn't be struggling to make ends meet. The Reserves would be in far greater numbers than they are now and be more highly trained and ready to go. The active personnel would be only the best of the best.

And one other thing about change. So often, "we can't" is really "we won't". There is always resistance to change. People have a hard time accepting change to the existing order, especially one that has worked for them, and one that they have a vested interest in perpetuating. I can imagine a POTUS laying out this vision I have to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and immediately hearing a chorus of all the reasons why "we can't". If I was the POTUS, I don't think I would accept that. I think I might give them about 90 days to come up with a rough outline, or, they could resign into retirement.

I welcome your thoughts.

 

In a curious related note...

The Army Recruiting Ad Featuring a Soldier with 2 Moms Just Got Harder to Find. Here's Why.

The Army has delisted its advertising campaign titled "The Calling" on YouTube, making it harder to find the videos on the platform. The 2021 effort to court potential applicants from LGBTQ+ and other diverse backgrounds sparked a backlash from conservative lawmakers and pundits.

"The Calling" was delisted from the service's YouTube channel last week, hiding it from search results and recommendations, according to Laura DeFrancisco, a spokesperson for the Army's marketing arm, who said usage rights for music were set to expire. One of the ads, called "Emma," featured a soldier who operated Patriot missile systems and was raised by a lesbian couple.

 

I don't believe Iraq or Afghanistan were military failures. In Iraq, when we withdrew in 2011, the Sunni insurgency had been quelled, and Iraq was much more peaceful than it had been. The chaos and bloodshed that occurred in the years to come were, in my opinion, a failure of the Iraqi government rather than a failure of the U.S. military. In Afghanistan, the taliban were resolute but no match for our military on a purely military basis. The problem for us was that the taliban was not just a fighting force. It was also a culture, and while we could inflict horrendous casualties on taliban forces, we could not "shoot" the culture. Anyways, from a purely military standpoint, I think we prevailed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, even with a smaller military. What failures there were were owing to other factors - domestic politics in the U.S., Afghanistan, and Iraq, the cultures and dysfunction of those two countries, and a sense of war weariness in the U.S.

The conflicts or potential conflicts on three fronts, in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan you mentioned are all big topics, and I don't want this conversation to get bogged down in all of that, but ....

- I don't see us fighting Russia in Ukraine, even if Ukraine falls.
- Iran is behind everything going wrong in the Middle East. If we really wanted to deal with Iran militarily, we are very capable of that with the assets we have. We may not be able to cut off the head of the snake, but we could sure as hell cut out its fangs and get it to slither back into its hole.
- My position on Taiwan is controversial, and again, I don't want the conversation to get deflected to that. But if we engaged that war against a nuclear power, if China tried to take Taiwan, that would be a war of choice for us fraught with great risk, worthy of a national debate and a vote by Congress, not a unilateral decision by a President.

Additionally ...

- I think Europe must do more to guarantee its own security. Europe is wealthy, it is industrial, it has technical ability, and it has a large population. France and the UK even have nukes. I think Europe should be its own big brother, not the U.S.

- I question the purpose and need for an entire Army division to be posted in South Korea. I don't question our alliance with South Korea, just the need for that Army division there. Those 10,000 U.S. troops are dwarfed by South Korea's 500,000 active military and 3 million reservists. So what is their purpose there? To be a trigger for U.S. involvement if the North invades? If all we want is a trigger, we could have that with one Company over there rather than a whole division.

And I shouldn't get off topic anymore than I already have, but I can't help myself .... In a non-nuclear war, we would kick Russia's ass soooo hard, my friend. IMHO, lol ...

So, for the third time, I will say that I don't want to get our conversation bogged down in debates about Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Europe, and South Korea. What I am trying to say is that if we re-imagine our military configuration, we can also think about how we would fulfill our commitments without abandoning our alliances and friends, and without compromising our national security. I think that's possible.

And back to the original topic, I think a smaller military (particularly the Army) could give us the financial space to make it more attractive to potential recruits and potential military careerists.

And finally, I don't mean to be picking on the Army. Hell, I served in the Army. And the Army's budget is actually smaller than that of the USAF or the USN. But what I wonder is if we are perhaps a bit stuck in a WW2 era mindset, still thinking about needing to be able liberate and hold two or three continents with a million soldiers on the ground. I wonder if we are not living in an era of war technology that has greatly diminished such a prospect. And so I wonder if a smaller active service ground Army is really risking anything, especially with a robust and ready Reserve component at our fingertips if needed.

I welcome your thoughts, Mike.

Seth

 

this is why we will never reduce the debt

we cut spending and the right is like, no... we need to spend more, lots more

 

Well you gave me a lot of food for thought and I'm still chewing on it, but just a couple of thoughts of my own to that.

On reflection, you could argue that Iraq wasn't quite a failure, although it was much harder than it needed to be because of the slim reed of forces deployed there. We had 470,000 troops deployed to the Gulf for the Gulf War, but the most number of troops that we had in Iraq was about 170,300 in 2007, the height of the "surge." But we didn't really get a handle on the insurgency until about 2010, and then we left the next year. So we left a wrecked country with a lot of people with serious grievances against us and an instable government that is more friendly with Iran than with the US. But...Saddam and the Baathists were not coming back so I guess there is that. That was a war that could have used double the troops and different military and civilian leadership who made different decisions to be successful, but I guess it's sort of a victory.

Afghanistan is more clearly a defeat. Our high point of troops there was 100,000 in 2010-11, but for most of the time our troop strength was a lot less, and I define it as a defeat because the government and every social structure and program that we had set up there over 20 years vanished in about a week of our leaving. Not only was the Taliban back, they were now back with billions of new military equipment giving them a military capability that they never had previously.

I would hope that we don't get involved in a ground war in Ukraine, but likely it would be a short one due to the WWIII aspect and we wouldn't be worrying much about the strength of the force after.

Taiwan is different. Although it has the same potential WWIII aspect, unlike Ukraine, which has zero strategic value to us, Taiwan is important because we're totally dependent on it's chip industry. There is a separate argument to be had as to how stupid our national leadership has to be to get us in this situation, but we voted for them so here we are. Naturally there has been a lot of war gaming on this and it's gone the gamut from we lose to we win paying a high price. We could sacrifice our entire Pacific fleet to the effort, but that's a lot of casualties to have to explain to America's moms.

So...this brings me to my earlier point. We either need to increase the size of our military by a lot, or we need a serious discussion on what commitments we can reasonably afford to make. After many discussions on this forum previously about just that issue, we're obviously not ready for that discussion, as I find most posters here think it's 1992 and we're still a hyperpower. And these are the people who are actually following the news and foreign affairs. The general public has likely never questioned whether we're still a hyperpower or not, and a massive military defeat of the US by a near peer military will be a devastating blow.

So that's why I don't think we can reimagine a new military for the 21st Century until we understand what it's mission is supposed to be and what is required to actually accomplish it.

 

I'd just make two points about this post:

1. Money can only do so much. Have you ever seen the photos of long lines at the recruiting offices coast to coast in the days after Pearl Harbor? That had nothing to do with money. It was about patriotism and love of country. The wokists have destroyed such feelings. Maybe your post is correct. All we can do is "buy" people now. How sad.

2. I agree that we must pick our battles. I am still searching for something... anything, about Ukraine that is essential to our national security. Even with our strained military resources we are just throwing money and resources away in Ukraine... and for what? They aren't NATO. Ukraine was part of the USSR for decades and it wasn't considered any big threat. Why is it now so important??

 

There are no plans to increase taxes, unlike what the GOP did during Trump with SALT taxes

 

Then join up.

 

My thoughts...

First... you were in 25th ID? "TROPIC LIGHTNING"??? Every man's dream!! A tour in Hawaii (I'm jealous). I spent a few weeks there, working on an R&D project to mount Stingers onto truck beds. What a wonderful place!

Some of your ideas about "smaller/lighter" are already in the works. I tried to call a friend of mine in the Headquarters of a division the other day and found out that division headquarters are just skeletons of what they once were. "Independent Brigades" have always been with us, but now even brigades withing divions are prepared to act autonomously.

The South Korean analogy really doesn't wash. Korean's military is wholly within Korea and never leaves. The US military is stationed all over the world and "rotates" globally. South Korea's Army is essentially static. At any given time, 1/3 will be manning the border, 1/3 will be in training, and 1/3 will be refitting (or getting some well needed time off). They don't have any large forces in Germany, the Middle East, or elsewhere in the Pacific... as America does. It's a lot simpler to defend your country FROM your country without the requirements for "forward deployment". Korean reserves can drive their own cars to any potential war.

I enlisted as a reservist. My commitment was two years active duty, then four years in reserve status. National Guard could receive initial training without the two year commitment to active duty. Has something changed? "Reserve" and "National Guard" are entirely different forces and concepts. You are still correct about the IRR as far as I know. Actually, the organization of the Army gets very complex... US Army (Regular Army)... Army of the United States... National Guard... it gets complex... I'm not sure I ever did understand it. All have a six year commitment... in various forms.



I still am somewhat perturbed that you focus so much on money. I VOLUNTEERED to enlist in 1970. My base pay was less than $10 as an E-1. I joined because I loved my country and wanted to serve her. THAT is the key. Through the years people have joined the military out of a feeling of patriotism, love of country and a desire to protect and preserve her. Have we become so jaded that we have to BUY recruits? My God! I hope not.

You mention the Joint Chiefs. Generals like MacArthur, Patton, and the rest used to inspire love of country in their subordinates. Lloyd Austin, who reached four star rank before becoming the SECDEF was beep into the wokist distortion of America. He was known to write operational briefings then have a white staff officer deliver them, since he thought a black officer would not have the respect required. When he was the Vice Chief of Staff, he ruined a Lieutenant Colonel's career because he wrote a class describing the threat of islam while an instructor at the War College. (Lloyd and I were friends as Cadets. I would never have expected any of this. He was a good guy.)

 

I was one the people who volunteered in the first year of the volunteer Army. I too wanted to serve my country and I was proud of the job I did for her. I chose to go to MP school in Ft Gordon, GA, after basic at Ft Ord. I was assigned to the 25th MP Co at Schofield. I won't lie. Living in Hawaii was nice in some ways, but it also had its downsides, the greatest of which was that a lot of the locals disliked military people. For good reasons, we didn't feel safe wearing uniforms off post. And we could be "made" by our appearance even out of uniform, so we had to be prudent about where we went off post, and we went in groups.

But I get what you're saying about the money. It should be about patriotism first. But we cannot forget that when an organization pays a person for their work, it is a reflection upon how much the organization values what that person brings to the table and contributes to the organization and its mission and goals. And I just think that the Platoon Sgt is just as valuable, if not more valuable, as the Captain that commands the company. I'll never forget my PSG. He was a Viet Nam veteran, a stand-up man, a great role model, a father figure to us young men. I remember my platoon leader, a 2nd Lt. I never had a conversation with him. I actually spoke to my company commander once, and it was very brief. Who was providing the most value to our unit? I think you can see how I would answer that question. These memories color my thinking on this topic. And now we are having recruitment problems. We are living in a time of almost full employment. Employers are competing for workers. I am trying to address the recruitment/retention problem realistically.

As for the wokism in the military, I've seen your posts on this before, and I'm with you.

Seth

 

I understand your comments completely. NCO's are what makes the Army work. One of the best memories I have is standing next to one of my Drill Sergeants while he received the "Drill Sergeant of the Year Award" at TRADOC HQ. NCO's do the actual work in the Army. They taught me a lot. But Officers do valuable things too.

One time one of my guys wanted to get married so that his pregnant gal could get Army medical care. He had no money and was looking for an advance. He was refused by Finance. His Platoon Sergeant brought him to me. I took him to Finance where a DAC (Dept of the Army Civilian) told us that "We in the military cannot condone illicit relationships by subsidizing them with money." My slow boil went into boiling over. A CSM across the room saw I was about to decapitate this clerk, so he came over, served us personally and my guy got the cash he needed.

A similar event in Germany happened when one of my guys had a family emergency. The Red Cross gave him money for a ticket. It turned out that he didn't need the ticket when his family sent him one to fly home to the USA. But Army Finance kept taking payments for the Red Cross out of his pay. He tried and tried, along with his Platoon Sergeant, but nothing was done. So there I was, driving through about 30 miles of snow in the wee hours of the morning to the Finance Office in the IG Farben building in Frankfurt. We waited patiently for hours. Just as our turn to be serviced approached, the hundred+ clerks in the room stood up to go to lunch. I yelled, "FREEZE!". It was the dead of winter and my rank was not readily apparent on my field jacket shoulders. A young 2LT came up and started chewing me out. I laid my cap on the counter, with Captain's bars plainly in view. He stopped short. Before anything could develop, another CSM came up and solved the problem. My guy's pay was restored.

Then there was the time I was driving up I-95 and stopped for gas at a rest stop. A young guy came running up, calling my name. He introduced me to his entire family and told them that it was me that fought for him to stay at home with his wife in Germany. She was about to give birth but the Battalion Commander wanted him in the field. I almost lost my career on that one. The Battalion Commander was a bit of a dictator... but I won. The young man and his family thanked me profusely and bought me a hot dog in the rest stop.

Then there was the time I was eating alone in a mess hall (now DFAC) in early hours at Grafenwohr in Germany. An E-6 came up to me and asked, "Sir? Were you a Company Commander at Ft Leonard Wood in the late 70's? When I said I had been he went on to thank me. It turns out he was a young punk that was given the choice of jail or the Army by a judge. He said that I had taken a personal interest in him and that as a result, he now had a family and a great career. He said it was all due to my help.

More recently I received a call from a General. He told me that I helped him get into West Point. He was a young Soldier that never had that in mind until I mentioned it to him... and he felt he owed his success to me. (He didn't know that we got a monthly printout about prospective West Point applicants. I was only doing my job. But what the heck...

Then, off course, there other things not so pleasant that Officers do... like the time I fired a Senior NCO when he brought his son to the barracks one Sunday, fell out his platoon, and proceeded to explain to his son what a "nig***" was. I had him gone... quickly.

And once when the First Sergeant was screwing the Supply Sergeant in exchange for helping her make up equipment losses she was responsible for.

NCO's keep things running smoothly. When things stop running smoothly, Officers step in.

I could go on about how a Company Commander handles planning, training schedules, resources, operations, and so much more. But the troops in the unit rarely see that stuff.

I guess what I'm saying is that NCO's and Officers each do their very important jobs.

It's a TEAM.

 

Your stories reminded me of something. You probably recall that in the post-Viet Nam era it was not common for the general public to do the little things for service members that they do nowadays, like thank them for their service, or extend some sort of kindness. When I was an E-2 in AIT I could just barely afford a round trip plane ticket from Atlanta - San Francisco to come home for Christmas. I was in uniform and found my seat in the coach section. A flight attendant came to me and told me there was an empty seat in first class, and she offered it to me, explaining that they do that for service members in uniform. I accepted the offer and sat next to a successful business man, and the two of us talked and consumed a bottle of champagne together during the flight. That was 49 years ago. How many things have I forgotten that happened 49 years ago? But I remember that. I still remember that it was a Delta flight. I remember my surprise at being offered the first class seat. I remember the business man I sat next to. It was just a little gesture of kindness to a young E-2 going home for Christmas, but I still remember it clearly.

And those things you did for your troops who needed help - they'll never forget either.

And it reminds me of this ....

“I shall pass through this world but once. Any good that I can do or any kindness I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.” - Stephen Grellet

 

I enlisted with the goal of entering West Point in 1970.. I went to Basic at Ft Knox and then to USMAPS (US Military Academy Preparatory School) at Fort Belvoir outside of DC. (Iater it moved to Ft Monmouth, NJ. It resides on the grounds of West Point now... a big mistake in my opinion.) t was a year long school designed to help enlisted folks gain entry to West Point. I grew up just north of New York City and still had my high school sweetheart there. Eastern Airlines had a special deal. If you flew "standby" in uniform, the costs of a one-way ticket from/to DC was $18. I flew home A LOT to see my gal. LaGuardia Airport in NY was always filled with hostile people that would call us folks in uniform foul names and generally be rude. It was always unpleasant. Years later when I came home from Iraq through Atlanta Airport, the locals managed to keep a crowd of hundreds at the international terminal 24/7. They cheered us and shook our hands, welcoming us back. It was quite a different experience.

I flew a lot when I left the military. More than once everyone on the plane was asked to wait while the remains of a fallen Soldier were removed to a waiting hearse. In my experience, no one ever complained, but waited in silence as the fallen hero was taken home.

It reminds me of this...

GO ARMY!!! BEAT NAVY!!!
(sorry... can't help it... )

 

In reverse order...

I agree with you on Ukraine. It's a strategic nothing for the US, but as you see by this forum, that is a minority opinion. A rational view of our strategic national interests mean nothing when it comes to the dopamine rush one gets from putting a Ukraine flag in your lapel or social media.

As for your first point...that is a much longer conversation. Our fighting age young people seem more interested in "decolonizing" the US rather than defending it. That's a trend that is likely to get worse, not better, but it's indicative of my contention that the US is no longer a superpower. It just doesn't know it yet.

 

Trump raised taxes on the rich...oh noes!

Also off topic.

 

I did.

For 23 years. If the time comes that they need to pull retirees like me out of the bleachers you'll know the war is lost.

Which is kind of what I'm warning about.

 

I'd gladly go back in uniform. Maybe I'll discuss it with some of my classmates next year at our 50th West Point Reunion.