Leadership that has never been deployed to a hostile enviroment.

[boomgoesthedynamite]

This is my first real thread other than my Intro, so if its not in the right place, or its already been brought up, someone please let me know so that way I can fix it.

I would like to get other peoples input about whether or not you all think the military as a whole should be putting CSMs and 1SGs (or the appropriate ranks for the other branches) in charge of Combat Arms units? When I left Ft. Stewart in 09 I left the best scout platoon that I have EVER been a part of. We were a tight knit platoon, and had the "family" mentality that you can only find in a group of people that have served in the shit holes of the world together. I recently talked to a buddy of mine that is still in that unit, and he tells me that the feeling is the same across the board. Everyone is trying to leave. Everyone hates where they are at. And it is all attributed to the Company getting a new 1SG. He has never been deployed. He has no profiles or anything else that would stop him from deploying. And he has crushed the moral and effectiveness of a well oiled scout platoon that used to be fully capable of any task put in front of it. Who is to blame? Is it the Army's fault for putting him in that position? Is it the Platoon Sergeants faults for not stepping up to him and making "suggestions" that would ultimately help him have that well oiled machine again? Or is this something that we are all going to have to just deal with.

I apologize for this being "Army". By all means bring your comments to the table. I would love to hear everyones opinion on this.

 

[digrar]

How does a bloke get to that stage in his career without deploying in this day and age, how did he even get promoted without getting time up overseas?

 

[boomgoesthedynamite]

How does a bloke get to that stage in his career without deploying in this day and age, how did he even get promoted without getting time up overseas?

Thats exactly what I am saying. They are everywhere. Since I got sent to the shit hole known as Ft. Knox I see them everyday. They are high ranking. The majority of them are extremely over weight. And they walk around with this holier than now attitude. Its everything I can do to not knock someone the hell out.

 

[DA SWO]

How does a bloke get to that stage in his career without deploying in this day and age, how did he even get promoted without getting time up overseas?

Recruiting duty, ROTC, Pentagon, ARSOUTH, etc.

You'd be suprised how easy it is to hide.

boomgoesthedynamite- Has he ever deployed? Bosnia, Kosovo, MFO don't rate a patch.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Reading this thread and remembering all those times I spent on TRADOC posts, being told shit by the same fucking senior shamers, just makes me happy that its almost over. I can honestly say that I have been there and dealt with that, and you could not pay me enough to go through it again.

With the shit-bird 1SG, get the CSM involved ASAP, tell your troops to push the issue on command clamant surveys (he does this, I don’t trust my leadership, and it’s a hostile environment) and tell them to not give this 1SG any wiggle room to justify his actions (i.e. tell them to stay out of trouble). PSG need’s to keep his nose clean as well (bucking the 1SG could ruin his next NCOER and screw him out of making 1SG himself), and he needs to keep his platoon away from the 1SG (keep them out of sight out of mind, training, schools, ect). It will take the CSM/LTC or IG/Congress getting involved to get this 1SG moved. But trust me, he will get moved…

As for who is to blame? The promotion system, the Army senior leadership, the cadre of the 1SG course he graduated, his former leadership, and most of all his senior raters that failed to PID his problems and make proper recommendations on his NCOER’s.

As for Fort Knox, dude get the fuck away and stay away from TRADOC posts. You either conform to ideology of TRADOC or your career gets killed. The reason most TRADOC leaders stay in TRADOC, is b/c they get fired quickly when they return to FORSCOM. Same goes for those good leaders who understand that there is what the book says and there is a way to apply what the book says, they do not belong in TRADOC and normally get chewed up and spit out. I spent almost 3 years bouncing between TRADOC & FORSCOM posts conducting training & development, I have never been stabbed in the back so many time in my life. It ruined my life in so many ways during that time frame that words could not describe. If you are trying to get your senior leadership/instructor time in, try and stay in the Marksmanship or Combatives area, they are normally a little easier to tolerate… Best of luck man, I don’t envoy you right now…

 

[boomgoesthedynamite]

I am well on my way out of Tradoc... just signed the 4187 to go back to the line. I miss the bullshit motor pool details and the endless days in the field. I'm glad to see people posting on this subject. I hope some guys in here that dont have alot of time in get to see this so that way they can get some advice so thry know what to do in these situations.

There's an Idea. Maybe a whole new thread that gives strong, real advise to all the newer guys. A place where they can ask for advice from the more seasoned soldiers. Even from the military civilians in here that work in the S shops. I dunno Im still new here and maybe there is another place for all that to happen.

 

[goon175]

I think the main issue is that senior leaders have the attitude of deployments are not needed to be a good/effective leader, as alot of them came up in the 80's and 90's when a combat patch was more of a rarity. That may have held true back then, if the country is not at war, then of course we will have leaders with no combat experience. As has been stated in this thread though, there is no reason for a leader in this day and age to not have a combat patch. Not having a combat patch because there is no opportunity to get one is alot different then not having one because you have dodged war for 10 years. It says alot about that leader in my opinion. So I think maybe some of the senior leaders out there don't realize that this is as much of a problem as it is. In my opinion, having leaders who have not deployed in positions over those who have is like having a guy who has been going to football practice for 10 years but never played on sunday be in charge of the guys who have been out on the grind playing in the real deal ever sunday.

 

[Viper1]

Recruiting duty, ROTC, Pentagon, ARSOUTH, etc.

You'd be suprised how easy it is to hide.

boomgoesthedynamite- Has he ever deployed? Bosnia, Kosovo, MFO don't rate a patch.

There are actually a lot of at my alma mater too unfortunately.... on the Officer AND NCO side

 

[Teufel]

Leadership is leadership and combat experience isn't a prerequisite to being a good leader. Some of our greatest leaders have very little personal combat experience. General Petraeus does not have a CIB for example and he earned his CAB as a General Officer. General Mattis was a battalion commander in Desert Storm, other than that all of his combat experience occured as a General Officer during the GWOT but I would follow General Mattis to hell with a spoon. Sounds like the guys you are talking about are just bad leaders period.

 

[Ranger Psych]

Maybe I'm sorta fucking tweaked... well, actually, belay that, everyone here knows that I'm tweaked....

but the purpose of the army is to go to war, and your point as a soldier is to fight.

Boom, I know exactly where you are coming from. I had a PSG that was exactly the same way up here in Alaska. BIG Change coming from PSG's with Grenada, Panama, Somalia on the shoulder, ya know?

The only saving grace was that from the ground up, Every Line TL and ALL the SL's had been deployed at least twice. We were able to buck his retardation by banding together. "You can't do that, here's why. You can't do that, here's why. You can't do that... ok, check it out fletch, the platoon ain't doing that regardless of what you say or what paperwork you throw at us because it'll get us killed."

I guess I don't understand, even if a dude digs being a recruiter... more bling means you attract more recruits and can actually tell recruits from experience what it's like, even if you were a fobbit... Professional Training Soldier? Sure get more respect from the students when you've got SOMETHING on your shoulder and a CIB/CAB.

I know that some people really, REALLY, shouldn't deploy whatsoever... but that's why there's the post lawn nazi and other retard jobs, to let those people who are contractually obligated to the USA but also aren't the highest caliber, basically ETS without causing damage. The problem is that people get put there for a reason, do a great job being the dick to everyone, then turn around get a good NCOER and get thrown at a line company.

 

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

Leadership is leadership and combat experience isn't a prerequisite to being a good leader. Some of our greatest leaders have very little personal combat experience. General Petraeus does not have a CIB for example and he earned his CAB as a General Officer. General Mattis was a battalion commander in Desert Storm, other than that all of his combat experience occured as a General Officer during the GWOT but I would follow General Mattis to hell with a spoon. Sounds like the guys you are talking about are just bad leaders period.

Sir, while you make good points, the difference between the leaders you mention and the ones at the topic of discussion (as I understand it) are that your examples have deployed. They have been OCONUS. They have a right shoulder SSI. They have been the decision makers in theatre. I believe you are right when you say a deployment doesn't make a good leader (boy have I learned that), but it does give them experience that you might not get CONUS. It does give them an added stress that you will very rarely ever experience CONUS. It does show that they are willing to put their personal life on hold. They have shared experiences that not many other people on this earth will experience.

Good leader or not, having at least a right shoulder SSI shows that you didn't shirk your responsibilities as a leader (well, it shows you were there long enough at least once to rate the SSI) and hide in some cushy office job back home. That is how I interpreted the original post. I could be way off. That is more common than not.

 

[Marauder06]

Just be sure not to judge your leaders solely by what they wear on their uniform. A tab or a bunch of scare badges doesn't guarantee you've got a good one; the absence of the same is not necessarily indicative of a bad one. Also keep in mind that some people choose not to wear their combat patches; it was very common in my last unit to wear neither badges nor combat patches.

 

[DA SWO]

Just be sure not to judge your leaders solely by what they wear on their uniform. A tab or a bunch of scare badges doesn't guarantee you've got a good one; the absence of the same is not necessarily indicative of a bad one. Also keep in mind that some people choose not to wear their combat patches; it was very common in my last unit to wear neither badges nor combat patches.

Patch doesn't mean shit.
Lot's of people deploy without getting a patch, Kuwait doesn't compare in intensity to Colombia, but guess who gets the "I was deployed" patch?
I'll ask my question again, has the 1SG ever deployed, or are you and your friends only concerned with SSI on the right arm?

 

[goon175]

Yeah, the question is not whether they have a CIB/CAB/CMB, etc., and not do they wear there SSI or not, it is weather they have gone over or not. If they are in your unit, you will know regardless of what they wear.

 

[boomgoesthedynamite]

Patch doesn't mean shit.
Lot's of people deploy without getting a patch, Kuwait doesn't compare in intensity to Colombia, but guess who gets the "I was deployed" patch?
I'll ask my question again, has the 1SG ever deployed, or are you and your friends only concerned with SSI on the right arm?

The 1SG has proudly proclaimed that he has never been depkoyed and has no wish to deploy. I agree that the patch doesn't mean shit. I also agree that there are are a bunch of patches that were just handed out as a thanks for playing prize.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Just be sure not to judge your leaders solely by what they wear on their uniform. A tab or a bunch of scare badges doesn't guarantee you've got a good one; the absence of the same is not necessarily indicative of a bad one. Also keep in mind that some people choose not to wear their combat patches; it was very common in my last unit to wear neither badges nor combat patches.

I absolutely agree that soldiers or leaders should not be judged by anything other than their performance. I personally wish the Army would do away with all the patches/badges on the combat uniform, but that’s a different topic. That said, there is a credibility factor that comes into the enlisted side when dealing with combat arms. I remember having a SFC (other plt’s daddy) giving a pre-deployment speech to the company about what to expect in combat, he had never been and 70% of the soldiers he was telling this too had been. The first thought in everyone’s mind (and the topic of the week) was “what the hell does he know about it”. So again there is a credibility factor, nobody even heard a word after the “what to expect” comment b/c he had no credibility on the subject.

The other issue that people may get a little confused on is we are talking about a combat arms unit and not a support unit. I have no issue with some support people being senior leaders without combat time; simply put some support assets do not deploy. However, being combat arms during a time of war and not being deployed over the last 10 years is simply unacceptable. No combat arms soldier with multiple deployments under his belt should be subjected to the stupidity of the unknowing (that shit gets soldiers killed). As Ranger Psych pointed out, if you have good junior leadership a lot of this can be dealt with by some simple advice and help. However, that senior leader has to be willing to except it and in my personal experience they normally won’t. My personal opinion is that there is absolutely zero excuse for anyone E7-E9 or O3-O6 who is combat arms to not have made at least one deployment in the last 10 years we have been at war (NG or AD). But that’s just my opnion…

Patch doesn't mean shit.
Lot's of people deploy without getting a patch, Kuwait doesn't compare in intensity to Colombia, but guess who gets the "I was deployed" patch?
I'll ask my question again, has the 1SG ever deployed, or are you and your friends only concerned with SSI on the right arm?

I would not count Kuwait, Columbia, Sinai or Bosnia as combat experience compared to Iraq, Afghanistan or the Philippines. To be real honest when talking combat arms I don’t give people too much credit unless they have spent a good 12 months or more boots on ground (OIF-OEF), because there is a lot more that goes on (mental, physical and operational) that has effect on the unit during long deployments. Things that make or break the unit, that keeps soldier alive and that drive the success of the missions. I could write volumes on the subject, but most people don’t usually understand it unless they have been through it (on the combat arms side anyway).

The little things like knowing a cordon needs wire to block off LN’s who are on foot. Knock and search’s need to be slow and methodical vs Dynamic rush in and clear a corner. TCP’s need to be rolling, where you are not setting up wire and traffic cones (avoiding a VBIED attack). Again I can go on and on, but these little things that count turn into real big things when seniors who lack experience do not understand them and can’t find them in their books. Yeah the juniors should be spreading that knowledge around, but again a lot of times seniors tend to be bull headed and not want to be given advice from a junior.

 

[Purple]

Good leaders are good leaders; bad leaders are bad leaders. It was my experience that skill badges, awards, and FWS SSI's were not a true indicatior of a leader's quality. It's a BIG world out there and we're a military force with many national and global commitments. Remember - not everyone who volunteered or was drafted in WW2 deployed overseas or ever saw combat, either...and that was a hell of a lot larger military force than we have ever had during my lifetime.
Purple

 

[TLDR20]

There are places in our hemisphere that are more dangerous for Americans than Iraq right now, and you don't get shit on your sleeve for going to them. Just saying.

 

[moobob]

It took me a long time to deploy for the first time, after years of trying. There is no substitute for experience. However, you can be an experienced shithead, and whether you'd take that over an inexperienced good dude... The choice is clear to me, but not so much to many in the military.

 

[TLDR20]

It took me a long time to deploy for the first time, after years of trying. There is no substitute for experience. However, you can be an experienced shithead, and whether you'd take that over an inexperienced good dude... The choice is clear to me, but not so much to many in the military.

Very true. Timing can play a huge factor in going to combat or not.