I don’t think I have ever ragged on any soldier for not having a patch, more like I have ragged on them for having it and not performing (i.e you should know better). To be clear on where I am coming from, the first things I like to know about leaders and soldiers, is where they have been and what have they done. Just b/c someone deployed to OEF/OIF doesn’t mean they have been involved in combat operations. I have seen TOC bitches end up with CIB’s and they never once left the wire, I have also seen dudes who were in the thick of it not get a CIB b/c they got a Article 15 while deployed. I don’t put much weight behind the patch or the badge (well a little more the badge, but you can normally tell who earned it).
What I want to see is a good amount full spectrum operations combat experience (12 months or more) running patrols, OP/LP’s, Ambushes, Raids, a few HVT missions, ect, coupled with the security, convoys, TCP’s, ect. Any clown can run a convoy down the road and make it work, anyone can run a plt/company pulling security, but not everyone can plan and conduct actual combat operations. And the more experience someone has in doing so, the better they are going to lead a plt/company in doing so.
“Combat experience” is different than simply being deployed, now where that combat experience is gained may be irrelevant, but I can tell you it’s not going to be gained in Kuwait or Qatar. I can see some SOF guys getting in other shit holes that I don’t know about. But the majority of the combat arms types are getting it in two places (Afghanistan and Iraq).
A good leader doesn’t always make a good combat leader; it’s a totally different animal. Leadership schools give you the basics to go out and lead, but experience is what refines that leader. Just because someone has been on 100 deployments, doesn’t mean his experience alone will be enough either. He needs that schooling in the basic principles of leadership as well, he needs to understand commander intent and mission essentials, but his combat experience will push him ahead of the pack when it comes to knowing how to apply those leadership skills.
To give an example; if you take a platoon of Infantry that have been running nonstop in a rough A/O, they probably have a few casualties and are a little quick on the trigger b/c of it. Then all the sudden they get pushed into a new non active A/O that is more of a keep the peace/security focused mission, the leadership needs to be able to adjust their platoon accordingly. Identifying soldiers and leaders who are not going to adjust well and moving them into positions that will not fuck the mission up. Being able to go to the company and say hey 1SG/CDR, our guys need to be on QRF instead and get their minds right, otherwise they are going to do more harm than good in this A/O. Than having an experienced 1SG/CDR that truly understands this (from past experience) and able to work the issue so that the mission is successful. That is the difference vs having a 1SG that has spent all his time in TRADOC and knows only the mission first, get it done, sorry sucks for you. There are hundreds of examples that I can give but again unless someone has been through it, it is normally really hard to understand what I am pointing out here.
To clarify some other things; just b/c we went through a time period where our leaders never saw combat and we still got shit done, doesn’t mean that we should ignore the experience factor. I guarantee you that any of the older war horses who spent 20 years before their first combat tour, will tell you the experience they gained in combat changed things (there leadership style, their planning, their expectations, ect). We have a major resource of experience right now, the focus of the Army should be to retain those experienced soldiers, train them to be better leaders and put them in senior leadership positions. Not focusing on promoting the poor bastard who got stuck doing recruiting for 10 years of war.
Is it his fault? It doesn’t matter, he is not the most qualified soldier, the soldier who spent those 10 years deploying and training for war is. The ideology of promotion fairness that is simply based off of a good evaul and training/education is stupidity. We need experience, along with that good evaul and training, and when we have a soldier with it, he is the one that needs to get pushed to the top.
Hope this clears up what I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to convey in this thread…:cool:
Just wanted to add this to my already retarded long post: If I am coming off as a smart ass or jerk with some of my posts in here or whatever, it was not my intention. I get a little “angry” about the subject, due to some things I have experienced and watching some exceptional leaders who had to experience and leave the Army over this very subject. I respect all of you guy’s opinions and experiences, a majority of you guys have several times the experience I do.;)
