One Army or Two?

One Army or Two? DoD Buzz

Okay, this is dealing with current warfare strategy and training overall of the US Army in it's role in being functional as a mainline battle force as well as a counterinsurgency force at the same time. It is very difficult to maintain both styles of fighting in a blanket format for all Army units so this brings up the question should we have two US Armies or try and have one that can deal with everything, but of course you can only train someone to be able to do so many things at once.

In spring 2005, while embedded with an infantry battalion in southwest Baghdad, I was hanging out late one night in the battalion command post bs’ing with the battle captains when radio traffic suddenly spiked with reports of a massive attack on the Abu Ghraib prison compound, located just west of Baghdad. Hundreds of insurgents attacked the compound with suicide car bombers, accurate mortar, small arms and RPG fire, and simultaneously tried to seal off the battlespace; the first American reinforcements that rushed to the scene ran into clusters of roadside bombs and ambushes.

As the battalion command group packed into the TOC, orders came from division to spin-up a quick response force to rush to Abu Ghraib by an alternate route. The battalion commander decided to go in heavy, and use his 70-ton Abrams tanks to blast through any insurgent obstacles or ambushes along the route. He told one of his ablest company commanders, Capt. Ike Sallee, to ready his mechanized platoons. Within thirty minutes, Sallee radioed the TOC that his tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles were ready and assembled on the main road outside the FOB awaiting the go order. As it turned out, Apache gunships drove off the insurgent attack and Sallee was told to stand down. While Sallee’s soldiers didn’t end up battling the insurgents that night, there is every reason to believe their training, coupled with superior technology - thermal sights, heavy armor and overwhelming firepower - would have easily tipped the scales.

Our military SENIOR LEADERS suck. They don't know the basics of warfare, nor do the know how to lead.

They are managers. Not warriors.

They suck, they rely on numbers, they follow easily anticipated lines of approach, they utilize direct tactics, they are as predictable as the sunset. they like heavy units when speed is what is required, there is no unit independence, they love stationary positions - which negates military freedom of movement, they task their soldiers with non-military tasks, the play politics, they complicate every effort beyond reason, they take undue counsel of their fears, and they certainly don't know their business.

Show me a true warrior who's never personally taken a scalp. So how in hell should a leader of warriors be a leader when he's never, personally taken any scalps?

Our Generals look pretty, but so does a glass hammer. And neither one of them are worth a flying (fill in the blank.)

Think about it - our Generals haven't won a single damned war since the creation of the Joint Chiefs.

Some chiefs.

reply to post by dooper


I'm going to assume that by "Taken any scalps" you mean "Killed any people".

I am ignorant as to how the Armed Forces' leadership functions, but I guess I've always assumed that in order to advance in that organization, you would need to be accruing experience within the ranks of said organization. So... I mean... we've been at war, officially or unofficially since, essentially, the American Revolution.

Do you mean that in order to lead you should have to, like, come from Infantry? Or that if you just, you know, randomly kill someone, then, BAM! Leadership material!

I'm genuinely interested in clarification.

reply to post by '___'eviant


I'm thinking more along the lines of people who can say they've "been there, done that." A lot of officers these days are more like DC politicians using their careers for advancement into other places like the Senate or runs for Governor. That's why you'll find many with Masters in foreign policy, politics, etc. A lot more is put on careers after getting out than what will be done while in.

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe


Still though; isn't that more of a consequence of people looking out for themselves? Advancing the career? These leaders, obviously if they are senior, they haven't done any fighting in Iraq. Well, maybe, but Desert Storm was a VERY different story than this cluster****. But surely they've had combat experience?

I just can't see someone getting promoted ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP without ever having done any work. Like I said, though. Pretty ignorant re: Armed Forces. : /

reply to post by dooper


I have to agree with you in the case of Gen. Ray Odierno. That man has no and mean "0" combat experience. He is a politician's pick for a general and not a battle hardened soldier. His career has mostly been in Germany in the cold war years and in the US at Fort Hood running the First Cav. He has not been deployed in any major battle. In fact he has no real qualifications to lead much more than a training camp. I guess that is his role in Iraq now to basically teach the Iraqi army in US military strategy.

reply to post by '___'eviant


I suppose it's slightly the animosity of the common enlisted personnel feeling towards the ones who have always been desk jobs.
The way the system is set up is that some fields will propel someone's rank really quickly due to high demand for that field, so some people who might not be leadership material yet or never will be are given commands that sometimes are not earned like many would like them to be. Other times they are given commissions simply because they have college degrees already at the time of getting in.

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe


Had no idea, that sucks

thanks for clearing it up though, always looking for MOAR INFORMATION ABOUT EVURRRTHING!

To advance as a officer in the Army is dependant on one thing only. Your OER. The OER can make or break a Leuitenant. It shows what unit and position he or she was a leader in. Good and sometimes really bad things they have done while in that unit. Everything on the OER is important. If the Officer in question could not lead to a certain standard for some reason and it is annotated on the OER they can kiss their career goodbye.

For the original discussion I think two armies wouldn't be practical. In fact, I think we should combine all branches into one. We already have joint operations which we do all the time and there are only a few areas of each branch that are unique to that branch only. So what would be the big deal?