Command Sereants Major-time to go

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

mike_golf RE:Command Sereants Major-time to go 6/27/2004 8:16:29 PM

Hey ambush, back in the day before the "super grade" NCO ranks were created, E-7's held all positions from platoon sergeant to sergeant major. I think the distinction of rank between (in the Army anyhow) a master sergeant and first sergeant (and a SGM and CSM for that matter) is pretty silly. Just make em the same. If someone can't cut it as a company first sergeant, cut em loose, don't shuffle them off to a division staff as a master sergeant, they are bound to f*ck stuff up there too. Instead of getting rid of the first sergeant and sergeant major, get rid of the micro-managing politically correct bs, weed out the incompetent, lazy bast*rds, streamline the NCO and officer corps. Of course, these are all pipe dreams.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Command Sereants Major-time to go 6/27/2004 8:55:19 PM

...as far as the worth of an E-8 1st Sgt over an E-7, the last military unit I was posted to functioned effectively enough for almost 3 years with having various E-7s as "acting 1st Sgts". I personally can't really say I favor actually having an E-8 AS 1st Sgt, as those E-7s did just fine. And hey, I'm all for those higher-ranking individuals becoming more of "advisors", trainers, or warrant types. Just as we see from career officers: in a good many cases, foolishness takes precedence over practicality as one gains more authority. Case in point: Shinseki and his "get everyone in the Army issued black berrets in time for the Army's 225th birthday (which didn't quite work, so instead we all had them on the 226th birthday). I, and many others, are still wondering why millions went into puchasing those berets (figure over 500,000 at maybe $15-20 (?) a piece, that's at least 7.5 million that could have gone into practical field gear, body armor, or even spare parts for units in serious need. I personally don't have a grudge against Shinseki other than the beret fiasco, but I also have not seen as many "papers" he has written as compared to other generals in his ranks. IMHO, generals' papers (and even from CSMs, but it's not any requirement) are a good indication of the level of thinking going on in the Pentagon. Most of our high brass (senior NCOs included) seems to have their heads on straight, but a few suggestions from some suggest they should be put out to pasture (there should be a mandatory retirement age for all politicians as well, and routine mental ability tests should be part of their medical evaluations. We have seen too many leaders getting old and forgetful and foolish in their later years. If they are too proud to accept they can't do the job safely and effectively anymore, then they should be "quietly let go". 5 Stars on your collar is not really practical anymore except to polish personal glory and fame, and certainly the CSM rank is the same: perhaps instead they should be advisors and write books and memoirs, rather than tell us we really need to police up the area outside the barracks..

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Command Sereants Major-time to go 6/27/2004 11:42:38 PM

Hey doggtag, Speaking as someone who was a company first sergeant as both an E-7 (I was actually selected for 8 and frocked to first sergeant) and as an E-8 I can say it doesn't make all that much difference in terms of your ability. But that "acting" bit when you are an E-7 makes a big difference at times in how you are treated, both by the soldiers and the other senior NCO's. Some tend to behave like you are just a caretaker who is going to step back to your platoon sergeant position as soon as a "real 1SG" comes along. I've always thought that it should be obvious that your E-8's and E-9's have a tremdous wealth of knowledge related to tactics, training, maintenance, etc. A smart commander would use that knowledge to increase the skill and knowledge of his junior NCO's, not just put them out to pasture writing memoirs and papers. Maybe I was fortunate in the officers I served under or perhaps who I am contributed. I always found myself doing the things I was best suited for as a master gunner, operations sergeant, first sergeant, etc. I was able to contribute to the training, knowledge and readiness of my units. The two company commanders I had as a first sergeant left the training and daily work schedule of the soldiers in my hands. The S-3 and Battalion Commander I worked for as an ops sergeant left the TOC in my hands, the battalion training schedule and professional development of the staff NCO's. What am I trying to get at here? The motivated senior NCO's, the ones not just waiting for retirement, are the ones who will make or break your unit. The officers who recognize that will end up with formidable units. The idea that all a sergeant major is there for is making sure that the barracks are policed up is plain silly. A CSM who spends his time doing that should be retired immediately. A colonel who limits his CSM to that should be shot. Oh, and the idea that in the modern army (at least as of 1996) that a senior NCO couldn't handle discipline problems without resorting to taking the soldier to the commander is false. If there was no official record (MP blotter, bad check, whatever) and the soldier was salvagable, the soldier was dealt with by me when I was a 1SG, with the full support of my CO. Neither of us believed in UCMJ action unless absolutely necessary. This was in the 93, 94, 95 time frame. Did things change that much after I retired? According to some of the guys I stayed in touch with it all depended on who your CO was and what post you were on. I would argue that significant effort needs to be put in to changing the zero defect mentality that I saw developing in the military in the mid 1990's, not putting senior NCO's out to pasture.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Command Sereants Major-time to go 6/28/2004 12:38:22 AM

hey mike, thanks for the input. I'm all for keeping the higher-performing and more knowledgeable E-8/E-9, but like you mentioned, there is also the individual who may only be out to get to a certain rank level by the time retirement comes along. I believe if senior individuals with all their knowledge and expertise wrote more "papers" (to share their knowledge, ideals, and expertise) on how policies, tactics, and equipment refinements could improve the military, it could be a good indicator of who is up to snuff and who might better be "released". When I read a paper or book written by my leaders, that tells me they have enough concern about what might need improved, updated, or corrected in the Army enough to actually try and get the implementing done, then that instills my faith in my leadership all the more. But if I am subjected to the individual who never follows through on their complaints about why the Army doesn't work, or shows me they really don't have much concern at all, then that is bad for moral. And bad moral can kill a unit. As a mid-ranker myself, the last unit I was with had the requirement for NCO promotions that the person show greater proficiency in the military know-how, like more responsible NCOs should be expected to handle anyway, if you expected to reach the next rank. A few people with enough promotion "points" but ineffective leadership abilities argued against it, but if you aren't a proficient leader, you shouldn't get the promotion anyway! I have served under very admirable senior NCOs who I wish would be in charge a long time, but also once I served under a more questionable individual (full E-8, not one of the acting E-7s), with several years' experience, who was part of a serious disciplinary cover up in which our 1st Sgt, CO, and a platoon leader (a warrant) were relieved of command. It's people like that what destroys the faith in leadership. Luckily, they were dismissed for what they did, or didn't do actually. So personally I don't despise the upper ranks, but I think there is a point that some senior leaders need to "prove their worth the paycheck": "With all your knowledge and experience you have gained in your service, what kind of contributions do you feel you can bring to improve the military now?" (something to that effect...) Many will SAY they can do this or that or something else, but such a question may weed out the people who might better off be pushed aside so qualified individuals with better ideas and more proficiency can take the helm. The position of authority that E-8/E9 and even 0-6 and above represent for the military, they should be more focused on what's best for the military machine over what's best for their personal career. I have certainly served under both, and have met mostly the pro-active seniors, but from experience I know there are undesireable seniors in the ranks. "Contribute effectively, or leave" might sound harsh, but it is effective through all the ranks from E-1 to 0-10. I don't suggest any "loyalty" test, but the truly concerned leaders know what is needed over what they personally want, and should act so accordingly. Most do, but not all. So I say, keep the proficient ones in roles where their knowledge and skill enhance the Army, and the tired old warhorses who don't have good ideas anymore should be put out to pasture. If you can no longer effectively lead, then swallow your pride, go gracefully, and allow new blood in the office..

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:Command Sereants Major & First Sergeants 7/6/2004 10:41:21 AM

I'll weigh in a little on this.... Speaking as a commissioned officer, I would say that a first sergeant is invaluable. When I was a young 2LT, the comppany first sergeant taught me an awful lot about how to conduct counseling, UCMJ and what was officer and what was NCO business. As a company XO, my 1SG and I split the load an logpac and I was able to be more of a 2nd in command of the company and less beans and bullets (that's why in mech and armor units, XOs have Bradleys and M1s). As a company commander, my 1SG not only handled the discipline issues you folks bring up, he also advised me on who was and was not ready to go before the board for promotion. He also planned, inspected and coordinated all of the individual training for the company. Bottomline, he was indispensable. When I was a brigade S4, my NCOIC supply NCO had been 1SG of a supply company and was able to bring a lot of practical experience to the office. CSMs....of of two minds. I knew a lot of duds, but I also had the good fortune of working with one of the finest CSMs in the Army, CSM Acebes in Mike Golf's old battalion. And if you read about how the battalion CSM of 3-15 IN helped out that young captain at OBJ CURLY last year in Baghdad, well I think there is a definite role for 1SGs and CSMs. This from one commissioned officer.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Command Sereants Major & First Sergeants 7/6/2004 2:49:21 PM

Albany, you speak of the ideal and preferred performance that is most desirable, and how the system SHOULD function. I both commend and salute you for it. But there are the "duds" you mention, and some of us have had the misfortune to be subjected to just such individuals. It is these experiences that have shaped our judgments on the matter..

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Command Sereants Major & First Sergeants 7/6/2004 5:13:31 PM

Of course we could make that argument for any rank. There are "duds" in all positions and ranks. It's a fact of life. But doing away with it is tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, figure out how to strengthen the system to reduce the number of duds and increase the value of those who are top performers.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:Command Sergeants Major & First Sergeants 7/8/2004 9:40:09 AM

DT I admit my experience inuniform was awhile back (I am retired now), but it has been my recent experience working with Army units ( and I have worked closely with staff NCOs as well as CSMs/1SGs from Theater Support Command/MACOM down to infantry & armor battalion level for the past 10 years) that the Army has gotten it right. Now my perspective is different, and I am not going to pretend that life is perfect for the troops. but for the most part I think these folks are doing the job they are trained to do. I am interested to hear what your experience is to set these opinions. One thing which is often lost on junior NCOs and soldiers is that what often appears stupid at their level makes sense at a higher level. Or what also happens is you may think its the 1SG ordering something, but he is just reacting from BN or BDE orders. If you think it is coming just from the 1SG, then he is doing a great job by showing loyalty up the chain of command. And if he/she are worthwhile, they are executing it with minumum impact on the troops. I'm with Mike Golf, fix the indivdually broken pieces, nto the entire system whcih works. As for another thing, I am all for bringing back Spec 4 through Spec 7, but that's for another board....

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:Command Sergeants Major & First Sergeants 7/8/2004 9:41:54 AM

And as for duds, I freely admit that I was a dud at some things as a commander (I used to get my MILES light turned on with annoying frequency...I was told by a PhD who was doing a leader survivability study at NTC that I was skewing his data because I kept getting killed!)

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Command Sergeants Major & First Sergeants 7/8/2004 6:58:16 PM

OK, maybe I was a bit presumptuous in my suggestions. But I'm all for making the best and most of soldiers. And I don't fully consider just the abilities to follow orders through as a promising point in one's leadership effectiveness: there are also times when these upper ranks also must open their mouth and QUESTION some of the orders they've been given. The messiest incident I had with senior NCOs was my deployment for Enduring Freedom. I mentioned before about how my CO at the time was married to a wife stateside, but decided on being with a female Spc while we were deployed. Our Top knew about it, but did nothing really except turn a blind eye. It was only after one of our male soldiers got bashed up internally from an incident of horseplay, which our Chain tried to plow over as being a field injury, that an investigation into that and other minor infractions led to the full disclosure of just what kind of lickbags we had running our company. I don't despise all senior NCOs, warrants, and even junior officers because of these 3 individuals, but it made me realize just that ANYONE, even men of their position, are capable of such errors in judgment and incompetence (no, not a harsh word at all). So naturally, I tend to look at leaders as, "OK, I know how bad it can get. Is this new leader going to be the same way, or a vast improvement?" Sorry if I offend you guys personally with my point of view, but it's the old adage: "get bit by a dog or burned by a stove, and you become more wary around dogs and stoves.".

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Command Sergeants Major & First Sergeants 7/8/2004 10:45:44 PM

doggtag wrote: "there are also times when these upper ranks also must open their mouth and QUESTION some of the orders they've been given." I'm assuming you were a junior NCO, E-6 or lower, at best based on the commentary I'm hearing. The incident you relate, well I really have no comment. I wasn't the first sergeant and I wasn't in the unit so I'll refrain from any commentary. I do need to ask you a question though, except for the incident you relate, how do you know that the NCO's and officers telling you to do something didn't open their mouth and say something? As a matter of principle I never, ever allowed my NCO's or enlisted soldiers to know if I disagreed with my commander. I would tell him so in his office or mine, behind closed doors, right up to the point where it went from discussion to an order. Then, assuming it was a legal order, whether I agreed or not, I carried out my orders and ensured that my soldiers never knew whether I agreed with the order or not. That was my duty as an NCO in the military. Any NCO who ever does differently is behaving immaturely and irresponsibly. Before juding those senior NCO's because you thought their orders were silly or wrong or whatever, consider what I'm saying here.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Command Sergeants Major & First Sergeants 7/9/2004 8:08:39 AM

mike, I agree with you. I don't question every order given by my superiors. But under certain stressful situations (combat) some leaders prove that they are simply not as effective leaders as they were under "peacetime" conditions. When I went through PLDC, one of the things they taught us at the time (1992) was that we junior NCOs were extensions of the senior leaders. This could entail anything from seeing their leadership and commands carried out down through the lower ranks, to being their "eyes and ears" and presenting up additional input on certain scenarios that they may not have considered (like if a junior NCO finds a more effecient or productive use of the soldiers). Chain of Command works both ways: orders come down, but when input goes back up, it can ehnance the leaders' abilities to more effectively lead. And I agree about the whole lawful order/unlawful order argument: before we deployed for Eanduring Freedom back in 2002, we had training and more training on such things as ROE, Use of Force, anti-terror tactics, bomb searches, urban tactics, and a score of other additional battlefields enhancing classes. The problem being, when you get senior leaders who were in meeting instead of receiving all this extra training suddenly find themselves in a hostile environment trying to command the junior soldiers in a way contradictory to the training they just received weeks earlier, it can effectively prove detrimental to the troops when they see the competence level of their leaders (and their leaders don't want to accept the additional input from the junior troops). Yes, my current leaders are considerably more effective and more deserving of the rank and position. But those of us who deployed two years ago are still well aware that sometimes the weakest link in the Chain can be at the top. It should not be "out of line" for a junior NCO to suggest a more favorable course of action that the senior leaders may not have been aware was available..

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:Command Sergeants Major & First Sergeants 7/12/2004 11:40:29 AM

DT Not to appear to be a tag team with MG, but I have to ask what kind of unit your are in. Also, when you refer to senior leaders, are your referring to brigade and higher or are you talking company/battalion. Not trying to argue semantics here, just the military terminology usually refers to senior leaders as at the brigade or higher level. Are there incompetent leaders at all levels? Sure. I won't pretend there aren't. But be careful of blanket statements. I also ask, did anyone goto the battalion CSM or battalion commander during open door policy hours over this commander? Did you go to the IG? Do you in fact know the 1SG hadn't spoken to someone or the XO?

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Command Sergeants Major & First Sergeants 7/18/2004 2:02:02 PM

I was debating just how much to reply to this without transgressing the "say nothing" orders from the courts-martial, so I'll trust it to leave out names and unit numbers. I was in a maintenance unit that performed both forward support and rear echelon repair services, everything and anything electronics (radios, NVGs, designators, GPS, etc). Yes, there was leadership incompetence at several levels, most of which seemed to be, IMHO, buddy slaps and high-fives for whoever was scoring with whichever females. As far as my involvement with reporting anything to the proper personnel, several of us who knew these things were going on were told, flat out, "it might be in our best interests to keep quiet about things going on within the company." Some would call me and a few others a "snitch", but the behavior was proving detrimental to the unit, because it was interfering with some people's abilities to perform the job they were deployed to do (and some of them were getting preferrential treatment). We all learned the hard lesson that just because someone carries a certain rank on their shoulder during "peacetime", it does not always mean they are just as effective a leader during "wartime". In the end, it was not I personally who spoke to the right people, but I was associated with those who did. We were absolved of any wrongdoings in stepping outside our chain of command, but regardless, several people within the company still thought it was OK to look down their noses at us for ratting out our "buddies" (who themselves could not adhere to the rules). The reporting individuals went to another battalion entirely (actually, I suggested taking it to the chaplain first), most likely because our company CO was at the time our battalion CO's "favored protege". It was reminded during the courts martial that it is NOT a commander's prerogative (sp?) to rewrite the UCMJ and Army Code of Conduct as the CO, XO (a warrant) and 1SGT saw fit (fraternization, etc). In the end, the 1SGT took the biggest fall ( although he was not the one doing the screwing, but probably because he already was at his 20+, and the other 2 still had several years left to "undo their deeds and prove their worth" ), and the CO and chief were little more than fined and reprimanded (a slap on the wrist, as they still maintain respective positions within whichever units back in PA, last time I heard). Also, the females who instigated the situations the most were made out to be some innocent victims, even though the remainder of the company knew just how they really behaved. I'll rememer in the future to equate "senior" leaders with brigade and higher personnel, but I was initially meaning the higher-ups in the company. Not having a lot of legal training myself, nor being fully versed on every UCMJ code, paragraph, and line, I can't really say the courts martial was "fair" or not. But then again, some would say, "who are you to question such authority?". The thing is, if we hadn't questioned our authority, things could have gotten considerably worse for our unit and its personnel. We are learning once more that the "Nuremberg defense" of "I was only obeying orders" doesn't fly in many cases, like this whole prisoner abuse thing. My argument is, that any CO or leader must continue to PROVE their leadership, not just demand it because their rank on their collar says they deserve respect. Me personally, IO say if the lowly PVT or Spc committed a bad act, let their @ss suffer for it. But if it was actually the leaders that did the deed, hang them: don't make the unit suffer for it..

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles Commanders' Malfeasance 7/22/2004 2:29:43 PM

Doggtagg Understand your situtation and I understand your difficulty in addressing the problem. Whiel the 1SG may have been allowed to retire, trust me, the CO & Xo both have had their careers ended. Just having to face a court martial guarantees a poor OER....that in turn just about guarantees that they won't see another promotion. The WO may be able to make it to 20 and retire (he/she can ask to revert to NCO rank and finish their 20) but they will go no higher. The CO won't see major and will be forced out. You have found the hard way that the right thing is not always the popular thing. What you should be proud of is that you showed more leadership than those senior to you. I was not well liked as a commander....but I was well respected. That made for a better unit, IMHO. So I go back to my earliest statement/questions... What is wrong with Command Sergeants Major?

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - October 15, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us