I agree that sending boot Ensigns to be power point monkeys would be counterproductive to all involved parties. As for Navy invovlement on the ground, our job is to protect US interests wherever the CinC and CJCS tell us to. If that's on the ground, then it's on the ground. Seabees, SEALs, EOD, Riverine, Aviation, Medical Corps, etc are all executing missions which have dick to do with sea lanes. Should we watch from the sidelines with our thumbs up our asses because the current fight isn't tailored to the blue water Navy?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Individual Augmentee (IA) info & questions
- Thread starter Pcola04/30
- Start date
I agree that sending boot Ensigns to be power point monkeys would be counterproductive to all involved parties. As for Navy invovlement on the ground, our job is to protect US interests wherever the CinC and CJCS tell us to. If that's on the ground, then it's on the ground. Seabees, SEALs, EOD, Riverine, Aviation, Medical Corps, etc are all executing missions which have dick to do with sea lanes. Should we watch from the sidelines with our thumbs up our asses because the current fight isn't tailored to the blue water Navy?
True... Of note, LOTS of Submarine Officers who are on shore duty are getting called up for IA.
You're misunderstanding the role and purpose of IA's. It's not simply to be a ppt jockey. Though that's what some folks wind up doing (eg, yours truly), it's usually because a staff is overstaffed, or the original purpose of your billet has eroded but the billet still exists, etc.
Very, very few IA reqs come down which say "hard-charging young 'un needed in Baghdad, skills not required". The whole point of IA's is that you have some skill which will contribute to the fight on the ground, even if it's just knowing how to speak Navy. You, as a raw, unrefined Enswine, do not even know that much yet (though you may think you do). I'm not talking "port" and "starboard," I mean really understanding how the Fleet does its business.
NIACT and other enroute training is theater-specific combat training, or how to adapt your particular skills to be useful in wherever you're going, and how to speak Army (just say, "hooah, Battle" a lot). It's not to train you from the ground up to do something new.
I know a lot of you dudes and dudettes have secret fantases of becoming Johnny Gunslinger, Terror of the Hajjis, and starting API draped in combat glory. Don't lie to me, you know you do. Unless you really would rather spend 270 days in a shithole being a completely useless body in the corner? As opposed to a month or two soaking up Florida sunshine and then beginning the job you signed up to do?
Chomping at the bit to get in the fight is admirable. If you really want to do that ASAP, we have need of grunts. Otherwise, settle in and study your Aero. There's still plenty of war to go around for everybody.
[/salty lecture]
I sure would like to know why three out of the four Os we have on IA right now were tapped either straight out of the FRS or as nuggets if we're supposed to be sending fleet-seasoned guys.
There's your answer. Amazingly enough for a Dept of Defense program, this IA/GSA crap isn't flawless yet.
When the IA reqs go to Fleet squadrons (as opposed to shore jobs), I know there's some skippers out there who'd rather fill them with nuggets, and extend them when they get back, than send their experienced, Level 3-4 senior JOs. The reqs just say body/paygrade/designator...not hours in type or anything.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
No, our main job is to protect the seas. As unpopular an opinion as this will be on this board, our Navy is entirely too big and excessive compared to today's demands. Someone back in the 60s-80s thought that war in the 21st century was only going to be fought with cruise missiles and fancy jets, but that hasn't happened.
Granted, if I am ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan, I will do that job to the best of my ability because that is what is required of me. But that is not the primary purpose of a Naval Officer.
The only reason IAs exist today is because we are involved in a war that is extremely unpopular, so the Army and USMC have manning issues. It started with Korea, for the same reasons.
And my understanding of the whole bit is that very few IA officers actually play any direct role in combat anyway. Makes sense, since we're not exactly trained to be platoon commanders (and that's my biggest issue with the whole thing), but on the flip side it isn't the glory the midn is making it out to be.
It's actually "Forward...from the sea." They may have changed the name again, I honestly can't remember, but hitting the beach isn't off the table. While I disagree that the Navy is too big, I do agree it's not the most efficient use of people.
Ummmm, no. The popularity of the war has nothing to do it with it. The size of each service is mandated by law and the services are at the manning level they are required to be at (haven't seen the latest numbers, but I believe the Marines were a tiny bit low compared to their new, expanded, target and the Air Force a bit high, but correcting). Now if you want to argue that our "tooth to tail" was/is out of whack then that makes a little more sense. Navy and Air Force personnel are on those IA's to ease the deployment strain on the Army (which is also why we are deploying USMC units into traditional Army roles).
Under the old "IA" system, reqs would be passed on down until they eventually reach individual units. And while some of those units might look for volunteers, and others might genuinely be willing to affect their own readiness by sending fully qualified guys, a lot of units sent either their brand new (and thus un-qualed folks) or their sick, lame and crazy types. And no, that doesn't make their CO's bad people; while I am sure there are exceptions, most are simply trying to balance the conflicting demands placed upon them.
What is this understanding based on? Have you been in theatre? There's one particular unit that is filled with pilots and NFO IAs, and their expertise and the gear they maintain have a direct impact on nearly every combat mission in Iraq. I'll concede that there are alot of bullshit IA jobs that could go away if Big Army fixed the tooth to tail ratio, but there are also some very legitimate requirements that Navy guys happen to be the SMEs on.Spekkio said:
We're not? Who is this 'we' that you refer to? Try and draw yourself away from terminology differences, leadership is leadership. A platoon is essentially the same thing as a division, and every Enswine is expected to be able to lead a division.
Reeeeally. I'll let the Gyrenes here jump on that one more fully, but for starters, try this thought exercise on: You show up in front of a platoon full of Marines or Soldiers, most of whom probably have several combat tours.
The squad leaders and platoon sgt eye you, and one asks, "Have you been through much training in this, Ensign? Or any ground tours?"
And you say, "No, but the Navy expects me to be able to lead a division on a boat, and this is pretty much the same thing."
Let me know how that works out for you.
I should clarify that I'm not referring to combat arms jobs such as Infantry. It isn't any different from some of the fresh National Guard 2LTs that I've seen hop up in front of their guys with minimal training and zilch for experience. My designator has me working with land based forces more than at sea though, so my opinion may be skewed. I had an Army platoon during my last tour in addition to a bunch of Navy guys, and though there were some differences with terminology, property books, etc it wasn't a big deal...so I guess I would say it worked out OK.
What is your designator, anyway? Other than amusing The Jerk references (points for that, anyway), your bio is kinda thin. Where you coming from?
99.9% of IA's, you won't be "leading a platoon" anywhere. The very deeply embedded guys, like EWO's and FAC's, may be vehicle commanders or have some helper bees/bodyguards attached to them, but that's not the same thing. For the most part, as a JO on IA, you're much more likely to be working for an Army guy rather than leading any. You're there to provide some fashion of technical expertise or professional acumen.
In any case, it's a moot point. Very few IA reqs come down that would even allow for an untrained Ensign, and those that do, don't get filled by "volunteers" waiting to class up in P'cola.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I thought my language was pretty clear that I was.
It's based on asking a ton of questions of officers prior to signing on the dotted line. Not as good as the "real thing," but enough to give me a basic understanding of what may be expected of me during my shore tour.
Pretty much what I was trying to say.
I'm an EOD guy. A big chunk of our missions these days are joint, which tends to color my perceptions.
I agree that, generally speaking, IAs aren't going to be running a platoon or company. I also don't think that boot Ensigns should be thrust into that position. My whole point in the comparison between a division and a platoon is that we often get wrapped around the axle about differences and fail to look at the similarities. In a joint operating environment it's entirely possible that we will be required to lead (insert other service) personnel or units, and the excuse of not having the training just won't wash.
Agreed.
I update your avatar for you.....