Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 66

Thread: Another CSM with no combat patch

  1. #41
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    Quote Originally Posted by Gold_Reaper View Post
    If you're a frickin CSM and you have no idea what it's like to be here, then how dare you stand before trainees to send them off to war.
    Well said. When first termers ETS with 2-3 combat tours, I start questioning the integrity of senior NCOs and officers who haven't deployed. We have been in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003; some units have deployed 5-6 times. This isn't Grenada, Panama, or even the first Gulf War, where you could have been in BNCOC the entire time.

    If the Army stopped promoting people without combat experience beyond E7 and O4, I'd bet you'd find a few people being more proactive (more like not shirking) in getting to the sandbox.

  2. #42
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    The problem with making combat experience a requirement for promotion is that it promotes a minimum standard that is unhelpful. During the Vietnam conflict, this was the case. Commanders were rotated into command slots in theater to get their "ticket punched", that is, to do the absolute minimum amount of combat time to satisfy the requirements for promotion then head out.

    This creates a selfish climate of worrying about your career ahead of your Soldier's. It also creates a lack of continuity, as each commander will no doubt implement their own changes and policies, which would change on a more frequent basis.

    Combat experience is desirable for a Soldier, but it is not a requirement. What about all the Soldier who served from 1975-1989? There were few combat operations during that time, and those that did happen were small and quick. Are you saying that all of the Soldiers who joined the Army after Vietnam, and didn't participate in Grenada, Panama, or Desert Storm were substandard because they lacked combat experience?

    How about the Soldiers who enlisted in 1919? By 1939 they'd have been in 20 years and I'm sure some of them had risen to the higher ranks in the Army. Should they have all resigned since they hadn't seen combat?

  3. #43
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk Driver View Post
    The problem with making combat experience a requirement for promotion is that it promotes a minimum standard that is unhelpful. During the Vietnam conflict, this was the case. Commanders were rotated into command slots in theater to get their "ticket punched", that is, to do the absolute minimum amount of combat time to satisfy the requirements for promotion then head out.

    This creates a selfish climate of worrying about your career ahead of your Soldier's. It also creates a lack of continuity, as each commander will no doubt implement their own changes and policies, which would change on a more frequent basis.

    Combat experience is desirable for a Soldier, but it is not a requirement. What about all the Soldier who served from 1975-1989? There were few combat operations during that time, and those that did happen were small and quick. Are you saying that all of the Soldiers who joined the Army after Vietnam, and didn't participate in Grenada, Panama, or Desert Storm were substandard because they lacked combat experience?

    How about the Soldiers who enlisted in 1919? By 1939 they'd have been in 20 years and I'm sure some of them had risen to the higher ranks in the Army. Should they have all resigned since they hadn't seen combat?
    That was back then though. NOW, with the current OPTEMPO, there is no reason why people can't get downrange. I would go one better than what a previous poster said. Soldiers shouldn't make E7 or 04 if they haven't deployed (or at least have a VALID reason why they didn't).

  4. #44
    Member MCGYVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Afghanistan
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk Driver View Post
    The problem with making combat experience a requirement for promotion is that it promotes a minimum standard that is unhelpful. During the Vietnam conflict, this was the case. Commanders were rotated into command slots in theater to get their "ticket punched", that is, to do the absolute minimum amount of combat time to satisfy the requirements for promotion then head out.

    This creates a selfish climate of worrying about your career ahead of your Soldier's. It also creates a lack of continuity, as each commander will no doubt implement their own changes and policies, which would change on a more frequent basis.

    Combat experience is desirable for a Soldier, but it is not a requirement. What about all the Soldier who served from 1975-1989? There were few combat operations during that time, and those that did happen were small and quick. Are you saying that all of the Soldiers who joined the Army after Vietnam, and didn't participate in Grenada, Panama, or Desert Storm were substandard because they lacked combat experience?

    How about the Soldiers who enlisted in 1919? By 1939 they'd have been in 20 years and I'm sure some of them had risen to the higher ranks in the Army. Should they have all resigned since they hadn't seen combat?
    Hell yes it makes you a better Soldier than one who doesn't have "combat experience". It's akin to comparing a Soldier with Basic Training to a Soldier without Basic Training. Night and Day.

    The ticket punching has gone on since the Army was established in 1775. It's just taken various forms.

    For example, you still have groups of senior sergeant majors today that think that a drill sergeant badge makes you a better leader than someone without one and they select you for promotion with that F'd up logic. So, you know how to train new recruits (according to doctrine) but lose three years of MOS proficiency and duck out of two combat deployments makes you a better "Leader"? Wow, only a washed up, crusty ROAD would think some F'd up shit like that.

    Besides the fact that basic training has gotten so soft over the last 20 years that drill sergeants are more of a babysitter than a trainer. The line units have to train the dirtbags the recruiters lie to get in and you run through the mill to keep the numbers up.

    If you don't have a combat patch and you are a senior leader (of any type) you should be embarrassed. Hell, do a 3 month TDY to a combat zone at an Air Base or staging area just to meet the requirement and get your patch. After all, if you aint cheatin, you aint trying. Right?
    No matter what you do some will always find fault because that is their only focus/goal and source of joy. They are negative by nature and weak in character. These people are the losers of society. Avoid them like the plague.

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    stateside
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    I remember when I was an NCO and attended BNCOC. We all had combat patches and our Senior SGL didnt (he never deployed) and he was screaming at us on our load plans, etc, etc.

    You should of always heard the under the breath comments lol I hope he has deployed by now.

    THE NERVE OF THIS SERGEANT MAJOR! LOL

    http://www.army.mil/-images/2009/08/...-17-180828.jpg
    Disclaimer - "This post was written because you wanted me to respond to it"

    Quote Originally Posted by me View Post
    There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

  6. #46
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk Driver View Post
    Combat experience is desirable for a Soldier, but it is not a requirement. What about all the Soldier who served from 1975-1989? There were few combat operations during that time, and those that did happen were small and quick. Are you saying that all of the Soldiers who joined the Army after Vietnam, and didn't participate in Grenada, Panama, or Desert Storm were substandard because they lacked combat experience?

    How about the Soldiers who enlisted in 1919? By 1939 they'd have been in 20 years and I'm sure some of them had risen to the higher ranks in the Army. Should they have all resigned since they hadn't seen combat?
    The issue isn't simply whether someone has seen combat, it's the integrity of those who haven't. When a substantial number of your peers and subordinates have experienced something, shouldn't we ask that leaders experience it as well?

    Today, I doubt that many of these CSMs and senior officers were promoted before the current conflicts started. That is, while the rest of us were making round trips to Iraq and Afghanistan missing families and NCOES opportunities, some of these current CSMs moved from SFC to MSG/1SG to SGM. To say that this happens because one person happens to be at the right place at the right time with no undue influence is bunk.

    It is very different from the case Hawk Driver presents where someone goes essentially their entire career without combat opportunities. We will soon have folks retiring having served half of their career during a time of conflict. I can completely understand someone who missed Grenada or Panama. Both of those were limited combat operations of about 30-90 days. They also occurred during a time when the Army had about a gazillion people on active duty.

    As I said before, when you have first termers ETSing with 2-3 combat tours, the integrity of senior leaders who haven't deployed is at issue. I find it highly suspect that someone can be in the Army for 20 years, half of that time during a period of not one but TWO active wars, and not deploy due to no fault of their own.

  7. #47
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    Having no combat tours is not just an individual shortcoming, but it has a cascade effect, as well. To wit: I was a Platoon Sergeant, and the 2LT came into the situation, and of course attempted to take charge of everything. Even as I tried to explain my ten years of experience versus his ROTC "training", the 2LT continually attempted to gain credibility by telling that his TAC NCO was an Airborne Ranger, Hooah, etc. Of course, I became enamored of the 2LT's association with a real Soldier (not). 2LT Scheisskopf was a complete and total loser, and screwed things up to a degree to which I could only repair after significant commitments of time.

    To whom shall the new graduates of the 'point refer? "Yeah, when I was at the Academy, the CSM was a....well, he was hardcore."

    A sergeant major in 2010 that has no war tour should not be a sergeant major.

  8. #48
    Member MCGYVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Afghanistan
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    It's funny when I meet Sergeant Majors and Command Sergeant Majors with no combat patch and the looks they give me when they see mine. It's like hate/envy in their eyes but I know.
    No matter what you do some will always find fault because that is their only focus/goal and source of joy. They are negative by nature and weak in character. These people are the losers of society. Avoid them like the plague.

  9. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    stateside
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    Quote Originally Posted by MCGYVER View Post
    It's funny when I meet Sergeant Majors and Command Sergeant Majors with no combat patch and the looks they give me when they see mine. It's like hate/envy in their eyes but I know.
    THE NERVE OF THIS SERGEANT MAJOR!! LOL

    http://www.army.mil/-images/2009/08/...-17-180828.jpg
    Disclaimer - "This post was written because you wanted me to respond to it"

    Quote Originally Posted by me View Post
    There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

  10. #50
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Another CSM with no combat patch

    Quote Originally Posted by INGUARD View Post
    THE NERVE OF THIS SERGEANT MAJOR! LOL

    http://www.army.mil/-images/2009/08/...-17-180828.jpg
    It's alright. He was a drill sergeant and a recritter. He's punched all the right tickets. Unfortunately, too many at the top think DS/Recritter = combat experience. Fortunately, it appears that he is just a pogue SGM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •