Author Topic: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?  (Read 55282 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Roy Harding

    He\'s Back.

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 14,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,233
CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« on: August 09, 2005, 22:52:51 »
This thread is an offshoot of another, which you can find here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,33346.0.html

In the interest of NOT hijacking that thread, I've started this new one, as I think it's a subject which may generate some discussion.

I've quoted the following post, as it is germane to, and indeed started the discussion which threatened to hijack the UNDE thread.  So, if it seems that you've started in the middle of a previous discussion, it's because you have.

This is what I don't get though.
They will be performing the duties of cooks and such.....
why should they get the same benefits as those who are out patrolling etc?

Sitting by a stove does not qualify(in my eyes) as a dangerous job. I do that job everyday in my home.
Now if their base was under constant attack and such, then I could understand, but just because you are over there does not mean you should get those benefits.... JMO
...


To the subject at hand:

There is a tendency within any large organization for people to ascribe certain qualities to "their" particular part of it which tend to make them believe they as individuals are "different", or "better", or "more deserving" than members of OTHER sub-sets of the parent organization, sometimes these differences are real, often they are not.  The military, as the quintessential large organization, harbours these same tendencies amongst its members.

This quite natural human tendency, within the military context, gives rise to such rivalries as Army vs Air Force vs Navy, or Regulars vs Reserves, or Cbt Arms vs CS vs CSS, or PPCLI vs RCR vs R22eR, or Officers vs NCMs, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum.

Usually, as military members become more experienced (in the Army's case, in my experience, normally by the time a soldier is a seasoned MCpl, or Capt), they begin to realize the basic truth that ALL members of the organization are required for the effective functioning of that organization, and these rivalries become the good natured and jocular "ribbing" that is extremely commonplace and eagerly indulged in (to some extent) by all military personnel.

To suggest, however, that some members, by virtue of their MOC (or MOS ID, or trade, or branch) are "better", or more "deserving" than others, is absurd.

CSS soldiers are NOT inherently less of a "soldier" than their Cbt Arms brethren.  Was I a "good soldier" as an RMS Clk?  My superiors apparently thought so, my peers of all trades respected my abilities, and my subordinates gave me their respect as well.  Did this make me a good Infantryman?  Of course not - nor did it make an Infantryman of similar rank and experience a good RMC Clk.  We were both good soldiers - our specialties were different, we respected those differences, and we used and relied upon each other's skills as required to get the Bn's mission accomplished.

A little cold war history for you, to illustrate my point.

When I was a Pte Adm Clk with 1 CBG Sigs in the early '80s, who do you think stood stand-to and exercised the skill of fighting defensive battles in the hide?  Why ALL of us of course, CS troops, CSS troops, and Cbt Arms troops (there was a D&S Pl of Patricia's intrinsic to the unit's strength).

When I was a Cpl and MCpl in the Canadian Airborne Regiment, both with Svc Cdo and HQ & Sigs, who do you think did those same defensive tasks - why ALL of us, of course.  If the rifle commandos were (as they often were) engaged in offensive ops, who do you think "held the fort" so they'd have something to come home to (not to mention, something coordinating their movements - read Cdo and Regt HQ), why generally CSS and CS troops, with expert leadership by the Inf, of course.

A little "asymmetrical" war history for you.

When 3 PPCLI went forward on various ops, who went forward?  Why everyone REQUIRED, of course.  Aside from those you'd expect (Infantry, Armd, Comms, and Medics), there were also Mechanics, Supply Techs, Tfc Techs, MSE Ops and RMS Clks (amongst others - omissions are not intentional).  Why do you think that was?  Because the CO wanted it that way - he foresaw a need for these specialists for various functions.  He also saw a need for a "Rear Link", which is where my FUNCTION, not my personal ability required me personally to be.  There were some brave actions taken by some excellent soldiers on those operations - the submissions for various bravery and other awards included CSS soldiers amongst others.

I would invite you to peruse the history of Canadian VC winners - you can find those histories here:

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group01/cdn_vc

There are CSS troops amongst them.

You can also check out recipients of the US Congressional Medal of Honor here:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/Moh1.htm

There are CSS troops amongst them, as well.

To further illustrate my point, I would invite you to pay attention to the current war in Iraq - there are CSS and CS troops fighting, being wounded, and unfortunately being killed alongside their Cbt Arms brethren on a daily basis.

Springroll:

Your original post citing personnel "sitting by a stove" as somehow less deserving would have been justification for my initial anger had you been a serving soldier, expected to know better.

Instead, it is an illustration of a lamentable ignorance amongst civilians, even more lamentable in your case because of your professed proximity to serving members.
I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand.

Linus van Pelt

Offline Simian Turner

    is a veteran who enjoys oddities!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,641
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2005, 23:33:06 »
Retired CC I agree with many of your points.  I think the quote from Springroll was intended to target civilians and uniformed CSS, however, I agree that the underlying meaning is germane to your new thread.

For Springroll et al:  A cook, floor sweeper or pot scrubber inside an overseas military camp targeted by "evil-doers of whatever ilk" are in no less in danger than the patrol trudging through a minefield (or London commuter on their way to work or a T.O. toddler playing in the street, it would seem).  If your home has a big target on the roof and suspicious packages arriving at your doorstep then you might be in the same boat.  Constant attack, you say - how about the threat of attack - I don't think the rounds or suicide gatecrashers are discriminating in their destination - " Beep, beep, oh, I only seek to kill the highly skilled uniformed camp occupants.  Get out of the way you stove-hugging cook. You are not worthy of my destruction." :D



The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline Britney Spears

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,308
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2005, 23:46:20 »
You know what's ironic?  the word "team", and phrases like "work as a team" and "team building" are thrown around by the recruiting ads so much that they beging to resemble a cheesy old corporate motivation slogans, to the point that most people seem to think that "learn to work as a team" is being used because "learn to kill people" sounded too aggressive. At least, that's what I thought before I joined (it was so for both US and Canadian recruiting commercials).

Only after I joined, did I realize that this was the ONLY point where the commercials were actually being very realistic. Working as a team IS the most important skill you learn, and it's the reason why for the last 2000 years disciplined and organized armies defeat lesser disciplined and organized ones. A unit(of any size) which works as a team WILL defeat one that doesn't, regardless of weapons or individual ability. 

So, newbies: Teamwork seperates the wheat from the chaff. Sounds cliche as heck, but it's true. Remember that when the yelling and screaming starts, learn, and you'll be ready for when the shooting starts too.
"I'd vote for you."
  -TCBF, whiskey601.

"Britney, if you wern't so young I would kiss you!"
  -a_majoor.

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,358
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,823
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2005, 06:11:13 »
A revelation on the relevance of all army trades was told to me recently;

Every soldier's role in the Army, regardless of rank or occupation, is to support the Infantry Sgt in Battle.

Taking that statement to effect, regardless of whether you are the Col J-3 directing the operations, or the Pte Cook peeling potatoes in the field kitchen, your role is essential to the success of the mission.

"Return with your shield, or upon it."

Offline Springroll

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -1,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,030
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2005, 08:09:42 »
Thank you for educating me on the error of my ways. :salute:

I still feel that civvie workers should not be going over, instead send over our own well trained personnel, even if it means taking them from units that are not utilizing them.

Now that I am past the initial hard hump of quitting smoking, things are sinking in better....
"Take every day with a grain of salt. This works much better if the salt accompanies a Margarita"

Offline Roy Harding

    He\'s Back.

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 14,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,233
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2005, 09:00:46 »
...

Every soldier's role in the Army, regardless of rank or occupation, is to support the Infantry Sgt in Battle.
...



BINGO!

Although a slight oversimplification - that is the concept in a nutshell.
I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand.

Linus van Pelt

Offline 54/102 CEF

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 5,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 910
    • 54th Cdn Inf Bn CEF 1915-1919
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2005, 10:08:48 »
Thats a great initial post!
You can visit me when I retire to the Island of Sayonara - but if the tide goes out - you go too - OK?

Offline wotan

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 91
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2005, 17:05:04 »
  Retired CC, an excellent post, no doubt of that.  And Armymedic's point is about as close to the truth as one is likely to get in a single sentence.

  That said, I'll risk venturing into the lion's den on this one, so here goes.

  Firstly, being a CSS soldier myself, I certainly don't see the "purple trades" as being in anyway less deserving of recognition or financial benefits than their Cbt Arms comrades in the same theatre of ops.  However, I am aware of a feeling of "discontent" for lack of a better word, on the part of some in the Cbt Arms regarding how the SWASM was issued. 

  Essentially, many of the folks I spoke with were a bit peeved that those outside Afghanistan received the same medal as the troops humping ruck, albeit they did not receive the bar.  For example, those on the ships or serving at the HQ in Florida recieved the SWASM, but not the bar.  Now, to a large part, this particular issue has been resolved for future ops with the establishment of the General Campaign Star and the General Service Medal and I had hoped that this issue would be put to rest.  However, it seems that this previous discontent is now manifesting itself in the form of a comparison of the "type" of service rendered within the theatre of ops.  Perhaps what is wanted or what would resolve this specific question is something akin to the US Combat Infantryman's Badge for Cbt Arms and CSS soldiers that participate in active patrolling vice being not venturing out from a camp.

  From my conversations with both CSS and Cbt Arms pers, I don't see this so much as a matter of CSS soldiers being deemed less deserving, but that there is a desire from pers engaged in active patrolling, etc to be recognized for these activities and the perceived increase danger of those activities.
You are correct, Madame, I am drunk.  But you are ugly and in the morning I will be sober.

Offline Roy Harding

    He\'s Back.

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 14,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,233
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2005, 17:36:53 »
  Retired CC, an excellent post, no doubt of that.   And Armymedic's point is about as close to the truth as one is likely to get in a single sentence.

   That said, I'll risk venturing into the lion's den on this one, so here goes.

   Firstly, being a CSS soldier myself, I certainly don't see the "purple trades" as being in anyway less deserving of recognition or financial benefits than their Cbt Arms comrades in the same theatre of ops.   However, I am aware of a feeling of "discontent" for lack of a better word, on the part of some in the Cbt Arms regarding how the SWASM was issued.  

   Essentially, many of the folks I spoke with were a bit peeved that those outside Afghanistan received the same medal as the troops humping ruck, albeit they did not receive the bar.   For example, those on the ships or serving at the HQ in Florida recieved the SWASM, but not the bar.   Now, to a large part, this particular issue has been resolved for future ops with the establishment of the General Campaign Star and the General Service Medal and I had hoped that this issue would be put to rest.   However, it seems that this previous discontent is now manifesting itself in the form of a comparison of the "type" of service rendered within the theatre of ops.   Perhaps what is wanted or what would resolve this specific question is something akin to the US Combat Infantryman's Badge for Cbt Arms and CSS soldiers that participate in active patrolling vice being not venturing out from a camp.

   From my conversations with both CSS and Cbt Arms pers, I don't see this so much as a matter of CSS soldiers being deemed less deserving, but that there is a desire from pers engaged in active patrolling, etc to be recognized for these activities and the perceived increase danger of those activities.

Being a recipient of the SWASM, having served with 3 PPCLI BG in KANDAHAR, I can assure you that the issue of how the SWASM was issued is not a Cbt Arms/CSS issue - most of us, CSS, CS, and Cbt Arms who served at Kandahar felt the same way regarding those who were given the EXACT same medal for their service in air conditioned comfort.

Leaving that aside, however - I like the concept of something similar to the CIB.  This also has its' problems associated with it.  Because of my job, I worked fairly closely with the Rakassan S1.  The administrative hoops and reports required to document who was "in the box" and for how long were amazing. 

I think the Campaign Star and Medal may well meet the requirement, I guess we won't know for a couple years.

I didn't start the thread out of any sense of "injustice" - in fact, as I said in the original posting - these types of silly comparisons usually fade as soldiers gain experience and respect for each other's functions.  I did think it was worth bringing up, though, based on what I'd read in other threads.  In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't generated more interest from the multitude of junior soldiers present on the forum - who were my real intended "target".


I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand.

Linus van Pelt

Offline wotan

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 91
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2005, 17:54:37 »
Retired CC,

  Ack, I should have worded "However, I am aware of a feeling of "discontent" for lack of a better word, on the part of some in the Cbt Arms regarding how the SWASM was issued" more carefully.  It wasn't my intent to indicate that the supporting arms and services troops weren't miffed about the sit as well.  My bad.

  Something like a CIB might be workable, but I suppose no matter what system is developed there will be those that aren't completely happy with it.  But, I believe the GCS/GSM is a big step in the right direction and hopefully folks will see it as that.

You are correct, Madame, I am drunk.  But you are ugly and in the morning I will be sober.

Offline Kirsten Luomala

  • Member
  • ****
  • 17,359
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 232
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2005, 18:39:27 »
  Retired CC, an excellent post, no doubt of that.   And Armymedic's point is about as close to the truth as one is likely to get in a single sentence.

   That said, I'll risk venturing into the lion's den on this one, so here goes.

   Firstly, being a CSS soldier myself, I certainly don't see the "purple trades" as being in anyway less deserving of recognition or financial benefits than their Cbt Arms comrades in the same theatre of ops.   However, I am aware of a feeling of "discontent" for lack of a better word, on the part of some in the Cbt Arms regarding how the SWASM was issued.  

   Essentially, many of the folks I spoke with were a bit peeved that those outside Afghanistan received the same medal as the troops humping ruck, albeit they did not receive the bar.   For example, those on the ships or serving at the HQ in Florida recieved the SWASM, but not the bar.   Now, to a large part, this particular issue has been resolved for future ops with the establishment of the General Campaign Star and the General Service Medal and I had hoped that this issue would be put to rest.   However, it seems that this previous discontent is now manifesting itself in the form of a comparison of the "type" of service rendered within the theatre of ops.   Perhaps what is wanted or what would resolve this specific question is something akin to the US Combat Infantryman's Badge for Cbt Arms and CSS soldiers that participate in active patrolling vice being not venturing out from a camp.

   From my conversations with both CSS and Cbt Arms pers, I don't see this so much as a matter of CSS soldiers being deemed less deserving, but that there is a desire from pers engaged in active patrolling, etc to be recognized for these activities and the perceived increase danger of those activities.

Just to clarify this :  The only persons who did not qualify for the bar were those in Tampa Bay Florida.  All others that were in the theatre of Ops (this included Arabian Gulf, UAE and Kanadahar to name a few places) got the bar.  I think it wouldn't have been such a big issue if the bar reflected exactly where they were but they all say afghanistan. 
And yes I was in Kandahar, but am now to the point that I know I was there and if asked will tell but no longer get upset over this issue.  I think most of us have that same attitude now.

Offline Roy Harding

    He\'s Back.

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 14,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,233
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2005, 18:46:51 »
Just to clarify this :   The only persons who did not qualify for the bar were those in Tampa Bay Florida.   All others that were in the theatre of Ops (this included Arabian Gulf, UAE and Kanadahar to name a few places) got the bar.   I think it wouldn't have been such a big issue if the bar reflected exactly where they were but they all say afghanistan.  
And yes I was in Kandahar, but am now to the point that I know I was there and if asked will tell but no longer get upset over this issue.   I think most of us have that same attitude now.


Thanks Kirsten - you said it better than I - and perfectly!

And I believe you are right regarding most BG folk's attitude - in my reply to wotan I was trying to downplay the issue as it wasn't germane to the subject, but you did it better!

How's the database goin' ?
I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand.

Linus van Pelt

Offline delavan

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 317
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2005, 09:06:37 »
Roy Harding,
Interesting post ,to say the least!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glad you bring that up.
For people not understanding what's going on, imagine a cook going out to get supplies, a refrigeration mechanic getting air conditionning units for the camp or a clerk who put his name in to go on patrol with the 031 dudes, CSS troops volunteering to do some CIMIC stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(by the way, as seen on ops...)

As seen in Irak , CSS troops are targeted even more sometimes than infantry or tankers because the enemy want some dead bodies ,not a firefight or get their a## kicked by the well armed combat troops!

My two cents though...
« Last Edit: August 14, 2005, 09:09:51 by delavan »

Offline NewCenturion

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 351
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2005, 08:52:26 »
Come to think of it this medal thing was a issue in Roto 0 in Kosovo too. A rumour was circulating that those who served in Kosovo would get a different medal than those in FYROM. Anyway after it was all said and done everyone got their medal the "controversy" faded away. I like the idea of a CIB, if you go to the US Army web site they have now instituted the Combat Action Badge as I understand it, for CS/CSS trades. http://www.army.mil/symbols/combatbadges/Action.html?story_id_key=7285
"There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to
prevent the drawing of the sword."
- General Ulysses S. Grant

Offline TheNomad

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 69
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2005, 09:20:34 »
It matters not what your job in the army is.  If you are in theatre and a gong is issued for turning up then you qualify for it.  Just because you are an infantryman does not mean you are seeing action.

What about those infantrymen that did not get a chance to shoot at anyone - does that mean that they should not get a gong?  How about the CO, after all he spends most of his tour in a CP?

Maybe gongs should be awarded on who fired the most rounds - if you fire less than 5 you are not really a soldier at all, so should stop pretending to be real infantrymen?

I have been an infantryman and an MP.  All jobs in the forces are equally deserving of the gongs. 

Personally I believe that anyone who thinks that a part of the forces is less deserving than another is both ignorant and arrogant.  I also think they should be invited to hand their gongs in, as unless they received a bravery award as an individual they too are less deserving.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 172,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,441
  • It's all good
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2005, 05:05:39 »
How about the CO, after all he spends most of his tour in a CP?

I am on my fourth tour - and have never seen a CO who "spends most of his tour in the CP" - maybe I have just been lucky.  Now if you said the pasty-faced COS, I would have to agree...but I'm guessing said COS would give his left testicle to be out and about.

Dave
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline KaptKain

  • Man of many hats
  • New Member
  • **
  • 140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 47
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2005, 23:26:56 »
I agree with most, but then the saying goes...
SOLDIER FIRST, TRADESMAN SECOND

Plain and simple, anytime if the going gets bad, CSS could have the role of replacements for the Cbt arms. The unfortunate part there is, the CSS does not have the same training detail as Cbt Arms for the true hazardous situation. So CSS would be unlucky there. :(
THE REASON THAT THE CANADIAN ARMY DOES SO WELL IN WARTIME IS THAT WAR IS CHAOS, AND THE CANADIAN ARMY PRACTICE CHAOS ON A DAILY BASIS.
<GERMAN GENERAL OFFICER>

Offline NewCenturion

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 351
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2005, 11:21:55 »
I agree with most, but then the saying goes...
SOLDIER FIRST, TRADESMAN SECOND

Plain and simple, anytime if the going gets bad, CSS could have the role of replacements for the Cbt arms. The unfortunate part there is, the CSS does not have the same training detail as Cbt Arms for the true hazardous situation. So CSS would be unlucky there. :(

I've heard this saying before, but what does it mean? Should we all be able to become infmn/gnrs or crwmn at a moments notice? Or is it that members of the CS and CSS should embody the attributes of service before self. We are all soldiers within the areas of our responsibilities, dedicated, loyal, mission oriented and ready to fight,  but if you want to get paid, eat, get kit, have your vehicle fixed, your wpn repaired, get patched up if you get hurt or be flown or shipped to theatre, the primary job of CSS is to do just that: support.
"There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to
prevent the drawing of the sword."
- General Ulysses S. Grant

Offline wongskc

  • Arte et Marte
  • Member
  • ****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 134
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2005, 17:00:37 »
I agree with most, but then the saying goes...
SOLDIER FIRST, TRADESMAN SECOND

Plain and simple, anytime if the going gets bad, CSS could have the role of replacements for the Cbt arms. The unfortunate part there is, the CSS does not have the same training detail as Cbt Arms for the true hazardous situation. So CSS would be unlucky there. :(

Not to mention that CSS units usually are not equipped to act in anything more than a defensive role.
We have such a hard time trying to answer the question: What is a Canadian? The Dutch have no such trouble. To them, a Canadian is someone from a far-off land who risked everything to liberate them from one of the worst kinds of oppression the world has ever seen.

Offline Teddy Ruxpin

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 3,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,064
  • Grumpy Bear
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2005, 17:08:37 »
I am on my fourth tour - and have never seen a CO who "spends most of his tour in the CP" - maybe I have just been lucky.   Now if you said the pasty-faced COS, I would have to agree...but I'm guessing said COS would give his left testicle to be out and about.

Dave

Naaa...  Aren't theatre PERs just about due?   ;)  ;D
A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

Dulce bellum inexpertis.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 170,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,228
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2005, 17:22:37 »
I've heard this saying before, but what does it mean? Should we all be able to become infmn/gnrs or crwmn at a moments notice? Or is it that members of the CS and CSS should embody the attributes of service before self. We are all soldiers within the areas of our responsibilities, dedicated, loyal, mission oriented and ready to fight,   but if you want to get paid, eat, get kit, have your vehicle fixed, your wpn repaired, get patched up if you get hurt or be flown or shipped to theatre, the primary job of CSS is to do just that: support.

I think I would define it has emplacing realistic combat standards across the Army.   Fitness, marksmanship, baseline tactical awareness, and a proper "soldier mentality" should be something that all soldiers need to routinely focus on and practice with.   The Combat Arms troops (especially the Infantry) merely jump to the next level and make it their raison d'etre (as the CS/CSS guys make support theirs), but it doesn't disqualify all Army pers from having a basic understanding of what I'd term "combat survival, something I think requires four things;

  • Physical Preparedness: fitness, I will make it to and through the fight
  • Mental Preparedness: "combat mindset", I will win the fight
  • Skill at Arms: No Jessica Lynch, feel comfortable with the weapons we will win the fight with
  • Tactical Awareness: Rudimentary drills and small-unit cooperation, I recognize the fight and will try to shape it

I'm sure we've all seen first hand many examples of people not ready to do any of this.   In my opinion, these four principles are part of the uniform.

There was a good article in the Marine Corps Gazette a while back on how the Marines did this at the basic training level.   I'll see if I can find it, but unfortunately MCG articles aren't available publically.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2005, 17:29:13 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

dutchie

  • Guest
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2005, 17:47:20 »
  • Physical Preparedness: fitness, I will make it to and through the fight
  • Mental Preparedness: "combat mindset", I will win the fight
  • Skill at Arms: No Jessica Lynch, feel comfortable with the weapons we will win the fight with
  • Tactical Awareness: Rudimentary drills and small-unit cooperation, I recognize the fight and will try to shape it

That's about as accurate and consice as can be expected. That is precisely what 'soldier first' means to me as well. However, going from where we are (in a general sense) to that is a bit of a tab, I think.

As I said many moons ago in another related thead, before we can expect CSS troops to be able to meaningfully contribute to the fight (literally), than we first must convince them to put the firing pins back in their weapons. The 'soldier first' mantra has been paid only lip service until now amonst the rank and file, where it counts. From my somewhat limited experience, tradesmen/women do not think of themselves as riflemen first. It's almost as if the 'army stuff' was just required learning by this silly institution so that they can learn how to fix a truck/drive a truck/cook/etc.

I'm not picking fights here, I've actually heard that, more or less, from a variety of CSS types at various times. Of course, I have also met many 'switched on' CSS types, and many shitpump cbt arms types.

We have to decide if these trades have to be filled with soldiers, or if civvies should do the work. If we go civvie, offer the CSS troops of that trade a transfer to the civvie equivelant. Right now, there are too many civies in green pajamas driving trucks and filling out 638's. Once we decide we need trained riflemen in every Army position, train them as such (addressed somewhat with SQ), and require retention of those skills.

Failure to do so = recourse into SQ.

Offline ParaMedTech

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 832
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2005, 18:03:21 »
I'll second that, Infanteer, that was very succinctly put.

I am of the opinion that we need to stop looking to civilian staff solutions for our pers problems, simply because we CERTAINLY won't get these out of a civilian workforce, but we can, with work, get them out of all CS/CSS pers that are members of the CF

The more civilians we place overseas, the more force protection our facilities need, correct? 

If Johnny Potwolloper from Little Grass Falls can't even aim and fire a weapon in the face of an imminent threat to Camp Whatever, and our BDF plan calls for 600 rifles on the berm, then we need to make sure that those 600 rifles are there, whether it's a switched on cook, an MSE Op, or a Jimmy, or a member of one of our LIBs.  What that means, though, is that we need to make sure those Jimmies, Drivers and Cooks can take up arms in a defensive role, instilled with those 4 qualities.

DF
Carter, hand me my thinking grenades.

dutchie

  • Guest
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2005, 18:11:08 »
I'll second that, Infanteer, that was very succinctly put.

I am of the opinion that we need to stop looking to civilian staff solutions for our pers problems, simply because we CERTAINLY won't get these out of a civilian workforce, but we can, with work, get them out of all CS/CSS pers that are members of the CF

Fully agree with you, BTW. Just playing devil's advocate.

What you get out of a soldier (or a training system) is equal to what you put into it.

Offline ParaMedTech

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 832
Re: CSS Troops - Less "Deserving"?
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2005, 18:38:28 »
Caesar, I didn't think you'd lost your mind.

Once again, this has opened a discussion of the balance between soldier and tradesman.

This isn't just a matter of training time, but of mindset, attitude, deportment.

This has been flogged several times.

There's no doubt there are institutional shortfalls that contribute to this: training time and budget,  deployment rates, pers shortfalls, etc. there is a shortage of warrior ethos in many of the support trades, mine among them.  The fact that so many support trades spend most of the major ex's "administratively" deployed, is another factor.

BUT, when my (apparent) mission is to provide no duff medical(replace with transport, comms, etc.) support on exercises, I'm ON the exercise, but not OF the exercise, and I know that short of general mobilization no one under me is going to be deployed without significant soldier training, and we barely have training time to get them competent in one of the skill sets, but not both...we have a problem.

DF

Carter, hand me my thinking grenades.