ISAF Commander Reportedly Seeking Smaller "Tail", More "Teeth"

[The Bread Guy]

This, from Wired.com's Danger Room blog:

The talk in military circles may still be about troop increases in Afghanistan, to bolster a difficult, bloody campaign. But the top general there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has directed his commanders to come up with proposals to cut manpower, potentially by as much as 20 percent. The idea is to maximize the number of infantrymen and counterinsurgents - and minimize support staff and possibly-extraneous personnel.  “More trigger-pullers, and less of everyone else,” says a military source familiar with McChrystal’s query to his commanders, issued August 7th .... “The ‘cut 20 percent’ was a direction to identify where cuts could be made, rather than a direction to actually reduce the force,” military spokesperson Lt. Commander Christine Sidenstricker tells Danger Room. “Bottom line is that the resource requirements across the theater currently are under hard analysis, but there have been no final decisions or recommendations on force levels or other resourcing issues.” ....

 

[armyvern]

Choice One:

Cut and delete all "Official Visits/Visitor Liaison Staff" forthwith. AND, better yet, cut-kill-slay any further "military tourism" into theatre. End the photo ops and dog and pony shows ...

Ensure that any "visitor" into the theatre of ops actually has a bonified "operational" reason to be there; including TAV teams who usually end up with an officer or two who seemingly are there only to get that medal.

Let the folks in theatre concentrate on getting their jobs done rather than babysitting and entertaining just for the sake of babysitting and entertaining the various 'guests' who seem to be arriving/departing in abundance these days.

 

[PuckChaser]

I think there was more people hanging around the boardwalk during daylight hours than I think were actually working. I completely agree with the "military tourism" comment. I see the prevailing attitude being that people want a photo op in CADPAT (AR), so they can hang it on the wall in their office and say "Yeah, I was there".

 

[Infanteer]

Choice One:

Cut and delete all "Official Visits/Visitor Liaison Staff" forthwith. AND, better yet, cut-kill-slay any further "military tourism" into theatre. End the photo ops and dog and pony shows ...

Ensure that any "visitor" into the theatre of ops actually has a bonified "operational" reason to be there; including TAV teams who usually end up with an officer or two who seemingly are there only to get that medal.

Let the folks in theatre concentrate on getting their jobs done rather than babysitting and entertaining just for the sake of babysitting and entertaining the various 'guests' who seem to be arriving/departing in abundance these days.

Probably useful, but won't put too much of a dent in the tooth:tail ratio.

There is a good monograph done on historical tooth to tail ratios that separates troops into four categories.  Combat troops (tooth), logistical support, life support, and headquarters (all tail).

Obviously, we need more combat troops (boots on the ground) and I bet you we are good for logistical support.  Life support is all soldiers and contractors involved in maintaining garrison functions.  If we really need massage palours, boutiques, and Burger Kings in KAF, than we better keep those.  Headquarters are probably, in my uneducated guess, the largest offender.  Layered on top of a ISAF military structure is every alliance's national element.  Sure, country X only has 200 soldiers but it still sends a full Colonel and his staff.

HQ Staffs themselves have seen enormous growth over the last couple decades.  The Brits did an interesting study that found a British Brigade staff was around 40 pers in 1990 and had increased to 70 by 2003.  I have no doubt that we are somewhat guilty of this as well.

 

[Old Sweat]

Probably useful, but won't put too much of a dent in the tooth:tail ratio.

There is a good monograph done on historical tooth to tail ratios that separates troops into four categories.  Combat troops (tooth), logistical support, life support, and headquarters (all tail).

Obviously, we need more combat troops (boots on the ground) and I bet you we are good for logistical support.  Life support is all soldiers and contractors involved in maintaining garrison functions.  If we really need massage palours, boutiques, and Burger Kings in KAF, than we better keep those.  Headquarters are probably, in my uneducated guess, the largest offender.  Layered on top of a ISAF military structure is every alliance's national element.  Sure, country X only has 200 soldiers but it still sends a full Colonel and his staff.

HQ Staffs themselves have seen enormous growth over the last couple decades.  The Brits did an interesting study that found a British Brigade staff was around 40 pers in 1990 and had increased to 70 by 2003.  I have no doubt that we are somewhat guilty of this as well.

I wonder how much of our contingent is taken up in your life support and national headquarters categories? Could we shake another company's worth of troops out of them without jeopardizing the functioning of the sharp end? If we do free up the spaces, where do we get the trained infantry faces and their kit, especially LAVs, for that company? Admittedly that is a side issue compared to the commander's intention, but in my tiny mind, simple solutions are usually neither simple nor solutions. And that also goes if instead of an infantry company, we substitute a recce squadron or an engineer squadron or even another field battery or more UAVs or tactical helicopters.

Edit: If, however, we were to reduce the number of tail, this would have the effect of reducing the ratio, even if it did nothing for the numbers of sharp enders. Knowing the CF, however, we probably would end up reducing the numbers outside the wire, thus going directly against the commander's intention.

 

[GAP]

In my time the tooth to tail ratio was 7-1 or 9-1 depending on who you talked to and what point they were trying to make.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal is SF, thus is likely to look less favorably to the largess of normal bureaucracy in the military....small is good...

 

[dapaterson]

I have two Cdn nominees for reductions: on the front page of the most Recent Maple Leaf are one Lt(N) amd one Maj, who managed to cram a round of golf into their otherwise busy schedules.

Rule number one of military efficiency:  If there's time and space for a golf course on deployed operations, you've probably lost the bubble.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I find some irony in a staff furiously conducting a study into how to cut staffs. They are caught up in the very activity that leads to large staffs (the conduct of yet another staff check).

I tend to think that there is merit to having a small overworked/overloaded staff rather than a large staff with lots of specialized sections that are somewhat underemployed. A small staff doesn't lose as much time with internal coordination as the larger beasts out there. A big HQ can get consumed in the busy-work of BUBs and day to day routine. With a small staff you need to accept that some details will go unchecked/undone and higher HQ (to include national HQs) will need to take a step back and let the mission run without constantly demanding SITREPS. As an aside, I don't think that the British Empire could have run with today's information technology. The local commanders/governors would have been micro-managed to death by London. A small staff needs to ruthlessly prioritize but I think that it can gain agility. Op Orders may have to be verbal/on the radio without lots and lots of accompanying power-point slides and annexes.

To go with Old Sweat's point, though, is it really an issue to have a large tooth to tail unless we have "counter-insurgents" in those 'tail' positions?

 

[The Bread Guy]

With a small staff you need to accept that some details will go unchecked/undone and higher HQ (to include national HQs) will need to take a step back and let the mission run without constantly demanding SITREPS. As an aside, I don't think that the British Empire could have run with today's information technology. The local commanders/governors would have been micro-managed to death by London.

Allowing reasonably responsible people to exercise judgment once they know what the boss needs done?  Is this even possible these days? Esp. in a multi-national environment?  I'd love to see it, but...

 

[dapaterson]

Allowing reasonably responsible people to exercise judgment once they know what the boss needs done?  Is this even possible these days? Esp. in a multi-national environment?  I'd love to see it, but...

Multi-national has nothing to do with it.  Canada excels at building overlarge HQs to command its own forces.  Those HQs, lacking productive work, then engage in make-work projects for themselves, which in turn create additional burdens below and no real productive output.  If resoruces are cut, the overlarge HQs are protected, while the subordinate organizations are told to "right-sze" or "work more efficiently".

Symptom of the day: Every unit I've ever been with has passwords on the photocopiers to save money.  None of the photocopiers in NDHQ have passwords.  Hmmm...

 

[vonGarvin]

Rule number one of military efficiency:  If there's time and space for a golf course on deployed operations, you've probably lost the bubble.

What's the option: work 24/7 and NEVER do stuff like that?  Admittedly, I made it to the board walk during the day maybe 5 times during 7.5 months.  Imagine if one of those visits had been photographed!  Would I then be the "reduce the redundancy in HQs!" poster boy?
Although I agree that the optics of two "staff weenies" playing golf looks bad, but let us not forget that they raised almost two grand for Soldier On. 
Let us not forget that maintenance of morale is a principle of war.  A civilian employee set that thing up in four days with people who volunteered for it (apparently working after their day was done).  And it raised that money for a good cause, and probably got some people "away from the game" for a few hours, if nothing else.
So, the tooth/tail argument is good, but let us not cut it too much.  Though I agree that "some" things have become WAY too large (BG HQ?  Anyone?)

 

[MedCorps]

Ensure that any "visitor" into the theatre of ops actually has a bonified "operational" reason to be there; including TAV teams who usually end up with an officer or two who seemingly are there only to get that medal.

At least they have managed to filter out some of the people who should not be getting that medal, such as

"Visits and inspections do not constitute qualifying service. Specifically, visits for the purpose of leadership, familiarization, ceremonial, or morale by civilian or military VIPs as well as Staff Assistance Visits (SAVs), Staff Inspection Visits (SIVs), and specialist visits for the conduct of summary/criminal/administrative investigations, courts martial, Boards of Inquiry, trial evaluations, academic studies, surveys or other similar administrative activities are excluded from qualification."

I agree some TAV pers seem to slip through this net.

MC 

 

[Blackadder1916]

Though there is undoubtedly fat available for trimming from Canadian and other national "tails", there was probably no specific (non-American) staff check made in response to this direction from Gen McChrystal; it is unlikely (IMO) that the ISAF commander (wearing his ISAF hat, not his US force comd hat) would have made such a "direction" to (non-USA) subordinate commanders.  If he had, there would probably have been, if not an actual verbal, at least a mental, collective "**** off" from national commanders who have to fight not only the battle against insurgency but the "battle" to maintain a presence in Afghanistan.  The battle "to win (or at least not lose) hearts and minds" (not Afghans' but the ones at home) is as much a public relations exercise for soldiers as it is for their political masters; it is not too far a stretch to equate some of the bloat in deployed HQs with a need to keep all those "echelons above reality" (both military and political) constantly in the loop.  When a question is raised "in the House" it would be bad form if an answer was not immediately available.

It should be noted that in the piece quoted in the opening post, McChrystal is identified as the US comd and there is no mention of other ISAF contingents.

 

[dapaterson]

What's the option: work 24/7 and NEVER do stuff like that?  Admittedly, I made it to the board walk during the day maybe 5 times during 7.5 months.  Imagine if one of those visits had been photographed!  Would I then be the "reduce the redundancy in HQs!" poster boy?
Although I agree that the optics of two "staff weenies" playing golf looks bad, but let us not forget that they raised almost two grand for Soldier On. 
Let us not forget that maintenance of morale is a principle of war.  A civilian employee set that thing up in four days with people who volunteered for it (apparently working after their day was done).  And it raised that money for a good cause, and probably got some people "away from the game" for a few hours, if nothing else.
So, the tooth/tail argument is good, but let us not cut it too much.  Though I agree that "some" things have become WAY too large (BG HQ?  Anyone?)

Why do we need a large civilian PSP staff (or any, for that matter)?  Isn't there an Lt within the BG who wears the hat of secondary duties, who is the BG sports O (among other things?).  Why not have them do their job and organize events?  How much public money was spent on making the golf course to raise that $2K?

Provide amenities for those deployed?  Yes - within reason.  But we seem to have a bit of an edifice complex.


Perhaps if we make it a bit more austere fewer will push to get positions added to the TO&E so they can get the latest career-enabling gong.

 

[time expired]

First rule of the bureaucrat,civilian or military,persuade your boss that
the job you are doing can only be done by you and therefore you and
the job are indispenceable.
Second rule, demand more pers to do this indispenceable job,this serves
two perposes,your empire expands and using the onion skin principle,
protects you in case someone above you discovers you are merely
producing useless paper.Using this principle you can sacrifice layer after
layer of pers and hope the superior gets tired or is posted before he
gets to you.
Montgomery spent several weeks clearing out Middle East HQ in Egypt
of huge amounts of less than eager  fighting men before he attacked at
El Alamein.He was less sucsessful latter in NW Europe as he was forced
to reduce the size of his divisions due to lack of reenforcements while
over a million uniformed men were sitting safely in the UK.
Vietnam offers other examples of bloated rear ecelons,at the height of
conflict the ratio of teeth to tail was an astonishing 11-12 to 1.
So this is nothing new,I think the major difference is the huge international
contingents that take up space, use up support facilties and have no
intention of joining the fight.
                                    Regards

 

[vonGarvin]

Why do we need a large civilian PSP staff (or any, for that matter)?  Isn't there an Lt within the BG who wears the hat of secondary duties, who is the BG sports O (among other things?).  Why not have them do their job and organize events?  How much public money was spent on making the golf course to raise that $2K?
Provide amenities for those deployed?  Yes - within reason.  But we seem to have a bit of an edifice complex.
Perhaps if we make it a bit more austere fewer will push to get positions added to the TO&E so they can get the latest career-enabling gong.

A Lt (probably a duty officer) could very well do stuff like that, and we had the "New Year's Day Run" on my tour, totally organised by an officer in the BG HQ, so yes, there is scope for that.
As for the tooth-tail argument (and PSP, whom I generally despise), there are many MANY things that could be cut that would result in immediate improvements "over there".  Given that our main effort is the fighting of the war, and given that everything we do should be, in one way or another, geared to that end, I would first eliminate HLTA.  Moving the 2800 (or so) people back and forth across the globe not twice (deployment, re-deployment) but four times (for BG, OMLT and PRT et al) and SIX times (for the "nine monthers"). 
I am not certain that any PSP folks there, in spite of my hatred for that system, actually negatively affect the "tooth/tail", given that they are civilians (other than their meals, accomodations, travel to/from, etc).  Any effect that they have (in this respect) would be, I guess, minimal.  Also, since they are civilians, I'm not sure if it affects the TO and E of the "folks in green".
My main target for "elimination" would be about 50% of the folks in the HQs.  (That number is an ass-pull.  But I imagine I'm not far off).  This would be from BG HQ up through to and including TF HQ.  I swear, there were people there who didn't know what a "Zharey" was, or what it did or how it affected why they were in Afghanistan.
We can only look at our own forces, and admittedly there are some "floppers" at KAF (from all contingents), but employing the "baby steps" formula, and "looking after our own", we could very well free up some "PYs" so that the tanks can at least get their third troop back!

 

[dapaterson]

Civilians require food and water, shelter and protection.  Provision of all those things requires the Big Green Machine (or Big Tan Machine, in this case); therefore, cutting civilians to the minimum required should free up some military personnel.

The HLTA issue is one that needs some Leadership to address.  It's seen as a sacred cow right now, and we have few leaders willing to take on such beasts.  (Mind you, I'm the one who has advocated for BGs to be stood up for three years: one year pre-deployment; six months deployed; three months leave, three months working out the rust from the last three months on leave; six months deployed; six months leave - thus reducing the training burden on the system and increasing effectiveness as you get increased cohesion and collective experience).

I think your 50% cut is insufficently draconian.  Given that much of the management (vice leadership) of our deployed forces is done from Canada, can we not remove many of the boots off the ground and instead manage from Canada?  There are remarkable things called "telephone" and "email" - which are used by the theater mailboxes masquerading as staff to communicate with Canada - why not eliminate the middlemen?

 

[The Bread Guy]

It should be noted that in the piece quoted in the opening post, McChrystal is identified as the US comd and there is no mention of other ISAF contingents.

Point taken - still, this is sizing up to be good robust discussion on the ratios, so I hope it continues.

 

[MedCorps]

I guess the question is:

"What positions should Col Menard cut in the JTF A HQ 06-09?" 

I have looked at the org chart and can only come up five or so of the apx 97 HQ positions (not including ASIC, Eng Unit pers, Air WG, 99Tac, STA Bty, Sigs Sqn, GoC non-embedded advisor's) I would cut.  So who should it be? 

As I do not think posting the org chat is a good idea (but it is on the DIN for those interested in taking up the challenge) but I can provide a summary from a grander prospective:

Comd Gp (3)
Pers Staff to the Comd (3)
Advisors to the Comd (12) (5 are double tasked as CO's) 
Pubic Affairs Cell (4)
Bde Rear (21) (Log, Maint, Admin, Mov, Fin, LL pers) 
J5 - Plans (13) (the next battle)
J2 - Int (7)
J3 - Ops (27) (the current battle incl 24/7 TOC staff)
J6 - Sigs (3)
LO - (4)

Thoughts?

 

[Old Sweat]

At the risk of preaching heresy, seek out the members of the J3 and J5 staff who can do an estimate, make a plan, deliver a briefing and prepare a coherent operation order without using powerpoint. Protect them at all cost; they are a priceless asset. Then, fire everybody else.

Sorry, it's hotter 'en hades, and I just finished cleaning up the mess after our Lab threw up on the floor.