U.S. Recruiting Tricks

[Infanteer]

In the Marine Corps, the recruit is owned by eastern or western recruiting region depending on where they go to boot camp.   They are owned by them from the day the sign their contracts to the day they graduate boot camp and later SOI.   After that, their MOS takes possession of them for the remainder of the training cycle through whatever school they attend.

AH-HA!

I was rambling on about something like this a few months ago....

Perhaps we need an institutional reorg looking at "Transformation" for citizen to soldier as the mission.

A new CF Command will be set up that is responsible for Recruiting and Basic Training - Operational Units will get the finished product and give them their trade and OJT training - if the Basic Indoctrination is done right (like the RM Commando Course), then their isn't much that the formations have to worry about "going back to cover".

Everything is done in lockstep to ensure that one part isn't firing off their recruits into an oblivion.  From the moment that a kid steps thorough the recruiters door until his Basic Grad Parade he is handled by a single cohesive department that keeps "transformation" as its watchword.  I'm going on the idea of merging the Recruiting and Basic Training functions as they seem to be unique and independent of other Army (or CF) functions - they are very important in ensuring that the "clay" the units get is molded right from its civilian base.

An ERE posting to this Command (which would probably be split between recruiting and training) would be regarded as a very good thing for career prospects and this new command should take only the best - make a posting here competitive, not randomized by the Career Managers.  Regardless of whether individual branches and arms of the CF want to slack off on their own fiefs (that's their prerogative), this new Command will be responsible for turning out very fit, well drilled and disciplined soldiers who have been exposed to live fire training (Platoon/Company).

As for the comments on structure, I am not going to take such a hard-line approach to Unification as PBI, I believe that it was done for the right reasons and, in some circumstances, has left the CF better off then it would have been as conglomeration of Single-Service Fiefs.  As I said before, I'm a full supporter of Unification and jointness.  However, I believe that Unification is a top-down process, not a bottom-up one.  Hellyer unified the CF because he was frustrated with the inability of the services to give him cohesive advice on National Defence and with the duplication and triplication of certain services.  Hellyer was wrong because he attacked Service things related to specific identity and culture of each Service. 

I believe Unification should be a top-down endeavour and not a bottom-up one.  We need unified regional commands to oversee joint forces to ensure a cohesive employment of National Defence assets.  It is essential to "unify" operational procedures and doctrine to ensure this (and perhaps career patterns), but we don't need "unified" force structures to do so.  It is important for the Lieutenant Colonel and the Commander in the Command/Staff element to be on the same page because they are both doing the same task (administering a unified defence structure).  It isn't so important for the Rifleman and Naval Electronic Technician (Acoustic) to be (and I argue that it is infact inefficient to demand that they both be), because one will fight the Land Battle and the other will fight as part of the Ship.

Forces will not be unified at the lowest levels - we do not expect Army soldiers to fill in jobs in the ships company or vice versa.  Within the Army however, the demand is there (every soldier a Rifleman first) - hence my argument above.  Sending Recruits to different recruiting programs/centers (thus de-unifying basic training) will not degrade jointness - this is a principle that is reinforced in the Force Generation/Employment process.

Basic Training is one of these institutions I believe would be better off separated.  This means that their is no "Purple" trades - we can have "Purple" Schools to teach Army, Navy, and Air Force trades, but career patterns and service identity are locked into the Army, etc.  Basic Training is an institution that takes civilians and transforms them into soldiers (or sailors, or airmen).  It is different then "Skills Training" as the main effort is not to teach the soldier skills (any idiot can learn to march... well, almost any idiot) but to inculcate them into the institution of the Service they will belong to.

Anyways, most of you have probably heard this from me before, but I thought it was worth restating here,

Cheers,
Infanteer