There's just no easy solution to this.
Combat arms is a young man's world.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

There's just no easy solution to this.
Combat arms is a young man's world.

True. But irrelevant. Leaders need time, and time isn't a young man's friend.

Balance in all things.

That is true. I've met some young people who were excellent leaders but they are hard to come by and even so they lack experience. Their creativity and determination make up for it somewhat but it does make the work a lot harder than it has to be.

Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look upon them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death.

Du Mu talks about the famous general Wu Qi: He wore the same clothes and ate the same food the most common soldier did, he didn't want to ride a horse and didn't want to sleep on a mat, he carried his supplies himself in a trunk on his back and shared every difficulty with his men.
One of his men suffered from an abscess and Wu Qi himself sucked out the poison. When the mother of that soldier heard about it she started to complain. Someone asked her: "Why do you cry? Your son is nothing but a common soldier, and still the commander-in-chief himself sucked the poison out of the wound."
She replied: "Mr.Wu did the same to my husband many years ago, and after that my husband didn't want to leave him ever again, so he found death in the hands of the enemy. And now he did the same to my son, and he too will, I don't know where, fall in combat."

Source: Sun Tzu

People are people. You have to pull them on your side. If you don't then they won't follow you. These are the men and women who would give their lives in service. Some of those things they demand are so easy to accomplish, a little more time home (ok, I know one year on three years off is bullcrap), or giving them an opportunity to build a stable family is one of the easiest things you can do.
If you treat your people like crap, they won't follow you (and here I'm not making any comment about the US military, I'm talking about militaries in general). And you know, those captains are some of the smartest and most dedicated people you have (or else they wouldn't be captains, would they?).

Regards,
Il

PS: Just statting my opinion here, not trying to insult or offend anybody!

NOt all captains are equal. I've met some pretty bad ones.

In this particular case I will have to disagree with Sun Tzu, while a viable military leader and theorist in his day some of his writings and thoughts are obsolete.
If you came into my unit and tried to treat my fellow officers as your children you´d be in for a world of hurt.
Todays soldiers and officers are too enlightened to be treated as children.
THEY also knew the deal when they signed the contract or they shouldn´t have signed in the first place.
That would be down to poor as **** information.

There is an old cavalry saying that goes something like this: "Horse, Saddle, Soldier"
The variant that is applied to this day is:
Mission, Troops, Self.
There are of course a lot of sub categories to that saying, but it is still very much viable in todays military operations in my opinion.

Furthermore, the only retention problem we have is the pay.
Not that personnel wants to start a family.
Most personnel that are attractive for contracting work have been downrange enough to know they won´t have a bigger chance keeping a marriage together if they are sent to a hot spot in civilian clothes rather then a uniform.


Having said that here is a disclaimer.
I can only speak for our situation, not for the various other allied country,s forces.

But maybe, just maybe you might have picked the wrong career if you want to spend three years back home sitting on your arse for every one you have done your job?

This is just my opinion, but I did not sign a contract to sit it out at home.
I am quite sure the majority of troops AND officers feel the same way.


Respectfully,
KJ.

Oh yeah I totally agree with you.
I'm just seeing what the problem is the officers have. It's just on and off all the time, and I don't know how they think about the war in Iraq but I'd guess that most people (in America, and that includes the officers, too) see it as a senseless adventure leading nowhere.
I see your point, but I mean...those people are signing up to give their lives for their country if necessary, and they already have a tough job. I mean...you could make it a little easier for them couldn't you?

Regards,
Il

I disagree with you, 03USMC, when you talk about just how disgusting the prospects of these captains' requests are. ADM Mullen asked them to be frank, and they were. Insubordination aside, these people are not machines. Obviously, their requests were a little bit over the top, but they cannot be expected to fight nonstop and still have the same drive that they would have on a normal deployment schedule.

Originally Posted by c/Commander

Obviously, their requests were a little bit over the top, but they cannot be expected to fight nonstop and still have the same drive that they would have on a normal deployment schedule.

What was the "normal deployment schedule" during WW II?
Did the american efforts decrease as the war dragged on?
Did american soldiers "loose drive" during that conflict?

I might be cynical here, ( I have been once or twice before) but it seems to me that people have different opinions about what is reasonable deployment length depending on ones view on if the war is "just" or not.

A war is a war is a war is a...

KJ.

It's not considered a hard job for no reason.
And if you do water it down to the point that it becomes really easy (lots of time off, guarantees etc.) it's not even going to come with the respect that it once did.
Especially in this day in age when every one seems to be either a banker or a lawyer.
This is simply the reality of the job.
Al Qaeda and the insurgents don't take a day off. They don't have rotation cycles. Like I like to say, the enemy attacks on Sunday too.