Soldier first or trade man ??

[Cansky]

Well as one of those Purple trades CSS or what ever you wish to call us, I say soldier first always.  That doesn't mean we have to do a combat arms training for our first job(enrollment is down enough these days and so is the quality)  But do an SQ or equivalent for all.  I went on my JLC/JNCO course in Wainwright a few years ago and it was the first time I every did section attacks or patrolling in the reg forces (did some in cadets but that was in the 80's)  A year later I find myself in Kandahar Afghanistan with 3 PPCLI expected to go out with a company on combat ops.  Most of us support trades over there hadn't a clue as to what our role was going to be on combat ops.  So yes we should all do some training to learn soldier skills.  More than just how to shoot and BFT's.  I came away from this mission with a much better understanding of what I was lacking and tell my troops all the time do all you can to learn before you end up in the middle of something you haven't got a clue about.  It could just save your life.

 

[PeterLT]

Too many people feel that if you train a tradesman to be a soldier, it somehow pushed all that fancy training out of their brain, and they couldn't possibly be able to retain the skills required to be able to scramble a egg, or remove the screws from the back of an instrument panel..... Or the attitude that they won't need to "man the line" or conduct a section attack.

I can only speak for myself, and for what it's worth, here I go. I have always strongly believed that one must be a soldier first. In the same way that a sailor must be able to do what needs to be done on a ship or an Airman on an air base. However, it has been my experience that the "purpleizing" of many support trades has created an "us and them" mentality all around that creates much harm. I will only speak of Supply, as I was a ragpicker for 22 of 25 years, virtually all with field units. Many of my soldiers were left behind in the trade because they were good soldiers. The view in the hierarchy is that if you are a "Field Type", you are too stupid to learn the trade ("but it's not your fault") and work in or even deal with a Base environment. What complicates this is that although a young soldier might have 3+ years service in any combat arms unit and have deployed with them throughout, they are ultimately viewed by their fellow soldiers as "Ragpickers". I've had soldiers that have competed in fieldcraft competitions against members of the combat arms and beat them soundly, only to be told that they didn't really represent the unit.

This "purple" image created by who knows who, should be squashed at all levels and in all trades. Like the fellow said of the Royal Marines, the view must change to be that a Soldier is a Soldier, they just have different specialties. I also believe that CSS folks posted to a Combat Arms unit should re badge during that time they are with the unit which should be a long time, maybe even a careers worth. This would help the optics of Combat Arms folks who consider the CSS to be a handicap to operations.

In these days of "more with less" and redefining roles, I believe that changes that are done "for free" can sometimes make for a better force all around. The belief that if you fix the big cables the little ones will look after themselves only creates more big cables.

Just my two bits.....

Peter 

 

[Radop]

IMHO, mosart will hurt us in the short run but in the long run, the system will probably work.  We don't like to change but in the military today, the only constant is change.