DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of the Army's Modular Force Structure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of the Army's Modular Force Structure CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and EDUCATION AND THE ARTS decisionmaking through research and analysis. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service INFRASTRUCTURE AND of the RAND Corporation. TRANSPORTATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY Support RAND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Purchase this document TERRORISM AND Browse Reports & Bookstore HOMELAND SECURITY Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instru- ments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports un- dergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity. A Review of the Army’s Modular Force Structure Stuart E. Johnson, John E. Peters, Karin E. Kitchens, Aaron Martin, Jordan R. Fischbach Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense Approved for public release; distribution unlimited NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE The research described in this report was prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The research was conducted within the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by OSD, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community under Contract W74V8H-06-C-0002. Library of Congress Control Number: 2011930376 ISBN: 978-0-8330-5130-1 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2012 RAND Corporation Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/ permissions.html). Published 2012 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] Preface In 2003, the U.S. Army began implementing a set of ambitious changes to its force structure to address the challenges of waging war and conducting extended stabilization operations. It has done this while engaged in a multiple-theater war. One of the changes involved transform- ing the Army from its traditional, division-based force into a brigade-based force, a concept that has come to be known as “modularity.” Although it was the proximate focus of this study, this move was not made in isolation. It was accompanied by two other force structure change initiatives and a major force management change initiative, all of which were roughly concur- rent. The first force structure change was to “grow the Army” by raising end strength, thereby allowing the Army to add units. The second was to rebalance the force, moving some support- ing capabilities from the reserve component to the active component. The aim was to bring the reserve component force structure into closer alignment with that of the active component. This rebalancing also moved more manpower into the tactical part of the Army and reduced the size of the institutional Army—the sustaining base—to an unprecedented low percentage of the total Army. The major force change initiative occurred in 2006, when the Army Force Generation process moved the Army from a tiered readiness to a cyclical readiness model. Given the near-simultaneity of these events, it is not surprising that their effects have become inextricably entangled, limiting the ability to isolate cause from effect. Congress directed this study to determine whether, by converting to a modular force, the Army has improved its capabilities. In the move to the brigade-centric force structure, or modularity, the Army replaced its division-centric force structure with a force whose constituent building blocks are brigades and brigade combat teams (BCTs). BCTs were rebuilt by making proportionate combat, combat support, and combat service support, formerly provided by the host division, organic to the BCTs’ organization. In the process, the Army reduced the number of combat brigade types in its force structure, from some 17 individual types to three: infantry BCTs, heavy BCTs, and Stryker BCTs. The move to modularity provided the Army with a greater number of smaller, very capable force packages, making it easier to sustain the protracted operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Combat support and combat service support units and force structure were also redesigned to make the entire force more modular. However, the focus of this report is on the combat arms portion of the force structure and its operational command-and-control capabili- ties (or operational headquarters capabilities). The research described in this report was sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Capability Assessment and Program Evaluation, and conducted within the Interna- tional Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of iii iv A Review of the Army’s Modular Force Structure Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community. For more information on the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center, see http://www.rand.org/nsrd/about/isdp.html or contact the director (contact information is provided on the web page). Contents Preface ........................................................................................................... iii Figures ...........................................................................................................vii Tables ............................................................................................................ ix Summary ........................................................................................................ xi Acknowledgments ............................................................................................xiii Abbreviations ...................................................................................................xv CHAPTER ONE Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 Study Approach .................................................................................................. 2 The Army’s Capability to Contribute Land Power in Joint Operations ................................. 3 Options for Managing the Flexibility and Versatility of Army Forces Across the Range of Military Operations ...................................................................................... 3 Tactical, Operational, and Strategic Risks Associated with Brigade Combat Teams, Multifunctional Support Brigades, and Functional Brigades ....................................... 4 Required and Planned End Strength of the Modular Force .............................................. 4 Additional Considerations .................................................................................... 4 Data Sources ...................................................................................................... 5 Methods of Inquiry .............................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER TWO The Impetus for Modularity .................................................................................. 7 The Modular Force and Today’s Operational Concepts ....................................................12 Other Key Assumptions ........................................................................................13 Conclusions ......................................................................................................14
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Historic US–Iraq CBRNE Training Partnership
    U.S. Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School Army Chemical Review (ACR) (ISSN (573) XXX-XXXX 0899-7047) is prepared biannually by the U.S. DSN 676-XXXX (563 prefi x) or 581-XXXX (596 prefi x) Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School and the Maneuver Support COMMANDANT Center Directorate of Training, Fort Leonard COL(P) Leslie C. Smith 563-8053 Wood, Missouri. ACR presents professional <[email protected]> information about Chemical Corps functions related to chemical, biological, radiological, and ASSISTANT COMMANDANT nuclear (CBRN); smoke; fl ame fi eld expedients; COL Greg D. Olson 563-8054 and reconnaissance in combat support. The <[email protected]> objectives of ACR are to inform, motivate, increase CHIEF OF STAFF knowledge, improve performance, and provide a LTC Doug Straka 563-8052 forum for the exchange of ideas. This publication <[email protected]> presents professional information, but the views expressed herein are those of the authors, not the COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR Department of Defense or its elements. The content CSM Ted A. Lopez 563-8053 does not necessarily refl ect the offi cial U.S. Army <[email protected]> position and does not change or supersede any DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–RESERVE information in other U.S. Army publications. The COMPONENT use of news items constitutes neither affi rmation COL Lawrence Meder 563-8050 of their accuracy nor product endorsement. <[email protected]> Articles may be reprinted if credit is given to ACR and its authors. All photographs are offi cial 3D CHEMICAL BRIGADE U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress September 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32665 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the annual rate of Navy ship procurement, the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, and the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry to execute the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years. In December 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship goal was made U.S. policy by Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115- 91 of December 12, 2017). The Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been working since 2019 to develop a successor for the 355-ship force-level goal. The new goal is expected to introduce a new, more distributed fleet architecture featuring a smaller proportion of larger ships, a larger proportion of smaller ships, and a new third tier of large unmanned vehicles (UVs). On June 17, 2021, the Navy released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that presents the Biden Administration’s emerging successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. The document calls for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 321 to 372 manned ships and 77 to 140 large UVs. A September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the fleet envisioned in the document would cost an average of between $25.3 billion and $32.7 billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to procure.
    [Show full text]
  • This Index Lists the Army Units for Which Records Are Available at the Eisenhower Library
    DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER LIBRARY ABILENE, KANSAS U.S. ARMY: Unit Records, 1917-1950 Linear feet: 687 Approximate number of pages: 1,300,000 The U.S. Army Unit Records collection (formerly: U.S. Army, U.S. Forces, European Theater: Selected After Action Reports, 1941-45) primarily spans the period from 1917 to 1950, with the bulk of the material covering the World War II years (1942-45). The collection is comprised of organizational and operational records and miscellaneous historical material from the files of army units that served in World War II. The collection was originally in the custody of the World War II Records Division (now the Modern Military Records Branch), National Archives and Records Service. The material was withdrawn from their holdings in 1960 and sent to the Kansas City Federal Records Center for shipment to the Eisenhower Library. The records were received by the Library from the Kansas City Records Center on June 1, 1962. Most of the collection contained formerly classified material that was bulk-declassified on June 29, 1973, under declassification project number 735035. General restrictions on the use of records in the National Archives still apply. The collection consists primarily of material from infantry, airborne, cavalry, armor, artillery, engineer, and tank destroyer units; roughly half of the collection consists of material from infantry units, division through company levels. Although the collection contains material from over 2,000 units, with each unit forming a separate series, every army unit that served in World War II is not represented. Approximately seventy-five percent of the documents are from units in the European Theater of Operations, about twenty percent from the Pacific theater, and about five percent from units that served in the western hemisphere during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • Record Version Statement by Ltg Joseph Anderson
    RECORD VERSION STATEMENT BY LTG JOSEPH ANDERSON DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G-3/5/7, UNITED STATES ARMY LTG AUNDRE PIGGEE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G-4, UNITED STATES ARMY LTG GWEN BINGHAM ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF, INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES ARMY BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE SUB-COMMITTEE ON READINESS FIRST SESSION, 115TH CONGRESS READINESS MARCH 8TH, 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES INTRODUCTION: Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, distinguished Members of the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the readiness of the United States Army. On behalf of our Acting Secretary, the Honorable Robert Speer, and our Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, thank you for your support and demonstrated commitment to our Soldiers, Army Civilians, Families, and Veterans. Today, the Army remains globally engaged with over 182,000 trained and ready Soldiers committed to meeting Combatant Command deterrence and counter-terrorist requirements. These requirements fall disproportionally on the Army to fulfill: the Army meets 48% of Combatant Command base demand and is set to meet 70% of FY17 emergent force demand. This demand commits all major Regular Army combat formations that are assigned or allocated to Combatant Commands, or that are under orders to be prepared to deploy. In order to sustain this considerable level of demand, the Army has been forced to accept risk in end strength, capacity, readiness, modernization, installations, and sustainment. Simultaneously, rival nations have aggressively updated their armed forces, thus creating capability gaps that impose a significant threat to U.S. forces and contingency missions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brigade Combat Team (BCT): a Revolution in Organizational Structure
    University of Southern Maine USM Digital Commons Muskie School Capstones and Dissertations Student Scholarship 12-2020 The Brigade Combat Team (BCT): A Revolution in Organizational Structure Adam Davis University of Southern Maine, Muskie School of Public Service Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/muskie_capstones Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, Infrastructure Commons, Military and Veterans Studies Commons, Nonprofit Administration and Management Commons, Operations and Supply Chain Management Commons, Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons, and the Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons Recommended Citation Davis, Adam, "The Brigade Combat Team (BCT): A Revolution in Organizational Structure" (2020). Muskie School Capstones and Dissertations. 165. https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/muskie_capstones/165 This Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at USM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Muskie School Capstones and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of USM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Brigade Combat Team (BCT): A Revolution in Organizational Structure Adam Davis Capstone paper for Master of Policy, Planning, and Management Program Muskie School of Public Service University of Southern Maine December 2020 Professor Joseph McDonnell, Capstone Advisor THE BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM (BCT) 2 Abstract This paper explores the U.S. Army’s force reorganization around the Brigade Combat Team (BCT), which began in 2002. The BCT shifted how various army units interacted by changing the echelon at which different types of units report to a single commander, essentially creating self-sufficient units of about 2,500 soldiers instead of the previous self-sufficient units of about 15,000 soldiers.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. ARMY: UNIT RECORDS, Sixth Engineer Special Brigade, 1944-1945
    DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER LIBRARY ABILENE, KANSAS U.S. ARMY: UNIT RECORDS, Sixth Engineer Special Brigade, 1944-1945 1,600 pages (approximate) Boxes 554-555b The 6th Engineer Special Brigade (ESB) was activated on January 20, 1944, and assigned to the U.S. 1st Army. Throughout the first half of that year the Brigade received reinforcements of men and additional support units. Until the invasion of Normandy, the reconstituted Brigade was involved in training operations in England. There were three Engineer Combat Battalions assigned to the 6th ESB: the 147th, 149th, and 203rd. Along with some supporting units, these battalions landed on Omaha Beach as part of the First Army on June 6, 1944. The remainder of the Brigade landed in follow-up waves throughout that month. After the initial assault on Normandy, the Brigade assisted in the expansion of the beachhead. Most duties for the three Combat Battalions consisted of scouting out and clearing minefields, while the supporting units for the Brigade were involved with the processing of prisoners, transportation of supplies and personnel, and other rear area functions. Records for the 6th ESB are scattered from January 1944 to May 1945, with a number of months being completely absent. Most of the documentation is concentrated between the months of June 1944 and November 1944. Because it was an Engineer unit the 6th ESB was frequently broken up, with it’s subordinate battalions and companies being detached to various units during and after the Normandy landings. The records are therefore made up mostly of these detached units, so they will not appear as part of an overall Brigade history.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Military's Force Structure: a Primer
    CHAPTER 2 Department of the Army Overview when the service launched a “modularity” initiative, the The Department of the Army includes the Army’s active Army was organized for nearly a century around divisions component; the two parts of its reserve component, the (which involved fewer but larger formations, with 12,000 Army Reserve and the Army National Guard; and all to 18,000 soldiers apiece). During that period, units in federal civilians employed by the service. By number of Army divisions could be separated into ad hoc BCTs military personnel, the Department of the Army is the (typically, three BCTs per division), but those units were biggest of the military departments. It also has the largest generally not organized to operate independently at any operation and support (O&S) budget. The Army does command level below the division. (For a description of not have the largest total budget, however, because it the Army’s command levels, see Box 2-1.) In the current receives significantly less funding to develop and acquire structure, BCTs are permanently organized for indepen- weapon systems than the other military departments do. dent operations, and division headquarters exist to pro- vide command and control for operations that involve The Army is responsible for providing the bulk of U.S. multiple BCTs. ground combat forces. To that end, the service is orga- nized primarily around brigade combat teams (BCTs)— The Army is distinct not only for the number of ground large combined-arms formations that are designed to combat forces it can provide but also for the large num- contain 4,400 to 4,700 soldiers apiece and include infan- ber of armored vehicles in its inventory and for the wide try, artillery, engineering, and other types of units.1 The array of support units it contains.
    [Show full text]
  • COL Tonri Corel Brown Brigade Commander U.S. Army Satellite Operations Brigade Chief Reserve Affairs Adviser, USASMDC
    COL Tonri Corel Brown Brigade Commander U.S. Army Satellite Operations Brigade Chief Reserve Affairs Adviser, USASMDC COL Tonri Corel Brown, a native of Auburn, Alabama, was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Signal Corps through Alabama A&M University Army ROTC program. He holds a Bachelor of Science from Alabama A&M University, Master of Arts from Webster University and a Master of Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College. His service includes platoon leader, Cable Platoon and Extension Node Platoons, Delta Company, 63rd Signal Battalion, Fort Gordon, Georgia; platoon leader, Large Extension Nodal Platoon, and executive officer, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 63rd Signal Battalion, Fort Gordon; assistant battalion S-3 and telecommunication officer, 63rd Signal Battalion, Fort Gordon; battalion network officer and plans officer, 54th Signal Battalion (FWD), Camp Doha, Kuwait; battalion signal officer S-6, 2nd-325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; chief communications and electronic officer, G-6 96th Regional Readiness Command, Fort Douglas, Utah; enterprise operations officer, U.S. Army Reserve Command G-2/6, Fort McPherson, Georgia; signal force development officer, USARC Army Reserve Force Programs Directorate, Fort McPherson; student, Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; commandant, High Tech Regional Training Site-Maintenance, Sacramento, California; center commander, Brien Thomas Collins U.S. Army Reserve Center, Sacramento; deputy G-3/5, chief of operations, 335th Signal Command (Theater), East Point, Georgia; assistant chief of staff G-6, U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg; student, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania; squadron commander, 4th Joint Communications Squadron, Joint Communications Support Element (Airborne), MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; chief reserve affairs adviser, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Military and Army Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms
    APPENDIX C Military and Army Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms Military and Army Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms AAFES Army and Air Force Exchange Service ACAP Army Career and Alumni Program ACES Army Continuing Education System ACS/FPC Army Community Service/Family Program Coordinator AD Active duty ADJ Adjutant ADSW Active duty for special work AER Army Emergency Relief AFAP Army Family Action Plan AFN Armed Forces Network AFRTS Armed Forces Radio and Television Network AFTB Army Family Team Building AG Adjutant General AGR Active Guard Reserve AIT Advanced Individual Training AMC Army Materiel Command AMMO Ammunition ANCOC Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course ANG Air National Guard AO Area of operations/administrative officer APC Armored personnel carrier APF Appropriated funds APFT Army Physical Fitness Test APO Army post office AR Army Reserve/Army regulation/armor ARCOM Army Reserve Command ARNG Army National Guard ARPERCEN Army Reserve Personnel Center ASAP As soon as possible AT Annual training AUSA Association of the United States Army AWOL Absent without leave BAQ Basic allowance for quarters BAS Basic allowance for subsistence BC Battery commander BCT Basic combat training BDE Brigade Military and Army Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms cont’d BDU Battle dress uniform (jungle, desert, cold weather) BN Battalion BNCOC Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course CAR Chief of Army Reserve CASCOM Combined Arms Support Command CDR Commander CDS Child Development Services CG Commanding General CGSC Command and General Staff College
    [Show full text]
  • Military Units Style Contents
    Military Units Style - Colors Unknown Unknown, Pending 2 Friendly Hostile Hostile, S, J, Faker 2 Neutral 1 Neutral 3 Weather 3 Weather 4 Area Blue Copyright © 1999 - 2004 ESRI. Located in: ArcGIS\Bin\Styles\Military Units.style All Rights Reserved. Version: ArcGIS 8.3 1 Military Units Style - Fill Symbols Unknown Unknown, Pending 2 Friendly Hostile Hostile, S, J, Faker 2 Neutral 1 Neutral 3 Weather 3 Weather 4 Area Copyright © 1999 - 2004 ESRI. Located in: ArcGIS\Bin\Styles\Military Units.style All Rights Reserved. Version: ArcGIS 8.3 2 Military Units Style - Marker Symbols à Infantry Soldier  Helicopter - AH Apache Å Missile Launcher Æ Frigate Ê Generic Tank Ç Destroyer Ë Enemy Tank È Submarine SSBN Ì B-2 Stealth É Submarine Attack Ó F-14 Tomcat À Torpedo Ô Fighter ß Explosion Õ FA-18 ! Unit Ö F-5 " Headquarters Unit Ù Fighter # Logistics/Admin Installation Ú Fighter $ Theater Ü Generic Fighter % Corps Ò E-3 AWACS & Supply unit Ï Helicopter - CH-46 Chinook ' Squad Ð Helicopter - AH Cobra ( Section/Platoon Copyright © 1999 - 2004 ESRI. Located in: ArcGIS\Bin\Styles\Military Units.style All Rights Reserved. Version: ArcGIS 8.3 3 Military Units Style - Marker Symbols ) Platoon/Squadron 8 Infantry Battalion * Company/Battery/Troop 9 Infantry Regiment + Battalion/Squadron : Infantry Brigade , Regiment ; Infantry Division - Brigade < Infantry Corps . Division = Infantry Army / Corps > Infantry Mechanized Squad 0 Army ? Infantry Mechanized Section 1 Infantry @ Infantry Mechanized Platoon 2 Infantry Mechanized A Infantry Mechanized Company 3 Armor B Infantry Mechanized Battalion Company 4 Infantry Squad C Infantry Mechanized Regiment 5 Infantry Section D Infantry Mechanized Brigade 6 Infantry Platoon E Infantry Mechanized Division 7 Infantry Company F Infantry Mechanized Corps Copyright © 1999 - 2004 ESRI.
    [Show full text]
  • Aligning Air Force Leadership Roles the Limitations of Enlisted Empowerment Smsgt Ryan T
    FEATURE Aligning Air Force Leadership Roles The Limitations of Enlisted Empowerment SMSGT RYAN T. MCCLARY, USAF* Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government. This article may be repro- duced in whole or in part without permission. If it is reproduced, the Air and Space Power Journal requests a courtesy line. n 1958, the Military Pay Act created two new US Air Force senior enlisted “super grades” of senior master sergeant and chief master sergeant to sanction higher levels of empowerment to the enlisted force.1 This allowed the assign- ment of roles “once reserved for the commissioned officer corps” that included I 2 tasks “where authority falls just short of. officers or warrants.” It was at this point in Air Force history where the formalization of enlisted force empower- * The author would like to thank his mentors: Lt Col Matthew Borawski, Col D. Landon Phillips, Maj Taylor Valentine, Maj Stephen Emborski, Dr. Carmen Emborski, CMSgt Neil Jones, and CMSgt Alex Morgan. Without their guidance, these ideas would have never materialized from the ether. Additionally, he would like to acknowledge the giants and their ideas who came before: Col A. J. Bischoff, Lt Col John Frey, CMSgt Dave Brown, Retired, CMSgt Marshall B. Dutton, Retired, SMSgt Marshall G. Dutton, Retired, CDR Lawrence E. Hall, Retired, and Dr. Ronald Hartzer.
    [Show full text]
  • News Call Army Medic Earns Silver Star a 19-Year-Old Medic from Lake Some 500 Yards to Safety
    News Call Army Medic Earns Silver Star A 19-year-old medic from Lake some 500 yards to safety. She treated Jackson, Texas, Spc. Monica Lin them on-site before a medevac heli- Brown, 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry copter arrived. Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, Although Pentagon policy prohibits is the first woman in Afghanistan— women from serving in frontline and only the second female soldier combat positions, female soldiers since World War II—to earn the Silver in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the Star. In April 2007, Spc. Brown was counterinsurgencies lack real front part of a four-vehicle convoy pa- lines, participate in close-quarters trolling in eastern Afghanistan’s Pak- combat more than women did in pre- tia Province when a roadside bomb vious wars. Spc. Brown joined the struck one of the Humvees, wounding Army in November 2006 and is ex- five soldiers in her unit. She ran pected to leave Afghanistan in April. through insurgent gunfire to reach the “I did not really have time to be casualties, shielded them with her scared,” she told an Associated Press own body from mortars falling less reporter. “I was in a kind of a robot- ovided by the family than 100 yards away as she adminis- Pr mode, did not think about much but tered first aid, and helped drag them Spc. Monica Lin Brown getting the guys taken care of.” Army Trains Afghan Police. The Com- development (FDD)—to train and re- cause they are local and know the land bined Security Transition Command- form the Afghan National Police.
    [Show full text]