- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:16 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:Cavalier attitude on who will be in charge.
Who cares?
quote:Recent history tells me neither of these chucklenuts would know who to select.
The president? Secdef?
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:16 pm to Jbird
We would have a MacArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower and Clarke thing going. These standing headquarters are just looking for work. No matter what they say, they are not the geographic experts.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:17 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:True
These standing headquarters are just looking for work.
quote:They lost their collective ways post Desert Storm.
No matter what they say, they are not the geographic experts.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:18 pm to Foch
quote:
One way to clarify would be to reorganize as wolfhound and others laid out: USMC interests abroad/light to medium short-term power projection, Navy all things Nautical, Army big and slow but business when you mean it.
Exactly. Then all these "purple" and "joint" arguments can become moot.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:18 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
The president? Secdef? Who cares? The point is it shouldn't be COCOM.
Take a step back for a second, though bureaucracy can be infuriating imagine a JCS that rotates "favor" among subordinate services by awarding missions and command. It may still happen now, but COCOM organization makes things a lot more purple than they used to be.
I'd take a CENTCOM everyday over having to coordinate back to DC every time you want your sister service to do X instead of Y.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:20 pm to Foch
quote:Sounds like Vietnam, then we have them select target sets to bomb everyday while in the White House.
I'd take a CENTCOM everyday over having to coordinate back to DC every time you want your sister service to do X instead of Y.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:20 pm to Foch
Is purple the new buzzword for joint or something? Cause that's fricking gay.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:22 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:Not even new Brah, I got to bounce ttyl GT have a good one.
Is purple the new buzzword for joint or something?
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:23 pm to Jbird
We definitely do not need a COCOM and an SCC for each COCOM. When you throw an Army corps or Marine MEF into the mix, it just ends up being three-star level redundancies.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:23 pm to Foch
quote:
I'd take a CENTCOM everyday over having to coordinate back to DC every time you want your sister service to do X instead of Y.
But that's a false dilemma.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:24 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
We definitely do not need a COCOM and an SCC for each COCOM. When you throw an Army corps or Marine MEF into the mix, it just ends up being three-star level redundancies.
Exactly. We also have numbered Fleet and Air Force commands. These command structures are already in place.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:29 pm to Wolfhound45
First I'm not defending the doctrine and second I'm definitely not defending the reality of what occurred when ego's who thought they would fight their last executed the war. And obviously CENTCOM when through a major change in mission and culture as different commands were created throughout the years of war.
First in reply to GT23: Frank's was in charge of a land, air, special operations and naval component. So his job and his staffs job was to integrate and fight a separate theatre mission when necessary and also the overall logistics involved (more important than the direct warfighting in many ways). Did they micromanage (fricking A) they did.
CJFLCC had more than just a Corps which I'm sure they also micromanaged but
1st MEF and CJSOF-TF (North) and CJSOF-TF (West).
First in reply to GT23: Frank's was in charge of a land, air, special operations and naval component. So his job and his staffs job was to integrate and fight a separate theatre mission when necessary and also the overall logistics involved (more important than the direct warfighting in many ways). Did they micromanage (fricking A) they did.
CJFLCC had more than just a Corps which I'm sure they also micromanaged but
1st MEF and CJSOF-TF (North) and CJSOF-TF (West).
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:30 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Is purple the new buzzword for joint or something? Cause that's fricking gay.
I think Joint is the new buzzword for gay.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:34 pm to MrCarton
quote:
But that's a false dilemma.
Again, not trying to be obtuse, just saying that in the absence of mission clarity between services (USMC role, Army role, Navy role as defined earlier) the COCOM format forces jointness where it otherwise might not exist.
Is the bureaucracy bloated? Are there a bunch of redundant redundancies? Is it a bit too imperialistic? Yes to all of the above.
Does it still serve a purpose though when the Army and Marines are fighting over many of the same missions (see Pacific unit rotations)? Maybe.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:35 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
These standing headquarters are just looking for work. No matter what they say, they are not the geographic experts.
Yep, simply promotion avenues for the higher ups. Iraq was laughable and Afghanistan was a bit better simply because it was a bigger country.
But a cursory look and you see all the motion and effort and you think wow "shite is really getting done", but its not. I know a guy who got a Bronze Star in Afghanistan for creating a master tracker, it combined all the info from the other 45 trackers into one.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:35 pm to OleWar
quote:
Frank's was in charge of a land, air, special operations and naval component. So his job and his staffs job was to integrate and fight a separate theatre mission when necessary and also the overall logistics involved (more important than the direct warfighting in many ways). Did they micromanage (fricking A) they did.
CJFLCC had more than just a Corps which I'm sure they also micromanaged but
1st MEF and CJSOF-TF (North) and CJSOF-TF (West).
What a cluster frick.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:36 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:
But a cursory look and you see all the motion and effort and you think wow "shite is really getting done", but its not. I know a guy who got a Bronze Star in Afghanistan for creating a master tracker, it combined all the info from the other 45 trackers into one.
Yep."I talk to the customers for the engineers " " im a people person "
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:38 pm to OleWar
Where does SOCCENT play in this? See how this goes? It is just redundant dumbassery and make up work. Did CJFLCC/3A really make that big of a difference in deconflicting terrain and tasks?
Posted on 11/21/16 at 2:38 pm to Foch
quote:
Again, not trying to be obtuse, just saying that in the absence of mission clarity between services (USMC role, Army role, Navy role as defined earlier) the COCOM format forces jointness where it otherwise might not exist.
Is the bureaucracy bloated? Are there a bunch of redundant redundancies? Is it a bit too imperialistic? Yes to all of the above.
Does it still serve a purpose though when the Army and Marines are fighting over many of the same missions (see Pacific unit rotations)? Maybe.
Yeah i know there was a big problem before we had the current setup. No question about it. I think I agree with GT23 that COCOMS have to go. Ill Type up a deal when I get a chance sharing what i think should happen.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News