A little birdie visited the other day, and among its droppings we discovered a very interesting .pptx document: Its title was HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND: Briefing to to General Odierno, CSA, 10 July 2014.
Yes, the double “to” is in the title, and yes, it was shown to the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) that way, and yes, he missed it, too. The country’s in the very best of hands.
We’ve had the document for about a week now, and have shared it with some Army friends, and we’re sure we’re not the only ones. It’s unclassified, but we didn’t want to share it all publicly for one very specific reason: since much of it deals with the officer RIFs, there are some specific slides that are potentially damaging to the reputations and privacy of individual officers selected for separation by several recent boards. One slide in particular uses the DA photos of four individuals selected for termination (three of them combat vets with the CIB or CAB) and demeans them in the process of arguing HRC’s position, which stripped of personnel-wallah cant is basically: these are the slugs we’re getting rid of.
As we’ll see, the HRC definition of a “slug” is somewhat different from ours. (Ours encompasses much of the Human Resources Command, for starters). But our concern is that these four proud officers, and others whose individual selves may be clearly identifiable from elements in the presentation, need not be personally dragged in the mud in public, just because they were privately dragged through the mud — unknowingly — for the edification of the Chief of Staff. Maybe they are slugs, but to have that decision made by a Washington-based personnel drone whose plush bottom has polished his chair smooth is some gross violation of the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury. As in the 1970s RIFs, there seems to be a bias against combat vets and for the combat-shy baked into the system.
Read the whole thing, very interesting...
http://weaponsman.com/?p=17225
Yes, the double “to” is in the title, and yes, it was shown to the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) that way, and yes, he missed it, too. The country’s in the very best of hands.
We’ve had the document for about a week now, and have shared it with some Army friends, and we’re sure we’re not the only ones. It’s unclassified, but we didn’t want to share it all publicly for one very specific reason: since much of it deals with the officer RIFs, there are some specific slides that are potentially damaging to the reputations and privacy of individual officers selected for separation by several recent boards. One slide in particular uses the DA photos of four individuals selected for termination (three of them combat vets with the CIB or CAB) and demeans them in the process of arguing HRC’s position, which stripped of personnel-wallah cant is basically: these are the slugs we’re getting rid of.
As we’ll see, the HRC definition of a “slug” is somewhat different from ours. (Ours encompasses much of the Human Resources Command, for starters). But our concern is that these four proud officers, and others whose individual selves may be clearly identifiable from elements in the presentation, need not be personally dragged in the mud in public, just because they were privately dragged through the mud — unknowingly — for the edification of the Chief of Staff. Maybe they are slugs, but to have that decision made by a Washington-based personnel drone whose plush bottom has polished his chair smooth is some gross violation of the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury. As in the 1970s RIFs, there seems to be a bias against combat vets and for the combat-shy baked into the system.
Read the whole thing, very interesting...
http://weaponsman.com/?p=17225
RSS Feed