Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Generals?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by kermit
    Corps Directors, O/C Colleges, etc
    You mean "jobs for the boys". Do we need corps directorates? Does the OC need to be a colonel?


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
      From the Dail Yesterday

      1x Maj Gen(22,24feb)
      1x Brig Gen(13,20/21feb)
      6x Col(12Mar)
      12x Lt Col(??)

      A future COS will most definitely be amongst those promoted after the competitions above. Is there any bright and shining lights coming up the officer ranks, that aren't close to retirement, who can steer the DF through the White paper process, in the days of recession, while still keeping a credible and efficient Defence Force?
      There are more potential moves and promotions before a COS vacancy is there so I would think there are still plenty of cards to be dealt yet

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
        You mean "jobs for the boys". Do we need corps directorates? Does the OC need to be a colonel?
        Be careful what you wish for Goldie. Many of the posters on this forum seem to have a severe case of myopia when it comes to the same issue as it applies to officers and o/ranks.

        Why does an Ord Room Sgt need to be a Sgt? Why do MPs need to be at least Cpls? Why does the senior NCO in an Arty Regiment need to be a Sgt Maj? The answers to those questions are the same as why a Corps Director or OC Sch needs to be a Col when the unit in that Corps are lead by a Lt Col............the authority of the rank when issuing orders/instructions/TIs etc.

        In less constrained times it was a simple approach to something which would become far more complicated otherwise. Different times suggest that a more complicated solution will just have to be found for officer and NCO appointments. Just remember that the payroll savings in any project to depress officer ranks downwards will be a fraction of the savings for same exercise among NCOs. Don't cod yourself, the case for the defence for many NCO appointments is equally under threat. The only pers safe from this are the Ptes and Lts but they will loose out on promotion opportunities.

        It's the usual persecution complex reaction of you "make the poor rich by making the rich poor". Go for the sensational example, the lads in the canteen busy bitching about the upper ranks but never taking the time to look in the mirror. Meanwhile, ignore all the elephants in the room like all the PDF pers employed as RDF cadre as just one example.

        There's no doubt that some officer appointments should be reviewed but NCOs are no postion to be throwing stones either. Some officers have looked after themselves in the past but they've also looked after NCOs too (often as a reward for an NCO looking after them so well). During the Defence Forces Review and Implementation Plan (DFRIP - can you believe no one saw that); D ARTY lost the directorship but held on to the RSM in each Regiment.

        For altogether different reasons you could question why all ARW pers being at least Cpl and why there are all the NCOs in technical appointments like the Band and workshops etc. or why the NS and AC have a very high % of NCOs. Furthermore, there are as many 'questionable' senior NCO appointments as senior Officer appointments in DFHQ.

        On a human level I will not be canvassing for any officer or NCO to be made redundant, forced to be a SWA or loose out on any promtion prospects for the rest of their career.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Jessup View Post
          The answers to those questions are the same as why a Corps Director or OC Sch needs to be a Col when the unit in that Corps are lead by a Lt Col............the authority of the rank when issuing orders/instructions/TIs etc.
          "Don't confuse your rank with my authority" as the saying goes.

          Comment


          • #65
            Agreed, but imagine the 'confusion' when dealing with charges; Cpl Bloggs disobeyed a direct order from Pte (MP) Jones or Cpl Smith did not complete the task as instructed by Cpl Murphy. Maybe there's no need for rank to carry authority and everyone should be called comrade? Would be great when there's an incident and the dreaded question "who was the senior man/woman"? No one!

            Comment


            • #66
              Its not the authority thing as such thats being questioned,its the amount of persons holding various levels of rank in given units/corps.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Jessup View Post
                Agreed, but imagine the 'confusion' when dealing with charges; Cpl Bloggs disobeyed a direct order from Pte (MP) Jones or Cpl Smith did not complete the task as instructed by Cpl Murphy. Maybe there's no need for rank to carry authority and everyone should be called comrade? Would be great when there's an incident and the dreaded question "who was the senior man/woman"? No one!
                If the person who issues a legit order and holds the required authoirty, regardless of rank, such as your MP example above then where is the problem? If Cpl Bloggs didn't do what he should have done, then theres the problem. No confusion there.

                As for the senior man/woman, is it not the case within the DF that all personnel are taught to take charge if there is no one there already designated too? For example at section level, from IC to 2/IC to 1RM etc. If the IC and 2/IC are taken away, then it is up to 1RM to assume command until thier return. Seniorty does not come into it there. The problem arises when no one has the balls to do what they are trained to too!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Vamp369 View Post
                  If the person who issues a legit order and holds the required authoirty, regardless of rank, such as your MP example above then where is the problem? If Cpl Bloggs didn't do what he should have done, then theres the problem. No confusion there.

                  We're going off thread here vamp, but there's four pretexts in your scenario above, each on their own represent complications. If it's there's no problem or confusion, then linking it to the question about why all the Generals and Colonels; why must PDF MPs in ireland need to be at least Cpls? If you disagree with the link between rank and authority then surely PDF MP Cpls is another example of 'jobs for the boys'. We know that's not the case, so that logic must apply when applied to Generals and Colonels who are hated even more than MPs

                  As for the senior man/woman, is it not the case within the DF that all personnel are taught to take charge if there is no one there already designated too? For example at section level, from IC to 2/IC to 1RM etc. If the IC and 2/IC are taken away, then it is up to 1RM to assume command until thier return. Seniorty does not come into it there. The problem arises when no one has the balls to do what they are trained to too!

                  You're making my point. In order for someone to be in charge you follow the chain of command. The reason for a Corps Director being a Col is the simplicity of the chain of command where he/she out ranks the Lt Col unit commanders, the same with D COS SP and D COS OPS out ranking the Bde OCs. The simplicity of this follows a basic rule of the military; K.I.S.S. It's not 'jobs for the boys'. In the current environment such simplicity might be seen as a luxury and more complex solutions will have to investigated across appointments in all ranks. EG the senior NCO in an Arty Reg being the most senior CS and the Unit OC is the most senior Comdt? Ok when it's case of "2 i/c take over" but can foresee all sorts of problems if that was the default configuration.
                  __
                  Last edited by Jessup; 13 March 2012, 01:18.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    But.. do you really need a Corps Director?


                    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by timhorgan View Post
                      Michael Collins wanted the New Irish Army to be modelled on the Swiss-pity he did not have time to see it through.
                      The only problem with his idea Tim, is that he'd also have to model the Irish people on the Swiss, and I couldn't see that succeeding somehow, could you?
                      'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
                      'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
                      Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
                      He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
                      http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                        But.. do you really need a Corps Director?
                        Fair question. From what I've heard, "everything is on the table" now Goldie. The Infantry Corps have managed without a Corps Director and they're the 'biggest' Corps.

                        D ARTY and D CAV were 'merged' years ago but units are still separate, contrary to what happens overseas with ARTY and CAV in the same sub unit. There's speculation of a combined Arty/Cav Regiment per Bde?

                        The LSBs went the opposite way. The units were merged but retained their individual Corps Directors. For those folks there's speculation of a new 'D Logs' with specialist staff officers in S&T, Ordnance, Medical etc. The Corps loose their separate directors and some of the staff officers and NCOs.

                        It's not nice for anyone to have their career path narrowed due to a lack of vacancies but it tough for everyone in this country at the moment. I'm advocating a bit of balance and foresight about so called 'jobs for the boys'. Any 'casualties' will not be limited to officers.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Jessup View Post
                          Fair question. From what I've heard, "everything is on the table" now Goldie. The Infantry Corps have managed without a Corps Director and they're the 'biggest' Corps...
                          Ohhh - there was one a couple of years ago - gone since ?

                          Any 'casualties' will not be limited to officers.
                          This is also true - the associated support staffs - NCOs and Ptes would also be lost in such a re org - meaning redeployment of same to other
                          units / locations
                          "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Many of the posters on this forum seem to have a severe case of myopia when it comes to the same issue as it applies to officers and o/ranks.
                            Ah the old them and us defence- if in doubt throw in a curve ball- dont worry Jess its not a them and us situation now, the recent multiple senior officer appointments has made sure of that, and just in case you think it is-

                            -Some of my best freinds are black,
                            -Some of my best freinds are gay,
                            -Some of my best freinds are officers,
                            -Some of my best freinds are goths-

                            that counter defence will work all the time.
                            Why does an Ord Room Sgt need to be a Sgt?
                            Because its the rank set out in the establishment- an Ord Room Sgt is a trmemdously responsible job- very few units have trained Adjts or Admin Officers so in a lot of Units the O Room Sgt actually does the work of the Officer who reads the Metro and gets the salute etc etc-

                            You will find now because of the promotion embargo that a lot of Units dont have an O Room SGt but rather an O room Cpl doing the work of the Sgt and the Capt.(unpaid)

                            Again its not a them and us myopia but I am glad that we have Col's exercising the vital function of Corp Directors and the little known job of Bde EO.



                            Why do MPs need to be at least Cpls?
                            Up to quiet recently (last ish month or two) we had PA's who did the course but because of the embargo they didnt get the stripe.

                            Why does the senior NCO in an Arty Regiment need to be a Sgt Maj?
                            Because they are an operational Unit and if you had 4 Btys with 4 Bty Sgts and no RSM - who exactly is in charge?



                            The answers to those questions are the same as why a Corps Director or OC Sch needs to be a Col when the unit in that Corps are lead by a Lt Col............the authority of the rank when issuing orders/instructions/TIs etc.

                            Nothing like it at all.>
                            Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
                            Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
                            The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
                            The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
                            The best lack all conviction, while the worst
                            Are full of passionate intensity.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by hedgehog View Post
                              Because its the rank set out in the establishment

                              Up to quiet recently (last ish month or two) we had PA's who did the course but because of the embargo they didnt get the stripe.

                              Because they are an operational Unit and if you had 4 Btys with 4 Bty Sgts and no RSM - who exactly is in charge?

                              Nothing like it at all.>
                              So let's get this straight; A question is asked about why a certain appointment carries a certain rank. If the question relates to o/ranks an acceptable justification can be "that's the rank set out in the establishment". However, if the question relates to officers that justification cannot be used? So for o/ranks the policy is, that's the way it always has been and that's the way it will be but when it comes to officers snide comments about 'jobs for the boys' are fair comment?

                              As for the PA/MP example, I see you're not denying the some appointments benefit from a minimum rank to promote the authority of that appointment holder when trying to do their job. Just to be clear, that intention is organisational support when it applies to o/ranks but it's jobs for the boys when it applies to officers? Your PA/MP alumni are in diificult position made more challenging by not carrying the stripe. However, their plight is not a unique one. Plenty of officers have done the J C&S since the embargo HH. Many have not been promoted from Capt and are working a Coy Comdrs for lengthy periods while the other Coy Comdrs in the same unit are Comdts. This leads to obvious challenges when two Coy Comdrs are fighting for resources or a fair allocation of taskings for their Coy with one and Captain and the other a Comdt. Add to that that the Captain Coy Comdr might be 'junior' to the Captain Adjt, QM, Ops Officer etc.

                              As for your last point, that's just a blatant double standard. The RSM must be an RSM so that he/she can be 'in charge' of 4 x BS. How is that not the same as a Maj Gen having to be a Maj Gen so that he/she can be in charge of the 3 x Bde OCs for Ops and Sp issues? Or, how is that not the same as a Col must be a Col to be 'in charge' of the 3 x Unit Comdrs. Operations, Training, Doctrine, someone has to be in charge. It's exactly the same thing..................except it's not when it applies to officers?

                              BTW I presume you mis-spelled friends (freinds) on purpose. None of your best friends are black or gay or goth or officers, are they?
                              Last edited by Jessup; 14 March 2012, 11:18.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                ÓGLAIGH NA hÉIREANN
                                Tá an Rialtas inniu tar éis
                                An Briogáidire-Ghinearál Conor O’Boyle
                                (Brigadier-General Conor O’Boyle)
                                a cheapadh chun oifig Leas-Cheann Fóirne (Tacaíocht) Óglaigh
                                na hÉireann, go ceann tréimshe dar tosach an 6 Márta, 2012
                                agus dar críoch 28 Meán Fómhair, 2014.
                                MARTIN FRASER
                                Ard-Rúnaí an Rialtais
                                BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH, DUBLIN,
                                An 6ú lá seo de Márta, 2012. This 6th day of March, 2012.
                                "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                                "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X