Rushing transformation can only result in hasty and ill-conceived changes

Dear ARMOR,

First, may I compliment Major General Tucker on his column, "Restructuring the Force," in the May-June 2004 issue of ARMOR, which concisely outlines the transformation concepts for the U.S. Army.

Secondly, I was perplexed and confused by the quote, which was attributed to the Chief of Staff, Army, at the beginning of Colonel Kevin Benson's article, "Thoughts on Restructuring Army Brigades," also in the May-June 2004 issue of ARMOR.

Can the Chief of Staff be serious in his statement to, "turn three brigades into five maneuver brigades, and if I provide the right equipment, could they be one and a half more lethal than before." I suspect that the objective of transforming the Army's organization is to reduce the strength of the Army as desired by the Secretary of Defense.

Are we engaged in a "numbers game," wherein we transform the present 32 brigades into 48 brigades, and at the same time, increase the headquarters of the new brigade (oops, I mean unit of action) with an augmentation of a recon troop, one Howitzer battery, a combat support battalion, a forward support battalion, and so on? You may then tend to believe that this unit of action is approaching the capabilities of a small division in combat support and combat service support. In effect, is the concept to organize small divisions?

Instead of basing this restructuring on organizational principles of war--"Combat power is a combination of the physical means available to a commander and the moral strength of his command.... The degree of combat power attained reflects the commander's imaginative planning and leadership and the organization, training, and discipline of his forces." (U.S. Army Field Manual 100-5 Operations)--we appear to be rushing transformation, without the time to properly study and evaluate proposals.

I believe the enormous pressures placed on our senior leaders to move swiftly on transformation based on directives from the Secretary of Defense, can only result in hasty and ill-conceived changes, which shall significantly damage the effectiveness of our forces, and cause a serious long-term decline in the morale of our soldiers.

Finally, Colonel Benson should consider taking U.S. Army transformation back to the "regimental organization" under the "triangular division" concept. Thankfully, it was armor senior generals who preserved the armored cavalry regiments when the misguided reorganization of the Army divisions (ROAD) restructuring was established some 50 years ago.

Indeed, we must never forget that military organizations are not mechanical "units of action" like packages of modular size to be sent hither and yon, but are vibrant human beings who are dedicated military professionals that require the elan of a military organization, such as the regiment, to sustain them in war and peace.

DUQUESNE A. WOLF COL, U.S. Army, Retired

COPYRIGHT 2004 U.S. Army Armor Center
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group