Posted on 06/19/2005 5:47:49 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
When recruits flock to recruiting stations and aske to be a part of that specific unit then I'll concede that the name change was good for recruiting.
For the record, I asked to be sent to Korea for my first duty station but not because of any name. I spent a year in 2ID and loved every minute of it.
And we're civilians.
My biggest complaint is when they mix the letters of acronyms around to form a different acronym or just completely rename them altogether. I guess in this regard, the military has never been designed to be user friendly.
Yep. EPSP's EXDEEU's DEEU's EXPDG's and PDG's and PSP's
Where will it end?
Thanks for being patronizing. I'm sure I'm completely wrong and have no basis for my opinion that an apparently gratuitous name change is a bad idea.
My point wasn't that it's wrong to change things. My point was that to take a unit with the history of 2ID and give it this neutered buzzword sounding name is ignorant.
It's a new concept with an improvement to the existing infrastructure. They could call it the Fuzzy Lovey Bunny Brigade and it would still be a substantive improvement. Who cares about a name anyway?
I've been listening to a lot of complaining lately about the changes to the Army, especially the Stryker. Come take my place as a PL of a Stryker PLT in the 2nd ID under the UA (soon to be UEx) concept and tell me what a bad idea it is. My combat vet NCOs swear by the whole idea and that's good enough for me.
As I mentioned before, the military, not just the Army, adapts to the threat, and in doing so re-organizes and re-names on occasion. Some Army G8 staff guy pitches a "new" organizational name to his boss so the Chief of Staff can pitch the "new" organization to DoD and Congress and the name and acronym grows legs. Next year it may be called something completely different to distinguish it from the prototype moniker. This process is not unusual nor unique.
Stand alone regiments and brigades have been organized and deployed in the U.S. Army numerous times over the course of its history (RCTs and Seperate Brigades for example). The names aren't necessarily what's important, it's how they're organized to fight and how effective they are that counts. You don't have to like the process, or even agree with why they do it, but there it is.
yooooooooooex
eyoo-ex
yoox
first euuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuex
Thank you for the feedback. And you're welcome. ;)
All of the posters are right. First the 2ID will keep its patch, for at least the UAX and one or two of its BCTs or UAs. The key in what the Army is doing is attempting to streamline one level of command by using one HQs formation capable of both tactical and operational C2 (corps/division), and making its fighting tactical formation self contained. For example, the CSS and CS (i.e. support formations and signal COs) are organic to the BCT not attached from some SPT command or Signal Bn owned by the Division. If any one is familiar with old regimental combat team or seperate INF BDE these are kinda the model. Its going to take a few years for it to sort out and folks to get their arms around the name changes. However, its the first really functional change in a long time. The BCTs have organic recon and intel, fires, UAV, support, signal, etc.
There are also thousands of majors and LTC in VA, Wash DC and elsewhere sweating the patch thing, likely more than sweating the best MTOE for the formation.
LOL! Well said.
Nope, just a WWII shorthand for Commander Destroyer Squadron 7 Destroyer Division Six Destroyers Atlantic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.