Homework

Need help with homework

Force Generation Reading Material

(Please google)

ADP 4-0 Sustainment (2019)

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/adp4_0

ADRP 4-0 Sustainment (2019)

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/adrp/4-0/adrp4_0

AR 40-501 Standards of Medical Fitness (2019)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN8673_AR40_501_FINAL_WEB

AR 220-1 Army Unit Status Reporting and Force Registration-Consolidated Policies (2010)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r220_1

AR 525-29 Force Generation-Sustainable Readiness (2019)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN9412_AR525_29_FINAL

ATP 1-06_2 The Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (2017)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN7910_ATP%201-06×2%20FINAL%20WEB

ATP 3-35 Army Deployment and Redeployment (2015)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN13119_ATP%203-35%20C2%20Inc%20FINAL%20WEB

ATP 4-93 Sustainment Brigade (2016)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ATP%204-93%20FINAL%20WEB

FM 1-06 Financial Management Operations (2014)

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/fm1_06

JP 3-0 Joint Operations (2017)

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_0ch1

JP 4-01 The Defense Transportation System (2017)

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp4_01_20170718

JP 4-10 Operational Contract Support (2019)

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp4_10

TRADOC PAM 525-3-1 The US Army Multi-Domain Operations 2028 (2018)

https://www.tradoc.army.mil/portals/14/documents/mdo/tp525-3-1_30nov2018

Additional Reading
:

Army accepts Gansler Commission report on contracting; commits to action

By Mr. Paul Boyce (FORSCOM)November 1, 2007

Secretary of the Army Pete Geren accepted Nov. 1 the report of an independent commission

citing structural weaknesses and organizational shortcomings in the U.S. Army’s acquisition and

contracting system used to support expeditionary operations.

Dr. Jacques Gansler, former undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics,

presented “The Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary

Operations” report to Secretary Geren, who earlier this year formed the commission to assess the

Army’s acquisition system. Geren said the report offered the “blunt and comprehensive

assessment we asked for and needed, and a plan for the way ahead.”

Gansler was named chairman of the commission on Sept. 12 by Geren, who determined the

Army’s acquisition system needed a comprehensive review to examine its role in support of

large-scale expeditionary operations. Geren sought an uncompromising, big-picture review of the

system. He wanted recommendations addressing how to best ensure that the Army is properly

equipped for a future characterized by persistent conflict.

Complementing the commission’s strategic review, Geren also formed a task force to review

current contracting operations and take immediate action where appropriate. The Army

Contracting Task Force, co-chaired by Lt. Gen. N. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the

assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology; and Ms. Kathryn

Condon, executive deputy to the commanding general of Army Materiel Command, has already

made actionable recommendations and is implementing improvements.

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the demand that expeditionary military

operations place on the contracting system and contracting personnel, Geren pointed out. The

U.S. Army has never fought an extended conflict that required this much to be outsourced.

Approximately half of the personnel currently deployed in Iraq are contractor employees, who

provide food services, interpreters, communications, equipment repair and other important

services.

“Contracting and procurement must be an Army core competency,” Geren said. “I deeply

appreciate the good work of Dr. Gansler and his commission. We are responding positively and

quickly to the commission’s findings and recommendations.”

Gansler’s commission and the Army Contracting Task Force’s efforts followed investigations and

audits which have cited contractors and government contracting officials for corrupt activity

related to contingency contracting. The investigations continue. As of Oct. 23, the U.S. Army

Criminal Investigation Command is conducting 83 investigations relating to contract fraud in

Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan.

While the cases vary in severity and complexity, most involve bribery. There are confirmed

bribes in excess of $15 million. As of Oct. 24, 23 U.S. government employees, both military and

civilian, have been charged or indicted in federal court. Contracts valued at more than $6 billion

are affected. The Army reorganized its contracting office in Kuwait, replaced its leaders,

increased the size of the staff and provided more ethics training.

“The overwhelming majority of our contracting workforce, civilian and military, is doing an

outstanding job under challenging circumstances,” Geren said. “But, we must do a better job of

organizing, resourcing and supporting them in their critical work. We will take the steps

necessary to ensure that we execute our responsibility effectively, efficiently and consistently

with Army values.”

The commission outlined four areas as critical to future success: (1) increased stature, quantity

and career development for contracting personnel – both military and civilian, particularly for

expeditionary operations; (2) restructure of the organization and responsibility to facilitate

contracting and contract management; (3) training and tools for overall contracting activities in

expeditionary operations; and (4) obtaining legislative, regulatory, and policy assistance to

enable contracting effectiveness – important in expeditionary operations.

Commission members include David J. Berteau, former principal deputy assistant secretary of

defense (resource management & support); retired Gen. Leon Salomon, former commander,

Army Materiel Command; retired Gen. David M. Maddox, former commander, U.S. Army

Europe; and retired Rear Adm. David R. Oliver Jr., former director, Office of Management and

Budget, Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraq.

The Gansler report traced many of the difficulties to post-Cold War cuts in the Army acquisition

budget, which led to an undersized acquisition workforce in the face of an expanding workload.

“This workforce has not been properly sized, trained, structured, or empowered to meet the needs

of our warfighters, in major expeditionary operations,” Geren said. “We also need to do a better

job in training our commanders on their responsibilities for requirements definition and

contractor performance.”

Journal Reflection Topic of Discussion
: Force Readiness Issue

Required Reading for this assignment (please click link or google)
:

Note: Please use the
suggested sources below as well as any other sources related to the topic. Also,
review and use attached Rubrics to meet the assignment’s requirements.

Suggested Sources (please click link or google title)
:

· ARMY READINESS: Progress and Challenges in Rebuilding Personnel, Equipping, and Training (2019)

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696780

· Challenges at many levels: Holistic view of readiness allows Army to meet new demands (March 2, 2020)

https://www.army.mil/article/233273/challenges_at_many_levels_holistic_view_of_readiness_allows_army_to_meet_new_demands

· The Fundamentals of Military Readiness (October 2, 2020)

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R46559

Assignment Instructions:
Write a substantive journal entry describing:

· a current force readiness issue and its impact on the mission from a Sergeant Major’s perspective (an issue that has not already been addressed throughout the course).

The journal entry must be between 500-600 words,
with at least two cited sources
. The assignment
must have at least one in-text citation
. Reference appropriate doctrine within

the reading assignments (attached separately) that supports your analysis following the post using Purdue Owl APA style, 6th Edition format. Please do not write in first person nor Passive Voice.

Criteria Far Exceeds Standards Exceeds Standards Meets Standards Does Not Meet

Standards Unsatisfactory

20 18 14 10 0

Ideas, Arguments,

& Analysis

Ideas expressed

in

discussion posts include

original thought,

substantial depth, and

are relevant to topic.

Viewpoint shows strong

logical thinking,

reasoning, and analysis

with evidence and

examples. Provided an

external resource

supporting student’s

discussion (as required

in the

post instructions)

Ideas expressed in

discussion posts

are applicable and

relevant to topic;

some original

thought.

Demonstrates

reasonable

thinking, and/or

analysis with an

example.

Viewpoint is

supported with

evidence and/or

examples (as

required in the

post instructions)

Information

presents thoughtful

opinions that

connect to the ideas

analyzed. Presents

concepts with

minimal connections

to course content.

Ideas expressed in

discussion posts show a

minimal understanding of

the discussion topic.

Comments are general in

nature and/or

occasionally may not be

relevant. Repeats or

summarizes ideas with

limited analysis, original

thought, and/or

supported viewpoints.

No entry by

student or

submission turned

in late.

Connection to

Course Materials

Strong, direct

connections are made

to

readings and/or other

course materials.

Content of lesson is

clearly articulated

through the use of

direct citing or

paraphrasing of the

module subject area

Some direct

connections are

made to readings

and/or other course

materials

(references, media,

resources, etc.) and

are clearly stated for

the most part.

Connected ideas to

course content;

however, a lack of

deep understanding

is evident.

Minimal direct

connections are made to

readings and/or other

course materials

(references, media,

resources, etc.).

Connections

are largely

inferred and somewhat

unclear at times.

No entry by
student or
submission turned
in

late.(references,

media, resources,

etc.), and/or if

made, are not

clearly stated and

are largely

personal opinions.

Writing Quality Journal entry is well

written and clearly

articulated using

standard English,

characterized by

elements of a strong

writing style with

correct grammar,

punctuation, usage, and

spelling.

Journal entry shows

above average

writing style that is

clear using standard

English with minor

errors

in grammar,

punctuation, usage,

and/or spelling.

Journal entry

displays average

writing quality with

more than one error

in grammar,

punctuation, and

spelling.

Journal entry shows an

average and/or casual

writing style using

standard English that is

generally clear but

contains some errors in

grammar, punctuation,

usage, and spelling.

No entry by
student or
submission turned
in late.

Plagerism and

Direct Quotes

No plagiarism or

excessive use of direct

quotes.

No plagiarism.

Journal Entry

consists of less than

10% use of direct

quotes.
No plagiarism.
Journal Entry

consistes of less

than 15% use of

direct quotes.

ANY plagiarism or more

than 25% of essay

consists of direct quotes

(word count).

No entry by
student or
submission turned
in late.

Assignment

Requirements

Met all

assignment

requirements. (Word

count between 300-500)

Met all assignment

requirements. Word

count

Essay does not meet

more than one

requirement

identified in the

assignment

instructions.

Journal entry does not

meet the assignment

length requirement AND

was submitted after the

due date.

No entry by
student or
submission turned
in late.