Anonymous :

Staff,

You are being baited on this one over at Fred’s Place by someone at HQ.

We don’t think so. Mr. Jackson has done a great job of answering questions at Freds Place. http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/415197802/m/8110006732001

They should not wear such a similar uniform – take a look around DC during major events and you will see beards and guts (300 pound plus) walking around in a uniform that the general public can not distinguish from a military uniform.

Horrible precedent.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that many fine men and women in the Auxiliary make significant contributions to the Coast Guard and their country.

You are being baited on this one over at Fred’s Place by someone at HQ.

Anon :

How about NO UNIFORM for them? They are civilians anyway, therefore they should dress like civilians. Give ‘em polo shirts and some Dockers and call it a day!

We don’t see an exit strategy for Coast Guard on this one. The Beast has been unleashed. The Aug uniform is symptomatic of the bigger issue. But back to the uniform. Why in the world would Coast Guard ever have allowed the Auxiliary to have uniforms that are identical to USCG Officers except for the silver braid.

Officers in the United States Military of all ranks have and carry statutory authority. Why would Coast Guard want that authority to be confused by the public. Why would congress allow it?

Shaggy :

“We are simply to Byzantine, dysfunctional and petty to make it work. It will take years to unfrig this cluster.”

This appears to me to be the most accurate description of the state of the organization I’ve seen. ‘A’ Modernization effort could have worked well if the organization tended to this cultural reality first. Sadly, this is likely only a possibility if (1) the organizational leadership recognizes it and (2) the organization commits to adjusting this (I’d guess that this could take a decade or more to purge) before trying to make adjustments to business structures.

We moved too fast and ignored the underlying cultural elements that will ultimately undermine ANY substantive change.

The Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire, was the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, centered on the capital of Constantinople, and ruled by Emperors. It was called the Roman Empire by its inhabitants and its neighbours, and was also known as Romania (Greek: Ῥωμανία, Rhōmanía). As the distinction between “Roman Empire” and “Byzantine Empire” is purely a modern convention, it is not possible to assign a date of separation, but an important point is the Emperor Constantine I’s transfer of the capital from Nicomedia (in Anatolia) to Byzantium on the Bosphorus, which became Constantinople (alternatively “New Rome”).[n 1]

The Empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe, despite setbacks and territorial losses, especially during the Roman–Persian and Byzantine–Arab Wars. The Empire recovered during the Macedonian dynasty, rising again to become the pre-eminent power in the Eastern Mediterranean by the late 10th century. After 1071 however, much of Asia Minor, the Empire’s heartland, was lost to the Seljuk Turks. The Komnenian restoration regained some ground and briefly re-established dominance in the 12th century, but declined again under their successors. The Empire received a mortal blow in 1204 by the Fourth Crusade, when it was dissolved and divided into competing Byzantine Greek and Latin realms. Despite the eventual recovery of Constantinople and re-establishment of the Empire in 1261, under the Palaiologan emperors, successive civil wars in the 14th century further sapped the Empire’s strength. Most of its remaining territory was lost in the Byzantine–Ottoman Wars, culminating in the Fall of Constantinople and its remaining territories to the Muslim Ottoman Turks in the 15th century.

From Wikipedia

This appears to me to be the most accurate description of the state of the organization I’ve seen. ‘A’ Modernization effort could have worked well if the organization tended to this cultural reality first. Sadly, this is likely only a possibility if (1) the organizational leadership recognizes it and (2) the organization commits to adjusting this (I’d guess that this could take a decade or more to purge) before trying to make adjustments to business structures.

We moved too fast and ignored the underlying cultural elements that will ultimately undermine ANY substantive change.

The first red flag for me is that we decided to pursue modernization full force during an election year in which there was definitely going to be a change in Administration and without Congressional authorization. Are we really that politically tone deaf?

The second red flag was that this was supposed to be a “resource neutral” transition, which means staffing and funding do not follow responsibilities.

Lastly, all anyone had to do was look at the process maps/swim lanes to see that there are too many offices/divisions/departments involved in pieces of projects and decisions. This led to an inefficient and confused Chain of Command and no accountability whatsoever.

I’ll also second the enormous time and money sink that went into planning OPCOM/FORCECOM. Only to do it all over again for Interim OPCOM/FORCECOM. Only to do it a third time for “Numbered” PAC/FORCECOM/LANT/OPCOM, or whatever it is they are called today.