Do the prioritizations outlined in the 2013 Manning Guidance agree with the imperatives of the 2013 ASPG? Why or why not?
Overall, Manning Guidance (MG) 2013 is a near-term document that supports the imperatives of the 2013 Army Strategic Planning Guidance (ASPG) for all “near-term” priorities that covers FYs 13-15. The mission statement of MG 2013, states “Provide AC Army with personnel manning guidance for FY13-15 that is synchronized with the “Army’s Priorities”. The major difference is that ASPG covers near term (FYs 13-15), mid-term (FYs 16-20), as well as long term (FY21 and beyond); however, MG 2013 is a near-term document that supports the imperatives of the ASPG for FYs 13-15 only. Additionally, MG 2013 is more focused on the “Manning” line of effort vs. holistic approach to all things Army Strategic planning guidelines and considerations.
ASPG Imperative #1 states: Provide modernized and ready, tailored land force capabilities to meet Combatant Commanders’ requirements across the range of military operations. How the MG 2013 supports this effort: MG provides guidelines for alignment of manning levels IAW Army priorities as reflected in the IRPL and other priorities established by Army senior leadership. MG also establishes clear guidelines on the manning levels during the ARFORGEN models by instituting not less than P2 rating during RESET and P1 during TRAIN/READY phase. It also talks about how the Army has enough Soldiers to fill every authorizations in the aggregate. Furthermore, MG also lays out allocated forces and apportioned forces that supports the Combatant Commanders’ requirements; it clearly articulates: urgent forces requires 100% manning, essential forces=90%, and important forces=80%.
ASPG Imperative #2 states: Develop leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st century. How the MG 2013 aligns with this effort: MG amplifies the need for the investment of quality officers and NCOs in the institutional Army to develop Soldiers in diverse and broadening positions. It also states Commanders have the option to release Soldiers during any phase of the ARFORGEN cycle to execute Professional Military Education (PME). It also clearly states, Commands can release Soldiers/Leaders to depart unit IOT execute PME and other assignments that can broaden and grow Leaders.
ASPG Imperative #3 states: Adapt the Army to more effectively provide land power. How the MG 2013 is in align or contradicts with this effort: First, MG clearly lays out the guidance on Resetting the Force during ARFORGEN cycle. However, ASPG covers areas that are mid-term and long-term that discusses the modernization effort, reforming/restructuring the Force, and fielding the Army of the future that is not laid out in the MG. Some of these areas are covered in the Command Plan as well Army equipping strategy or modernization strategy and not in the Manning Guidance.
ASPG Imperative #4 states: Enhance the all-volunteer Army. How the MG 2013 is in align or contradicts with this effort: Once again, going back to the discussion in the ASPG #2, developing future leaders, MG clearly articulates the support for Soldier/Leader assignments, importance of PMEs, and investing on recruiting/investing on top quality officers and NCOs that can ultimately enhance the all-volunteer Army.
University/College: University of Chicago
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
Date: 24 September 2016
We will write a custom essay sample on Manning Guidance
for only $16.38 $12.9/page