Challenging The Generals

[jatx]

SOF, and SF in particular, already seem to function like a fifth branch, so why not just formalize it? That would seem to offer an attractive promotion path and ensure that officers with at least "white side" experience were filling the top jobs. It would also put SOF people in charge of their own recruiting, instead of making the various elements dependent on conventional recruiters sourcing the right talent. Perhaps planning, budgeting and procurement, too, but I don't know much about how those work at present, so the issue could be moot.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by jatx

SOF, and SF in particular, already seem to function like a fifth branch, so why not just formalize it? That would seem to offer an attractive promotion path and ensure that officers with at least "white side" experience were filling the top jobs. It would also put SOF people in charge of their own recruiting, instead of making the various elements dependent on conventional recruiters sourcing the right talent. Perhaps planning, budgeting and procurement, too, but I don't know much about how those work at present, so the issue could be moot.

Because not all animals are equal.

An uninformed AF officer will likely be no better than the ignorant Army Aviation commander.

A ship driver may be a poor choice to lead an organization of primarily SF personnel.

An SF officer should not be selected to command an aviation unit (funny how the reverse is not always as obvious).

Finally, a career SOF DA guy is unlikely to be able to successfully lead a UW or FID campaign.

Do some research on what component is the largest in SOCOM, and what part of Army SOF is the biggest. Look at who has borne the brunt of the action so far, who has suffered the majority of the SOF casualties, and who has produced results. Then explain the leadership decisions. I can't.

TR

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Excellent read on the Army's leadership crisis, nonetheless.

You know I have heard all this stuff since I was but a wee brown bar and I think the "leadership crisis" is but a symptom of a dumb personnel management "program". For those of you that are officers, stop and look back at your careers to date and tell me which one of you really spent enough time in any command or leadership position that you thought was really enough to prepare you to move to the next higher echelon. Now tell me just how long is really enough and tell me that when it came time to move on to the next "job" that you hadn't either left things undone, under done, or not honed to the level to which you thought they should be. I mean damn, most folks just are getting a handle on what a particular slot is all about and then they are moved for "professional development (ticket punching)" reasons to remain competitive with their contemporaries. Now look at folks sporting stars and tell me just how long did they spend in each grade and at each position that would merit the moniker of a leadership position. I have always thought that the military was made up of warriors and those that supported warriors and while you can have some that can walk in the shoes of both they are few and far between, yet we measure career development more in terms of how well a person performed at a particular job be it commanding a unit or teaching a course and some how identified that person as having the potential to move on to the next higher grade, but the next higher grade doing what? Some folks are just good at doing one thing, or working at one echelon, or in one career field and that's it. How many times have you said, "Damn he was a hell of a team leader but what a jackass Bn Cdr he turned out to be." Or something similar to that. The personnel management field looks at the wrong indicators for who should be doing what and why. I realize that this is an over simplification but just thinking of what needs to be done makes my hair hurt.

[incommin]

COl Jack, I once had a COL tell me that when you make COL or General you are no longer a "leader"; that you become a manager of leaders and that is why officers jump from command to staff, back and forth as they move up the chain...... how does that square with your comments???????


Jim

[RTK]

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

I read this yesterday and wondered....What assignments those Captains will receive at the end of the course.?

I agree with Incommin...the top end of the totem pole requires too much politics. Sad to say but I doubt that will ever change.

As one of the quoted interviewed individuals in this article, I'll let you know when I get my RFO for the weather station at the South Pole.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by RTK

As one of the quoted interviewed individuals in this article, I'll let you know when I get my RFO for the weather station at the South Pole.

What's with the long face? SnoCats have tracks. Peregrino

[nmap]

I cannot help but wonder if the problem lies in an implicit assumption – said assumption being that the civilian and military leadership communicate effectively.

It is my observation that the civilian world functions differently than does the military world. For that matter, the civilian world operates differently than a large police department. Many of the basic attitudes and values are so divergent that I wonder if successful communication can exist.

That’s my job. If they give me a toothpick, dental floss and a good hunting knife, I will accomplish the mission.”

Contrast the above can-do no-whining attitude with what we see from various areas that have faced a natural disaster. In many situations, vigorous sniveling generates good rewards. People and organizations seek more resources, more money, more help of every sort – and, they get what they ask for.

If the civilian leadership doesn’t understand the communications disconnect, they might give a command to do much with little. The military personnel will seek to accomplish the mission with dental floss. The civilian leadership will then be surprised (truly, deeply surprised) when things turn out badly. After all, the military leadership assured them the mission would be accomplished. Both sides functioned according to their underlying assumptions, both sides sought to communicate, and both sides are disappointed in the results. Would a general officer weep, whine, and whimper? Obviously, such a scenario is ludicrous. However, will the civilian leader recognize urgency without accompanying drama?

I offer no solutions. I confess to deep ignorance of military matters. Still, I cannot help wondering if the problems aren’t an unintended and unconscious failure to communicate. Perhaps General Petraeus’ idea about officers attending civilian graduate schools would help.

[RTK]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

What's with the long face? SnoCats have tracks. Peregrino

The COLA allowance sucks though. There isn't one (I just checked).

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by RTK

The COLA allowance sucks though. There isn't one (I just checked).

IIRC, it is all government provided quarters, dependents not authorized, and a TCS move with a very light personal hold baggage allowance.

You should get Family Separation pay though.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

The “trust gap” between junior and senior officers is hardly universal. Many junior officers at Fort Knox and elsewhere have no complaints about the generals — or regard the matter as way above their pay grade. As Capt. Ryan Kranc, who has served two tours in Iraq, one as a commander, explained to me, “I’m more interested in whether my guys can secure a convoy.” He dismissed complaints about troop shortages. “When you’re in a system, you’re never going to get everything you ask for,” he said, “but I still have to accomplish a mission. That’s my job. If they give me a toothpick, dental floss and a good hunting knife, I will accomplish the mission.”

This guys obviously knows how not to step on his Kranc.

I'll be at Caesar's all week. /rimshot

[RTK]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

This guys obviously knows how not to step on his Kranc.

I'll be at Caesar's all week. /rimshot

And it's pronounced Krantz (Serbian).

Since that was my quote, let me go a shade deeper than the article quoted.

My job, as an officer (and unless I learned something wrong along the way) is to make things happen within the bounds of that which is morally and ethically feasible, tactically proficient, and in accordance with applicable ROEs and Conventions. So long as what I do to accomplish the ends assigned and tasked to me by my superiors falls along these lines, then I'm fulfilling my oath of office. I remember saying once upon a time "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Here's the caviat. It is my obligation and duty as an Officer and Soldier to inform my chain of command when the mission assigned is not feasible, is ethically imbalanced, or is unattainable. Only under certain (and very defined)circumstances am I allowed to disobey a lawful order.

I take it as a matter of personal pride that my Soldiers (not necessarily me) have accompished every mission assigned to me and my elements in my career, even if the odds were against it. Guess what? THAT'S MY JOB!!

I don't look for special recognition, that's just what my duty description entails. I chose to do this job. No one chose it for me.

There's a difference between sending up the old "Issue, Discussion, Recommendation" format and flat out bitching. There's a very fine line between the two. I've seen more of the latter than the former recently.

I think nmap hit the nail on the head. It's a communication gap. More damned people are afraid of what could happen to them if they speak up. However, people need to pick their battles and speak up when it's appropriate. The Sky is Falling crap only works once. After that, one become white noise.

[RTK]

If they give me a toothpick, dental floss and a good hunting knife, I will accomplish the mission

And, by the way, that's why I read the SURVIVE thread from time to time. Just in case that's all they give me.

After this week, that might be all I get.

[Razor]

One of the primary contributors (IMO) of this lack of breadth in officers is OPMS XXI. Career tracks may allow for a better chance for promotion to O-6 and above for a greater number of officers, but it limits the variety of experience many Operations track officers were once afforded. When I was a 2LT, I knew many field-grade Infantry and Armor officers having Masters degrees in everything but operations-realted subjects. That doesn't seem to be the case now. If a Field Artillery (FA) captain wants to persue an advanced degree in a language, or international finance to expand his knowledge base, he has limited his chance of promotion within the FA, and needs to consider moving from his primary branch to a Functional Area if he wishes to stay in the Army.

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." Thucydides

[60_Driver]

Originally Posted by Razor

One of the primary contributors (IMO) of this lack of breadth in officers is OPMS XXI. Career tracks may allow for a better chance for promotion to O-6 and above for a greater number of officers, but it limits the variety of experience many Operations track officers were once afforded. When I was a 2LT, I knew many field-grade Infantry and Armor officers having Masters degrees in everything but operations-realted subjects. That doesn't seem to be the case now. If a Field Artillery (FA) captain wants to persue an advanced degree in a language, or international finance to expand his knowledge base, he has limited his chance of promotion within the FA, and needs to consider moving from his primary branch to a Functional Area if he wishes to stay in the Army.

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." Thucydides

I don't necessarily think it's wrong to give preference to officers who focus their studies on their operational fields. There are quite enough subjects and disciplines for an officer to study that will have a direct beneficial effect on his understanding and performance of his military duties.

During times when we have called upon the citizenry to provide officers and men for war, we naturally ended up with a large breadth of training, education and abilities that was often an asset. But these men were something else first, and officers and soldiers second.

Few medical doctors or archaeologists pursue degrees in international finance because the subject has little bearing on their respective fields and offers little in the way of improving their performance.

Career members of our present volunteer "professional" military are supposed to be just that...military professionals. This implies a dedication to the study of fields useful to the management of violence and the winning of wars.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by incommin

COl Jack, I once had a COL tell me that when you make COL or General you are no longer a "leader"; that you become a manager of leaders and that is why officers jump from command to staff, back and forth as they move up the chain...... how does that square with your comments???????


Jim

It does not sit well with me, probably because I was a soldier that happened to be an officer. First of all those at that level that see themselves as managers vice leaders should be backing up to the pay table. You have just as much responsibility to exercise leadership with those leaders for whom you are responsible as does a squad leader for those fire team members for whom he is responsible. The approach is different but the goal is the same-enable your subordinates to succeed. What you are hearing from those that provided you with what they see as sage advice is the Harvard Business School approach to "leadership". You might well manage resources and a bottom line but you still have to provide the leadership to those you provide the resources and manage those resources in such a way to allow those folks to succeed. That means that it becomes your responsibility as the leader who provided the mission requirements to prioritize the resources needed and manage them (time, money, materiel, etc) in such a way that those that need the most grease for that wheel you want turned get it. But unlike the manager your presence as a leader is felt either through your stated or implied vision and more often than not your physical location at the most vital points of the effort on site. Unlike the manager, you still have to set the correct command climate, personal example, etc.