Officer Retention [Archive] - Page 2

Rob Thornton

04-02-2008, 01:56 PM

The most critical thing to keep our talented mid-grade officers is for the higher grade ones to CONSTANTLY talk to them. Not OER support form-type stuff, but everything imaginable. Where you lead, they will follow.

Amen! Leaders play the critical role in retention - we should never sluff this responsibility off on the bureaucracy to address, if we do we fail.

The bureaucracy must be seen for what it is, a means for leaders to reach through and touch people, if leaders remain inanimate, then the bureaucracy hardens and people get lost in the system, and fall out or leave. It is up to leaders of all grades to leave a positive impression that is deep enough to count when times are tough, and to remain engaged in relationships that touch others directly and indirectly.

The other incentives add some depth and width to those impressions - quality of life means different things to different people, and so those incentives should be retained, but never placed into a context that they are valued over the power of personal relationships with regard to retention of those traits and characteristics we value most as a military. That is the realm of leadership.

Leadership is what recognizes the stress placed on families, and works on a number of levels to reduce that stress. It might be the levels and quality of support available to families while spouses are deployed (from child care, to medical services, to opportunities for personal development or community), it might be shaping the environment so that when spouses are back families enjoy that time for its full worth. While I realize that many of those we wish to retain are single, I think we have to show that leaders recognizes that at some point they might wish to have a family, and as such military service must hold the possibility that the personal goals can be reconciled with continued service - leaders do that, not bureaucracy.

In the end, everyone takes off the uniform eventually. What leaders can do is provide rationale to retain our most important asset, our people where personal goals and professional goals, loyalties to service and to family can be reconciled. At some point goals and loyalties may be divergent to a point where the individual and family must choose one over the other, but that should not be a choice that gets made when leadership could have helped reconcile them.

We should not let the bureaucracy arbitrarily define the limits of what leaders can accomplish in this regard, policies should be revisited and often bent, loosened or abolished if they no longer serve our greater interest - again this is the role of leadership to be engaged in this process. Human resources is not the sole business or responsibility of some command to which we can pin our inadequacies on, its all of our business and all of our responsibility. If you want the very best person as your wingman, you have a role to play.

Best, Rob

Rob Thornton

04-02-2008, 02:06 PM

that its Leadership - on the battlefield and off the battlefield, in command and in staff, on duty and off duty, in uniform and out of uniform - if you touch this, you can affect it.
Rob

Ski

01-15-2009, 01:43 PM

Wanted to bump this back to the top after I received some info right before Xmas:

The Army is now offering direct commissions for E7-E9 and W3-W4's. Senior NCO's and WO's are also being offered slots at the Command and General Staff College.

Wanted to see what people think about these policies...obviously it shows the lack of depth within the mid-grade officer ranks.

patmc

01-15-2009, 02:11 PM

My last unit had a noticable increase in the number of LTs we were receiving that were prior service, usually E6 and above, and had attended OCS. Most did a great job, though a few could not stop being a NCO, or did not like what officers actually do.

By offering direct comissions, do you mean OCS, or just pinning on the rank? The Army is 1000s of CPTs and MAJs short (though some argue this is not a big deal), and is promoting NCOs faster too. Looking at the long term, a senior NCO that switches to officer will be much closer to retirement, and may end their career as a CPT or MAJ. The Army is short on senior NCOs, and needs experienced leaders with Soldiers. I don't know if taking them away from Soldiers for a couple years as a PL and staff is worth it. Also, some of those officers need degree completion, which takes them out of the loop another 1 or 2 years.

That said, the Army only admitted there was a problem (CSRB) after many had already left, and has not figured out a good way to fill the gap. I was told the next CSRB will not include the $ option, which was by and large the most popular. The Army serves America, but if America is not willing to serve, what can you do?

My understanding of CGSC is that they are looking to move senior NCO and senior warrant training to Leavenworth, not necessarily sending them to ILE. I could easily be wrong on that though. I am currently in CCC, and it is a good thing to be just with my peers while I learn a new trade. Also, ILE is already backlogged a couple years, and MAJs would be cometing with WO and SGMs for slots to a mandatory school. Most MAJs may end up S3/XO before ILE. Is that a good thing?

Ken White

01-15-2009, 03:58 PM

Direct commissions to good SFC through CSM; generally to 1LT or CPT and for CWOs to 1LT through MAJ, age and experience dependent. Most will not be promoted above the appointment grade (except 1LT to CPT), will serve three years and then revert to their former enlisted or warrant rank, maybe 5-10% will serve longer. After Viet Nam, some of those directly commissioned were not allowed to go back to their former rank but were given severance pay and tossed.

My pet was those Aviator Warrants who were given direct Commissions as CPT, served three years and then were not allowed to go back to WO but were discharged COG...

Took the best and brightest, commissioned 'em, let 'em serve three years and then threw 'em out. Brilliant.

Some NCOS and CWOs will turn it down because they don't want to be Officers for many reasons, others because they realize it's three years and out for most unless they're smiled upon by the fates.

Schmedlap

01-15-2009, 10:22 PM

I'd imagine most E-8s and E-9s would see 2LT as a step down. And I haven't met many prior service E-7s.

Regarding the policy issue, has anyone considered that we could soften our Officer "shortage" by eliminating some staff positions? That would kill two birds with the same rock, because it would also help retention.

Ski

01-15-2009, 11:50 PM

From what I understand, WO4's and E9's are eligble for direct commissioning (without OCS) to MAJ/04. W3 amd E8 to CPT and E7 to 1LT.

Pat

We have 4 Warrants in the current CGSC class. There will be more in the future, LTG Caldwell wants CGSC to expand and have more interagency students as well.
I also don't believe CGSC is backlogged - they have been sending more slots to the ARNG and USAR than ever. I think there are 40 ARNG officers in my class (including myself). Unless something radical has occured lately...not buying it. I am of the opinion that having your KD position before or after CGSC is irrelevant, comes down to the individual...CGSC isn't going to make you a superstar S3 or BN XO...but that's one man's opinion...

patmc

01-16-2009, 01:02 AM

Ken,
Sir, thanks for the info. Is this currently in effect? I have not yet met anyone that has gone this route. All the older guys in my class are NG, Reserve, or coming back to Active Duty. Aside from the obligatory old-man jokes during class, they are great guys and great resource for youngin' like me.

Schmedlap,
I agree that eliminating staff would help officer morale, but where would anyone be willing to start? Every commander wants as much manpower as he/she can get, and a lot of battalions are running pretty thin as it is now. There were tons of officers, warrants, and NCOs at BDE that I never saw until a BDE MRX, and some of those guys could probably go elsewhere, but where would you cut the fat? We're already too busy, and less people could push it over the edge. Thankfully, my only experiences at DIV level were a promotion party and clearing post, so someone wiser than me can hopefully figure out efficiency there.

Ski,
Sir, thanks for the info also. Are these officers going to BOLC (aka OBC) and CCC as well? I am still years away from worrying about ILE (though the timeline keeps shortening, scary), but everything I've seen says expect to attend 2-3 years after promotion due to course demand. Also, my last XO has been waiting for 2 years now, and my old commander only got a slot a few years early thanks to luck.

I agree that a good individual will succeed regardless of course attendance, but if the point of a course is to best prepare Majors for those KD jobs, and many are filling the slots without the training, why make ILE a requirement? The same debate is used with Captains and CCC. A lot of my buddies are commanding before the course, and I would have, had I stayed FA. If people really don't need these courses, then make them voluntary or eliminate them. If they are important, then send officers immediately. Having just finished IPB block at MI school, I definately needed this training before going to a maneuver unit.

Ken White

01-16-2009, 02:10 AM

Ken...Is this currently in effect? I have not yet met anyone that has gone this route. All the older guys in my class are NG, Reserve, or coming back to Active Duty. Aside from the obligatory old-man jokes during class, they are great guys and great resource for youngin' like me.Ski knows more than I do, I was just saying there's a lot historical precedent for it. If they're taking SGM/CSMWO4 straight to MAJ now, that's an improvement over earlier practice where CPT was essentially as high as the initial commissioning went. It worked well during Korea and Viet Nam. In the VN era, I know two former NCOs who went all the way to LTC, two to MAJ and got to 10 or more years commissioned service but most left as CPT after three or four years.
Every commander wants as much manpower as he/she can get, and a lot of battalions are running pretty thin as it is now.True for the first part -- but they'll take what they're given and make it work...

As for thin now, if Inf Bns have a Cmd section and a Staff section that numbers over 22 aggregate / Nine Officers, they've probably got more than they need. Don't know what a Bde has now but back in the Viet Nam period, a Bde three shop had six officers including the ChemicalO and the SigO plus eight EM -- that was enough to cover everything and if you decided to go to three TOC shifts instead of two, you drafted a LT and a couple of NCOs from somewhere else. Though I suppose nowadays a 2LT running a Bde TOC shift would cause apoplexy... :D
...Thankfully, my only experiences at DIV level were a promotion party and clearing post, so someone wiser than me can hopefully figure out efficiency there.I'll guarantee you they're fat. :mad:
Are these officers going to BOLC (aka OBC) and CCC as well?The previous solution was no to the first and yes when scheduled on the second. There was a brief (4 weeks IIRC) charm school at Benning and at Sill, possibly also at Eustis for the newly annointed.
...The same debate is used with Captains and CCC. A lot of my buddies are commanding before the course, and I would have, had I stayed FA. If people really don't need these courses, then make them voluntary or eliminate them. If they are important, then send officers immediately. Having just finished IPB block at MI school, I definately needed this training before going to a maneuver unit.Can't speak for now but back in my Armor School days, over half the CCC had commanded Co/Trp before coming to the course, almost 75% had served on Bn or Bde staffs, a number on Div staffs (as an aside, over 75% of the ANCOC students had already been Platoon Sergeants). When Shy Meyer was Chief of Staff, he wanted to convert the CCC to a two to eight week pre-job course; you'd got to school (2-6 wks) before you went to a staff job or (6-8 wks) cmd slot. TRADOC hated that because it cut into instructor contact hours and would've decreased the size, particularly the number of Officer instructors, of all the service schools. Obviously, none of the Branches liked that idea either. So they rebelled and just waited him out. Business as usual.

PME is sort of dysfunctional...

Ski

01-16-2009, 11:02 AM

Pat,

It's my opinion that CGSC isn't really going to prepare you to be a BN S3 or XO. There actually is an elective class specifically tailored for officers going to these KD jobs.

We have an active duty CPT (FA branch) in my small group. Also was selected for SAMS. So I don't know why your branch manager is feeding that to you...the vast majority of officers in CGSC are new Majors. There are a few of us who are promotable or are getting their first look this year...

CGSC - to this point - and I'm only half way through so I can't fully comment, is not designed for BN-level staff. It's BCT up to CFLCC staff work. You get thrown into positions that are not in your expertise/comfort zone. I was a Civil Affairs planner for one exercise, now I am the Intel Planner...it's designed around the processes of staff work. How to create, plan and execute an operation. How to work within a Joint Planning Group. The branch specific details/courses are either not going to be in the course or they are in the electives, which is the last trimester of the school.

Old Eagle

01-16-2009, 04:45 PM

In the post Korea era, the Army has tried to use direct commissions (as opposed to OCS) as little as possible.The normal COA during the VN era was to send candidates to OCS, then to basic branch courses. One of the big differences between the situation today and that in VN and prior is that in Ken's day, we had constant, virtually limitless inflow to the bottom of the pyramid through the draft. The population in the Army (and USMC) is much less elastic today, so the trickle-down effect of robbing one population group (NCOs) to pay another (commissioned officer corps) is greater than during the big one.

During the post-VN reduction in force era, many previously enlisted officers were RIFfed back to their previous grades or shown the door. Of those that remained, all were told to finish school and do other penance to bring them in line with the rest of the officer corps as a whole. Those who refused or failed were shown the door.

One of the quirkier results of that system was that as a junior officer, I had a passel (sp?) of former officers working for me. As I recall, I had 3 or 4 squad leaders, a platoon sergeant and a 1SG who had all been captains. The PSG had actually commanded a rifle company. Some retained their reserve commissions and would have to disappear two weeks a year to serve in their reserve post. It was wierd having NCOs with two sets of greens -- one w/stripes and one w/o.

Re CGSC. I showed up @ Leavenworth having already been a bn 3 (and a HQDA staff officer). There was nothing I learned here that would have impacted that greatly on my ability to do either job. Not sure what the system is like now. -- Please -- no snide remarks about my ability to do any job.

Ken White

01-16-2009, 06:00 PM

In the post Korea era, the Army has tried to use direct commissions (as opposed to OCS) as little as possible.The normal COA during the VN era was to send candidates to OCS, then to basic branch courses...I didn't mention that, probably should have. Did not intend to imply that the direct commissioning of senior NCOs was common, it wasn't, only a small percentage of officers were so obtained. Just wanted to point out there were precedents. As Old Eagle says, OCS was the preferred route during both Korea and Viet Nam. Standards for access and graduation were relaxed a bit and OCS was conducted at Belvoir, Sill and Eustis (I think...) as well as at Benning; supply and demand...
During the post-VN reduction in force era, many previously enlisted officers were RIFfed back to their previous grades or shown the door. Of those that remained, all were told to finish school and do other penance to bring them in line with the rest of the officer corps as a whole. Those who refused or failed were shown the door.IIRC, there was a two stage process; first stage dispensed with those who wouldn't or couldn't get a degree through the Bootstrap program; the second stage got even a few of those and tossed 'em after paying for two to four years of college. Some -- a few -- managed to stick long enough to get to COL, I only know one who did.

tankersteve

01-28-2009, 07:51 PM

Anyone hear about the Marine Corps missing their retention goal for 2008 by 5%? I went back for the article but can't seem to locate it.

I know this thread is about officer retention, but as the economy moves forward, a substantial part of that issue will fix itself.

What I am curious is if the constant grind of Iraq is causing 2nd and 3d term Marines to elect not to reenlist? While the Army has had issues for years in making their enlistment goals, reenlistments have actually been very strong. The Marines have felt some of this pain but have always had an easier time getting quality recruits than the Army. However, if they are now feeling the pain among the group they want to keep as career Marines, this could quickly become an issue. The Marines pride themselves in having much more junior leaders running the same size elements as compared to what the Army uses (SGTs and CPLs running squads, SSGs running platoons). This problem probably wouldn't be felt for some time, even if the issue persists for a few years, but it is of interest. It could impact the Marines in a lot of ways, such as manning and how they operate in a more decentralized manner.

I haven't heard of Marines having any kind of enlistment/reenlistment issues since 2005 and even that was only for a single year and the first time in 10 years.

Don't anyone take this the wrong way - I am not gloating. I have been envious of the USMC for years as to their superior 'combat focus' which the big Army often forgets. It is just a very interesting circumstance and doesn't seem to fit very well with the economy and the likely move of the USMC from Iraq to Afghanistan. I hope it is not a sign of things to come for the Army as well (mainly because the Marines will adapt quickly to fix this while HRC will spin for 2-3 years until they recognize and analyze the issue or give a knee-jerk reaction that treats the symptoms, not the problem).

Tankersteve

Schmedlap

01-28-2009, 09:39 PM

The Marines pride themselves in having much more junior leaders running the same size elements as compared to what the Army uses (SGTs and CPLs running squads, SSGs running platoons). This problem probably wouldn't be felt for some time, even if the issue persists for a few years, but it is of interest. It could impact the Marines in a lot of ways, such as manning and how they operate in a more decentralized manner.
Has the USMC accelerated their NCO promotions in the same manner that the Army has? If not, it seems that they could easily overcome this if the problem persists. While not a perfect substitute, combat experience often has greater immediate, practical value than what is taught in the school house. It seems that they could slightly accelerate their promotions, if they haven't already. In my opinion, the Army has accelerated its promotions too quickly, but it has not significantly harmed us <knocking on my wooden desk while I type>. I suspect the USMC could find a way to do likewise.

qwerty1971

02-25-2009, 05:35 PM

I will post my thoughts on this even though the topic thread died out a few weeks ago, but I just joined. I graduated from ROTC back in 2001, a few months before 9/11 (I was at IOBC at the time). Did my IOBC at Benning, deployed to Iraq as part of the 82nd, went to MICCC in 2005, and back to Iraq twice since then. I would have to say I am one of the four ROTC officers left from my commisioning class of 24 still in uniform. About 1/2 of my IOBC and MICCC classmates are already out of the service. In my last tour in Iraq of the 10 MI CPTs in the BDE, four of them departed the Army within 60 days of redeployment. Very few MI CPT's within my YG range took the "blood money" bonus. I took the grad school option (what I am completing right now). It is hard to keep MI CPT's in uniform when they know they can get a better paying job outside of the Army. Lack of command opportunities forced some of them out (1 MI company with 5-6 folks haggling for it), lack of quality mentorship probobly got some others, repeated assignments to tactical units deploying got some as well. With all these CPTs jumping ship you are going to have some bottom barrel officers suddenly rise to the top. Officer retention will not get better until the OPTEMPO balances itself out. I had a great college buddy who commissioned MP and went to Bragg. The nature of MP assignements at Bragg had him deployed 30 out of the 36 months he was stationed at Bragg. It was no wonder he opted out when he could. He was burnt out. Just my two cents worth.

Schmedlap

03-20-2009, 01:59 AM

It is hard to keep MI CPT's in uniform when they know they can get a better paying job outside of the Army. Lack of command opportunities forced some of them out (1 MI company with 5-6 folks haggling for it), lack of quality mentorship probobly got some others, repeated assignments to tactical units deploying got some as well... Officer retention will not get better until the OPTEMPO balances itself out. I had a great college buddy who commissioned MP and went to Bragg. The nature of MP assignements at Bragg had him deployed 30 out of the 36 months he was stationed at Bragg. It was no wonder he opted out when he could. He was burnt out.
The first sentence in that excerpt had me scratching my head. I don't know anyone who joined for the money, which makes it kind of odd in my mind that any significant number would leave for the money. But, the rest of the excerpt gives plenty of other reasons for leaving which, in my opinion, make me think that my hunch is right - they are not leaving for higher paying jobs. They may get higher paying jobs, but that is not the motivation. I can get a great salary if I want it. I've got 9 years of service as an Infantry Officer, including 3 combat deployments, and I'm nearing completion of an MBA and JD. But the more that I think about it, the less interested I am in a civilian job, regardless of how it pays. I ETS'd a year ago and I'm already considering going back in as soon as I finish school in December. And, frankly, after this year-long vacation, I'm thinking, "bring on the OPTEMPO!" (But hold back on the PowerPoint :D)

jmm99

03-20-2009, 02:32 AM

Schmed ...

I ETS'd a year ago and I'm already considering going back in as soon as I finish school in December.

good for you. :)

drschmidt

04-16-2009, 11:15 AM

Greetings all,
I'm new to posting. Here is goes:

I'm currently a CPT recalled from the IRR. I have 4 years active duty and OIFI under my belt. I got out for reasons that are typical of Junior Officers but are often overlooked by the Army: I interpreted my future as being nothing more than dealing with bone-head chain of commands, working in thankless staff jobs, and spending a disproportionate amount of my time working on non-value adding activates like PowerPoint. In other words I did not feel I was being a productive human being. Anybody else out there that felt this way????
I have been following the topic of Officer retention for 10 years now. The lack of internal criticism and self blame for the Army failure to attract and retain this nation's best potential is a real shame. Everywhere I look the Army blames external forces like continuous deployments, priorities of the JO, desires to spend time with the family, civilian pay differential, etc. Am I the only one that has pickup up on this?
Now that I have a few years of corporate leadership experience under my belt, I can attest that some of the management methodologies the Army practices (especially at the BN staff officer level) are so unbelievably draconian that I’m surprised they retain as many JOs as they do.:mad:

Ken White

04-16-2009, 02:38 PM

The same thing has been noted by others here on several Threads over the past few years.

Most people, Officer and Enlisted, leave the Army and the Marines (those I know -- and I suspect the Navy and air force as well...) due to either the BS you cite or because they are disillusioned; they thought they were going to do combat like things and found out that instead they did a lot of military like things (the two are not the same all too frequently). Some people tolerate BS better than others just as some people shoot better, command better or play basketball -- or even do Power Point -- more proficiently than do others.:rolleyes:

I noted that factor over 50 years ago, before computers, the internet and SWJ. I and many others have noted it frequently since then. I will also note that the situation is somewhat better now than it was then -- but it still needs much improvement. Much... :mad:

You're correct, issues of family, pay and deployments are a small part of the retention problem. They are problems but they are insignificant compared to the BS, disillusion and stifling factors.

Courtney Massengale

04-16-2009, 05:13 PM

Most people, Officer and Enlisted, leave the Army and the Marines (those I know -- and I suspect the Navy and air force as well...) due to either the BS you cite or because they are disillusioned; they thought they were going to do combat like things and found out that instead they did a lot of military like things (the two are not the same all too frequently).

I call it the One Reason Theory™

People who join for "One Reason", regardless of what that reason may be, are the ones who burn out the fastest. Usualy because that "One Reason" turns out to not be valid because of persumptions, requires them to do things they don't want to, or gets surpassed by other career/life goals. You have to love doing whatever the Army tells you to do. Some days that's going to be jumping out of airplanes, some days its going to be organizing the FRG's corn dog booth.

I think the real answer is to remove all input from the individual for branch selection. One of the cruelest things we do is make Cadets/Officer Candidates put in their picks. It builds up expectations, encourages false motivations and hides the reality of what a long term career in that branch is like.

Plus it would help set the stage for the next twenty years of lack of input and individual consideration. ;)

Ken White

04-16-2009, 05:52 PM

...I think the real answer is to remove all input from the individual for branch selection. One of the cruelest things we do is make Cadets/Officer Candidates put in their picks. It builds up expectations, encourages false motivations and hides the reality of what a long term career in that branch is like.

Plus it would help set the stage for the next twenty years of lack of input and individual consideration. ;)Good idea -- I take it a step further; do away with Branches. Totally. Combat Commander Officer types from various sources (and in far smaller numbers than we now access, giving a quality boost) and Staff Officers who are mostly former Enlisted guys in the specialty who can be trained and educated to handle all the nuances of that specialty (giving not necessarily a quality boost but providing adequate capability and a good source of competence and residual knowledge who would not expect -demand??? -- to be commanders of combat units ). :eek:

We probably need fewer Enlisted types in the CS/CSS arena as well if we could get a little smarter about how we do business, thus could increase both quality and quantity in Combat Arms elements.

Congress, of course, would applaud and assist such efficiencies and far more importantly, increased effectiveness. :wry:

I have GOT to stop smoking that stuff... :cool:

Schmedlap

04-16-2009, 07:43 PM

I got out for reasons that are typical of Junior Officers but are often overlooked by the Army: I interpreted my future as being nothing more than dealing with bone-head chain of commands, working in thankless staff jobs, and spending a disproportionate amount of my time working on non-value adding activates like PowerPoint. In other words I did not feel I was being a productive human being. Anybody else out there that felt this way????
Oh yes. See here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6998&page=2). It has certainly been voiced in this forum (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=70009&postcount=43). Welcome.

Courtney Massengale

04-16-2009, 10:54 PM

Good idea -- I take it a step further; do away with Branches. Totally. Combat Commander Officer types from various sources (and in far smaller numbers than we now access, giving a quality boost) and Staff Officers who are mostly former Enlisted guys in the specialty who can be trained and educated to handle all the nuances of that specialty (giving not necessarily a quality boost but providing adequate capability and a good source of competence and residual knowledge who would not expect -demand??? -- to be commanders of combat units ). :eek:

I totally agree that we have too many branches, MOSs and AOCs out there right now. However, I do think that there is some validity in keeping *a* branch structure to write doctrine, train, promote and validate force structure.

I do really dig the idea of a "staff MOS". BLUF is that not everybody gets to be an astronaut. Hell, there's only six Battalions in my branch, three of which come open for every year group. That means you've got to be one of the top three people out of a pool of ~45 to be a Battalion Commander.

There might be seven total rock stars in that year group, but the four who didn't make it just wasted the past 17 years getting divorced, drinking Pepto-Bismol, and popping Motrin to walk across the parking lot all so they could get told they didn’t make it.. The other 38 shurg and say "Well, I figured this is where I would wind up anyway, glad I didn’t destroy my family and body in the process”.

Just call a spade a spade and quit selling the idea that everyone who works hard, does the right things and believes in truth, justice and the American Way will get to lead at the highest levels. I’ve been a PL, XO, and Company Commander twice - I can die happy if the Army decides I get to fill out PowerPoint slides for the next ten years. Just don't make me compete for promotion with the motrin junkies who have three divorces and eighteen dismounts scattered throughout FORSCOM.

drschmidt

04-17-2009, 06:32 PM

We probably need fewer Enlisted types in the CS/CSS arena as well if we could get a little smarter about how we do business, thus could increase both quality and quantity in Combat Arms elements.
[/I]

As a CSS Officer, I can totally agree. When I was a maintenance platoon leader I had a PSG, 2 SFC Section Sergeants, and 2 Warrant Officers in the platoon. Also, not enough work for the platoon to do. A little top-heavy if you were to ask me. Anyway, to this day I still believe that the Army should abolish the PL position in a MT Company. I feel that it would increase officer retention if that officer was in a position that actually needed him in a branch that could employ him.:confused:

Ken White

04-17-2009, 09:32 PM

...I had a PSG, 2 SFC Section Sergeants, and 2 Warrant Officers in the platoon. Also, not enough work for the platoon to do...Partly a function of the need in a mobile war for jump and 24 hour operations in support of fast moving combat and lots and lots of battle damage -- which with all respect, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq has been or provided much in the way of battle damage on the scale of major combat so the appearance of over manning is enhanced.

The over rank is not an appearance issue. It is real and it is a problem. The Warrant problem exists because the Army foolishly bowed to the Air Force and made most of its pilots Warrants instead of NCOs as it wished to do and absolutely should have done. Then came Viet Nam; tons of Helicopters required tons of Pilots. That large mob of people, after the war, acquired the clout and status of a 'community.' Communities like to grow and become self sustaining...

It's also a function of grade creep -- Army's bad about that. We still have a rank structure developed by 1920, modified by a WW II pay structure and for the NCOs, the unnecessary, detrimental and poorly done add-on of E8 and E9 in 1958. Totally and completely out of date. The Per and Finance communities will fight you to avoid changing either. So, for now, the only way to reward a person for doing a good job is to promote them to the next higher rank. Law of probabilities says the Peter Principle is bound to strike...:D

I've never met a Motor Sergeant or Shop Supervisor who wasn't the best mechanic in sight. Most of 'em did not want the job of supervising but to get more pay, promotion was necessary. Then add in up or out and promotion predicated entirely too heavily on time in service and time in grade as opposed to competence. Really smart... :rolleyes:

patmc

04-18-2009, 01:30 AM

My squadmate found a new direct commission policy memo today, which he said went into effect last week or so (I gave it a quick read, but do not know any other details behind it). Anyone else see this to confirm it is real?

Due to the shortage of CPTs and MAJs, CG's will be able to nominate, board, and appoint select senior NCOs and Warrants as Captains and Majors. The memo had the details of the board process. It is a stop-gap measure but no end date is published.

From memory, MSG will be eligible for DC to Captain. SGM will be eligible for DC to Major. WO3 to CPT, WO4+above to MAJ (may be wrong on the WO part). Officer will serve in their enlisted branch and will not require schooling or degree requirements. It did not say what the service requirement will be for taking the dive.

The biggest question mark I see is the service requirement. How long will they have to serve in the new rank? Will it be long enough to benefit the Army by taking these senior leaders away from their duties with Soldiers. Will senior NCO's or WO's who have served 20+ hard years be willing to stay on for another 4 or 5 as a company or field grade officer? A lot of the senior NCOs I worked with were great, but expressed little interest in switching sides. They appreciated I was there to do my part, and I appreciated that they were there for theirs.

Some of the grumbling I heard was the lack of branch schooling, (fair debate, does the career experience prepare for staff work? I think it does, except maybe for technical branches. 3 years as a PL and / or XO prepares a LT for staff as a CPT. Does SGM make a good switch to MAJ? I don't know. 2 of the 3 CSM's I worked with, and both of the Ops SGM's were great, and took care of the battalion, but they executed the plan, and did not make it. I've only seen the S3 and Bn XO from the staff CPT perspective, so my view is limited. Any field grade officers have an opinion after serving as the 3 or XO? The other issue was paying officer dues (the more expensive kind, even though the cup and flower always seems empty). My buddy did not look forward to getting chewed out by a new DC Major, who spent his time in the trenches, yes, but still did not work as a LT and CPT. Anyone with earlier DC environment remember how this dynamic worked?

Again, my facts may be a little off because I did a quick read during our captstone PE, so if anyone knows better, please update or correct.

Ken White

04-18-2009, 02:11 AM

Much the same thing was done during Viet Nam -- and, to a lesser extent in Korea (for that one there still existed a very large Reserve / Guard pool of WW II Officers). The effect of the VN effort was beneficial, some good Officers, very few bad ones. Most had no problem coping with staff work all the way up to 4-star cmds. Above Bde, it was just as tedious and moslty marginally necessary then as now. Fortunately, there was no Power Point...

However, most of those commissioned were poorly served by the Army after the war. If they had no degree they were sent to Schools to obtain one but the majority were separated from the service regardless of a degree. Many served three years commissioned and reverted to their NCO rank, some (MOS dependent) were just told 'goodbye." The brilliant effort was selection of the best and brightest Warrants, commissioning them for three years and then forcing them out -- no reversion to Warrant, not even back to their old NCO rank. Out. Really a dumb move by then PersCom.

A few survived the RIF. I know several who were accessed as CPTs who made MAJ and served until retirement in that rank, one who made LTC and one who made COL. A lot seemed to depend on collection a decoration for Valor as an Officer, those who did stayed longer. Don't think that will work for these wars, not as many opportunities. I guess the law's still the same -- have to serve ten years minimum as an officer to retire as one, otherwise, you're retired at your NCO rank. They may have changed that; hopefully so.

My guess -- and it is no more than that -- is that during VN, about half those offered a commission declined. I did and know about as many who also did that as I do those who accepted.

82redleg

04-18-2009, 12:31 PM

I saw that memo last fall, as a draft. If it didn't change, the transitions are correct- MSG/CW3 to CPT, SGM/CW4 to MAJ.

As for how well it will work, I think it depends on the NCO. How many times have PSGs run PLTs without a PL? All the time, so they should do all right with the MSG to CPT.

As for the SGM to MAJ? I guess it depends on what you have them do. As a BN XO, they might have some issues. Either one of our OPNS SGMs could do the CHOPS gig with no issues- in fact, I don't know why we have a CHOPS (I thought that was what the OPNS SGM was for) or a Battle CPT (again, an NCOIC could do it).

I don't know if it has been approved, or even if its a good idea- because the personnel toads tend to mess good things up (COHORT, Unit Manning, etc, etc), not because the individuals can't handle the level of responsibility.

Courtney Massengale

04-19-2009, 08:36 PM

As for the SGM to MAJ? I guess it depends on what you have them do. As a BN XO, they might have some issues. Either one of our OPNS SGMs could do the CHOPS gig with no issues- in fact, I don't know why we have a CHOPS (I thought that was what the OPNS SGM was for) or a Battle CPT (again, an NCOIC could do it).

The logic behind it (if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly) is the same as allowing for two BZ looks to Major and counting (P) as the next higher grade.

The BLUF is that the people who select these positions will be placed into assignments that are already being filled by non-MOSQ personnel (by MTOE, MEL, and career progression).

We're allowing for two looks at BZ for Major because there are Captains sitting in Major slots who have completed their BQ jobs. Thus, they get the opportunity to make it official, if their file is competitive.

This policy is going to free up the best and the brightest to go out and do the "hard" jobs while others who are looking toward completing their careers fill the "soft" ones. A SGM going to be a Chops is a perfect example.

Of course, there are going to be a few who ARE part of that best and brightest and the spotlight is going to unfairly shine on them as examples of how this is "broken". Hopefully this policy effects the people it was meant to in a positive way and gives the Army the outcome it desires.

qwerty1971

04-29-2009, 11:12 AM

The first sentence in that excerpt had me scratching my head. I don't know anyone who joined for the money, which makes it kind of odd in my mind that any significant number would leave for the money. But, the rest of the excerpt gives plenty of other reasons for leaving which, in my opinion, make me think that my hunch is right - they are not leaving for higher paying jobs. They may get higher paying jobs, but that is not the motivation.

I was one of 2 MICCC-grad CPTs to stay in service within my BDE after our last rotation in Iraq out of 7 MICCC CPTs. Three of the CPTs getting out already had intel jobs waiting for them once they ETS'd. One had a job as a deputy sheriff lined up and one went backl to school. Only 2 of 7 stayed in. Now I do not know if all of them received higher paying jobs than an Army CPT with 5-6 years in, but after eating lunch with those folks over the 15 month deployment I can say money had something to do with them leaving.

Courtney Massengale

04-29-2009, 10:36 PM

I was one of 2 MICCC-grad CPTs to stay in service within my BDE after our last rotation in Iraq out of 7 MICCC CPTs. Three of the CPTs getting out already had intel jobs waiting for them once they ETS'd. One had a job as a deputy sheriff lined up and one went backl to school. Only 2 of 7 stayed in. Now I do not know if all of them received higher paying jobs than an Army CPT with 5-6 years in, but after eating lunch with those folks over the 15 month deployment I can say money had something to do with them leaving.

To build on this, if you look at it as a combined household income, the money is a significant factor.

You can be a deputy sheriff anywhere and take a $20K hit... but your spouse can find a better job than the one she has in Killeen Texas or Fayetville NC that more than makes up the difference.

AmericanPride

06-13-2009, 07:32 PM

I commissioned in May 08. If I were to make a decision today about renewing my contract, I would probably decline.

First, in-the-way expectations. People will usually meet your expectations, no matter how low you set them -- and the Army has set them very low. The expectations create numerous obstacles. Too many rules will generate a rules-orientation, taking away from goal-orientation. People become more concerned with grammar and formats than assessments and opportunities. And why should anyone among America's elite 1% waste their time worrying about pleasing somebody else's pet peeves when they can take their talent somewhere more appreciative? I for one resent people who have lower expectations of me than I do of myself.

Second, in-the-way requirements. Give or take a few months, there's about a year between deployments. Subtract 2 - 3 for block leave. Another 1-2 for reset from deployment (how much work really gets done?). Another one for JRTC. That leaves about 6-7 months. Now -- throw in Army, division, garrison, and brigade taskings -- such as cleaning up trash or suspending a week of training for suicide awareness. Or (my favorite), sending soldiers for a month-long TDY to copy/paste documents in support of training exercises that provide them with absolutely no value (because they are not training). I don't know about the combat arms, but there are a whole host of strongly suggested additional MI training requirements not met in AIT and OBC that are not only hard to come by (scheduled infrequently or too few slots), but are even more difficult to find a soldier that can be sent to it. I for one do not think that cleaning up trash or copying/pasting documents is more important than ensuring that my soldiers can think critically and operate the systems we will be using downrange. But the Army disagrees with me.

Third, in-the-way people. These people are everywhere and because I'm a junior officer, I can't tell them to get lost without causing some kind of scandal (it's just not worth it). When I'm already on a wasteful TDY tasking, why are contractors further wasting my time by screwing around in my workstation? And if they are there to support me, why can't they answer my questions or provide requested products? And if there are so many contractors, why after a year of preparation are my soldiers the ones completing unsatisfied requirements that were tasked in one of the gazillion powerpoint briefs to the contractors? Why isn't trash clean-up and document copying contracted? I shouldn't pick on contractors because I also wonder why 04s and 05s are grading my grammar instead of measuring the assessment I should otherwise be developing. And I'm further wondering why 12,000+ manhours from my BCT alone are being spent on in-the-way people and their requirements rather than training the soldiers for combat.

Ken White

06-13-2009, 07:49 PM

On the First --Absolutely! Not restricted to a self appointed / annointed 1%, either.

On the Second -- Agree on the non-training foolishness couched as training and you point out -- as have many others -- that the AIT and OBC product is not ready for prime time. Been that way for years and we adamantly refuse to fix it. Lord knows how many people that failure has killed over the years...

Third -- Yet another truth.

The terribly sad thing is that those complaints could have -- and were --voiced by others years ago. With minor modifications, they are also made by the Navy, the Marines, the air Force and the Coast Guard.

Why are we still shooting oursleves in the foot like this?

selil

06-13-2009, 10:11 PM

Why are we still shooting oursleves in the foot like this?

You know the answer to that. The United States spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. Yet we get a force that is in no way better than the entire world combined. I blame the following.
1) No peer competitor or non-peer competitor in 40 years has shook the chaff from the wheat.
2) Mediocrity is the norm by definition and creates parasitic loss within a system as it continues to devolve.
3) Nobody has the guts to say "HEY y'all suck baby spit, get your heads out of your posteriors, and stop using the military as a social experiment" you can decide who that should be yelled at.
4) To many officers have been promoted in a career that was the career of last resort. Those officers who are heart breakers, life takers, and kick ass cretins get pushed aside for being effective.
5) NO general officer has been promoted from the ranks in a long time for being a war fighter first (think lts to GO, or mustangs).
6) If I were god for a day I'd wipe the contractor slate clean and start over. First person to say we couldn't fight without contractors proves my actual point.
7) Weapons systems should KILL people, not make them annoyed. Symptomatic of the issues.
8) Weapons systems should KILL people EFFECTIVELY not sexy, cool, or star wars like.
9) Life long serving officers and senior NCOs are forced out because they can't get promoted in some kind of strange version of the Bernie Madoff ponzie scheme. "You've met your level of effectiveness now get out" is a strange way to spend my tax payer money.
10) When a civilian says "Hey y'all are screwing up" instead of going "hey why" they get told, "You aren't military therefore you have no say in what we are doing" insulating and characterizing the military as inbred, but that same attitude means when congresscritters say, "Hey give me my pound of flesh" nobody but pundits can say no.

There are more. But, what's the point? It's what we've got and nobody wants to do anything about it, they just want to complain.

AmericanPride

06-13-2009, 10:46 PM

As minor as this is, this is what set me off today:

I am already angered by the massive waste of my soldiers' time coming here. In addition, since my soldiers are tasked to different units while we're here, I can't work through SOPs, etc during free time (of which there is plenty). All we can do is data mining, and that only takes you so far with limited resources. Anyway...

So I'm copying a document. I'm editing it to make it clean, including grammar mistakes (i.e. using "were" instead of "was" and so on). A O4 reviews my product when I'm done and rewrites all of my corrections to how they were originally (grammatically incorrect). So I go back and rewrite it the way the O4 directed (because I thoroughly and honestly do not think that grammar is a the primary purpose of intelligence products). He's an O4. I'm not. Case settled. The product moves on to an O5 for review. I get called to his desk. "Did you write this? Did you graduate college? Let me see your name tapes -- did you spell your name right?" Really sir? Because I scored in the top 5% on the GRE so I can guarantee you my grammar is better than anyone's in this cell. Really sir? Because I can tell you that I couldn't care less about grammar when my soldiers and I are losing 4 weeks of valuable training time. I didn't say that of course -- but to round out my point; I think some officers leave because of pay. Others because of deployments, family, etc. But I think the majority leave because of the in-the-way expectations/requirements/people that make the job unenjoyable. And after sitting through countless powerpoint slides with numerous taskings for one year of prep for the exercise only to have the briefers explain that most of them have not been completed so we'll have to do it for them, I have come to realize that the Army suffers from a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

I have absolutely no complaints about my job (which I have since learned is not the same as my duties), my unit, the duty station, or really anything of any obvious significance. But if what I've described in the above two posts is what I have to put up with for a pension, DoD can keep its money and I'll take my labor elsewhere.

Old Eagle

06-14-2009, 12:28 AM

but some things never change.

Junior officers always know more than their superiors. Unfortunately, even as an old colonel, I still knew more than all the general officers:D

Just rest assured in the thought that your troops think the same of you.;) Ask Stan.

My charge to you is that as you advance and accrue more authority, try your best not to replicate the situations in which you now find yourself. Hooah.

120mm

06-14-2009, 12:53 AM

Or (my favorite), sending soldiers for a month-long TDY to copy/paste documents in support of training exercises that provide them with absolutely no value (because they are not training).

I will save the Army money and innumerable man-hours by just stopping the bad joke known as BCTP and any other complete and utter waste of time computerized staff training exercizes. I could accomplish a manifold better training exercise with a microscopically smaller waste of money and man-hours with a map, micro-armor and a very small exercise staff.

BCTP training exists so that maneuver units can support and justify the computer exercise, which is the opposite of what it should be.

Oh, and by the way, the "Battle Rhythm" isn't the briefing schedule. And a competent commander shouldn't need a briefing schedule in the first place....

AmericanPride

06-14-2009, 01:00 AM

Old Eagle,

I don't think I know more than my superiors (well, not all of them, and not on everything ;)). But I do know when my time and the time of my soldiers is being wasted for somebody else. Nobody needs a degree or commission for that. It's like in Godfather I when Sunny calls Michael a fool for risking his life for strangers. I think its foolish to waste my time and resources for a requirement that 1) has no value to my section and 2) could be accomplished without wasting my time. Even so, I'm less concerned about my time than that of my soldiers (who when not training or deployed, should be with their families, or doing what they wish). When the commander took my best soldier for his PSD, I grumbled to my NCOIC, but I knew the commander's intent and that it would be for the overall good of the squadron's mission. But this... I don't see it.

I accept your charge. Selil remarked that "nobody wants to do anything about it." I don't agree. There are plenty of people that want to do something but will be run out of the Army for rocking the boat. I'm coming to the point, though, where I don't care -- if something is wrong, I'm going to fix it, and I'll let someone know, whatever their grade. And if they want to run me out of the Army, it's no loss to me. I'll go find contract work. :D

AmericanPride

06-14-2009, 01:07 AM

I will save the Army money and innumerable man-hours by just stopping the bad joke known as BCTP and any other complete and utter waste of time computerized staff training exercizes. I could accomplish a manifold better training exercise with a microscopically smaller waste of money and man-hours with a map, micro-armor and a very small exercise staff.

BCTP training exists so that maneuver units can support and justify the computer exercise, which is the opposite of what it should be.

Oh, and by the way, the "Battle Rhythm" isn't the briefing schedule. And a competent commander shouldn't need a briefing schedule in the first place....

That's exactly what I and 90% of my soldiers are doing -- at the expense of any training of value. I'm missing a OPD with Lester Grau of "Bear Went Over the Mountain" fame. That one day OPD would have more value than my 3+ weeks here. Instead of using my soldiers, the BCTP could be using the numerous in-the-way contractors that crowd my workstation.

Micro-armor, BTW, is awesome... though I only have memories of my wrecked T-34 regiments dotting the Russian steppes.

jcustis

06-14-2009, 06:33 PM

Sometimes, we also need to step back and say, "no sir, those errors you see are not ones that I wrote. I saw the errors, but was told otherwise..."

I get it that grammar is just one of the issues, but sometimes, the inability to influence a superior's actions and thinking is in part, our own fault for not being adept enough at getting them to see our point.

Schmedlap

06-14-2009, 07:26 PM

I think some officers leave because of pay. Others because of deployments, family, etc. But I think the majority leave because of the in-the-way expectations/requirements/people that make the job unenjoyable.
That is what drove me out. As it turned out, the last chain of command that I had in a maneuver unit was shockingly good. But I had already made up my mind and figured that finally having a good chain of command was an anomaly. Or maybe I was an anomaly by being one of the unlucky few who was cursed with serving beneath micromanaging jackasses for the bulk of my career, only to get a reprieve toward the end. Whatever the case, I have since learned that I prefer the military over civilian life. It is not that civilian bosses (or the potential to be one's own boss) are any better or worse in the civilian world. The issue is whom I would prefer work with, not whom I would prefer to work for. I prefer the company of Soldiers.

When I go back into the Army after finishing school, I expect that 50% of my commanders will already have been promoted beyond their potential. But I am not going back for the opportunity to implement the orders of the people above me; I see that as just part of the job. What is drawing me back is the opportunity to lead Soldiers and to be a peer among people whom I respect. Every job has its drawbacks. In the Army's case, the drawback is the high likelihood that one's commander is a lousy leader. It is still outweighed by the benefits. If you are in it for the opportunity to serve your Soldiers, then the incentive grows to stay in (or return) and displace the crappy leaders. The trick is to constantly remind yourself why you're serving (Soldiers and peers) rather than to get sidetracked with the downside of the job (poor leaders above you). I got sidetracked and got out. A year in the civilian world helped me to regain the proper perspective.

Ken White

06-14-2009, 07:26 PM

subordinates just to see how far they can be pushed. Been my observation that accepting such pushing frequently puts one in a position of being less respected and more often pushed, IOW, with the blusterers and blowhards (and they exist at all ranks and in all fields of human endeavor) it only gets worse if you accept it.

Best response to being told to reinstall an error one has removed or resisting that generic pushing IMO is to resist it as calmly and forcefully as one can (while being quite sure one is right). That will generally bring a cessation of such pushing. Lot of would be bullies out there. Some in uniform and some not...

I've seen a lot of folks take that foolishness from overbearing senior people and then get waxed on their OER or EER / Fitness Report as not being forceful or morally courageus. People may dislike you if they're wrong and you're correct but most of them will accept it and won't penalize you for it -- mostly because they're afraid they'll get found out.

Ken White

06-14-2009, 08:01 PM

You know the answer to that.True but one does have to ask WHY??? Even if it just rhetorical.

I agree with your list:
The United States spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. Yet we get a force that is in no way better than the entire world combined. I blame the following.Except for
3) Nobody has the guts to say "HEY y'all suck baby spit, get your heads out of your posteriors, and stop using the military as a social experiment" you can decide who that should be yelled at.

4) To many officers have been promoted in a career that was the career of last resort. Those officers who are heart breakers, life takers, and kick ass cretins get pushed aside for being effective.

6) If I were god for a day I'd wipe the contractor slate clean and start over. First person to say we couldn't fight without contractors proves my actual point.

10) When a civilian says "Hey y'all are screwing up" instead of going "hey why" they get told, "You aren't military therefore you have no say in what we are doing" insulating and characterizing the military as inbred, but that same attitude means when congresscritters say, "Hey give me my pound of flesh" nobody but pundits can say no.[quote]Number 3 gets in the civilian control of the military arena. What you say is correct but it has to be that way if we're to have civilian control.

Number 4 (and 5, to an extent) is a direct result of that civilian control. While I agree too many fit your complaint, there are also a good many who do not. One is too many but reality intrudes; any random collection of three people will have one good at something, one average and one not so good. If your grouping is nit random but selected, that should eliminate the low performer but there's no guarantee. Most of the Officer selection and promotion rules were forced on the service by a whole series of Congresses over many years which were all overcommitted to 'objectivity' in metrics, fairness, equality of result and terribly afraid of Armed Forces that are too good. We could fix that with a military dictatorship -- but I don't think that's good solution, personally...

Number 6 is fine in the first case; we definitely need to redo the methodology. In the second case, obviously we can go without them and have done so -- but I don't think you or the rest of the US is ready for a Draft.

Number 10 is incorrect all round, I think -- the first problem is that most civilian complaints, pundits included, are based on little or no knowledge of many factors by people with no or with limited experience (and those last are most likely to assume they know enough to comment) and therefor, most such complaints comes across as ill informed, simplistic and are rejected due to that factor -- not that "You aren't military therefore you have no say in what we are doing" bit you posit. Informed commentary is welcomed but there's precious little of it out there. I can think of several military correspondents or writers who reveal an astonishing amount of superficial knowledge but also constantly show they do not truly understand the complexities -- or the fact that Congress drive many more trains than is superficially apparent.

Congresscritters will get their pound of flesh because (a) that's the way the system works and (b) there are very few truly knowledgable civilians on things military.[quote]There are more. But, what's the point? It's what we've got and nobody wants to do anything about it, they just want to complain.Yeah, there's more but on what you've said, I have two questions:

Why is it true that is "what we've got?"

Tell us what can be done about it.

selil

06-14-2009, 10:23 PM

Number 10 is incorrect all round, I think -- the first problem is that most civilian complaints, pundits included, are based on little or no knowledge of many factors by people with no or with limited experience (and those last are most likely to assume they know enough to comment) and therefor, most such complaints comes across as ill informed, simplistic and are rejected due to that factor -- not that "You aren't military therefore you have no say in what we are doing" bit you posit. Informed commentary is welcomed but there's precious little of it out there. I can think of several military correspondents or writers who reveal an astonishing amount of superficial knowledge but also constantly show they do not truly understand the complexities -- or the fact that Congress drive many more trains than is superficially apparent.

So though you disagree you say specifically what I was saying. If you aren't military your complaints are based on little or no knowledge, limited experience, though informed commentary is welcomed, there is little informed commentary because the people doing so are not military.

It is s standard argument from priori knowledge or experience.

As such the military does look specifically like a closed club with an old boy network of generals and former senior military who double dip as contractors dealing with people who they were leaders of not long ago. The military is a classic example of a closed shop from cradle to grave. There are MANY who have told me that is a benefit of having been military in the past and a reward for their service.

Those who aren't contractors are sitting in plumb civilian posts to military organizations where they determine the civilian side of the policy. In some cases they are paid shills to news corporations spouting the DOD line rather than giving honest assessments. Blame congress but the number of shills serving DOD with former military ties given jobs that have precise KSA's attributed to them that require former military service determines what policy Congress votes upon.

From the outside it looks pretty inbred and incestuous.

The systemic anachronism created by this incestuous methodology stifles innovation, creates parasitic losses on the economy of scale, is a closed loop of thinking, and is orders of magnitude more expensive than alternative models.

I can write that, support that, and provide detailed evidence for it, and I'm a fan of the military and a former Marine. Knowing something stinks is a lot different than not caring about how it gets fixed.

Why is it true that is "what we've got?"

Tell us what can be done about it.

How to fix the military in five easy steps (for today, some I've said before)

1) Do away with mandatory up or out promotions systems. At the same time do away with the 30 years max service. You can serve until you can't perform. I'm ok with 20 year corporals. I'm also OK with field grades saying "you suck go away" to those who can't perform. If you have a bad commander go ahead and appeal. Or, don't.

2) If it deploys it is a "b" or "c" billet for a military member. Yes the military gets bigger but it gets much more flexible. The reasons for outstrip the reasons against.

3) End weapons systems bloat. If it can't be done by a soldier it is not for the field. Mass produce weapons systems that work. Innovation that requires a long logistics tail is worse than lack of innovation. We can Innovatively loose wars too.

4) Increase military pay for all across the board by 25%. Decrease mandatory enlistments periods to 24 months (no promotion past E-1), increase bonuses for extended enlistments 24-72 months (promotion possible).

5) Contractors must accept the UCMJ foreign or domestic and all that means. If a contractor sues the military they don't get paid until it is resolved. If the military files UCMJ charges against a contractor the officer doing so has to withstand I believe it is an Article 32 hearing. You get big sticks but you need to have the wisdom to use or not use them.

I know with all that you're going to vote me off the island. If I don't know enough about the military because I didn't serve long enough, or in enough billets, then is it a fanciful thing to say the military is told what to do by civilians? Go ahead sign me up for Platoon Leader Course I'll be one of the most educated, oldest recruits in history. Going through boot camp, basic training is sort of a hobby. Maybe it will change my mind though I doubt it.

Ken White

06-15-2009, 01:13 AM

So though you disagree you say specifically what I was saying...No, that's not what I said. I said most. There are some exceptions and even the stopped clock is right twice a day, etc. Nor did I say valid complainants needed to be military; I said many tend to make comments that are ill informed or simplistic which does not mean they have to be military, it does mean they should try to become informed or avoid making simplistic comments. I can think of many civilians with no service who are very knowledgeable; they are just exceptions to the rule.
It is s standard argument from priori knowledge or experience.Why, yes, it is -- I believe I've seen you use it repeatedly with reference to the educational industry... ;)
As such the military does look specifically like a closed club...There are MANY who have told me that is a benefit of having been military in the past and a reward for their service.In reverse order, I'm sure there are many -- I'd also bet there are far more who do not believe that. I'll certainly admit to knowing too many who do believe the system owes them something but I know more who do not feel that way than those who do. Moving back past that, yep, it is a closed shop from cradle to grave, no question. So? It would be better if it were not but I think that would fly in the face of 5,000 years of human development...
Those who aren't contractors are sitting in plumb civilian posts to military organizations where they determine the civilian side of the policy. In some cases they are paid shills to news corporations spouting the DOD line rather than giving honest assessments. Blame congress but the number of shills serving DOD with former military ties given jobs that have precise KSA's attributed to them that require former military service determines what policy Congress votes upon.That's an unclear statement. I agree with the first part and also agree that's wrong. Don't understand the Congressional / policy reference.
From the outside it looks pretty inbred and incestuous.It is. As do the vales of Academe look from the outside. As does the Banking industry. As does Congress itself. Do we have a military problem or a people problem here?
The systemic anachronism created by this incestuous methodology stifles innovation, creates parasitic losses on the economy of scale, is a closed loop of thinking, and is orders of magnitude more expensive than alternative models.I tend to agree with most of that but I'm very curious what alternative models might realistically be used in the US???

You probably can:
...write that, support that, and provide detailed evidence for it, and I'm a fan of the military and a former Marine. Knowing something stinks is a lot different than not caring about how it gets fixed.Don't think I said otherwise. So can I do all those things. That doesn't put either of us any closer to fixing it...
How to fix the military in five easy steps (for today, some I've said before)

1) Do away with mandatory up or out promotions systems. At the same time do away with the 30 years max service. You can serve until you can't perform. I'm ok with 20 year corporals. I'm also OK with field grades saying "you suck go away" to those who can't perform. If you have a bad commander go ahead and appeal. Or, don't.I agree with eliminating up or out. I disagree strongly on the 30 years max service (there are already exceptions made and most of them would not fill you with pride...). I'd go the other way and drop it to 25 because if you do it right, your mind and body will not take 30 years of that kind of punishment. What's required is a portable retirement process so that people are not locked in and can move in an out of the service as they mature and goals or needs change. I'd also submit that a part of the problem with much of the other stuff you cite is those folks who have over 20, are headed for 30 -- and absolutely will not rock the boat to mess up their retirement. Those also are most of the folks that are in your "I earned it..." pot.

I'm also okay with 20 year corporals and with Field Grades that tell people to go away -- the problem is that your Congress is not really okay with either of those things. For the CPL, they don't like lowly peons sticking around that long; they become way too loyal to the institution and not to the Nation or other things. The Field Grade can do that to his CSM or a CPT or two -- but sooner or later, he's gonna get reported for being mean; someone's Congressman will write to some General and the Field grade likely becomes history unless that GO is really adept. That's reality. Should any of those things be true? Absolutely not -- but they are...
2) If it deploys it is a "b" or "c" billet for a military member. Yes the military gets bigger but it gets much more flexible. The reasons for outstrip the reasons against.I agree in principle but I don't think the willing and qualified volunteer pool in this country today will support a larger force. Further, given current costs, I doubt the current force can be supported on economic grounds for very long. I'd go the other way; a smaller force, almost all deployable and better trained (that adds to costs which removes any savings from a smaller force)
3) End weapons systems bloat...We can Innovatively loose wars too.On that we totally agree.
4) Increase military pay for all across the board by 25%. Decrease mandatory enlistments periods to 24 months (no promotion past E-1), increase bonuses for extended enlistments 24-72 months (promotion possible).Disagree. Some are overpaid now. Across the board increases in the past have contributed to a pay imbalance; some folks do need a pay raise, some do not -- and some could take a cut (IMO); plus, we need a completely new pay scheme -- the current system is good for a mobilizing major war force; it is not good for a professional force. We have too many grades and no way to reward good performance other than by promoting people in rank -- that forces the services into the Peter Principle...

Disagree with 24 month enlistments. The way we now train it takes that long for the kid to get really productive (as you earlier said, the object is to do the job, not be a social laboratory) -- or if we improve training by an order of magnitude, that'll leave him only a year in a unit, that's too much personnel turbulence. In the Marine Corps when you an I were in, that was a minor effectiveness impactor -- today, it is a major adverse element that must be ameliorated.

That last item is currently being done. The Army, incidentally did the two year option and it really didn't attract that many.
5) Contractors must accept the UCMJ foreign or domestic and all that means. If a contractor sues the military they don't get paid until it is resolved. If the military files UCMJ charges against a contractor the officer doing so has to withstand I believe it is an Article 32 hearing. You get big sticks but you need to have the wisdom to use or not use them.I agree but I don't think Congress will. Congress likes contractors because they allow rapid expansion and contraction (efficiency and effectiveness are not concerns; ongoing, surge and residual cost is a concern; contractors don't get VA benefits...) and, even better, Contractors contribute big time to campaign funds (which few services or soldiers do).
I know with all that you're going to vote me off the island.Nope, not even. You're entitled to your opinions and I agree in large measure. In some things, we see the same problem but have a different fix. There are a few where I think you are missing the pernicious presence of Congress.
If I don't know enough about the military because I didn't serve long enough, or in enough billets, then is it a fanciful thing to say the military is told what to do by civilians?I hope not because they largely are told what to do by civilians. Most of the personnel policies are promulgated by a Congress overly concerned with two things -- that none of their constituents / voters (or their family members) get too badly screwed by the Armed Forces (thus many silly, even dangerous, personnel rules like up or out, promotion quotas and the like) and the great big, elephant in the corner factor that many really miss -- Congress absolutely does not want, will not tolerate, an Army that is too good or not adequately subservient. Read the Constitution -- Congress has the nation by the old short hair on that one and since the Army is the biggest service, that allows them to dictate Army Policies to the other services (One of many reasons I disagreed and disagree with the existence of DoD) and they flat take advantage of that power.

Remember that because those factors are the root of many of your complaints.
Go ahead sign me up for Platoon Leader Course I'll be one of the most educated, oldest recruits in history. Going through boot camp, basic training is sort of a hobby. Maybe it will change my mind though I doubt it.No intent to try to change your mind. In any event, I agree with many of your desired changes. Only thing in the way of those is Congress. Fly in the old ointment. Good luck with that fix...

AmericanPride

06-15-2009, 02:24 AM

If, God forbid, one of my soldiers is killed or injured, or through his action/inaction, contributes to the death or injury of another soldier, BCTP will be one of the things I will place on the blame-line. It is not simply a waste of time, but it is detrimental to the readiness of my soldiers. Equipment can be repaired or requistioned. Money can be raised or collected. But time can never be regained --- whether it's time at a course, on a system, driving a vehicle, or pulling security in a patrol base, those are experiences that contribute to soldier development. I am seriously and thoroughly angered by BCTP and the type of mentality it fosters. I understand division staffs require training. Got it. Instead of using soldiers who are scheduled to deploy, however, why not contractors? Why not AIT soldiers? Why not soldiers who are scheduled to deploy with the division staff that is in training? Why not anyone but soldiers from other divisions who are also scheduled to deploy (especially those deploying to a country other than the one being trained) and have their own training requirements?

I am convinced that BCTP is a negligent act that undermines the readiness of the Army to win its wars. How do I protect my soldiers from taskings that will undermine their readiness? What do I need to say and to whom so that whoever is responsible for BCTP is at least aware that there are soldiers and leaders who are unconvinced that the program provides anything of value?

jcustis, ken and schmedlap, thanks for the words of wisdom. I'm really unconcerned about OERs or the impression other officers have of me. I'll do my best for as long as I'm able. I have no desire to be anyone's fool, especially pezzonvante and other in the way people and their needs. A friend of mine tells me that attitude would make me a terrible enlisted Soldier, and sometimes I wonder if that makes me a bad officer. Growing up, it certainly got me into alot of trouble, but it also led me to some outstanding mentors. My experience here at BCTP has reignited that attitude and has made me seriously reconsider the Army as a life-time commitment.

selil

06-15-2009, 03:03 AM

I agree with many of your desired changes. Only thing in the way of those is Congress. Fly in the old ointment. Good luck with that fix...

I'm hoping that wildly outside the norm suggestions can create thinking and incite change. When i've worked in industry some of my tasks were to create a "get things done" environment when apathy and dereliction were the norm. I used many tools from pep talks to hiring and firing authority. The result was a string of under budget, early delivery projects in an industry that celebrates the sound deadlines make as they go whooshing by in orgs of fairly large size. I know that things can be done to make effectiveness and solution oriented decisions possible. How to translate that from the telco world to the military. Well. I doubt it is possible.

I've got to believe things can change. I've got to believe people I know and respect can serve with dignity and without being treated poorly. the RIF will happen. When I don't know.

There has to be a way to fix, improve, create a set of win-win scenarios. We spend to much time supporting a lose-lose system. The economy will not support the gargantuan sloth of the current machinery. I don't know how it will break. I thought the KBR debacle would do it, but so far they are golden.

The problems are huge but politicians don't believe we can discuss them with considered thought. Nobody wants to discuss in depth. They all want to spend time in sound bites. Really dig into problems? At all levels that is not happening.

Every general and admiral I've met have been engaged and intelligent individuals but some have made strange and onerous decisions that baffle me. Solutions are possible. If they aren't then what is the point? The how may be difficult but challenge is the spice of life.

Grumble. Ranting I guess.

Ken White

06-15-2009, 04:08 AM

I've got to believe things can change. I've got to believe people I know and respect can serve with dignity and without being treated poorly. the RIF will happen. When I don't know.The delay in achieving that hope you cite in the foregoing is caused by this:
The problems are huge but politicians don't believe we can discuss them with considered thought. Nobody wants to discuss in depth. They all want to spend time in sound bites. Really dig into problems? At all levels that is not happening.Like you with KBR (which I saw only as business as usual -- they got their start supporting LBJ back in the 50s; made big, big bucks in Viet Nam) I thought the economic debacle would tumble some out of Congress and send a message. Didn't happen. I cannot believe a bunch of those guys got reelected. :mad:
Grumble. Ranting I guess.Me, too. Good news is there are a lot of small changes afoot and this current generation may grow up and fix some more ills -- but I'm afraid we're not going to see any major change until we have a real disastrous situation on our hands or we stop electing people to Congress who are more concerned with their party than the nation. Which probably means disastrous...

Courtney Massengale

06-28-2009, 02:15 PM

Good news is there are a lot of small changes afoot and this current generation may grow up and fix some more ills

On the latest promotion list to O4, out of the 40 selected in my branch (including 2 BZ and 2 DBZ), seven had never been deployed and four did not have a Company Command.

There's your future warrior leaders of the United States Army.

marct

06-28-2009, 02:31 PM

On the latest promotion list to O4, out of the 40 selected in my branch (including 2 BZ and 2 DBZ), seven had never been deployed and four did not have a Company Command.

There's your future warrior leaders of the United States Army.

Well, at least you could look on the bright side - ergonomics is making a comeback! :D
https://images.furniture123.co.uk/F123images/Catalogue/vlrg/BUO001/Eagle%20Tara%20Armchair.jpg

patmc

06-28-2009, 05:53 PM

Sir, what branch had only 40 promotions? Smaller branches can be more selective, but if they too are short, then there is a problem. A year or two ago, Field Artillery had around 100 pax left in its most senior CPT year group (for perspective, my FA basic course class had 150). For a larger branch, too few people means everyone moves up, which may not be good.

For the stats you listed, 7 non-deployers since 2001 is bad. The 4 non commanders may not be as big a deal, depending on the branch, and the jobs they did have. The Army, especially combat arms, is still command centric, but is trying to move away for the CS and CSS branches. I'm MI, and will have to fight and kill for a command, and am repeatedly told its nice to have, but not need to have (though I know that is a lie to compensate for too few slots). Not deploying is a big deal. Not commanding, maybe not as much. In support branches, one can probably still be a capable warrior leader without commanding a company (does recruiting or basic training command better prepare leaders than hard staff assignments?).

On the latest promotion list to O4, out of the 40 selected in my branch (including 2 BZ and 2 DBZ), seven had never been deployed and four did not have a Company Command.

There's your future warrior leaders of the United States Army.

Ken White

06-28-2009, 07:16 PM

On the latest promotion list to O4, out of the 40 selected in my branch (including 2 BZ and 2 DBZ), seven had never been deployed and four did not have a Company Command.Okay, 18% hadn't deployed; I suspect that's fairly close to an Army norm; some unit types are always in greater demand than others and that creates an imbalance in a big, busy Army. You'd be amazed at how many Tankers never got to Viet Nam, much less some CS/CSS jobs and ranks...

As for the Command, without getting into which branch, how many company slots are available, how long they've been in the service and so forth, that really doesn't tell me much. Plus, don't I remember that you are or were on your second company command tour? Which one of those guys did you deprive? ;)

Not picking on you, seriously but all sorts of things can get in the way of commanding a company as you know -- and most CS/CSS guys are good at their job which is far more important than commanding a company. Honest. I've met more Company commanders who weren't technically competent -- or weren't good commanders -- than I care to recall.
There's your future warrior leaders of the United States Army.We don't want Warriors; they're generally undisciplined louts. :D

What we do want is professional, tactically and technically competent Soldiers -- to realign something that is not broken, just strayed off the path. Neither deployments or command are necessary to do that, neither really confers wisdom or moral strength...

Leading the Army to improve just takes smarts. And will. Mostly will.

Entropy

06-28-2009, 07:41 PM

Ideally, what you do should be much less important than how you do it. There are all sorts of problems with basing promotion on what someone has done as much or more than their actual performance. I've known/run into a lot of sh!tbags on my deployments, so I can assure you that such metrics are not a reliable measure of ability to perform at a higher rank. A system which rewards such "check blocks," in my view, encourages careerism and not good officership. Good people may not get a "check" in certain boxes because of factors completely beyond their control, for example.

Regardless, retention problems are increasing promotion rates to levels that I think are too high. Even in the Air Force, which, I believe, currently has the fewest retention problems, there is a 94% selection rate for Major and 85% for Lt Col. My wife will be competing for Lt. Col this year and so the high selection rate is good on that account, but then I look at some of her peers that will likely join her and I shudder a little inside.

Surferbeetle

06-28-2009, 08:24 PM

Courtney, Ken, & Entropy,

As with many things perhaps its six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Having a couple of company commands is a valuable experience in the managing people arena (better if you are lucky and get to work with good 1SGs both times). Malcom Gladwell (http://www.gladwell.com/) posits that a specialist, in management or anything else, requires approximately 10,000 hours to become 'good'. Miyamoto Musashi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi) provides some interesting things to think about on this topic as well:

Musashi spent many years studying Buddhism and swordsmanship. He was an accomplished artist, sculptor, and calligrapher. Records also show that he had architectural skills. Also, he had a rather straightforward approach to combat, with no additional frills or aesthetic considerations. This was probably due to his real-life combat experience.

Especially in his later life Musashi also followed the more artistic side of bushido. He made various Zen brush paintings and calligraphy and sculpted wood and metal. Even in The Book of Five Rings he emphasizes that samurai should understand other professions as well. It should be understood that Musashi's writings were very ambiguous. Translating them into English makes them even more so. That is why we find so many copies of Gorin no Sho. One needs to read this work, Dokkodo and Hyoho Shiji ni Kajo to get a better idea of what he was about and understand his transformation from Setsuninto (the sword that takes life) to Katsujinken (the sword that gives life).

Comparing the results of promotion rates in the bad old zero defect days vs. today's GWOT veterans is a study in contrasts. Many of us bailed from active duty when the door opened after the Berlin Wall fell and in my neck of the woods it seemed to be that many 'careerists' (in the pejorative sense) stayed in. When I came back to active duty for GWOT the ensuing pace of things seemed to have chased out many of the bad ones. It's also very refreshing to see those with combat patches & CIB's/CAB's moving up into positions of responsibility.

When I get too cocky, however, I like to think about one of my dad's favorite sayings: 'old age and treachery will give youth and inexperience a run for its money'. :eek:

Best,

Steve

82redleg

06-29-2009, 11:55 AM

Okay, 18% hadn't deployed; I suspect that's fairly close to an Army norm; some unit types are always in greater demand than others and that creates an imbalance in a big, busy Army. You'd be amazed at how many Tankers never got to Viet Nam, much less some CS/CSS jobs and ranks...

Unless you're a brain surgeon or burn specialist, or something like that, which simply isn't done in Iraq, there is no excuse for a MAJ (or CPT P) to be without a deployment. Not at 8 years into the war. There is just no excuse.

18% is probably a little low for the Army, but most of that is IET and initial term soldiers in units getting ready for their first deployment, plus the initial term soldiers in Korea.

Find a CS branch that isn't in Iraq- they all are, and if you are a MAJ and haven't deployed, you are hiding. If you don't want to be a combat leader, find another organization.

Schmedlap

06-29-2009, 12:54 PM

Unless you're a brain surgeon or burn specialist, or something like that, which simply isn't done in Iraq, there is no excuse for a MAJ (or CPT P) to be without a deployment. Not at 8 years into the war. There is just no excuse.

I'd be curious to know how this happens - even if it is intentional. If, for whatever reason, I wanted to avoid deployments, I don't know how I could have done it for 8 years. This is bizarre.

I actively avoided staff time and even that eventually caught up to me after 7 years. Those were 7 great years.

marct

06-29-2009, 02:57 PM

Hi Steve,

Miyamoto Musashi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi) provides some interesting things to think about on this topic as well:

I've got to admit that Musashi is one of my favorites :wry: (I use the Harvard Business School translation). One of the problems with reading Musashi, however, is that his basic cosmology is so different from that of most in the West, that a lot of his insights and attitudes are almost incomprehensible.

To name just one, for Musashi, reincarnation was a proven fact, so the development of one's "self" as a warrior was in keeping with the fact that one was born as a warrior. This ties back in with the earlier, Vedic, discussion between Krishna and Arjuna on the role one plays in life and the duty that one has to that role. This really isn't the type of thinking (and perceiving) that Christianity or any of the JCI religions accept which, in turn, impacts styles of leadership, cosmological requirements for "leaders", and the responses one can expect from those one leads.

The disjuncture gets even worse when he starts in on the 3rd Book. For example, can you imaging what would happen to any officer who told his commanders that he "became" his opponent and based his operations plans on that ability to "become"? My suspicion is that he would swiftly discover the joys of a white jacket with long arms :wry:.

Steve Blair

06-29-2009, 03:05 PM

jkm_101_fso

06-29-2009, 03:19 PM

I'd be curious to know how this happens - even if it is intentional. If, for whatever reason, I wanted to avoid deployments, I don't know how I could have done it for 8 years.

Korea. You can stay for multiple tours, as I understand it.

Field Artillery officers are the most deployed, statistically, but we still have a few out there with 5+ years in service and no deployments. Those that have managed it have done the Korea (mulitiple tours) then to Fort Sill COA. If you get the right unit at Sill (ATC, Schoolhouse, FiB) you can avoid deployment. I know an FA Major at ILE right now that has not deployed. I don't think he was actively avoiding it. His one shot to deploy he was the rear-D commander.

Ken White

06-29-2009, 04:31 PM

Unless you're a brain surgeon or burn specialist, or something like that, which simply isn't done in Iraq, there is no excuse for a MAJ (or CPT P) to be without a deployment. Not at 8 years into the war. There is just no excuse.Army Human Resources Command in full cry. :wry:

Without knowing branches involved, it's difficult to refute your generic position with specificity -- but a generic response could and would be that there are stabilized tours which HRC will rarely if ever violate and a person could have been in say the 1st Cav in 2003, moved to the Career Course in 04, stabilized tour 04-07, grad school 08-09. Or Grad school earlier then a utilization tour. Or gone to Korea in 04 returned from a short tour in 05 thus into a three year lock, thence to...

Well, you get the idea.

I hear what you're saying and I don't doubt there are a few who diligently avoided a tour -- but the probability is that everyone who has no deployments did not cheat to do so; it's the luck of the draw in a big, bureaucratic organization whose personnel system does NOT go to war and is emphatically not designed to support small wars; such wars are an unwanted intrusion into its 'orderly processes.' :mad:
Find a CS branch that isn't in Iraq- they all are, and if you are a MAJ and haven't deployed, you are hiding.Sweeping statement. What's the net usage ratio in Iraq (or Afghanistan) of Signal Corps types, all modes including Strategic SatCom specialists? Info Systems specialists? How about acquisition types? Strategic MI Specialists? What's the net number of Engineer units and jobs versus the number of elements deployed? Aviation types who are Aeronautical Engineers doing R&D stuff? MI guys on the RC7 / EO5 birds? Or the MI guy who gets credit for no deployment but has been in a sensitive job in an unnamed nation -- and in more danger than all his peers in Iraq? Or the poor Engineer Captain who got stuck at the wrong time in this : LINK (https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/) or his buddy who was an exchange officer with the Bundeswehr? The airplane driver (or other CS type) assigned to MilGroup Argentina -- or Brazil? The Aviator who was assigned to the DAO in Estonia to ferry Stan about?
If you don't want to be a combat leader, find another organization.I strongly agree with that sentiment -- I equally strongly disagree that anyone who has not deployed fits automatically in that category.

As I told both my sons who went to jump school; "Go forth and do great things, I'm proud of you. Do not swallow that airborne mystique foolishness, that stuff will get you killed -- and always remember to take a 2 second think break before acting or speaking." I also told them to be nervous about a combat leader who's prone to sweeping absolutes. I've seen too many of those guys get too many people killed for no good reason.

It's a big Army and it does a lot of things too many in it do not even know it does... :wry:

Van

06-29-2009, 04:44 PM

I have to second Ken's observations regarding the Human Resource Command. Being a 'resource' sometimes means getting treated as shelf stock, to the point where I feel like NOS (New old stock; never sold, but very dated).

I hear what you're saying and I don't doubt there are a few who diligently avoided a tour -- but the probability is that everyone who has no deployments did not cheat to do so; it's the luck of the draw in a big, bureaucratic organization whose personnel system does NOT go to war and is emphatically not designed to support small wars; such wars are an unwanted intrusion into its 'orderly processes.'

As far as I can tell, the more aggressively you volunteer to deploy, the further down the list of "resources to manage" you get placed.

I've stopped trying to deploy and, as a Reservist, am just taking the tours I can find.

Surferbeetle

06-29-2009, 06:53 PM

Hey Marc,

I appreciate this pithy insight, this was something that I was not aware of.

To name just one, for Musashi, reincarnation was a proven fact, so the development of one's "self" as a warrior was in keeping with the fact that one was born as a warrior. This ties back in with the earlier, Vedic, discussion between Krishna and Arjuna on the role one plays in life and the duty that one has to that role. This really isn't the type of thinking (and perceiving) that Christianity or any of the JCI religions accept which, in turn, impacts styles of leadership, cosmological requirements for "leaders", and the responses one can expect from those one leads.

Back when I was living on Oahu (http://hawaii.gov/dod/hiarng) we probably would have tried to see if there was at least something in a more laid back color/print (http://www.alohashirtshop.com/category_7_Kahala.html) before sending him on his way :D

The disjuncture gets even worse when he starts in on the 3rd Book. For example, can you imaging what would happen to any officer who told his commanders that he "became" his opponent and based his operations plans on that ability to "become"? My suspicion is that he would swiftly discover the joys of a white jacket with long arms :wry:.

Seed Magazine had an interesting posting on the intersection of music & math a while back: A Tel Aviv University professor melds math and sociology of the Internet to predict the next big thing in music (http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/group_think/)

Professor Yuval Shavitt, of Tel Aviv University’s School of Electric Engineering, is melding math and sociology to describe mass behavior on the Internet. He is the principal investigator of DIMES, a project that hopes to map the structure and topology of the Internet, begun four years ago. And for the past year, he has used data-mining tools to collect and interpret massive amounts of data from file-sharing networks. By applying a decades-old sociological theory that describes the spread of information in social networks to the online world, he has been able to develop a predictive algorithm that identifies musicians who will ascend from local popularity to national stardom.

Even in math Watts and Strogatz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_and_Strogatz_model), Barabasi-Albert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_model) timing is indeed important. ;)

reed11b

06-29-2009, 07:48 PM

I'd be curious to know how this happens - even if it is intentional. If, for whatever reason, I wanted to avoid deployments, I don't know how I could have done it for 8 years. This is bizarre.

I actively avoided staff time and even that eventually caught up to me after 7 years. Those were 7 great years.

Officer side is outside my sphere, but I keep running into active duty enlisted that have never deployed, while I work w/ NG and reservists that have been 3 or more times. Not all or probably even most of the active duty w/o deployments are becouse they were avoiding them in any way that I can tell.
Just seems to happen w/ the Army's training and PCS policies that some slip through.
Reed

Shek

06-29-2009, 07:58 PM

Unless you're a brain surgeon or burn specialist, or something like that, which simply isn't done in Iraq, there is no excuse for a MAJ (or CPT P) to be without a deployment. Not at 8 years into the war. There is just no excuse.

Find a CS branch that isn't in Iraq- they all are, and if you are a MAJ and haven't deployed, you are hiding. If you don't want to be a combat leader, find another organization.

I can think of plenty examples that make sense on the eaches, and it's simply a matter of timing. I'm coming off of five years between grad school and teaching at West Point that were programmed in the fall of 2002 when Afghanistan was a brigade blip on the radar and the world was watching as Colin Powell was sitting in front of the UN making the case about Iraq and new resolutions.

Because I turned down an immediate command at Fort Lewis so I could command during the latter part of the initial operation capability train up and be with the unit with the potential to deploy, I deployed to OIF 1.5/2 and when I entered grad school, Iraq was supposedly on a glide path to having very few forces by now (we all know that that plan was thrown out pretty quickly when reality hit). However, I know plenty of folks who either hit like assignments the year ahead of me (no Iraq) or else right after me (they finished command before their unit became part of the OIF/OEF rotations) who haven't deployed. They weren't hiding and it was a matter of timing. They're moving directly to the front of the line for their branches for deploying (whether to a unit that's deploying or more likely, to a MiTT/ETT) now that their time is up.

That being said, I also know of cases where folks are hiding, and so the reality is a little more nuanced than no deployment = you suck.

tankersteve

06-29-2009, 08:34 PM

Just returned from a short visit at Leavenworth and saw a lot of senior field grades (O5-O6) with no combat patch. Not really sure how long an assignment there is, but I doubt it is for more than 4 years. Hope those guys that are teaching, or managing those that teach, get their 'opportunity'. Maybe then the gentleman who conducted our introduction briefing would have a greater pet peeve than 'hands in the pockets'...

Yes I understand HRC is a huge part of the problem. I had a great NCO at Fort Irwin who was on his 3d TRADOC assignment, none of them requested. He was DA-select as a drill sergeant, then asked to be an OCS instructor with the possibility to select assignment of choice. He requested Fort Lewis, Hawaii, or Alaska, in that order. Pretty good locations for an 11B E-7. They sent him to Irwin to be an O/C, without a combat tour. Pretty dumb. Still, being the outstanding NCO he was, he worked harder than everybody, always learned the latest TTPs, and was effective. But he always had to work with a platoon for a while to gain some basic credibility.

I have another friend who commanded in Korea and then went to West Point for 4 years. Hasn't deployed. Yet HRC wants to send him to ILE ahead of his peers (by about 18 months for his yeargroup, according to his branch's ILE slate), with no combat patch. Seems like a MITT tour would have made a lot more sense - get him 'greened' again, and get him some credibility.

Oh well, I used to think if I ran the Army for a week, the changes I would make. Now I wonder what my entire generation will be able to do.

Tankersteve

Schmedlap

06-29-2009, 09:12 PM

Just returned from a short visit at Leavenworth and saw a lot of senior field grades (O5-O6) with no combat patch.

There are two sides to those stories, as well. I never bothered to wear a combat patch/CIB/etc until I PCS'd to a place where there were lots of field grade officers. Many assumed that if I did not wear a combat patch then I had never deployed. They would attempt to mentor me on what it's like to deploy, what to expect, et cetera - largely tales influenced by their tours in staff positions on giant FOBs. That was when I started donning every piece of uniform accessory that I was authorized to flaunt, simply to avoid their sage wisdom.

I learned a while ago not to assume that if it is not worn then it was not obtained. I knew a lot of people who rested their credibility on what uniform accessories they were sporting, rather than their actual competence and I knew a lot of leaders who used the same screening process in hastily sizing up their subordinates. Both of those annoyed me, as there were many cases when the guy with less stuff was the better leader/Soldier than the guy with the fruit salad/PX variety pack. Not wanting to be a part of it, I generally chose not to spend the time or money to play the game. I always discovered that many others did the same, in every unit that I was in - not always for the exact same reasons, but we all generally shared one commonality: the belief that "it's not what you've done; it's what you do."

Ken White

06-29-2009, 09:44 PM

...I learned a while ago not to assume that if it is not worn then it was not obtained... the belief that "it's not what you've done; it's what you do."There have always those who would wear anything they could hang on a uniform. Most wear what they're supposed to; many will do that only when it seems to be the right thing to do and otherwise wear nothing or a bare minimum (I did learn that not wearing one's paracaidista wings in the 82d was more trouble than it was worth. So much for reverse elitism... :D).

I suspect some of those field grades at Leavenworth with no right arm patch haven't deployed to either theater, most through no fault of their own -- I'll also bet many of them have deployed and simply do not feel a need to advertise.

Had a good friend once upon a time who refused to wear a right arm patch on the rationale that he'd been in three good units and didn't want to slight any of them by wearing another patch. Know a guy with a CIB who didn't wear it because he didn't think he'd earned it. Know another guy with a DSC -- that's all he ever wore aside from his brass...

It is indeed all about what you do.

Today.

patmc

06-29-2009, 11:26 PM

I'm sure there are a few people hiding, but the majority are probably victims of circumstance. I lucked out and deployed within a year of arriving at my first unit. Some guys arrived after we returned, and had to either "volunteer" for JMDs, Corps or Bde Taskers, or volunteer for MiTTs. The unit finally deployed again about 2 years later, so there were probably a couple guys who arrived and moved through in between without deploying.

Personally, I've been scratched from 4 deployments. Our unit deployment one year after return from Iraq was scratched one month out, I volunteered for a Corps tasker and was told no, I volunteered to stay and deploy with my unit but Branch said go to CCC, and I volunteered for a MiTT but a medical issue popped up and scratched me. I guess that last one was my fault (or the stir fry at Q-West midnight chow's fault).

Field Artillery officers are the most deployed, statistically, but we still have a few out there with 5+ years in service and no deployments. Those that have managed it have done the Korea (mulitiple tours) then to Fort Sill COA. If you get the right unit at Sill (ATC, Schoolhouse, FiB) you can avoid deployment. I know an FA Major at ILE right now that has not deployed. I don't think he was actively avoiding it. His one shot to deploy he was the rear-D commander.

I would think Fort Sill would make people want to deploy. After 6 months of OBC I was more than motivated to get out of there and go to Bragg so I could deploy. MSR Tampa may not have had nicker beer nights, but it did have better looking women than Lawton...

(I did learn that not wearing one's paracaidista wings in the 82d was more trouble than it was worth. So much for reverse elitism... ).

When we got back from Iraq and finally switched to ACUs, we usually didn't wear wings or badges because they were a pain to pin on. Once our Brigade fell under the 82nd though, we were ordered to wear it all, since it would prevent weird looks and questions if any of us staff guys had to go to Div HQ.

Ken White

06-30-2009, 01:06 AM

at every Hq above bde; noticing insignia. Really, excessively noting insignia...
we were ordered to wear it all, since it would prevent weird looks and questions if any of us staff guys had to go to Div HQ.I had a friend, well traveled, lot of schools, German, Canadian and Viet Namese parachute wings, lot of combat time, been a medic in Korea and and infantryman in Viet Nam, whose favorite game was to wear different stuff to every meeting at Div. Most people noticed but were too polite to say anything, Every now and then, someone would question. Shame I couldn't have sold popcorn on those days... :D

Schmedlap

06-30-2009, 03:03 AM

I remember a retired NCO who worked at my old military school. 4 tours in Vietnam with Ranger Companies and SF units. When he wore ribbons (the "special" days when it was required), he only wore his valor awards and purple hearts - two rows, full of clusters, V's, and other knick-knacks. That guy had some amazing stories, if you could get him to stop talking about coon hunting or bass fishing for more than 2 minutes.

patmc

06-30-2009, 03:45 AM

I had a friend, well traveled, lot of schools, German, Canadian and Viet Namese parachute wings...

Nothing stops traffic like a pair of Irish Airborne wings. Trying to understand "outboard personnel, stand up" in Gaelic... that's Army strong.

(during pre-jump, they gave the commands in English, until a Jumpmaster asked them to do it in Gaelic. Their response was basically, ok, but why, we speak English?)

Schmedlap

06-30-2009, 04:10 AM

Korea. You can stay for multiple tours, as I understand it.
Heh. I know a guy who did over a year in Korea. All of the wives/girlfriends thought that their boys would be coming home after their Korea tour was up. Nope. They deployed from Korea to Anbar Province for a year-long tour of fun in the sun in the happy place between Ramadi and Fallujah. I think that was 2004 or 2005. I think just about everyone in that unit got divorced.

AmericanPride

06-30-2009, 12:23 PM

Heh. I know a guy who did over a year in Korea. All of the wives/girlfriends thought that their boys would be coming home after their Korea tour was up. Nope. They deployed from Korea to Anbar Province for a year-long tour of fun in the sun in the happy place between Ramadi and Fallujah. I think that was 2004 or 2005. I think just about everyone in that unit got divorced.

Something like that seems completely unnecessary to me. Why impose (seemingly) unnecessary hardship on people who already volunteered for a life-risking job?

Schmedlap

06-30-2009, 01:28 PM

Something like that seems completely unnecessary to me. Why impose (seemingly) unnecessary hardship on people who already volunteered for a life-risking job?
I think it occurred when the powers-that-were were slowly coming to the realization that, "oh crap, we didn't think to plan for anything after the fall of Baghdad - quick, find some more troops to deploy."

tankersteve

06-30-2009, 04:09 PM

Ken and others,

I am sure you are right in many cases but Leavenworth has a lot of folks who I have a gut feeling would wear everything they were entitled to. I understand the notion of only wearing what one feels like he earned/deserved, but you can absolutely tell some of these folks have never smelled cordite outside of a range, and who knows when the last time they went to one of those.

Now, at one time it was harder for senior field grades to get to the fight, as their assignments are more tightly managed. However, with the plethora of staffs filled by JMDs, and the increase of MiTT teams, there is no reason to not have spent some time on the ground.

As for 2/2 ID from Korea, now those are some Soldiers who got screwed. Some may have done the 'Ironman' and not taken mid-tour leave prior to the deployment. To deploy from Korea (no face-to-face family goodbye, non-existent FRG, etc) to a combat zone for 12 months was something I would never want to endure. As a side-note, they limited consecutive tours in Korea...

Tankersteve

Ken White

07-01-2009, 12:55 AM

Cavguy

07-01-2009, 05:43 AM

of gnawed at me all day.

I hear you. I understand where you're coming from. You're entitled to your opinion and this is not an attempt to argue the point or even discuss the issue in the sense that I have no intent or desire to change your mind. We can disagree with no penalties either way...

I will however suggest that you might give some thought to the facts that what one does and can do is far more important than where one has been and that the Army personnel system does odd and very unfair things to people. Witness the Korea to Iraq trip; not HRC in that case but point is, unfairness goes with the territory.

I learned the hard way not to make hasty judgments about people based on superficialities and I hate to see others have to do that. :o

That sounds sort of pompous. Not meant that way.

Have to give Steve some backup here. I find it amazing that some people have avoided OIF/OEF for 6-8 years. It's not like there isn't opportunity. Some people can rationalize it, and a few may have done something like Kosovo instead, but if you wanted to be downrange, you could have been by this point. Hell, they give combat patches for Kuwait.

For guys who have three/four/five tours, it's hard to understand.

RE: Leavenworth, agree with Steve (mostly) but I have come to learn many (not all) of the no-patch wearers are mobilized reservists replacing active folks who deployed. Some of the senior MP NCO's (detention ops) have multiple tours to Gitmo but get no patch.

Niel

Courtney Massengale

07-01-2009, 10:23 AM

Blah! Three pages late to the party....

In support branches, one can probably still be a capable warrior leader without commanding a company (does recruiting or basic training command better prepare leaders than hard staff assignments?).

Staff (esp as a Captain) is about being a small piece of large decisions that effect lots of Soldiers; green tab time is about being a large piece of small decisions the effect a few Soldiers.

Having a good balance of the two allows you to have perspective. If you’ve never had to execute a screwed up order, how do you know if you’re writing one? If you’ve never had to push down an order that was the lesser of two bad options, how can you turn to your Soldiers and ask them to execute one?

As for the Command, without getting into which branch, how many company slots are available, how long they've been in the service and so forth, that really doesn't tell me much. Plus, don't I remember that you are or were on your second company command tour? Which one of those guys did you deprive?

Funny you should mention it because it kind of proves the point…
Believe me, I was one of the last options for my second command. They had offered it to three people who turned it down, then did a post-wide search for someone in branch to come and take it.

Nobody raised their hand.

Then they swallowed hard and went looking for folks out of branch willing to do it. I said yes because I love being with Soldiers and know that if I stay in, I’ll drift further away from them. It wasn’t my branch, it wasn’t my MOS, but it was my opportunity because nobody else was willing.

So while intellectually I can understand and rationalize the whole “oh its so hard to get a command” argument, I firmly believe there’s a “well I can get promoted without it so why bother” attitude.

What concerns me the most is that these individuals will never have to address some of the most difficult leadership issues that we confront our Captains with. Eventually, they will be put in a place to make decisions about issues they have no experience with.

patmc

07-01-2009, 01:40 PM

Having a good balance of the two allows you to have perspective. If you’ve never had to execute a screwed up order, how do you know if you’re writing one? If you’ve never had to push down an order that was the lesser of two bad options, how can you turn to your Soldiers and ask them to execute one?

Sir, understand and agree with you, but as a PL in Iraq, I was executing screwed up orders from battalion, and giving orders to my platoon. It was 30 intead of 100. Command has more responsibility and burden, but deployed, it was usually just platoons or squads out. I want to command, and hopefully will get a chance, but no guarantee. Worst case, I've still been on the receiving end of no intel, vague directions,and bad guidance; then had to issue tough orders.

Also, on staff as S4 and then S2, I wrote more Frago's and OPORDs than most of the batteries. Learned very quickly how easy it is to make life hard for people with a couple keystrokes and a sig block. Never fun.

Agree its better to have both staff and command, but still think that you can be a good leader and officer without it, especially in CS and CSS. If command is the only box for success, should everyone without command get out at MAJ, since they can't be future great leaders?

Ken White

07-01-2009, 04:56 PM

Cav Guy
For guys who have three/four/five tours, it's hard to understand.Was during WW II, Korea and Viet Nam as well. Didn't say it was right; just that it happens -- and that lack of a patch is one way to judge people if one wishes, I suppose but there may be more to it than one realizes...
RE: Leavenworth, agree with Steve (mostly) but I have come to learn many (not all) of the no-patch wearers are mobilized reservists replacing active folks who deployed. Some of the senior MP NCO's (detention ops) have multiple tours to Gitmo but get no patch.Big army doing lots of things lots of places...

Courtney Massengale
Funny you should mention it because it kind of proves the point…Glad to be of assistance. :D
Believe me, I was one of the last options for my second command. They had offered it to three people who turned it down, then did a post-wide search for someone in branch to come and take it...Then they swallowed hard and went looking for folks out of branch willing to do it. I said yes because I love being with Soldiers and know that if I stay in, I’ll drift further away from them. It wasn’t my branch, it wasn’t my MOS, but it was my opportunity because nobody else was willing.While I thank you for making mine. I would ask if there wasn't a branch Lieutenant in that company who could've taken command, even a 2LT but I suppose that is not done nowadays. I also wonder how many that turned it down were not planning on staying in the Army...

Anyway, not your branch or MOS but you took it because you wanted to command. Everyone doesn't (penalty of having recruiting programs, O and E, that promise technical skills as opposed to fighting wars...); sometimes it's not wanting the responsibility, mostly it's not wanting the hassles. Some of those hassles are Joe's fault but most of 'em are the Army's fault, that leads to this:
So while intellectually I can understand and rationalize the whole “oh its so hard to get a command” argument, I firmly believe there’s a “well I can get promoted without it so why bother” attitude.True. Sometimes. For those times, I'm not defending that attitude as it leads to the problem you cite in this very valid statement:
What concerns me the most is that these individuals will never have to address some of the most difficult leadership issues that we confront our Captains with. Eventually, they will be put in a place to make decisions about issues they have no experience with.Too true but my point all along has been that:

The Army causes that discrepancy.

The personnel system and Congressional dictates are part of the problem, the huge number of strange and arcane jobs the Army has created to build an oversized Officer Corps is a significant part of the problem. Essentially, there are more Officer spaces than there are Officer jobs and this thread is one example of the problems that causes. Only one...

While some avoid command responsibility and hassles and some avoid deployments for all sorts of valid and not so valid reasons, certainly some, probably many if not most field grade officers who do not have a patch on their right arm are quite likely to be bare sleeved through no fault of their own.

We can sniff and sneer at those who have not been to combat; very human reaction by those who have. We all fall prey to that. Old as I am, I still do it to an extent... :o

However, it also behooves us to recall what we all really know -- that lack of such a bauble isn't total proof of incompetence or cowardice.

Surferbeetle

07-01-2009, 06:48 PM

Was during WW II, Korea and Viet Nam as well. Didn't say it was right; just that it happens -- and that lack of a patch is one way to judge people if one wishes, I suppose but there may be more to it than one realizes...Big army doing lots of things lots of places...

Recognize and appreciate that you have completed several 10,000 hour blocks on combat/warfare/peacetime/civil-military relations (we will have to discuss Dr. Corn's latest (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/06/from-war-managers-to-soldier-d/) sometime), and appreciate the opportunities to learn...;)

We can sniff and sneer at those who have not been to combat; very human reaction by those who have. We all fall prey to that. Old as I am, I still do it to an extent... :o

However, it also behooves us to recall what we all really know -- that lack of such a bauble isn't total proof of incompetence or cowardice.

Human nature being what it is however there is a real perception out there that not everybody is pulling their weight. :(

On the other hand there are some lead by example folks out there as well. I use the example of couple of GO's that I worked for, both older/smarter/wiser than me, who were consistently out working alongside me and who have continued to pull multiple tours after I went home to help me prepare for what's ahead.

Napoleon's bit about 'give me enough ribbon...' seems to tie into basic human nature whether we like it or not. I still wish I had had an opportunity to jump with the Folgore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folgore_Parachute_Brigade)... instead of pushing paper and chumming with the Carabinieri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabinieri) at the mensa but things work out...;)

Ken White

07-01-2009, 07:07 PM

nor am I trying to. I do hope to cause people to think; everyone already does, I know -- I just want to toss something new -- or old -- in to the process. No more.

As I've said, no one has all the answers, not Carl, not Sun, not Boyd -- not even me... :D Especially not me. :o

As always, there are no absolutes.

But Brother Doctor Corn comes close. That's a really good and I think quite accurate paper... :cool:

To get this thread back on track, that Corn article has a lot to say about retention, also...

P.S.

True on Generals. The Army really jerks them around a bunch. I haven't counted Petreaus' or McChrystal's Hershey Bars (to name just a couple) 'cause I'm a country boy and can't count that high. :D

Courtney Massengale

07-02-2009, 06:46 AM

Agree its better to have both staff and command, but still think that you can be a good leader and officer without it, especially in CS and CSS. If command is the only box for success, should everyone without command get out at MAJ, since they can't be future great leaders?

To put a fine point on it, how can be a future great leader if you have not been a leader at all in the first position where leaders exercise command authority? Yes, we’re all leaders and we all have responsibility, but leadership = accountability and the Commander is overall accountable for everything. Period. If you’ve never experienced that, then no, you’re not going to be a great leader.

Now, if it all shakes out and people without command go on to do great and wonderful things in positions where it isn’t a liability, then great. However, this is the Army and pounding square pegs into round holes (much to the anguish of the surrounding wood) is our specialty.

I would ask if there wasn't a branch Lieutenant in that company who could've taken command, even a 2LT but I suppose that is not done nowadays. I also wonder how many that turned it down were not planning on staying in the Army...

Just my observation, but I believe the key factor was the timing... when it became available was shortly after a Division had rotated back from OIF and many folks didn't want to take on a challenge or were waiting out for jobs promised to them. And of course, many who were waiting to get out as you mentioned.

patmc

07-02-2009, 02:02 PM

I fully understand the lessons and reasons to command, but still don't buy that you can't be a "great leader" without it. I'm MI, so I probably won't be leading a BN, but could be a G2 eventually, leading a staff and shop. I can't be great at that job unless I get a MICO, AIT, Recruiting, or HHC somewhere? Being BN or BDE S2 are not more important? Don't buy it.

Again, agree everyone should strive for it (I tried to command at my first battalion but since I was no longer FA, they would not give me a battery or the FSC, which was also commanded by FA), and I'll keep trying, but unless you are looking to lead a BN or BDE into combat, not having one is not the end of the world. Or maybe it is? MI is already having a hard time keeping captains bc so few commands available. Knowing we can't be "great" should help retention.

Understand the accountability piece, but all leaders are accountable. When my platoon did missions in Iraq, at times we were over 100 miles away from the commander. Got it, we were his guys, but I was responsible and accountable for the men, mission, and equipment. Those men and trucks were mine, and my men paid the price for my planning and decisions. Commander had UCMJ and the burden, but we shared it. Someone who deployed, worked on a FOB or staff, then gets a command is instantly better because they experience accountability in command? Don't buy it.

I've seen great, good, and bad commanders. Command is not a magic wand. It makes a good officer better. Just like every hard job. And a good commander may be terrible at staff work, and can't lead his shop. Does that matter?

Will we start a tier system? First, command yes or no? Second, TRADOC, RECRUITING, or FORSCOM command? Third, command while deployed? Fourth, # of commands? Firth, performance?

I understand what you are saying, and agree everyone should strive for command, because it is the best job for captains, but it is not the only job that can make you "great." Maybe you can't be a great commander without serving in the first position where leaders exercise command, but you can still be a great leader. Your Soldiers and NCO's decide if you are great or not, not your ORB.

Too early, pass the coffee.

To put a fine point on it, how can be a future great leader if you have not been a leader at all in the first position where leaders exercise command authority? Yes, we’re all leaders and we all have responsibility, but leadership = accountability and the Commander is overall accountable for everything. Period. If you’ve never experienced that, then no, you’re not going to be a great leader.

Now, if it all shakes out and people without command go on to do great and wonderful things in positions where it isn’t a liability, then great. However, this is the Army and pounding square pegs into round holes (much to the anguish of the surrounding wood) is our specialty.

Entropy

07-02-2009, 02:51 PM

Coming full circle, I think we can agree there are all sorts of people in the military who may choose or not choose to take certain positions and/or are denied choices/opportunities because the system is flawed.

So what, then, should be promotion criteria? I suggest that simplistic metrics like deployed/didn't deploy, commanded/didn't command are not good ones since they can't hope to account for the variety of circumstances - though they certainly make it easier for promotion boards to sift through and categorize people. I don't know how it is in the Army, but in the AF a promotion board spends maybe a minute or two on most records hence the popularity of those metrics.

Those kind of metrics allow the lazy to game the system. For example, the Air Force recently made 365 day deployments one of those metrics. I know one substandard officer who volunteered for a 365 at the CAOC as a result. Meanwhile better officers who have done multiple 4 month rotations (sometimes on a yearly basis) in actual combat zones will not get that "check" in the box.

So the fact that someone has deployed or commanded means nothing by itself. What matters in the end is their performance - consistent performance over several years doing a variety of tasks. Unfortunately, our antiquated personnel systems are not as good at capturing actual performance as they could be, hence the reliance on dubious and unreliable metrics.

Courtney Massengale

07-02-2009, 03:59 PM

Will we start a tier system? First, command yes or no? Second, TRADOC, RECRUITING, or FORSCOM command? Third, command while deployed? Fourth, # of commands? Firth, performance?

Just to play devil's advocate, one of these days promotion rates will return to their historical norms. When we're back down around 70% to Major, how do you think boards will evaluate individuals?

With the exact list you typed out.

Blocking & Senior Rater Profiles will return (in some way, shape or form). Then those things you listed are going to have a significant impact on an Officer's file via the assignments they've held.

patmc

07-02-2009, 05:47 PM

I agree with you, those criteria will probably be used, my question is should they?

Someday promotion rates for all ranks will fall below 90% (any takers on when?), and promotion boards will be more than rubber stamps for no DUI (aka CPT board). I'm not denying that the list I stated will probably be the standard for most, but the question is whether it should? When boards look at files, should they do cuts by command or not? Lots of great people can't get a command, so they shouldn't be promoted? Again, a guy with a year commanding AIT deserves promotion more than a guy who did BN S2, BDE AS2, S2X, and maybe even BDE S2? What about a logistics officer that didn't command a FSC, but was S3, S4, and maybe even a SPO? The boards will promote based on their experience, which is largely, I commanded, so he/she should have. The one officer from your branch may not be able to explain what an officer in that branch actually needs to be successful. Their default will be what they did and know. The Army promoted people who checked the right blocks for decades, and it didn't set us up too well for OIF or OEF, at least after "end of combat." Maybe the boards should be looking at performance, rather than just jobs filled. Can a staff captain outperform his peers who are in command? Yes, but he probably will get ranked lower bc "command matters more." If boards were able to spend more than a couple minutes per person, they could move past "what looks right."

No idea how you would redo promotions, maybe more decentralized like junior NCOs, with senior, LTC and above, at HRC. How do you change HRC? I know there are plenty of people on this board who would suggest dynamite, but that's honestly above my level and experience.

Quick aside on promotions and retention... Current high levels are keeping in people who would not have been promoted, and are discouraging people that work hard but are promoted equally. My good friend got tired of working hard in the S3 shop with no satisfaction or gain, knowing he would be promoted and paid the same as every other person, no matter how hard he worked. He got out and got an awesome job, moved in with his girlfriend in DC, and is living the dream. The Army needs to keep people like him in mind.

Just to play devil's advocate, one of these days promotion rates will return to their historical norms. When we're back down around 70% to Major, how do you think boards will evaluate individuals?

With the exact list you typed out.

Blocking & Senior Rater Profiles will return (in some way, shape or form). Then those things you listed are going to have a significant impact on an Officer's file via the assignments they've held.

Ken White

07-02-2009, 07:01 PM

Better HMX, it's twice as powerful, less chance of a Phoenix like reappearance...

Courtney Massengale

07-03-2009, 06:59 AM

I Maybe the boards should be looking at performance, rather than just jobs filled. Can a staff captain outperform his peers who are in command? Yes, but he probably will get ranked lower bc "command matters more." If boards were able to spend more than a couple minutes per person, they could move past "what looks right."

I think the answer to this is to restrict language on evaluations to only potential to serve in the next grade.

If we're talking about potential to be a Major, then there isn't much difference between staff and Command. If we're talking what the performance captured on that evaluation for TOTAL future service in all possible ranks and positions, then you're only limited by the grade and experience of the rater/senior rater.

If the regulations limited comments to be about only the next grade, it would level the playing field. Of course, it would also eliminate the idea that you can identify talent and groom it toward larger things. Would that help or hurt retaining the best and brightest?

How do you change HRC? I know there are plenty of people on this board who would suggest dynamite, but that's honestly above my level and experience.

One of the things that has been kicked around are 360 evaluations - including input from peers and subordinates in the file somehow someway. Of the various proposals over the years, all have been seriously flawed. I'm not sure if its possible to pull it off, but if (as some have mentioned) being a great leader is about Soldiers, then they should have some input.

Just to add, I do think it IS possible to come up with a methodology for including it, but it would be in a format that the Army would balk at because the requirements to make it unbiased would also make it too objective. Which might not be a bad thing.

Ski

07-03-2009, 01:28 PM

One of the other restrictions - and this is obviously limited to a few percentage points of any year group - is permanent profiles that do not allow someone to deploy. I know of one 06 who falls into this category and I'm sure there are plenty of 04's and 05's as well. CENTCOM has some fairly restrictive policies on permanent profiles the last time I looked (over a year ago so perhaps it's changed since).

tankersteve

07-03-2009, 03:29 PM

Ken,

I understand your bigger view, but it is discouraging to those who are in the mix. We used to look at the incoming leadership list for an NTC rotation and it would show OIF/OEF experience. Some were surprised at guys commanding or senior staff with no experience, but I was just glad they were going. They could have ducked it and everybody has their first time.

Niel, thanks for the backup. You mentioned it in a previous post that the Marines put the call out to the ranks, saying lack of combat zone experience would probably be detrimental in promotion boards. Nothing derogatory to those who hadn't served, just reminding them to work to get to the fight. However, some junior officers in the Army now are starting to develop more biased views of those who couldn't manage to at least get to the combat zone. Again, lots of staff positions and MiTT jobs out there.

It really hits the junior ranks the hardest. This thread is about officer retention. How about the 1LT, going back for his 2nd deployment, with less than 2 years in the Army, and noting 2 things:

First, he already has more combat experience than an awful lot of O-6s, and is more intimately involved than they are in what the Army is doing.

Second, the Army doesn't seem to be as committed to the fight as an institution as he would like to see.

I am sure in past wars the Army had 'image' issues with its training and various support centers (research, doctrine, material commands, etc) as to their involvement with the current war, but the whole nation at least understood we were in a war.

A good friend on Facebook noted with frustration that CNN opened with a Michael Jackson story (1 week after his death) and 20 minutes later, got to mentioning the Marines' offensive in Afghanistan and the news of a captured Soldier. BBC led with an Afghan update and mentioned the other items in passing.

With the press (indicative of the population) nonchalant about the war, and indicators that the Army isn't always fully invested, it can greatly disillusion the young leader.

As for HRC, I have no ideas where to start there.:wry: Perhaps it is just a result of a large Army where people are simply a commodity to be managed. Every OER revision that comes out is supposed to be the solution to the problem of the month. If I was in charge for a year (IIWICFAY:D), I think coaching the HRC leadership to have a longer outlook on decisions, and orienting them around combat effectiveness, would be a place to start.

Tankersteve

Ken White

07-03-2009, 05:47 PM

...but it is discouraging to those who are in the mix.Just trying to remind anyone who cares that:
They could have ducked it and everybody has their first time.we all had a first time, some not as soon as they wished.
Second, the Army doesn't seem to be as committed to the fight as an institution as he would like to see.Also understand that; the Army does not do a good job of explaining all that it does and why it does many things as it should. That's partly culture ('Never explain, never complain'), partly arrogance, partly ignorance ('I'm a fifty year old Colonel and I know that, why doesn't LT Twentytwo know it?'), partly the time pressure. Need to do better.
I am sure in past wars the Army had 'image' issues with its training and various support centers (research, doctrine, material commands, etc) as to their involvement with the current war, but the whole nation at least understood we were in a war.FWIW, in both Korea and Viet Nam, concern with military issues, troop issues and knowledge of what was happening in the service, with the VA and in distant theaters was an order of magnitude or two less than is the case today. Compared to those two wars, you guys have a nation that is slightly more informed and concerned and far more supportive. Media in Korea were more knowledgeable and less biased (WW II media vets...), in Viet Nam they were as or more ignorant than today and about equally biased.
With the press (indicative of the population) nonchalant about the war, and indicators that the Army isn't always fully invested, it can greatly disillusion the young leader.True. I don't agree with it either -- but I'm quite sure it goes with the territory and I'm personally convinced that rather than commiserating with them, telling them "Yep, that's the way it is in a democracy. Always has been and it isn't likely to change. You better get used to it" is a more realistic approach. That will cause some to leave for various reasons and that should be okay; it is not a job for everyone and enough that can realize and accept that reality have always stayed. I don't see that changing.