PDA

View Full Version : Writing a career risk?



Entropy
12-08-2008, 01:49 PM
Found this fascinating article in the latest Proceedings (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=1689), which warns of the dangers of writing:


In today's military, boldness is rewarded only in battle, and sometimes not even then. It's a fact of human nature that leaders tend to promote subordinates who most emulate them.

The argument has been made that controversy among military officers should not be played out in public. Unfortunately, controversy played out in private usually dies a very quiet death. To give an idea life, sometimes the only effective way is to make it public, even when doing so might imperil one's career.

And there's the rub. I believe the real threat to serious and open debate has been a single-minded focus on careerism among some officers. This is destructive. In the final analysis, if you wish to advance the cause, you must be willing to put the good of the service over the good of your career (advice I gave to a young officer in "An Open Letter to Lt. Butler" and advice I tried to follow myself).4

I received warnings from superior officers that it would be in my best interest to stop writing. Some of this criticism stemmed from the nature of the subject I had chosen to write about. Some of the blame belongs to editors who changed the meaning of the pieces by assigning them eye-catching but off-the-mark titles. The result was the same: intense pressure from a superior officer to stop writing.

Schmedlap
12-08-2008, 03:14 PM
Odd. Only a few months ago Admiral Jim Stavridis, in the August 2008 issue of Proceedings, urged junior officers to Read, Think, Write, and Publish (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/archive/story.asp?STORY_ID=1552).

BayonetBrant
12-08-2008, 03:19 PM
I was NTC in the late '90s when there were several junior officers (mostly LTs) who were all published in Army Times and/or Armor Magazine within a few weeks of each other.
The topics weren't without controversy, either - Force XXI's butt-kicking by the OPFOR, "Breaking the Phalanx", etc.

I remember the command being very encouraging of those officers in their writing and pushing dialogue forward in the field. And these weren't 'command-sanctioned' pieces either. They were just some guys who had ideas they wanted to express.

William F. Owen
12-08-2008, 03:32 PM
My personal experience is that if you write supporting a well liked or fashionable agenda, then you will be rewarded. - all about timing and use of language.

If you frighten or injure the Sacred Herd, you will suffer.

My work is by no means original or insightful, but I can say what serving UK officers would get crucified for saying, or so many of them tell me. :(

Ken White
12-08-2008, 03:44 PM
and subscribing off and on to periodicals covering all four services, my observation has been that there always are a few flag officers who actually encourage writing and don't object to some controversial stuff as long as it isn't overboard. A few of them will actually protect junior folks who write.

There are more of them who discourage such writing for several reasons, largely that it may reflect on them or the institutions they see themselves as guarding -- and the majority are sort of neutral and take no position unless, as Wilf says:
"...if you write supporting a well liked or fashionable agenda, then you will be rewarded. - all about timing and use of language.

If you frighten or injure the Sacred Herd, you will suffer.The good news is that it seems to me there is, as a result of more and better communication and openness, a slight trend to less restriction and persecution on writers.

Stan
12-08-2008, 03:49 PM
Hmmm, Tom always made me drive when he took notes for his books.

I was however permitted to type his reports. That's quasi "encouraging your subordinates to write non-controversial stuff"... aye :cool:

Tom Odom
12-08-2008, 03:52 PM
Hmmm, Tom always made me drive when he took notes for his books.

I was however permitted to type his reports. That's quasi "encouraging your junior to write non-controversial stuff"... aye :cool:

As long as they sang my praise :D

I always found this depended on where and whom one served. In history circles, writing was of course encouraged, indeed it was your duty.

I found the parallel to be with reading: those who read are more inclined to write. Those who refuse to read not only don't write, they don't want others to read or write.

Tom

Ski
12-08-2008, 07:58 PM
I'd like to write but am honestly concerned about the ramifications.

I've seen outstanding officers write critically and had their careers destroyed. I don't want to be one "of them."

All goes back to organizational culture.

Hacksaw
12-08-2008, 07:59 PM
Tom,
Not that I'm terribly surprised... but that was incredibly insightful and tracks directly with my own experience...

You can take that a step or two further though...

Those who think critically, encourage their subordinates to do the same and are not "threatened" by informed and timely dissent... Those who don't....

I, too, think the trend is beginning to turn. However, this swing is as much a result of necessity then a philosophical cultural swing (even includes writing that makes ground beef of the sacred cow).

Proof will be in the coming decades when the dust has relatively settled in IZ and AFG. Unfortunately I remain unconvinced... If only we can remain decisively engaged in combat operations for another 15 years, maybe we can flush the 'old' culture...

Hope springs eternal (tongue only partially stuck in cheek)

Live well and row

Cavguy
12-08-2008, 08:15 PM
I was warned by a few well-meaning individuals that continued writing could be harmful to my career if I'm not careful.

I will say that I have had nothing but positive results from my writings so far ... but then again I haven't written anything truly controversial or undermined my chain of command's position. I think the key is to separate provocative thesis from rants at the world. Well argued dissent is seldom ill-received, semi-personalized attacks on the system don't resonate well. There's a difference. It's kind of like why Hackworth started strong with "About Face" and entered a downward spiral of rants, or Ralph Peters' Paramaters pieces from the 90s are interesting and his NY Post columns grating.

What I would like to see more of is soldiers and officers relating their experiences and lessons on paper - and their implications for doctrine. I am amazed at how much recognition I received simply because of a few articles stating what most people already know - but no one had taken the time to write down.

Tom Odom
12-08-2008, 08:19 PM
Tom,
Not that I'm terribly surprised... but that was incredibly insightful and tracks directly with my own experience...

You can take that a step or two further though...

Those who think critically, encourage their subordinates to do the same and are not "threatened" by informed and timely dissent... Those who don't....

I, too, think the trend is beginning to turn. However, this swing is as much a result of necessity then a philosophical cultural swing (even includes writing that makes ground beef of the sacred cow).

Proof will be in the coming decades when the dust has relatively settled in IZ and AFG. Unfortunately I remain unconvinced... If only we can remain decisively engaged in combat operations for another 15 years, maybe we can flush the 'old' culture...

Hope springs eternal (tongue only partially stuck in cheek)

Live well and row

Agreed and as I am in the bidness of getting folks to write, I chide all leaders--regardless of rank--to keep personal notebooks, diaries, and key papers so that at some stage they can write their stories. Many don't listen but some do. If I can get 1 out of 50 to actually do that it is worth the effort.

best

Tom

Rob Thornton
12-08-2008, 08:24 PM
I've seen no evidence in my career that writing has been looked on unfavorably. I’d say there are a few of things worth considering though:

If you are going to be critical, make sure your criticisms are backed up by some critical thinking

Consider what your motive is for writing, those who read it will usually pick up on it pretty quick.

Don’t be petty or reject criticism, the most value comes not from the content itself, but the knowledge that gets built around it.

Be true to what you believe in, writing something you don’t care about is pretty transparent.

One of the reasons I use my own name and have a picture of me in civilian clothes as my avatar is so if someone has an issue with what I write, they can find me easy enough and we can address it. It not a requirement, but it’s a nice reminder to me that I am accountable, both to myself and to others for what I write.

Finally, those who may appear to have been disabused due to their writing may in fact have other traits and qualities which manifested themselves in other ways. That is to say it is probably less about what they wrote, and more about who they are. Conversely, those who get rewarded are probably not done so on the basis of their writing alone, but upon those actions and characteristics which drove/inspired them to want to exchange ideas. I’ll admit that there may be some exceptions – a higher echelon CDR who punishes or rewards based on what someone wrote or said, but I think that is an exception. I believe writing about our profession, exchanging ideas and thinking about the issues that surround it are a mainstay to its health.


Best, Rob

Cavguy
12-08-2008, 08:26 PM
I'd like to write but am honestly concerned about the ramifications.

I've seen outstanding officers write critically and had their careers destroyed. I don't want to be one "of them."

All goes back to organizational culture.

Write. A good TTP is to show your draft around to trusted individuals prior to publication. Feedback on drafts made several poor to mediocre articles of mine acceptable. For example, Hacksaw's feedback on the Anbar article was critical, and when coupled with the MR editor (who was awesome), the piece ended great compared to the first draft.

Also shop it to one or two people who you trust for honest critical feedback on the ideas - and have them shoot holes in them.

As long as you argue well, it's hard for people to retaliate personally. The key is to separate your personal peeves from professional thought. It's been hard for me (Hacksaw knows), but ultimately makes the writing more effective.

Tom Odom
12-08-2008, 08:39 PM
Write. A good TTP is to show your draft around to trusted individuals prior to publication. Feedback on drafts made several poor to mediocre articles of mine acceptable. For example, Hacksaw's feedback on the Anbar article was critical, and when coupled with the MR editor (who was awesome), the piece ended great compared to the first draft.

Also shop it to one or two people who you trust for honest critical feedback on the ideas - and have them shoot holes in them.

As long as you argue well, it's hard for people to retaliate personally. The key is to separate your personal peeves from professional thought. It's been hard for me (Hacksaw knows), but ultimately makes the writing more effective.

Absolutely. Remember that as you write you will educate yourself as well as your readers. The rewards must come from within yourself, not from the readers. They should reinforce what you learned along the way, not vice versa. Otherwise you end up writing to satisfy an exterior audience who is both fickle and often jealous because you are writing and they are not.

Nothing prepared me more for the Rwandan tragedy than researching and writing history about earlier Congo crises.

Tom

Devil's Advocate
12-08-2008, 08:41 PM
I always found this depended on where and whom one served.

My recently departed CoC only allowed informational and self-agrandizing articles.

The greater frustration was after having good discussions in private with others who could change training for the better, they would defer to the unimaginative boss.

selil
12-08-2008, 08:42 PM
For some reason in my career they pay me more if I write.

Tom Odom
12-08-2008, 08:44 PM
For some reason in my career they pay me more if I write.

I wish I could say that..:wry:

Old Eagle
12-08-2008, 08:44 PM
Lead by example.

One of my senior co-workers once told me that his goal was to write one major article for publication every year. He made general, so it must have been good advice.

I wasn't nearly so prolific (and didn't make general, either. Hmmm.)

A coupla caveats --

Don't write outside your league. Do it once and you'll be ignored. Do it more often and you'll get a rep.

Don't write on duty unless the article/book is directly related to your current duty position. Rob's case study is an example of the book relating directly to his duties. If co-workers or superiors think that you are using THEIR time to suit YOUR selfish purposes, life will not be good.

Don't go about it half vast. Gather all supporting data and double check your facts -- if something you write is inaccurate, what else is? Organize and re-organize your presentation --no stream of consciousness. Float it to a small circle of trusted friends. Proof your shirt -- no typos, no poor grammar, then is not than/to is not too is not two/they're is not their is not there. Small errors can become major detractions.

Don't blog in your article.

reed11b
12-08-2008, 09:06 PM
Absolutely. Remember that as you write you will educate yourself as well as your readers. The rewards must come from within yourself, not from the readers. They should reinforce what you learned along the way, not vice versa.
Tom

Amen, and very well put.
Reed

Rob Thornton
12-08-2008, 09:34 PM
Don't write on duty unless the article/book is directly related to your current duty position. Rob's case study is an example of the book relating directly to his duties.

I'd mention I took advantage of a number of SWJ council members to provide me feedback - which not only told me what to change, but what to retain. Being able to have Marc and John on the project was a huge help. Bill was great at shaping the EXSUM. I also got a great deal of assistance in editing-there was no way I could get it all done myself in any reasonable amount of time. Bottom line was I'd never put together something that big, and having some friends to help kept me focused.

It took allot of help to get it done and I did not realize it would when I started. All of that equals time. I'm glad it was something I could do at work (in my spare time:D), but something that big also follows you home. Tom mentioned the process also educates the writer, you better believe it!

Having said all that though, I'm grateful for the opportunity and the experience.

Best, Rob

120mm
12-09-2008, 12:26 AM
Anyone who wants a prototype of how writing can damage your career, I would suggest Googling "Mike Sparks" and read up on what it takes to develop a negative reputation as a writer.

I normally avoid the subject, but it seems relevant here. Please, don't be "that guy."

Entropy
12-09-2008, 03:03 AM
Anyone who wants a prototype of how writing can damage your career, I would suggest Googling "Mike Sparks" and read up on what it takes to develop a negative reputation as a writer.

I normally avoid the subject, but it seems relevant here. Please, don't be "that guy."

Wow. I googled and was highly entertained!

Ski
12-09-2008, 12:28 PM
Cavguy

You might see something from me in the next couple of months.

But I reiterate, I know a few officers - generally well respected - that have had severe pain inflicted upon them because of what they had written

jkm_101_fso
12-09-2008, 03:36 PM
But I reiterate, I know a few officers - generally well respected - that have had severe pain inflicted upon them because of what they had written


I hope that LTC Yingling wasn't one of them.

Ski
12-09-2008, 11:45 PM
No, but Don Vandergriff is.

Schmedlap
12-10-2008, 12:05 AM
I thought Vandergriff had already been passed over a couple of times and started doing his writing while in an ROTC APMS position that would take him up to retirement.

Cavguy
12-10-2008, 12:39 AM
I thought Vandergriff had already been passed over a couple of times and started doing his writing while in an ROTC APMS position that would take him up to retirement.

There's more there than meets the eye.

He may not have made LTC (I have heard b/c he didn't attend a few required gates, another discussion), but currently works for TRADOC and is responsible for the training program in BOLIC II. His writings landed him the chance to implement what he wrote about and demonstrate its value to the army. He wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't wrote.

I have heard two reviews - one from a colleague of RTK who says the new BOLIC II program is a sham, and some other briefs saying it's the best thing since sliced bread. I've reserved judgment until I know more.

CR6
12-10-2008, 01:32 AM
I have heard two reviews - one from a colleague of RTK who says the new BOLIC II program is a sham, and some other briefs saying it's the best thing since sliced bread. I've reserved judgment until I know more.

If it is indeed a sham (and I don't know either way), is it a concept problem or an issue with execution? Any POI, regardless of how brilliant, can become mediocre through indifferent implementation.

Ken White
12-10-2008, 02:29 AM
If it is indeed a sham (and I don't know either way), is it a concept problem or an issue with execution? Any POI, regardless of how brilliant, can become mediocre through indifferent implementation.far away from the party line. Not necessarily an accusation of malfeasance though that has certainly occurred and will again. It also sometimes happens even if the boss(es) support it but the worker bees, rightly or wrongly, have a gut feel it is wrong or too different from their experience -- or that the product will be too good...

Jealousy is a really stupid vice and emotion but it's out there and take strange forms.

In the early 80s, Benning ran a select Cadre operated IOBC, picked a super CPT and two great SFCs for Cadre who'd be responsible for a large percentage of the training for one OBC Company. In 12 weeks they produced what everyone acknowledged was the best class in memory. Benning tried to expand it and asked for more water walkers -- HRC (then MilPerCen) said forget it; they'd take what the pipeline spewed forth. Benning did, tried to expand the Cadre system with routine fill; quality plummeted and another good idea died at the hands of the Personnel system.

As you say:
"Any POI, regardless of how brilliant, can become mediocre through indifferent implementation."

You cannot get great results from mediocrity...

RTK
12-10-2008, 04:40 AM
Every class I have had for the last two years in BOLC III has unanimously said that the time they spent at BOLC II was wasted and would have been better spent if they had just gone to armor BOLC III. To be honest, I'd like to have another 40 days at BOLC III to focus in on the basics and fundamentals of mounted maneuver with my students. Realistically, that will never happen.

In all fairness, I would say that the benefits of having those young lieutenants in BOLC II probably allows those in other branches the benefit of having a tactically proficient individual to learn from who probably already knows land navigation, basic rifle platoon tactics, and leadership because their success rate for failing to exemplify those traits in combat arms will find them jobless rather quickly.

I would imagine (and hope) that the instructors at BOLC II are as passionate about their jobs and duty to train junior leaders as the cadre I am surrounded by here at Fort Knox. I don't think BOLC II should be fun, however, as I think it should be the transition period from college to "this-is-your-job." Consequently, because it is "fun" I think many of the students going into BOLC II still fail to understand that the reason they are there is to learn the skills that will keep their Soldiers alive in combat.

I think we should also revisit the branching system where performance during BOLC II impacts branch selection more that a board during the senior year of college or the "I picked my branch" method like at USMA. I think BOLC II should have branch representatives that have a draft and select BOLC II students based off their college credentials, ROTC or USMA military education, and performance at BOLC II.

RTK
12-10-2008, 04:43 AM
...the reason my writing probably hasn't affected my career is because nobody probably reads what I write. :D

Ken White
12-10-2008, 05:23 AM
...To be honest, I'd like to have another 40 days at BOLC III to focus in on the basics and fundamentals of mounted maneuver with my students. Realistically, that will never happen.Not in the current environment -- but if we get smart, it will. Shy Meyer tried to get a year long Basic course; HRC (then MilPerCen),TRADOC and the Schools didn't want it because it adversely impacted officer distribution and instructor contact hours --which BTW is a dumb way to staff schools and TCs. We need to fully train new entrants and we do not do it -- that literally kills people as the untrained and partly trained make bad mistakes. Plus the partly trained require considerable watching so that contributes to micromanagement.
In all fairness, I would say that the benefits of having those young lieutenants in BOLC II probably allows those in other branches the benefit of having a tactically proficient individual to learn from who probably already knows land navigation, basic rifle platoon tactics, and leadership because their success rate for failing to exemplify those traits in combat arms will find them jobless rather quickly.True; the solution to that used to be to require Officers in other branches to do two years combat arms duty. That provided a lot of LTs as PltLdrs and gave them some great training. The civilian educators hired in the 70s told the Army that was wasteful -- it was not. Hard to do now because the Army is over-officered. Cut back from the current O:EM ratio of 1:6 or thereabouts to a more realistic 1:12 and everyone would be better off. Then we could return to 2 yrs CA duty...
I think we should also revisit the branching system where performance during BOLC II impacts branch selection more that a board during the senior year of college or the "I picked my branch" method like at USMA. I think BOLC II should have branch representatives that have a draft and select BOLC II students based off their college credentials, ROTC or USMA military education, and performance at BOLC II.Good idea.

Ken White
12-10-2008, 05:23 AM
...the reason my writing probably hasn't affected my career is because nobody probably reads what I write. :Dsee... ;)

Not that i'm in a position to affect anyones career...

Entropy
12-10-2008, 01:27 PM
BTW Ken, nice article on the SWJ blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/12/delegate-beyond-point-of-comfo/)!

120mm
12-10-2008, 04:27 PM
...the reason my writing probably hasn't affected my career is because nobody probably reads what I write. :D

No man-love here, but if you write even a fraction as well as you speak, you should do so.

Hacksaw
12-10-2008, 05:17 PM
RTK...

I can assure you that BOLC II was not designed with the future Armor PLT LDR in mind... I'm positive that there wasn't concern about how the maneuver branches prepared fresh LTs for their first job... As you note, its about developing the others to help mitigate chances of stupid decisions leading to unnecessary loss in blood and treasure... remember from when this grew... 507th (Jessica Lynch) and IED littered battlefield...

Ken...
Your example regarding IOBC is quite understandable/predictable... maybe just maybe you could stock the schoolhouse with enough studs to effectively implement, but then the CTCs would suffer... we were, for very good reasons, a CTC-centric Army pre-2003... there is a far better arguement to staff studs at IN/AR-BOLC III given the reality that new LTs are as likely as not to be thrown into the meat grinder prior to his first unit rotation through a CTC. The universal AAR comment from SAMS is "this is what should be taught at ILE" -- problem is you have to have the faculty to actually make it happen... plus the students are self-selecting - so even if you had the faculty, the student to student education would not be the same.

Wasn't this thread about impact of professional writing :D

Ken White
12-10-2008, 05:50 PM
...maybe just maybe you could stock the schoolhouse with enough studs to effectively implement, but then the CTCs would suffer... we were, for very good reasons, a CTC-centric Army pre-2003...Been there, saw that, scheduled rotations for it. I understand but do not totally agree all the reasons -- or the results -- were good (at least up to my DAC retirement in '95, lost track after that). The CTC like any other training evolution has good and bad points.
there is a far better arguement to staff studs at IN/AR-BOLC III given the reality that new LTs are as likely as not to be thrown into the meat grinder prior to his first unit rotation through a CTC.That sounds like an acknowledgment that combat is more important than a CTC rotation... :D

We can agree on that.
The universal AAR comment from SAMS is "this is what should be taught at ILE" -- problem is you have to have the faculty to actually make it happen...True but that elides the point of my earlier comment to RTK -- the Personnel system is flawed AND all persons are not equally competent even though that system likes to / is forced to pretend that is the case. Horses for courses and all that...
Wasn't this thread about impact of professional writing :DStill is, minor digressions only bother the conformists. ;)

Bob W.
12-11-2008, 03:07 AM
This was a terrific thread. Some of the comments made me flash back to experiences at OBC, too, which was scary!
A few contributions and responses to comments in here, for what it's worth.
I have never personally seen or experienced someone close to me come under fire for something published in a professional journal. On the flip side, I have never had a commander or superior who encouraged people to write articles, either.

I don't know if that is typical or not, but if it is, it is unfortunate. One of the biggest weaknesses I have observed over the past few years is the military's ability to communicate effectively in writing. At the Battalion and (SF) Group level, I saw poor written communication hamper procurement of critical equipment, impede preparation for deployment, and most critical of all, delay execution of operations. Where I sit now, in the five sided/five rings of hell, a poorly written document could potentially staff until the end of the universe itself, with no action taken.

As a Group XO I directed my entire primary staff to submit a written article based on their respective specialty area. I am now the lowest ranking guy in my office, and luckily I don't have a d*ck boss who is compelling me to write anything :); however, if I am ever in a tactical unit again, I will compel all of my subordinates to submit articles to professional journals once again. As a military, we rely on email and the written word in general to convey critical thoughts; officers need to be adept in this domain, especially as they get older, or they will be at a disadvantage.

Someone wrote about quality control problems at OBCs after the late 1980s; I can attest to that! I went to IOBC 91-92 and it was absolutely terrible. All of the instructors were SFAS failures marking time until they got out of the Army, or people who had gotten in trouble for one thing or the other. I went to IOAC (now the career course) in 96, and we had a Captain in our small group who had trouble READING, and had to redo land nav, the write for life superorder, etc; he was supposed to go to the 25th ID, but they sent him to be an IOBC instructor instead. Awesome! Someone told me that the Infantry School did better with quality control later on, I hope it's true.

Also, someone wrote about the issue with being able to do a SAMS-like POI at CGSC is manpower/human resources; I think that is debatable. It does not take a genius to teach the SAMS POI, and it is more student driven than anything else (readings, driven by discussions); the exercises are student driven as well. The SAMS POI might compel students and instructors to step away from mediocrity, but so be it. The Army would be better served.

SAMS cultivates a mystique about being uber hard, and there are probably leaders who don't think the average field grade could hack it. But come on, how hard is SAMS now, anyway? Back in ought-four, You could do PT in the a.m., attend class, read most of the afternoon in the library, and still have enough go-juice left to drink a few pints of Guinness at that crappy dive bar on 3rd street in the late afternoon. Is it way tougher now or something? It beats working.

Schmedlap
12-11-2008, 03:48 AM
As a Group XO I directed my entire primary staff to submit a written article based on their respective specialty area... if I am ever in a tactical unit again, I will compel all of my subordinates to submit articles to professional journals once again.

I think it is good to encourage people to write if they have something worthwhile to convey. But that seems to be uncommon - at least among those who actually do write. Skim through the last 5 years of Infantry magazine. 90% of the material is stuff that most of us already know. I know a guy who wrote an article about the role of the company XO in Iraq. It read like a cut-and-paste from the annex to 7-8, 7-10, and whatever the latest version of 101-5 is. Absolutely nothing new. But he felt special about getting published and he had something to put on his resume when he ETS'd.

There's also the OPSEC thing. 10 years ago, I think it would have been very easy to force people to write because it was all lessons learned from training. Experience gained today is very theater specific and of tremendous value to our adversaries because it is so timely and relevant. I amassed plenty of experiences that I think could be written down and published from my last deployment, but it was all at the Secret or TS level and much of the stuff at the unclassified level, in my opinion, is better left out of the public domain.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying though.


... we had a Captain in our small group who had trouble READING, and had to redo land nav, the write for life superorder, etc; he was supposed to go to the 25th ID, but they sent him to be an IOBC instructor instead. Awesome!

I had a CSM who referred to IOBC as "Infantrymen Observing Bad Captains." For what it's worth, my PLT trainers were great.


But come on, how hard is SAMS now, anyway?

I think all Army schools are now easier. In Ranger School, for example, I hear that they now allow the students to wear boots. Why don't they just give them the tab as soon as they sign in at Camp Rogers? I went through the last hard class - we trudged barefoot through the snow in Dahlonega and we liked it. And nobody ever fell asleep in my class.

120mm
12-11-2008, 11:29 AM
SAMS cultivates a mystique about being uber hard, and there are probably leaders who don't think the average field grade could hack it. But come on, how hard is SAMS now, anyway? Back in ought-four, You could do PT in the a.m., attend class, read most of the afternoon in the library, and still have enough go-juice left to drink a few pints of Guinness at that crappy dive bar on 3rd street in the late afternoon. Is it way tougher now or something? It beats working.

Crappy dive bar??? Now them's fighting word, sir!!!

Ski
12-11-2008, 12:41 PM
I've applied for SAMS, and we are expected to be notified next Friday on whether we were accepted or not.

The SAMS program has been expanded to over 110 students in the Summer class, and there is also a winter class of around 35 students.

The feedback we were given from the SAMS instructors was that the biggest challenge getting into SAMS was the following:

1. No combat experience - they have made this a discriminator now.
2. Branch allowing you to attend - operational demands have priority over all schools, including SAMS, so if Branch tells you you ain't going, you ain't going.
3. Bad interview

If I get into the program, I can provide some feedback. I am light years more excited about SAMS than CGSC, mainly because CGSC has become an Army school where the POI has been reduced to a lower standard because, according to at least three of my instructors "everyone gets to graduate unless they committ a crime, plagarize or fail the Height/Weight and APFT twice."

It's sad, because I don't think the POI is altogether bad - there certainly should be some revision from an intellectual and common sense perspective - but because many of my peers do not have the background necessary to get into details about a lot of the coursework (see my earlier comments about learning history, reading, professional development in other threads).




SAMS cultivates a mystique about being uber hard, and there are probably leaders who don't think the average field grade could hack it. But come on, how hard is SAMS now, anyway? Back in ought-four, You could do PT in the a.m., attend class, read most of the afternoon in the library, and still have enough go-juice left to drink a few pints of Guinness at that crappy dive bar on 3rd street in the late afternoon. Is it way tougher now or something? It beats working.

Bob W.
12-11-2008, 12:48 PM
Schmedlap,

I agree about your point about the dearth of decent articles in military journals; certainly my mandatory writing program did little to alleviate that. Most of my guys opted to post something on company command dot net, and most of what they wrote did not necc revolutionize military affairs, either.

The main reason I made them submit articles was to enhance their skills at written communication and I believe that a public venue is one of the best ways to do this. As an XO, I was tired of reading the tripe they were sending through my office (I am an editor maybe, but not a damned ghost writer!), so the article thing let them know I was serious. I also kept the local economy going strong by buying red pens by the caseload, too.

I did not review their articles before submissionor assign subjects, either, I just wanted them to write something, and not have it seem totally like a homework assignment (even though it was). Probably a good idea for the future, though, since some of them got by with a 300-400 word p ost.

I laughed at some of the repsonses to my school experiences B.S.; the Ranger School one is classic. Hey, I did lose my patrol cap in Dahlonega in the mountains, and the RIs made me wear a sandbag on my head for about five days; I even had to sew cateyes on it. It was hotter than sh*t, I eventually cut it down and made it more hat-like, so I didn't look like some mutated giant gnome walking through the woods. . .

That bar on 3rd street in Leavenworth rocks, too, I like the middleclassyness of it. I used to chew tobacco back then (in ought four-ought five) and they actually had a spitoon for me. I felt like Bill Doolin or something in that place, and for a guy originally from CT, that is pretty damn good.

Hacksaw
12-11-2008, 03:16 PM
Bob W.

Hmmm.... I don't believe I or anyone else used the term "hard" to describe the SAMS POI. Nor did I or anyone else state that it was above the intellectual capacity of any MAJ in the Army...

I did say that it requires a skilled faculty (defined as skilled in the socratic method & with a mastery the curricula)... Unfortunately, a large portion of the CGSC facility does not fit the description and in my personal experience only a small portion are inclined to "step up their game". Couple that with the fact that CGSC can't fill all their faculty positions... I think it is far from a reasonable expectation that CGSC is capable of assembling the faculty (at current funding level) to emulate the SAMS experience for the larger ILE class...

I also said that the SAMS "experience" also depends on the interaction of a pool of self-selecting students. By volunteering, they acknowledged that they want to be intellectually challenged. The are willing to read, think and write. The ILE population may have changed since when I walked the halls of Bell Hall, but I doubt it. I will gladly accept Ski's assessment of ILE student enthusiasm for rigorous academic work.

You speak of a "mystique" about SAMS... If one exists, it only exists based on how others perceive the program... When senior Army leaders have a tough problem they reach for a SAMS grad because they have benefited from additional educational opportunities and they move from tough/interesting assignment to the next. If that is the mystique you speak of fine... its well earned.

Is SAMS a Mensa society? No are there superior intellects out there who either opt out of participating or are denied by branch... absolutely, but if you think or opine that the program is over-blown and could easily be implemented universally... you are either information-challenged or disingenuous.

Live well and row

Bob W.
12-11-2008, 05:20 PM
Ski, good luck with SAMS, I hope you get in. I joke around a lot about SAMS, but I loved it, it was the best education experience I ever had, and I have relied on it heavily over the past few years. . .

Hack,

I tried to make a few points about SAMS/CGSC that I may have jacked up through my longwinded BS and lame humor attempts:

1. The SAMS POI (when I went through 04-05) was organized by theory, doctrine, history, and exercises, with a few electives sprinkled in. I was physically in school during SAMS 30-50% less than CGSC the year previously, and I learned exponentially more. I would argue that taking a significant portion of the military's 0-4s out of the mix for 9-12 months (for long course ILE), is a significant investment on the part of the military (and by extension the taxpayers); all stakeholders in The Best Year of Your Life should get a significant return on that investment, and I would argue they did not when I was there in 03-04. Maybe it has changed dramatically since then, but I bet it hasn't (based on people like Ski's comments). Hack, I maintain my position that Army CGSC should be more SAMS-like, and the fact that many of the instructors at CGSC are substandard is a poor excuse. Hire better people, make the PhDs there teach and publish something on a regular basis, and hold mediocre civilian and uniforms accountable. It is amazing how fast people "step up" when their peers lose their jobs during a recession. Can you replicate SAMS for 1000 people; probably pretty tough. But the fact that Army Majors are being taught the lowest common denominator is a travesty and a waste of time and resources. The Army would probably be better off sending everyone to Grad School for a year instead of CGSC for the same amount of time.


2. Yes, people volunteer for SAMS and expect to be intellectually challenged, as you say; but I would argue that if the Army gives a person a year off to go to school, that person should be intellectually challenged regardless, and come back to the force much sharper than when he/she left. If new Majors do not want or cannot handle a good education and academic rigor, do you really think they are going to excel as Battalion and Brigade 3s/XOs? People should be challenged during the year at CGSC and grow, but this largely doesn't happen. I concur with the overall comment of how everyone perceives CGSC now: Don't plagiarize, Don't be a heavy-drop, Don't get a DUI, and don't beat your spouse and you'll be a go. Well, CAS3 was a free lunch and sacred cow at one point, and they finally got rid of that drunkfest, too. And President Clinton enacted Welfare Reform 13 years ago, I guess it didn't get implemented at Leavenworth, What's the Matter With Kansas, anyway?:) Seriously, my point is that a great deal gets asked of majors in combat when they come back from into the force from Leavenworth. The fact that CGSC is on its best days a mediocre experience is a failure on the part of the Army's leadership, and shoulf d be addressed.

3. When I was in KS, SAMS did cultivate a mystique, and it continues to exist in the Army, especially with future prospects for the program. The pep talk SAMS gave to my CGSC class in the blue bedroom talked about how challenging it is, how much we're going to read, etc; many junior officers think you are going to stay up all night reading obscure tomes and memorizing Clausewitz if they decide to go there, and it probably discourages some good people from attending. Any interaction with some of the smart but personality-deficient PhD's of the program throughout CGSC year were a little unpleasant as well (that's just life, I know, but it certainly didn't sell the program). That is why I talk light-heartedly about my experiences there most of the time as part of my schtick to sell the program to bright young O's. I try to knock that read-a-book-a-night crap down every chance I get, and highlight the fact that I somehow found the time to drink beer, chew tobacco, brew beer, shoot pheasants and ducks, have another kid, drink beer, etc., rather than make people think I was living in the library reading Jomini and contemplating jumping out a window or something. . .

4. I am intimately familiar about that "reaching for a SAMS grad spiel", I am living the dream right now. Somebody reached for me a few months ago, sent me to an electron mine, and gave me a slide quota to meet every day, or they don't feed me. . .

Bob W

Hacksaw
12-11-2008, 06:44 PM
I will respond in a more thoughtful way myself, when I have the time... but a few thoughts...

I feel for you brother, but get used to being "grabbed" mostly its do important and rewarding stuff, sometimes its because a senior leader needs a SAMS "binkie" Hope what you are doing now is in the first rather than the second category

I would just argue there is a difference between should and could... we can agree that instructors should want to be "their best self" each day, and that students should use the year to grow and stretch their noodle while enjoying the homefires and mom's body warmth... whether ILE could make this a reality is another story...

Honestly, In a more perfect world I'd be teaching in DJIMO... I both want to do it, and I fit the profile I described in the earlier post... Problem is they can't pay me near what I get to do other work. I have two teenagers and a 4 mth old, money matters...

I get it ILE should be the period of intellectual growth, in which professionals on a daily basis have lively debates about the merits of a particular theory or approach to solving an operational problem... the curricula ought to change on a monthly basis if only the contextual examples to animate the principle ideas the form the underpinnings of the curricula...

You say fire instructors, 10% 25% 75%, and the others will fall in line??? Like I said they can fill the slots they have now, they don't pay particularly well, and they are somewhat constrained by joint instructions to maintain JPME certification

I'm not trying to excuse the situation as much as bring a little realism to what is in the "doable" range of options.

As for SAMS... back when it had real rigor.... seriously there is some who said that the program would suffer significantly if they expanded the class sizes and moved to two iterations per year... nonsense...

You know, there would be great pain in doing so and a whole bunch of promotion exceptions would have been required, but it might have been best if they had closed ILE and CCC from 2004 - 2007 if it had resulted in a total revamp in approach to better mirror a "SAMS Approach". But it ain't happening now brother

That was long winded for a quick response... was it churchill who said I'd have written a short note but didn't have the time... guilty

Live well and row

Ken White
12-11-2008, 06:53 PM
a comment on general military education and training. Regardless of the target audience, the process of instruction is in my observation geared to a notch below the lowest common denominator in the course or class and that is geared to keeping the course alive by not having too high a reject rate and not making the staff or faculty look bad. That is not to say said staff and faculty are themselves the cause of this, most are hard working and try to do right -- it is a systemic and design failure

Based on my own experience and in talking to a lot of folks of all ranks who've more recently than I attended everything from initial entry training in several services to the War Colleges -- plural -- and to include a couple of SAMs graduates, the armed forces continue to cram one hour of instruction into two to four hours or more.

There should be a challenge involved and, for most, there is none. One should be able to not pass a course without fear of an execution or the next thing to it. The object of the course should be to impart knowledge or capability, all too often it's a career step and not much more. Sort of bothers me that the former Officer Advanced Course is now called the Career Course. Honesty in advertising? Dunno but I have my suspicions.

I have to suspect that Bob W. is correct on this one...

Bob W.
12-11-2008, 07:24 PM
Hack,

I cannot argue against your points, you are more grounded in reality than I am when it comes to CGSC/SAMS. I was arguing for the way it should be, you were pointing out the way things actually are. For once I sound like the guy calling for a bailout!:)

I would hope that the powers that be will continue to work towards the ideal of CGSC/ILE being a rigorous course that puts Majors back into the force who are better thinkers, not just well-rested and bored.

All right, I won't deviate from, the writing topic any more than we already have!

Ski
12-20-2008, 12:30 PM
Well, I was selected for SAMS and received notification yesterday...to say that I am on Cloud Nine would be an insult to Clouds 10, 11 and 12.

RTK
12-20-2008, 01:06 PM
Well, I was selected for SAMS and received notification yesterday...to say that I am on Cloud Nine would be an insult to Clouds 10, 11 and 12.

Congratulations, Ski, and Merry Christmas!

Ken White
12-20-2008, 04:02 PM
I'm not sure 'seconded' is a totally legitimate word but you get the idea... ;)

Good to hear.

Schmedlap
12-20-2008, 04:07 PM
Well, I was selected for SAMS and received notification yesterday...to say that I am on Cloud Nine would be an insult to Clouds 10, 11 and 12.

Congrats! Have you considered doing something online that gives some insights into your study there? A daily blog? Occasional posts at SWJ on a particularly interesting discussion that arises in class (no attributions, of course), or something similar?

Stevely
12-20-2008, 04:35 PM
Well, I was selected for SAMS and received notification yesterday...to say that I am on Cloud Nine would be an insult to Clouds 10, 11 and 12.

Bravo Ski and well done! What a great Christmas present! :)

patmc
12-20-2008, 05:32 PM
Just to give everyone news of an encouraging sign. At the MI Captains Course, they have begun a seminar program with readings and discussions, and culminates with each officer writing an article for publication in the MI Professional Bulletin. The last issue, if you can track it down, is almost all CPT articles from the first semianr class.

I was deemed worthy to join the program, but no idea what I'll research yet. On exodus now, so I'll have time to think about it.

Happy holidays everybody.

Ski
12-20-2008, 08:00 PM
Thanks to all for all the good wishes. I am literally walking on air. I am humbled and honored, and look forward to going through the program.

Schmed - I'll see what is possible...

William F. Owen
12-21-2008, 03:37 PM
Well, I was selected for SAMS and received notification yesterday...to say that I am on Cloud Nine would be an insult to Clouds 10, 11 and 12.

Outstanding. SAMS monographs bridge the towering highs, to the embarrassing lows, so looking to see you on the "high" side!!!

davidoff
12-22-2008, 01:43 AM
It seems to me that writing is almost always beneficial. It helps you to further develop your ideas and specific voice. However, the hard part is figuring out if what you wrote is worth sharing, with friends, publishers, or others. Also, if writing is undertaken with the mindset that it will be peer-reviewed(which is to say mercilessly ripped apart), I think it will go very well. In my limited experience it seems that philosophical writing styles would naturally lend itself to military professional writing. That is, to make a sound and valid argument, and defend against every possible criticism.

It also wouldn't hurt to read papers written by your superiors if possible, in order to avoid unnecessary overlap or conflict.