officer burn rate and rotation rate are inversly proportional
Accountability in fast combat rotation schedules (2 months, 4 months , 6 months 9 months 12 months out to 15 months after extension) amounts to a snap shot and there are some stand outs at either end but with only low intensity conflict it all looks level.
The Navy only dumps when metal gets bent just like the non combat Air Force.
Senior evaluators have little experience with the problem too as the few with combat experience had it in junior grades.
An obvious answer is Go to War and Stay in Theatre Until It Is DONE rotating on and off line but always in theatre. I know very draconian and WW2 like. I realize this answer is likely as unpalatable to the volunteer force as the draft is to the public but I have not seen a better answer yet. If we are all in this thing 10-14 years or we leave and soon have to return for years things may become palatable we do not even fathom yet.
Can't always leave it to the generals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uboat509
I am all for the civilian leadership of the military in so far as they tell us which wars to fight. But I have a problem with someone who has little or no practical military experience and a partisan agenda telling us how to fight those wars or who is best suited to lead us when we do. SFC W
This sounds alot like the sort of thing that Union General George McClellan vented at President Abraham Lincoln. Who is this pipsqueak civilian Lincoln telling me how to run a war? He didn't like Lincoln telling him "how to fight the war", namely to get moving.
It turned out that Lincoln had a better understanding of what it would take to win the war than alot of the generals. He just had to keep firing them until he found some who could get it done (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc.) The inital crop just wasn't cutting it.
I just always bristle a little bit when I hear this "leave the war to us, the professionals" line. That is not a proven strategy for success, any more than completely disregarding the advice of the generals. Wisdom and good judgment are not predestined by God almighty to automatically reside in a man wearing some stars, or a man sitting behind a desk in the oval office.
Courage and rational debate
I think the heart of the problem isn't so much incompetence, but rather our political and military culture. While not wanting to sound disloyal, I think our concept of loyality in politics and the military is putting our nation at risk. Would we be where we're at in Iraq if dissenting opinions and rational debate were allowed, and better yet encouraged? The same could be said about Vietnam.
Unfortunately, our political system is partisan to the extreme, even in the time of war. This led to wise independents and democrats being left out of the planning and decision making process to some degree, and in the extreme case left competent democrats and independents out of Bremer's organization, where political reliability was valued more than competence. It made us look like a corrupt third world nation. I imagine JFK and LBJ demonstrated similiar behavior.
Mr. Rumfield said he encouraged intellectualy debate, but several articles and books apparently that were professionally researched seem to refute that. GEN Shinseki is a perfect example. He had the moral courage to offer a dissenting opinion that should have led to a rational debate, but instead his comment was casually dismissed, and Mr Rumfield did not attend a true hero's retirement, which obviously sent a message to the force. We could have had mass resignations of senior officers across the force, but what would that have accomplished? More talking heads on Fox and CNN? Would Rumfield have been fired? Unlikely, because President Bush is extremely "loyal" to his men. Wouldn't we all like to have a boss like that? However, at what cost to the nation?
I don't know this to be true, but I think we may have seen a different outcome at this point and time if the administration and the military welcomed and rationally debated the merits of a particular course of action strictly based on the merits of the projected outcome, instead of political advantage or perhaps ego. Imagine if we really had a political and interagency concensus on post war Iraq that was well thought out, and had branch plans and sequels?
Loyality within the military is a double edged sword. It is absolutely required for a disciplined unit, and for that special trust that is essential, but it unfortunately it can also have a corrupting influence when loyality to the boss (your career) supercedes loyality to the nation. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll find ways around social/organizational behavior challenge anytime soon, but maybe self awareness of it is a start.