Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso
Something like that seems completely unnecessary to me. Why impose (seemingly) unnecessary hardship on people who already volunteered for a life-risking job?Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmedlap
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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
Blah! Three pages late to the party....
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.Quote:
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?).
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?
Funny you should mention it because it kind of proves the point…Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Courtney Massengale
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?
Cav GuyWas 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...Quote:
For guys who have three/four/five tours, it's hard to understand.
Big army doing lots of things lots of places...Quote:
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.
Courtney MassengaleGlad to be of assistance. :DQuote:
Funny you should mention it because it kind of proves the point…
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...Quote:
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.
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:True. Sometimes. For those times, I'm not defending that attitude as it leads to the problem you cite in this very valid statement:Quote:
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.
Too true but my point all along has been that:Quote:
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.
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.
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 sometime), and appreciate the opportunities to learn...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Human nature being what it is however there is a real perception out there that not everybody is pulling their weight. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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... instead of pushing paper and chumming with the Carabinieri at the mensa but things work out...;)
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by patmc
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Courtney Massengale
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by patmc
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Courtney Massengale
Better HMX, it's twice as powerful, less chance of a Phoenix like reappearance...
I think the answer to this is to restrict language on evaluations to only potential to serve in the next grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by patmc
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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).
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