AdaptAndOvercome vs. RTK - My 2 cents
After making the above statement, here is my 2 cents. :D
Note: I meant to post this last night but I was just too tired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
They don't necessarily exclude another, but a book worm who can rattle off the 9 Principles of War who can't make a decision under fire is a problem.
I have to side with RTK on this, and I don't know if you are quite getting where he is coming from. I don't believe he was being literal when he was referring to reciting The Art of War. He has a point about his priorities. He has another point about book smart people being able to take tests and get the right answers and being incompetent in application. This can be seen in pretty much every area across the board. My favorite example of this is when teachers are required to take tests on Bloom's Taxonomy (in ed school normally) and don't understand that just because you can give answers on something doesn't mean you understand it. There is a difference between the ability to give answers about something and the capability to abstractly apply, modify, reapply, evaluate and modify is a logical leap many people will never make it. The reason I love this example is that Bloom's taxonomy is all about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdaptAndOvercome
By discussing warfare at an intellectual level, I think I removed many Vietnam-era stereotypes that these men had accepted for forty years. I think we need to engage professionals at the same level that their professions engage them.
I have to agree with RTK on this side. I have to point out that part of what may have lessened their preconceptions is you and your background (which I am assuming is similar to theirs.) I have found that when discussing with people with these notions about the military there is a bit of a psychological hold up on their part. The discussions are quite often very sanitized (due to the terms of art) and yet about a very brutal subject. It's a bit hard for many people to understand how people can discuss such bloody business so casually or unemotionally. They just don't understand that remaining objective is important. Many could understand a historian, but not someone who's opinions and conclusions potentially could save or kill someone.
Surgeons tend to have a similar problem. Normal people would not deal well with how many surgeons talk about what they do amongst others in their profession. Both in their sense of humor, which is very dark, and in their very calm, and quite often cavalier, demeanor. This is quite often a necessary attitude when performing risky surgeries. When you are performing a surgery where if you are1/20th of an inch off or not done inside 20 minutes the patients dies you cannot have self doubt. Surgeons learn (they do teach this in medical school) how to be diplomatic and how to talk to patients. This is no easy task and many never become adequate and very few master it. The military does not have the time to train officers in this area. I would bet a lot of what makes them good officers (in combat not politics) is what gives them trouble in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdaptAndOvercome
To that end, the Army needs to spend time in its basic courses on grammatical instruction and writing.
Although I agree with RTK in that a lot of things come first this is a good point and I believe it has been looked at by the army (many years ago.) Many large tactical blunders in history have been due to issues stemming from misunderstood or misinterpreted orders. Unfortunately, this is a difficult task which ranks low on "need to do" compared to more bread and butter skills.
On the other hand perhaps we should look at most professionals (including the top of the class out of Harvard, Yale and Princeton.) Their grammar is not what it used to be. For that matter neither is their education. I don't want to go off on this tangent. I'll save it for later. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdaptAndOvercome
Commanders must also encourage professional development through reading classics. The Art of War is a very short book, yet I have immense trouble convincing my peers to spend an hour reading it. They expect the Army to train them in everything they need to know.
RTK is right here, but I have to ask should commanders have to push officers and potential officers. Shouldn't they expect a little initiative. I would dare to say that someone who makes no efforts to expand their capabilities and knowledge perhaps should be going into another profession. I should clarify that if the officer or potential officer is simply prioritizing and sticking to more meat and potatoes education initially I think that he may have a good idea (although if he is not yet in the military, with the exception of those in the most strained circumstances, I fail to find it plausible that some spare time for extra study cannot be found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdaptAndOvercome
That said, I believe there are many barriers between the military and the professional classes, and one very large one is terminology.
No, acronyms are the biggest obstacles. It doesn't take a sociologist to guess what human terrain is, but what the hell is a COIN or CJTF. Why is it COIN and not CI? To a laymen that would seem more logical. A cop on the other hand would really be pissed of because he'd have to deal with CI meaning both criminal informant and counter insurgency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdaptAndOvercome
"
You are reading that the way I meant it. My experience is in the Northeast. Few people know much about the military, and the most professionally educated people often have the dimmest view. I would like to hear how we have been promoting our profession to those people if you'd like to share.
Coming from the Northeast myself be careful about your statements. Say what you want about the Boston area but leave the rest the North East out (it's pretty big.) Look, you probably, like me, came from a nice upper middle class family, lived in a nice upper middle class neighborhood and went to nice upper middle class school. This tends to lead to meeting a lot of people who all live in little boxes on a hillside, whom all go to university and all become identical lawyers, doctors and investments bankers. (I must note for accuracy that my family wasn't one of the identical ones.) Also, quite often the people who talk the most about something are the most ignorant.
The Northeast I believe you are talking about lives mainly in the drift of the universities. NY for all its loud leftist talk is actually split pretty evenly. There are a lot of people going into the service, but I would have to admit most are enlisting. The issue of recruiting officers in the Northeast I will get to in a new post.
Sorry about this long post. I wanted to get my 2 cents in. Actually, let's be honest its at least 75 cents.
What happened to the cent symbol on the keyboard?
Adam
Doggone it. I KNEW LA was ahead of us...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
We always called a trailer park the county seat. Thats where the Guvmint is and all they do is sit around.
wm, I got kin folks in Maggies Valley,NC.
A pinch of snuff is the female TTP.
Here on the Redneck Riviairy, our Trailer Parks are used for more, er, exotic -- that's the word -- pursuits...
Not only that but their English is more refined up there, down here it's just "Gimme a chaw."
The A&O and RTK discussion
Hi Folks,
Coming from a place where snuff is meant to be only ingested after flipping ones lace shirt cuff back, I'm going to return to the A&O - RTK discussion because I think there are some very good points in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdaptAndOvercome
Quote:
"I find your post interesting for a number of reasons. Given what I know about your background from your intro post, that you're going to get commissioned next year, and under the assumption that you are not prior service I have a few honest comments and observations. I say this, not to nit pick, but to enter into the honest and professional intellectual dialog that you infer is so lacking in the profession of arms."
I am beginning to regret having made an introduction.
Never regret coming on board - you may get hammered verbally (I know I have been a couple of times ;)), but you will certainly learn a lot about your chosen profession.
One of the things I hope you learn from the way RTK has reacted to your posts is something that every professional has to learn - regardless of their profession: there is a distinct difference between professional "expert knowledge" (the way a group thinks about what it does) and professional "operational realities" (the way a group thinks about immediate tasks).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdaptAndOvercome
Quote:
Consider the first paragraph of the five paragraph Operations Order (Enemy, terrain, weather, friendly forces). By describing socio-demographics as terrain the factors of OAKOC can be applied. For instance, how can the civilian populace be an obstacle, how can they be "key terrain," what benefits to they afford in terms of observation (reconnaissance), how can they affect mobility corridors and avenues of approach etc....?"
This is problematic because we are defining the environment based on our standard operating procedures instead of the other way around. Why can't we change OAKOC or say that OAKOC can analyze demographics as well?
Well, it may be a pain in the posterior for non-military folks like me, but so what? Every profession defines its environment by its own SOPs. One of the things that really intrigued me was that someone in a particular discipline could get the reputation as a "brilliant innovator" by taking something from another discipline and applying it in heir own. By having the varying SOPs, every discipline can get an advantage if (and only if :wry:) they talk with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdaptAndOvercome
Quote:
"Do we discourage demographers, anthropologists, and other professionals from working with the military because we appear meddlesome, unwilling to respect the venerable terms used by the scholars of their discipline?"
It was simply a suggestion for something we should investigate. Many people who teach at those institutions were in the military or have strong ties through family. What of everyone else?
I think what discouragement there is comes not because of terminology - I believe that is more of an irritant - but from political and ideological stances within the academy. Honestly, of all of the professional groups I've been involved with, I find the military to be the lowest on the PC scale (loosely translated as "agree or scram").
Quote:
"I cannot undo what your previous educators, friends, parents, or guardians failed to do."
RTK, believe me when I say "I feel your pain"! :wry: Teaching people to read, write and think at the undergraduate and post-graduate level, which is what a commissioned officer is, is something that should not have to happen. It highlights the travesty of an "educational system" that is more concerned with passing people than with teaching them. Since Selil made a reading recommendation, let me make one as well - Day of the Moron by H. Beam Piper. As a side note, back when I was doing my doctoral coursework I took a course in the Labour Process where I used the Piper story to illustrate my arguments. BTW, Labour Process Theory is very Marxist - read the story and you can guess how the prof in that course reacted :D.
However, while we cannot undo what has happened in the past, I believe that we have a responsibility to attempt to counteract its worst effects. Can we teach people basic skills? Sure, even though it is a "waste" (in the sense of not the most efficient use of our time) of our time to do so. I think it may be more important for us to consider interim F's that highlight the problem to the student and send them off somewhere else for remedial work. As a side note, I have been known to work with "problem students" for 3-6 hours a week individually to get them up to speed - not a very efficient use of my time, but the changes in the student were reward enough for me.
Marc
Darn Just When I found It...They Change It
Here is Rand study of IPB for Urban Environments on page 66 it explains how to use OAKOC for population analysis. Now it is ASCOPE:rolleyes: Oh well it is pretty interesting paper. The link is below.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r...007/MR1287.pdf
The Prior Letter to Field Grades
DA sent out an earlier letter to FGOs about the letter that RTK just received. I've seen a copy, but since I was not an addressee, I feel uncomfortable posting it. Maybe someone else who received a copy might want to do so. I thought it was pretty interesting as an insight into the HRC "thinking" behind this incentive program.
issue with the new bonus options
what's everyone's perspective on current EGSP folks not being eligible for the new incentives?
thoughts on new incentive program
So I guess I’ll play DA on this one, I’ll preface this by admitting that I am a YG99 INF officer who is not eligible because I’m in my final quarter of the 6 qtr middle east curriculum at the Naval Post Grad school. I was in the first round of the Expanded Graduate School Program which when initially advertised was the expanded ACS (advanced civil schooling) program. I am a straight IN guy and I pursued Grad school and the ME curriculum at NPS after my tour in Iraq out of a desire to further my depth of understanding of the region, culture and COIN under the assumption that I will be back there again sooner than I would probably like.
I guess the real issue I have with the new incentives program is the groups they have decided to exclude from the incentive. The main one being the BZ select group in YG99, the other being those who pursued a Master’s degree before it was designated a “retention tool”. This one really bothers me since apparently the skills that I will bring to my next assignments are not as relevant as those that the guys sitting next to me will bring to West Point as part of the ACS program.
Another issue I’ll bring up. Why is it based on your commissioning branch? In my case I was assessed a SC officer with a branch detail in IN. After a year I knew IN was my calling and IN is where I have been since, so I have never served a day as a signal guy but had I qualified for this I would have only received 25K rather than the 35K to my peers. RTK I believe you noted a similar circumstance.
I’m also pretty concerned that big army has chosen, much like the enlisted ranks, to focus on immediate fixes rather than long term ones. Now that the door is open for bonuses for the officer ranks I would guess that it is going to be necessary from here on out to give these kinds of bonuses to keep the needed numbers of officers in the Army.
I’m trying to understand why with such a large group that was included why such a small number were excluded and oh, by the way the ones excluded were the folks who supposedly are the best and brightest of these year groups. It just doesn't make sense that you offer the encentive to 5 YGs worth of officers, but you don't include the ones who were designated as the top 9.5% of the most senior YG being considered. Then you draw a distinction between those who are pursuing advanced educations, (note those who have a specified utilization tour following ACS are still eligible for another incentive).
I know you have to draw the line somewhere, I readily admit that YG98 folks are probably disappointed that they are just out of the consideration for this program, but shouldn't the reasons for where the lines are drawn be consistent with some of the ideas expressed in this thread?
Thoughts?
DWF