Vindication for a General

11 January NY Times - Bush’s Speech Is Vindication for a General by Thom Shanker.

Quote:

---

After President Bush told the nation Wednesday night that he was ordering a rapid increase of American forces in Iraq, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was not among the retired officers to offer instant analysis on television.

But the president’s new strategy — with its explicit acknowledgment that not enough troops had been sent to Iraq to establish control — was a vindication for General Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff who publicly told Congress as much just before the war began.

First vilified and then marginalized by civilian members of the Bush administration after those comments, General Shinseki retired and faded away, even as politicians and commentators increasingly cited his prescience...

---

Very loving portrait of Shinseki but most of the guys I know will remember him as the guy who took the black beret away from the Rangers and gave it to the rest of the Army, an unpardonable sin.

SFC W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

Very loving portrait of Shinseki but most of the guys I know will remember him as the guy who took the black beret away from the Rangers and gave it to the rest of the Army, an unpardonable sin.

SFC W

---

Understand and agree. I attended the Ranger Association protest on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to show my support. Push came to shove on the Iraq issue - he stood up when many others did not. I also do not agree with some of his "new-found" positions since he retired. That said...

I worked for Shinseki, twice. He's pretty smart, but otherwise is an anti-leader, micro-managing butt-head. For me he will always typify what is wrong with the Army.

I think it is unfortunate that his "legacy" will be of the guy who got it right about Iraq. He deserves much less of a "legacy" in my opinion.

What really irks me about this article is that, what ever his other faults, Shinseki has had the class not to jump up and down and yell, "I told you so," so this reporter has decided to do it for him.

SFC W

When I was in I remember being less than impressed with Shinseki's "leadership". Particularly in the beret issue, not just because of the Ranger thing but because of the whole mess of how he handled it (first making it an issue item without thinking about the impact, then proposing that whacked-out values test idea so soldiers would have to "earn" their beret, then reversing course and going back to making it an issue item when people bitched some more, and of course the whole mini-scandal about where the berets were purchased). The entire thing was just an unbelievable joke and very poorly handled by Shinseki (who was way too far down in the weeds on the issue). So he didn't come off as a particularly impressive leader to me, for whatever an average enlisted soldier's opinion was worth on that.

But I thought that it was wrong of Bush and Rumsfeld to dismiss his advice on the numbers of troops needed in Iraq. Shinseki wasn't just pulling the numbers out of thin air...his estimate was based on more than just his own personal opinion (since he apparently based it on manning requirements for similar peacekeeping actions in Bosnia, Germany, Japan, etc). Summarily dismissing his opinion (and him) because it inconveniently contradicted the administration's perspective on reality was just foolish and wrong. Like the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and hindsight has apparently vindicated Shinseki on that point. It has been decent of Shinseki to apparently not rub that point in Bush's face...and it's a shame that Bush apparently still hasn't learned to accept input that contradicts his own personal opinions when it comes to fighting the war in Iraq.

Shinsecki was dragged in front of the Senate Armed Services Comittee and the issue of troop deployment numbers was an ambush job on him by Levin.

As for the black beret issue, I remember it well. I had to wear one for about a year before I retired and I hated it. The Rangers loved that beret because it set them apart. As I loved my BDU cap, because every Army in Europe wears a beret, my BDU cap set me apart. I remember vividly being dismayed by the black beret going Army wide, but do you know what dismayed me even more? The unprofessional, disrespectful and frankly, childish reaction I witnessed among leaders of the rank and file. When I expected our line leaders to set the example and tell their junior Soldiers that they had just received an order from an officer to shut up and deal with it, what I heard was griping, bitching and moaning from those leaders, often in front of their troops, blatant disrespect right out in the open, the same type of behavior they had probably hammerd their troops for in the past. Now, I ask you, which behavior is more destructive to the chain of command? I understand the anger of the Rangers, I do, but I thought the reaction was an over-reaction. I know the Rangers wore their black berets with distinction and it had become an intrigal part of their history but still, when the Chief of Staff of the Army gives you an order, there is only one thing to do, and you do it with professionalism whether you like it or not, right?

Just as none of us would like our legacy to be disproportionally influenced by our mistakes or bad calls, I would urge everyone here to take the high road and recognize that although it was a major gaff it wasn't the end of the Rangers, or the Army.

Unless you have been in the boots of a General Officer in command, or serving on Capital Hill, I think it is pretty difficult for those of us who never served on a GO staff to imagine the schedule a general keeps, the dedication it takes. General Shinsecki was a product of the Army that he grew up in, and maybe he didn't mesh as well as he could have with the post Vietnam Soldier. But, he did dedicate the best years of his life to the Army, for what it's worth I thought he did it honorably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSG Rock

Shinsecki was dragged in front of the Senate Armed Services Comittee and the issue of troop deployment numbers was an ambush job on him by Levin.

As for the black beret issue, I remember it well. I had to wear one for about a year before I retired and I hated it. The Rangers loved that beret because it set them apart. As I loved my BDU cap, because every Army in Europe wears a beret, my BDU cap set me apart. I remember vividly being dismayed by the black beret going Army wide, but do you know what dismayed me even more? The unprofessional, disrespectful and frankly, childish reaction I witnessed among leaders of the rank and file. When I expected our line leaders to set the example and tell their junior Soldiers that they had just received an order from an officer to shut up and deal with it, what I heard was griping, bitching and moaning from those leaders, often in front of their troops, blatant disrespect right out in the open, the same type of behavior they had probably hammerd their troops for in the past. Now, I ask you, which behavior is more destructive to the chain of command? I understand the anger of the Rangers, I do, but I thought the reaction was an over-reaction. I know the Rangers wore their black berets with distinction and it had become an intrigal part of their history but still, when the Chief of Staff of the Army gives you an order, there is only one thing to do, and you do it with professionalism whether you like it or not, right?

Just as none of us would like our legacy to be disproportionally influenced by our mistakes or bad calls, I would urge everyone here to take the high road and recognize that although it was a major gaff it wasn't the end of the Rangers, or the Army.

Unless you have been in the boots of a General Officer in command, or serving on Capital Hill, I think it is pretty difficult for those of us who never served on a GO staff to imagine the schedule a general keeps, the dedication it takes. General Shinsecki was a product of the Army that he grew up in, and maybe he didn't mesh as well as he could have with the post Vietnam Soldier. But, he did dedicate the best years of his life to the Army, for what it's worth I thought he did it honorably.

---

Not to mention the armored force was wearing black berets in the 1960s...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSG Rock

Now, I ask you, which behavior is more destructive to the chain of command? I understand the anger of the Rangers, I do, but I thought the reaction was an over-reaction. I know the Rangers wore their black berets with distinction and it had become an integral part of their history but still, when the Chief of Staff of the Army gives you an order, there is only one thing to do, and you do it with professionalism whether you like it or not, right?

---

As a General Officer he had a responsibility to consider the effects of his orders. The whole thing created a whole lot of problems and to what end? Big Army has a new head gear that no one is happy with and what was accomplished by all of it? He should have known better. Loyalty runs in both directions. Given that he was the only one that wanted this thing it sounds more like hubris than what was best for the Army.

SFC W

I don't know. The beret was allot like "an Army of One" I think. It was about Transformation, and I think that's what I'll remember GEN Shinseki for. He was given an enormous task from the DoD, one that was not terribly well defined and one he did not receive overwhelming support for - at least not until it became clear that DoD and Congress equated $$$ to Transformation, then everybody had a nice slide with a capital "T" in it.

This kind of ties back to Marc's thoughts on symbology. Instituting wear of the beret casued allot of grief, but it got people talking about "why" which in many cases led to other discussions, like "what the hell does an Army of One" mean? That dialoge led to some interesting changes, and not all of those have been popular either - but change did happen which allowed us to examine ourselves and make allot of areas better.

Guys that are the catalyst for change are not always popular. If it goes bad, they get the blame, if it goes good but takes time, their name is lost somewhere along the way. GEN Shinseki had intestinal fortitude on allot of fronts. He did what he thought he had to do, and moved on to the next problem - lots to do and never enough time.

I don't think the CSA job would be all that much fun. The word "commander" is no where in the title. When I was in the Marines we held GEN Al Grey in reverence - the title "Commandant" was supreme. Now hving served in the Army for quite awhile I feel free to compare the two. "Chief of Staff" says consciously or unconsciously -"not commander". However, the responsibilities of that job are staggering. As GEN Casey looks to take it on after having been the CENTCOM CDR for 2.5 years I think it can only be about selfless service to the Army and nation.

I don't think I'd want to walk a mile in any of their shoes. I think they must leave some pretty deep footprints.

As for GEN Shinseki, he did a tough job well. He instituted allot of change at the same time presiding over a high OPTEMPO. We have the SBCTs on the ground, we have a modernization program ongoing that while may not end up giving us everything we thought we wanted - I suspect it will still keep us ahead in allot of areas, and the technologies that proved to be both achievable and the best in terms of usefulness to the soldiers and commanders will be spiraled out into the Force. We also had dialoge about people being the key component of Transformation - we adopted descriptions like; mental agility, adaptive and innovative (we eventually even got to the word 'pentathlete" in our search) to describe the character of who we want to be. We'd never have had the discussion without a catalyst though. Betwen his efforts and the war we have looked ourselves over pretty good, and I think have a good idea where the Army needs to go to meet the needs over the coming decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTK

Not to mention the armored force was wearing black berets in the 1960s...

---

When I went to Fort Knox as a M60-A3 tank driver trainee and trained with the Marines (who were getting brand new M1's) I was issued my black beret, and I bought my tanker boots. Little did I know that a year later I would be a Marine too.

That may be true, but he was a micro-managing SOB in the 3d ID.

Quote:

---

Not to mention the armored force was wearing black berets in the 1960s...

---

Actually into the late 1970s. Ft Hood was a mish mash of mult-colored berets, multi-colored baseball caps, two or three shades of CAV stetsons, and ascots over the rainbow.

But to the point on CSAs: I watched 3 from fairly close range--across a desk briefing them--and from the perspective of one of 27,000 in the Pentagon. I also am privleged to call a former SMA a close friend. They are as Rob says in a very challenging environment; central to that environment is the challenge of information. A CSA is like a king in a castle with concentric rings of moats and walls around the throne. Those moats and walls are designed as much to isolate as they are to shield. The great CSAs learn quickly how to reach over the barriers and get the information they need. When they don't they make decisions skewed by their own or their "handlers" perspective. I see Shinseki's beret decision as one of those; once announced, he had to go through with it. I also see his testimony on numbers as an opposite case: he used his staff effectively to develop accurate numbers, rather than shoot from the hip.

Best
Tom

There is something to be said for getting the big issues right, berets (while possibly the stupidest hat ever invented by the human race) are trivial Iraq is massive. The fact of the matter is that when faced with what would become the most critical issue to face the US Army in decades General Shinseki gave an intelligent well thought out answer and warring which was subsequently ignored, to the determinate of the nation. This is made all the more impressive in this age where generals are more likely to be politically minded sycophants than true warrior-leaders. Whether General Shinseki was a good leader before or after fades away in light of the one time when it matter most and he got it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

As a General Officer he had a responsibility to consider the effects of his orders. The whole thing created a whole lot of problems and to what end? Big Army has a new head gear that no one is happy with and what was accomplished by all of it? He should have known better. Loyalty runs in both directions. Given that he was the only one that wanted this thing it sounds more like hubris than what was best for the Army.

SFC W

---

Of course he had the responsibility to consider the effects of his orders, I agree wholeheartedly. I'm sure that General Shinsecki weighed the pros and cons. I would submit to you that perhaps he assumed that he would have received the support from the backbone of the Army he lead? Perhaps, he thought that they would accept his rationale for making the black beret decision as stated in his written guidance as professionals, and perhaps he assumed they would back his decisions, just as it is the CSA's responsibility to consider the effect of his orders, it is also the responsibility of his leaders in the rank file to set the example in following those legal orders to the letter and to defend those orders when they are questioned. Yes, of course this is the responsibility of the NCO Corps, without question. I'm not arguing the point that the black beret was an unpopulare decision. What I'm saying is that the reaction was to me; an embarrassing display of open disrespect, disloyalty, it was one big pity party, a temper tantrom and I thought that the term "Silent Professional" was more than just a slogan. Yeah, at the time I lost respect for alot of Rangers, and of leaders in the conventional side as well. There was never a question that the decision was unpopular, but the order was given, guidance was put in writing and distributed, the CSA asked for our support and we were to selfish and immature to give it to him, I'm sorry to say that I was disappointed alot more in the NCO Corps during that time than I was in General Shinsecki. Who the hell are we to call him nasty names or to question his intelligence, especially when the truth of the matter is, neither are in question. I'd submit to you, that General Shinsecki has sacraficed as much and probably more, ALOT more to serving this Army than most, and I'd submit that he is as dedicated and probably more so than most. I also submit that General Shinsecki fought the good fight for the Army and Soldiers on Capital Hill behind closed doors in fights we never heard about but benefited from.

I for one will remember General Shinsecki as an honorable, courageous CSA who did what he thought was right and a man who tried and DID make the Army a better organization by the time he left than what it was when he took over as CSA.

It is almost beyond my comprehension, as a professional NCO, how ANY other NCO can possibly justify disrespecting a General Officer on the internet or in front of Soldiers. It's just wrong, and it just goes against everything I ever learned about being an NCO. You either LIVE the NCO creed or you DON'T! You don't get to pick which parts you will and won't recognize. And during that time, I'm proud to say that I was one of the NCO's who stuck to the creed, stuck to his roots, and supported the CSA, even though it got pretty uncomfortable for me at time.

And, I'm also delighted that General Shinsecki is finally being vindicated for his comments on troop levels in Iraq. Everyone knew he was right, but Rumsfeld was forcing denial on the entire Pentagon at the time. Shinsecki, once again, got people thinking. His silence on this issue represents to me the epitome of loyalty and professionalism.

A micro manager? Perhaps. Perhaps. But during that time ALL commanders were going through a zero tolerance phase, and micro managing was a trap alot of them fell into. I don't blame the officers as individuals for trying to excercise as much control as possible, after all, their careers were literally on the line during that time. Thankfully, the zero tolerance era has passed.

Shinsecki was vindicated, thats my take.

Now I'll shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Actually into the late 1970s. Ft Hood was a mish mash of mult-colored berets, multi-colored baseball caps, two or three shades of CAV stetsons, and ascots over the rainbow.

But to the point on CSAs: I watched 3 from fairly close range--across a desk briefing them--and from the perspective of one of 27,000 in the Pentagon. I also am privleged to call a former SMA a close friend. They are as Rob says in a very challenging environment; central to that environment is the challenge of information. A CSA is like a king in a castle with concentric rings of moats and walls around the throne. Those moats and walls are designed as much to isolate as they are to shield. The great CSAs learn quickly how to reach over the barriers and get the information they need. When they don't they make decisions skewed by their own or their "handlers" perspective. I see Shinseki's beret decision as one of those; once announced, he had to go through with it. I also see his testimony on numbers as an opposite case: he used his staff effectively to develop accurate numbers, rather than shoot from the hip.

Best
Tom

---

So what you're saying is that I should be thankful we didn't bring back the ascot....:D

Quote:

---

So what you're saying is that I should be thankful we didn't bring back the ascot....:D

---

Absolutely

UNLESS

we get to use swagger sticks and cigarette holders :D

Tom

Yeah, I'll admit that a lot of my opinion of Shinseki was formed from a position of ignorance. The employees often think they know more than the boss, which is probably where a lot of my opinion is based. And I agree that the beret was a stupid issue overall. It was a hat. That was really what irritated me more about Shinseki than anything though, it was an issue over what hat we wear in garrison and it kept dragging on and on into a huge mess...I think that most people didn't care about what the solution would be, they just wanted it to stop being an issue. That really wasn't all Shinseki's fault though, and I think SSG Rock is right that the bitching from the peanut gallery didn't help matters. I was just offering my opinion on it retrospectively.

And I think that a lot of the others were right about how well Shinseki handled the bigger issues. He put together what history has apparently judged an accurate assessment of the requirements for the Iraq invasion, he did the best he could at getting the administration to accept it, and he didn't start screaming to everyone when his suggestions were rejected (not that it likely would have done much good if he had if State of Denial and Fiasco were accurate). When it mattered, Shinseki got it right, acted like a professional, and acquitted himself fairly well as a leader, so my opinion of him is actually quite a bit higher than my comments about the beret issue may have indicated. But then again, that's also from a position of more or less total ignorance and I know that others are more well-informed on it than me. Just wanted to weigh in.

And swagger sticks would be kind of cool :)

I was holding out for Bermuda shorts! Now those would have been cool!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTK

So what you're saying is that I should be thankful we didn't bring back the ascot....:D

---

No, but maybe you can get the gold footballl helmets from the uniform Patton designed.

SFC W

Don't forget the snazzy pith helmets...:D