Statement from StratFor regarding state of the Army

Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this statement from the latest Stratfor Intel Report?

".....the United States simply lacks capability in the Army. In many ways, the U.S. Army is in revolt against the Bush administration. Army officers at all levels (less so the Marines) are using the term "broken" to refer to the condition of the force and are in revolt against the administration -- not because of its goals, but because of its failure to provide needed resources nearly six years after 9/11. This revolt is breaking very much into the public domain, and that will further cripple the credibility of the Bush administration."

-StratFor Intelligence Report 03/13/07

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chiller1064

Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this statement from the latest Stratfor Intel Report?

".....the United States simply lacks capability in the Army. In many ways, the U.S. Army is in revolt against the Bush administration. Army officers at all levels (less so the Marines) are using the term "broken" to refer to the condition of the force and are in revolt against the administration -- not because of its goals, but because of its failure to provide needed resources nearly six years after 9/11. This revolt is breaking very much into the public domain, and that will further cripple the credibility of the Bush administration."

-StratFor Intelligence Report 03/13/07

---

Wonder what their source for that is. I haven't seen a lot of revolt (you know, other than people getting out, which is natural anyway).

I never went without in theater. There were things I wanted to have, but they were not necessary to the mission. I don't feel slighted or scr@wed in any way about it. Actually, it helped me become more adaptive.

Who is StratFor?

I am at the Heart of the Army, and I haven't seen any revolts. We all know that we need to field and repair more and better equipment. We all know that we need to recruit/retain more personnel. We all know that the current OPTEMPO is stressing the entire Army. But revolt? That's just not our way.

Starfor is pretty good "anylsis" website out of austin Tex. They are very similar to Global security, excpet that they are for profit and focus on supporting the investment community. From what I have seen, are the uniformed services using some aspects of the politcal climate to enable a more rapid force modernization under the auspicies of equipment reset, you bet. Has the word "broken" been spoken by uniformed service memebers to enable this, yes. does this article by stratfor take that terminology out of context and draw a bogus as hell conclusion, yes you bet they do. I am glad that I only have about 2 and half more months in DC!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Eagle

Who is StratFor?

---

StratFor is George Friedman, his wife and a very small permanent core staff (not one of whom has an intel background) who churn out high quantities of journalistic reporting posing as "analylsis". The bulk of the work is done by university student interns. In my personal opinion, most of their international product is crap - what little there is of value to be found among the outpouring is readily available elsewhere. And where StratFor charges for access to much of their product, you can find much better (and real analysis, not journalism and commentary) for free elsewhere.

Where StratFor does do good work is more in the areas of monitoring domestic activist/radical groups and consulting on certain aspects of corporate security. Funny how they're known more for what they do worst....

Thanks. Now I remember them. As I recall, they used to be free, then went "for profit" sometime after 9-11.

I do like a piece Geo did on international terrorism a few years back, but when they went "paid product" I went elsewhere.

George Friedman's books "Americas Secret war" and "The Future of War" are quite good.

When I started to read Stratfor in 1999 everything looked beautiful. Now I'm not so happy with them. Now there are so many other sources that give much better info about certain areas. For example about US Army there is good story by IISS :)

http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...ng-the-us-army

PS. Jedburgh, sorry, i still can't make those wonderful short links :(

I would say that there is a considerable amount of bureacratic resistence to change and incompetence within the Army that could LOOK like a revolt to a critical, yet uneducated eye.

The current reports on Mid-Level Officer shortage combined with a "cracking down" and a much more difficult to attain Height and Weight standard for the age groups which "happen" to coincide with Mid-Level Officers with a mandatory six-month separation for non-compliance, sure LOOKS like someone trying to sabotage the war effort to me.

Just one example, but I could find many more if I looked hard.

(I say bitterly, as I once was GTG by the tape standard but am now "out of tolerance". Maxing the 2 mile run, 44 resting heart rate and 116 over 56 BP doesn't appear to be good enough by the new standards.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

(I say bitterly, as I once was GTG by the tape standard but am now "out of tolerance". Maxing the 2 mile run, 44 resting heart rate and 116 over 56 BP doesn't appear to be good enough by the new standards.)

---

A gunny told me the only physical fitness he cared about was demonstrated fitness. If you had a slobby belly (but could pass the PFT at the top of the range) you might not be on a Marine Corps recruiting poster, but you weren't going to be the first to die of starvation either.

He told me that while smoking a cigar on a PFT run.

After Persian Gulf War 1 wasn't the Air Force whacked on by the GAO/Congress for being very top heavy in officer cadre but not mission capable? I seem to remember a lot of "all chiefs no indians" stories at that time in the press.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

I would say that there is a considerable amount of bureacratic resistence to change and incompetence within the Army that could LOOK like a revolt to a critical, yet uneducated eye.

---

Just thinking out loud, but could some media talking head misquoted/misunderstood a straight-shooting and loyal soldier talking about the "bureacratic resistence to change"?

Every time I hear or talk to a Beltway type, I get more and more concerned about the disconnect between the top and where the metal meets the road myself. I could see some of my comments being quoted out of context to support this sort of allegation.

Hi Van,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van

Just thinking out loud, but could some media talking head misquoted/misunderstood a straight-shooting and loyal soldier talking about the "bureacratic resistence to change"?

Every time I hear or talk to a Beltway type, I get more and more concerned about the disconnect between the top and where the metal meets the road myself. I could see some of my comments being quoted out of context to support this sort of allegation.

---

That wouldn't surprise me at all. After al, one definition of "revolt" is not doing what you are told to do, even if that is blatantly impossible :wry:. Personally, I would be a touch more cynical and ask who StratFor's clients are. After all, quoth he with a jaundiced air, how many politicians (or bureaucrats) will buy "analyses" that disagree with their theological convictions?

Marc

I found that whole "Army is in revolt" a little hard to believe when I read it- but thought I'd toss it out for discussion. I believe substituting "frustration" for "revolt" would be better.

From my understanding, there is some friction within the Army when it comes to getting new gear and the overall frustration with the mission when it appears like no one in the upper levels of political and military leadership has a clue on how to fight and win this war.

I was listening to Duncan Hunter on Bill Bennett's radio show regarding Hunter's son, who is a Lt. with the Marines. He voiced similar frustrations and concerns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

After all, quoth he with a jaundiced air, how many politicians (or bureaucrats) will buy "analyses" that disagree with their theological convictions?

---

OOH PICK ME!! <hand waving in the air>

The answer to the question is NONE, unless the focus group disagrees.

Selil, you have hit upon a major difference between those in the gov't bureaucracy and those in business. When businessfolk hold on to the party line too long, they risk failure which means loss of profit, etc. In the government, we don't have the same negative incentives. Good business guys try to stay ahead of the changing environment to ensure continued profitability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Eagle

Selil, you have hit upon a major difference between those in the gov't bureaucracy and those in business. When businessfolk hold on to the party line too long, they risk failure which means loss of profit, etc. In the government, we don't have the same negative incentives. Good business guys try to stay ahead of the changing environment to ensure continued profitability.

---

Naw...business just waits for the next reorg, backdates their stock options, and then heads for the door while the next guy comes in and tries to figure out how to clean up the mess....:wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Eagle

Selil, you have hit upon a major difference between those in the gov't bureaucracy and those in business. When businessfolk hold on to the party line too long, they risk failure which means loss of profit, etc. In the government, we don't have the same negative incentives. Good business guys try to stay ahead of the changing environment to ensure continued profitability.

---

He reponded , slightly tongue-in-cheek:
"About the only party line that business folk hold on to is doing whatever it is that will maintain shareholder confidence. 'Good' business CEOs try to ensure they do nothing that will devalue their stock until they can sell them off. They merely milk cash cows rather than try to find ways to improve their yield of 'dairy' products.

"Ask the leadership at such business successes as Digital, Wang, and the last round of leadership at Dell and HP about what made their companies so successful. Do I dare mention wonderfully successful companies as Enron, US Airways, Delta, Northwest, and United?"

And the bigger a business gets, the more acts like the government previously describe.

JHR

Every organization that gets beyond a certain size, becomes unmanageable, and the consequences of incompetence become sheltered by mass, alone. At a certain point, it quits being a "business" and starts being a large, dead elephant and the point quits being to build the company, and starts being "how to strip the carcass".

CEOs are kind of like NFL football coaches. There are a limited number of them, and they just shuffle around, from failure to failure, until they retire. Sooner or later, one of these "blind pigs" finds an acorn and posts good results in a quarter, or wins the Super Bowl, and they make the cover of a magazine and sell a book/consultant concept. Until it is discovered that they really DON'T have all the answers.

Meanwhile, at the small-medium sized business level, there are a bunch of really sharp guys who are creating concepts, making and selling products and "making things happen", though no-one really cares how "Po-Dunk Donuts" is run.

Sooo... The consensus seems to be that the Army has be Dilberted?

Perhaps the misquote is; not that the Army is in revolt, but that the Army's situation is revolting. The most distressing thought is that historically, for an organization this size to head down such an ugly and bureaucratic path, the best chance for recovery is a massive failure then complete reconstruction. Still, there are lots of good people in the Army to fall back on.

This only re-emphasizes the need for good PME, to prepare the next generation of leaders to sweep up after the mess that we're headed for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van

Sooo... The consensus seems to be that the Army has be Dilberted?

---

Future tense?:eek: You are more optimistic than I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van

Perhaps the misquote is; not that the Army is in revolt, but that the Army's situation is revolting. The most distressing thought is that historically, for an organization this size to head down such an ugly and bureaucratic path, the best chance for recovery is a massive failure then complete reconstruction. Still, there are lots of good people in the Army to fall back on.

---

If we carry on the analogy between the military and business organizations, and it's a good one given how much cultural "genetic" (aka memetic) material has passed between them, then what about the Board of Directors? I have yet to see, barring the current examples in Israel, any Western nation really going after politicians for incompetence. Maybe the Western nations should consider the advantages of putting together something like SEC for politician overwatch, similar to Canada's Auditor General or the US GAO, but with the power to indite politicians for incompetence and malfeasance.:D

Marc

An interesting point about technology innovation is that almost none is done by large companies. Small companies or small units that are autonomous of large companies do technological innovation. An organizational leadership scholar once told me it was effective span of control by the leaders. Vision and enthusiasm can only be pushed out by leaders to a certain number of individuals.

When was the last time you heard somebody in governmental or business leadership positions talking about vision and it didn't sound pedantic or hollow? When you can't create consensus in an organization (even at the platoon leader level) you are left with tools like fear and authority to get the job done. Those two tools being in direct contradiction to vision and innovation.

I was only a corporal in the Marines so my leadership was learned much in law enforcement and business. In once case running a 100 million dollar project my span of control was 15 subordinates with a team total of 135 or so on my project. The VP I worked for was an Army colonel and he laughed when i set up the project in teams of 5, with three teams of five being a section, and three sections per department... The organization ran lean, ran fast, and came in on-time and under budget.

I learned from that job the worst thing an organization can do is give you everything you ask for. A lean staffing profile is much better than bloated. It was a hard lesson but I learned that work is not done by the leaders and in general they just get in the way. Vision and mission is done by leaders and their effectiveness should be rated on their ability to communicate that to the leaves of the organization.

I know with the amount of military leadership here none of that would be much of a surprise.

Of course at the end of the project they disbanded the team and sent the CEO to jail but that is another story.

No the Army has not been dilberted...

Any large organization takes a while change, like turning a large ship. Schoomaker has done that so far. If you want to look at kicking and screaming. Go to thread on the AF and COIN doctrine, that will show real aversion to change. The Army has identified some friction points, and they are reducing them, such as the turn around time on doctrine changes. No government as a whole, has a ton of other issues, that make any big company appear the paradigm for dynamicism and efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Future tense?:eek: You are more optimistic than I am.



If we carry on the analogy between the military and business organizations, and it's a good one given how much cultural "genetic" (aka memetic) material has passed between them, then what about the Board of Directors? I have yet to see, barring the current examples in Israel, any Western nation really going after politicians for incompetence. Maybe the Western nations should consider the advantages of putting together something like SEC for politician overwatch, similar to Canada's Auditor General or the US GAO, but with the power to indite politicians for incompetence and malfeasance.:D

Marc

---

Marc,
The US has the capability to recall or impeach its elected officials--sort of like the stockholders voting out the board. We have an issue with citizen apathy that usually precludes this option from being exercised. In fact we have the voter apathy problem to such a great degree that we keep re-electing incompetents. The other real problem is what to do with all of the "bad egg" political appointees and other government civil servants.
Does Canada have a solution for these issues. The Roman Republic at least had the Censors and the annual "audit" of its provincial procurators and propraetors (remember Cicero's speeches?). But, of course, Rome didn't have universal citizenship.

Hi WM,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Marc,
The US has the capability to recall or impeach its elected officials--sort of like the stockholders voting out the board. We have an issue with citizen apathy that usually precludes this option from being exercised. In fact we have the voter apathy problem to such a great degree that we keep re-electing incompetents. The other real problem is what to do with all of the "bad egg" political appointees and other government civil servants.
Does Canada have a solution for these issues.

---

Not really. We have a multi-party set-up and a very strict split between our head of government (the Prime Minister) and our head of State (The Queen). What that translates to is that it is usually easier to attack the head of government or any politician and force a resignation. We don't have impeachment, either, since our members of parliament, including the Prime Minister, only represent their own ridings.

On the voter apathy problem, we do have it as well, but our voter registration system is radically different from the US. We send out people to register all potential voters and have a very large staff at Elections Canada devoted to keeping the voters lists constantly updated. As to re-electing incompetents, that's a problem endemic in any democracy back to Athens :wry:.

On the issue of "bad egg" appointees and civil servants, we do have a way of dealing with them via the Auditor General, but she currently only has moral suasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

The Roman Republic at least had the Censors and the annual "audit" of its provincial procurators and propraetors (remember Cicero's speeches?). But, of course, Rome didn't have universal citizenship.

---

Yup, then again no Western democracy has universal suffrage or citizenship either, so that is a moot point. As I mentioned, the closest we come s the annual Auditor General's report. The AG is a fascinating office in many ways. First, the AG is appointed for a set time period (6 years I believe) and is required to find and expose government inefficiency. Second, he AG is explicitly required to publish their reports, and many of them have been scathing. Third, the AG is guaranteed a Golden Parachute when hey leave the position on the grounds that they will be so unpopular that they will probably never get a government appointment again. As I said, an interesting position; I just wish she had a few more powers ;).

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

No the Army has not been dilberted...

Any large organization takes a while change, like turning a large ship. Schoomaker has done that so far. If you want to look at kicking and screaming. Go to thread on the AF and COIN doctrine, that will show real aversion to change. The Army has identified some friction points, and they are reducing them, such as the turn around time on doctrine changes. No government as a whole, has a ton of other issues, that make any big company appear the paradigm for dynamicism and efficiency.

---

But my point is that exactly. Schoomaker is acting like it's a large ship, that he can direct from above. As do nearly all of his upper ranks people. Just look at all the mandatory training that is pushed from the top down, accompanied by innumerable surveys to try to judge the effects.

The technique is stupid. (Make whatever implications vis-a-vis Schoomaker and Co. you'd like based on that statement) And demonstrates that those folks just don't trust anyone underneath them. Which makes the situation worse.

For a brief shining moment, from around 1983 until 1990, there was a time when Auftragstaktik ruled the army. (Or at least the Armored Part). We were encouraged to be flexible and employ basic understanding and trust between superiors/subordinates, or at least that was the theory.

Now, a Corps Headquarters issues FRAGOs to ask a Company level unit to move it's outhouses. And that means that all the "Strategic Corporal" speak is just bull####. If there IS a Transformation, it is to MORE CENTRAL CONTROL, not less.

Sorry, had to vent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van

Sooo... The consensus seems to be that the Army has be Dilberted?

---

I ran across an article about this factor with Information Technology. I got to thinking about the concepts and if you switch army, officer, and such in the right places this article could be this thread.

How to Stop the Dilbertization of IT (March 16, 2007)

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2104997,00.asp

Quote:

---

Talk to someone who has worked in IT for decades and more often than not, they'll regale you with stories of the "good old days," when the workplace was lively and creative juices flowed.

Nowadays it's a different story, they usually say, and place their blame along any number of lines: outsourcing, offshoring, cost-cutting, IT commoditization, reactivity where there was once proactivity, not to mention the shoddy desks in their office in dusty room at the end of the hall.

n the simplest terms: too many IT workplaces have become Dilbert-ized—micromanaged, bureaucratic and stifled creatively. It's become an environment where busy work is praised and morale is low.

IT is isn't fun anymore, and while a lack of fun at work may not seem worth stopping the presses over, the long-term effects of depriving a field of appealing work may very likely look like this: Students are turning away from computer science at an alarming rate. There's a huge talent shortage across the entire field, and, in confidence, enterprise IT workers say they'd probably choose a different career path if they could go back and start over again.

"When I first got involved in IT, it was fun. It was a cool job; you were a hero because you helped people do things," Bruce Skaistis, founder of eGlobal CIO, a consulting firm, told eWEEK. "Now I go in to organizations and it has become drudgery. They seem beat-down, in less nice facilities. If you want to attract better people back into IT you need to make it more fun again. You need to recognize it as a problem."

But how to go about bringing IT's appeal back? Answers come from surprising places. Recipient of the 2006 Turning award and IBM Fellow Emeriti Frances Allen said in a recent interview that the answer lies within the field.

"I believe that there was great excitement early on. You couldn't have had a more wonderful experience than I did at IBM in 1960. We worked through wonderful problems with wonderful people. There was always the sense that there was so much more to do, more than we ever had time for," said Allen.

"The excitement is not as much now, which is unfortunate, because we've really just gotten started."

eWEEK spoke to long-time IT professionals about ways they think the fun and excitement can be brought back to IT. Beyond blaming external factors, they speak of bringing focus back to what is already in-house: professionals eager to love their work again.

---

Much more at the link......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

StratFor is George Friedman, his wife and a very small permanent core staff (not one of whom has an intel background) who churn out high quantities of journalistic reporting posing as "analylsis". The bulk of the work is done by university student interns. In my personal opinion, most of their international product is crap - what little there is of value to be found among the outpouring is readily available elsewhere. And where StratFor charges for access to much of their product, you can find much better (and real analysis, not journalism and commentary) for free elsewhere.

Where StratFor does do good work is more in the areas of monitoring domestic activist/radical groups and consulting on certain aspects of corporate security. Funny how they're known more for what they do worst....

---

Any links for these for free real analysis sites? I'd love to have them.