The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Intelligence

The corporate takeover of U.S. intelligence - Tim Shorrock, Salon.com - 1 June.

Quote:

---

On May 14, at an industry conference in Colorado sponsored by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the U.S. government revealed for the first time how much of its classified intelligence budget is spent on private contracts: a whopping 70 percent. Based on this year’s estimated budget of at least $48 billion, that would come to at least $34 billion in contracts. The figure was disclosed by Terri Everett, a senior procurement executive in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the agency established by Congress in 2004 to oversee the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence infrastructure. A copy of Everett's unclassified PowerPoint slide presentation, titled "Procuring the Future" and dated May 25, was obtained by Salon. (It has since become available on the DIA's Web site.) "We can't spy ... If we can't buy!" one of the slides proclaims, underscoring the enormous dependence of U.S. intelligence agencies on private sector contracts ...

The media has reported on some contracting figures for individual agencies, but never before for the entire U.S. intelligence enterprise. In 2006, the Washington Post reported that a "significant majority" of the employees at two key agencies, the National Counterterrrorism Center and the Pentagon's Counter-Intelligence Field Activity office, were contractors (at CIFA, the number was more than 70 percent). More recently, former officers with the Central Intelligence Agency have said the CIA's workforce is about 60 percent contractors.

...

In March 2006, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who had resigned from Congress several months earlier, was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted of accepting more than $2 million in bribes from executives with MZM, a prominent San Diego defense contractor. In return for the bribes, Cunningham used his position on the House appropriations and intelligence committees to win tens of millions of dollars' worth of contracts for MZM at the CIA and the Pentagon's CIFA office, which has been criticized by Congress for spying on American citizens. The MZM case deepened earlier this month when Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the former deputy director of the CIA, was indicted for conspiring with former MZM CEO Brent Wilkes to steer contracts toward the company ...

In another recent case, Rep. Rick Renzi, a Republican from Arizona, resigned from the House Intelligence Committee in April because he is under federal investigation for introducing legislation that may have benefited Mantech International, a major intelligence contractor where Renzi's father works in a senior executive position ...

---

If you're not already familiar with her blog, check out The Spy Who Billed Me. Dr. Hillhouse writes extensively on the subject of intelligence outsourcing and the companies involved.

1 July Washington Post - In Iraq, a Private Realm Of Intelligence-Gathering by Steve Fainaru and Alec Klein.

Quote:

---

... The intelligence was compiled not by the U.S. military, as might be expected, but by a British security firm, Aegis Defence Services Ltd. The Reconstruction Operations Center is the hub of Aegis's sprawling presence in Iraq and the most visible example of how intelligence collection is now among the responsibilities handled by a network of private security companies that work in the shadows of the U.S. military.

Aegis won its three-year, $293 million U.S. Army contract in 2004. The company is led by Tim Spicer, a retired British lieutenant colonel who, before he founded Aegis, was hired in the 1990s to help put down a rebellion in Papua New Guinea and reinstall an elected government in Sierra Leone. Several British and American firms have bid on the contract's renewal, which is worth up to $475 million and would create a force of about 1,000 men to protect the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction projects. Protests have held up the award, which is expected soon...

---

Along the general vein of privatization, an article in the local newspaper reports there are now more private contractors in Iraq than US troops. The article reported there are 180K civilians working under US contracts. Peter Singer from the Brookings Institute said, "This is not the coalition of the willing. It is the coalition of the billing." Mercenary numbers were not in the tally, err, I mean private security contract personnel were not in the head count. Estimates vary on the number of 'guards' in country, from 6-30K. Gen. Nash (ret) claims the Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene." Who are the real camp followers here - the US military or private contractors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

Along the general vein of privatization, an article in the local newspaper reports there are now more private contractors in Iraq than US troops. The article reported there are 180K civilians working under US contracts. Peter Singer from the Brookings Institute said, "This is not the coalition of the willing. It is the coalition of the billing." Mercenary numbers were not in the tally, err, I mean private security contract personnel were not in the head count. Estimates vary on the number of 'guards' in country, from 6-30K. Gen. Nash (ret) claims the Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene." Who are the real camp followers here - the US military or private contractors?

---

In fact the article said there were only 21,000 Americans contractors in Iraq... not armd contractors but all total contractors... the rest of the numbers were TOTAL subcontractors for all work in Iraq reconstruction. 114,000 were Iraqis at work ... whcih is what we want right?

PSCs are approx 6,000 men made up of Americans, Brits, Colombians, Fijians, Nepalis and Ugandans... this is not an obscene figure.

And this is yet another "blast from the past." The Pawnee Battalion was mentioned in another thread, and some folks in the historical community love to wax long about Crook's use of packers and Indian scouts. PMCs by any other name. Scouts and packers were both classed as quartermaster employees and paid more than regular troopers (in some cases they made more per month than a first sergeant). The more things change....:wry:

"Coalition of the billing" is the operative phrase regardless of nationality at the tax trough. The fact remains there are more scouts than Indian fighters in Iraq and tip of the pith helmet to Mr. Blair for setting the historical stage to draw such an Indian analogy.

Are all these contractors Americans or Iraqis as well?

cut the strength of the Army in half. They did that. I believe that's properly called "You get what you pay for." Or are willing to pay for...

War is an art, not a science but it does take 'X' people to do 'Y' job. If the Army cannot be expanded rapidly enough to provide those additional people in the required skills, substitutes must be found. It could not but we found some. It works.

Whether the Army should have been committed to do a job it was not able to do properly is another issue but that is a political question for other venues. For here, that issue is irrelevant. We're there.

Possibly the Army in the 1989-2001 period misspent money and effort. It did not properly structure and train for the jobs it was likely to have to do. Those are both political and military questions but other than as an indicator of failures on many levels as a cautionary factor -- and hopefully a significant lesson learned at the highest levels for the near future -- that's also sort of immaterial. We are where we are.

Congressional posturing on Iraq (both sides) is not about Iraq, it is not about the taxpayers, it is not about the Troops nor is it about Contractors -- it is about the 2008 elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

If the Army cannot be expanded rapidly enough to provide those additional people in the required skills, substitutes must be found. It could not but we found some. It works...

Possibly the Army in the 1989-2001 period misspent money and effort. It did not properly structure and train for the jobs it was likely to have to do.

---

There is another issue that I've not seen anything written about... the Army and DoD over the past 10-15 years have made a number of decisions to make structural changes in a variety of areas: A-76 contracting to replace civil service; military to civilian conversions; and the elimination of the dual compensation rules for retired military. The net effect has been that we see many qualified soldiers retire or leave the service and take essentially the same positions as either a civil servant or as a contractor.

It is incredible to watch someone retire one day and then assume the same job the next day -- with the difference being that the individual changes out of uniform and shows up in civilian clothes at the same desk. In a similar fashion, we see many leave the service and then become contractors, doing the same work for more pay -- but less control and accountability.

With uniformed military, you buy the service; with civil service, you are leasing; with contractors, you are are renting the service.

Even though we are in a war, we are still having mandatory retirements and some of the up-or-out policies. These type of policies make sense if you are in a "surge" that is short-term, but they don't make sense if we are trying to fight a long war. In the long run, "renting" costs you more money.

The current grade structure is, however, a limiting factor... the law restricts the senior grade population based on overall end strength. With the push towards more interagency coordination, greater civil affairs requirements, and an emphasis on advisors, it may well be time to relook the grade structure in the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Jack

There is another issue that I've not seen anything written about... The net effect has been that we see many qualified soldiers retire or leave the service and take essentially the same positions as either a civil servant or as a contractor.

It is incredible to watch someone retire one day and then assume the same job the next day -- ... -- but less control and accountability.

With uniformed military, you buy the service; with civil service, you are leasing; with contractors, you are are renting the service.

Even though we are in a war, we are still having mandatory retirements and some of the up-or-out policies. These type of policies make sense if you are in a "surge" that is short-term, but they don't make sense if we are trying to fight a long war. In the long run, "renting" costs you more money.

The current grade structure is, however, a limiting factor... the law restricts the senior grade population based on overall end strength. With the push towards more interagency coordination, greater civil affairs requirements, and an emphasis on advisors, it may well be time to relook the grade structure in the military.

---

There's a lot of writing bout it, just not in the main stream media because they're (IMO) way too slow to understand the problem and it is a topic that'll make the average reader's eyes glaze. Government Executive and the Service pubs all talk about the problems you cite and many more.

I don't think those who go into Civil Service are less subject to control or to accountability though obviously the contractors are. That's getting sorted out, we have a very slowly responding system of government by design and that's generally okay -- we do by pass it in a major war. I suspect the contracts will get tighter, be better written and more controls -- probably too many -- will be emplaced in the next few years.

I'm not sure what you mean by leasing with Civil Service. While I'm certainly aware of a number of problems with the system, I do know that, mostly, it works. The basic reasoning behind civilianizing a position is that the average cost per person in uniform is almost $120K while the average civilian cost is less than 75% of that. The down side is that most civilian jobs aren't deployable. Contracting lowers the cost even more (and using host or third nation folks cost even less).

A soldier on KP or a Marine or Sailor on mess duty still costs $120K a year and you're wasting a lot of money on minimum wage work; a Cook will cost you a bit more but it doesn't approach the military cost and taking the kid away from training. Same goes with Security Guards on bases, it's just a lot cheaper and of about the same effectiveness. There are many arguments pro and con on the practices but the cost factor rules -- and will likely continue to do so. Not least because the big contractors have deep pockets and lobby quietly...

Up or out was never, in my view, a very smart policy. Some of us tried to point out when it was instituted that given a war, you were going to have to dump it if the war lasted a while and there was no major force expansion -- and that time is approaching. I understand the rationale for bringing in new blood and I totally agree that's necessary but a better way than up or out is to fire folks based on poor performance. I submit that up or out is essentially supposed to be a version of that but I do not think it is. Mandatory retirements aren't all that bad, age does have penalties for all. While some can be productive after the nominal mandatory date, on balance, most are ready to go or need to -- even if they don't realize it. It's a young persons game...

Remember the guys and gals in the sandboxes are at war, the bulk of the Armed Forces here in CONUS and elsewhere are not. Two sets of rules are difficult to administer so the peacetime set wins. Probably shouldn't be that way but there are a surprising number of senior folks, Officer and Enlisted who quietly feel like Eisenhower's Army Service Force Commander in Europe did on VE Day when he announced he was glad the war was over and the Army could get back to real soldiering. The Bureaucracy must be served, the institution must be protected, rocks must be painted...:mad:

I've run across more than several of those in the last three or four years. I think they've lost sight of why they were hired, personally -- and I do know that the kids don't fail to notice...

While I agree with your penultimate paragraph; my suspicion is that many Americans and many in Congress would not -- they do not want a long war, ergo if they do not support a realistic force structure, the long war will go away. Ostriches abound. Yes, renting does cost more but, as in many other things, Congress is willing to pass that cost on to their successors. :(

Heh. The statutory limits on grades are more often ignored than not by all services. Standby for opinions and a rant; Other than the FlagOs who are high vis -- and there are way too many of them anyway and many are somewhat underemployed -- most limits are routinely ignored. Do the math on any rank, counting TDRL, Hospital, intransit, schools, serving while frocked and so forth on and on. The statutory grade structure was predicated mostly on the circa 1990 Armed forces which had considerably greater end strength than is the case today -- and of course, those limits do not apply to the Reserve Components.

If there's a grade problem, it is overgrading across the board. Most of the over grade problems are due to DOPMA in the officer ranks and due to, in the Army, the Hoffman Building (my standing advice to all Army Officers; when you get to be Chief of Staff, destroy the Hoffman Building) and its resident Human Resources Command or whatever they are this week. The problem with ranks in the Armed forces in my view is rank creep. Upwards. It needs to be stopped. Concomitantly, the pay structure needs radical work so that people can be rewarded for doing a good job without necessarily being promoted in an effort to prove the Peter Principle works; that will eliminate the need for up or out. End opinionated rant. :D

A couple of comments...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

I'm not sure what you mean by leasing with Civil Service. While I'm certainly aware of a number of problems with the system, I do know that, mostly, it works.

---

My comment on "leasing" is based on the increased use of Title X and the impending NSPS transition. Couple this with the lack of being able to deploy many of the civilians based on position descriptions... the result is that many of the military to civilian conversions don't give you the same flexibility to deploy or move to support the war.

Quote:

---

Mandatory retirements aren't all that bad, age does have penalties for all. While some can be productive after the nominal mandatory date, on balance, most are ready to go or need to -- even if they don't realize it. It's a young persons game...

---

Agree that it's a young person's game, but... it doesn't make sense to have someone do a mandatory retirement and then show up the next day to do the same job. Some jobs require experience over youth...

Quote:

---

If there's a grade problem, it is overgrading across the board.

---

In some ways, but if you look at John Nagl's Advisor Corps proposal, it's rank heavy for a reason...

Quote:

---

...my standing advice to all Army Officers; when you get to be Chief of Staff, destroy the Hoffman Building...

---

Hey, you can't do that! We don't own the building -- it's leased.

Yes, many of the mil to civ transitions aren't deployable -- and most of them do not need to be. Those that should be deployable positions simply shouldn't be converted. Unfortunately, human stupidity and cupidity are facts of life and some slip through. We haven't done this (deploy) since the civilianization started in until 2002 (the Balkan effort doesn't really count on the basis of size) so we're learning what works and doesn't work. It'll mostly get fixed.

Depends on the job; if it's one that should be deployable, I agree with you. OTOH, if it's the Resource Manager at Ft. Benning, the Facilities Engineer at Camp LeJeune, the Depot Manager at Hill AFB or the Chief Marine Engineer at Bremerton NSY, a training material writer at Ft. Knox or a Mess Sergeant in 13 Area at Pendleton, I don't agree. Not only are the services in those cases getting a cheaper employee -- and, far more importantly freeing up a senior position to serve in the field -- they're getting considerable expertise in the process. You point is well made, some jobs do require experience over youth -- on both sides of the fence. Better the experience be employed on the field side as opposed to a job any any competent civilian could do.

I prefer not to look at John Nagl's Advisor Corps proposal if that's okay. I like his book, I liked his appearance on Cherlie Rose and I respect him a great deal. I just strongly disagree with the Advisor Corps approach not least because it is too rank heavy but on many other grounds. Probably mostly because it ain't gonna happen (Hmm. Possible bad statement; we continually prove we can implement ideas that are not smart...).

First make the landlord fix the elevators... :)

Then destroy the building.

And disestablish the Human Resources Command. Shy Meyer tried and they just bureaucratically waited him out; now they're in the forefront of the square wheel reinventers...:wry:

Just a couple of (opinionated) points :cool:.

1. It has never made sense to me to have a military system where you require separate insignia to designate the fighters from the bureaucrats. If they aren't competent to fight, they should be gone.

2. I certainly think that when you can hire a civilian to do a job better (and cheaper) than you can train / retain a combat soldier, you should do it. The sole major exception I see to this is in the Navy where you have long deployments with no civilian access. I am not saying that all roles shouldn't be fillable by soldiers, just that they do not have to be filled by soldiers.

3. The purpose of a military is to be able to meet any conceivable threat (within economic restrictions). All else is makework. The real trick, IMHO, is to be able to conceive of these threats and to perceive them thereby defining what skills will be necessary to meet that threat. BTW, Ken, I think an Advisor Corps is an excellent idea myself.

4. If someone is incompetent, they should be fired. Period, end of sentence. This specifically includes General Officers. Personally, I would like to see the equivalent of a Captain's Board for each major commander in any action - say brigade level. This isn't because I want to see general officers pilloried, but because I believe they need to be held accountable for their actions.

The real problem with all of this is the answer to the question of what do you get for serving? Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the book, not the "snuff in space" piece of Bravo Sierra movie) addressed this point head on, but I haven't really seen any other work that addresses it at a fundamental level. Enlistment bonuses? Give me a break, that's just competing with private industry. Status? Since Vietnam, the cultural status of being former military has been pretty low. Secure job prospects? We're starting to see that in the PMC market (we've had it in Canada with the Corps of Commisionaires for a while). "Duty to the Nation"? Pardon me while I chortle at how the majority of Gen Y'ers are going to react to that one![1]

Honestly, something has to be developed that is restricted to ex-military. The Romans had it and their military was strong until hey got rid of it i the 4th century. The US used to have it but is loosing it rapidly in light of competition with private industry.

Marc

[1] Note, this is not an attempt to disparage nationalism or a belief in individual duty in any way whatsoever! This is an admittedly somewhat cynical take on how Gen Y'ers will, on average, respond to such an appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Just a couple of (opinionated) points :cool:.

1. It has never made sense to me to have a military system where you require separate insignia to designate the fighters from the bureaucrats. If they aren't competent to fight, they should be gone.

2. I certainly think that when you can hire a civilian to do a job better (and cheaper) than you can train / retain a combat soldier, you should do it. The sole major exception I see to this is in the Navy where you have long deployments with no civilian access. I am not saying that all roles shouldn't be fillable by soldiers, just that they do not have to be filled by soldiers.

3. The purpose of a military is to be able to meet any conceivable threat (within economic restrictions). All else is makework. The real trick, IMHO, is to be able to conceive of these threats and to perceive them thereby defining what skills will be necessary to meet that threat. BTW, Ken, I think an Advisor Corps is an excellent idea myself.

4. If someone is incompetent, they should be fired. Period, end of sentence. This specifically includes General Officers. Personally, I would like to see the equivalent of a Captain's Board for each major commander in any action - say brigade level. This isn't because I want to see general officers pilloried, but because I believe they need to be held accountable for their actions.

The real problem with all of this is the answer to the question of what do you get for serving? Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the book, not the "snuff in space" piece of Bravo Sierra movie) addressed this point head on, but I haven't really seen any other work that addresses it at a fundamental level. Enlistment bonuses? Give me a break, that's just competing with private industry. Status? Since Vietnam, the cultural status of being former military has been pretty low. Secure job prospects? We're starting to see that in the PMC market (we've had it in Canada with the Corps of Commisionaires for a while). "Duty to the Nation"? Pardon me while I chortle at how the majority of Gen Y'ers are going to react to that one![1]

Honestly, something has to be developed that is restricted to ex-military. The Romans had it and their military was strong until hey got rid of it i the 4th century. The US used to have it but is loosing it rapidly in light of competition with private industry.

Marc

[1] Note, this is not an attempt to disparage nationalism or a belief in individual duty in any way whatsoever! This is an admittedly somewhat cynical take on how Gen Y'ers will, on average, respond to such an appeal.

---

In order:

1. I agree, unfortunately the US Congress does not agree with you and I. We do fairness, by law and he who would eliminate anyone suspected of less than competent fighting ability better have some really good justification to include reams of backup; ergo, it it easier to let the marginal slide. Human fallibility gets in the way of what should happen.

2. Agreed.

3. totally agree with the thrust, you are IMO unquestionably correct. On the Advisor Corps, I don't agree -- with a cavil and a caveat -- I agree its a great idea on paper but there are several problems I can see. First, not everyone is cut out for working with other cultures and the US Armed Forces GP attitude in personnel management would not necessarily select the round pegs for those round holes. We suffered from this in Viet Nam. Secondly, most Foreign Armies are far more officer centric than we are and most would want Officers to talk to; Enlisted folks, no matter how competent would get short shrift from many Armies. Thirdly, the Active Army can't afford the spaces -- particularly in view of the fact that Congress regardless of which party does what in 2008 is unlikely to look with favor on ANY nation building efforts in the near future (and even if they did not do so, what guarantee is it that such a need will arise? That's a lot of very expensive folks sitting around -- not to mention that we will be in semi-pariah status internationally speaking for a few years ).

...... That is not to say there's not a need, there is. I think an Advisory Group (3-500 max)in the active Army to train units and to train up a to be formed Advisory Division or Corps (start small and work up if the need is there) in the USAR would work and I also think most of Nagl's enlisted Advisor spaces need to be Officers -- Warrant Officers would work (and could be trained in an Aviation Warrant Officer Candidate like scheme).

4. Again I agree. However, again the US sense of 'fairness' intrudes. I place that word in quotes because many do not understand that misplaced sense is totally unfair to the competent and to the troops that have to work for the marginal. It is also a fact that peer groups tend to protect their members [can't believe I'm saying that to you :) ] and Generals do tend to try to do their disposals quietly -- in a major war, ala WW II, all bets are off --well, most of 'em anyway -- but in peacetime -- and make no mistake, the US is at peace (except for the kids actually in the sandbox and a few other places). Whether that should be the case is another topic but it is fact at this point.


Lastly, you raise excellent points and I do not have facile answers. My guess is, however, that the profession will continue to attract a certain genetically and environmentally attuned set of people who give it a try. Many will not like it and will leave but many will stay and they will do so because they like the job with all its detrimental aspects. The money will hlep but only a bit, love of the job will keep 'em there. More or less worked for the British Army and us for most of the past 200 years, to include long periods of low level hostilities. Thus, the answer is, I suspect, that the Gen Y'ers who give it a shot will stick around in adequate numbers.

Particularly if the Armed Forces get their acts together, realize what things the kids are capable of, stop treating 'em like children, and -- in line with all the foregoing -- get their acts together, eliminate as much of the bureaucracy and make work as possible and improve professional competence across the board.

With some effort, the Armed Forces here and in Canada could be premier employers with a waiting list to get in..

I think the US military, specifically the ground forces, are in the midst of a very serious and trying cultural change. There are the old guard, most of whom were commissioned when the Cold War was still around and were rasied and trained in that environment. These are now the 05-010's running the show. Then there are the rest of us officers, the ones who were commissioned in the Post Desert Storm era, who have seen mostly "peacekeeping", "humanitarian relief", "counterinsurgencies" and "small wars" instead of the wet dream Fulda Gap defense.

These two cultures are butting heads, especially as the wars in HOA, Iraq and the Ghan continue on. At the Boyd Conference, a retired Marine General had an interesting statement about the junior officers of today - he said that all they've seen since they've been commissioned is war, train for the next deployment, war. He isn't optimistic about officer retention if these wars continue at the current OPTEMPO.

We will come out of this mess in a vastly different form than where we started. Perhaps that will be good, perhaps not. We can only do the best we can in the time alloted.

To address Marct's comments:

1. Yes, everyone should have rudimentary infantry skills, with a gradation upward depending on what job you possess.

2. I'm not sold on the "better/cheaper" argument. I saw a retired 06, who was very competent, work in a Combined Staff in Afghanistan, and wondered why we couldn't put an 05 or even an 04 who would benefit from the experience? Are we diluting military talent by outsourcing these jobs, or does it even matter?

3. Yes, well, in a perfect world we'd have a military that could do everything, at least decently. We don't live in a perfect world. We have never really anticipated future threats all that well, or maybe we have and were just content to stay with the systems that existed at the time because we could adjust on the run? Look at Kasserine Pass and the learning curve afterwards. An advisory corps would be great, run it similar to the PSYOPS/Civil Affairs programs for the organizational design concepts.

4. You ask what we get for serving? A profession. That's what the military is today. You might say differently, but that's all it is from my limited view of the world. Sure, people are real nice to you in airports or train stations when you have a uniform on, but what else? I had a guy ask me to my face yesterday if I had killed anyone in Afghanistan. First question out of his mouth. Sigh. I don't ask for any special favors as a member of the military and quite frankly I don't want any. The country has spent their tax dollars on my education, training and experience, and I only hope that I've been able to pay it back with results that are for the country's benefit.

Ken makes a very interesting point that I'd like to expand on. Quote: Particularly if the Armed Forces get their acts together, realize what things the kids are capable of, stop treating 'em like children" When I redeployed from Afghanistan, I have had the misfortune to work for an 06 who treats Majors as if they are Specialists. Luckily this ends in six months but the last 16 months have been miserable to say the least. It's the love of the job that keeps me going, I realize we are, to quote Oh Brother Where Art Thou? "Damn, we're in a tight spot!" and I'm sticking around to help get us out of it.

Hi Ken and Ski,

Thanks for the responses :). While I'm in the mood to say things I probably shouldn't, I'd like to tag nto a comment Ski made

Quote:

---

You ask what we get for serving? A profession. That's what the military is today. You might say differently, but that's all it is from my limited view of the world. Sure, people are real nice to you in airports or train stations when you have a uniform on, but what else? I had a guy ask me to my face yesterday if I had killed anyone in Afghanistan. First question out of his mouth. Sigh. I don't ask for any special favors as a member of the military and quite frankly I don't want any. The country has spent their tax dollars on my education, training and experience, and I only hope that I've been able to pay it back with results that are for the country's benefit.

---

Let me play academic for a minute and make a couple of observations:

1. I totally agree that it is a profession in the modern sense of the term.
2. I have a feeling that both you, and Ken, are thinking about "profession" in the older sense of the term, i.e. something to profess as "good".
3. I get the feeling that you believe that you have a "calling" to the profession of arms.

I must say that I've seen a lot of things that indicate this type of attitude here at the SWC. Personally, I am really, really, glad to see it.

So, having made those observations (and shifted the discourse), can I ask both of you if you believe that the this will be enough to staff the armed forces for the long war? Also, what do you think can be done about shifting the social and cultural emphasis against the military as a calling and profession?

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ski

I had a guy ask me to my face yesterday if I had killed anyone in Afghanistan. First question out of his mouth. Sigh.

---

For what it is worth, I'm very sorry to hear about such thoughtlessness. The world seems increasingly full of bad manners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ski

I think the US military, specifically the ground forces, are in the midst of a very serious and trying cultural change...

. . .

These two cultures are butting heads, especially as the wars in HOA, Iraq and the Ghan continue on. At the Boyd Conference, a retired Marine General had an interesting statement about the junior officers of today - he said that all they've seen since they've been commissioned is war, train for the next deployment, war. He isn't optimistic about officer retention if these wars continue at the current OPTEMPO.

. . .


2. I'm not sold on the "better/cheaper" argument. I saw a retired 06, who was very competent, work in a Combined Staff in Afghanistan, and wondered why we couldn't put an 05 or even an 04 who would benefit from the experience? Are we diluting military talent by outsourcing these jobs, or does it even matter?

. . .

---

Couldn't agree more about the change, cultural, technical and tactical. Hopefully, we will not swing the pendulum too far in the right direction...

I also agree with putting Majors or even Captains in jobs like the one you mention; the old guys do lend a lot of expertise but overseas, civilian employees should be rare and the training value of putting a grade or two or even three under in a job is great. Not to mention that sometimes -- mot od the time -- the 'inexperienced' will surprise you with better than school solutions...

Agree on the butting of heads and if we're lucky, Land War in Europe will die a long overdue death. Never been to Europe, sure have eaten a lot of rice. I do not agree with the Marine MG -- well, not totally. There will those who leave due to the OPTEMPO no question and that's okay, I think Some will not have wanted to but family pressure will drive them out anyway; regardless, some will leave.

A lot more though will say things like "When I redeployed from Afghanistan, I have had the misfortune to work for an 06 who treats Majors as if they are Specialists. Luckily this ends in six months but the last 16 months have been miserable to say the least. It's the love of the job that keeps me going, I realize we are, to quote Oh Brother Where Art Thou? "Damn, we're in a tight spot!" and I'm sticking around to help get us out of it." Yeah, they're out there, the system catches most but a few slip through. Fortunately, guys like you are tougher and smarter than they are, thank Mars!

Thanks to you, too.

I think both of your definitions fit my view of being a military officer.

I certainly had a calling to the profession of arms. I was one of the people who were caught in the "great 2nd lieutenant massacre" of the mid-90's and ended up commissioned into the National Guard out of ROTC (well, actually USAR, but found a Guard unit and switched quickly after I was commissioned). I always wanted to go on active duty, but did not have the chance until 2000. I love what I do, it's mentally and physically challenging (especially after a torn achilles in March), and I love the Army. Do I necessarily agree with some of the policies we have as a country? No, but I don't get to pick the fights.

I think your second question needs to be resolved before the first can be answered. If the country cannot understand that military service is an honorable and decent profession, with honorable and decent men and women, than the first question becomes irrelevant. I think the situation will change drastically once Bush and Co. get sent to the retirement asylums - the vast majority of people I've bumped into do not trust them at all. I think the military has done a piss poor job in selling themselves across the board since the end of the Cold War. First it's the Army of One and now it's Army Strong. If I was 18 and saw either recruiting jingle, I'd run for the hills or join one of the other services. We invented Madison Ave and modern advertising and yet we cannot get people to join without massive bonuses, great benefits, and a lot of training and flexibility in assignments. I don't know where we go other than the something towards the Marine method of recruiting where we sell the rites of passage more than the end state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Ken and Ski,

Thanks for the responses :). While I'm in the mood to say things I probably shouldn't, I'd like to tag nto a comment Ski made



Let me play academic for a minute and make a couple of observations:

1. I totally agree that it is a profession in the modern sense of the term.
2. I have a feeling that both you, and Ken, are thinking about "profession" in the older sense of the term, i.e. something to profess as "good".
3. I get the feeling that you believe that you have a "calling" to the profession of arms.

I must say that I've seen a lot of things that indicate this type of attitude here at the SWC. Personally, I am really, really, glad to see it.

So, having made those observations (and shifted the discourse), can I ask both of you if you believe that the this will be enough to staff the armed forces for the long war? Also, what do you think can be done about shifting the social and cultural emphasis against the military as a calling and profession?

Marc

---

Well, I agreed with him as the attrition rates will rise. Hey, everyone needs a break, even the hardest of samurai. Shuffle a guy off to school followed by a ROTC or TRADOC assignment would cure a lot of ills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Agree on the butting of heads and if we're lucky, Land War in Europe will die a long overdue death. Never been to Europe, sure have eaten a lot of rice. I do not agree with the Marine MG -- well, not totally. There will those who leave due to the OPTEMPO no question and that's okay, I think Some will not have wanted to but family pressure will drive them out anyway; regardless, some will leave.

A lot more though will say things like "When I redeployed from Afghanistan, I have had the misfortune to work for an 06 who treats Majors as if they are Specialists. Luckily this ends in six months but the last 16 months have been miserable to say the least. It's the love of the job that keeps me going, I realize we are, to quote Oh Brother Where Art Thou? "Damn, we're in a tight spot!" and I'm sticking around to help get us out of it." Yeah, they're out there, the system catches most but a few slip through. Fortunately, guys like you are tougher and smarter than they are, thank Mars!

Thanks to you, too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Ken and Ski,
. . .

So, having made those observations (and shifted the discourse), can I ask both of you if you believe that the this will be enough to staff the armed forces for the long war? Also, what do you think can be done about shifting the social and cultural emphasis against the military as a calling and profession?

Marc

---

Not alone. My gut feel (with apologies to the SecHS) is that between one third and one half of one percent of the population of a modern western democracy will join and serve under such conditions; if it trends to the lower figure due to length of time that means less than the now authorized strength while the upper figure is about what we have. Per usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between.

"Under such conditions" -- but some inducements in the near term will be necessary. IOW, I'm saying I think we can muddle through for a few years with some belt tightening. To maintain the force in the long term, some major reforms are going to be necessary. Simply, the ability to deploy fairly frequently but not too frequently and not always to combat zones is desirable but the biggest single draw to the kids is challenge. Period. Most kids come in the service (officer or enlisted immaterial, service nonpeculiar) and leave due to disappointment.

It isn't challenging and it isn't fun. Start a small war and you have challenge but no fun (for most); do all the good training stuff IAW OSHA guidelines and you have fun but no challenge.

Then there's the fact that the aforementioned tendency to treat people like children tends to make them act like children. Nobody likes that; add that people used to be trusted and that the ability to trust has been allowed to severely erode. That has to be fixed.

Frankly, in the US, I'm not particularly optimistic about getting there from here. We are, I'm afraid too distrustful of each other, too pampered, too PC and Congress does not want the Mothers of the Etats Uniens complaining about a 1% loss annually in training. Penalty of living in a democratic society; the bulk of the populace do not want Armed Forces that are too good. Not that I'd change that; I think its part of the price we pay for the freedom we have and the life style we are able to enjoy. So I suspect we'll just muddle along. Unsatisfactory answer, I know. Need to think about it a bit.

As to the second part of your query; total honesty and integrity allied with great competence; all equally important. The first simply requires an effort of will and a change in attitude (particularly toward the media, no matter how hard that is to swallow); the second requires only will and effective policing and the third cutting much of the bureaucracy, well thought out doctrine and even better than the already good training. Then it'll take 15-30 years of improvement for the effects to be truly felt, I believe. However, I see some positive if slight moves in those directions and that is good.

Two things that will contribute to that better perception are the mantra of 'support the troops' which makes it hard for those who say it at least on the surface to be too negative (if it is said often enough, it begins to be believed) and the return of a bunch of smart people from the current wars to the mainstream and many of whom will go to school on the GI Bill and possibly, among other things, affect some, uh, attitudes on campus... :wry:

However, it is unlikely that the attitudes toward the Armed Forces of about 15 to 20% of the population, those strongly inclined toward non-violence / anti-militarism will ever be changed. Nor are they likely to subside into quiet acquiescence. Fortunately, they are a fairly small percentage.

Let me mull both points for a bit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ski

Well, I agreed with him as the attrition rates will rise. Hey, everyone needs a break, even the hardest of samurai. Shuffle a guy off to school followed by a ROTC or TRADOC assignment would cure a lot of ills.

---

have to be a total spectrum Army and we're losing the big war edge, only the schools and training will fix that. We're in the same boat we were in during Viet Nam; year or less in CONUS, year there. Repeat.

That ran off a humungous lot of obligors at the end of their oblig. Captains left in droves. Killed a lot of good NCOS too. Left the hardcore and the dead wood and very few in between. Given the personnel community's approaches, we're probably looking at the same thing again.

Hard to understand. Not like we've never done this before...

Some people would be amazed at how good a job a young LT can do as a Company Commander or a good SSG can do as an acting Platoon Leader or a Major can do in the Div 3 slot. Once upon a time, we insisted all newly commissioned Officers had to do two years combat arms duty before reporting to their final branch. There was a reason for that. However, it was unpopular with some so it got killed, nominally on grounds of cost effectiveness -- and at great loss of flexibility in entry Officer assignments -- not to mention professional knowledge...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Ken and Ski,

So, having made those observations (and shifted the discourse), can I ask both of you if you believe that the this will be enough to staff the armed forces for the long war? Also, what do you think can be done about shifting the social and cultural emphasis against the military as a calling and profession?

Marc

---

Hi, Marc

After some thought and talking to a few others, not much to add to my off the cuff remarks the other night. Could have been more coherent and concise but the basic thoughts remain the same. Let me reiterate and add a couple of things.

I still believe that between one third and one half of one percent of the population of a modern western democracy will join and serve under such conditions; if it trends to the lower figure due to length of time that means less than the now authorized strength while the upper figure is about what we have. Per usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between. My three
co-consultants agree (one's a COL Ret, one a serving brand new MAJ and the other a serving MSG). It is highly probable that the number of people who opt for the combat arms is a rough constant and thus they need little added inducement.

The issue is attracting the specialist types and for the Gen Y kids, it seems to us a pitch that leans toward the opportunity to help others in lesser endowed nations would be a draw; that and the travel.

To maintain the force in the long term, some major reforms would be necessary. Pay is a factor. The services tout the total package but the reality is that has little resonance with many because they do not partake of many of the benefits so increased base pay and a cut in the ‘benefits’ would be better received I think (I await the screams and wails of some serving…). Pay for specialties hard to recruit and retain should be increased to a point commensurate with like trade civilian pay. An enhanced G.I. Bill – particularly if it offers more money for graduate studies to those who enlist with two or more years of college would probably help

The biggest single draw to the kids is challenge. Period. Most kids come in the service (officer or enlisted immaterial, service nonpeculiar) and leave due to disappointment. The Brits use Adventure Training to good effect. We played with it in the 70s but only half heartedly; the British Army does it right, IMO.

A major reform is need in the way people are treated and, in fairness, the Army is headed that way but it will be a culture change and, as Ski pointed out, the upper levels still have a tendency to treat people like children.

The ability to trust has been allowed to severely erode. That has to be fixed. :mad:

To repeat what I said earlier with respect to the second part of your query; total honesty and integrity allied with great competence; all equally important. We are getting better on both counts but there is still a tendency to hide bad news, that needs to be stop totally. A change in attitude particularly toward the media is a must (and that has major impacts in the Information War as well); I’ll add that we also need to do better with the film and TV industry. We do not need to co-opt them, we just need fair and unbiased portrayals.

Somehow, we also need to convince the denizens of Academe that we are not evil or stupid and that we dislike war even more than do they…

Still think it will take 15-30 years of improvement for the effects to be truly felt. However, the moves in those directions that are already occurring are good.

Not sure that's very helpful...

Ken/Marc

Some additional thoughts.

1. Rebuild trust between senior officers and mid/junior grade officers. The cracks are there, need to mortar them up before real problems arise. Might not be possible in the short term. I'm 34 years old with one foreign deployment and three humanitarian/disaster relief missions under my belt, as well as working on a Master's. Treat me like an adult for Christ's sake.

2. Sell the challenge and the rite of passage rather than the benefits and the endstate in terms of recruiting.

3. Completely reform the personnel and pay system. Both are antiquated and obselete. Retirement should be changed as well - the 20 year rule is dumb and obsolete. 2.5% per year accrual rate with a 10 year minimum is the way to go.

4. Show the populace that military service is worthy and that the people are good and honest. Crush those who are in service who are not honest or are criminals, and make it widely known across the press.

5. Create a real system of command and control by eliminating at least two or three layers of staff, starting at the Division level and head up to COCOM level. Ties in with trust development.

6. Grand startegy and strategy must be clearly stated to the privates and lieutenants in the military. These are the building blocks of the military, and if the grand strategy and strategy smell funny, they'll leave as soon as possible. They must believe in the mission...

Great, in fact. Benefit of still serving instead of bein' old, marginally out of touch and retarded... :)

All are good, all are of about equal importance, IMO.

Addressing the challenge issue....this is something the Marines have done well for many years now, and they don't have trouble meeting recruiting goals. We've lost some cadets to the Corps, and it has been due to the challenge factor. The AF promotes itself as a job with security and benefits...the kids we lose (and they've been good ones) wanted something more.

With Gen Y, you need to push service to something bigger than yourself more than travel. Many of these kids have already been places, and that hook just doesn't catch 'em. The trust issue is a major factor for these kids. They aren't as jaded as us Xers, but it's still an issue for them. Some of them are surprisingly idealistic, and shattering their trust will make them head the other way faster than you can blink.

One area that's really hurt the AF recently has been the horrible problems in some of the areas of JAG. It may not seem like much to those currently in, but it gets commented on a great deal (and negatively) by our cadets. They really don't like hearing one thing and then seeing something else. Lip service to core values will be smelled out quickly by this group, and they'll find somewhere else to go in a hurry.

With academe, you'll have to catch current undergrads and convince them to defy the ideology of their instructors. It's only going to get worse as the military starts looking for history majors, modern language majors, and others from the social sciences (to meet the demands of any COIN strategy you'll need those kids). You're going after the ideological strongholds of the '60s generation there, and they won't surrender easily.