Getting Strategy Right

[Ken White]

I will, however, still stand by my opinion that you will not correct the lack of good US military strategy by changing current DOD structure (or G-N).

Don't think anyone is claiming that. What is being said is that the current structure is not conducive to correcting that problem. On a broader note, the US government is never likely to have a coherent strategy for much of anything short of an existential war -- the US political system and electoral cycle will always preclude that. What can be done is improve the chain of responsibility which is now totally obscured.

Please understand I certainly am not a fan of the current national command structure but it does work when generals understand how it operates procedurally and they do not fall back into their service procedures and policies ...

Agreed.

In my mind strategy and command structure are two very different things. I recognize this thread is about “getting strategy right” and that’s good…but why introduce it with the Melton article…

In reverse order, it's a as good a way to introduce it as any -- and as I said, he's a smart guy -- he say what I've been saying since the 60s...

Agree that strategy and structure are two very different things but just as the structure of the USG and its political milieu impeded construction of strategy, so to does the structure of DoD. The USG checks and balances were by design. The DoD checks and imbalances were unintended consequences (mostly...)

Operations (and the Army is still trying to sell that term to the world) and tactics are contained within strategy...

Agree on the Army and its fetish with 'Operational art.'

However, tactics are used to implement strategies as you say and our deficiency is that no ONE is responsible for strategy. We have devolved the job to committees -- geographically dispersed and parochial committees at that...

Strategy is a general officer’s job as is selling it to the national command authority. When Rumsfield went astray with Iraq, we saw a couple replacements as normal retires, but we did not see a general’s revolt over bad strategy or a Vandergrift “bend knee” speech.

I agree. But. The Personnel system forced by Congress (as I mentioned earlier) insures that no one today is likley to do that. The first problem is that FlagOs are too vested in the system, the second is that they all know that if they fall on their sword, the system will just keep digging until it finds someone who will do what he or she is told (and that's another story). Most have enough ego to believe that they can do the job their way and it will all work out (witness Franks...).

Why didn’t Pace (your name) throw the bad strategy flag and call for a “reframe”? He could have done that with or without a different command structure. I am not saying we should court martial generals but identifying a problem and taking correctives actions is something all generals can recognize.

I have no problem court martialing a few, I've serve under a couple who deserved it. However, a quick read of history --Army and Marine shows that the escape of marginally qualified FlagOs is not DoD or G-N related...

Pace was a far better man for the job than the one he replaced but he, too was constrained by the system.

Bill Said: “The answer to your question is none of the above, though Sanchez did get forced into early retirement (as have a few others) -- that seems to be the standard punishment of the Gen-Gens who embarrass the system. Question: Was that true prior to G-N? ”
My counter question here is why do you think changing the current command structure a third time will work? ... It is a general officer disease; perceived bad command structure is a symptom.

That wasn't Bill, 'twas I. The changing of the command structure would have little to do with that phenomenon, that's a human thing. The reason for suggesting change is not to address that issue but to put the strategy design at the national level where it belongs and to fix responsibility.

National strategy cannot be designed (and sold to the civilian masters...) by Warlords who do not particularly like each other dispersed about the world, it should -- must, I'd say -- be done at the seat of power. Fixing responsibility for that on a firmly identified legal chain would improve strategic effort. It will not improve Generals -- that's a human factors and personnel management thing. However, it will provide a straightforward chain of command that will not be a straitjacket saying the guy is 'an advisor' G-N's biggest failure was that it created the GCCs but no one COMMANDS them. You can say that legally the Prez does through the SecDef but why then even have a JCS and a Chairman thereof. We've forced the NCA to deal with the Consuls scattered here and there...

Bill Said: ”As for embracing its purpose..."Strongly disagree with the bear hug theory…check O-6 and general officer promotion results against joint service requirement waivers from G-N to present.

Me again. I think you just supported my position. Why are / were waivers granted? You and I can disagree but the fact that those aspects of G-N were embraced and those waivers were granted prove it's flawed legislation.

Have we followed what few promotion policies that G-N initiated?...Example: “General…you can be either a combat commander or a service lead…it’s either or… not both.” (even better would be to start that last sentence with LtCol vs general). Another way to say that is “general do you want to be a war fighter (strategist) or a service administrator?

I agree that starting at General is bad -- I'd go lower and start with Captains being selected for Major, personally. I disagree that the joint folks are war fighters -- they're staff guys, period. The Cinc (GCC type) may be a 'warfighter' but the rest are staff weenies. Since I'm firmly convinced all our Staffs are vastly overpopulated and underemployed (not underworked... ), I cannot see much value in joint assignments. We need a Command track and a Staff track but that's another thread.

Bill said: “Have those ... truly faceless bureaucratic types to 'high command?'” Answer: NO! It’s the generals (leadership). Again: It is a general officer disease; perceived bad command structure is a symptom.

And again me. Two factors at play. Congressionally forced OPMS means the services have to select more marginally qualified persons for high rank because the criteria are designed not select excellence but to be broadly considered as 'fair.' That is fact.

That fact, IMO, rewards mediocrity and it fosters the go-along and get-along attitude you and I both despise. I further contend that the poor design of DoD and G-N exacerbate the problem by diffusing accountability and allowing people to hide behind that diffusion. If you do not concur, we can disagree.

“Has the broader American societal change ...?”
That word “societal” is getting too “touchy-feely” for me. When you were talking about “crack pipes” in your response were you talking about mine or …yours? I will say this. US Military is a different society contain with the US society…we (the military) tends to get into trouble when generals try and blur or purposely confuse that line.

You're confusing -- rather conflating -- Bill and I. He did the crack pipe, I asked the question about society. I'll let you two talk about crack but on the subject of societal change, I appreciate your support --Generals do indeed try to blur and confuse that line. The question is how much of that blurring and confusing by the General who commands here or there is caused by Congressional or other civilian politician pressure? That's the societal pressure.

Yes!…sure. But if it has not worked on two other occasions why is the third time a charm? Again: It is a general officer disease; perceived bad command structure is a symptom and IMO until you get at least a couple of these folks on your side and leading this effort your peeing up the command structure rope.

Nobody's gonna change human nature. The Flag guys and gals all got where they are in the current system, none -- certainly few if any -- of them will see any need to change. Any change will have to come from the bottom up -- or an existential war...

They seem to have a cathartic effect on the body politic and the service bureaucracies.

Could not agree more but why a directive instead of retirement papers? Is a general worth his salt if he does not know how to fight an insurgency? BTW the retirement papers route does not require a command structure change.

With all due respect, I think you're making the same mistake Congress made with OPMS. All Generals are not equal, never have been and never will be. One of the non-entity Flag types on my personal is of failures is former CJCS Myers, Great Arirman but a bad guy to be the 'military adviser' to the Prez and SecDef when we were fighting a major insurgency (that we created but that's also another thread...). Good guy, wrong job at the wrong time -- the SYSTEM put him there, not another General...

We cannot change human nature -- we can change things that will force humans to do the right (or at least a better) thing. Most of us don't do stuff unless we have to and if they system encourages inaction -- which it does -- then you have a systemic problem. To say that it would work if only everyone did it right is idealism, which I applaud, to fail to recognize that everyone will not do it right is possibly an error...

Apologize for any typos -- I have to run out for a bit...