New Rules for New Enemies

[Rob Thornton]

Tom,
I had a buddy that did an internship with FedEx, do we do that with OGAs? Could we get them to do it with us? Could logisitican do a year with USAID, or an IO guy with USIS? How about and Infantryman with FBI? Lets say a CPT gets himself BQ'd then instead of going to a CTC - he goes to do a 6 month course for the OGA, then a 2 1/2 year tour with the OGA? Now lets turn the tables and bring the other guy in to our midsts. Would an FBI guy be useful in COIN - you betcha (We've had to create our own wire diagrams on AIF from scratch - what I would not give to have such a resource on the team. Could a USAID guy work at a CTC, deploy on a MEU, work with a transport wing? DOD was pushing hard to break down the barriers and turn us purple - I think we are making significant progress in those areas, but that was brought about in the light of pre-9/11 requirements. Its still valid and still a need, but post 9/11 has brought the same need with OGAs/DoD.

While I'm aware that OGA types sometimes attend the War College, I don't know if they attend something like ILE (maybe I'll find out in Sept 07), and I know they don't attend the CPT's Career Courses. In fact I could not tell you what their professional education system looks like outside of attending a university. What if instead of sending a guy to a CPTs career course or ILE, he went to Georgetown? The reason I bring it up is because its a reource thing - there is only so much time, and while time off for advance degrees is great, there simply is no way everyone can get there given OPTEMPO early enough in their career where it changes their cultural bias (I think its very subtle sometimes, but a natural inclination).

So I guess there are at least two ways to get new DNA into the genetic pool - add to it, or trade it out. Maybe the right answer is a combination of both, mutts are generally more healthy anyway.

Tom, I found that article on the Earlybird. Bay makes a srong point, which leads me to ponder, if we are aware of, what can/will be done? Below is an excerpt form the article which originally appeared in the OCT 27 Edition of the Washington Times, pg 17 by Austin Bay entitled "With Forecasts"

"I know, that's quite a claim, which is why I need to translate the military-speak: Unified Action means coordinating and synchronizing every "tool of power" America has to achieve a political end -- like winning a global war for national survival against terrorists who hijack economically and politically fragile nations and provinces.
People understand the role of soldiers and cops in a war, but in 21st century wars where economic and political development are determinative, an Agriculture Department arborist and a Commerce Department trade consultant can be a powerful contributors to "Unified Action."
Restoring Iraqi agriculture provides an example. Saddam Hussein's economic and political policies damaged agriculture in the land that eight millennia ago spawned the Agricultural Revolution. (Heck of an achievement, huh?) Agriculture, Commerce and several NGOs have expertise and programs that help revive Iraqi farms. Still, problems occur when trying to tailor programs to meet specific local needs -- like, who pays for the program and is ultimately in charge of oversight and coordination.
While serving in Iraq in 2004, I met a young U.S. Army captain who was running a successful small-scale date palm restoration project. What we really need are joint development and security teams, where agricultural and economic specialists work with that captain "in the field" on a sustained, day-to-day basis. We need to decide who is in charge of that team (the captain or the arborist?) and how we fund it.
Our system for "Unified Action" is still largely a Cold War, 20th-century relic designed to prop up governments (so often corrupt and ill-led), instead of helping individuals and neighborhoods become economically self-sustaining and self-securing. Winning war in the Age of the Internet means improving neighborhoods and individual lives. The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and micro-finance whiz Muhammad Yunus understands this.
We are in a long, global war, where economic and political development programs must reinforce security and intelligence operations -- and vice versa.
We've been improvising "joint development and security operations," and we've learned from our improvisation (Mr. Rumsfeld's "we're better than we were").
But it's time to quit improvising. Effective "Unified Action" requires re-engineering 20th-century Beltway bureaucracies -- which means thoughtful, sophisticated cooperation between the executive branch and Congress.
That means getting past the sensational gossip and confronting an essential issue.
Austin Bay is a nationally syndicated columnist."

[Rob Thornton]

Just a follow up, but what about an Officer Training Program aimed at producing foreign service types? They go to a Basic Camp, and an Advance Camp, get a huge scholarship, and pay it back by doing 4 years Active and 4 years IRR in the Foreign Service?

[marct]

Just a follow up, but what about an Officer Training Program aimed at producing foreign service types? They go to a Basic Camp, and an Advance Camp, get a huge scholarship, and pay it back by doing 4 years Active and 4 years IRR in the Foreign Service?

That would certainly make sense - it could also be adapted to almost any skill set and aimed at any organization.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Just a follow up, but what about an Officer Training Program aimed at producing foreign service types? They go to a Basic Camp, and an Advance Camp, get a huge scholarship, and pay it back by doing 4 years Active and 4 years IRR in the Foreign Service?

You could easily tool ROTC this way, since there are already ways it interfaces with what are considered the more professional degrees (legal and medical).

[Tom Odom]

Although I agree that a ROTC approach to the Foreign Service would have benefits, I will say that barring a fundamental shift (akin to California opening new waterfront properties adjacent to Ft Irwin after the rest falls into the sea) in the way the Foreign Service approaches life. It remains in its heart an organization founded on Ivy league elitism and it maintains a caste system that would make sense in old school S Africa or India.

Sec State Rice and the former Sec State GEN Powell have attempted to change this; that the Embassy in Baghdad is a rotating door for short termers tells me they have not succeeded.

We are going through the transformation of Civil Service. A larger goal and one easier to manage due to its lesser size should have been creating a National Security Corps that draws all foreign relations oriented organizations into a central being, like we were supposed to have done with Homeland Security.

best
Tom

[Steve Blair]

What I would like to see ROTC do is shift away from its heavy emphasis on technical majors and move more into a dynamic form of officer entry.

Currently there are SOME language-type programs available for our cadets, either in the form of advanced language training or cultural immersion (basically a semester or two spent overseas). However, there is no direct link between this system and the university's relations with overseas universities (the school I work for has exchange programs with universities in a number of places, including Egypt and Morocco ). What ROTC COULD be used for is to draw in more people with a liberal arts background (anthro and history, to name two examples) and then allow them (in fact encourage them) to take a semester or two overseas (through the university's exchange program). This would give them a leg up in terms of real skills and cultural exposure when they go on active duty. Currently ROTC does not really tolerate time "away from the unit," which prevents us from making the best use of our students and the programs that are available for them.

Models for this do exist to a degree. The Navy, for example, spends a great deal more time and money on their ROTC cadets than the Air Force or the Army. Almost every summer they are in the program, Navy cadets are taking part in some sort of cruise or duty exposure, some of which does take them overseas.

ROTC also has the advantage of being able to bring in students who are older than those allowed into the academies. We really should look at this program as a way to bring more mature, balanced officers into the service and to take full advantage of the study programs offered by the various universities.

[marct]

What I would like to see ROTC do is shift away from its heavy emphasis on technical majors and move more into a dynamic form of officer entry.

....What ROTC COULD be used for is to draw in more people with a liberal arts background (anthro and history, to name two examples) and then allow them (in fact encourage them) to take a semester or two overseas (through the university's exchange program). This would give them a leg up in terms of real skills and cultural exposure when they go on active duty.

That would certainly be a help, Steve. A lot of this goes back to career path rewards, so it would also be useful to consider cross-departmental placements as well. For example, someone who is on an MP/CID career path could be cross-placed into the FBI for a year, or someone who would be commanding a foreign deployable company could be sent to work for State for a year.

Even if it wasn't done after graduation, having a summer internship placing a cadet with different groups could be useful.

ROTC also has the advantage of being able to bring in students who are older than those allowed into the academies. We really should look at this program as a way to bring more mature, balanced officers into the service and to take full advantage of the study programs offered by the various universities.

Sometime in the late '80 or early '90's, McMaster University in Hamilton Ontario totally changed their entrance requirements to their medical school. They were less concerned with "traditional" academic markers and more with individuals perceptions and life experience. They revamped their entire medical program and their application process and ended up with a lot of "intentional healers" - people who really wanted to be doctors and had the ability but, for one reason or another, never made it through the "traditional" selection methods (usually funding). Think of it as an intensive OCS for civilian mustangs (if that isn't a contradiction in terms). The McMaster model may well be worth looking at.

Marc

[Rob Thornton]

Our problem is not limited to questions of potential resources, but extends to the inability to identify requirements for a mission set, and in the greater sense requirements for a long term strategy. In this thread we have identified the critical need for FS types who can partner with the military in the exectuion of a strategy designed to meet the emerging (and recently identified) needs of GWOT. We recognized in the last QDR that this slice of the pie was the most likely, and that it will be with us for the long term.

Resourcing:

We have Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines leaving Active duty for various reasons. The Navy and Air Force have recently partnered with the Army for the Blue to Green program which offers military members a chance to latterally X-fer vs. total seperation (many will seperate howver). We have 20 year mark members retiring for various reasons. We have members who just decided to leave after their inital obligation is expired. These people are potential resources, that could help increase the numbers of FS types.

However, it goes back to incentives (such as waiving some requirements in lieu of other qualities, entry level positions, opportunities unavailable in their military job, etc.), and it requires a plan to market, identify, recruit and train those who would transition. Having spent a few years working in embassies as a Marine prior to going to college and becoming a Soldier, I can identify with what Tom said, however, I have also known some real team players in the FS who really impressed me (so much that I almost went FS as a career). Active recruiting of prior military service members to the FS would equip it with people who had a much more acute perspective about how big policy actions shake out on the ground. It would strengthen their gene pool, and assist with inter-agency cooperation.

Recognition:

However, it still goes back to recognition of the need, and a desire to meet that need in a timely manner. In keeping with the theme of the thread, these new challenges call for us to either innovate within our resources, or adapt existing resources. I hope we (the big we at the "all the institutions of the United States" level are not so rigid that we will try to make the problem fit our desired solutions in order to preserve the status quo vs. doing good problem/mission analysis and making the needed changes to be successful.

[selil]

ROTC also has the advantage of being able to bring in students who are older than those allowed into the academies. We really should look at this program as a way to bring more mature, balanced officers into the service and to take full advantage of the study programs offered by the various universities.

Look at myself as an example. I'm a single enlistment former Marine. I've worked at Cheyenne, Space Command, law enforcement and a variety of other places. I would consider taking a reserve commission if for no other reason than the retirement benefits. As an academic I could use service of that type within my discipline and serve the military in a variety of ways. Further I spend three months each summer sunning myself on a high mountain lake so I'm available a quarter of the year guaranteed.

But, I'm not going to enter the service as an 0-1 lieuey, and I'm never going to command troops (nor should I). Now I teach members of the military and ROTC. There is no mechanism for me to get involved nor would most military branches take a 40+ academic even if I could pass a PFT. So, a background in information assurance, crypto, and analysis will be used 9 months out of the year. But, I get to do a lot of fishing.

[cmetcalf82]

What I would like to see ROTC do is shift away from its heavy emphasis on technical majors and move more into a dynamic form of officer entry.

Currently there are SOME language-type programs available for our cadets, either in the form of advanced language training or cultural immersion (basically a semester or two spent overseas). However, there is no direct link between this system and the university's relations with overseas universities (the school I work for has exchange programs with universities in a number of places, including Egypt and Morocco ). What ROTC COULD be used for is to draw in more people with a liberal arts background (anthro and history, to name two examples) and then allow them (in fact encourage them) to take a semester or two overseas (through the university's exchange program). This would give them a leg up in terms of real skills and cultural exposure when they go on active duty. Currently ROTC does not really tolerate time "away from the unit," which prevents us from making the best use of our students and the programs that are available for them.

Mr. Blair,

I agree that we could utilize ROTC to better prepare future officers. As a product of ROTC I agree that it currently fails to reward future officers who wish to do a year abroad or other forms of immersion study. Without any consideration for cost a way to generate better more rounded officers would be to extend the top 10-20% of ROTC cadets and give them the opportunity for a fifth year of education in return for a longer commitment. They could utilize this fifth year to begin graduate work or allow them to spend a year abroad in some sort of immersion study program. This would expose them to a wider range of experiences and help them better understand the cultural nuisances of living and communicating with other peoples.

[Rob Thornton]

Originally posted by Tom Odom , The need for transformation has in my mind been largely misdirected; it targeted the force, not the bureacracy that wields it and that is where transformation is needed.

Tom, Did you mean in the context of HQs such as JFTs, or Unified Commands, or higher? Is it a matter of the execution of good policy, or is it a lack of defined strategy that makes for an inadequate policy? Is it a failure to understand the need for the required command relationships and structures which would reduce friction?
Rob

[Steve Blair]

Mr. Blair,

I agree that we could utilize ROTC to better prepare future officers. As a product of ROTC I agree that it currently fails to reward future officers who wish to do a year abroad or other forms of immersion study. Without any consideration for cost a way to generate better more rounded officers would be to extend the top 10-20% of ROTC cadets and give them the opportunity for a fifth year of education in return for a longer commitment. They could utilize this fifth year to begin graduate work or allow them to spend a year abroad in some sort of immersion study program. This would expose them to a wider range of experiences and help them better understand the cultural nuisances of living and communicating with other peoples.

Within AFROTC there are five-year majors, although those are currently restricted to technical fields. Their commitment isn't any longer than people in four year programs. Grades do not matter in this case, only the major selected by the cadet. It wouldn't be at all difficult to expand this program, and it doesn't really entail much in the way of additional expense.

Another good way to improve the quality of ROTC would be to increase the number of scholarships available to students who are already in college. AFROTC currently targets high school seniors for the majority of its scholarships, and as a result tends to draw in people who may be more interested in the money than serving. Granted this is anecdotal based on what I've seen at my detachment, but kids coming out of high school often don't really know what they want to major in, and the scholarship program makes them declare a major right out of the gate.

There are already a fair number of rewards (outside scholarships and so on) for the top 10%-20% of cadets. Being able to target majors other than tech for extended ROTC time might be a better way to increase the quality and depth of our ROTC-produced officer corps.

[marct]

Hi Tom,

Although I agree that a ROTC approach to the Foreign Service would have benefits, I will say that barring a fundamental shift (akin to California opening new waterfront properties adjacent to Ft Irwin after the rest falls into the sea) in the way the Foreign Service approaches life. It remains in its heart an organization founded on Ivy league elitism and it maintains a caste system that would make sense in old school S Africa or India.

I have a suspicion that the closest paralel for the current US Foreign Service lies in the Byzantine Empire of the 11th century. The same is probably true of the Canadian civil service as well. Hmmm, maybe that's why Byzantine history isn't really taught in North America...

We are going through the transformation of Civil Service. A larger goal and one easier to manage due to its lesser size should have been creating a National Security Corps that draws all foreign relations oriented organizations into a central being, like we were supposed to have done with Homeland Security.

Maybe I'm being cynical, Tom, but from what I have seen, creating "super-bureaucracies" merely expands bureaucratic empires while reducing the efficiency of individual units operating within them and making them less accountable to the supposed "rulers" of their society (doesn't seem to matter if they are "the People" or an absolute monarch). Consider, by way of an historical example, the ratio of Colonial Office bureacrats in the UK to the population they supposedly "govern" and look at how it has changed since 1850.

I have often thought that it would be a great idea to adapt Roman engineering quality control traditions to bureacratic initiatives...

Marc