"Standards of Excellence"

[bumperplate]

I decided the Army should never again press/starch uniforms when, one day, I went to the motorpool and found myself reluctant to get under vehicles or take a knee to inspect them, do pmcs etc - all out of concern for damaging the long hard work I'd done to make myself look sharp. The alternative was to change uniforms when going to the motorpool. Even putting coveralls over top wasn't going to stop wrinkles, creases, etc.

Anyway, it was at that point I decided that starch, pressing, and any form of looking pretty was now a nogo in my book.

I do agree there is some pride to be had in feeling sharp. However, it's never as strong as the feeling as when your unit completes a very difficult training event, or performs well in combat, etc.

Also, to be honest, I've felt more pride in being an arms room officer for instance, and seeing my SPC armorer and I produce a flawless SOP, or go through an inspection with excellent results - not because it then briefed well, but because I knew damn well that he and I both knew what we were doing and that I could trust with him any and everything related to that arms room. Did more for cohesion, esprit de corps, and so forth than any bull#### unit run could have done. Bonding and pride comes from working together to accomplish meaningful things. That stuff is durable. A unit run makes you feel good until you hit the door at the DFAC, and then it's over.

What we have these days is a bunch of commanders that go from one fleeting moment of 'feeling sharp' to another, one PowerPoint masterpiece to another. And they never actually go out there and just accomplish a mission, build a team, lead Soldiers, or anything else that has true, durable meaning.

[Pete]

What we have these days is a bunch of commanders that go from one fleeting moment of 'feeling sharp' to another, one PowerPoint masterpiece to another. And they never actually go out there and just accomplish a mission, build a team, lead Soldiers, or anything else that has true, durable meaning.

There is a danger in deciding the U.S. Army is made up of no-nonsense combat arms guys on one hand who get the job done and self-serving careerist politicians and weenies with their PowerPoint briefings on the other. The U.S. Army and real life is more nuanced than that. I've met both types of guys, but a lot of people are somewhere in between those two poles.

[bumperplate]

You are right, and probably, if it was assessable quantitatively, we'd see that the number of careerists is about the same as the no-nonsense types. Unfortunately, the careerists have more wide ranging effects as compared to the no-nonsense types. I believe that is why the venom spit at the careerists is so extreme - so many people are affected.

A no-nonsense guy is pretty much looked at as doing his job, which leads to a lack of an appreciation for what they do. The careerists is seen and despised by many and our negativity bias keeps us fixated on their effects. Perhaps, therein lies the cure for this: just ignore the careerists and make more of an effort to acknowledge the true leaders within the ranks. The trick will be getting the "institution" to follow suit.

[120mm]

You are right, and probably, if it was assessable quantitatively, we'd see that the number of careerists is about the same as the no-nonsense types. Unfortunately, the careerists have more wide ranging effects as compared to the no-nonsense types. I believe that is why the venom spit at the careerists is so extreme - so many people are affected.

A no-nonsense guy is pretty much looked at as doing his job, which leads to a lack of an appreciation for what they do. The careerists is seen and despised by many and our negativity bias keeps us fixated on their effects. Perhaps, therein lies the cure for this: just ignore the careerists and make more of an effort to acknowledge the true leaders within the ranks. The trick will be getting the "institution" to follow suit.

There is an additional complication:

A significant number of the "no-nonsense" guys are actually idiots who do not understand that being a senior officer is a nuanced, political job. They are noted by being tall or extremely short and engaging in shouting loudly until they get their way. And "their way" is usually a pretty crappy way of doing things. And they usually get away with their failures by shouting loudly and denigrating others as "pogues" and "fobbits".

I am currently infested with a couple of O-6s who fit this bill. And are actually more harmful than the so-called "careerists".

BTW, anyone who hits O-6 or E-8 is automatically a "careerist". There are no innocents here, and to pretend otherwise is either naive or deceptive.

[bumperplate]

There is an additional complication:

A significant number of the "no-nonsense" guys are actually idiots who do not understand that being a senior officer is a nuanced, political job. They are noted by being tall or extremely short and engaging in shouting loudly until they get their way. And "their way" is usually a pretty crappy way of doing things. And they usually get away with their failures by shouting loudly and denigrating others as "pogues" and "fobbits".

I am currently infested with a couple of O-6s who fit this bill. And are actually more harmful than the so-called "careerists".

BTW, anyone who hits O-6 or E-8 is automatically a "careerist". There are no innocents here, and to pretend otherwise is either naive or deceptive.

You bring up an excellent point. Anyone that's spent five or more years in the military can see that there are nuances to senior officer ranks. I don't think any of us would deny that or state that the ability to operate in such an arena should be discounted. I think the problem is that around E8 and around O5, there seems to be a line drawn, whereby only those with the ability to function in that nuanced world are looked at as having promotion potential. That really draws down the pool of "applicants" to step into BCT and higher positions - at least, that's how I view it.

The problem is the following: there's no need for anyone E8 and below or MG and below to really live in such a nuanced world. They need to still be getting their boots dirty on a regular basis. Let the LTG and above take those regular flights to DC and elsewhere, and let them be the bridge between the "no-nonsense" guys and the "nuanced" guys. But, those GOs like their staffs, and they like them to be populated by like-minded individuals, hence the need to be nuanced and worldly come into sharper focus, further down the chain.

If we devote less of the chain to that nuanced and political environment, we'll assuredly see less of that influence down below, where we don't need it.

As others have pointed out, the up-or-out system is one of the root causes for this. It keeps us focused on the next promotion and the next job and the next OER. It takes away a lot of focus from the present, and from truly achieving any degree of excellence in our training or performing.

[Pete]

The problem is the following: there's no need for anyone E8 and below or MG and below to really live in such a nuanced world. They need to still be getting their boots dirty on a regular basis. Let the LTG and above take those regular flights to DC and elsewhere, and let them be the bridge between the "no-nonsense" guys and the "nuanced" guys.

For officers O-5 and above there are only so many command and operations billets. For better or for worse it's the "nuanced' guys who will get them. It's a numbers game in which there are less spaces the further you rise to the top.

I think part of the reason so many guys and girls are employed in BS paper-shuffling jobs in TDA non-combat organizations -- those who were not command-selected -- is to find a way to keep a reserve of personnel on the payroll in case the Cold War or our current difficulties escalate into a real hot war. That way we have people to run a newly expanded Army should the need arise. In the mean time they can give PowerPoint presentations to each other and aspiring five-percent majors can have full-time jobs being PowerPoint typo-checkers.

Cynical though that may sound, the ability of our TDA and HQ Army to empire-build and fight funding battles with other organizations should not be underestimated.

[bumperplate]

Good points from Pete. While I agree, I think that on the whole, such a system does more to damage our military than assist. Bottom line in my opinion is that any such escalation in a conflict, as you allude to, will be met by capable people stepping up. If it happens to be a SFC stepping into a 1SG position, or a MAJ climbing into a LTC position, then so be it. That's what battlefield promotions assist us with. I think it makes more sense to bring in more people to fill the bottom than to keep more than we need at the top and live with the day-to-day damage it does.

Just my $0.02.