Initial Officer Selection

[ganulv]

I was looking at Europe in regard to Portugal.
The nearest it came to real troubles post-Napoleon was when the Allies wanted the Azores as base for the 2nd Battle of the Atlantic.
In case of Portugal, a minimum amount of deterrence (merely enough military to be acknowledged as a sovereign nation) did work.

I think a lot of the disagreement over the last couple of days on this thread might boil down to the fact that your framework assumes that a military’s job is defense of borders against incursion by neighboring national forces (correct me if I am wrong). This is just not and probably never will be the whole of the job description of the U.S. Military. Since WW2 ended it has been a purveyor of American hegemony (not saying that American hegemony is good or bad, just that that role seems uncontestable to me) and it plays a role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.* I personally think the military should never be conceived of as the main institution for CT as in prevention—civilian intelligence agencies and the Coast Guard are the institutions I think of as the foilers of terrorist plots, and I for one do believe we should take seriously the notion that the State Department can play an important role in ameliorating conditions that foster terrorism (but do fully acknowledge that such an assertion is open to plenty of critiques)—but I don’t see why the U.S. would ever want to remove its military’s role in responding to acts of terrorism.

*I try to use a term other than ‘terrorism’ whenever possible for a variety of reasons, but here I mean it as shorthand for “non-state actor perpetrated paramilitary violence.” Or something like that…

[JMA]

I think a lot of the disagreement over the last couple of days on this thread might boil down to …

Well the introduction of the political factors has little to do with the topic of the thread.

One understands that Germany had a bad (understatement) experience and that shows up in the thinking introduced into this thread by Fuchs. I am not sure how prevalent this line of thinking is in Germany and how it may influence the selection and training of officers.

As opposed to the US and the UK there is probably no requirement for the German military to be ready for a war right now and thus there is most likely a lack of urgency in the military and (back to the thread) no requirement to select for an officer (and NCO) corps which is not only trained for but also psychologically ready for a war.

A person who sits in a base in Afghanistan in a passive, mainly static role is not a soldier but more a kind of militia. I can understand that given Germany's recent history they have probably selected out those who have aggressive soldier tendencies and retained and promoted passive individuals who will not upset the national psyche by producing a military which will bring back memories of the past. This is understandable.

It would be worthy of a separate study to see how the German military has been contained and restrained over the years to the point where perhaps they merely just go through the motions (of being a military) and effectively pack no punch. Quite sad but again, understandable.

[Fuchs]

No, the lack of balls is a political issue. It's not really an officer corps issue. The politicians moved some game chips to AFG, they are not really at war. Why should our soldiers risk much? There's nothing to be gained.


The intensity of the experience has rather led to the acknowledgement that you better avoid wars. Seeing how your "allies" planned to nuke our country (your part and the other part of it) in many major exercises was certainly influential, too. At one point in the 80's the German representatives did quit a NATO exercise and our soldiers did afaik quit it, too. The Americans were playing genocide against Germany in that NATO exercise.


Overall, there's little if anything to net gain in war, but much to lose.
To rest planning and concepts on recurring war means thus to plan for recurring catastrophic failure of your national security policy and that's strictly unacceptable.

If there's anything specific German in this, it's that we don't do small wars as much as great ones. With us, it's usually the big deal. We fought the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War, the army-annihilating wars of the Napoleonic Age, the army-annihilating wars of German unification wars and both world wars. During WW3 we would have become the 137k sq mile Chernobyl.
We don't pay attention to the marginal profits to be had from warfare such as oil contracts or junior officer experiences. War means to use mass destruction - even without so-called WMDs.
Being on the "winning" side doesn't improve it - we know both sides, and neither is a good idea.


Don't fight a war if it's not the least terrible alternative. Period.

To repeatedly manoeuvre your country into a position where organised mass killing and mass destruction is the least terrible alternative means that your manoeuvring would be terrible. In fact, doing so once already disqualifies the whole political establishment of the country.

[Stan]

Deterrence works also if a potential aggressor estimates that he will succeed to disarm and occupy the country, but concludes that it's not worth it because it would be too costly.

While I got your point the first time around, it seems the Russians don't always see things the way we want to rationalize

Well the introduction of the political factors has little to do with the topic of the thread.

I'd have to disagree with that having served in embassies in Africa and Europe and observed just who ends up at a working post and who ends up in say Frankfurt or Paris. Never used to have much to do with an officer's background nor education, but as of late the Ambassador can pick and choose not only his State staff, but deny potential "do gooders" which would infect his country team (disagree with the Amb's logic and lack of background at post).

It would be worthy of a separate study to see how the German military has been contained and restrained over the years to the point where perhaps they merely just go through the motions (of being a military) and effectively pack no punch. Quite sad but again, understandable.

According to our folks the German officers and NCOs are sick of their passive roles in Afghanistan. Their officer training rivals any of the West but yet are not employed to use it. The German police certainly are not restricted to daylight ops and ask first before you shoot only when accompanied by an American medivac helo. Going through Rein Main filled with H&Ks is impressive !

[JMA]

I'd have to disagree with that having served in embassies in Africa and Europe and observed just who ends up at a working post and who ends up in say Frankfurt or Paris. Never used to have much to do with an officer's background nor education, but as of late the Ambassador can pick and choose not only his State staff, but deny potential "do gooders" which would infect his country team (disagree with the Amb's logic and lack of background at post).

You are correct in the context of your service but perhaps not in the context of Initial Officer Selection. I would dearly like to know what qualifications these Ambassadors have and on what basis they are appointed. Would love to hear more about the intrigue and doings and screwings in these Embassies

According to our folks the German officers and NCOs are sick of their passive roles in Afghanistan. Their officer training rivals any of the West but yet are not employed to use it. The German police certainly are not restricted to daylight ops and ask first before you shoot only when accompanied by an American medivac helo. Going through Rein Main filled with H&Ks is impressive !

They want to be careful. If they show interest in or enthusiasm for any form of 'closing with and killing the enemy' their careers may well come to a grinding halt.

Wasn't there a quote attributed to David Hackworth (or maybe Charlie Beckwith) about (how mad the US system had become) where an officer had been marked down for being too enthusiastic?

Edit: It was Hackworth and he quoted a report : “Lieutenant Col. Gibson has strong emotional feelings and frequently expressed his opinion that a soldier’s duty is to fight. This attitude limits his value to the service, his desire for self improvement, and adversely affects his subordinates.”

[Stan]

I would dearly like to know what qualifications these Ambassadors have and on what basis they are appointed.

PM sent

Be careful what you wish for !

[JMA]

PM sent

Be careful what you wish for !

Now tell Fuchs its clowns like these who help start the wars soldiers die in.

[JMA]

No, the lack of balls is a political issue. It's not really an officer corps issue. The politicians moved some game chips to AFG, they are not really at war. Why should our soldiers risk much? There's nothing to be gained.

Nobody can be sure whether the soldiers are using the political smokescreen to excuse their lack of determination in prosecuting the war in their little area of Afghanistan.

It is a low intensity war. The practical and combat experience to be gained would come cheap at the price for the German military... after all when last were German soldiers exposed to combat to any significant degree?

The intensity of the experience has rather led to the acknowledgement that you better avoid wars. Seeing how your "allies" planned to nuke our country (your part and the other part of it) in many major exercises was certainly influential, too. At one point in the 80's the German representatives did quit a NATO exercise and our soldiers did afaik quit it, too. The Americans were playing genocide against Germany in that NATO exercise.

Yes I understand the history is bad and had FDR and Truman had a better grasp of what lay ahead with the Soviets (as Churchill for example did) there would have been no Cold War, no NATO and no threat of the nuclear destruction of geographical Germany. That is history.

Overall, there's little if anything to net gain in war, but much to lose.
To rest planning and concepts on recurring war means thus to plan for recurring catastrophic failure of your national security policy and that's strictly unacceptable.

Let me answer that with a few quotes:

The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars. ~William Westmoreland

and

Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war. ~Otto Von Bismark

If there's anything specific German in this, it's that we don't do small wars as much as great ones. With us, it's usually the big deal. We fought the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War, the army-annihilating wars of the Napoleonic Age, the army-annihilating wars of German unification wars and both world wars. During WW3 we would have become the 137k sq mile Chernobyl.
We don't pay attention to the marginal profits to be had from warfare such as oil contracts or junior officer experiences. War means to use mass destruction - even without so-called WMDs.
Being on the "winning" side doesn't improve it - we know both sides, and neither is a good idea.

Yes... but how does this impact upon Initial Officer Selection?

Don't fight a war if it's not the least terrible alternative. Period.

Yes I agree, as I believe do most soldiers who have been involved in a war. Now the question is how do you sell that to the politicians.

To repeatedly manoeuvre your country into a position where organised mass killing and mass destruction is the least terrible alternative means that your manoeuvring would be terrible. In fact, doing so once already disqualifies the whole political establishment of the country.

My point on this remains that the military must be prepared and ready to pick up the pieces when the politicians screw up. Of course if you have no effective military there will be no toys for the politicians to play with... not much of a deterrent though. Maybe thats the current German thinking?

[Fuchs]

Yes... but how does this impact upon Initial Officer Selection?

Select 'em for the "right" kind of war: Great Wars of necessity.


Part of great wars is the annihilation of entire battalions, if not divisions and armies. Crisis becomes the litmus test.
The ability of a young man to withstand crisis (extreme psychological pressure) can be tested and later improved (by getting him accustomed and more physically fit).

Send him in full firefighter equipment through a firefighter training house with lots of smoke and flames, a screaming and pushing Oberfeldwebel behind him if you like.
Visit him after work or school, put him through hours of stress and simulate a car accident if you like.

[JMA]

Select 'em for the "right" kind of war: Great Wars of necessity.

Not going to happen. 39-45 (followed by Korea) did if for Europe and the yanks. The yanks took Europe through an impressive production run of planes/tanks/ships/war materials and soldiers. Think they can out-do China in this?

No the yanks will 'negotiate'. Hand Alaska back to the Russians and make a peace offering of Hawaii to China. There will be no great war.

Part of great wars is the annihilation of entire battalions, if not divisions and armies. Crisis becomes the litmus test.

Then what is the point of training if such losses are inevitable? Just push the cannon fodder forward... followed by the burial parties.

The ability of a young man to withstand crisis (extreme psychological pressure) can be tested and later improved (by getting him accustomed and more physically fit).

I merely suggest that a test of this should happen before he is selected for officer training with more of the same during the course. Don't wait until he is commissioned before you realise he can't take it.

Send him in full firefighter equipment through a firefighter training house with lots of smoke and flames, a screaming and pushing Oberfeldwebel behind him if you like.
Visit him after work or school, put him through hours of stress and simulate a car accident if you like.

Yes good stuff... and while you have Afghanistan on the boil send him in there to give a taste of the real thing, yes?

[JMA]

The Transformation of Selection Procedures - Hugh Murray outlines the development of the Brit Army Officer Selection Board (AOSB) as we have come to know it.

A must read for those interested in this subject.