The Best Trained, Most Professional Military...Just Lost Two Wars?

[Bob's World]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQUmk...eature=related

'nuff said.

[davidbfpo]

Imagery Bob may be effective, I still think words win and slightly edited:

it is entirely possible that a lot of our current generals stink for whatever reason.. but surely the key reason for our failings in recent military campaigning is that the policy being served is misconceived.

Hat tip to David Betz on KoW, which refers to this topic via a review of Tom Ricks latest book:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/11/oh-history-you-bitch/

[Fuchs]

Ken, you blame a lot of problems on politicians and top brass, or the system.

I'd like to throw some more into the ring; I suppose the U.S. military personnel is poor at learning, adapting and improving.

My strongest supporting evidence is that the vast majority of those I got in contact with are amazingly thin-skinned and react allergic to criticism, direct approaches against inadequate state of affairs and the like.
I have yet to find a professional group that's as defensive.


I cannot imagine heavily armed or other bureaucracy that runs very well without its individuals being able to bear criticism unless it comes from a superior.

[Ken White]

Ken, you blame a lot of problems on politicians and top brass, or the system.

I'd like to throw some more into the ring; I suppose the U.S. military personnel is poor at learning, adapting and improving.

I agree with that -- but is that not a function of the political factors that shape the institution (and they are pervasive...) and select the top brass? Serving individuals bear some responsibility, of course but the "system" shapes all the factors you cite, it selects the Brass based on very political criteria and they shape the system...

The US forces are comprised of individuals who can learn adapt and improve -- or improvise -- as well as any grouping of people anywhere in the world. However, they are constrained by a system, a set of institutions, that deliberately constrain those attributes in a flawed effort to obtain uniformity, consistency and nowadays, to not embarrass anyone. That's a systemic flaw, not a human failing. That "system" is designed by those politicians and that brass.

My strongest supporting evidence is that the vast majority of those I got in contact with are amazingly thin-skinned and react allergic to criticism, direct approaches against inadequate state of affairs and the like. I have yet to find a professional group that's as defensive.

In addition to that defensiveness, there are few professional groups that are as distrustful of subordinates as the US Army. Is it possible both those shortcomings are introduced by the fact that the members of the institution really know that their training and education are not totally adequate? That they know they're not as good as the common wisdom (or lack of it...) states; they're not really as good as they would like to be?

I cannot imagine heavily armed or other bureaucracy that runs very well without its individuals being able to bear criticism unless it comes from a superior.

Heh. They don't take that well, either...

Two points:

Americans are admittedly thin skinned in the non-acceptance of criticism -- it's not just the Armed forces and it's partly a result of a lot of boosterism and rather foolish promotion of self esteem (at a cost to self respect and self confidence). IOW, it's true and it is as much or more a societal thing is it is a military peculiarity. The Military peculiarity added to that -- fighters tend to see everything as a challenge of some sort -- just compounds it.

US military people, like all groups can be defensive and band together if attacked, verbally or otherwise. Also like all groups, while they may reject the slams of outsiders, internally they can be quite self critical and discerning. I've met those in the services that are unthinking boosters and who are hyper defensive. My rough guess is that they're about 20% of all. Another 20% are self critical and truly concerned with getting it right. Then there's the 60% in the middle who tend toward both ends and meet in the center with a cluster of 20% or so that hew to neither side. I suspect that is pretty much the human norm in most organizations or groups.

What all that effectively gives you is a bunch of overly sensitive and combative Americans wherein about a third are blind to the flaws and prone to boosterism, another third who are well aware of shortcomings and work, usually not publicly, to improve things as much as they can within a system that is excessively heirarchial and which is often politically manipulated for non-military purposes. Then there's yet another third that are really just sort of there, they don't do much either way. It's noteworthy that the "system" is a creature of the Politicians and the Brass so they tend to be over-represented in the Booster category, publicly anyway -- hard for the folks in charge to admit they've screwed things up...

Sounds like any other grouping of persons from most anywhere in the world to me -- except many if not most are thin-skinned, defensive Americans.

[Bob's World]

Imagery Bob may be effective, I still think words win and slightly edited:

Hat tip to David Betz on KoW, which refers to this topic via a review of Tom Ricks latest book:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/11/oh-history-you-bitch/

Dave,

Clearly we have policy issues. But this does not let Generals off the hook for matching those polices with equally flawed campaigns.

We all need to own this, because we all worked together to build it.

[BushrangerCZ]

this is why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X6HnOA88vw

[JMA]

We all need to own this, because we all worked together to build it.

OK, so what should the individual consequences be?

Thereafter what and how long would it take to replace with those who built it with those without guilt or blood on their hands?

[Bob's World]

OK, so what should the individual consequences be?

Thereafter what and how long would it take to replace with those who built it with those without guilt or blood on their hands?

I don't think we need to go on a witch hunt to see who to punish.

It's just time to recognize that we don't need to control, directly or indirectly through the Northern Alliance, Afghanistan to prevent it from being an AQ sanctuary. To recognize that the Northern Alliance has absolutely no interest or desire to be the government we want them to be. To recognize that we are better off simply packing up and going home than we are executing any kind of phased out exit plan.

[JMA]

I don't think we need to go on a witch hunt to see who to punish.

As an onlooker I have been able to observe part of the problem being that incompetents don't get fired they get reassigned.

The least that should be accepted is that those who were in the system at the time, all of them, acknowledge what went wrong and how it went wrong - all the while showing some contrition.

[Fuchs]

As an onlooker I have been able to observe part of the problem being that incompetents don't get fired they get reassigned.

The least that should be accepted is that those who were in the system at the time, all of them, acknowledge what went wrong and how it went wrong - all the while showing some contrition.

A system knows no incompetents, but people officially judged to be incompetent. That may be correct or not - it's why a second chance (with care) makes sense.

Ricks revived the old tale of how Marshall fired 500 flag officers in WW2 (which was known to many, but it needed a book promo tour to push it into a larger discussion). This well-respected approach allowed for second chances as well - and many of those who were relieved did well at a later time, when they were ready for the new command.


The only ones which need to be fired immediately are really dangerous people (those who disrespect democracy, laws or the lives of subordinates a lot), people who are too old for a second chance and those who are incompetent in a indisputable way.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob

I don't think we need to go on a witch hunt to see who to punish.

I hope it never evolves into this, war and conflict are inherently messy and mistakes will be constantly be made. In theory those who make mistakes become wiser for it, which is why senior officers and senior NCOs should have accumulated a lot of wisdom over the years (because they have 20 plus years of mistakes under their belt they learned from).

We'll never become a learning organization if we in fact become a zero defect military. For those that are entrenched in a particular way of thought and can't learn they should be removed (politely), but there is no need for a witch hunt. Witch hunts should only apply when an officer wittingly participates in something like facilitating a faulty contract because it benefits him personally, not because of tactical errors (unless they are gross mistakes that most people in the same circumstance wouldn't have made).

[carl]

To recognize that we are better off simply packing up and going home than we are executing any kind of phased out exit plan.

Should we continue to pay for the fuel and ammunition for the ANSF after we leave? And should we make special provisions to take along the many thousands who have worked for and with us, and their families, when we go?

[Bob's World]

Carl,

We were manipulated (willingly) by the Northern Alliance. We did not trick them into supporting us, rather it was quite the opposite. Most are now mulit-millionaires and already have their exit strategies well funded and well planned out. I shed no tears for them.

Those in the villages, those who embraced the Villlage Stability program, for example, that is another matter. There will be no offers of sanctuary for these people I am sure, and they have no millions to show for their buying into what we were selling. These are the ones who are most vulnerable to what will happen as the US and GIRoA both light out for other places.

As we prioritize our loyalties, I think we might want to think about our own troops, their families, and the people of the US. I think this has gone on long enough.