Statement from StratFor regarding state of the Army

[120mm]

I would say that there is a considerable amount of bureacratic resistence to change and incompetence within the Army that could LOOK like a revolt to a critical, yet uneducated eye.

The current reports on Mid-Level Officer shortage combined with a "cracking down" and a much more difficult to attain Height and Weight standard for the age groups which "happen" to coincide with Mid-Level Officers with a mandatory six-month separation for non-compliance, sure LOOKS like someone trying to sabotage the war effort to me.

Just one example, but I could find many more if I looked hard.

(I say bitterly, as I once was GTG by the tape standard but am now "out of tolerance". Maxing the 2 mile run, 44 resting heart rate and 116 over 56 BP doesn't appear to be good enough by the new standards.)

[selil]

(I say bitterly, as I once was GTG by the tape standard but am now "out of tolerance". Maxing the 2 mile run, 44 resting heart rate and 116 over 56 BP doesn't appear to be good enough by the new standards.)

A gunny told me the only physical fitness he cared about was demonstrated fitness. If you had a slobby belly (but could pass the PFT at the top of the range) you might not be on a Marine Corps recruiting poster, but you weren't going to be the first to die of starvation either.

He told me that while smoking a cigar on a PFT run.

After Persian Gulf War 1 wasn't the Air Force whacked on by the GAO/Congress for being very top heavy in officer cadre but not mission capable? I seem to remember a lot of "all chiefs no indians" stories at that time in the press.

[Van]

I would say that there is a considerable amount of bureacratic resistence to change and incompetence within the Army that could LOOK like a revolt to a critical, yet uneducated eye.

Just thinking out loud, but could some media talking head misquoted/misunderstood a straight-shooting and loyal soldier talking about the "bureacratic resistence to change"?

Every time I hear or talk to a Beltway type, I get more and more concerned about the disconnect between the top and where the metal meets the road myself. I could see some of my comments being quoted out of context to support this sort of allegation.

[marct]

Hi Van,

Just thinking out loud, but could some media talking head misquoted/misunderstood a straight-shooting and loyal soldier talking about the "bureacratic resistence to change"?

Every time I hear or talk to a Beltway type, I get more and more concerned about the disconnect between the top and where the metal meets the road myself. I could see some of my comments being quoted out of context to support this sort of allegation.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. After al, one definition of "revolt" is not doing what you are told to do, even if that is blatantly impossible . Personally, I would be a touch more cynical and ask who StratFor's clients are. After all, quoth he with a jaundiced air, how many politicians (or bureaucrats) will buy "analyses" that disagree with their theological convictions?

Marc

[selil]

After all, quoth he with a jaundiced air, how many politicians (or bureaucrats) will buy "analyses" that disagree with their theological convictions?

OOH PICK ME!! <hand waving in the air>

The answer to the question is NONE, unless the focus group disagrees.

[Old Eagle]

Selil, you have hit upon a major difference between those in the gov't bureaucracy and those in business. When businessfolk hold on to the party line too long, they risk failure which means loss of profit, etc. In the government, we don't have the same negative incentives. Good business guys try to stay ahead of the changing environment to ensure continued profitability.

[Steve Blair]

Selil, you have hit upon a major difference between those in the gov't bureaucracy and those in business. When businessfolk hold on to the party line too long, they risk failure which means loss of profit, etc. In the government, we don't have the same negative incentives. Good business guys try to stay ahead of the changing environment to ensure continued profitability.

Naw...business just waits for the next reorg, backdates their stock options, and then heads for the door while the next guy comes in and tries to figure out how to clean up the mess....

[wm]

Selil, you have hit upon a major difference between those in the gov't bureaucracy and those in business. When businessfolk hold on to the party line too long, they risk failure which means loss of profit, etc. In the government, we don't have the same negative incentives. Good business guys try to stay ahead of the changing environment to ensure continued profitability.

He reponded , slightly tongue-in-cheek:
"About the only party line that business folk hold on to is doing whatever it is that will maintain shareholder confidence. 'Good' business CEOs try to ensure they do nothing that will devalue their stock until they can sell them off. They merely milk cash cows rather than try to find ways to improve their yield of 'dairy' products.

"Ask the leadership at such business successes as Digital, Wang, and the last round of leadership at Dell and HP about what made their companies so successful. Do I dare mention wonderfully successful companies as Enron, US Airways, Delta, Northwest, and United?"

[JHR]

And the bigger a business gets, the more acts like the government previously describe.

JHR

[chiller1064]

I found that whole "Army is in revolt" a little hard to believe when I read it- but thought I'd toss it out for discussion. I believe substituting "frustration" for "revolt" would be better.

From my understanding, there is some friction within the Army when it comes to getting new gear and the overall frustration with the mission when it appears like no one in the upper levels of political and military leadership has a clue on how to fight and win this war.

I was listening to Duncan Hunter on Bill Bennett's radio show regarding Hunter's son, who is a Lt. with the Marines. He voiced similar frustrations and concerns.