Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

[Ski]

Couple of things

I haven't been to ILE/CGSC yet, but am probably going within the next 12-18 months. I've heard it's similar to CAS3, where you have officers who care and get the most out of the course and then you have those who are just looking for 10 months of school and a sheepskin. I'm planning on going to get the strategist identifier and a second master's - I'll be halfway through my first by August 07.

What I'd really like to do is go to SAMS, as I have three friends who have gone and said it's night and day compared to ILE in terms of intellectual interest. I figure I have a fighter's chance of meeting the requirements...

As far as the military culture changing, well, I sincerely hope it does. It will take wide ranging reform for it to occur, and if Yingling's article is the tipping point, that will be significant. But I just have that sneaking feeling that the points made by him will fall by the wayside like Don Vandergriff's books on the culture of the Army. I guess we just have to wait and see.

[Culpeper]

Hello--I'm new to this site, but my name's Fernando and I'm an active duty Special Forces officer attending grad school at Harvard. Some quick comments I'd written earlier:

I think the Paul Yingling is dead on. But what makes his article so interesting is not necessarily its content–though insightful and accurate, the criticism is not new. Many others have written similar accounts in newspaper articles or books such as “Fiasco” and “Cobra II.” What is so striking about the article is that it was written by a successful active duty officer and then published in a military journal. If Yingling isn’t immediately fired or blacklisted, this will mark a clear change in the military’s internal climate. Public sentiment may be so negative over Iraq that military officers can dare to say “the emperor has no clothes” and still keep their jobs. If this is the case, expect the floodgates to open soon–dozens of similar articles by military officers will follow. The change will be both postive and negative: Positive because the American public will have greater insight into the real dynamics of the war as seen by those fighting it. Negative because the insight will be bleak and feed the frenzied call for immediate withdrawal.

Regardless of the potential outcomes, we should all be watching the career of Paul Yingling very closely. The stakes are much higher than we can imagine.

For more, check out our new national security blog at www.roguelystated.com

That is beyond ridiculous. You're talking about a man's career as if it is some sort of experiment to allow officers the right of insubordination based on an outcome that won't end up in your file. Why wait to see what happens to Paul? If you got a set than get on the fence next to him right now. It's nice seeing young officers, such as yourself, patting Mr. Yingling on the back but staying far enough away to avoid having to feed him any belts. Sure, let's give a blank check to our young "officers". These same young officers that wouldn't put up with half this nonsense from their own enlisted men. You may need a Come to Jesus meeting with your nearest experienced Master or Gunnery Sergeant.

Some quick comments I'd written earlier...

Earlier? That is from your first post on the message board. The one I'm responding to.

[Mark O'Neill]

That is beyond ridiculous. You're talking about a man's career as if it is some sort of experiment to allow officers the right of insubordination based on an outcome that won't end up in your file. Why wait to see what happens to Paul? If you got a set than get on the fence next to him right now. It's nice seeing young officers, such as yourself, patting Mr. Yingling on the back but staying far enough away to avoid having to feed him any belts. Sure, let's give a blank check to our young "officers". These same young officers that wouldn't put up with half this nonsense from their own enlisted men. You may need a Come to Jesus meeting with your nearest experienced Master or Gunnery Sergeant.



Earlier? That is from your first post on the message board. The one I'm responding to.

Good Call.

[Shek]

That is beyond ridiculous. You're talking about a man's career as if it is some sort of experiment to allow officers the right of insubordination based on an outcome that won't end up in your file. Why wait to see what happens to Paul? If you got a set than get on the fence next to him right now. It's nice seeing young officers, such as yourself, patting Mr. Yingling on the back but staying far enough away to avoid having to feed him any belts. Sure, let's give a blank check to our young "officers". These same young officers that wouldn't put up with half this nonsense from their own enlisted men. You may need a Come to Jesus meeting with your nearest experienced Master or Gunnery Sergeant.

This was a professionally sanctioned format to air questions about the profession (because of the professional format and approval process for publishing, I would argue that it cannot be insubordinate by definition). Since you keep wanting to use it as a strawman analogy implicating the young officers that support LTC Yingling's article, let's examine what the true analogy really is.

As I look at it, some professionally sanctioned ways in which enlisted soldiers can air their frustrations/constructive criticism about their command include: sensing sessions, open door policy, command climate surveys, and IG complaints. The previous methods are all formal methods, and better commanders/staff officers will find opportunities to talk with soldiers and NCOs to get the same type of feedback in an informal manner. While I cannot speak for others on this board, I would find it hard to believe that those who are open to LTC Yingling's professionally published article would then turn around and deny their soldiers the ability to provide their thoughts and feedback through the above professionally sanctioned forums.

Now, I agree that I wouldn't tolerate insubordination, such as refusing to execute legal orders, using inappropiate forums to air criticism that hadn't been brought to the chain of command first so that they could have handled the situation, or just plain complaining and/or malingering that is destructive rather than constructive to the unit. None of this applies to LTC Yingling's piece, as it was published in a professional forum designed to foster and stimulate discussion about the profession.

Lastly, I would offer up that I know of a similar piece to LTC Yingling's that was submitted a year ago to Military Review that was not accepted for publishing. So, from my corner of the world, LTC Yingling is not the sole voice willing to sally forth with constructive criticism in the open.

[selil]

Earlier? That is from your first post on the message board. The one I'm responding to.

Culpeper,

What you are seeing here on SWC is Fernando posting his complete personal blog entry in his SWC post. He basically cut and pasted it.

[sullygoarmy]

Couple of things

I haven't been to ILE/CGSC yet, but am probably going within the next 12-18 months. I've heard it's similar to CAS3, where you have officers who care and get the most out of the course and then you have those who are just looking for 10 months of school and a sheepskin. I'm planning on going to get the strategist identifier and a second master's - I'll be halfway through my first by August 07.

What I'd really like to do is go to SAMS, as I have three friends who have gone and said it's night and day compared to ILE in terms of intellectual interest. I figure I have a fighter's chance of meeting the requirements...

As far as the military culture changing, well, I sincerely hope it does. It will take wide ranging reform for it to occur, and if Yingling's article is the tipping point, that will be significant. But I just have that sneaking feeling that the points made by him will fall by the wayside like Don Vandergriff's books on the culture of the Army. I guess we just have to wait and see.

Ski,
Shoot me a PM or e-mail. I did the 6Z track...it was great! I start SAMS at the end of June plus I'm doing the SAMS-driven KSU Master's degree in Security Studies. I finished my first master back in 02.

Sully

[Culpeper]

This was a professionally sanctioned format to air questions about the profession (because of the professional format and approval process for publishing, I would argue that it cannot be insubordinate by definition). Since you keep wanting to use it as a strawman analogy implicating the young officers that support LTC Yingling's article, let's examine what the true analogy really is.

As I look at it, some professionally sanctioned ways in which enlisted soldiers can air their frustrations/constructive criticism about their command include: sensing sessions, open door policy, command climate surveys, and IG complaints. The previous methods are all formal methods, and better commanders/staff officers will find opportunities to talk with soldiers and NCOs to get the same type of feedback in an informal manner. While I cannot speak for others on this board, I would find it hard to believe that those who are open to LTC Yingling's professionally published article would then turn around and deny their soldiers the ability to provide their thoughts and feedback through the above professionally sanctioned forums.

Now, I agree that I wouldn't tolerate insubordination, such as refusing to execute legal orders, using inappropiate forums to air criticism that hadn't been brought to the chain of command first so that they could have handled the situation, or just plain complaining and/or malingering that is destructive rather than constructive to the unit. None of this applies to LTC Yingling's piece, as it was published in a professional forum designed to foster and stimulate discussion about the profession.

Lastly, I would offer up that I know of a similar piece to LTC Yingling's that was submitted a year ago to Military Review that was not accepted for publishing. So, from my corner of the world, LTC Yingling is not the sole voice willing to sally forth with constructive criticism in the open.

Oh, I agree with you completely. But what I saw in Fernando's post was nothing less than inciting young officers to rebel once Yingling's "outcome" has been settled in a certain way. I have seen a lot of praise for Mr. Yingling but rarely anything posted along with it to clarify his actual goal. I'm getting or comprehending young officers basically getting excited over what amounts to a title of a forum thread and nothing more. I don't see anything professional with those types of responses. Using the insubordination bug-a-boo is probably over the hill on my part but it is a fine line. Otherwise, why would certain young officers being willing to wait on the fate of Mr. Yingling before they too wish to follow him. It's utterly ridiculous and does nothing to help the cause Paul Yingling is promoting.

[Shek]

Oh, I agree with you completely. But what I saw in Fernando's post was nothing less than inciting young officers to rebel once Yingling's "outcome" has been settled in a certain way. I have seen a lot of praise for Mr. Yingling but rarely anything posted along with it to clarify his actual goal. I'm getting or comprehending young officers basically getting excited over what amounts to a title of a forum thread and nothing more. I don't see anything professional with those types of responses. Using the insubordination bug-a-boo is probably over the hill on my part but it is a fine line. Otherwise, why would certain young officers being willing to wait on the fate of Mr. Yingling before they too wish to follow him. It's utterly ridiculous and does nothing to help the cause Paul Yingling is promoting.

Sorry, I had completely missed the thrust of your post. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Culpeper]

Shek

Not a problem. We all want to see the same goal achieved. I think it is blessing that this forum doesn't suffer from groupthink. Somebody is doing something right.

[MASON]

LTC Yinglings article seems to be at its core an honest question about how the DOD grows leaders. I think many of the posts have focused far to much on career effect of bringing up the question. If we are all wondering about what his future is then I think we are missing the point and sadly missing a great strength in our foundation as a country and its military.

The Oath

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United states against all enemies foreign and domestic."

This is not an oath to a king or a queen nor is it an oath to an office or any person who temporarily holds office or appointment. This is not an oath to an association or a tribe or a nationality. The Constitution has primacy over persons and the offices defined in it.

Captain Randal G. Bowfish, USN penned and excellent article for USNI Proceedings. I cannnot link to it since it is not on line via Proceedings home page or by google but for those interested the title is "Between Scylla and Charibdis: Discussion and Dissent in the Navy " May 2004 vol 130/5/1215

[marct]

Hi Mason,

LTC Yinglings article seems to be at its core an honest question about how the DOD grows leaders. I think many of the posts have focused far to much on career effect of bringing up the question.

I think you are right about focusing too much on the effects on his career . I would, however, disagree with you on the key question - at least as I read it. I would certainly be interested in hearing his thoughts on it too.

If we are all wondering about what his future is then I think we are missing the point and sadly missing a great strength in our foundation as a country and its military.

The Oath

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United states against all enemies foreign and domestic."

This is not an oath to a king or a queen nor is it an oath to an office or any person who temporarily holds office or appointment. This is not an oath to an association or a tribe or a nationality. The Constitution has primacy over persons and the offices defined in it.

I think that this is the key point behind his article, rather than DoD growing its own leaders. As I read it, I took his article as questioning the constitutional basis of the current political "reality" regarding the roles of he executive, congress and military leadership. I believe that he was thinking along the lines of what "should" be operational reality vs. what is operational reality.

As a not so side note, I would point out that the oath to the Constitution is, actually, very similar to the Oath to the Crown in the British (and Canadian) tradition. We swear an oath to the Crown "in the person of" rather than to the "person as". As such, should it be necessary, we can, and have, eliminated individuals (consider, by way of example, Charles I or Edward VIII). The "Crown" is not the person in a manner similar to the way that the Constitution is not the President.

Marc

[Paul Yingling]

Friends,

I've recently joined Small Wars Journal and I want to express my thanks for the terrific debate on my recent 'generalship' piece.

I thought I would share some common questions/comments about the piece, as well as my responses.

Most of the response has been very positive, and some of it has been intensely personal. I've received some very disturbing emails from Soldiers and family members describing how bad leadership has impacted their lives. To be honest, I was not prepared for that response and I'm very troubled by what I've heard.

The most common criticism of the piece is that I did not address the role of civilian authorities more explicitly. While I don't think a serving officer should publicly criticize civil authorities, there is a more substantive question here. Who does society hold responsible for the application of non-military instruments of power to achieve the aims of policy? That's a much larger question than the one I took on regarding the responsibilities of general officers. However, it's a fair question that I would like to take a stab at eventually. Any thoughts on this topic are very much appreciated.

Many people have asked me what impact this piece will have on my career. I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't mean to be dismissive or overly stoic, but I don't think it's a very important issue. There are Soldiers and Marines and family members who have risked and sacrificed much more than promotion to full colonel over the last six years.

What I hope will happen: increased Congressional oversight of the systems that produce our senior leaders. Also, that junior leaders believe that our system of governance is capable of self-correction on even the most important issues.

What I fear might happen: inaction by political and senior military authorities, coupled with growing resentment and disillusionment by our junior leaders. I'm very worried about the communication gap between stars and bars, and I hope that my article does not make matters worse. As I said, I've been surprised by the emotional intensity of some of the responses I've received.

An interesting observation. The Vietnam generation did not fully assimilate their experiences until after the war was over. In units and service schools, the captains, majors and lieutenant colonels discussed their experiences, drew conclusions and argued for reform. In the information age, this dialogue happens in real time. Junior leaders are able to compare what senior leaders say with what's happening on the ground in a matter of minutes. I don't think our organizational models and leadership theories have caught up with the impacts of the information age. That's probably a statement of the obvious to most, but came as a revelation to a Luddite like me.

I welcome your questions and comments and am very honored to be part of SWJ.

V/R

Paul

[Steve Blair]

Welcome LTC Yingling! We've been having a heck of a good time talking about your article...glad to have your comments and hope you find some other threads here of interest.

[VinceC]

Who does society hold responsible for the application of non-military instruments of power to achieve the aims of policy? That's a much larger question than the one I took on regarding the responsibilities of general officers.

I would say, in the broadest sense, the elected administration. However, there should also be a debate on just where the instruments of military power end. Through U.S. military history, the U.S. Army has been involved in missions that were not strictly military in character. George Marshall concluded, at the start of U.S. involvment in World War II, that victory would result in the Army being an occupation force, and he began detailed training and preparation to that end.

[jcustis]

Welcome sir.

[Maximus]

Very glad to have you onboard Sir! Semper Fi!

[marct]

Welcome Sir,

The most common criticism of the piece is that I did not address the role of civilian authorities more explicitly. While I don't think a serving officer should publicly criticize civil authorities, there is a more substantive question here. Who does society hold responsible for the application of non-military instruments of power to achieve the aims of policy? That's a much larger question than the one I took on regarding the responsibilities of general officers. However, it's a fair question that I would like to take a stab at eventually. Any thoughts on this topic are very much appreciated.

That really is the $64k question . Honestly, I didn't see your piece as "criticizing" so much as "reminding them of their Constitutional responsibilities" - which is certainly within the purvue of a serving officer.

As a suggestion, for an intermediate examination, it might be more useful to reformulate your question as "When does society hold the military responsible for the application of non-kinetic instruments of power?" This would at least give you a mandate to explore the more general question you originally asked.

An interesting observation. The Vietnam generation did not fully assimilate their experiences until after the war was over. In units and service schools, the captains, majors and lieutenant colonels discussed their experiences, drew conclusions and argued for reform. In the information age, this dialogue happens in real time. Junior leaders are able to compare what senior leaders say with what's happening on the ground in a matter of minutes. I don't think our organizational models and leadership theories have caught up with the impacts of the information age. That's probably a statement of the obvious to most, but came as a revelation to a Luddite like me.

It s certainly an issue with most organizations these days - specifically the immediate access to "uncontrolled" information and the ability to contact almost anyone in real time. For many people, it's sited at the (dis) juncture between "lived reality" (what I see everyday), what the official spokesmen "say" in the formal communicative media (either internal or external), and what is being said in the non-formal media. When you add in the potential for "anonymity" available in forums, you just increase the likelihood that people will speak freely and, often, at odds with the "formal" statements coming out.

Marc

[slapout9]

GUYS, You might want to check your facts. Below is a link to the current Oath for Officers and Enlisted men according to the CGSC CMH You swear an Oath to Obey !!!!!the President.
Link is listed below.


http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

[Ski]

Greetings sir. I applaud your moral courage for writing this article. I hope that is indeed the harbringer of change that is sorely needed within the Army's culture.

You are totally correct when you state "I don't think our organizational models and leadership theories have caught up with the impacts of the information age." Not only that, but the leaders, probably from the rank of 06 and up, either ignore this or are ignorant to the effects of the information age upon the traditional organizational and leadership models. Why else would there be such a foolish new policy towards blogs?

[marct]

Hi Slapout,

GUYS, You might want to check your facts. Below is a link to the current Oath for Officers and Enlisted men according to the CGSC CMH You swear an Oath to Obey !!!!!the President.
Link is listed below.

Thanks for posting the link...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Hmmm, I would read this as obeying the orders of the President according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Given the way it is worded, I would read it as the constitution as the primary source of sovereignty while the President runs second limited by regulations, the UCMJ and, above all else, the Constitution.

Marc