The Peter Pandemic Takes Its Toll

**Old Eagle** · 07-29-2007

Rob raises some excellent issues, as usual. We need to be concerned and do all we can to ensure that the system (and we ALL hate HRC/PERSCOM/MILPERCEN/OPO) is responsive to the needs of the Army and to the wonderful soldiers/officers who make it up.

Nonetheless, I was struck with a feeling of Deja Vu when I read Rob's last post.

In 1987 (OK some of you weren't born yet), YG 1966 had just finished the War College and one of thier members asked rhetorically if there was enough talent left to see the Army through the difficult years to come. The thesis was that YG 66 had been decimated in Viet Nam (it hadn't), had suffered a huge exodus in response to an unpopular war, and had experienced a larger than normal exit on it's 20th anniversary (i.e. first opportunity to retire). Rick Atkinson would later study that portion of the YG coming from USMA, but some brilliant GO asked a coupla us to look and see if the Army had lost all its senior talent, using YG 66 as a case study.

On the one hand, we were stifled in our attempts because we couldn't get access to personal/personnel records necessary. Once an officer retires, his/her records are off limits unless you have the moral equivalent of a warrant. While the anecdotal evidence, in deed, pointed toward a hollow leadership structure on its way to the top, the numbers we were able to get did not support the supposed crisis. Within the active duty crowd, there was unbelievable talent available -- dedicated folks willing and able to take the reins of the Army. The Gulf War sort of bore out that the YG that got repreatedly "screwed" after VN were more than capable of leading the Army they had helped re-create in the aftermath.

I just don't know how to systemitize that.

**Old Eagle** · 07-29-2007

Then there's what I call the Sports Illustrated effect.

As others have alluded above, the Army doesn't like to reward officers it considers "special". Ditto, there's a certain pride in being un-educated. (Not the same as being stupid). I was commanding my third company while yo-yo was off getting his masters. The last good book I read was 100-5 (3-0). You all know the syndrome.

Quite apart from that is the SI effect. I never wanted my favorite athlete to be on the cover of Sports Illustrated in the Pre=season. Same for my team getting ranked number one. The SI effect is that anyone singled out as outstanding incurs some sort of debillitating malady that keeps them from presaged glory. Can't explain why.

Go Twins.

**Kreker** · 07-30-2007

I'm brand new to this forum and agree with most of the posts, especially Old Eagle's post of selected versus passed-over. To add to the discussion COL McMaster's predesssor at 3 ACR was COL Dave Teeples who was on the FY07 BG ACC list. Additionally, some food for thought, is that there are individuals that remember who "rocks the boat." McMaster while in Iraq tried to relieve his aviation squadron commander, but he was reinstated. Who chaired the BG board? Plus, there is the legacy of McMaster working for Macgregor. My $0.02. Glad to be aboard and look forward to future dialogues.

wm · 07-31-2007

Here is the latest from the DoD.

New Joint Qualification System Enhances Officer Management

The Department of Defense announced today the details of a new joint qualification system (JQS), which will help to identify military personnel who possess the abilities needed to achieve success in the joint/interagency environment. This new program will allow DoD to better incorporate an officer's joint experiences and qualifications into assignment, promotion and development decisions.

Inherent in this new system is the ability to recognize the skills that aid U.S. military efforts to respond to national security threats, as well as interagency, combat operations and humanitarian crises at home and abroad. A four-level system serves to enhance the tenets of jointness set forth in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act (GNA) of 1986 and will be implemented for all services on Oct. 1, 2007.

While officers may still earn designation as a Joint Qualified Officer, formerly known as a Joint Specialty Officer, by completing the requisite joint professional military education and a standard-joint duty assignment, officers may also earn qualifications by accumulating equivalent levels of joint experience, education, and training. The experience-based system awards points in tracking the progression through successive qualification levels, while accounting for the intensity, environment, and duration/frequency of each joint activity.