Officer Retention

[AmericanPride]

I commissioned in May 08. If I were to make a decision today about renewing my contract, I would probably decline.

First, in-the-way expectations. People will usually meet your expectations, no matter how low you set them -- and the Army has set them very low. The expectations create numerous obstacles. Too many rules will generate a rules-orientation, taking away from goal-orientation. People become more concerned with grammar and formats than assessments and opportunities. And why should anyone among America's elite 1% waste their time worrying about pleasing somebody else's pet peeves when they can take their talent somewhere more appreciative? I for one resent people who have lower expectations of me than I do of myself.

Second, in-the-way requirements. Give or take a few months, there's about a year between deployments. Subtract 2 - 3 for block leave. Another 1-2 for reset from deployment (how much work really gets done?). Another one for JRTC. That leaves about 6-7 months. Now -- throw in Army, division, garrison, and brigade taskings -- such as cleaning up trash or suspending a week of training for suicide awareness. Or (my favorite), sending soldiers for a month-long TDY to copy/paste documents in support of training exercises that provide them with absolutely no value (because they are not training). I don't know about the combat arms, but there are a whole host of strongly suggested additional MI training requirements not met in AIT and OBC that are not only hard to come by (scheduled infrequently or too few slots), but are even more difficult to find a soldier that can be sent to it. I for one do not think that cleaning up trash or copying/pasting documents is more important than ensuring that my soldiers can think critically and operate the systems we will be using downrange. But the Army disagrees with me.

Third, in-the-way people. These people are everywhere and because I'm a junior officer, I can't tell them to get lost without causing some kind of scandal (it's just not worth it). When I'm already on a wasteful TDY tasking, why are contractors further wasting my time by screwing around in my workstation? And if they are there to support me, why can't they answer my questions or provide requested products? And if there are so many contractors, why after a year of preparation are my soldiers the ones completing unsatisfied requirements that were tasked in one of the gazillion powerpoint briefs to the contractors? Why isn't trash clean-up and document copying contracted? I shouldn't pick on contractors because I also wonder why 04s and 05s are grading my grammar instead of measuring the assessment I should otherwise be developing. And I'm further wondering why 12,000+ manhours from my BCT alone are being spent on in-the-way people and their requirements rather than training the soldiers for combat.

[Ken White]

On the First --Absolutely! Not restricted to a self appointed / annointed 1%, either.

On the Second -- Agree on the non-training foolishness couched as training and you point out -- as have many others -- that the AIT and OBC product is not ready for prime time. Been that way for years and we adamantly refuse to fix it. Lord knows how many people that failure has killed over the years...

Third -- Yet another truth.

The terribly sad thing is that those complaints could have -- and were --voiced by others years ago. With minor modifications, they are also made by the Navy, the Marines, the air Force and the Coast Guard.

Why are we still shooting oursleves in the foot like this?

[selil]

Why are we still shooting oursleves in the foot like this?

You know the answer to that. The United States spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. Yet we get a force that is in no way better than the entire world combined. I blame the following.
1) No peer competitor or non-peer competitor in 40 years has shook the chaff from the wheat.
2) Mediocrity is the norm by definition and creates parasitic loss within a system as it continues to devolve.
3) Nobody has the guts to say "HEY y'all suck baby spit, get your heads out of your posteriors, and stop using the military as a social experiment" you can decide who that should be yelled at.
4) To many officers have been promoted in a career that was the career of last resort. Those officers who are heart breakers, life takers, and kick ass cretins get pushed aside for being effective.
5) NO general officer has been promoted from the ranks in a long time for being a war fighter first (think lts to GO, or mustangs).
6) If I were god for a day I'd wipe the contractor slate clean and start over. First person to say we couldn't fight without contractors proves my actual point.
7) Weapons systems should KILL people, not make them annoyed. Symptomatic of the issues.
8) Weapons systems should KILL people EFFECTIVELY not sexy, cool, or star wars like.
9) Life long serving officers and senior NCOs are forced out because they can't get promoted in some kind of strange version of the Bernie Madoff ponzie scheme. "You've met your level of effectiveness now get out" is a strange way to spend my tax payer money.
10) When a civilian says "Hey y'all are screwing up" instead of going "hey why" they get told, "You aren't military therefore you have no say in what we are doing" insulating and characterizing the military as inbred, but that same attitude means when congresscritters say, "Hey give me my pound of flesh" nobody but pundits can say no.

There are more. But, what's the point? It's what we've got and nobody wants to do anything about it, they just want to complain.

[AmericanPride]

As minor as this is, this is what set me off today:

I am already angered by the massive waste of my soldiers' time coming here. In addition, since my soldiers are tasked to different units while we're here, I can't work through SOPs, etc during free time (of which there is plenty). All we can do is data mining, and that only takes you so far with limited resources. Anyway...

So I'm copying a document. I'm editing it to make it clean, including grammar mistakes (i.e. using "were" instead of "was" and so on). A O4 reviews my product when I'm done and rewrites all of my corrections to how they were originally (grammatically incorrect). So I go back and rewrite it the way the O4 directed (because I thoroughly and honestly do not think that grammar is a the primary purpose of intelligence products). He's an O4. I'm not. Case settled. The product moves on to an O5 for review. I get called to his desk. "Did you write this? Did you graduate college? Let me see your name tapes -- did you spell your name right?" Really sir? Because I scored in the top 5% on the GRE so I can guarantee you my grammar is better than anyone's in this cell. Really sir? Because I can tell you that I couldn't care less about grammar when my soldiers and I are losing 4 weeks of valuable training time. I didn't say that of course -- but to round out my point; I think some officers leave because of pay. Others because of deployments, family, etc. But I think the majority leave because of the in-the-way expectations/requirements/people that make the job unenjoyable. And after sitting through countless powerpoint slides with numerous taskings for one year of prep for the exercise only to have the briefers explain that most of them have not been completed so we'll have to do it for them, I have come to realize that the Army suffers from a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

I have absolutely no complaints about my job (which I have since learned is not the same as my duties), my unit, the duty station, or really anything of any obvious significance. But if what I've described in the above two posts is what I have to put up with for a pension, DoD can keep its money and I'll take my labor elsewhere.

[Old Eagle]

but some things never change.

Junior officers always know more than their superiors. Unfortunately, even as an old colonel, I still knew more than all the general officers

Just rest assured in the thought that your troops think the same of you. Ask Stan.

My charge to you is that as you advance and accrue more authority, try your best not to replicate the situations in which you now find yourself. Hooah.

[120mm]

Or (my favorite), sending soldiers for a month-long TDY to copy/paste documents in support of training exercises that provide them with absolutely no value (because they are not training).

I will save the Army money and innumerable man-hours by just stopping the bad joke known as BCTP and any other complete and utter waste of time computerized staff training exercizes. I could accomplish a manifold better training exercise with a microscopically smaller waste of money and man-hours with a map, micro-armor and a very small exercise staff.

BCTP training exists so that maneuver units can support and justify the computer exercise, which is the opposite of what it should be.

Oh, and by the way, the "Battle Rhythm" isn't the briefing schedule. And a competent commander shouldn't need a briefing schedule in the first place....

[AmericanPride]

Old Eagle,

I don't think I know more than my superiors (well, not all of them, and not on everything ). But I do know when my time and the time of my soldiers is being wasted for somebody else. Nobody needs a degree or commission for that. It's like in Godfather I when Sunny calls Michael a fool for risking his life for strangers. I think its foolish to waste my time and resources for a requirement that 1) has no value to my section and 2) could be accomplished without wasting my time. Even so, I'm less concerned about my time than that of my soldiers (who when not training or deployed, should be with their families, or doing what they wish). When the commander took my best soldier for his PSD, I grumbled to my NCOIC, but I knew the commander's intent and that it would be for the overall good of the squadron's mission. But this... I don't see it.

I accept your charge. Selil remarked that "nobody wants to do anything about it." I don't agree. There are plenty of people that want to do something but will be run out of the Army for rocking the boat. I'm coming to the point, though, where I don't care -- if something is wrong, I'm going to fix it, and I'll let someone know, whatever their grade. And if they want to run me out of the Army, it's no loss to me. I'll go find contract work.

[AmericanPride]

I will save the Army money and innumerable man-hours by just stopping the bad joke known as BCTP and any other complete and utter waste of time computerized staff training exercizes. I could accomplish a manifold better training exercise with a microscopically smaller waste of money and man-hours with a map, micro-armor and a very small exercise staff.

BCTP training exists so that maneuver units can support and justify the computer exercise, which is the opposite of what it should be.

Oh, and by the way, the "Battle Rhythm" isn't the briefing schedule. And a competent commander shouldn't need a briefing schedule in the first place....

That's exactly what I and 90% of my soldiers are doing -- at the expense of any training of value. I'm missing a OPD with Lester Grau of "Bear Went Over the Mountain" fame. That one day OPD would have more value than my 3+ weeks here. Instead of using my soldiers, the BCTP could be using the numerous in-the-way contractors that crowd my workstation.

Micro-armor, BTW, is awesome... though I only have memories of my wrecked T-34 regiments dotting the Russian steppes.

[jcustis]

Sometimes, we also need to step back and say, "no sir, those errors you see are not ones that I wrote. I saw the errors, but was told otherwise..."

I get it that grammar is just one of the issues, but sometimes, the inability to influence a superior's actions and thinking is in part, our own fault for not being adept enough at getting them to see our point.

[Schmedlap]

I think some officers leave because of pay. Others because of deployments, family, etc. But I think the majority leave because of the in-the-way expectations/requirements/people that make the job unenjoyable.

That is what drove me out. As it turned out, the last chain of command that I had in a maneuver unit was shockingly good. But I had already made up my mind and figured that finally having a good chain of command was an anomaly. Or maybe I was an anomaly by being one of the unlucky few who was cursed with serving beneath micromanaging jackasses for the bulk of my career, only to get a reprieve toward the end. Whatever the case, I have since learned that I prefer the military over civilian life. It is not that civilian bosses (or the potential to be one's own boss) are any better or worse in the civilian world. The issue is whom I would prefer work with, not whom I would prefer to work for. I prefer the company of Soldiers.

When I go back into the Army after finishing school, I expect that 50% of my commanders will already have been promoted beyond their potential. But I am not going back for the opportunity to implement the orders of the people above me; I see that as just part of the job. What is drawing me back is the opportunity to lead Soldiers and to be a peer among people whom I respect. Every job has its drawbacks. In the Army's case, the drawback is the high likelihood that one's commander is a lousy leader. It is still outweighed by the benefits. If you are in it for the opportunity to serve your Soldiers, then the incentive grows to stay in (or return) and displace the crappy leaders. The trick is to constantly remind yourself why you're serving (Soldiers and peers) rather than to get sidetracked with the downside of the job (poor leaders above you). I got sidetracked and got out. A year in the civilian world helped me to regain the proper perspective.

[Ken White]

subordinates just to see how far they can be pushed. Been my observation that accepting such pushing frequently puts one in a position of being less respected and more often pushed, IOW, with the blusterers and blowhards (and they exist at all ranks and in all fields of human endeavor) it only gets worse if you accept it.

Best response to being told to reinstall an error one has removed or resisting that generic pushing IMO is to resist it as calmly and forcefully as one can (while being quite sure one is right). That will generally bring a cessation of such pushing. Lot of would be bullies out there. Some in uniform and some not...

I've seen a lot of folks take that foolishness from overbearing senior people and then get waxed on their OER or EER / Fitness Report as not being forceful or morally courageus. People may dislike you if they're wrong and you're correct but most of them will accept it and won't penalize you for it -- mostly because they're afraid they'll get found out.

[Ken White]

You know the answer to that.

True but one does have to ask WHY??? Even if it just rhetorical.

I agree with your list:

The United States spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. Yet we get a force that is in no way better than the entire world combined. I blame the following.

Except for[quote]3) Nobody has the guts to say "HEY y'all suck baby spit, get your heads out of your posteriors, and stop using the military as a social experiment" you can decide who that should be yelled at.

4) To many officers have been promoted in a career that was the career of last resort. Those officers who are heart breakers, life takers, and kick ass cretins get pushed aside for being effective.

6) If I were god for a day I'd wipe the contractor slate clean and start over. First person to say we couldn't fight without contractors proves my actual point.

10) When a civilian says "Hey y'all are screwing up" instead of going "hey why" they get told, "You aren't military therefore you have no say in what we are doing" insulating and characterizing the military as inbred, but that same attitude means when congresscritters say, "Hey give me my pound of flesh" nobody but pundits can say no.[quote]Number 3 gets in the civilian control of the military arena. What you say is correct but it has to be that way if we're to have civilian control.

Number 4 (and 5, to an extent) is a direct result of that civilian control. While I agree too many fit your complaint, there are also a good many who do not. One is too many but reality intrudes; any random collection of three people will have one good at something, one average and one not so good. If your grouping is nit random but selected, that should eliminate the low performer but there's no guarantee. Most of the Officer selection and promotion rules were forced on the service by a whole series of Congresses over many years which were all overcommitted to 'objectivity' in metrics, fairness, equality of result and terribly afraid of Armed Forces that are too good. We could fix that with a military dictatorship -- but I don't think that's good solution, personally...

Number 6 is fine in the first case; we definitely need to redo the methodology. In the second case, obviously we can go without them and have done so -- but I don't think you or the rest of the US is ready for a Draft.

Number 10 is incorrect all round, I think -- the first problem is that most civilian complaints, pundits included, are based on little or no knowledge of many factors by people with no or with limited experience (and those last are most likely to assume they know enough to comment) and therefor, most such complaints comes across as ill informed, simplistic and are rejected due to that factor -- not that "You aren't military therefore you have no say in what we are doing" bit you posit. Informed commentary is welcomed but there's precious little of it out there. I can think of several military correspondents or writers who reveal an astonishing amount of superficial knowledge but also constantly show they do not truly understand the complexities -- or the fact that Congress drive many more trains than is superficially apparent.

Congresscritters will get their pound of flesh because (a) that's the way the system works and (b) there are very few truly knowledgable civilians on things military.

There are more. But, what's the point? It's what we've got and nobody wants to do anything about it, they just want to complain.

Yeah, there's more but on what you've said, I have two questions:

Why is it true that is "what we've got?"

Tell us what can be done about it.

[selil]

Number 10 is incorrect all round, I think -- the first problem is that most civilian complaints, pundits included, are based on little or no knowledge of many factors by people with no or with limited experience (and those last are most likely to assume they know enough to comment) and therefor, most such complaints comes across as ill informed, simplistic and are rejected due to that factor -- not that "You aren't military therefore you have no say in what we are doing" bit you posit. Informed commentary is welcomed but there's precious little of it out there. I can think of several military correspondents or writers who reveal an astonishing amount of superficial knowledge but also constantly show they do not truly understand the complexities -- or the fact that Congress drive many more trains than is superficially apparent.

So though you disagree you say specifically what I was saying. If you aren't military your complaints are based on little or no knowledge, limited experience, though informed commentary is welcomed, there is little informed commentary because the people doing so are not military.

It is s standard argument from priori knowledge or experience.

As such the military does look specifically like a closed club with an old boy network of generals and former senior military who double dip as contractors dealing with people who they were leaders of not long ago. The military is a classic example of a closed shop from cradle to grave. There are MANY who have told me that is a benefit of having been military in the past and a reward for their service.

Those who aren't contractors are sitting in plumb civilian posts to military organizations where they determine the civilian side of the policy. In some cases they are paid shills to news corporations spouting the DOD line rather than giving honest assessments. Blame congress but the number of shills serving DOD with former military ties given jobs that have precise KSA's attributed to them that require former military service determines what policy Congress votes upon.

From the outside it looks pretty inbred and incestuous.

The systemic anachronism created by this incestuous methodology stifles innovation, creates parasitic losses on the economy of scale, is a closed loop of thinking, and is orders of magnitude more expensive than alternative models.

I can write that, support that, and provide detailed evidence for it, and I'm a fan of the military and a former Marine. Knowing something stinks is a lot different than not caring about how it gets fixed.

Why is it true that is "what we've got?"

Tell us what can be done about it.

How to fix the military in five easy steps (for today, some I've said before)

1) Do away with mandatory up or out promotions systems. At the same time do away with the 30 years max service. You can serve until you can't perform. I'm ok with 20 year corporals. I'm also OK with field grades saying "you suck go away" to those who can't perform. If you have a bad commander go ahead and appeal. Or, don't.

2) If it deploys it is a "b" or "c" billet for a military member. Yes the military gets bigger but it gets much more flexible. The reasons for outstrip the reasons against.

3) End weapons systems bloat. If it can't be done by a soldier it is not for the field. Mass produce weapons systems that work. Innovation that requires a long logistics tail is worse than lack of innovation. We can Innovatively loose wars too.

4) Increase military pay for all across the board by 25%. Decrease mandatory enlistments periods to 24 months (no promotion past E-1), increase bonuses for extended enlistments 24-72 months (promotion possible).

5) Contractors must accept the UCMJ foreign or domestic and all that means. If a contractor sues the military they don't get paid until it is resolved. If the military files UCMJ charges against a contractor the officer doing so has to withstand I believe it is an Article 32 hearing. You get big sticks but you need to have the wisdom to use or not use them.

I know with all that you're going to vote me off the island. If I don't know enough about the military because I didn't serve long enough, or in enough billets, then is it a fanciful thing to say the military is told what to do by civilians? Go ahead sign me up for Platoon Leader Course I'll be one of the most educated, oldest recruits in history. Going through boot camp, basic training is sort of a hobby. Maybe it will change my mind though I doubt it.

[Ken White]

So though you disagree you say specifically what I was saying...

No, that's not what I said. I said most. There are some exceptions and even the stopped clock is right twice a day, etc. Nor did I say valid complainants needed to be military; I said many tend to make comments that are ill informed or simplistic which does not mean they have to be military, it does mean they should try to become informed or avoid making simplistic comments. I can think of many civilians with no service who are very knowledgeable; they are just exceptions to the rule.

It is s standard argument from priori knowledge or experience.

Why, yes, it is -- I believe I've seen you use it repeatedly with reference to the educational industry...

As such the military does look specifically like a closed club...There are MANY who have told me that is a benefit of having been military in the past and a reward for their service.

In reverse order, I'm sure there are many -- I'd also bet there are far more who do not believe that. I'll certainly admit to knowing too many who do believe the system owes them something but I know more who do not feel that way than those who do. Moving back past that, yep, it is a closed shop from cradle to grave, no question. So? It would be better if it were not but I think that would fly in the face of 5,000 years of human development...

Those who aren't contractors are sitting in plumb civilian posts to military organizations where they determine the civilian side of the policy. In some cases they are paid shills to news corporations spouting the DOD line rather than giving honest assessments. Blame congress but the number of shills serving DOD with former military ties given jobs that have precise KSA's attributed to them that require former military service determines what policy Congress votes upon.

That's an unclear statement. I agree with the first part and also agree that's wrong. Don't understand the Congressional / policy reference.

From the outside it looks pretty inbred and incestuous.

It is. As do the vales of Academe look from the outside. As does the Banking industry. As does Congress itself. Do we have a military problem or a people problem here?

The systemic anachronism created by this incestuous methodology stifles innovation, creates parasitic losses on the economy of scale, is a closed loop of thinking, and is orders of magnitude more expensive than alternative models.

I tend to agree with most of that but I'm very curious what alternative models might realistically be used in the US???

You probably can:

...write that, support that, and provide detailed evidence for it, and I'm a fan of the military and a former Marine. Knowing something stinks is a lot different than not caring about how it gets fixed.

Don't think I said otherwise. So can I do all those things. That doesn't put either of us any closer to fixing it...

How to fix the military in five easy steps (for today, some I've said before)

1) Do away with mandatory up or out promotions systems. At the same time do away with the 30 years max service. You can serve until you can't perform. I'm ok with 20 year corporals. I'm also OK with field grades saying "you suck go away" to those who can't perform. If you have a bad commander go ahead and appeal. Or, don't.

I agree with eliminating up or out. I disagree strongly on the 30 years max service (there are already exceptions made and most of them would not fill you with pride...). I'd go the other way and drop it to 25 because if you do it right, your mind and body will not take 30 years of that kind of punishment. What's required is a portable retirement process so that people are not locked in and can move in an out of the service as they mature and goals or needs change. I'd also submit that a part of the problem with much of the other stuff you cite is those folks who have over 20, are headed for 30 -- and absolutely will not rock the boat to mess up their retirement. Those also are most of the folks that are in your "I earned it..." pot.

I'm also okay with 20 year corporals and with Field Grades that tell people to go away -- the problem is that your Congress is not really okay with either of those things. For the CPL, they don't like lowly peons sticking around that long; they become way too loyal to the institution and not to the Nation or other things. The Field Grade can do that to his CSM or a CPT or two -- but sooner or later, he's gonna get reported for being mean; someone's Congressman will write to some General and the Field grade likely becomes history unless that GO is really adept. That's reality. Should any of those things be true? Absolutely not -- but they are...

2) If it deploys it is a "b" or "c" billet for a military member. Yes the military gets bigger but it gets much more flexible. The reasons for outstrip the reasons against.

I agree in principle but I don't think the willing and qualified volunteer pool in this country today will support a larger force. Further, given current costs, I doubt the current force can be supported on economic grounds for very long. I'd go the other way; a smaller force, almost all deployable and better trained (that adds to costs which removes any savings from a smaller force)

3) End weapons systems bloat...We can Innovatively loose wars too.

On that we totally agree.

4) Increase military pay for all across the board by 25%. Decrease mandatory enlistments periods to 24 months (no promotion past E-1), increase bonuses for extended enlistments 24-72 months (promotion possible).

Disagree. Some are overpaid now. Across the board increases in the past have contributed to a pay imbalance; some folks do need a pay raise, some do not -- and some could take a cut (IMO); plus, we need a completely new pay scheme -- the current system is good for a mobilizing major war force; it is not good for a professional force. We have too many grades and no way to reward good performance other than by promoting people in rank -- that forces the services into the Peter Principle...

Disagree with 24 month enlistments. The way we now train it takes that long for the kid to get really productive (as you earlier said, the object is to do the job, not be a social laboratory) -- or if we improve training by an order of magnitude, that'll leave him only a year in a unit, that's too much personnel turbulence. In the Marine Corps when you an I were in, that was a minor effectiveness impactor -- today, it is a major adverse element that must be ameliorated.

That last item is currently being done. The Army, incidentally did the two year option and it really didn't attract that many.

5) Contractors must accept the UCMJ foreign or domestic and all that means. If a contractor sues the military they don't get paid until it is resolved. If the military files UCMJ charges against a contractor the officer doing so has to withstand I believe it is an Article 32 hearing. You get big sticks but you need to have the wisdom to use or not use them.

I agree but I don't think Congress will. Congress likes contractors because they allow rapid expansion and contraction (efficiency and effectiveness are not concerns; ongoing, surge and residual cost is a concern; contractors don't get VA benefits...) and, even better, Contractors contribute big time to campaign funds (which few services or soldiers do).

I know with all that you're going to vote me off the island.

Nope, not even. You're entitled to your opinions and I agree in large measure. In some things, we see the same problem but have a different fix. There are a few where I think you are missing the pernicious presence of Congress.

If I don't know enough about the military because I didn't serve long enough, or in enough billets, then is it a fanciful thing to say the military is told what to do by civilians?

I hope not because they largely are told what to do by civilians. Most of the personnel policies are promulgated by a Congress overly concerned with two things -- that none of their constituents / voters (or their family members) get too badly screwed by the Armed Forces (thus many silly, even dangerous, personnel rules like up or out, promotion quotas and the like) and the great big, elephant in the corner factor that many really miss -- Congress absolutely does not want, will not tolerate, an Army that is too good or not adequately subservient. Read the Constitution -- Congress has the nation by the old short hair on that one and since the Army is the biggest service, that allows them to dictate Army Policies to the other services (One of many reasons I disagreed and disagree with the existence of DoD) and they flat take advantage of that power.

Remember that because those factors are the root of many of your complaints.

Go ahead sign me up for Platoon Leader Course I'll be one of the most educated, oldest recruits in history. Going through boot camp, basic training is sort of a hobby. Maybe it will change my mind though I doubt it.

No intent to try to change your mind. In any event, I agree with many of your desired changes. Only thing in the way of those is Congress. Fly in the old ointment. Good luck with that fix...

[AmericanPride]

If, God forbid, one of my soldiers is killed or injured, or through his action/inaction, contributes to the death or injury of another soldier, BCTP will be one of the things I will place on the blame-line. It is not simply a waste of time, but it is detrimental to the readiness of my soldiers. Equipment can be repaired or requistioned. Money can be raised or collected. But time can never be regained --- whether it's time at a course, on a system, driving a vehicle, or pulling security in a patrol base, those are experiences that contribute to soldier development. I am seriously and thoroughly angered by BCTP and the type of mentality it fosters. I understand division staffs require training. Got it. Instead of using soldiers who are scheduled to deploy, however, why not contractors? Why not AIT soldiers? Why not soldiers who are scheduled to deploy with the division staff that is in training? Why not anyone but soldiers from other divisions who are also scheduled to deploy (especially those deploying to a country other than the one being trained) and have their own training requirements?

I am convinced that BCTP is a negligent act that undermines the readiness of the Army to win its wars. How do I protect my soldiers from taskings that will undermine their readiness? What do I need to say and to whom so that whoever is responsible for BCTP is at least aware that there are soldiers and leaders who are unconvinced that the program provides anything of value?

jcustis, ken and schmedlap, thanks for the words of wisdom. I'm really unconcerned about OERs or the impression other officers have of me. I'll do my best for as long as I'm able. I have no desire to be anyone's fool, especially pezzonvante and other in the way people and their needs. A friend of mine tells me that attitude would make me a terrible enlisted Soldier, and sometimes I wonder if that makes me a bad officer. Growing up, it certainly got me into alot of trouble, but it also led me to some outstanding mentors. My experience here at BCTP has reignited that attitude and has made me seriously reconsider the Army as a life-time commitment.

[selil]

I agree with many of your desired changes. Only thing in the way of those is Congress. Fly in the old ointment. Good luck with that fix...

I'm hoping that wildly outside the norm suggestions can create thinking and incite change. When i've worked in industry some of my tasks were to create a "get things done" environment when apathy and dereliction were the norm. I used many tools from pep talks to hiring and firing authority. The result was a string of under budget, early delivery projects in an industry that celebrates the sound deadlines make as they go whooshing by in orgs of fairly large size. I know that things can be done to make effectiveness and solution oriented decisions possible. How to translate that from the telco world to the military. Well. I doubt it is possible.

I've got to believe things can change. I've got to believe people I know and respect can serve with dignity and without being treated poorly. the RIF will happen. When I don't know.

There has to be a way to fix, improve, create a set of win-win scenarios. We spend to much time supporting a lose-lose system. The economy will not support the gargantuan sloth of the current machinery. I don't know how it will break. I thought the KBR debacle would do it, but so far they are golden.

The problems are huge but politicians don't believe we can discuss them with considered thought. Nobody wants to discuss in depth. They all want to spend time in sound bites. Really dig into problems? At all levels that is not happening.

Every general and admiral I've met have been engaged and intelligent individuals but some have made strange and onerous decisions that baffle me. Solutions are possible. If they aren't then what is the point? The how may be difficult but challenge is the spice of life.

Grumble. Ranting I guess.

[Ken White]

I've got to believe things can change. I've got to believe people I know and respect can serve with dignity and without being treated poorly. the RIF will happen. When I don't know.

The delay in achieving that hope you cite in the foregoing is caused by this:

The problems are huge but politicians don't believe we can discuss them with considered thought. Nobody wants to discuss in depth. They all want to spend time in sound bites. Really dig into problems? At all levels that is not happening.

Like you with KBR (which I saw only as business as usual -- they got their start supporting LBJ back in the 50s; made big, big bucks in Viet Nam) I thought the economic debacle would tumble some out of Congress and send a message. Didn't happen. I cannot believe a bunch of those guys got reelected.

Grumble. Ranting I guess.

Me, too. Good news is there are a lot of small changes afoot and this current generation may grow up and fix some more ills -- but I'm afraid we're not going to see any major change until we have a real disastrous situation on our hands or we stop electing people to Congress who are more concerned with their party than the nation. Which probably means disastrous...

[Courtney Massengale]

Good news is there are a lot of small changes afoot and this current generation may grow up and fix some more ills

On the latest promotion list to O4, out of the 40 selected in my branch (including 2 BZ and 2 DBZ), seven had never been deployed and four did not have a Company Command.

There's your future warrior leaders of the United States Army.

[marct]

On the latest promotion list to O4, out of the 40 selected in my branch (including 2 BZ and 2 DBZ), seven had never been deployed and four did not have a Company Command.

There's your future warrior leaders of the United States Army.

Well, at least you could look on the bright side - ergonomics is making a comeback!

[patmc]

Sir, what branch had only 40 promotions? Smaller branches can be more selective, but if they too are short, then there is a problem. A year or two ago, Field Artillery had around 100 pax left in its most senior CPT year group (for perspective, my FA basic course class had 150). For a larger branch, too few people means everyone moves up, which may not be good.

For the stats you listed, 7 non-deployers since 2001 is bad. The 4 non commanders may not be as big a deal, depending on the branch, and the jobs they did have. The Army, especially combat arms, is still command centric, but is trying to move away for the CS and CSS branches. I'm MI, and will have to fight and kill for a command, and am repeatedly told its nice to have, but not need to have (though I know that is a lie to compensate for too few slots). Not deploying is a big deal. Not commanding, maybe not as much. In support branches, one can probably still be a capable warrior leader without commanding a company (does recruiting or basic training command better prepare leaders than hard staff assignments?).

On the latest promotion list to O4, out of the 40 selected in my branch (including 2 BZ and 2 DBZ), seven had never been deployed and four did not have a Company Command.

There's your future warrior leaders of the United States Army.