Officer Retention

[Rob Thornton]

Several articles out there today regarding pursuing end strength increases faster. Army and DoD leadership seem to agree on the need and the time line. What I found most heartening is that there is now mention of approaching retention with an understanding of the effects of both families and other opportunities. Extending things like educational benefits to families will help create a more inclusive culture - our families share the risks, and pressures and weigh heavily on decisions to stay or leave. Acknowledging that makes good sense - our families and service members offer a different kind of recruiting tool - they recruit and retain by both the silent influence they exhibit when considered by family and friends (in terms of how well the Army takes care of them) and they recruit and retain overtly by the strength of their association with the Army as the organization or family which provides opportunity for their spouse and family.

Which brings me to recruiting - my opinion is that we have often tried to compete with the Navy, Marines and Air Force on the terms of what makes each service special. When you look across the Army I'm not sure that is reflective of our strongest attribute (all our services have qualities that attract and recruit new service members). The Army is big, and it is diverse - we should consider that as a strength. We should market that as opportunity - because the Army is so big, and so diverse it constantly has needs that translate to opportunities - if you want to do something else within the Army - it can probably accommodate you. Within the Army are more specialized communities for those who are looking for that specifically.

Fortunately we are also now considering how to extend this diversity with education and opportunities outside the "uniformed" community. This is also in line with fostering leadership qualities harder to cultivate from an "inside only" perspective.

The Army is huge in terms of branches, functional areas, MOSs, etc. It is reflected in its ability to campaign and bring all the other "stuff" needed to sustain and build long term infrastructure.

We need to bring that picture of diversity and opportunity forward in our recruiting and discuss it with the leaders we want to retain. Big Army seems to understand the problem now and seems to be moving toward applying a broad strategy with resources toward managing the problem ( this is not one of those problems with a fire and forget solution - it must be constantly managed).

Best Regards, Rob

[Steve Blair]

There was a joke/truism/whatever going around in the early 1980s that actually gets close to this.

If you wanted to live in the same place for years and raise a family, join the Air Force.

If you wanted to travel (lots) and go to strange foreign places, join the Navy.

If you wanted to kill people, join the Marines.

If you weren't sure what you wanted to do, join the Army.

Now before any noses get out of joint, remember that this was a joke that was circulating in the military dependent community in the early 1980s, but I do think that like many of these things there is a grain of truth in it. At that time, and today to a degree, the Air Force is still the most stable in terms of deployment cycles and demands. The Navy still goes to a wide number of places. The Marines...well...they still do Marine things (and the kill people comment always referred to the fact that in terms of perception the Marines were giving you the chance to be a warrior, not save money for college). And the Army was big enough that it gave you the space and options to figure out what you wanted to do.

[Rob Thornton]

Why not combine aspects of our recruiting and retention campaigns?

We have stories to tell that matter. Many of our recruiting strategies have shied away from dealing with combat, but they are in fact the ones that matter the most. We have real heroes out there do and inspire extraordinary things.

They are across the spectrum in our Combat Arms, Combat Support , and Combat Service Support communities. We can show the combat patrols that go out, Civil Affairs influencing people, Intelligence soldiers providing critical analysis, Logisticians moving mountains to the people who need them, JAG personnel upholding morals and ethics, Surgical Teams and medics saving lives and limbs, MPs & Advisors working with indigenous forces, Helicopter crews working in dangerous and forbidding places, soldiers enabling civil authorities here in the United States, Leaders working across the Joint, Coalition and Inter-Agency spectrum to accomplish national security objectives.

We have a story to tell about who we are – and why it matters. We have the most challenging conditions to highlight what our people are capable of accomplishing.

We should tell these stories across the broad spectrum of the media- T.V., print, radio, the Internet, etc.
Best Regards, Rob

[Cavguy]

We have stories to tell that matter. Many of our recruiting strategies have shied away from dealing with combat, but they are in fact the ones that matter the most. We have real heroes out there do and inspire extraordinary things.

They are across the spectrum in our Combat Arms, Combat Support , and Combat Service Support communities.

Well said. I loved the new "Army Strong" ad campaign at first - thought it finally got to the heart of soldiering based off of the debut ad. Now every ad I see (in the middle of a war) depicts some guy in kevlar troubleshooting a router in a basement somewhere, or filing paperwork. WTF? Really soured me on the campaign. I understand the need to communicate that the Army has more jobs than combat arms, but it's almost silly in how it ignores - and could embrace - the conflict in Iraq and what soldiers can do there. I also think it detracts from the message credibility when the fact that probably 90% of new recruits will deploy to Iraq in their first years of service, yet the ad campaign (other than the original) doesn't acknowledge this at all.

[Ken White]

forgotten what Joe is like and read the WaPo, NYT and WSJ. They think Mr. & Mrs. America are worried about body bags. They aren't; they just want the job done quickly and correctly.

They also may -- just may -- be cuing in on the fact that the CSS area is suffering in both enlistments and reenlistments. That's true while the Combat arms are bringing in first termers and reups out the ying yang. My suspicion is that they do not know that latter fact and are concentrating on the soft skills to avoid "turning off the kids (while the blood thirsty little gits do not care!) and their parents (some, not many, of whom may care)."

There are about 20% of kids who want to go combat arms and will no matter what's going on and that applies to enlisted and officer accessions. Give 'em a job where they get to shoot at something that shoots back and holler a bit and they'll stay. Put 'em on the range or in the motor pool too often and they'll leave.

Most people, again, officer and enlisted, leave because they're disappointed.

P.S. Cavguy, you get my update on LTG Lee?

[jcustis]

Why not combine aspects of our recruiting and retention campaigns?

We have stories to tell that matter. Many of our recruiting strategies have shied away from dealing with combat, but they are in fact the ones that matter the most. We have real heroes out there do and inspire extraordinary things.

They are across the spectrum in our Combat Arms, Combat Support , and Combat Service Support communities. We can show the combat patrols that go out, Civil Affairs influencing people, Intelligence soldiers providing critical analysis, Logisticians moving mountains to the people who need them, JAG personnel upholding morals and ethics, Surgical Teams and medics saving lives and limbs, MPs & Advisors working with indigenous forces, Helicopter crews working in dangerous and forbidding places, soldiers enabling civil authorities here in the United States, Leaders working across the Joint, Coalition and Inter-Agency spectrum to accomplish national security objectives.

We have a story to tell about who we are – and why it matters. We have the most challenging conditions to highlight what our people are capable of accomplishing.

We should tell these stories across the broad spectrum of the media- T.V., print, radio, the Internet, etc.
Best Regards, Rob

You're absolutely right Rob, and ever since I saw this compilation, I thought we should have something similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaSwV...elated&search=

Perhaps the services need a few new "Top Gun" movies with recruiters standing by in the lobbies on premier day.

[RTK]

You're absolutely right Rob, and ever since I saw this compilation, I thought we should have something similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaSwV...elated&search=

Perhaps the services need a few new "Top Gun" movies with recruiters standing by in the lobbies on premier day.

Maybe even this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pHsZqqZ2XE

[mmx1]

You're absolutely right Rob, and ever since I saw this compilation, I thought we should have something similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaSwV...elated&search=

Perhaps the services need a few new "Top Gun" movies with recruiters standing by in the lobbies on premier day.

I could have done without the rock remix. I thought the originals were quite well done (though not quite along the lines of the current conversation about diversity of jobs).
Mechanized Infantry
Light Infantry
Air Assault Infantry
Armoured Infantry

As far as diversity, you've got this from the Irish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbOQgqK1TBc

[Rob Thornton]

From CavGuy;

Well said. I loved the new "Army Strong" ad campaign at first - thought it finally got to the heart of soldiering based off of the debut ad. Now every ad I see (in the middle of a war) depicts some guy in kevlar troubleshooting a router in a basement somewhere, or filing paperwork. WTF? Really soured me on the campaign. I understand the need to communicate that the Army has more jobs than combat arms, but it's almost silly in how it ignores - and could embrace - the conflict in Iraq and what soldiers can do there. I also think it detracts from the message credibility when the fact that probably 90% of new recruits will deploy to Iraq in their first years of service, yet the ad campaign (other than the original) doesn't acknowledge this at all.

Those 2 points you brought out are what really bothers me - first because it seems to ignore the heroic deeds done by folks (and they are across the CA/CS/CSS spectrum) in these wars and in support of them (in many cases even those lines are blurred) and second because the reality is we are at war - I want the folks who we are recruiting and retaining to see that although we are at war, we are surrounded by the most amazing volunteer soldiers around. I want parent to know what lengths buddies & leaders will go to to ensure that their sons and daughters will come home and will be taken care of. I also want the general public to hear and see the incredible stories that the media skips over in favor of death tolls, figures spent and the 15 second sound byte and images of carnage and destruction devoid of the context where soldiers fought for each other and what they believed in - we cannot entrust that to anyone but us - nor should we.

On an AUG 23rd speech at the National Press Club on C-Span - GEN Casey spoke about a SGT who he recently awarded the Silver Star to for heroism and bravery during a riverine patrol - this SGT took over a gun on the boat from an IP (probably a PKC - but he did not say) and returned fire to suppress the enemy ambush on the banks - the craft could not get through so they beached it on a bank and then took cover in a depression - the patrol leader told the SGT to find a way out - so the SGT left the cover of the position went up the steep bank of the river and ran smack into a heavy chain link fence. He proceeded to cut the fence and found it electrified - while under fire and receiving electric jolts through his body this NCO cut his way through the fence. He brought the patrol up and when one of the soldiers got caught in the hole he went back and with the gloves melted to his hands and under fire - cut his buddy out of the fence.

This type of bravery - the commitment to save a fellow soldier or innocent at the penalty of their own life happens far more often in Afghanistan and Iraq then we know - there are multitudes of other compelling stories about sacrifice just short of life and death - but sacrifice those hear should hear about.

If we want people to know who we are - then we should tell and show them. If we want people who can "Be, Know, Do" then we need to show them who to emulate. Not only do we need to know who our heroes and heroines are, the public needs to know - and in a big way.

I can think of know better way to convince people to serve then to show them it is possible to become more then a person ever thought possible through service to their fellow man and country.

Best regards, Rob

[Adam L]

Hi Matt,
Thanks for making a decision to serve!



I agree with you. I also agree with the your observation about youth, ambition and talent. What I am trying to say though is you have to change that sentiment, and you have to break down how you do that. It is probably not mono-causal since we are dealing with people's perceptions. I do think the first step in changing perceptions is by demonstrating the value you place on something. How do we do that in our society? When we really want to demonstrate how much something or somebody means to us, we sacrifice. How much does an education at the best University cost & why do people value it? How much does the best mechanic in town cost and why are people willing to pay him? How about food, automobiles, or anything else in our society? All of those things have some type of value and worth that translates and appeals to the general public. No matter if we are talking services or goods, we place value on things.

So I'd ask you how you change the attitude of your peers? How do you convince the bright & ambitious young men and women of Cornell, that a career in the uniformed service is something they not only should do to safeguard their freedoms, but something they want to do because it will fulfill both their moral sensibilities and their more physical ones such as providing a standard of living for them and their families which is comparable to the many other vocations their abilities might secure?

Best Regards, Rob

Rob, I know I am going back a ways but I haven't had the time to sit down and respond on this issue.

1. Our “best and brightest” is a complicated group to deal with as well as define. First, with the movement in the educational system too many of those who are truly of this sort are being discouraged and hurt. There is a trend towards (forgive me) “goody-two-shoes” book smarts over actual academic excellence. It is hard to find a subject which has not been destroyed under the name of “progressive education. (Niel Postman the father of “progressive education” has written about this.) Our best and brightest are no longer our best and brightest. Their educations have predominantly been myopic and are lacking in depth. I do believe with incentives there would be no problem finding potential officers for positions more in logistics, communications and other technical areas. On the other hand I believe that there will be difficulty finding those with good, let alone exemplary, potential for infantry (and other front line jobs.) Too many of them have had pragmatism, creativity (not in an artistic sense), common sense, mental toughness, the ability to cope with moral ambiguity and most importantly “pride” beaten out of them. We have indoctrinated a generation (or 2+/-) of people that think they are the most important thing. We have taken “don't be a hero” which used to mean “don't get yourself killed for stupid silly reasons”, but it did not mean “don't be a hero, save yourself at all costs.” Also, the concept of working form the inside is gone. Kid's say they want to stop certain “things”, but they wouldn't dare work from the inside where you can normally make the most difference. I know I am ranting a little, or a lot, on this but I really think these are the issues. I just don't know if many people are left (or available) who can psychologically, intellectually and practically deal with the moral as well as real world stresses. Here is the question I have to bring up: Are those we are considering our “best and brightest” really our “best and brightest?”
2. College isn't what it used to be. Too many people are in college today who don't belong there. Degrees are becoming less and less meaning full. Bachelors and Graduate degrees are becoming more and more specialized. We have invented disciplines which are ridiculous. We have turned psychology into a farce. As much as there are many exemplary professors one only has to look at the writings by the staff at many so called “top” universities to see the decline over the last 50 years. It's been really bad the last 20 years. I'm tired of literarature professors talking about how Blake's “Tiger, Tiger” is all about G-d. Anyone who has studied Blake knows this isn't true. The private sector hires the top graduates out of Harvard's law and business schools and pays them 120k (or more) starting wage. The problem is they don't know much and aren't worth pocket change. We have MBA's running around thinking they actually know how to run a company.

• Incentives are a good and bad idea at the same time. While they may in fact get more officers we may not be getting them for the right reasons.
• I understand the difficulties socially for officers serving one tour after another. I understand how it is hard to go so long without companionship, but should so many young officers have families so early on in their career. Traditionally in the service (I'm going back at least 45-60 years), especially among the elite, for officers to refrain from marriage until their early 30's if not later was quite common. Normally, by this point those who were not to stay in the service would have been settled in a civilian job, while those still in the service would have achieved a pay grade better suited to supporting a family. I am not preaching this, but I am commenting this is one of the differences now vs. historically. It is less and less common to have 8-12, let alone more, years separating couples in age today.
• I think too many people on this site (from the military) are being too modest about their academic capabilities. Most students graduating from “Ivy League” institutions may be more polished (in certain very narrow areas) but I would not say that many of them are more intelligent, nor are most as knowledgeable. Whether or not you went to college I think that pretty much everyone I have encountered here wants to learn and is self starting. As the educational lingo says these days, “a life long learner.” I've always said that college can be a great learning experience but not necessarily beneficial to being well educated. A motivated person with basic academic skills (I should note that what I consider basic may be more lofty than what you would expect), or what a person should come out of high school with, merely needs a public library card and the will, determination and humility to surround oneself with those who are more knowledgeable than oneself to gain a first class education.
• SEE THE REST NEXT POST

[Adam L]

Here is the rest of my post ^

I don't support a draft, not as it has usually been. We need to keep a good portion of our military purely professional. Also, I would suggest universal military service over a draft.
As far as “inspiring” kids (as it was put by ----) to join the service I really don't think much effort needs to be taken. It really is less a matter of “inspiring” them than it is getting them to understand the concept of service and sacrifice. One of the biggest problems today is kids and people in general can't deal with anyone being superior to them in any way shape or form. Due to this anti-intellectualism has peeked. Any mention of meritocracy is met with anger. People can't deal with the fact that they aren't the best. Today everybody's a “hero.” Suddenly a guy/girl who goes door to door raising money for medical research is a hero. We call people who go to breast cancer runs “heroes.” Someone who merely survives a bank robbery or an attack simply out of an instinct for self preservations is a “hero” Bill Maher of all people made a good point about this in his book “When You Ride Alone You Ride with Bin Laden.” To be a hero someone has to do something heroic. Heroes don't get caught in harms way they put themselves in its path. People who raise money or just do really good things are “good” people they may even deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, but they are not heroes. Not everybody can be a hero. It's nothing bad, it's simply what is. People want to be praised and told that their actions were great and heroic without having to sacrifice or risk sacrificing. There is also a lack of understanding of how men either possess too much pride or humility to accept the title of “hero.” 9/11 really brought this to the forefront. Cops and firefighters after the WTC attacks wouldn't call or consider themselves such. Their job is what they do. The term “hero” in their view was reserved to those who had died performing their duty or survived after knowingly performing beyond the expected call of duty. I have found with people that when people watch the news and hear about a man who jumps onto the subway tracks in front of an oncoming train to grab someone who fell onto the tracks, two auxiliary (unarmed) cops are shot to death attempting to subdue an armed gunman (who was already discharging his weapon) robbing several stores or when a man, for what ever the reasons made him capable of this act, jumps on top of a grenade to save his comrades there is often resentment that they themselves might be incapable to of such. Often there is also an attempt to demean these brave acts because they were “misguided” or some other term. I know I'm on a soapbox here but this I really feel is a problem.
[/quote]Likewise, I don't think civilian masters degrees are particularly useful except to the extent that they improve the military skill set of the soldier and to the extent that they increase positive interaction between the professional class and the military officers.[/quote] (Smitten Eagle) – I agree for the most part. Too many degrees just don't have ANY relevance to military skills. Sure, a degree in cognitive psychology (a real one not a lot of the B.S. They are teaching today) might come in hand in areas of intelligence work. We all can see the value of a masters in Arabic or Farsi. I must request that we find a better term than “professional class.” I also am critical of whether this is the right direction to go in order to foster healthy relations with this group.
9. [/quote] A really good example of such a counter narrative (“Fight Fear”) ist the current series of recruitment commercials for the Canadian forces (available here, requires Flash 8).[/quote] (mact) mact you are right on. Having lived in Canada when they first started coming on the air I have to say they were very good ads, in their cinematography and message, and from what I heard where helping enlistment both in quantity and quality of recruits. Of course, I was in Alberta. Our recruitment ads today are just terrible. Despite the money spent. First, are the ads trying to get people in for the wrong reasons (benefits.) Second, who thought these ads up. I understand the Navy and especially the Army have necessarily had to choose quantity over quality. That's the down side of being big. The Army first and foremost needs enough men. I do not understand the Marine Corps ad campains. Especially the last few they have tried and quickly pulled. I really think the Marines can get by with the least amount advertising. They have a reputation. The Marines (most probably everybody) should have ads more like the Canadian Forces. I must note that on other threads I have commented that the Marine Corp should not grow and possibly should shrink a little. The Marine Corp ads traditionally have had something to the effect of “if you make it” or “if you succeed.” This appears to be gone. Sorry to rant so much I just think who ever is making these ads needs their heads examined. Personally I think the HALO 3 ad has more potential if modified. (I'M JOKING – it sort of reminds me of some of the WWII recruiting posters)
10. [/quote]If Someone thinks an officer should not be deployed because he/she is weak then they need to get a job at Wal-Mart and not in the Army. If an officer is afraid to deploy because of family separation or fear of combat Wal-Mart is hiring. [/quote] (Patriot) – I agree 100%.
11. [/quote] No, you won't make comparable private sector pay, but you'll make comparable public service pay and the diference isn't drastic. Explaining BAH helps dampen the shock of putting a $26,000 base pay agains, say, $60k +bonus as a first year analyst at a top firm. [/quote] (mmx1) – Top firms dont start at 60k + bonuses. No, ist 100k + bonuses. They pay stupid money and they have been for 30 years.
12. [/quote] they should do, we've hit on the role of college-educated officers as a moral compass. [/quote] (mmx1) – I'm going to have to disagree a little here. I explain a little in #2.
13. On too many campuses, let alone almost everywhere else, you have self-rightheous (which is different than righteous, a great word that is almost unusable because of the connotations that have been attached to it) students performing, as they call it, “anti-recruitment. These students are not anti-war they are anti-military. They want to live in a nice perfect Utopia (wouldn't we all) and in order to do so they have brainwashed themselves to the point that they beleive if you act peacefully everyone else will. Unfortunately, this doesn't work. A military is going to be needed at least for the next few centuries. I believe these views are due to what I discussed in a few of my earlier points. What annoys most me about these people is they don’t want anyone of good caliber to enter the service and yet complain about the quality of servicemen the military.

I think that is almost everything. For now It's a bit long.

Adam

P.S. Sorry about the soapbox I get on a rant a few times in there

[Adam L]

If we want people to know who we are - then we should tell and show them. If we want people who can "Be, Know, Do" then we need to show them who to emulate. Not only do we need to know who our heroes and heroines are, the public needs to know - and in a big way.

I can think of know better way to convince people to serve then to show them it is possible to become more then a person ever thought possible through service to their fellow man and country.

Best regards, Rob

I agree with you for the most part. Real heroes make great examples and are good for recruitment and saving military programs from peace time cuts (LOL.) The only problem is you have too make sure you use the right one(s.) Every hero has their flaws and it must make sure that PR guys don't turn them into deity, or over publicize the wrong person. Nothing gets more publicity than a posterboy/girl. The last thing any of the services need is a posterboy/girl who gets some really bad press or has some dirt dug up. At this point the service mentioned would have tied its reputation to this person and its prestige would suffer a great setback.

This is why I would recomend highlight great actions by groups over that of individuals.

Adam

[RTK]

10. If Someone thinks an officer should not be deployed because he/she is weak then they need to get a job at Wal-Mart and not in the Army. If an officer is afraid to deploy because of family separation or fear of combat Wal-Mart is hiring. (Patriot) – I agree 100%.

Something I tell each class that comes through at various times in the course and is hung above my desk:

Leading Soldiers in this Army is a privledge, not a right. Each mission, each Soldier under your charge is a testament to your skill, ability, and willingness to abide by and exceed set standards. Meet the standard or learn to flip burgers.

[Adam L]

Something I tell each class that comes through at various times in the course and is hung above my desk:

Leading Soldiers in this Army is a privledge, not a right. Each mission, each Soldier under your charge is a testament to your skill, ability, and willingness to abide by and exceed set standards. Meet the standard or learn to flip burgers.

Amen

Adam

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Adam, Ryan,
I agree about the need to not lionize a person - we should emphasize the act they performed as it relates to values we identify with. I agree with you also about the need to highlight groups and units - but we must have examples of personal courage - while it is good to draw strength from one's group - it is often the individual, alone and unafraid that charts the course for the group and future generations. Leaders are often going to find themselves alone - it is the burden and responsibility of leadership that individuals are invested with the authority to make the final call. Is there some risk in this - probably, but we do say we like audacious leaders who can weigh the value of a risk and make good decisions.

I got to thinking about the 10-20 years of persistent conflict ahead figures I keep reading - and I was thinking about what that means for our society. I think one thing that must be considered is that there may be no peace dividend for at least a couple of decades - I've actually seen that brought up. Not that we should expect one, but to say that it is unlikely that there will be one only emphasizes the 10-20 years of war (or maybe they just meant "conflict").

My kids are 10, 8, 5, and 2 - by the 10-20 year marks my oldest will have lived in an environment where war/conflict could be perceived as "normal". If we have another child - they will be just old enough to serve by the end of the 10-20 year period.

As a nation - do we need to consider that? What are the values that will defend & preserve the freedoms and inalienable rights we are born with? The generation that will bear part of the burden is 10 and under. Do we understand the world well enough to prepare them for it?

I don't know the answers to those questions - but I think we (writ large) should consider them. I do take heart in the caliber of people in uniform, and I think their actions have acquitted them and their units well (there is always 1 or 2% I guess).

Perhaps a better way to the tell the story of their actions might be to tell it through the eyes and words of those it has impacted the most. We have to be forward looking in terms of recruiting and retention to insure we have the same quality of leader in 10 & 20 years as we have today - no easy task to be sure - but communicating the example may be a good start.

I really appreciate you weighing in - this is a good discussion,
Best regards, Rob

[Norfolk]

I agree about the need to not lionize a person - we should emphasize the act they performed as it relates to values we identify with. I agree with you also about the need to highlight groups and units - but we must have examples of personal courage - while it is good to draw strength from one's group - it is often the individual, alone and unafraid that charts the course for the group and future generations. Leaders are often going to find themselves alone - it is the burden and responsibility of leadership that individuals are invested with the authority to make the final call. Is there some risk in this - probably, but we do say we like audacious leaders who can weigh the value of a risk and make good decisions.

I got to thinking about the 10-20 years of persistent conflict ahead figures I keep reading - and I was thinking about what that means for our society. I think one thing that must be considered is that there may be no peace dividend for at least a couple of decades - I've actually seen that brought up. Not that we should expect one, but to say that it is unlikely that there will be one only emphasizes the 10-20 years of war (or maybe they just meant "conflict").

We have to be forward looking in terms of recruiting and retention to insure we have the same quality of leader in 10 & 20 years as we have today - no easy task to be sure

If it can reasonably be expected that there are about 10-20 years of persistent, "low"-level warfare that the military is facing, then the military will continue to be able to draw upon and recruit the minority of candidates for the officer corps who are motivated by the ideals of service to the nation, professional dedication and diligent self-improvement, and self-sacrifice for the common good, and retain them to the extent that the Armed Forces in general, and the Army and the Marines Corps in particular, are found by those same candidates to be living more or less in accordance to those ideals. That said, some of these candidates for the officer corps will be able to live with just being allowed to live up to these same ideals themselves, on a personal basis.

Granted, getting married and having a family is a BIG issue, and a lot of otherwise very dedicated guys who can justify their own self-sacrifices in order to stay in the military and try to excell there, just can't do the same when it means that their own family has to make the same sacrifices. Especially if after they've been in a while, they discover that in addition to all the work-ups to overseas deployments, repeated deployments overseas, trying to recover from each deployment, and having all the rest of the officer's burden to carry besides all this, that when all is said and done the service culture that they find themselves in just doesn't match their expectations, that the gap between the stated ideals of the service and what the service actually values is too great to justify such sacrifices. For the true believers, the guys the service needs most, this is potentially fatal; for those who in addition are married, it is lethal. The bad drive out the good.

These are the people the service needs to concentrate on recruiting and retaining, obviously, but it has to make a special effort to keep them happy - and I just don't know how you would do this in practice, given the overstretch the military has been suffering from for many years, even before the present wars. As for recruiting them in the first place, to a certain extent, 10-20 years of persistent warfare mitigates that problem somewhat, as the true believers will hear the trumpet call and respond - conversely, it will drive away many of those who are attracted to the officer corps for less noble reasons, such as an "education", or "experience" or a "career". A tough, no-nonsense, unglamourous, almost intimidating advertisement campaign that issues a blunt challenge to would-be-officers will attract the best, the true believers, and discourage the wanna-be's. Then the challenge for the service will be to live up to its own ideals in order to keep the best.

As for trying to increase the appeal to the "best and brightest" from across the nation's college campuses and the like, I'm afraid I have to agree more or less with Adam L, while going further by saying that we have a situastion there where not only the "Best and Brightest" are in considerable measure a parody of that phrase, but their minds are in effect poisoned and their moral consciences and characters malformed. Higher education is a decidedly mixed bag in North America, and colleges and universities are often, in some measure, little more than degree mills. An MA is not a reliable indicator in any way as to the intellectual vigour of an officer. And there is, of course, no shortage of exposure to the sort of ideological brainwashing that often passes for academic instruction (particularly in the Arts, but even in the Sciences too), and many kids are going to college already predisposed to this sort of tripe because at home they haven't been educated and raised in their own homes with a solid moral compass and a properly formed conscience and ethic of dedication and self-sacrifice. They go to school, join the Officer Corps, and then it's all about "My Career".

Look, I know that there is no way that the services, and especially the Army, can get by with just "True Believers"; there are just too many officer slots that have to be filled. But, taking a BIG risk by planning for 10-20 years of persistent low-level wafare (and dealing with any BIG war or wars that come along as best as can be done with what is available), this may present the Army, anyway, with an opportunity to try to attract more of the "True Believer" types, the kind who flock to the colours regardless of what everyone else thinks or does, while re-organizing the Army a little more along the lines of the Marine Corps, with a significantly smaller proportion of officers-to-enlisted men. This is a project for an entire generation, but if the best are to be both attracted to and retained for the officer corps, then they have to find professional satisfaction (to the extent practically possible), and those who feel a sense of entitlement as an officer, those who pursue their "Career" above all else, the bad ones are the ones that have to be driven out of a smaller, less ponderous, officer corps. Frankly, I can't imagine this ever happening, but a man can still dream.

[Rob Thornton]

Norfolk - good post - and it should be read and considered in its entirety - it is something to we should chew on for awhile.
Best regards, Rob

[jcustis]

I could have done without the rock remix. I thought the originals were quite well done (though not quite along the lines of the current conversation about diversity of jobs).
Mechanized Infantry
Light Infantry
Air Assault Infantry
Armoured Infantry

As far as diversity, you've got this from the Irish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbOQgqK1TBc

That Irish one simply kicked butt. A little bit of hittin' and rollin', some stuff getting blown up...all triggers that engaged a young lad's prima lurges. Who doesn't like that?

EDITED: I'm on a Youtube kick tonight. Unfortunately, we also have to contend with asshattery like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BFNK...ting%20America

[jcustis]

Norfolk - good post - and it should be read and considered in its entirety - it is something to we should chew on for awhile.
Best regards, Rob

Concur.

I had a History professor in undergrad who taught a class on Vietnam. He and I clicked pretty easily. He wouldn't put up with any of the bleeding B.S. that some of my peers wanted to spout off about, as if they had a right to relive their parents' days.

It wasn't until the end of the course that I discovered he had served in Vietnam as an Army Ranger. He doesn't know it, but that class shaped a lot of my thoughts and impressions with regard to military service, and I see the merit in soldiering for the sake of soldiering. I had to overcome a lot of crap along the way, like the girlfriend who flat out asked me why I wanted to join the "white man's Army." (I was going Marine...duh!)

Adam and Norfolk hit the nail smack on the head regarding the best and brightest. That is so much a relative term and I see the paradox way too often.

Although the Rhodesians had more than their share of recruiting and retention issues, I've always dug this poster:

[Rob Thornton]

We were down your way today - I had the opportunity to actually spend some time going through the Nat'l Museum of the U.S.M.C. - this time I checked out the all the exhibits - you were right - very well done!

Two things stuck with me - the number of former marines who were for the period of time they were inside visibly transformed back to the young men they were once - be they at the WWII display, the Korean War, or the Vietnam. Like you said - its humbling.

The second thing was something I heard said behind me as I was headed out of the exhibits and into the main lobby. An older woman with her WWII aged husband observed that after WWII the nation as a whole slowly erased the responsibility of service from its national consciousness.

For those in the D.C. area its worth the trip down to Quantico - they have gone to great lengths to represent the hardships and challenges of service in our nations war while also heralding the spirit and character of those who answer the call. It makes no difference what your branch of service is, or even if you have served - the opportunity to consider what it takes to maintain our sovereignty and freedoms is worth it.

Also had lunch in Q-town at the Korean/Japanese place - it had not really changed since 87.
Best regards, Rob