Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
...I personally know at least 2 one star type GOs who have been, and currently are working real hard on flattening organizational communications by empowering tactical leaders with the tools and authorities needed to do so – ... – the leaders must do the empowering.
and I mean that sincerely. My question is why do they have to work hard on what we SAY, doctrinally and Army mythically, we have been doing all along?

I don't question the need for Generals -- some of my best friends are Generals (honest) -- however, I do question the need for excessive numbers of them and their tendency to oversupervise. I've surfaced those issues to some of said GOs. friends, acquaintances and none of the foregoing included, over the years and most of 'em broadly agree. So why do we not do what we say we do and what most think we should do?

It all goes back to the USSR's highest placed Mole, Robert Strange MacNamara. He didn't trust anyone and he alone had all the answers. That attitude percolated into DoD and the Army and it hit at a bad time; the first big batches of WW II senior Officers were retiring and they knew peopl, knew their jobs and trusted people. They left and were replaced by clones of MacNamara's Whiz Kids, incredibly bright young things with no people skills.

Those guys went to Viet Nam and commanded Battalions full of Instant Sergeants and Lieutenants who were dedicated, aggressive and who knew little; so the Bn Cdr had to micromanage. He came back and grew into a General in the 80s and 90s and he selected replacements in his own image...

The question is not where we are, I know where -- and I know why. The issue is not where Generals learn or need to be, that's obvious. The problem is one of selection and attitude. The question is the one I asked above; how do we turn around a system that has inadvertently grown to stifle imagination and innovation into one that fosters those traits...

Because that's what need to happen.