Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: "Does the Army Need a Full-Spectrum Force or Specialized Units?

  1. #21
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default It's all my fault...

    "I've long told every Officer I meet, "When you get to be Chief of Staff, nuke the Hoffman Building."
    It's my fault because none of them got to that job full time. Bruce Palmer did get to be Vice Chief and even Acting Chief. He told me outside Phu Bai in 1968 as he was leaving country rebuilding that monster was his number one priority -- but he didn't get that done, they're too entrenched. I bumped into him at the Armor conference at Knox in '78, after he'd retired. He was not a cusser but when we talked about the personnel system and Congress' impact on it, he did show me he knew how to cuss when it was necessary.
    "A helluva a way to run an organization within a country which has become what it is through the workings of good laws, free enterprise, and free labor markets."
    Too true -- puts a whole new meaning on the phrase "We've lost our way..."

    I'll take responsibility for my screwups -- now if we could just get Congress to do that...

  2. #22
    Registered User Skullbiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8

    Default Most recent attempt at OPMS reform

    Shinseki tried only a modest assault on the status quo with his pitch beginning in 1997 to introduce technical literacy into the operational culture of the Army via the creation of the simulations operations officer (functional area 57) which he took great pains to point out was supposed to have been within the operations career field and within the command track, thus keeping would-be technologist operationally current and potentially in the drivers seat to help change the culture.

    This modest effort failed. I was one of the first seven officers to be selected for the program back in 95 and I was the only special forces officer in the history of the program to date. Instead of us staying within operations we moved into the new (and ironically now after only five years --- defunct --- information operations career field). By putting us there we no longer had any possibility of command or S3/XO tenure; and therefore were relegated to a tier 3 staff position where we had even less influence over ongoing Army material developments in simulations. The effort was effectively neutered by HRC because it broke their "model". At the time their model called for no dual track, only single track. Thus the technologically literate were separated from the operational class (the seat of authority) and relegated to a brokering and essentially rear area support role --- away from the decision making table and where the action was.

    Ironically, HRC in its latest zig zag to maintain one if its tenants --- flexibility in being able to assign officers to structure where ever it needs to --- has reversed itself on its single track mandate and is now entertaining the notion of dual tracks --- yet it must be emphasized that HRC is not doing this because they realize that single tracking overly specializes or dumbs down the officer corps --- they are doing this so as to have the flexibility of pushing officers into marginalized assignments --- the branch immaterial assignment.

    However, they still have the class (branch) system. In fact an aviation O6 I know was very upset that in spite of the new BDE's that the Army has created it is not considering aviation officers as eligible for command of those units --- that these same officers would have served in such a brigade as jrs appears not to have been enough to assault entrenched prejudices and parochialisms. So the branch parochialism of BDE CMD for the iron triad --- infantry, armor, and artillery; was only slightly breached --- by the engineers --- they are eligible but not aviators.

    So back on subject. Shinseki fought HRC from 97 until 2002 when he gave up and signed a memo consigning his "baby", as FA57 was know then, to the oblivion of technical specialization at the margins of the Army with no seat at the decision making table.

    Thus from this recent battle; I have no confidence that the system can reform itself unless Congress has the will to do so. And they have shown no inclination. I suspect that they "like" the system the way it is. It would be dangerous to have a system which regularly turned out Boyd's and other mavericks. As my colleague put it earlier --- the system has a strong preference for made men.

  3. #23
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Interesting, Thanks

    Wasn't aware of that -- but it tracks with the HRC / MilPerCen / DCSPER operating mode. I've watched several great folks get sidelined in similar ways. FAOs are one of my pets. We spend millions training those guys then ignore them...
    Thus from this recent battle; I have no confidence that the system can reform itself unless Congress has the will to do so. And they have shown no inclination. I suspect that they "like" the system the way it is. It would be dangerous to have a system which regularly turned out Boyd's and other mavericks. As my colleague put it earlier --- the system has a strong preference for made men.
    Made? Or compliant? It will take Congress, no question -- they, after all, are the ones that insisted on much of the current bureaucratic mishmash -- but as I said above, barring a major exodus in disgust (a possibility, I fear) or some other earth shaker, change from that quarter is unlikely. Thus, my belief that cultivating 'em when they walk in the door and getting them to change the culture as they grow is an alternative. The Gen Xers, now hitting their mid thirties, are getting feisty if not violent about Baby Boomers and their lack of drive and general worth. This Millennium generation in their late teens is showing scant tolerance for BS, incompetence and subterfuge. The two as they rise in rank might be fun to watch...

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    The Gen Xers, now hitting their mid thirties, are getting feisty if not violent about Baby Boomers and their lack of drive and general worth. This Millennium generation in their late teens is showing scant tolerance for BS, incompetence and subterfuge. The two as they rise in rank might be fun to watch...
    We harbour dark thoughts about our older competitors, whom we perceive as having had it comparatively easy compared to those who came both before and after them...and we do indeed see them as competitors, and most certainly not as role models to be emulated (with a few specific exceptions). Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

  5. #25
    Registered User Skullbiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Made? Or compliant?
    Yes compliant is the more accurate assessment -- this dovetails with Yingling's critique

    It will take Congress, no question -- they, after all, are the ones that insisted on much of the current bureaucratic mishmash -- but as I said above, barring a major exodus in disgust (a possibility, I fear) or some other earth shaker, change from that quarter is unlikely.
    Agree

    Thus, my belief that cultivating 'em when they walk in the door and getting them to change the culture as they grow is an alternative. The Gen Xers, now hitting their mid thirties, are getting feisty if not violent about Baby Boomers and their lack of drive and general worth. This Millennium generation in their late teens is showing scant tolerance for BS, incompetence and subterfuge. The two as they rise in rank might be fun to watch...
    The system has been adept at eliminating insurgents before. It would take as you have noted a mass exodus or a mutiny. I see neither happening. For every malcontent within the system with "fire in the belly" and thus the energy to do something about it, there are many others who may not like it, but would prefer to assume an overwatch position. And there are more still who grumble but if the system will promote them to LTC, and it will in the current manpower crunch....then they'll just keep their head down....after all the kids have college coming up.

    As proof I can offer you my remarks I made on an Army BCKS board recently among simulations operations officers to the questions of whether or not to drop the "block check" on the OER for Captains. PM me if you are interested with your e-mail I will send it to you.
    Last edited by Skullbiscuit; 02-09-2008 at 08:37 PM.

  6. #26
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullbiscuit View Post
    ...
    The system has been adept at eliminating insurgents before. It would take as you have noted a mass exodus or a mutiny. I see neither happening. For every malcontent within the system with "fire in the belly" and thus the energy to do something about it, there are many others who may not like it, but would prefer to assume an overwatch position. And there are more still who grumble but if the system will promote them to LTC, and it will in the current manpower crunch....then they'll just keep their head down....after all the kids have college coming up.
    Agree with the opening sentence and your probably correct on the rest. My only quibble is on generational change. In 45 years in or with the machine, I have no doubt at all that I saw two distinct Armies -- and I'm now seeing a third develop...

    We'll see what transpireth...

    As proof I can offer you my remarks I made on an Army BCKS board recently among simulations operations officers to the questions of whether or not to drop the "block check" on the OER for Captains. PM me if you are interested with your e-mail I will send it to you.[/QUOTE]

    Shot.

  7. #27
    Registered User Skullbiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I have no doubt at all that I saw two distinct Armies -- and I'm now seeing a third develop...
    Yes the division between the organizational and institutional armies has only deepened with the war and the 49/51 profile distribution. One thing I did not note in the piece I sent you was this data point. Within my functional area and year group, the three officers who were selected to O6 had this in common:

    1. Not one had been deployed since the war began on 9/11
    2. Not one had been in an MTOE unit since 9/11
    3. All had stayed deeply embedded in academic or institutional support roles

    So like I talked to in my piece if you are in a new technical functional area that is either not understood or immature, you go to an MTOE unit at the risk of being "2 block fodder" in one of those expanded rating pools I mentioned. The whole concept of an expanded rating pool which permits apples to be compared to oranges guarantees that the Army will divide itself into its longstanding mafias.

    To put this in perspective of OPMS XXI or OPMS III as it is now called. The whole point of career field designations at around 10 years was to create groups which only competed against themselves. This was done ostensibly in the 90's when it was recognized that the only folks making it to O6 were former BN CDR's (the pick your own phenomena) The Army realizing that in the information era it needed technical specialist to survive to O6 to drive change (not to mention hold that carrot out so that technical officers did not leave at 10 years or less) created the career field competition. So when you go to a board you are supposed to be competing against only "your own kind". But to connect the dots....it was only a half measure. As noted with the expanded rating pools nothing stops apple to orange comparison at the unit level. The result as indicated by the above board result is that if you want to make it to O6 the old rules are still in effect...."never work outside of your branch"....thus the two Armies as you have noted will only become more deeply divided as if you want to make it to O6 you will have to assiduously avoid (as has always been the case) working for someone not of your "class"

    All this time (and I can show you the slides but I cringe every time I look at them) the proponent office for my functional area continued to produce "About Us" briefings with hero pictures of muddy boots soldiers while crowing on the title slide "We're about warfighting" Oh and the proponent officer responsible for these briefs had not left the beltway since 9/11 either

    You may be aware that back in 2005 I think it was Schoomaker produced a statistic which said that 70% of the Army's field grade officers had not deployed. I think this statistic lead Casey to a recent edict declaring that those who have not deployed will ---- ok ---- we'll see.

    What is this third Army you see?

  8. #28
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullbiscuit View Post
    Yes the division between the organizational and institutional armies has only deepened with the war and the 49/51 profile distribution. One thing I did not note in the piece I sent you was this data point. Within my functional area and year group, the three officers who were selected to O6 had this in common:

    1. Not one had been deployed since the war began on 9/11
    2. Not one had been in an MTOE unit since 9/11
    3. All had stayed deeply embedded in academic or institutional support roles
    That's scary...
    All this time (and I can show you the slides but I cringe every time I look at them) the proponent office for my functional area continued to produce "About Us" briefings with hero pictures of muddy boots soldiers while crowing on the title slide "We're about warfighting" Oh and the proponent officer responsible for these briefs had not left the beltway since 9/11 either
    Don't show me the slides, I don't want to ruin a pretty sunday. The inside the beltway types, uniformed and civilian and their 'warfighting' and 'warrior' jazz and Power Points are really starting to be more than annoying.
    You may be aware that back in 2005 I think it was Schoomaker produced a statistic which said that 70% of the Army's field grade officers had not deployed. I think this statistic lead Casey to a recent edict declaring that those who have not deployed will ---- ok ---- we'll see.
    I recall and remember thinking at the time "I'll bet the senior NCO figure is pretty similar" and "shades of Veet Nam; deja vu all over again..." In '69 as a SGM, I volunteered to go back the SEA for a third tour and was asked, since there were 44 people in my grade and MOS who had not been to the land of opportunity, to go somewhere else in the world so they could assist those guys with their careers. I did. Three years later when I returned form the ME I discovered they had gotten 19 of the 44 -- that meant a field of a little over 100 had 20% who didn't make it to the war. As you say, we'll see...
    What is this third Army you see?
    Better trained and equipped across the board than ever. Line Infantry doing some stuff that ten years ago were deemed SOF stuff (but weren't really, all stuff any good grunt should be able to do -- and did before the post VN social experiments and infusion of Civilian Educators dumbed down training). Great troops,better educated than ever. Reserve Component soldiers and officers in large numbers with some combat experience. Really sharp MAJ, CPT and LT who are getting beaucoup combat experience (of a sort) compared to some of their seniors who are not (a potential disconnect???). Lot of other little things. All in all a lot of improvements over my day. Whether the Army is smart enough to capitalize on that remains to be seen...

  9. #29
    Registered User Skullbiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Better trained and equipped across the board than ever. Line Infantry doing some stuff that ten years ago were deemed SOF stuff (but weren't really, all stuff any good grunt should be able to do -- and did before the post VN social experiments and infusion of Civilian Educators dumbed down training). Great troops,better educated than ever. Reserve Component soldiers and officers in large numbers with some combat experience. Really sharp MAJ, CPT and LT who are getting beaucoup combat experience (of a sort) compared to some of their seniors who are not (a potential disconnect???). Lot of other little things. All in all a lot of improvements over my day. Whether the Army is smart enough to capitalize on that remains to be seen...
    Yes and I attribute that to two factors:

    1. All volunteer -- so professionals and better pay than the draft Army
    2. The institutional schooling to include organizational training centers such as JRTC, NTC, and CMTC has become much better than it was in your day. Army schools generally do good work. My complaint, as noted in the piece I sent you, is that you can consistently graduate at the top of your class, but it won't mean squat for promotion or assignment. That gets back to the strangle hold that the Senior Rater and Assignment Officer have on progression within the Army

    So we have a better Army then we had then. But an Army that is better at tactical execution against 3rd rate opponents is not in my opinion an army that is......still my favorite expression....Being all it can be

    I never did believe in that "Army of One" crap

    And as far as I am concerned...an "Army Strong" is subsumed and a characteristic of an Army "Being all it can be"....apparently the Gen Y crew are less philosophically inclined than previous generations

  10. #30
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Heh. All true...

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullbiscuit View Post
    ...
    So we have a better Army then we had then. But an Army that is better at tactical execution against 3rd rate opponents is not in my opinion an army that is......still my favorite expression....Being all it can be

    I never did believe in that "Army of One" crap

    And as far as I am concerned...an "Army Strong" is subsumed and a characteristic of an Army "Being all it can be"....apparently the Gen Y crew are less philosophically inclined than previous generations
    Agree on all counts. Would only point out the Gen Y crowd are too young to be philosophical, that's for us old guys...

    They shoulda stuck with "Be all you can be."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •