Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Catch All

[Ken White]

Of course Ken, but good leaders bypass the minefield once they realize they've gone the wrong direction; they don't charge ahead to prove they were right.

Heh. Of Course indeed. Been there done that with the anointed and the 'how on earth did HE get there...' types. Shame they aren't all good. Problem is the top 50% of Leaders are good, the bottom 50% by definition are less so but all can be in a position to decide to charge or not.

Yes, the selection process is supposed to preclude that. It does a fair job but is far, quite far, from infallible. The sad and sorry Personnel system can put one of the lower half in charge of a BCT which may or may not have two or three upper half LTCs. Even if the BCT is lucky enough to have those good ones at Bn / Sqn level, who wins on what happens...

[MikeF]

Heh. Of Course indeed. Been there done that with the anointed and the 'how on earth did HE get there...' types. Shame they aren't all good. Problem is the top 50% of Leaders are good, the bottom 50% by definition are less so but all can be in a position to decide to charge or not.

Yes, the selection process is supposed to preclude that. It does a fair job but is far, quite far, from infallible. The sad and sorry Personnel system can put one of the lower half in charge of a BCT which may or may not have two or three upper half LTCs. Even if the BCT is lucky enough to have those good ones at Bn / Sqn level, who wins on what happens...

Ken, how much of the upper-level management would you cut?

[Ken White]

Ken, how much of the upper-level management would you cut?

Probably about 50% ala Jack Singlaub but upper level managers (managers are civilian, right? Right?? ) are a small problem. Upper level uniformed leaders who are more concerned with protecting the institution are a far greater problem -- and the Congress is almost as significant a problem for several reasons we all know. Military excellence is not high on their priority list...

However, such focus on people in positions is not the real issue, the systemic malaise and dysfunction engendered by too many laws, too much well intentioned but pervasively stupid regulations and a focus on from over function; appearance over competence; and the enhancement of the institutions (plural) are the problems. The senior people are products of the system, they are doing to the best of their ability what the system says they should do (as is true of far too many less senior people but that's another story...). Cuts will be simply another Band Aid ® on a system that is very much in need of total redesign. You want better performance and results, you will have to change the system. Pretty radically, too...

That would entail Congress emphasizing competence instead of pseudo-fairness (and it is very pseudo...) and 'objectivity,' . It would entail dumping the 1917 Personnel system (as amended in 1940, 1963, 1980, etc.); dumping the terribly flawed Task, Condition and Standard based BTMS system; removing grade creep (there are too many Officers, especially FlagOs, too many senior NCOs -- I'm fully aware of Mob requirements but there better ways to get there and improve quality in the process); testing people for promotion; rigorously testing units for performance and removing incompetent leaders from the service (acknowledging that Congress and HRC truly hate that idea for very different reasons...) and a few other things. You want it fixed, all that is necessary but any one item remediated would bring some improvement, two would help a lot. Good luck with any of it.

Lacking major surgery, the tumor will just continue to grow, a few slices here and there won't stop it. Make no mistake, the protectionism, CYA-ism / risk avoidance, political correctness and stifling bureaucracy are malignancies that have corrupted the system...

[ganulv]

That would entail Congress emphasizing competence instead of pseudo-fairness (and it is very pseudo...) and 'objectivity,' . It would entail dumping the 1917 Personnel system (as amended in 1940, 1963, 1980, etc.); dumping the terribly flawed Task, Condition and Standard based BTMS system; removing grade creep (there are too many Officers, especially FlagOs, too many senior NCOs -- I'm fully aware of Mob requirements but there better ways to get there and improve quality in the process); testing people for promotion; rigorously testing units for performance and removing incompetent leaders from the service (acknowledging that Congress and HRC truly hate that idea for very different reasons...) and a few other things. You want it fixed, all that is necessary but any one item remediated would bring some improvement, two would help a lot. Good luck with any of it.

Is there anywhere that a model other than up–or–out is used? If so, is it/are they any more effective than the U.S.’s?

[Ken White]

Is there anywhere that a model other than up–or–out is used? If so, is it/are they any more effective than the U.S.’s?

However, 15 plus years ago, we were the only nation using an announced and enforced up or out program. Thirty years ago we didn't have one and the personnel system worked a little better then than it did 15 years ago -- or today according to my sources...

All organizations with any sort of heirarchy have, written or unwritten, a policy that is some variant of up or out. Most use failures in performance to determine who goes out. the US is exceptional in that reliefs for cause and summary dismissal for non performance are virtually frowned upon while consistent failure to conform is as or more important. The US process amounts to failure to get selected for promotion . Not all bad except for the fact that too many Promotion Boards tend to select based on a quota system and on the basis of the Official Photograph in the service record. Those factors are not ameliorated by the fact that much emphasis is placed on who rated the selection candidate.

All things considered, there is some good in an up or out program IMO -- the problems arise when the system goes into a zero tolerance mode for logical exceptions and / or uses specious criteria for identifying departees. That lack of flexibility is based mostly on the rationale that such exceptions create work for the personnel management squirrels.

A 'one size fits all' model is easy to administer but it does not really work for a large organization -- or nation...

That returns us to the thread. The R2P mantra is fallacious BS. It also is an attempt to dictate a standard response -- and that's impossible. We for example have that R2P for the Chines in those towns and cities. What are we doing to fulfill that 'responsibility?' What about Iran? Syria? Hungary today? Belarus? Venezuela? The Congo? Even Pakistan?

This ones for you, Bob -- or would be female drivers in Saudi Arabia?

There can be no R2P unless one wants to plunge the entire world into constant conflict...