Army Officer Commercial

[Courtney Massengale]

But for someone with such an aversion to taking what a Marine E-5 dreams up seriously, you did name yourself after a character he dreamed up to represent everything bad in self-serving, career oriented officers.

Like so many other things, it isn't the work itself, its what it has come to represent. For me, it represents the generation that just missed Vietnam, survived the draw down, got us into GWOT and fooled themselves into thinking they are Damons.

But more to the point, this is a website. Not to offend anyone, but I tend to take self-image over the internet with a large grain of self-depreciating salt. I understand and respect that many people tie SWJ to their professional career (be it military, historian, writer, etc), but my personal $0.02 here is more geared towards voicing my opinion. I tend to worry more about the folks who create an avatar that prefaces their comments with an air of credibility without revealing their qualifications. There are, obviously, other places for more nuanced professional discussions about what I have experience in and those are the places where I toss my resume behind my blabbering.

I've always said I've learned from everyone I ever worked for or with. Either how to do something, or how not to. Trick in life is to pick your role models wisely. As to once an eagle, I enjoyed the book and could empathize more with Damon, no more, no less.

This might be a very post-modern take, but for me, here was a large cognitive dissonance between what people believed Sam Damon stands for and what is actually written in the book. Especially as the first time I read it was in the mid-90s. Some of the most Damonesque aspects of Sam Damon seemed quaint (racial equality! OCS! lists of things your boy needs to learn!) while others seemed strangely out of touch with the newly minted Army Values and the direction the Army was moving in (tossing guys down stairs! screwing nurses in Australia! walking off malaria!). It doesn’t help that the dire predictions at the end of the novel did not come to pass (land war with China?) and the specter of Vietnam had mostly been erased by Desert Storm.

I might be on an island here, but I would wager that most of today’s junior officers don’t relate with Sam Damon OR Courtney Massengale. If anything, I think MORE people are able to emphasize with Courtney – they’re caught in a marriage that the military has sucked the love out of, they have to do unpleasant things to stay in their bosses good graces and they’re stuck advocating for a war that they know is bad for the country but is professionally developmental.

Although I would like to see HRC employ an alcoholic mother to give advice for career progression...

[pjmunson]

if Courtney Massengale just likes to ruffle feathers and put out a contrarian viewpoint for fun or if he really is a lot like Courtney Massengale, but it sure seems like he's taken the contrarian a bit far. I highly doubt that many people who read "Once an Eagle" identify with Massengale. Everyone I know that has read and recommended the book has wanted to identify with Damon. Yes, it's fiction and yes, it's quaint, but we have all met Massengales and hated them and some of us have met a precious few who trend towards Damon and idolized them. I forget how throwing the guy down the stairs came into the plot, but things like that, while publicly "reprehensible," often only increase a military leader's attraction, especially if he doesn't get caught. This was especially so in the timeframe of the book. We aren't in the glee club and we don't lead boy scouts.

Some of the Damon flaws can be taken, too, as cautionary. In any case, Massengale loves to hate Damon. I hope he doesn't take his Massengale character too far in real life.

[AmericanPride]

From a junior officer: I've never heard of Once an Eagle until I read this thread. Well, I probably heard about it in passing when talking about Army reading lists which I usually do my best to avoid (though I did read Killer Angels and Band of Brothers). It's hard enough drawing accurate and useful lessons from historical fact, much less fiction which is designed to drive home the author's ideals sometimes in spite of fact. It seems to me though from the depictions of the characters that Damon is an idealized character because he reflects what should be and the other is admonished because he reflects what is. It's appears to be one of those things that everyone knows but God forbid you be the one to actually say it.

[Ken White]

...It seems to me though from the depictions of the characters that Damon is an idealized character because he reflects what should be and the other is admonished because he reflects what is. It's appears to be one of those things that everyone knows but God forbid you be the one to actually say it.

As you say, it's fiction. Admonished due to being 'what is' perhaps -- also noting that it doesn't have to be that way, it's a personal choice that doesn't reflect well on the individual, that it does drive other, better people out of the service and that some Damons stick around in spite of the Courtneys. I'd say the ratio is better than 60:40 for the good guys.

That's a good thing. That's also reality. Everywhere in the world other than in the entertainment industry and a couple of other places where it seems to be reversed; fortunately, the armed forces of the US are on the good slope...

[Schmedlap]

In regard to Officer ratios - I think Neil hit it on the head with regard to the Army's logistics tail. Just running the numbers in my head from one of my deployments, my battalion had about 800 to 850 personnel. We had 1 LTC, 2 MAJs, 13 CPTs, and 40 LTs (at the start of the deployment). That was for 8 companies (A thru F, plus HHC, and an attached NG company) manning a small FOB and 3 patrol bases, plus a JCC and a MiTT. So, our ratio was about 1:14. I suspect that is a good snapshot, since our battalion had infantry, armor, engineers, a support company, and an HHC - each type of company having platoons of different sizes. By the end of the deployment, the numbers of CPTs and LTs flip-flopped due to promotions, but it didn't make much sense to swap out personnel at that point.

Brigade had 12 CPTs just in their S3 shop. No wonder they were always demanding more reports and storyboards.

In regard to some issues about who we recruit - the Officers in the battalion above were a fair mix of West Point, OCS, and ROTC. We had LTs ranging in age from 23 to 33 - guys fresh out of college, others who left a career in response to 9/11. I don't think that any officer in the Bn attended an Ivy League school, though I know one attended the notorious UC-Berkeley. Their backgrounds ran the full gamut of redneck, rich kid, yankee, farm hand, beach bum, and backwoods yokel; black, white, asian, and hispanic; religion did not come up often, but I know one was an evangelical, one was Jewish, and it would not surprise me if many had "no preference" on their ID tags. I saw no indication that any background made anyone better or worse prepared.

In regard to the Once An Eagle tangent - I never heard of the book or the characters. But I am now glad that I know the name is not real. I thought it was a tad awkward to see responses to Courtney Massengale on other threads prefaced with "Sir,". I wondered, "is Courtney a man's name?" Well, apparently it is, though I guess it didn't matter.

[tankersteve]

Schmedlap,

What Neil was alluding to was the Army's Title X requirement to provide ALL theater logistics support beyond a certain distance inland, regardless of service. Thus, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all find themselves looking to the Army for heavy line-haul, bulk fuel, etc. This certainly ups the numbers of officers a bit.

I am sure a logistician can deliver the details (or correct my mistakes) more succinctly than I can.

I am not sure the Army Corps of Engineers is factored into that number, but that is pretty much an all officer/civilian organization, AFAIK. They support US, Army and Air Force engineer issues. Engineer types, please chime in...

On another note, anyone here with better search-fu have the manning/MTOE of the Stryker and IBCT? I would be curious of where our combat brigades stand on the officer/enlisted ratio. This is what really matters, IMO.

Tankersteve

[Schmedlap]

What Neil was alluding to was the Army's Title X requirement to provide ALL theater logistics support beyond a certain distance inland, regardless of service. Thus, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps all find themselves looking to the Army for heavy line-haul, bulk fuel, etc. This certainly ups the numbers of officers a bit.

Understood. Perhaps "tail" wasn't the best way of describing it, as it is both our tail and the tails of the other services and other functions that are not really tails, but additional heads placed on other bodies.

I was providing the numbers from my battalion just to demonstrate that - at least at BN level - the ratio is not too out of whack. Those number include the FSO's and the PA - remove them and the ratio nears 20:1.

Agree regarding BDE being the most important measure. That is probably the best cross section of types of units, as it seems to be the clearing house where all of the alphabet soup of random 3- to 15-member teams seem to come from.

[Greyhawk]

"...all us old guys who are just jaded, not stupid."

True - I neglected to add this to the end of my line you quoted.

What shouldn't be overlooked in this discussion is that regardless of what career path one chooses in life one will experience a lifelong compromise between the inner Massengale and the inner Damon, and a lifetime of interaction with others who at various times will exhibit qualities of either if observed long enough. (They have their own inner struggle, after all.) While Once an Eagle set that conflict against a military background it could certainly have been done within a corporate or academic setting, too. The author chose that with which he was familiar, which was also a setting that would have broad appeal (in circa-1970 America) and provide action sequences.

There's an incident early in the book (Damon's pre-military life) where he knocks someone down a flight of stairs. One can read the book for a full examination of the circumstances surrounding that. But the book details a full life, and as with most fiction takes its characters along an arc wherein they are changed. Much about the book - including the length - is certainly outdated by today's standards, but due to that length it shouldn't be characterized by events in chapter one.

So, setting the book aside: Damon and Massengale are no more or less than caricatures of something that exists in part in each of us, and not unique to military life. I believe those of us in the mid-latter chapters - jaded though we may be - hope those in the earlier continue to progress with enthusiasm for the task.

[Courtney Massengale]

I forget how throwing the guy down the stairs came into the plot, but things like that, while publicly "reprehensible," often only increase a military leader's attraction, especially if he doesn't get caught. This was especially so in the timeframe of the book. We aren't in the glee club and we don't lead boy scouts.

Unethical, immoral, illegal and unsafe are just fine and dandy and are, in fact, encouraged to increase your cult of personality – just don’t get caught.

If that’s what being a Sam Damon is all about…

Most people are sharp enough to realize that Desert Storm with 100 casualties in 100 hours was not a war but a live fire FTX with a poor OpFor. That it didn't erase much of anything about Viet Nam is I think evidenced by those who objected to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The aura of imminent failure was so great that H.W. had to declare that it would "not be another Vietnam".

The aura of confidence was so great that W. flew onto an aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished.

Nothing changed?

In order, I suspect you're correct and that's sad. I don't think anything can suck love out of a good marriage though one that probably shouldn't have been could be easily affected. How do you live with yourself if you 'have to do unpleasant things' and why would you want to stay in the good graces of your Boss. Anyone who advocates any war is a dangerous fool; doing your job is one thing, advocating it for professional development definitely is Courtney material.

My roommate has spent four of the past six years in Iraq. His marriage of 17 years is being “easily affected”. (Oh by the way, he hasn’t taken a second wife or gone to the manlove as is the local custom in this part of the world.)

Every day that I have to turn an Iraqi citizen away from US forces and into the hands of our less capable Iraqi counterparts for matters that could very well be life or death, I’m doing something that to me is unpleasant (down right manslaughter), but what is required to keep in the good graces of our masters.

As for advocating war, where is the line between advocating war and advocating how to conduct a war? More than a few careers have been made and broken over the past few years…

Just some thoughts.

What shouldn't be overlooked in this discussion is that regardless of what career path one chooses in life one will experience a lifelong compromise between the inner Massengale and the inner Damon, and a lifetime of interaction with others who at various times will exhibit qualities of either if observed long enough. (They have their own inner struggle, after all.)

Amen. You have found the words that elude me and hit the nail on the head. We can’t be one without acknowledging the other. Anyone who professes to be the embodiment of either is a fool who does not know himself.

[Ken White]

Unethical, immoral, illegal and unsafe are just fine and dandy and are, in fact, encouraged to increase your cult of personality – just don’t get caught...If that’s what being a Sam Damon is all about…

I'm not about to defend a fictional character to someone bearing the name of another but I will suggest you put it in the context of the times as far the book went. It shines a spotlight on people; some of their actions were in tune with a different time when there was more violence about and other moral and behavioral differences were more prevalent; some of the actions and attitudes are timeless -- like just don't get caught. That's sure still with us...

The aura of imminent failure was so great that H.W. had to declare that it would "not be another Vietnam".

The aura of confidence was so great that W. flew onto an aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished.

Nothing changed?

Since both were stupid mistakes by sitting Presidents, apparently not

As for aura of imminent failure, I was working in an involved Headquarters at the time, we had a Pool on how long it would take. SF LTC won it, I was third and most of clustered around 30--50 days. The longest period picked by any of 30 plus folks was 90 days. Some of the other Civilian Employees thought we were terrible for having a pool on a war with death and destruction guaranteed. Oh, well...

Politicians often say foolish things, best not to put much stock in them.

My roommate has spent four of the past six years in Iraq. His marriage of 17 years is being “easily affected”.

Move goalposts often? Of course it's been affected, any marriage would be affected -- but that's not what you said earlier, that was: "they’re caught in a marriage that the military has sucked the love out of..." Not quite the same thing. My marriage was affected by a bunch of deployments -- but the love wasn't sucked out of it.

(Oh by the way, he hasn’t taken a second wife or gone to the manlove as is the local custom in this part of the world.)

Lot of both going around here in the States, much less there.

The Army merely says it will expose you to other cultures, it doesn't insist you like or agree with them but it does want you to accord them at least surface respect. Bummer, but it goes with the territory.

Every day that I have to turn an Iraqi citizen away from US forces and into the hands of our less capable Iraqi counterparts for matters that could very well be life or death, I’m doing something that to me is unpleasant (down right manslaughter), but what is required to keep in the good graces of our masters.

Good graces of your Masters? The US civilian Politicians that signed an agreement saying we would do that? Surely you aren't calling the Iraqis your Masters -- even if it is their country...In any event, if that distresses you, I can understand that and would feel the same way -- have in fact in other places at other times -- however, if it REALLY distresses you, then another line of work may be indicated. That BTW is not a knock or a pejorative but a serious thought. Sort of like the less capable bit, probably true but they are different, no question. The serious thought is that's a strange area of the world in many respects, much that is very different. But then, so the Far East, so's South America.

As for advocating war, where is the line between advocating war and advocating how to conduct a war? More than a few careers have been made and broken over the past few years…

They are in peace time also -- careers made and broken that is. They also were in previous wars. Probably will be in the next one also. One after that, too, most likely. That, too goes with the territory.

The difference in advocating war and advocating how to conduct warfare it is best explained by the Marines who have long said "Nobody wants to fight a war but somebody better know how."

Just some thoughts.

Thoughts are always good, particularly if they are accepting of other views or at least willingness to consider them. Helps if they do not lead to a "My brilliance is all encompassing " outlook and one realizes that other opinions don't have to be heeded but they aren't necessarily invalid or wrong.

Anyone who professes to be the embodiment of either is a fool who does not know himself.

We can agree on that, fiction is fiction.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

had to go to the Army site to watch the video since YouTube is verboten here. It seems to be a pretty good production but I still wonder when the Army is going to seriously start considering hiring from within. There are now thousands of highly qualified, dare I say it, enlisted soldiers who would make outstanding officers since they have led other soldiers in combat and understand what it takes. Oh, but many lack a piece of paper that officially says they’re smart. So they do not qualify.

Had to dig around the site so it took a while to find this.

Great the “Green to Gold” path for enlisted personnel to become officers. Except one small obstacle on the last page: there are only 165 slots per school year. That to me is criminal. If the Army truly needs officers, and needs them now, the number should be almost 10 times that. Plus they should be pushing it a lot harder rather than burying it deep on the web site.

[Ken White]

But more to the point, this is a website. Not to offend anyone, but I tend to take self-image over the internet with a large grain of self-depreciating salt.

As do most of us...

...(racial equality! OCS! lists of things your boy needs to learn!) while others seemed strangely out of touch with the newly minted Army Values and the direction the Army was moving in (tossing guys down stairs! screwing nurses in Australia! walking off malaria!).

Different time. He was reporting life as it was then in a book of fiction. Tossing people down stairs occurred frequently, as did multiple fights in all grades of school and in public places between adults. Seem almost prehistoric by today enlightened standards. That's why the Army and Marines have to teach various forms of hand to hand combat today -- many 'adults' have never been struck or roughed up by another person. As for Australia, if you're ever in a similar situation and consider it carefully, not just overseas, but deployed for the duration not a few months and in a nation of broadly similar culture where association is not 'discouraged,' I suggest you note the behavior along that lineof all your fellow soldiers...

It doesn’t help that the dire predictions at the end of the novel did not come to pass (land war with China?)

Should that be did not or 'has not yet?'

and the specter of Vietnam had mostly been erased by Desert Storm.

Really? I don't think so. Not at all. Most people are sharp enough to realize that Desert Storm with 100 casualties in 100 hours was not a war but a live fire FTX with a poor OpFor. That it didn't erase much of anything about Viet Nam is I think evidenced by those who objected to Afghanistan and Iraq. Same people and their clones or offspring.

I might be on an island here, but I would wager that most of today’s junior officers don’t relate with Sam Damon OR Courtney Massengale. If anything, I think MORE people are able to emphasize with Courtney – they’re caught in a marriage that the military has sucked the love out of, they have to do unpleasant things to stay in their bosses good graces and they’re stuck advocating for a war that they know is bad for the country but is professionally developmental.

In order, I suspect you're correct and that's sad. I don't think anything can suck love out of a good marriage though one that probably shouldn't have been could be easily affected. How do you live with yourself if you 'have to do unpleasant things' and why would you want to stay in the good graces of your Boss. Anyone who advocates any war is a dangerous fool; doing your job is one thing, advocating it for professional development definitely is Courtney material.

Although I would like to see HRC employ an alcoholic mother to give advice for career progression...

She'd probably make far more sense than does most that comes out of HRC...