Zero-Defects Mentality

[Pete]

I believe zero defects was over and done with when Don Starry was at TRADOC--my recollection of circa 1980 is that it was a thing of the past and an example of how not to do things. At about the same time in Germany I was told that the Bad Tolz NCO academy had a paste-waxed floor that nobody was allowed to walk on.

Edit:

Found the following on the National Archives website under Records of the Army Staff, so the zero defects term has been around for a while.

Records of the Director of Review and Analysis, consisting of records relating to the zero defects program, 1965-74; command analysis reports, 1963- 67; army program reviews and summaries, 1951-68; reports and management control records, 1962-68 ...

[jkm_101_fso]

To caveat what Cavguy and Schmed said, there is one more aspect of ZD that I personally saw during deployments that really shook me to my core about WHAT it is that some leaders care about, operationally. I have to give an example to explain this better.

Let's say a platoon is conducting a routine patrol. One vehicle is hit by an IED and there are no KIA, but some injuries that required evac.

Upon return to base, the PL briefs the BN leadership on what happened.

The BN CDR chooses to mention this incident to all officers in the battalion at a meeting. He is proud of the fact that the Soldiers in the aforementioned patrol were all:

-Wearing their seatbelt
-Had their doors combat locked
-Were wearing all the proper PPE
-Were able to remove the sensitive items prior to the vehicle burning

The tone of the speech was one of victory, because they "did everything right", which apparently validated our collective performance as a Battalion.

I take several issues with this. First, there was no mention of what the platoon's actions on contact were. Second, there was no mention of WHY or HOW the IED got there in the first place. It was our battlespace. The fact that the IED was even there should not be overlooked and should be treated as being "beaten" by the enemy on that day; as opposed to ONLY our preparedness for the IED being considered a victory.

It made me think that our BN CDR, who was a great man that I really like, didn't consider the attack as a defeat; instead he was "institutionalized" to react only to the myriad of things that could have gotten him in trouble with the BDE Commander, i.e., Soldiers not wearing seatbelts, eyepro, etc. If that was his first concern, then obviously our success (defined in terms of quelling violence in our geographically assigned area) wasn't top priority. It seemed that he was more concerned about Force Pro and not mission success. And from my observation, this is not unique. It seemed very common.

So, we had a clash of cultures. LTs and CPTs were concerned primarily with mission success. The leaders were concerned with Force Pro and not getting into any "trouble". I can only attribute this to the way people "grew up" in the Army and what they were taught about priorities. I don't think it's fair to stereotype all folks this way, but I can only speak from what I've seen.

From all of my friends that chose to leave the Army, their number one beef was with leadership. Specifically that they didn't believe their leadership really cared how the unit performed in combat, but only that we didn't make any egregious errors during the process.

[Pete]

It made me think that our BN CDR, who was a great man that I really like, didn't consider the attack as a defeat; instead he was "institutionalized" to react only to the myriad of things that could have gotten him in trouble with the BDE Commander, i.e., Soldiers not wearing seatbelts, eyepro, etc. If that was his first concern, then obviously our success (defined in terms of quelling violence in our geographically assigned area) wasn't top priority. It seemed that he was more concerned about Force Pro and not mission success. And from my observation, this is not unique. It seemed very common.

So, we had a clash of cultures. LTs and CPTs were concerned primarily with mission success. The leaders were concerned with Force Pro and not getting into any "trouble."

I've gotten the impression that the emphasis on Force Protection is something that sneaked into TTPs from peacekeeping in the Balkans in the 1990s and safety during peacetime field exercises--somehow it became "the way we've always done things." I really doubt that was something that was promoted at Fort Benning as a central tenet of infantry operations. In around 2000 I was at a meeting at Fort Detrick on the development of a vaccine where a female O-5 in the Medical Service Corps explained in all seriousness how a Risk Analysis is conducted for everything the Army plans to do, with emphasis put upon developing measures to minimize identified risks. Offhand I can think of few things that are more risky than infantry combat.

[Schmedlap]

Offhand I can think of few things that are less risky than infantry combat.

What about venturing into a chow hall without a reflective belt or daring to move a HMMWV on a military base without a ground guide? C'mon now.

Here is a great article published in October 2001, but with much of the interviews and observations made prior to 9/11. This really captures the insanity of the Army before reality was thrust upon us.

[Cavguy]

What about venturing into a chow hall without a reflective belt or daring to move a HMMWV on a military base without a ground guide? C'mon now.

Here is a great article published in October 2001, but with much of the interviews and observations made prior to 9/11. This really captures the insanity of the Army before reality was thrust upon us.

Great article. Missed that one in 2001. You can see a lot of the roots of our OIF/OEF problems about approaching the population and risk that continue to haunt us. As a retired 3-star recently said to me, that generation is going to have to retire before ours can make change.

Best quote of the article was from the Brit who observed about avoiding failure vs. seeking success.

[BayonetBrant]

that article was the one that caused so many of my peers to really look hard in the mirror and finally turn in their paperwork to get out. It was the Oct 01 issue but was on newsstands in August and I know more than a few people that said "screw this - this isn't how I'm spending my next 15 years" and they left.
How many got out before 9-11 or tried to come back after 9-11 I don't know, but I do know that reading that article put in black-and-white what many had felt for a while, and they didn't want to feel that way any more.