Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
That's why I started this thread- to discuss towards getting it right.
I'll give a more detailed answer than my initial attempt.

We started failing when we adopted European practices in the nascent US Army. We adopted and excessively -- for American mores and tastes -- heirarchial model. (That's not going away)

We exacerbated that over the years by having Congress force numerous arcane rules on personnel management and training practices driven by domestic politics, the Mothers of America, obtaining votes and fiscal concerns as opposed to mission requirements. (That's not going away)

Fast forward to Viet Nam. The average Bn Cdr in 1968-72 found he had few to no field grades, CPTs or senior NCO but had instead a host of LTs and NCOC Graduate SGTs. He discovered they were all great kids who would do anything you asked of them -- but they didn't know much so they needed constant watching. Thus the micro-managing Generals of the 80s and 90s were born. Old habits die hard. (That CAN be changed!)

Then came adoption of a training system that is designed to produce mediocrity. It was instituted to handle the poor intake that was McNamara;s Project 100,000 and was not changed when the Draft went away and the 100K guys got assimilated and some good fresh blood was obtained.The Task, condition and Standard foolishness is mind numbing and attempts to trash it are routinely defeated because the system makes it easy on the 'Trainers.' (That can be changed)

Add societal changes -- we are a terribly risk averse society -- and political changes and you have an Army that is risk averse. (That may be changeable...)

Just add all that to my first response and that's where we went wrong.

How to fix it? My subversive suggestions will not be provided; You guys will have to fix it. I will offer four non-subversive thoughts: Things that cannot be changed can be worked around. Things that can be changed will have to start at the bottom and work up -- top down does not work in a heirarchial model because even if you have a really sharp charismatic person at the top trying to change the direction the elephant is committed to, the mid level work avoiders will just wait him or her out (See Meyer, E.C). OBTE is not perfect but it is a big step forward. Do not let the system co opt the good guys until they become part of and continue the risk averse and micro management syndromes.

Good cess...