Quote Originally Posted by Steve the Planner View Post
I believe what you referenced as "careerism" is actually a structural and organizational problem inherent in major deployments.
While there's a degree of pure careerism in a few cases, more often it's as you say -- though I'd suggest it is not restricted to major deployments but is actually a bureaucratic imbed in the institutions that are the Armed Forces. In my observation, all four services and USSOCOM have the problem (so does most of the US government)...
One soldiers are on the line, and measurables are attached, on many levels, to the responsibilities to perform, accomplish, effect something, then the whole concept of "their war" goes out the window.
Also true and IMO the usual result is indicative of the fact that we significantly over emphasize the use of metrics and measurables. They have a place, no question but we constantly misuse the idea.
That core question of "strategic patience" runs contra to short tours and management by objectives.
Very true -- and an indictment of our archaic personnel policies, still geared to 1917 from whence they came...

Those short tours are operationally deplorable and the far too brief time spent in specific assignments is a fatally flawed personnel management practice. Both lead to mediocre to poor performance all too often by too many units. The Services all owe a huge vote of thanks to the kids who make the flawed systems work better than could really be expected.
Personally, I think it requires a huge amount of leadership skills (from the top) to avoid the inevitable---Bob has troops one the ground who are at risk, the risk continues until "X" is accomplished, Bob becomes "responsible" for "X."
True. That leadership is IMO too often lacking. Most often due to institutional constraints and not personal failings.

In that last paragraph, you synthesized what some in the Army refer to as "On the spot corrections" (one of the biggest leadership errors ever...) and of which others have said "I see a problem, I own it and must fix it." That gets carried forward to the old 'Pottery Barn rule' fallacy. The senior person who sees a problem where none exists or fixes a minor problem is not forcing or allowing the chain of command to work properly, is interfering with the development of subordinates and is providing a lot of entertainment for the Troops who know what is supposed to happen and see that it does not. All that usually due to the risk of being caught short (a far greater risk in the eyes of many than is combat risk...). That parenthetical was the driver for the 'careerism' tag...