Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

[fernando761]

Hello--I'm new to this site, but my name's Fernando and I'm an active duty Special Forces officer attending grad school at Harvard. Some quick comments I'd written earlier:

I think the Paul Yingling is dead on. But what makes his article so interesting is not necessarily its content–though insightful and accurate, the criticism is not new. Many others have written similar accounts in newspaper articles or books such as “Fiasco” and “Cobra II.” What is so striking about the article is that it was written by a successful active duty officer and then published in a military journal. If Yingling isn’t immediately fired or blacklisted, this will mark a clear change in the military’s internal climate. Public sentiment may be so negative over Iraq that military officers can dare to say “the emperor has no clothes” and still keep their jobs. If this is the case, expect the floodgates to open soon–dozens of similar articles by military officers will follow. The change will be both postive and negative: Positive because the American public will have greater insight into the real dynamics of the war as seen by those fighting it. Negative because the insight will be bleak and feed the frenzied call for immediate withdrawal.

Regardless of the potential outcomes, we should all be watching the career of Paul Yingling very closely. The stakes are much higher than we can imagine.

For more, check out our new national security blog at www.roguelystated.com

[Ski]

Couple of things

I haven't been to ILE/CGSC yet, but am probably going within the next 12-18 months. I've heard it's similar to CAS3, where you have officers who care and get the most out of the course and then you have those who are just looking for 10 months of school and a sheepskin. I'm planning on going to get the strategist identifier and a second master's - I'll be halfway through my first by August 07.

What I'd really like to do is go to SAMS, as I have three friends who have gone and said it's night and day compared to ILE in terms of intellectual interest. I figure I have a fighter's chance of meeting the requirements...

As far as the military culture changing, well, I sincerely hope it does. It will take wide ranging reform for it to occur, and if Yingling's article is the tipping point, that will be significant. But I just have that sneaking feeling that the points made by him will fall by the wayside like Don Vandergriff's books on the culture of the Army. I guess we just have to wait and see.

[sullygoarmy]

Couple of things

I haven't been to ILE/CGSC yet, but am probably going within the next 12-18 months. I've heard it's similar to CAS3, where you have officers who care and get the most out of the course and then you have those who are just looking for 10 months of school and a sheepskin. I'm planning on going to get the strategist identifier and a second master's - I'll be halfway through my first by August 07.

What I'd really like to do is go to SAMS, as I have three friends who have gone and said it's night and day compared to ILE in terms of intellectual interest. I figure I have a fighter's chance of meeting the requirements...

As far as the military culture changing, well, I sincerely hope it does. It will take wide ranging reform for it to occur, and if Yingling's article is the tipping point, that will be significant. But I just have that sneaking feeling that the points made by him will fall by the wayside like Don Vandergriff's books on the culture of the Army. I guess we just have to wait and see.

Ski,
Shoot me a PM or e-mail. I did the 6Z track...it was great! I start SAMS at the end of June plus I'm doing the SAMS-driven KSU Master's degree in Security Studies. I finished my first master back in 02.

Sully

[Culpeper]

Hello--I'm new to this site, but my name's Fernando and I'm an active duty Special Forces officer attending grad school at Harvard. Some quick comments I'd written earlier:

I think the Paul Yingling is dead on. But what makes his article so interesting is not necessarily its content–though insightful and accurate, the criticism is not new. Many others have written similar accounts in newspaper articles or books such as “Fiasco” and “Cobra II.” What is so striking about the article is that it was written by a successful active duty officer and then published in a military journal. If Yingling isn’t immediately fired or blacklisted, this will mark a clear change in the military’s internal climate. Public sentiment may be so negative over Iraq that military officers can dare to say “the emperor has no clothes” and still keep their jobs. If this is the case, expect the floodgates to open soon–dozens of similar articles by military officers will follow. The change will be both postive and negative: Positive because the American public will have greater insight into the real dynamics of the war as seen by those fighting it. Negative because the insight will be bleak and feed the frenzied call for immediate withdrawal.

Regardless of the potential outcomes, we should all be watching the career of Paul Yingling very closely. The stakes are much higher than we can imagine.

For more, check out our new national security blog at www.roguelystated.com

That is beyond ridiculous. You're talking about a man's career as if it is some sort of experiment to allow officers the right of insubordination based on an outcome that won't end up in your file. Why wait to see what happens to Paul? If you got a set than get on the fence next to him right now. It's nice seeing young officers, such as yourself, patting Mr. Yingling on the back but staying far enough away to avoid having to feed him any belts. Sure, let's give a blank check to our young "officers". These same young officers that wouldn't put up with half this nonsense from their own enlisted men. You may need a Come to Jesus meeting with your nearest experienced Master or Gunnery Sergeant.

Some quick comments I'd written earlier...

Earlier? That is from your first post on the message board. The one I'm responding to.

[Mark O'Neill]

That is beyond ridiculous. You're talking about a man's career as if it is some sort of experiment to allow officers the right of insubordination based on an outcome that won't end up in your file. Why wait to see what happens to Paul? If you got a set than get on the fence next to him right now. It's nice seeing young officers, such as yourself, patting Mr. Yingling on the back but staying far enough away to avoid having to feed him any belts. Sure, let's give a blank check to our young "officers". These same young officers that wouldn't put up with half this nonsense from their own enlisted men. You may need a Come to Jesus meeting with your nearest experienced Master or Gunnery Sergeant.



Earlier? That is from your first post on the message board. The one I'm responding to.

Good Call.

[Shek]

That is beyond ridiculous. You're talking about a man's career as if it is some sort of experiment to allow officers the right of insubordination based on an outcome that won't end up in your file. Why wait to see what happens to Paul? If you got a set than get on the fence next to him right now. It's nice seeing young officers, such as yourself, patting Mr. Yingling on the back but staying far enough away to avoid having to feed him any belts. Sure, let's give a blank check to our young "officers". These same young officers that wouldn't put up with half this nonsense from their own enlisted men. You may need a Come to Jesus meeting with your nearest experienced Master or Gunnery Sergeant.

This was a professionally sanctioned format to air questions about the profession (because of the professional format and approval process for publishing, I would argue that it cannot be insubordinate by definition). Since you keep wanting to use it as a strawman analogy implicating the young officers that support LTC Yingling's article, let's examine what the true analogy really is.

As I look at it, some professionally sanctioned ways in which enlisted soldiers can air their frustrations/constructive criticism about their command include: sensing sessions, open door policy, command climate surveys, and IG complaints. The previous methods are all formal methods, and better commanders/staff officers will find opportunities to talk with soldiers and NCOs to get the same type of feedback in an informal manner. While I cannot speak for others on this board, I would find it hard to believe that those who are open to LTC Yingling's professionally published article would then turn around and deny their soldiers the ability to provide their thoughts and feedback through the above professionally sanctioned forums.

Now, I agree that I wouldn't tolerate insubordination, such as refusing to execute legal orders, using inappropiate forums to air criticism that hadn't been brought to the chain of command first so that they could have handled the situation, or just plain complaining and/or malingering that is destructive rather than constructive to the unit. None of this applies to LTC Yingling's piece, as it was published in a professional forum designed to foster and stimulate discussion about the profession.

Lastly, I would offer up that I know of a similar piece to LTC Yingling's that was submitted a year ago to Military Review that was not accepted for publishing. So, from my corner of the world, LTC Yingling is not the sole voice willing to sally forth with constructive criticism in the open.

[Culpeper]

This was a professionally sanctioned format to air questions about the profession (because of the professional format and approval process for publishing, I would argue that it cannot be insubordinate by definition). Since you keep wanting to use it as a strawman analogy implicating the young officers that support LTC Yingling's article, let's examine what the true analogy really is.

As I look at it, some professionally sanctioned ways in which enlisted soldiers can air their frustrations/constructive criticism about their command include: sensing sessions, open door policy, command climate surveys, and IG complaints. The previous methods are all formal methods, and better commanders/staff officers will find opportunities to talk with soldiers and NCOs to get the same type of feedback in an informal manner. While I cannot speak for others on this board, I would find it hard to believe that those who are open to LTC Yingling's professionally published article would then turn around and deny their soldiers the ability to provide their thoughts and feedback through the above professionally sanctioned forums.

Now, I agree that I wouldn't tolerate insubordination, such as refusing to execute legal orders, using inappropiate forums to air criticism that hadn't been brought to the chain of command first so that they could have handled the situation, or just plain complaining and/or malingering that is destructive rather than constructive to the unit. None of this applies to LTC Yingling's piece, as it was published in a professional forum designed to foster and stimulate discussion about the profession.

Lastly, I would offer up that I know of a similar piece to LTC Yingling's that was submitted a year ago to Military Review that was not accepted for publishing. So, from my corner of the world, LTC Yingling is not the sole voice willing to sally forth with constructive criticism in the open.

Oh, I agree with you completely. But what I saw in Fernando's post was nothing less than inciting young officers to rebel once Yingling's "outcome" has been settled in a certain way. I have seen a lot of praise for Mr. Yingling but rarely anything posted along with it to clarify his actual goal. I'm getting or comprehending young officers basically getting excited over what amounts to a title of a forum thread and nothing more. I don't see anything professional with those types of responses. Using the insubordination bug-a-boo is probably over the hill on my part but it is a fine line. Otherwise, why would certain young officers being willing to wait on the fate of Mr. Yingling before they too wish to follow him. It's utterly ridiculous and does nothing to help the cause Paul Yingling is promoting.

[Shek]

Oh, I agree with you completely. But what I saw in Fernando's post was nothing less than inciting young officers to rebel once Yingling's "outcome" has been settled in a certain way. I have seen a lot of praise for Mr. Yingling but rarely anything posted along with it to clarify his actual goal. I'm getting or comprehending young officers basically getting excited over what amounts to a title of a forum thread and nothing more. I don't see anything professional with those types of responses. Using the insubordination bug-a-boo is probably over the hill on my part but it is a fine line. Otherwise, why would certain young officers being willing to wait on the fate of Mr. Yingling before they too wish to follow him. It's utterly ridiculous and does nothing to help the cause Paul Yingling is promoting.

Sorry, I had completely missed the thrust of your post. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Culpeper]

Shek

Not a problem. We all want to see the same goal achieved. I think it is blessing that this forum doesn't suffer from groupthink. Somebody is doing something right.

[MASON]

LTC Yinglings article seems to be at its core an honest question about how the DOD grows leaders. I think many of the posts have focused far to much on career effect of bringing up the question. If we are all wondering about what his future is then I think we are missing the point and sadly missing a great strength in our foundation as a country and its military.

The Oath

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United states against all enemies foreign and domestic."

This is not an oath to a king or a queen nor is it an oath to an office or any person who temporarily holds office or appointment. This is not an oath to an association or a tribe or a nationality. The Constitution has primacy over persons and the offices defined in it.

Captain Randal G. Bowfish, USN penned and excellent article for USNI Proceedings. I cannnot link to it since it is not on line via Proceedings home page or by google but for those interested the title is "Between Scylla and Charibdis: Discussion and Dissent in the Navy " May 2004 vol 130/5/1215

[selil]

Earlier? That is from your first post on the message board. The one I'm responding to.

Culpeper,

What you are seeing here on SWC is Fernando posting his complete personal blog entry in his SWC post. He basically cut and pasted it.