William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[former_0302]

Access to enlistment is not the issue. Willingness to enlist is the issue. As the country becomes increasingly Hispanic (and to some extent, Asian) while the Army remains white and black, the disproportions will only increase. This logic is also at work in the growth of metropolitan areas and the depopulation of rural areas - and the relatively fast growth of the West (driven by Hispanics and Asians) compared to the rest of the country. Is it "bad" in of itself that the Army is disproportionately white and black? No. But it becomes "bad" when, for example, senior leaders fail to recognize the demographic makeup of their institution and attempt to implement policies that are actually destructive of good order and discipline. And this will become an issue in the future as Congress, especially the House, begans to reflect the changing demographic patterns of the country, and it starts focusing its attention on dated military policies and culture.

Hmmm... well, I can't speak for the entirety of the USMC, but my service has acquainted me with vastly more Hispanic Marines than AA Marines. Perhaps it's a service thing.

Can you give an example of the sort of policy which is "...actually destructive of good order and discipline?" Not entirely sure of what you're driving at.

It is absolutely a military problem if 1 of 4 potential recruits are ineligible to enlist on the basis of their education or health. It was the military at the start of the Cold War that pushed for the national school lunch program, and it should continue to support policies that are conducive to maintaining an able-bodied and -minded population. This also applies to the country's technological policies. Policy-makers should rid themselves of the false dichtonomy between military and non-military spending and, through the painful process of Congressional appropriations, seek out a rational budget that recognizes the linkages between public policy and military capabilities.

Is it military problem? Only if the military requires significantly more people than it does now. You're saying 75% of the potential recruits are eligible? According to the figures on the census.gov site, there's about 29 million 17-29 year old males in the US. If 75% of that is fit for military service, I'd say our problem isn't too severe, unless we plan to occupy China.

If the values are different, don't be surprised when Congress decreases defense spending, cuts back troop and procurement numbers, and limits pay and benefits. American veterans receive a special place in the politics of the public, and this is unique to the United States; with the country's changing demographics and diverging makeup of the military and general population, that's not guaranteed to last.

We must be thinking of "values" in different contexts. Your response doesn't make any sense to me in relation to the point I was trying to make, so I'll assume I just didn't state what I meant very clearly...

[AmericanPride]

As to question number two of course not! We never should group people by color or custom or any other Commie collective grouping system but by performance standards. THAT IS WHAT MAKES AMERICA EXCEPTIONAL! If you work for it you get, not who your daddy is or what you look like or where you went to school or how much money you have.

With the exception of your amusing definition of communism, I agree with you in principle. The problem is how to make this work in practice. I think on the matters of race, with the exception of a few minor policy points evident in the news, the military has largely figured this out. It's now tackling the issue of sex (and maybe in the future, even gender ). In alot of ways, though, "where you went to school" for example, does matter. The article I quoted earlier notes that many high schools cannot educate their students sufficiently to pass the AFQT. High schools are funded locally. For a number of historical-socio-political reasons, schools in minority communities are typically disproportionately underfunded. This means that minorites are less likely to meet the same standards for enlistment. It's not because minorities are inherently less capable - it's because their starting point is more distant from the standard than their white counterparts.

Can you give an example of the sort of policy which is "...actually destructive of good order and discipline?" Not entirely sure of what you're driving at.

I think the military's handling of females in combat arms is probably the most destructive policy at the moment.

Is it military problem? Only if the military requires significantly more people than it does now. You're saying 75% of the potential recruits are eligible? According to the figures on the census.gov site, there's about 29 million 17-29 year old males in the US. If 75% of that is fit for military service, I'd say our problem isn't too severe, unless we plan to occupy China.

My bad. I meant 1 in 4 are eligible. So that's about 7.25 million fit for military service.

We must be thinking of "values" in different contexts. Your response doesn't make any sense to me in relation to the point I was trying to make, so I'll assume I just didn't state what I meant very clearly...

What did you mean by values?

[Fuchs]

As to question number two of course not! We never should group people by color or custom or any other Commie collective grouping system but by performance standards. THAT IS WHAT MAKES AMERICA EXCEPTIONAL! If you work for it you get, not who your daddy is or what you look like or where you went to school or how much money you have.

LOL, no. That's just a horrible caricature of some modern (U.S.) American mythology.

Being the by far biggest Western country and shielded by two oceans is what makes it exceptional.
Meritocracy (aside from being suboptimal*) is not much more at home in the U.S. than in plenty other countries.

In fact, the American idea of how to create a lieutenant is stuck in the 18th century when the ancien rgime supposed that nobles were by birth suitable for serving as officer and didn't need proper training or practice. It's a laughingstock in comparison to most other developed countries' ways of creating lieutenants.

The German way (to let them serve as a special kind of NCO first and educate/train them before they get commissioned) goes back to Carnot during the French revolution and isn't exactly fresh, but at least not stuck in the ancien rgime.


*: Now about how and why meritocracy is suboptimal:
Peter principle, that's why.
Losers and undisciplined men shouldn't be promoted, but other than that promotions should be done based on potential. A very good colonel may be a horrible general. It's thus wrong to promote all very good colonels. It's correct to promote some mediocre colonels who show much potential for the General's job while holding some very good colonels back in their rank.

The German army accepted this shortly after the First World War and invented what's today known as assessment centre. The impetus was that it was forced to enlist men for 12 years only (and as minimum) and was very much restricted in size.

Not macht erfinderisch.
(~"Necessity is the mother of invention." More accurately: Distress drives you to be inventive.)

The had to get the very best candidates for the job, so they paid more attention to candidate selection than an other army.

[former_0302]

I think the military's handling of females in combat arms is probably the most destructive policy at the moment.

While I agree that particular policy is destructive, you specifically said "...senior leaders fail to recognize the demographic makeup of their institution and attempt to implement policies that are actually destructive of good order and discipline." I don't see it as being destructive because of anything to do with the demographic makeup of the institution. I see it as being destructive because it's nonsensical.

My bad. I meant 1 in 4 are eligible. So that's about 7.25 million fit for military service.

Where are those numbers coming from? Not saying you're wrong, I just find it hard to believe. I've seen the USMC's Qualified Candidate Population numbers, which are generated by the Marine Corps Recruiting Command. I don't know exactly how Recruiting Command derives them, but they total up to a significantly higher number than 7.25 million. They also don't include the 25-29 demographic.

What did you mean by values?

The way you phrased what you said led me to believe that you meant that the values of the military population, and the values of the civilian population from whence they came, should be the same. If that's what you meant, I can't agree with it.

[former_0302]

In fact, the American idea of how to create a lieutenant is stuck in the 18th century when the ancien rgime supposed that nobles were by birth suitable for serving as officer and didn't need proper training or practice. It's a laughingstock in comparison to most other developed countries' ways of creating lieutenants.

I'm curious, given this statement, as to exactly how you think Americans create lieutenants?

[AmericanPride]

former_0302,

The ratio comes from Army Recruiting Command estimates while I used the census population data you provided. It's due to a combination of education, physical fitness, health, and moral/legal.

[Fuchs]

I'm curious, given this statement, as to exactly how you think Americans create lieutenants?

ROTC or academy, but mostly through ROTC.

The German path for reserve (2 or 3 years active service) officers: link
Active service officer candidates have a more comprehensive path.

[carl]

American Pride:

You said this

Willingness to enlist is the issue.

and this

Alienating elements of the ranks on one basis or on another is detrimental to the higher purpose of winning America's wars.

.

Now forgive me for putting together my interpretation of all your arguments but I have to to make my point and it's too confusing to go back and copy and paste. These two quotes along with all your other posts lead me to what I believe your position is.

From what I gather you believe that in order for the military to fill its ranks it must get recruits from all the census groups at least in rough proportion to their numbers in the population. It order to do that it must establish race and sex goals or quotas for these groups otherwise they won't sign up in sufficient numbers. In other words it must bribe these groups by dangling guarantees of position to entice them into joining. There is a problem with that position.

First and most importantly it denigrates the patriotism and willingness to serve of the groups targeted. The people in those groups are all grown up and if they decide not to join up they have good reasons. As former_0302 says a lot of that is cultural. Some groups are just more inclined than others to go in. Different groups going into different professions or fields is quite normal in society. Thomas Sowell has written about that a lot.

Another problem with your position is that you are saying that they can be bribed. You are saying in effect that we can overcome their unwillingness to serve by bribing them. Them they will sign up. That is insulting.

An additional problem is your position doesn't treat the people in your target groups as individuals. They are just members of a herd and will respond if the right stimulus is applied.

I don't find such a position very respectful of the people it purports to care for.

As far as the three star goes, the context provided by former_0302 was quite clear as was the three stars position. You can't fancy it up much. He believes the demographic of the officer corps needs to reflect the demographic of society at large.

Aside from the denigration of talent for fighting and leading that reflects, I suspect he has no idea of the administrative mess it would create. Who is black? What is white? What is mixed race and how should we count it? Is Sikh a race or a religion? Is religion race? Depending on the answers to those questions and what the % of this or that is projected to be when the next promotion cycle comes there would be a mad scramble to document that indeed this person is whatever would help get him promoted. The military being what it is there would have to be published procedures and policies relating to all of this. They would have to determine what was black, white, brown and variations thereof. And you know what that would mean? It would mean the US military, the great leveler, would have to create a race code, something not seen since the 30s in Europe and a long time ago in the South.

A note about school spending and eduction. NYC spends about $19,000 per student per year. Boy what Father Gallagher and Sister Mary Loretta could have done with $19,000 per year per student. Anyway, the people the NYC schools turn out aren't very well educated I've read. So perhaps it isn't about the amount of money spent, but how it's spent.

I am glad to see that today I am only a superficial reactionary fear monger. Yesterday I was a racist so I am coming up in the world.

[TheCurmudgeon]

As to question number two of course not! We never should group people by color or custom or any other Commie collective grouping system but by performance standards. THAT IS WHAT MAKES AMERICA EXCEPTIONAL! If you work for it you get, not who your daddy is or what you look like or where you went to school or how much money you have.

Yep! that's how Paris Hilton got her money or George W. Bush went to Yale, they did it based on individual merit.

[former_0302]

ROTC or academy, but mostly through ROTC.

The German path for reserve (2 or 3 years active service) officers: link
Active service officer candidates have a more comprehensive path.

I don't know how true that is of the other services, but it is largely not true of the Marine Corps. You can google the Marine Corps Almanac and check for yourself, but the breakdown for 2013 officer accessions (which one assumes is a garden-variety year) is this:

MECEP/ECP/MCP: 218
Naval ROTC: 212
Officer Candidate Course: 344
Platoon Leader Course: 591
Academy: 267

The MECEP/ECP/MCP are competitive enlisted to officer programs, in which enrollees wind up joining an ROTC unit, so they technically enter the service through ROTC. However, they need to have some minimum enlisted service time before they're eligible for the program, and they need to have been pretty good Marines to get into the program. It should also be noted that a significant portion of the OCC/PLC accessions are prior enlisted personnel.

In any event, no argument that we could do better, but the timeline in the link you provided is not too different from the path that Marine officers take through OCS/TBS/follow-on MOS school. All of that takes a minimum of one year, before a lieutenant is ever in a position to lead anyone, following their graduation from whatever college they came from. Your first job as a lieutenant is effectively a sort of internship anyway; a not-insignificant number of lieutenants are relieved for cause. I guess I'm not seeing an enormous difference.

Edited to add: I think our philosophy is that the best way to learn how to be an officer is to actually go be an officer. While there are certainly some who are not ready when they get there, I'd say most are ready enough.

[former_0302]

former_0302,

The ratio comes from Army Recruiting Command estimates while I used the census population data you provided. It's due to a combination of education, physical fitness, health, and moral/legal.

Right, the MCRC data is based on the same factors as far as I know. I saw the numbers in some brief I had to sit in during 2010/11-ish, but IIRC their recruitable number total across the US was over 10 mil. Again, it was for 17-24 year-olds.

Perhaps the Army uses different metrics, or maybe the method for counting has been updated.

[carl]

Yep! that's how Paris Hilton got her money or George W. Bush went to Yale, they did it based on individual merit.

Perhaps the implication behind your comment is what you see in your world. I can't know what that is.

But in my world and for most of the people I know in it, this about sums it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRB2dGI1vRM

(I love that scene and it is surprising how often it seems appropriate.)

[AmericanPride]

From what I gather you believe that in order for the military to fill its ranks it must get recruits from all the census groups at least in rough proportion to their numbers in the population.

No - the military can fill its ranks any number of ways. Right now, it's largely effective in filling the ranks, minus the Army Reserve. But it's not effective in overcoming institutional self-selection. Think of self-selection as institutional incest.

It order to do that it must establish race and sex goals or quotas for these groups otherwise they won't sign up in sufficient numbers. In other words it must bribe these groups by dangling guarantees of position to entice them into joining. There is a problem with that position.

One of the problems with that position is that it's not my position.

Some groups are just more inclined than others to go in. Different groups going into different professions or fields is quite normal in society. Thomas Sowell has written about that a lot.

One - Thomas Sowell is a partisan hack. There's a couple of well-written articles out there about it. Two - why are "some groups just more inclined than others"? And if the disinclined are among the fastest growing groups in the country, what are the consequences for the military?

Another problem with your position is that you are saying that they can be bribed. You are saying in effect that we can overcome their unwillingness to serve by bribing them. Them they will sign up. That is insulting.

Compensation is bribery? Statistically, there is a range of monetary and in-kind compensation that predicts X to Z amount of enlistees will join for every $ in benefits. That some groups, generally defined, may require more compensation than others is not surprising, irrelevant, or insulting. What's insulting - and not founded in reality - is the idea that everyone is joining the services out of patriotism, and that this is the only good reason to join. People join for many reasons - for adventure, for the benefits and pension, for the professional skills, for school, for their friends or family, and so on. Knowing the segmentation of American demographics is absolutely important to filling the ranks and for communication with the public. And people stay for many of the same reasons, which is why when the Army was hemorrhaging junior officers, it didn't appeal to their patriotism; it offered them material incentives to stay. And it still does this today for enlisted soldiers.

He believes the demographic of the officer corps needs to reflect the demographic of society at large.

And you have not demonstrated why that is detrimental to the armed forces. The mission of the armed services is to fight and win the nation's wars, but that's not the only function of armed services in a country. It provides employment, education opportunities, skills training, and social normalization. In the US, these functions are generally applauded and supported - not so much in other countries. As the make-up of the country changes, so too will the relationship between the public and the military as an institution. The military can be pro-active and get ahead of this trend or it can increasingly isolate itself from society-at-large. Eventually, and this has already started, people will start asking why are we paying soldiers relatively well when everyone else's salaries are flat; why are we building schools around the world when schools here are failing; why do we prop up governments abroad when local governments here are going bankrupt. Those are the questions that senior leaders need to be prepared to address because it will impact the readiness of the armed forces even though they are not directly related to fighting and winning wars. We got a taste of this with sequestration when the assumption that the GOP will protect the defense budget was over-turned by the zeal to enforce government retrenchment. And we'll see training budgets, staffing, and pay and benefits continue to be cut.

Aside from the denigration of talent for fighting and leading that reflects, I suspect he has no idea of the administrative mess it would create. Who is black? What is white? What is mixed race and how should we count it? Is Sikh a race or a religion? Is religion race? Depending on the answers to those questions and what the % of this or that is projected to be when the next promotion cycle comes there would be a mad scramble to document that indeed this person is whatever would help get him promoted. The military being what it is there would have to be published procedures and policies relating to all of this. They would have to determine what was black, white, brown and variations thereof. And you know what that would mean? It would mean the US military, the great leveler, would have to create a race code, something not seen since the 30s in Europe and a long time ago in the South.

You went from "the officer corps needs to reflect the demographic of society at large" to "the US military, the great leveler, would have to create a race code". Slow down speed racer. By the way, the military already tracks its service-members' race, religion, sex, etc.

I am glad to see that today I am only a superficial reactionary fear monger. Yesterday I was a racist so I am coming up in the world.

Be confident that your promotion was by merit alone.

[AmericanPride]

Carl,

Also, about New York City schools. I can't speak to their quality, but I can tell you that New York is ranked 18th out of quality enlistees as a state. In fact, the mid-west and northeast tends to score higher than the south in terms of quality. The lowest state is Mississippi which also ranks 44th in education spending per student. That's not a coincidence. Education matters. And spending on education also matters.

[carl]

No - the military can fill its ranks any number of ways. Right now, it's largely effective in filling the ranks, minus the Army Reserve. But it's not effective in overcoming institutional self-selection. Think of self-selection as institutional incest.

Describe the self selection. I don't get it. It's a volunteer force.

One of the problems with that position is that it's not my position.

Fair enough. What is your position?

One - Thomas Sowell is a partisan hack. There's a couple of well-written articles out there about it. Two - why are "some groups just more inclined than others"? And if the disinclined are among the fastest growing groups in the country, what are the consequences for the military?

Well that's one way to deal with an articulate man who disagrees with you. Call him a partisan hack.

What are the consequences of the fastest growing groups disinclined to join the military? I figured one of them, figuring for you of course, would be insufficient numbers to fill the ranks eventually. But you said above no. Then there was something about how values and outlook differ and if they differed enough then the military might not get what it needed. I don't accept that. The people of the country are pretty smart and if you said to them "What do you guys want? Really now what do you want, a military that will win wars or one that precisely reflects the demographic %s?" I figure they would want to win.

Compensation is bribery? Statistically, there is a range of monetary and in-kind compensation that predicts X to Z amount of enlistees will join for every $ in benefits. That some groups, generally defined, may require more compensation than others is not surprising, irrelevant, or insulting. What's insulting - and not founded in reality - is the idea that everyone is joining the services out of patriotism, and that this is the only good reason to join. People join for many reasons - for adventure, for the benefits and pension, for the professional skills, for school, for their friends or family, and so on. Knowing the segmentation of American demographics is absolutely important to filling the ranks and for communication with the public. And people stay for many of the same reasons, which is why when the Army was hemorrhaging junior officers, it didn't appeal to their patriotism; it offered them material incentives to stay. And it still does this today for enlisted soldiers.

No I didn't say anything about monetary compensation. I was talking about race and sex quotas. I was talking about guarantees involving position and rank, power essentially.

Now you say junior officers were leaving because no appeal was made to their patriotism. But you also say that in order to attract certain demographic groups into junior officer ranks they have to guarantees about how many of them will get certain positions. That isn't an appeal to patriotism, it's bribery which you say didn't work in retaining junior officers. I don't see the logic here.

And you have not demonstrated why that is detrimental to the armed forces. The mission of the armed services is to fight and win the nation's wars, but that's not the only function of armed services in a country. It provides employment, education opportunities, skills training, and social normalization. In the US, these functions are generally applauded and supported - not so much in other countries. As the make-up of the country changes, so too will the relationship between the public and the military as an institution. The military can be pro-active and get ahead of this trend or it can increasingly isolate itself from society-at-large. Eventually, and this has already started, people will start asking why are we paying soldiers relatively well when everyone else's salaries are flat; why are we building schools around the world when schools here are failing; why do we prop up governments abroad when local governments here are going bankrupt. Those are the questions that senior leaders need to be prepared to address because it will impact the readiness of the armed forces even though they are not directly related to fighting and winning wars. We got a taste of this with sequestration when the assumption that the GOP will protect the defense budget was over-turned by the zeal to enforce government retrenchment. And we'll see training budgets, staffing, and pay and benefits continue to be cut.

It is not detrimental to the armed forces if the officer corps reflects the demographic makeup of the country...if that occurs naturally. It is very detrimental to the armed forces if quotas and goals, special favors and bribery, are used. That results in something other than fighting and leading prowess being used to select officers and that affects the ability to win.

These things you mention "employment, education opportunities, skills training, and social normalization" are all well and good. But they are all byproducts of a military the purpose of which is to fight and win. They came about as ancillary (I was dying to use that word) effects. If you want a job corps, a tech school or a halfway house, build one. The military is there to fight, any attention directed away from that distracts from it.

You went from "the officer corps needs to reflect the demographic of society at large" to "the US military, the great leveler, would have to create a race code". Slow down speed racer. By the way, the military already tracks its service-members' race, religion, sex, etc.

Speed up Speed Racer's big brother. I explained that. The military does track all that. So does just about everybody. What will change is they will have create by any other name a race code in order for the promotion system to have something to work with if the 3 stars goal is to be achieved.

I've seen this kind of thing in action. Back in the early 90s the major airlines were being pressured by the Feds to hire this minority or that one. You should have seen the guys who suddenly became Choctaw Indians after very diligent geneological (sic) searches. That was a minor thing then. You do that in the military and things will get very ugly.

[carl]

Carl,

Also, about New York City schools. I can't speak to their quality, but I can tell you that New York is ranked 18th out of quality enlistees as a state. In fact, the mid-west and northeast tends to score higher than the south in terms of quality. The lowest state is Mississippi which also ranks 44th in education spending per student. That's not a coincidence. Education matters. And spending on education also matters.

You spoke about education and spending. I commented about education and spending.

The 18th ranking would only be of use if you relate it to how New York ranks in state spending per student, which I have. New York in 2011 was no. 1 in spending per student at 19k per. Now if results were directly related to gross spending you would expect NY to score a bit higher that 18th. No. 18 in spending is North Dakota which spends per student 11.4k followed by Ohio and Nebraska.

[AmericanPride]

Carl,

Here are some statistics on the relationship between education spending and quality recruits. This includes all 50 states plus Washington DC.

The first is the relationship between education spending by state and the proportion of category I (those who scored 91 - 99 on AFQT) recruits:



Essentially, the higher the spending, the higher proportion of quality recruits.

Second image: the relationship between recruitment rate and quality.



The higher the proportion of quality recruits, the lower the enlistment rate.

Last image: the relationship between education spending and recruitment rate.



The higher a state spends on education, the less likely its students are to enlist. In sum, the data suggest that well-funded education programs produce higher quality enlistments but also discourages such candidates from enlisting in the first place.

These things you mention "employment, education opportunities, skills training, and social normalization" are all well and good. But they are all byproducts of a military the purpose of which is to fight and win.

Hence the distinction between 'mission' (fight and win wars) and 'function' (implicit or unintended outcomes). Fighting the nation's wars is the stated intent but it's not the only reason for which we maintain a standing professional army. Some of it is deliberate - like the politics - and some of it is structural, like the economics of it.

The people of the country are pretty smart and if you said to them "What do you guys want? Really now what do you want, a military that will win wars or one that precisely reflects the demographic %s?" I figure they would want to win.

Based on what evidence? Which segment of the population are you referring to?

Now you say junior officers were leaving because no appeal was made to their patriotism.

I never said that. Reread my statement.

That isn't an appeal to patriotism, it's bribery which you say didn't work in retaining junior officers.

Again, reread my statement. I'll quote it:

And people stay for many of the same reasons, which is why when the Army was hemorrhaging junior officers, it didn't appeal to their patriotism; it offered them material incentives to stay. And it still does this today for enlisted soldiers.

Material benefits like cash bonuses, MOS reclassification, and non-deployability did work in increasing retention. Your ideal of unwavering patriotism is a myth - it may attract some to the military and may even keep some there, but like I stated, people join and stay for many different reasons. When recruiters make their pitches, they don't rely on appeals to patriotism; they try to illustrate all the benefits to service from the adventure of it, to the professional skill development and experiences, to the rates of promotion and pay. It's your comments that this amounts to 'bribery' is what is insulting. Mythologizing military service obstructs the implementation of sound policy in improving the armed forces. You're not the only one that does this; military service members are guilty of it too, and it's that cognitive dissonance that probably goes a long way in explaining the disillusionment. And that brings us full circle to self-selection.

Although an older study, this research sums it up:

This report focuses on whether such differences arise because of socialization processes involved in military training and service, or because of prior differences in values and beliefs among those who select to enter military service....These findings among seniors closely replicate earlier research comparing soldiers, sailors, and civilians; taken together, the data suggest that self-selection is the dominant factor and that actual service may not substantially enhance prior attitude differences.

The military does a poor job of making itself attractive to those who are not already attracted to it. In the context of sequestration, intensely competitive budget priorities, the nature of the international security environment, the country's changing demographics to minority-majority and urbanization, and globalized media, it's more important now than ever that the military constructively engages with the public. It can't bury its head in the sand and say "if it has nothing to strictly and directly do with fighting the nation's wars, we want no part in it!" That won't sell to the public. This is a democratic country last I checked and the military needs to make an effort to be responsive and accountable to the public to which it is subordinated. It won't do that by holding on to dated processes and ideas, a hyper-masculine culture, and disinterest in the social dynamics of the population from which it is trying to draw soldiers, leaders, and public endorsement.

[JMA]

Recent - after 24 April - responses from the An Officer Corps That Can’t Score article.

==============
Publicus says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:33 pm

Speaking as a former Army infantry officer who served in the 70′s and early 80′s Mr. Lind’s article hits the target right on. However, there are more basic reasons why the current officer corps is rotten.
First, the jock/athlete culture has triumphed. Take a look at the current ROTC curriculum. It is overwhelmingly oriented towards athletic prowess. Cadets – college students – are forced into the work-out room, to participate in “Warrior Games”, ad nauseum. Football field heroics is deemed good leadership – better-than-average intelligence is ignored. What is being taught by the current generation of officers to their successors is that it is more important to successfully run a marathon than study your enemy. The indoctrination the cadets regurgitate is frightening in its simplistic ignorance.
Second, I recommend reading the book “The Generals.” It is a superb analysis of how the system established by General Marshall to fight WWII – perform or move aside – has been completely replaced with the plodding “good boys” who don’t rock the boat but are ready to sell out their troops and subordinate officers without blinking an eyelash if they see a promotion possibility.
Third, it is the fault of the civilian administrations in committing the Army to missions that never should have been attempted. Nation-building in Afghanistan? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Fourth, and last, to succeed in the current environment, an officer must subscribe to all of the politically correct gender, sexual preference, and other asinine cause celebres of groups the political class is scared of. Women in combat units? Let us speak the heresy which must not be said. The standards WILL be lowered to appease the feminist harpies – and a lot of good men will die in a future war so the politicians can have bragging rights at today’s toney wine and cheese parties. …

==============
Austin Fall says:
April 26, 2014 at 12:05 am

Though not a bull’s eye this article at least hits the paper. Lind may be deaf because there are many officers that want “substantive change” but most of these officers will never reach a level to be able to make a change. From 2001, how many officers have combat experience? Of those how many are still in the service? Of those how many have reached any level with enough influence? With no combat attrition or the insignificant effect combat has in future advancement; the officers that have a visceral understanding of the changes needed to be made are civilians again or will reach the level to make policy changes in years to come at numbers too insignificant to do so. Combat is a defining factor but for most, Green Beans instead of Starbucks, life inside the wire was business as usual. The garrison mentality still dominates 80% or more of the officer corps even after multiple deployments.

=================
RW says:
April 26, 2014 at 4:52 pm

I am one of those Army officers and couldn’t agree more with the points brought up in this article. As a battery commander, my every decision was mandated by regulation or higher commanders guidance. We have become more concerned with CYA and political correctness than fighting wars. None of this can be brought up in an open discussion because it would mean at the very minimum, a poor performance eval. In this downsizing Army, a bad eval can mean the boot. After 7 years, I am on the way out.

=================
eponodyne says:
April 29, 2014 at 12:06 am

Forgive me if this has been suggested upthread already, but there is a very simple fix: Shut down the service academies. Close down the ROTC programs. Make sure that the only way to become an officer is to first reach NCO status as an enlisted man, and attend OCS. …

=================

The last comment should probably be read in conjunction with this 2009 article: Tom Ricks -- Why We Should Get Rid of West Point

[wm]

After following the debate between Carl and American Pride, I wanted to offer this piece of anecdotal evidence about the composition of the US Army, posted on 4 April at War Council:

Your Soldiers will do amazing things – Far more often than your Soldiers doing stupid things, you will be blown away at how talented they are. I have the following Soldiers in my platoon: a former blacksmith and rodeo clown, a NASCAR pit crewman, two carpenters, a private who is a multi-millionaire and drives and (sic) Audi R8, a Sugar Bowl-winning, University of West Virginia offensive lineman and a SSG who graduated college at 17 years old and taught physics at Tulane before the age of 26.

For what it is worth, the composition of his platoon is not that dissimilar from the one I led back when the US Army was, arguably, at or very near its post-Viet Nam nadir.

A lot of graphs displaying quantitative data are all well and good. Equally nice is the appeal to emotion found in a You Tube extract from a Hollywood production.

1Lt Ginther has things to say about both these techniques too:

Since when did Microsoft Xcel become a leadership tool? – This is a huge pet peeve of mine. When I was a cadet, I saw way too many kids immediately go to computers, spreadsheets and power point to solve problems. Yes, these are skills you will use at nausea when you’re a lieutenant, but get outside of your own head and go work with your Soldiers.

Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down, The Unforgiving Minute and other sources – Just because you read these books and saw these movies doesn’t make you an expert on warfare or the next Chris Kyle or Mike Murphy. Furthermore, these sources are not the benchmarks for which you should measure the fallibility of tactical or technical opinions and TTPs of others around you. These are personal accounts and reflections on leadership, personal challenges and demons, and should supplement your development as a leader, Soldier and as a person.

At then end of the day, perhaps the best take away from the LT is the following:

Your parents probably did a better job prepping you for leadership than anyone – If your parents taught you to get along with everybody as a kid, work in school, made you clean your room, be home by curfew and they trusted you, you’ll be alright. Being a good, honest person has gotten me much farther in my relationships in the Army than I ever expected.

I suspect that if Lind's critique has any real value, then it is as a criticism of American society as a whole, not just its military.

[TheCurmudgeon]

OK, so there has been a lot of chatter back and forth - how about a list of suggestions?

I will offer three:

1. Slow down junior officer promotions, speed up senior officer promotions. You learn a lot more about leadership with a platoon or a company than in a staff job. This, of course, will require legislative approval - a change in ROPMA.

2. Include more socio-cultural education in the system early on, say the Captain's Career Course. If you are going to take regional alignment seriously (which I doubt) then send your Captain's to work with/live with militaries in their aligned region. Keep them aligned with the same country so that they can build relationships. Relationships matter in the rest of the world.

3. At Major, start separating out command track officers. But once you do that don't just let everyone else fester. Find their niche and use them.