"Does the Army Need a Full-Spectrum Force or Specialized Units?

[Skullbiscuit]

.......that and jobs at HRC, a driver of more import than many know. Shy Meyer tried to kill the HRC Mafia and they trooped up on the Hill and they won; they outlasted Meyer and went right back to business as usual.

Yes HRC and the assignment officer, the latter I liken to a Vegas card dealer who plays you with a stacked deck. Only he knows what cards are in the deck, if he has all 52 he won't show them to you, unless you're a personal friend, or your a "hitter", or potential patron.

One thing most officers in the Army today don't realize is that their file at HRC has a classification on it; "A", "B", or "C". And that classification determines what quality of assignment the desk officer offers (he slides the card across the table) the officer.

The assignment game becomes like momentum stock speculating in the stock market; fundamentals (who you are today) matter far less than what investors (senior raters) have thought about you in the past. Thus the possibility of a breakout or a turn-around from a bad report (only mediocre report is needed to hurt you in an inflation prone profile scheme) becomes almost impossible.

Again it is HRC as broker --- essentially the "decider" of where you go and what you do. A black hole of politics without any transparency. No excuse for this. Especially in an era of real time online information. All assignments could be online and available for all to see 24/7; and even more heretical --- allow you to apply for them directly and go through an interview process with an impartial 3rd party --- cut the branch assignment officer and branch or functional area politics and strength management out. I could go on. But it is because of these and other practices from HRC that about ten years ago I started to refer to them as the true "Great Satan".

Revise the OER, open up assignments to a more competitive and dynamic pool of human capital outside of HRC's control; and to paraphrase Brando's Kurtz "our problems here would soon be over"

I retired last summer. I miss soldiering. I have nothing but contempt for OPMS. I could have stayed on but understanding how the personnel mgt system works, and knowing that the only thing meaningful to them at the end of the day is "do we have the bodies?". The only meaningful gesture for me was to deny the system my labor. The only time I have ever seen the beast wince and try to change is when it did not have the bodies it needed. And that "change" was wholly cosmetic and temporary --- the beast painted itself a new color and shouted "Look at us! ....we're kinder gentler now!" So short of a military catastrophe that threatens the nation OR the inability of the system to recruit and retain the numbers it needs ---- I am not as optimistic as you.....I see no pony in there.....only the same ole Army jack_ss

We "succeed" today because of our technological over match, wealth, training and institutional support is "good enough" to avert the recognizable spectacular headline grabbing defeat, and that those on the fence and not actively opposing us are willing to concede we mean well even though the giant bumbles and stumbles in the china shop. Had we a threat with deeper pocket books, better technology, and without the constraints of our personnel mgt system to systematically suffocate innovators and mavericks....things could be different.

And

......it is any threat to the institution; they will put aside branch and personal squabbles to repel boarders in a heartbeat. Still, most of 'em I've met, though constrained by the system they grew up in, generally mean well.

Yes but the road to Hades was paved with such intentions. An officer I knew back in the 90's put it to me succinctly when we were discussing the crisis in the Army at the time (on the Army Times a prominent O6 BDE CDR was profiled as leaving the Army because of the Army's identity crisis --- this was circa 98-99). This officer said to me not to expect the GO Corps to do anything substantive to change the Army. He said they are all "made men". I asked him why is it that these men allow their nuts to be chopped off in order to take the stars? He said; "you don't understand....they give them their nuts willingly"

[Ken White]

I've long told every Officer I meet, "When you get to be Chief of Staff, nuke the Hoffman Building."

The only thing that keeps me optimistic is the kids -- the LTCs and below make it work in spite of the impediments in the system. The technology and the massive amounts of money help keep us from looking like bumbling idiots -- but the kids do their part and more as well and that in spite of the way they're trained (or not) and treated.

All you say is true, two things you say are particularly important, I think:

"...Revise the OER, open up assignments to a more competitive and dynamic pool of human capital outside of HRC's control; and to paraphrase Brando's Kurtz "our problems here would soon be over."
. . .
Had we a threat with deeper pocket books, better technology, and without the constraints of our personnel mgt system to systematically suffocate innovators and mavericks....things could be different."

True dat...

Keep the faith.

[Skullbiscuit]

I've long told every Officer I meet, "When you get to be Chief of Staff, nuke the Hoffman Building."

The only thing that keeps me optimistic is the kids -- the LTCs and below make it work in spite of the impediments in the system.

Ha! That is what I told my O6 senior rater (I was an O5 then and retired as one last year) in Iraq in 2005. I told him; "Sir, I've been in the Army for 20 years in spite of OPMS, not because of it. And the reason that I've been in the Army as long as I have is because there is only ONE ARMY. Because if there was a second Army in this country I would have taken my labor to it a long time ago if for no other reason then to show my disapproval with this Army's officer personnel management practices"

So we bumble forward because there are only two meaningful choices for someone thinking about the profession of arms in this country:

1. Choice #1: Army, Navy, Airforce, or Marines
2. Choice #2: Once inside one of them, do I stay or do I go?

Because as you pointed out the system fosters systemic risk aversion and mediocrity, it survives because of the valor and sense of duty (and no other place to exercise those qaulities within a profession of arms framework --- in a word the government both enjoys and suffers from its monopoly status as a sole source employer for those seeking the profession of arms) of the jr. and field grade officers which have to make things work on the ground.


A helluva a way to run an organization within a country which has become what it is through the workings of good laws, free enterprise, and free labor markets.

[Ken White]

"I've long told every Officer I meet, "When you get to be Chief of Staff, nuke the Hoffman Building."

It's my fault because none of them got to that job full time. Bruce Palmer did get to be Vice Chief and even Acting Chief. He told me outside Phu Bai in 1968 as he was leaving country rebuilding that monster was his number one priority -- but he didn't get that done, they're too entrenched. I bumped into him at the Armor conference at Knox in '78, after he'd retired. He was not a cusser but when we talked about the personnel system and Congress' impact on it, he did show me he knew how to cuss when it was necessary.

"A helluva a way to run an organization within a country which has become what it is through the workings of good laws, free enterprise, and free labor markets."

Too true -- puts a whole new meaning on the phrase "We've lost our way..."

I'll take responsibility for my screwups -- now if we could just get Congress to do that...

[Skullbiscuit]

Shinseki tried only a modest assault on the status quo with his pitch beginning in 1997 to introduce technical literacy into the operational culture of the Army via the creation of the simulations operations officer (functional area 57) which he took great pains to point out was supposed to have been within the operations career field and within the command track, thus keeping would-be technologist operationally current and potentially in the drivers seat to help change the culture.

This modest effort failed. I was one of the first seven officers to be selected for the program back in 95 and I was the only special forces officer in the history of the program to date. Instead of us staying within operations we moved into the new (and ironically now after only five years --- defunct --- information operations career field). By putting us there we no longer had any possibility of command or S3/XO tenure; and therefore were relegated to a tier 3 staff position where we had even less influence over ongoing Army material developments in simulations. The effort was effectively neutered by HRC because it broke their "model". At the time their model called for no dual track, only single track. Thus the technologically literate were separated from the operational class (the seat of authority) and relegated to a brokering and essentially rear area support role --- away from the decision making table and where the action was.

Ironically, HRC in its latest zig zag to maintain one if its tenants --- flexibility in being able to assign officers to structure where ever it needs to --- has reversed itself on its single track mandate and is now entertaining the notion of dual tracks --- yet it must be emphasized that HRC is not doing this because they realize that single tracking overly specializes or dumbs down the officer corps --- they are doing this so as to have the flexibility of pushing officers into marginalized assignments --- the branch immaterial assignment.

However, they still have the class (branch) system. In fact an aviation O6 I know was very upset that in spite of the new BDE's that the Army has created it is not considering aviation officers as eligible for command of those units --- that these same officers would have served in such a brigade as jrs appears not to have been enough to assault entrenched prejudices and parochialisms. So the branch parochialism of BDE CMD for the iron triad --- infantry, armor, and artillery; was only slightly breached --- by the engineers --- they are eligible but not aviators.

So back on subject. Shinseki fought HRC from 97 until 2002 when he gave up and signed a memo consigning his "baby", as FA57 was know then, to the oblivion of technical specialization at the margins of the Army with no seat at the decision making table.

Thus from this recent battle; I have no confidence that the system can reform itself unless Congress has the will to do so. And they have shown no inclination. I suspect that they "like" the system the way it is. It would be dangerous to have a system which regularly turned out Boyd's and other mavericks. As my colleague put it earlier --- the system has a strong preference for made men.

[Ken White]

Wasn't aware of that -- but it tracks with the HRC / MilPerCen / DCSPER operating mode. I've watched several great folks get sidelined in similar ways. FAOs are one of my pets. We spend millions training those guys then ignore them...

Thus from this recent battle; I have no confidence that the system can reform itself unless Congress has the will to do so. And they have shown no inclination. I suspect that they "like" the system the way it is. It would be dangerous to have a system which regularly turned out Boyd's and other mavericks. As my colleague put it earlier --- the system has a strong preference for made men.

Made? Or compliant? It will take Congress, no question -- they, after all, are the ones that insisted on much of the current bureaucratic mishmash -- but as I said above, barring a major exodus in disgust (a possibility, I fear) or some other earth shaker, change from that quarter is unlikely. Thus, my belief that cultivating 'em when they walk in the door and getting them to change the culture as they grow is an alternative. The Gen Xers, now hitting their mid thirties, are getting feisty if not violent about Baby Boomers and their lack of drive and general worth. This Millennium generation in their late teens is showing scant tolerance for BS, incompetence and subterfuge. The two as they rise in rank might be fun to watch...

[Norfolk]

The Gen Xers, now hitting their mid thirties, are getting feisty if not violent about Baby Boomers and their lack of drive and general worth. This Millennium generation in their late teens is showing scant tolerance for BS, incompetence and subterfuge. The two as they rise in rank might be fun to watch...

We harbour dark thoughts about our older competitors, whom we perceive as having had it comparatively easy compared to those who came both before and after them...and we do indeed see them as competitors, and most certainly not as role models to be emulated (with a few specific exceptions). Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[Skullbiscuit]

Made? Or compliant?

Yes compliant is the more accurate assessment -- this dovetails with Yingling's critique

It will take Congress, no question -- they, after all, are the ones that insisted on much of the current bureaucratic mishmash -- but as I said above, barring a major exodus in disgust (a possibility, I fear) or some other earth shaker, change from that quarter is unlikely.

Agree

Thus, my belief that cultivating 'em when they walk in the door and getting them to change the culture as they grow is an alternative. The Gen Xers, now hitting their mid thirties, are getting feisty if not violent about Baby Boomers and their lack of drive and general worth. This Millennium generation in their late teens is showing scant tolerance for BS, incompetence and subterfuge. The two as they rise in rank might be fun to watch...

The system has been adept at eliminating insurgents before. It would take as you have noted a mass exodus or a mutiny. I see neither happening. For every malcontent within the system with "fire in the belly" and thus the energy to do something about it, there are many others who may not like it, but would prefer to assume an overwatch position. And there are more still who grumble but if the system will promote them to LTC, and it will in the current manpower crunch....then they'll just keep their head down....after all the kids have college coming up.

As proof I can offer you my remarks I made on an Army BCKS board recently among simulations operations officers to the questions of whether or not to drop the "block check" on the OER for Captains. PM me if you are interested with your e-mail I will send it to you.