Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
I do read what you write and what you imply too. There was a plainly implicated suggestion that I responded to...
Not so but I'd never expect you to acknowledge that.
I hope Flag Os don't make decisions about promoting from O-1 to O-2. They should leave those decisions to people lower down. I don't see how a Flag O could possibly know enough about an individual not on his immediate staff to know if that person should go from O-2 to O-3.
Yet another case of perceiving an implication that wasn't there. You're focusing on the wrong things, those symptoms. Of course they don't make those decisions -- and your lack of knowledge is showing. There decisions are made in accordance with the Congressionally dictated Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) as amended into OPMs 21. Those acts are nominally produced by the Armed forces and Congress merely writes them into law and the Prez signs them. In fact, congressional staffers virtually dictate what goes into them and the FlagOs sign off because they have little choice.
But those Flag Os get paid to use their noodles and adapt in imaginative ways. They don't seem to do that very well. And no sympathy for the Flag Os if they want to complain about political constraints. That is the way it has always been.
I'm not disputing that, I'm merely trying to show you that the system isn't as simplistic as you seem to think.
It would be much better to fix "the long standing political, systemic and societal problems at the root of the dysfunction.", but that is a pretty tall order and not likely to happen. If all that isn't done, problem will likely return, but not for a while and during that while things may be a bit better.
As it did when Max Taylor turned the Army around in the late 50s (that worked until McNamara got in an screwed up everything...) and Shy Meyer and others did in the 70s. It'll happen again -- but not until last years LTCs hit four stars -- in about 6 to 10 years.
"This is what you wrote about Congressional risk aversion "Again, speak to your Congress. The Armed forces are risk averse; all those things you cite would entail risk of more casualties and lost careers. It's not a 'risk averse' calling, so why are they so risk averse?" It seems quite reasonable to view that as a powerful statement about how risk averse Congress is. But I was wrong. Good. We are in agreement that Congress isn't all that risk averse." (emphasis added / kw)
We obviously define 'quite reasonable' differently. I specifically wrote the Armed Forces were risk averse.

Congress isn't risk averse, not a bit, they are not in danger and basically don't care much about anything military -- they just want happy voters and do not want the Armed Forces to upset anyone...
If the Flag Os won't do what they know is the right thing because "they're afraid of Congressional disapproval and 'harmful' media attention", that is moral cowardice. No sympathy nor absolution for what is plainly a lack of strong moral character.
I'm not sure they want your sympathy and I certainly wasn't seeking it. It is quite easy to stand outside any system or process and kibitz rifghteously. Neither you nor I know what you would do in their situation. What I do know is that I've seen a number stand up for what they thought was right and get creamed for it and that trend has worsened in the last 30 years or so. As one of the better three stars I've known once told me "I'm mediocre -- all Generals are mediocre; if you're too good the system will kill you as threat to its well being." Another said "I can walk down the hall and stick my elbows out but if I stick them out too far, they'll get cut off -- I can't do any one or any thing a bit of good with no elbows..." Should it be that way? No, absolutely not but unlike you, they have to deal with what is, not what's ideal or should be.

You and I agree that it should not be that way, we disagree on what can be done. I served through two major reform periods when things were dramatically improved but the underlying problems were not addressed and so I watched all those reforms dissipate -- and in each case, the system worsened after the reform period to a lower state than it was before the reforms started. That's why I'm adamant that fixing the symptoms is not wise. It's been done and each time, things not only reverted, they worsened. I contend no major fix is going to happen absent an existential problem. Not necessarily a big or bad war -- real and significant national economic problems could do it.
I disagree about the MRAPs. They were developed and fielded because the Humvees couldn't take the hits. It was pretty apparent that the choice wasn't between getting off the road or going MRAP. The military establishment wasn't going to get off the road. So that left the MRAP as the only out. That was a perfectly rational response to the situation. And it was caused by a military failure.
Yes and no. There was a failure to procure and adequate vehicle when there were plenty of indicators of probable need as far back as the late 70s. That's lick on the Generals. However, the MRAP was a terrible answer to that failure, not really rational or tactically sound but it certainly was expedient (and expensive...). That's a lick on the politicians.

What it also did was provide mobile cocoons, armored shelter -- troops that use them quickly become conditioned to the relative safety and don't want to leave them. The Generals know that and would force the Troops out but they know if they get a whopping number of casualties that the news media and a fickle congress can be unpredictable so best to avoid casualties. The Good guys don't worry about it but due to a personnel system that rewards mediocrity to achieve 'fairness,' every Commander isn't a good guy...

Also, be careful what you assume. A lot of folks in the Army and Marines did and do today in fact get off the road -- too many do not but a lot do and much depends on the quality of the unit and its commander. That all commanders are not good or strong enough to do that is an indictment of that Officer Personnel Management system that says selection must be 'fair' and 'objective.' What that essentially means is that he or she whose turn it is gets to command, competent or not. Back to those O1 and O2 folks -- virtually everyone on of them will be a Captain. Some should not be. Many will make Major and so on...

On that score and on risk aversion aside from the BLT sitting off the coast of North Africa there were some elements at Sigonella who could've been in Benghazi very quickly. They were ready and willing and I hear some FlagOs wanted to go -- I'll bet big bucks they were told to forget it by ecehlons above reality. We'll see...
... then the sin is actually jealousy by the establishment.
A bit, there's more to it. The two Stars and above see themselves as Stewards of the Institution -- no question in my mind they overplay that role.
And besides, you said at those levels the whims and wishes of Congress are made known so the people become known to Congress anyway.
Yes but the key to their survival is in how well they 'protect' the institution and that means not offending Congress OR slamming the institution. McMaster was not viewed as adequately protective...
But they are more likely to do something, a little tiny bit anyway, if they don't have dopey statements about being the best in world history ringing in their ears.
For every person in a position to achieve some change, positive or negative, who believes that stupid trope, there are five to ten who do not. Things are neither as broken or as easy to fix as you seem to think.