The Transformation Mistake

[Smitten Eagle]

There is a quick, cheap and easy transformation available. Make the trade schools joint.
Have the Students spend their Sophmore and Joinor years at a sister school.
This will start them thinking purple at an early age.
It will never happen because the MIC cannot make Billions off of it. It would be effective, since it's men, not weapons that win wars.
It would be even better if the US went to a semi-german type system, where Officer canidates spend 2 years in the ranks before even going off to trade school. Something needs to be done, since the current system produces long lines of mediocre ticket punchers. The best bow out at about the O-5 level, not seeing anything in their future worth going thru the BS for.
That is why the best trained, best armed Military in the world cannot subdue medieval savages. Management will never replace Leadership.

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda, lots of pie in the sky stuff here.

You may have something of a point on the "semi-German" system of spending time in the ranks. On the other hand, the US Military in general, and the USMC in particular, does an excellent job of filling its officer corps with folks from the ranks, from the academy, from OCS, and from ROTC. Such a system has lots of intellectual diversity and I doubt that advantages could be accrued by homogenizing the entry of officers by use of a single system.

And the remark about O-5s and above is entirely uncalled for. On the contrary, I've seen lots of burned-out field grades who want nothing more than to "make 20" and punch out. They tend to be Majors with prior-enlisted experience or LtCols without such prior experience. Furthermore, I've known some utterly outstanding Colonels in my short 4 years in service to my country. And the generals? Mattis? Amos? Castellaw? Toolan? Helland? Yup--lots of ticket-punching in those guys. Ha.

A little more discipline in thought would be appropriate before we castigate the bird colonels and stars.

[Steve Blair]

What I see at the ROTC level is more of a focus on "let's get these kids easy A's in their ROTC courses and worry about really training them later." That bothers me, because we have an outstanding chance at this level to get them exposed to more diverse thought and give them the tools to think critically. For the most part, you also don't see AFROTC and AROTC programs doing any sort of joint courses or activities. I'm working on a course idea to correct that, but am having a hard time getting traction at the cadre level. The cadets LOVE the idea. Go figure...

[Smitten Eagle]

I'm a product of NROTC, but a Marine Option. For us, ROTC didn't provide much military training at all, but that was taken care of at TBS.

As far as giving a "joint" education, I don't see much of a point in that. The issues we're dealing with as a military today aren't issues of Goldwater-Nichols. The issues we are dealing with are faulty promotion/personnel systems, faulty acquisitions/procurement, and faulty TTPs/Doctrine (in that order.) Me, or anybody else rubbing elbows with some Air Force missile officer isn't going to fix the day to day issues of COIN operations. On the contrary, it'll probably make things worse, because instead of focusing on the enemy, and his critical vulnerability (the population he swims in), I'm instead focusing on "purple" jargon and teaching the basics of what an M-16 is to a bunch of non-FMF sailors who have no business being in the mud (yes, I've done that.)

No "joint" ROTC course is going to fix that.

From what I can see, the benefit of ROTC programs are that they're good for civil-military relations. No longer do I have to go to a service academy to serve my country as an officer--it keeps entry into the military democratic. As to the military skill of these ROTC guys...well...I've seen good ones and bad ones. Same goes for academy guys, prior-enlisted guys, and OCS guys.

[Steve Blair]

ROTC programs don't have all that much to do with civil-military relations when you get right down to it. Universities tend to ignore us, unless they want to protest the military/industrial complex or something similar. What they DO accomplish is provide an intake point for people who might not want to go to the Academies but still want to commission. It can also be scaled easier than academies can, and provides a decent way to target populations (like foreign language majors) when the need arises.

The point behind a joint course isn't to get these kids spewing purple jargon; it's more to show them how they will be working with other services in future environments. In part it's to show the AF cadets that there is more to life than the F-22, and it's also to help the Army cadets see what the AF can provide in terms of lift and support to a COIN effort. The sooner they can get that, the better. At least it will be in the back of their minds.

Just because ROTC hasn't done this in the past doesn't mean that it shouldn't do it in the future.

[Smitten Eagle]

Indeed, Universities tend to ignore ROTCs. ROTCs tend to have very small, if any, impact on campus these days. But the other part of Civ-Mil relations is how the University affects the military, and in this, ROTC is crucial. Basically, it keeps the officer corps academically diverse. I've heard some on this forum call the academies the Kool-Aid Factories, and in this they have a point (the implication being that all cadets/mids have to drink it to make it through, and Kool-Aid isn't very popular unless it's spiked by something unnatural).

All of the academies are, at their core, engineering schools. Sure, you can study polisci, or history, or economics at an academy, but it's not the strong suit. ROTC provides a certain level of diversity to this somewhat monolithic method of training officers. I see value in this academic diversity, and I see value in being able to attend a state school and serve as an officer.

The point on the F-22 is taken. I think there was a class on the make-up of the Navy, Army, and Air Force back in TBS. Maybe a better way of teaching such classes is with some sort of teaching LNO from the other services. At the same time, the marginal impact of learning the capes and lims of the F-22 or a Trident Submarine is pretty low, and such time could probably be better spent in MOUT Town.

[Steve Blair]

Exactly, Eagle. What I'm kicking around is a semester-style course that works out to be an operational exercise. AF and Army cadets take roles in their respective services (JFAAC and such) and then go against each other in notional settings that also include a variety of LIC-type considerations. I'm not focusing on high-end system capabilities at all, but rather how do you use the systems you have (my OBs are all based on older equipment and are scaled to be more or less equal) to accomplish your goals. There are things in it like population control, BDA operations, and popular reactions to military decisions (like if someone decides to carpet bomb cities in their opponent's country, the ethnic minority in THEIR country becomes restless and troops have to be diverted to population control). Simplistic? Sure. But it's intended to make cadets think and deal with situations that are not ideal.

Anyhow, I'll put my pet rock away now.

[Stan]

Quote
The best bow out at about the O-5 level, not seeing anything in their future worth going thru the BS for.
Unquote

I am really glad he is wrong in this area, or I would have never made it to senior NCO ot even lived to tell my daughter about it.

We have the best officers in the world and I have 23 years of experience to back that statement.

Typos, go pack sand (bags).

Thanks for dumping this member !

[JKM4767]

One major downfall of Army ROTC is in many cases, the instructors for these future LTs are old retired LTCs and MAJs who have no operational experience in the GWOT. Now, with that being said, I understand we can't ship all of our recent COs to ROTC, but it makes sense. But soon, there should be an effort to get young combat vets (to include NCOs, especially former PSGs) to ROTC immediately so that they can educate these future PLs on what is expected of them as leaders in combat.

[RTK]

One major downfall of Army ROTC is in many cases, the instructors for these future LTs are old retired LTCs and MAJs who have no operational experience in the GWOT. Now, with that being said, I understand we can't ship all of our recent COs to ROTC, but it makes sense. But soon, there should be an effort to get young combat vets (to include NCOs, especially former PSGs) to ROTC immediately so that they can educate these future PLs on what is expected of them as leaders in combat.

Six in one, half dozen in the other. Do we send them to ROTC to mold 30 cadets, 5 of whom probably won't commission, or do we send them to the Officer Leadership Schools where they'll be exposed to every 2LT in their branch who's preparing to be a PL? I support COA 2.

[JKM4767]

Six in one, half dozen in the other. Do we send them to ROTC to mold 30 cadets, 5 of whom probably won't commission, or do we send them to the Officer Leadership Schools where they'll be exposed to every 2LT in their branch who's preparing to be a PL? I support COA 2.

Good call. Although in OBC, there is already so much crap to "learn", I'm afraid the school time might cut into PL time. Haha. I would have loved to had a guy come in and tell me what I needed to know. I sure could have used any information showing up in Iraq as a 2LT in '03!

[RTK]

Good call. Although in OBC, there is already so much crap to "learn", I'm afraid the school time might cut into PL time. Haha. I would have loved to had a guy come in and tell me what I needed to know. I sure could have used any information showing up in Iraq as a 2LT in '03!

Not sure when you went through OBC or what branch you are, but with the BOLC concept now, new LTs are brought through very regimented and organized blocks of instruction. In my block, recon tactics, we teach them more how to think rather than what specifically to think. They learn the fundamentals and the importance of being a master of fundamentals. Once this occurs, it breeds the versatility and adaptivity that is required of today's combat leader.

The bottom line is we build the foundation. The gaining unit builds the structure on top of it.

[JKM4767]

I am a pre-BOLC guy, but sounds like Armor has the right idea. There, literally is not many ways to train PLs for OIF. It's all reactive. I am glad you guys have seen the light and are doing the right things. Hopefully FA catches on, I haven't heard much from Sill about changes at OBC and CCC.

[Steve Blair]

One major downfall of Army ROTC is in many cases, the instructors for these future LTs are old retired LTCs and MAJs who have no operational experience in the GWOT. Now, with that being said, I understand we can't ship all of our recent COs to ROTC, but it makes sense. But soon, there should be an effort to get young combat vets (to include NCOs, especially former PSGs) to ROTC immediately so that they can educate these future PLs on what is expected of them as leaders in combat.

Actually you're starting to see people with GWOT time showing up as ROTC instructors. Mainline ROTC instructors are never retired (that's JROTC), although you do get many who view ROTC as a last assignment before retiring.

That said, I do see many ways ROTC could be better used. I can't think of many better ways to get future FAOs (aside from OCS-type programs) into the service. The AF draws many of its research people in through ROTC, which is a mixed blessing. But ROTC does really allow the military to draw on a pool that might otherwise be lost to it: the kid who's already in school, wants to serve his or her country, but also wants to finish school. Some of our best people (at my det, anyhow) come in this way. You can also draw on a slightly older base, including folks who have real life experience that will prove useful operationally (police, fire, medics, overseas living, and so on).

If 5 cadets don't commission, that's 5 people who didn't soak up much money in the great scheme of things and won't get anyone killed. Seems like a good trade to me...

[JKM4767]

Steve,
You are incorrect about retirees. I don't know if you've heard of this, but at my University, there are 3 "contractors" (retired field grades) that teach MS I and II courses. They are still there, because I called my alma mater for a job as an ROTC instructor and the PMS told me they don't have any active duty CPT slots for instructors. He said all instructors slots are currently filled by retirees. http://armyrotc.ksu.edu/cadre.php
It looks like they've added even more according to their website.

[Steve Blair]

That's a new trend, then, and one we haven't seen here. They have slotted some MSGTs in as instructors, but that's about it. The AF hasn't gone near this at all, although we're having a hard time getting officers released for APAS duty right now.

A K-State grad, eh? I went there and worked there and at Fort Riley for some years before getting back up here.

[120mm]

I just did a year as an ROTC contractor. Not a bad program, imho, and it's cheap for the Army. Our Active Duty guys were not particularly suited for ROTC duty.

ROTC is the place where you send good leaders to get divorces and UCMJ for sleeping with hot female cadets. NOT a place you want to send your best combat leadership.

Now, the older instructors have their problems, but "experience" a future LT gets in ROTC has marginal utility by the time they get combat leadership duty. Commission, then train, should be the Army Standard.

Edited to add: Why not take the job at Pittsburgh State if KSU is full?

www.goarmyrotc.com is the website to COMtech, which runs the ROTC contracting program

[120mm]

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda, lots of pie in the sky stuff here.

You may have something of a point on the "semi-German" system of spending time in the ranks. On the other hand, the US Military in general, and the USMC in particular, does an excellent job of filling its officer corps with folks from the ranks, from the academy, from OCS, and from ROTC. Such a system has lots of intellectual diversity and I doubt that advantages could be accrued by homogenizing the entry of officers by use of a single system.

And the remark about O-5s and above is entirely uncalled for. On the contrary, I've seen lots of burned-out field grades who want nothing more than to "make 20" and punch out. They tend to be Majors with prior-enlisted experience or LtCols without such prior experience. Furthermore, I've known some utterly outstanding Colonels in my short 4 years in service to my country. And the generals? Mattis? Amos? Castellaw? Toolan? Helland? Yup--lots of ticket-punching in those guys. Ha.

A little more discipline in thought would be appropriate before we castigate the bird colonels and stars.

I've met Petraeus and Wadjakowski, and like them both, and know a few O-6s that I'd follow through hell with a peashooter, but they are the VAST minority in the many O-6s and above I've dealt with. I'm all for the castigation of the higher "O"s and the way they become that rank.

I think it is a great weakness of our military.

But I'm just a burnt out prior-enlisted Major.

Especially in CSS-land, I've seen the Army effectively relieve O-5s and above for incompetence, only to put them back into the same position later in the tour, and they still get good OERs and get promoted. We had an Active Duty O-6 basically refuse to deploy to Iraq, through feet dragging and malingering and as far as I can tell, he received no censure. His job was done, excellently, by a Reservist O-5.

There is a tendency to "command by powerpoint" at the O-6 and above level.

[Smitten Eagle]

Fair criticism, 120mm. I've seen similar too. But saying LtCols and Majors are awesome because they get out is probably incorrect. I've seen far more ticket-punching careerism by fat field-grades who are burned out and just intent on making 20. They're place-holders, and obstructionists. They provide no combat power.

Anybody ready "Path to Victory" by Vandergriff? He advocates the US military adopt a regimental system like the brits, decentralize promotions, and decentralize assignment-filling to those regiments.

There's about 5 things I'd change with the Fitrep/OER system, too. Like add peer and subordinate comments, get rid of the zero-defect mentality, etc.

If I every become Deputy Commandant for Manpower, that book will be my bible.

[Steve Blair]

I've been a big fan of Vandergriff since I read that book. Had him as a professor as well...very sharp guy.

A great deal of what he's talking about is really the way the personnel system used to work (read before Root's "reforms" and the business school mentality took hold).

[RTK]

On that note, I highly recommend Anton Mayer's Once an Eagle, though I gather most people in this forum have read it.

I see many Courtney Massengales in the army. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to see them at lower ranks than I did 7 years ago.