The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Intelligence

[marct]

Hi Ken and Ski,

Thanks for the responses . While I'm in the mood to say things I probably shouldn't, I'd like to tag nto a comment Ski made

You ask what we get for serving? A profession. That's what the military is today. You might say differently, but that's all it is from my limited view of the world. Sure, people are real nice to you in airports or train stations when you have a uniform on, but what else? I had a guy ask me to my face yesterday if I had killed anyone in Afghanistan. First question out of his mouth. Sigh. I don't ask for any special favors as a member of the military and quite frankly I don't want any. The country has spent their tax dollars on my education, training and experience, and I only hope that I've been able to pay it back with results that are for the country's benefit.

Let me play academic for a minute and make a couple of observations:

1. I totally agree that it is a profession in the modern sense of the term.
2. I have a feeling that both you, and Ken, are thinking about "profession" in the older sense of the term, i.e. something to profess as "good".
3. I get the feeling that you believe that you have a "calling" to the profession of arms.

I must say that I've seen a lot of things that indicate this type of attitude here at the SWC. Personally, I am really, really, glad to see it.

So, having made those observations (and shifted the discourse), can I ask both of you if you believe that the this will be enough to staff the armed forces for the long war? Also, what do you think can be done about shifting the social and cultural emphasis against the military as a calling and profession?

Marc

[Ski]

I think both of your definitions fit my view of being a military officer.

I certainly had a calling to the profession of arms. I was one of the people who were caught in the "great 2nd lieutenant massacre" of the mid-90's and ended up commissioned into the National Guard out of ROTC (well, actually USAR, but found a Guard unit and switched quickly after I was commissioned). I always wanted to go on active duty, but did not have the chance until 2000. I love what I do, it's mentally and physically challenging (especially after a torn achilles in March), and I love the Army. Do I necessarily agree with some of the policies we have as a country? No, but I don't get to pick the fights.

I think your second question needs to be resolved before the first can be answered. If the country cannot understand that military service is an honorable and decent profession, with honorable and decent men and women, than the first question becomes irrelevant. I think the situation will change drastically once Bush and Co. get sent to the retirement asylums - the vast majority of people I've bumped into do not trust them at all. I think the military has done a piss poor job in selling themselves across the board since the end of the Cold War. First it's the Army of One and now it's Army Strong. If I was 18 and saw either recruiting jingle, I'd run for the hills or join one of the other services. We invented Madison Ave and modern advertising and yet we cannot get people to join without massive bonuses, great benefits, and a lot of training and flexibility in assignments. I don't know where we go other than the something towards the Marine method of recruiting where we sell the rites of passage more than the end state.

Hi Ken and Ski,

Thanks for the responses . While I'm in the mood to say things I probably shouldn't, I'd like to tag nto a comment Ski made



Let me play academic for a minute and make a couple of observations:

1. I totally agree that it is a profession in the modern sense of the term.
2. I have a feeling that both you, and Ken, are thinking about "profession" in the older sense of the term, i.e. something to profess as "good".
3. I get the feeling that you believe that you have a "calling" to the profession of arms.

I must say that I've seen a lot of things that indicate this type of attitude here at the SWC. Personally, I am really, really, glad to see it.

So, having made those observations (and shifted the discourse), can I ask both of you if you believe that the this will be enough to staff the armed forces for the long war? Also, what do you think can be done about shifting the social and cultural emphasis against the military as a calling and profession?

Marc

[Ken White]

Hi Ken and Ski,
. . .

So, having made those observations (and shifted the discourse), can I ask both of you if you believe that the this will be enough to staff the armed forces for the long war? Also, what do you think can be done about shifting the social and cultural emphasis against the military as a calling and profession?

Marc

Not alone. My gut feel (with apologies to the SecHS) is that between one third and one half of one percent of the population of a modern western democracy will join and serve under such conditions; if it trends to the lower figure due to length of time that means less than the now authorized strength while the upper figure is about what we have. Per usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between.

"Under such conditions" -- but some inducements in the near term will be necessary. IOW, I'm saying I think we can muddle through for a few years with some belt tightening. To maintain the force in the long term, some major reforms are going to be necessary. Simply, the ability to deploy fairly frequently but not too frequently and not always to combat zones is desirable but the biggest single draw to the kids is challenge. Period. Most kids come in the service (officer or enlisted immaterial, service nonpeculiar) and leave due to disappointment.

It isn't challenging and it isn't fun. Start a small war and you have challenge but no fun (for most); do all the good training stuff IAW OSHA guidelines and you have fun but no challenge.

Then there's the fact that the aforementioned tendency to treat people like children tends to make them act like children. Nobody likes that; add that people used to be trusted and that the ability to trust has been allowed to severely erode. That has to be fixed.

Frankly, in the US, I'm not particularly optimistic about getting there from here. We are, I'm afraid too distrustful of each other, too pampered, too PC and Congress does not want the Mothers of the Etats Uniens complaining about a 1% loss annually in training. Penalty of living in a democratic society; the bulk of the populace do not want Armed Forces that are too good. Not that I'd change that; I think its part of the price we pay for the freedom we have and the life style we are able to enjoy. So I suspect we'll just muddle along. Unsatisfactory answer, I know. Need to think about it a bit.

As to the second part of your query; total honesty and integrity allied with great competence; all equally important. The first simply requires an effort of will and a change in attitude (particularly toward the media, no matter how hard that is to swallow); the second requires only will and effective policing and the third cutting much of the bureaucracy, well thought out doctrine and even better than the already good training. Then it'll take 15-30 years of improvement for the effects to be truly felt, I believe. However, I see some positive if slight moves in those directions and that is good.

Two things that will contribute to that better perception are the mantra of 'support the troops' which makes it hard for those who say it at least on the surface to be too negative (if it is said often enough, it begins to be believed) and the return of a bunch of smart people from the current wars to the mainstream and many of whom will go to school on the GI Bill and possibly, among other things, affect some, uh, attitudes on campus...

However, it is unlikely that the attitudes toward the Armed Forces of about 15 to 20% of the population, those strongly inclined toward non-violence / anti-militarism will ever be changed. Nor are they likely to subside into quiet acquiescence. Fortunately, they are a fairly small percentage.

Let me mull both points for a bit...

[Ken White]

Hi Ken and Ski,

So, having made those observations (and shifted the discourse), can I ask both of you if you believe that the this will be enough to staff the armed forces for the long war? Also, what do you think can be done about shifting the social and cultural emphasis against the military as a calling and profession?

Marc

Hi, Marc

After some thought and talking to a few others, not much to add to my off the cuff remarks the other night. Could have been more coherent and concise but the basic thoughts remain the same. Let me reiterate and add a couple of things.

I still believe that between one third and one half of one percent of the population of a modern western democracy will join and serve under such conditions; if it trends to the lower figure due to length of time that means less than the now authorized strength while the upper figure is about what we have. Per usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between. My three
co-consultants agree (one's a COL Ret, one a serving brand new MAJ and the other a serving MSG). It is highly probable that the number of people who opt for the combat arms is a rough constant and thus they need little added inducement.

The issue is attracting the specialist types and for the Gen Y kids, it seems to us a pitch that leans toward the opportunity to help others in lesser endowed nations would be a draw; that and the travel.

To maintain the force in the long term, some major reforms would be necessary. Pay is a factor. The services tout the total package but the reality is that has little resonance with many because they do not partake of many of the benefits so increased base pay and a cut in the ‘benefits’ would be better received I think (I await the screams and wails of some serving…). Pay for specialties hard to recruit and retain should be increased to a point commensurate with like trade civilian pay. An enhanced G.I. Bill – particularly if it offers more money for graduate studies to those who enlist with two or more years of college would probably help

The biggest single draw to the kids is challenge. Period. Most kids come in the service (officer or enlisted immaterial, service nonpeculiar) and leave due to disappointment. The Brits use Adventure Training to good effect. We played with it in the 70s but only half heartedly; the British Army does it right, IMO.

A major reform is need in the way people are treated and, in fairness, the Army is headed that way but it will be a culture change and, as Ski pointed out, the upper levels still have a tendency to treat people like children.

The ability to trust has been allowed to severely erode. That has to be fixed.

To repeat what I said earlier with respect to the second part of your query; total honesty and integrity allied with great competence; all equally important. We are getting better on both counts but there is still a tendency to hide bad news, that needs to be stop totally. A change in attitude particularly toward the media is a must (and that has major impacts in the Information War as well); I’ll add that we also need to do better with the film and TV industry. We do not need to co-opt them, we just need fair and unbiased portrayals.

Somehow, we also need to convince the denizens of Academe that we are not evil or stupid and that we dislike war even more than do they…

Still think it will take 15-30 years of improvement for the effects to be truly felt. However, the moves in those directions that are already occurring are good.

Not sure that's very helpful...

[Ski]

Ken/Marc

Some additional thoughts.

1. Rebuild trust between senior officers and mid/junior grade officers. The cracks are there, need to mortar them up before real problems arise. Might not be possible in the short term. I'm 34 years old with one foreign deployment and three humanitarian/disaster relief missions under my belt, as well as working on a Master's. Treat me like an adult for Christ's sake.

2. Sell the challenge and the rite of passage rather than the benefits and the endstate in terms of recruiting.

3. Completely reform the personnel and pay system. Both are antiquated and obselete. Retirement should be changed as well - the 20 year rule is dumb and obsolete. 2.5% per year accrual rate with a 10 year minimum is the way to go.

4. Show the populace that military service is worthy and that the people are good and honest. Crush those who are in service who are not honest or are criminals, and make it widely known across the press.

5. Create a real system of command and control by eliminating at least two or three layers of staff, starting at the Division level and head up to COCOM level. Ties in with trust development.

6. Grand startegy and strategy must be clearly stated to the privates and lieutenants in the military. These are the building blocks of the military, and if the grand strategy and strategy smell funny, they'll leave as soon as possible. They must believe in the mission...

[Ken White]

Great, in fact. Benefit of still serving instead of bein' old, marginally out of touch and retarded...

All are good, all are of about equal importance, IMO.

[Steve Blair]

Addressing the challenge issue....this is something the Marines have done well for many years now, and they don't have trouble meeting recruiting goals. We've lost some cadets to the Corps, and it has been due to the challenge factor. The AF promotes itself as a job with security and benefits...the kids we lose (and they've been good ones) wanted something more.

With Gen Y, you need to push service to something bigger than yourself more than travel. Many of these kids have already been places, and that hook just doesn't catch 'em. The trust issue is a major factor for these kids. They aren't as jaded as us Xers, but it's still an issue for them. Some of them are surprisingly idealistic, and shattering their trust will make them head the other way faster than you can blink.

One area that's really hurt the AF recently has been the horrible problems in some of the areas of JAG. It may not seem like much to those currently in, but it gets commented on a great deal (and negatively) by our cadets. They really don't like hearing one thing and then seeing something else. Lip service to core values will be smelled out quickly by this group, and they'll find somewhere else to go in a hurry.

With academe, you'll have to catch current undergrads and convince them to defy the ideology of their instructors. It's only going to get worse as the military starts looking for history majors, modern language majors, and others from the social sciences (to meet the demands of any COIN strategy you'll need those kids). You're going after the ideological strongholds of the '60s generation there, and they won't surrender easily.