|
|
|
Subject:
RE: Military SF and the Army Transformation
Jeff from Michigan
9/11/2002 9:28:42 PM
|
I enjoyed the essay and the pertinent comments by Adam, Mike and David. Having been the ?belly of the beast? for a short time and also part of an old style corporation you can see how the gifted politicos can climb to the top. In other words Dilbert lives. I am a little more sanguine about the quality of our generals. Having met and interacted with bunches of them it appears to me that there are many truly innovative types. Lt. General Van Riper is an example.
However the concern is in the middle ranks where the rubber hits the road and where the real decisions are made that causes people to live or die. There the real candidates for the Darwin Awards live or die and unfortunately others die with them. Living in other countries and seeing their officer corps (British excepted and I can?t speak for the Aussies) I can say that the U.S. officer corps is heads and tail above the others. There is a great deal of professionalism. But professionalism doesn?t make a unit cohesive. Here I believe that the U.S. Army must rely on the NCO corps. One of the greatest lessons I learned from my CO?s was that I was to listen to my top sergeant to hear the troop?s concerns.
We have to remember that the Armed Forces live in an environment. In this environment there is a lot of political control now populated with congressional non veterans who see the Armed Services as another point of societal engineering (which isn?t all bad. Consider Truman integrating the services and promotion of QUALIFIED minorities). The names Barb Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Franks come to mind. Unfortunately when accidents happen only negative things happen to the man in charge as well as those the next two levels up. This arises the zero defect management style. Thus people who follow the book get promoted because less bad things can happen. Thus bureaucrats or those types that can assume the patina of a bureaucrat get ahead.
One way to check the promotion of purely political animals who have no ability other than self promotion are 360 appraisals. A 360 appraisal has evaluations from superiors, subordinates and peers. They can be real eye openers particularly at the peer level. Done wrongly they can wreck an organization but used properly they can really elevate the truly talented. The problem I see in the current Army is that there are too many rotations so that it can?t really be done reliably.
One thing I remember about how German units remained so cohesive in WWII was their promotion system. Essentially for the NCO and lower officer ranks the selection was more peer selection. In other words people picked their leader which tends to bring the more charismatic leaders to the front. With clear missions and common purposes this could be an effective tool to find the best small unit leaders.
Dave, your comments about Allied countries specializing in certain tasks is a good one. The New Zealand Commandos are really carving out a stellar reputation for High Mountain tracking and operations. The Aussies are acquitting themselves well. However as much as it grieves me I don?t think that the U.S. can be counted on. Some adminstrations such as the late unlamented Clinton are feckless thus leaving a country swinging in the breeze. The best example is how Carter threw over the Shah of Iran and allowed the embassy occupation. From that seed has come many bitter fruits of state sponsored terrorism. So if a country wishes to stay a regional player like Australia and the East Timor operation then they have to develop a substantial force package which diminishes the size and effectiveness of the force.
Good discussion thread so far. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
