tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post6058604751404975615..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: Keeping The Best and BrightestGeorge Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-67248516836969443432007-11-23T11:24:00.000-05:002007-11-23T11:24:00.000-05:00I am a little pessimistic about the chances of thi...I am a little pessimistic about the chances of this actually happening. The current General and Flag selection system seems to really be based on the manager model and the ability of a Flag or General Officer to bring in the money from Washington to the company he or she works for after their days in the suit are over. That means you have to change or eliminate entire lines of hangers on, CEO's, Congressmen/women, staff, etc. If you are fighting and winning the war but not sending the right signals and hitting the right targets for the Military/Industrial/Congressional complex of use are you to the system? And how long will this take because time is of the essence.<BR/><BR/>Except for a relative few I do not know that fighting/winning the war are even on the agenda in D.C. <BR/><BR/>If we keep them in uniform are they really going to be in an arena that encourages intellectual boundary pushing AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESULTS? It may up to a point but when push comes to shove and that star is nigh will they get it?<BR/><BR/>I know it sounds all doom and gloom but these are questions that have to be answered.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03149574320173670366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-23252815360861889562007-11-22T01:44:00.000-05:002007-11-22T01:44:00.000-05:00I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://co...I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/11/re-keeping-best-and-brightest.htmlConsul-At-Armshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04391037582103556978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-40404144031115008802007-11-21T16:09:00.000-05:002007-11-21T16:09:00.000-05:00It seems to me that contractors are taking advanta...It seems to me that contractors are taking advantage of this situation and grabbing a lot of these guys straight out of military service. Of all of my friends and family involved in the war on terror, most are out of the military and now work for contractors. I agree with the spirit of this article. Everyone is better served by keeping these people in the military (except the contractors). We pay for them out of taxes either way and it hurts us when contractors compete against the military.<BR/>Great stuff to write about. It's gonna be an interesting time when all of these troops come home. Have a happy Thanksgiving.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550148160294668222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-48171210524836185392007-11-21T13:33:00.001-05:002007-11-21T13:33:00.001-05:00Duck--Your comments are spot on. In my own career ...Duck--Your comments are spot on. In my own career as a spook (which never came close to the flag level), I saw my own version of this generalist mindset, which encourages careerism and broad-based experience, at the expense of specific expertise that may be vital in winning the next war. <BR/><BR/>Consider this: most intel officers who reach the flag rank are similar to their operational or combat arms counterparts. They reached the upper ranks by becoming managers and technocrats; their days of particular expertise are long since past. And, if they spend too much time in a particular area or gain additional training or education (say, a PhD), they are pigeonholed as "too narrow" in terms of their background. <BR/><BR/>I will give the credit for one thing: they're ahead of the Air Force (and other services) in recongnizing the need for a cadre of officers with foreign language and cultural expertise. The Army has an MOS or special experience identifier for those officers, and there is a career track for them. Unfortunately, most of them don't reach the upper ranks, but it's a step in the right direction--as was General Petraeus chairing that promotion board. <BR/><BR/>BTW, the fact that Petraeus's exec didn't make flag rank is very telling. After a successful tour as a combat brigade commander (and selection as the theater commander's right-hand man) Mansoor's promotion should have been automatic. Either Mansoor has some sort of career stain from years past (highly unlikely, considering that he was screened for command), or it's an example of the hidebound Army bureaucracy promoting the usual technocrats and managers over innovators and soldier-scholars like Mansoor and McMaster. <BR/><BR/>If I had to read the tea leaves, I'd guess that Mansoor's rejection on the past board resulted in a phone call from his boss to Gen Casey and the SecDef, with a simple message: I won't tolerate this crap for another moment. Under today's promotion system, the Chief of Staff (or a theater commander) can't hand-pick flag officers (and end careers) the way George Marshall did in WWII, but letting Petraeus chair the board allows him to exert a needed degree of influence. <BR/><BR/>As for the Air Force, we've got a real problem. We only have one general officer with a "true" SF background (he came up the ranks as a combat controller), and the service is still dominated by fighter mafia. It's going to be a real challenge to see how the service "treats" those officers and senior NCOs who are making the difference in the GWOT, and for the most part, they don't fly fighters.George Smileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-18160268493824620792007-11-21T13:33:00.000-05:002007-11-21T13:33:00.000-05:00Duck--Your comments are spot on. In my own career ...Duck--Your comments are spot on. In my own career as a spook (which never came close to the flag level), I saw my own version of this generalist mindset, which encourages careerism and broad-based experience, at the expense of specific expertise that may be vital in winning the next war. <BR/><BR/>Consider this: most intel officers who reach the flag rank are similar to their operational or combat arms counterparts. They reached the upper ranks by becoming managers and technocrats; their days of particular expertise are long since past. And, if they spend too much time in a particular area or gain additional training or education (say, a PhD), they are pigeonholed as "too narrow" in terms of their background. <BR/><BR/>I will give the credit for one thing: they're ahead of the Air Force (and other services) in recongnizing the need for a cadre of officers with foreign language and cultural expertise. The Army has an MOS or special experience identifier for those officers, and there is a career track for them. Unfortunately, most of them don't reach the upper ranks, but it's a step in the right direction--as was General Petraeus chairing that promotion board. <BR/><BR/>BTW, the fact that Petraeus's exec didn't make flag rank is very telling. After a successful tour as a combat brigade commander (and selection as the theater commander's right-hand man) Mansoor's promotion should have been automatic. Either Mansoor has some sort of career stain from years past (highly unlikely, considering that he was screened for command), or it's an example of the hidebound Army bureaucracy promoting the usual technocrats and managers over innovators and soldier-scholars like Mansoor and McMaster. <BR/><BR/>If I had to read the tea leaves, I'd guess that Mansoor's rejection on the past board resulted in a phone call from his boss to Gen Casey and the SecDef, with a simple message: I won't tolerate this crap for another moment. Under today's promotion system, the Chief of Staff (or a theater commander) can't hand-pick flag officers (and end careers) the way George Marshall did in WWII, but letting Petraeus chair the board allows him to exert a needed degree of influence. <BR/><BR/>As for the Air Force, we've got a real problem. We only have one general officer with a "true" SF background (he came up the ranks as a combat controller), and the service is still dominated by fighter mafia. It's going to be a real challenge to see how the service "treats" those officers and senior NCOs who are making the difference in the GWOT, and for the most part, they don't fly fighters.George Smileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-53857281141827597012007-11-21T12:49:00.000-05:002007-11-21T12:49:00.000-05:00This post and the one above touch on what I see as...This post and the one above touch on what I see as <EM>the</EM> major problem in all the military services that is rarely addressed; departing from the WWII model of massive formations confronting the enemy state's massive formations in set piece battles and confronting the non-state combatants of the post WWII world, often covertly fielded and supported by enemy states, that threaten us with a strategy of death by a thousand cuts.<BR/><BR/>There is lots of power and promotion potential for officers who shepherd massive new weapons systems through development and procurement. And there is lots of pork in these systems for politicians to hand out to their constituents in exchange for continued campaign contributions. But our recent wars have not been fought with these systems or have not utilized them in anything like the manner in which they were intended. <BR/><BR/>There is little career reward for the officer who goes to Jabipistan, learns the language, culture, political factions and can operate effectively to advance the interests of America in that environment. But that is the officer we need, not the hero responsible for the Crusader.<BR/><BR/>Our procurement and personnel policies have not kept up with the changes in the threat environment we face. Involving Petraeus so visibly in this promotion board is a necessary, but very far from sufficient, condition for making this transition. Seeing Petraeus become Chief of Staff, Chairman of JCS, and POTUS should bring us much closer to the appropriate solution to our many misprioritizations.Richard Heddlesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08216946685309270647noreply@blogger.com