• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Interesting take on current officer corps

ssnspoon

Get a brace!
pilot
I disagree with one point "...he reads, studies, and knows the literature of his field" I believe there are plenty of officers who do this to a degree, but with all our additional admin/logistics burden, we cannot. In my talks with junior officers, I feel they WANT, they CRAVE to be tactical professionals. They would love to be in a Navy where they come to work every day and their job is nothing more than sharpening their sword or forging a better one. Unfortunately, our structure does not abide this, nor does there American public want it. To be sure, they SHOULD want it this way, but that means a larger (potentially) military by hiring people to do the other crap that gets in the way of my tactical studies. You could very easily hire a project management professional to fill the OPS/Maintenance/QAO/etc billets. You could (and SHOULD) have a legitimate HR department so I don't need to spend 5 hours dealing with an E-4 who drunkenly did burnouts on his motorcycle in front of a police officer the day before deployment and THEN have to find his replacement for deployment...when I should be flying a tactical event, jumping in the sim and bettering myself.

Until we demand a complete overhaul of the leadership to include a serious look at our inefficiencies, we are stuck.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/an-officer-corps-that-cant-score/
Bill Lind and Col (ret) Boyd both gave classes to my TBS class. If you don't know who these gentlemen are, get to reading.
I disagree with his entire premise.

Does he expect General and Flag officers to use their status to hold press hearings so that they can publicly disagree with their bosses? Would anyone expect to still have a job, private or government, after doing such a thing? Does he expect junior and mid grade officers to don dress uniforms and march on Washington in protest?

Anytime I've heard a flag officer speak, I've gotten the impression that he has a very firm grasp of the problems facing the military. The problem is overcoming a monumental amount of institutional inertia to institute any meaningful changes, which often would include getting Congress to change the law, and that organization doesn't move on anything unless it potentially threatens their campaign funding.

Let's wind back the clock to 2001 when the plans to invade Iraq were being drafted. You're Gen Franks. You tell SECDEF Rumsfeld you need ~300k troops to successfully invade Iraq and overhaul the government. He says bullshit, do it with half that. This goes on for over a year. What do you ultimately tell SECDEF when the order to invade comes and you're only getting half your original number? He is your boss, giving you a lawful order to execute a resolution passed by Congress. and endorsed by the President, your commander-in-chief. Do you say 'yes sir' because after decades of service you believe you're the best leader to get it done, or do you fall on your sword and risk going to prison so the next guy can do it?

You look at the wars that didn't go well in the 20th century, and you will always find a disconnect between the advice given to the President by military leadership and the policy that actually gets enacted by the administration. But the President is the boss, and until we stop electing leaders that think they can use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but you're only allowed to swing the sledgehammer with your pinky finger, this is what we'll get.

PS: You might not like writing reports when PO Schmukatelli gets a DUI, but those flags don't like sitting in front of the national defense committee explaining why male servicemembers sexually assault their female coworkers at a rate substantially higher than the civilian population.
 
Last edited:

picklesuit

Dirty Hinge
pilot
Contributor
I disagree with his assertion that we are all a bunch of dumbass yes-men.

Lots of well read skeptics in my current and last squadron, many who speak their mind and a few that are still on track to keep rising.

You can tell your boss you disagree with their idea/plan/actions without making a big fuss. Part of being a good leader. I'm sure I rubbed some of my past OPSO's the wrong way as Skeds trying to sell my ideas (I know they are lurking) but they still listened and either tried it or handed me my crayons. I'm still here.

See the "good idea fairy" crushed on more than one occasion at the O-3 level. It happens. Just because we aren't penning articles to magazines about it doesn't mean we aren't doing it.

"It" being fighting for the most effective and efficient way to use my plane/shop/resources. I don't need a fucking article/day off/NAM to do my job, just let me do it.

Oh, my dumb ass finds time to read too (and not just mando JPME stuff)
Pickle
 

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
He makes some very valid points, I especially agree with his points of micromanagement and fat headquarters staffs. Yes, change has to come from within in order to fix that, and it has to come from the top.

His other major gripes are with the retirement/promotion system...that we use retired officer contractors... Not sure those are all actual problems.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The author's assertion that three Colonels somehow led an effort to reorient their services is laughable, as are many of his other premises. For one, I would argue that we don't want or need O5 and below to be strategists. We need them to be good operators and tacticians. There are a whole host of reasons that our experiences in executing effective warfare since WWII have been challenging and oftentimes unsatisfying, but to attribute it to the fact that your average JO hasn't picked up a copy of Clausewitz is also laughable.

FWIW, there are already some 20% HQ staff and GO/FO cut proposals working their way through DoD - and that's a good thing. Change takes time, but the leadership that I've interacted with here acknowledge many of the issues we face. It's just not realistic to expect radical change in this business.
 

BackOrdered

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I'm not a fan of this either. Since the Korean war and MacArthur, politics keep us from just kicking heads in and winning "decisively." We as Officers don't control politics.
 

IRfly

Registered User
None
We lose wars because the people who start them don't know what winning looks like (other than transferring trillions of debt-financed dollars to your friends' companies). Wars are political issues--our military-civilian relationship is such that the military fights battles, which we do very well against third-rate or non-existent opponents. We just keep electing civilians who get us into wars that we cannot win, no matter how many battles we win. "Kicking heads in?" Please. How many Iraqis do we kill/torture/starve in order to create a stable friendly, liberal democracy (the closest thing to an overall strategic goal that one could divine out of that misadventure)? Oh, wait, lemme guess. All the "bad guys."

I don't like many aspects of the way the officer corps is managed, and the guy makes some fair points about structural inefficiencies. He exposes his intellectual ass-clownery by blaming losses in war on this.

The real tragedy of the officer corps is that we still have people who think that wars like Iraq and Afghanistan could have been "won" if we had just been tougher or something. Killed more. Tortured more.
 

BackOrdered

Well-Known Member
Contributor
"Kicking heads in?" Please. How many Iraqis do we kill/torture/starve in order to create a stable friendly, liberal democracy (the closest thing to an overall strategic goal that one could divine out of that misadventure)? Oh, wait, lemme guess. All the "bad guys."

We hold back and you know we hold back. Do pirate ops and observe how the Russians do their pirate ops and tell me we aren't holding back.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
IRFly nailed it. Since WWII the military has been good at what it's supposed to be good at - - killing the enemy and breaking stuff. We ultimately 'lose' these wars not because our military is overmatched or poorly led like the retired Col claims, but because politicians didn't want to acknowledge that we couldn't achieve their foreign policy objectives by killing lots of people and breaking lots of stuff, especially when they bar leadership from attacking the real ring leader for the enemy.

Up to WWII people went to war to conquer land or eradicate an enemy. Since then we go to war because ravaging their country is supposed to make the locals have an epiphany about how great freedom and democracy is.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
We hold back and you know we hold back. Do pirate ops and observe how the Russians do their pirate ops and tell me we aren't holding back.
So your ceding the moral high ground to the Russians? :)

I'll be the first to lament the way that we cow-tow to the various cultural sensitivities of our opponents and allies (like G.O. #1), but as the world's only superpower, there's merit in adhering to the laws of warfare and upholding international norms. People always seem to draw a distinction between the type of warfare we waged in WWII (nearly total war) vs. the kinds we've fought since then. It's not that we've chosen a different way to fight (total vs. limited objectives), it's that the circumstances and political objectives have been very different.

I lay as much blame at the feet of our civilian leadership for not understanding the limitations of military power as I do with our military leadership who are usually doing the best they can given a monumentous task and inadequate resources. There are certainly times when the COCOMs should have pushed back or made a more concerted effort to cage expectations, but at the end of the day, we're expected to execute as ordered.
 

BackOrdered

Well-Known Member
Contributor
So your ceding the moral high ground to the Russians? :)

Not at all. But to look at the way we do business today and say it is comparible to WWII "business" isn't something I buy from IRfly's post. Everything else he said is on point.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I didn't get that impression from his post. At any rate, the WWII analogy isn't particularly relevant to the contemporary use of military power. To say that we're holding back because we're not doing things like we did then glosses over a lot of important distinctions.
 

LET73

Well-Known Member
I'd like to give us a little more credit than the author does--I don't know any JOs who expect nothing but praise of our heroes in uniform. I do think he has a point, but it's lost in the hyperbole and purple prose.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
Not at all. But to look at the way we do business today and say it is comparible to WWII "business" isn't something I buy from IRfly's post. Everything else he said is on point.

I didn't get that impression from his post. At any rate, the WWII analogy isn't particularly relevant to the contemporary use of military power. To say that we're holding back because we're not doing things like we did then glosses over a lot of important distinctions.

There are several instances of "total war" in America's history and many other instances of "limited wars, " such as many of our forays in Central American, Mexico, and the Phillipines, that are much closer in scope to the OIF/OEF conflicts than WWII is.
 
Top