Lori Wilhite  on 18-Mar-2011
I grew up with relatives who served in Vietnam, was in my mid-twenties when President Regan urged Mr. Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” I grew up understanding the ability to hold a threat of national destruction, be it economic or physical, over an enemy’s head. Once it was brought home to me that we were fighting what Gates calls “unstructured” warfare, I became even more in awe of our Soldiers. Battling an enemy with respect or reverence for nothing, the desire to protect nothing, and hatred as the motivation is incomprehensible to most of us. Gates indicates our senior leadership understands this, and our Soldiers have a distinct advantage over those who fought unstructured warfare of decades past. No one knows how conflict will be waged in the future, acknowledging that alternate methods have their place is a large step to preparing our Army for both conventional and unconventional conflict.

Gates spoke of Soldiers being brave enough to “exercise respectful, principled dissent” to their leadership. Unfortunately, I remember a time when the bravery of our Soldiers to speak wasn’t the issue: the bravery of our leadership to listen was lacking. I think my generation, for the most part, has seen the last of the “good ol’ boy” corps that was so prevalent years ago. Where Yes Men were advanced and those that spoke up were not so subtly shoved into dead-end pathways. Today’s Soldier will still face those who believe the only way to do something is how it’s always been done, or those who need the power so badly they can’t handle an alternate opinion. The vast majority of those coming into leadership are aware that a good idea can come from any direction. Our junior (Gates uses the term “lower” and I disagree with his word choice) Soldiers, officer and enlisted, are bright and intelligent and should be listened to. However, our junior Soldiers need to understand that the snippet they see of what’s happening doesn’t constitute the whole picture. Leadership doesn’t have the time to draw pictures, relay the vast number of details they are privy to, and explain experiences they’ve called upon just because a junior Soldier doesn’t understand the decision.

As the Army continues to transform and realign, the stresses of military life continue to influence the ability to retain our best and brightest. I know one dual-military family who have been married 10 years and have spent less than 5 years together because of deployment cycles. My neighbor’s husband has been home a total of 4 months in the last two years because of training and deployments. These are extreme cases, but they are the type of situation I see more and more often. Adding the inability to get promoted because you haven’t followed a pre-defined cookie-cutter career path is often more than our Soldiers and their families can take. It’s just as frustrating for our Soldiers who were put on that specialization path years ago and now can’t get the job or command they are qualified for and would excel at because they have followed that path. The promotion system does need to change to reflect individual potential. What will happen in the future to our Soldiers who today are told the way to get promoted is to get off the path when the Army once again feels it needs those that have specialized? We need to appreciate that there are people who excel at number crunching but falter at land nav. We need diversity, and we need it from a diverse population. It is just as possible to cookie-cut Soldiers into abstract shapes as jacks-of-all-trades, masters-of-none with non-traditional career paths as the best way to promotion, only to find we still need those who have mastered a specialized path.

1LT Chad Conger  on 07-Mar-2011
Sir,

This is my perspective as to why mid-level leaders are leaving: OPTEMPO and financial reasons. These leaders are disciplined, educated, trained in leadership, and have proven their abilities throughout their careers, as demonstrated by their promotions to increasing levels of responsibility. Besides those that continue to serve because of their sense of a higher calling to serve, what is the incentive to stay? These leaders can take their education, training, and experience to a job that pays more, requires less of many things(specifically time away from home and family), has far more stable work schedules, and the dangerousness of the job is significantly reduced. Unfortunately, that means the Army has to keep what it can: the aforementioned Soldiers serving to serve, those that are afraid of failure outside the military (job security), and those that aren't certain they can make a better living outside the service. To be more competitive, the Army needs to relook many of the incentives offered and be more competitive in the financial category. At least, those are my thoughts.

Very respectfully,

1LT Conger

CPT Jim Wilson  on 07-Mar-2011
Sir,

The Secretary's speech echoes many of the issues discussed in the Chief of Staff's forum run online about a year ago. The forum concerned itself with the recruitment, development, retention and identification of superb performers in the officer corps. I participated heavily in that forum and I am pleased to see that many of the concerns raised have percolated to the top levels of the DoD. Among out key concerns were the "breaking of the mold" in terms of the string of assignments that offered the only sure path to success and in developing the top performers and separating the lesser performers.

I think all of the Secretary's concerns are legitimate with regards to the things that influence people to leave the service. A key point was his reference to Google. The Army is now in a competitive environment for its talent. Unlike a generation ago where, aside from the occasional pitch from headhunters, officers were relatively unaware of what opportunities were available on the outside, now it is hard NOT to be aware of the many opportunities outside the military services. Private sector employers recognize and covet the intangible skills and the leadership, values, ethics and drive to succeed that military officers possess. As I once heard from one corporate recruiter, "I can teach anyone the ins and outs of this industry, but I cannot teach them to lead, to think independently, to take risks and see things through to completion despite adversity". Our officers are a highly sought after commodity, and the notions of duty, honor and country alone are insufficient to ensure that officers make the military a career. We must offer the same opportunities for personal and professional development, to find one's own niche rather than follow a rigid career map. We need to identify those officers we want to stay around to the Colonel or GO level and invest in them early and often. We need to make them feel wanted and to continue to encourage the creative, innovative, fearless approach that caught our attention in the first place, rather than pigeonholing them into the mold and making them focus on hitting the wickets.

One comment did raise my eyebrows. When the Secretary said that the likelihood of us fighting a war with a large, modern, mechanized army again is remote, it reminded me of WWI, the war to end all wars. History has been through periods of relative peace or phases where the conflicts were largely smaller scale (but high intensity) affairs. Inevitably the next large war breaks out. The Romans had such a period until the full scale invasions by the Germanic tribes or the invasion led by Attila. The British Empire also went through such periods (even the American Revolution was a small scale conflict) until the rise of Napoleon. While the best assessment of the short term future is that a massive force on force "conventional" war is not imminent, we must not lose those skills and abilities. As the Secretary said, we did not see any of the conflicts in the last 4 decades coming a year out. The real challenge is maintaining a force and force structure that can fight and win in any of the various scenarios we may face. We must maintain an army that can win in Afghanistan as well as in Russia or China or North Korea. While we do not seek such a conflict, a large scale war could once again be thrust upon us. The Secretary mentioned "next-war-itis", but our history has also shown a persistent case of "last-war-itis" in how we shape our doctrine and train our forces during peacetime. The task is daunting, to be prepared for such a broad scope of operations. This fact is what makes it more important for ever that we have a well trained, diverse and professional force filled with those skilled in the arts of warfare and the other tasks that are an inevitable part of not just winning the war, but securing the peace.

V/R

CPT Jim Wilson

CPT Jason Krantz  on 07-Mar-2011
Sir, First I would like to say thank you for asking us these questions and providing us a forum to provide you answers. After reading the speech here are my thoughts and ideas.I think Secretary of Defense Gates has given the Army a scenario for the future (the future of conflict) and challanges that it needs to answer. To start off he repeats General Pete Chiarelli’s statement “it is important that the hard fought lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan are not merely “observed” but truly “learned” – incorporated into the service’s DNA and institutional memory.” I think that this is his call for institutionalizing and passing on the lessons learned, to not repeat the mistakes of the past, and have the new Officers look for these lessons. To achieve this we might not walk on the normal paths that we have always followed. Twice Secretary of Defense Gates mentions paths that are not normal. “If you chart a different path, there’s no telling the impact you could have - on the Army and on history… …So in addition to the essential troop command and staff assignments, you should look for opportunities that in the past were off the beaten path, if not a career dead end – and the institutional Army should not only tolerate, but encourage you in the effort.” I think in the MSC we are offered this ability with the LTHET and other opportunities. It is up to us as Officers to see what needs to be done, what is available and do it. As President Theodore Roosevelt stated “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.” Don’t think of what you don’t have, think of what you can do to change the situation– easier said than done, but if we are supported on this different path who knows what can happen. How does the service retain and empower those leaders the Army will need for the 21st Century? For myself, I just want to feel useful and that the work I do is important. That I am not just doing busy work, that the mind numbing power point slide reformatting has some grander purpose. I think the question to ask is what would keep you in the Army and go for it. If you have Junior Officers ask them what they want and let them know that they may have to fight for it. Key word here - mentoring, have them make their goals and check up on them. Let them know that there are going to be days where it seems you are going through mud, not getting anywhere, and the future looks bleak, but if they get through it things will be better. We also have to accept that there will be those that will leave the Army no matter what they are offered. The last thought that I have is how do these challanges that Secretary of Defense Gates mentions affect the MSC and our individual AOCs? Respectfully, CPT Jason W. Krantz

+ Add A Comment