Comments
Duck,
Your comment struck a nerve (in a good way), but to be honest when I first the read the article I thought it was very well done and didnt feel compelled to comment (at least right away); however, I do have a couple of concerns.
Is the intent to develop all of our officers as strategic leaders or just the officers that demonstrate the capacity and desire to eventually move into key strategic level positions? I think if we try to push all of our officers into this track well overwhelm the education and personnel system, instead of focusing on grooming those with intellect and character to effectively assume these positions. I still agree with improving our education system to enable our leaders to think critically, but not everyone needs to move into interagency positions etc. I liked the green pages concept where officers could help shape their own career based on their interests, so you have a dual select process. The officer self selects and of course must perform adequately to be validated by his superiors to move into the jobs theyre interested in.
Another concern is the desire to move officers into a variety of positions to gain a wider understanding of how our system works. The Army and numerous studies identified this as a weakness during the Vietnam War (and I would add Iraq), where officers were frequently rotated between field and staff jobs to "check the development block", and as it has been frequently stated by the time they learn their job it is time to move on, so who is really leading the Army at the tactical/operational level? I agree a wide range of experience is necessary, but we need to slow the train down and ensure they stay in jobs long enough not only to garner experience, but also be value added to the organization. GEN Marshall spent many years as a relatively junior officer, and now in my view we promote officers to quickly now (Peter principle in effect, and I dont blame it on the officer in most cases, but the up or out system that is always in 5th gear). The most important experience theyll gain is at the tactical level (they get to experience the impact of bad strategic decisions and really learn leadership), so leave them there longer, and then accelerate promotions after LTC for those who show promise. Increase pay for junior ranks based on years in service appropriately to retain them, but dont promote them out of the tactical ranks too quickly, or well end up developing an Army led by professional staff officers instead of warriors.
I think the article was spot on, but I know implementation will be a challenge. There will be numerous points of resistance, and some of the military schools will "pretend" to play along by giving low quality classes in design and other advanced concepts addressed in the article to check the block, and then focus on what they have historically done best. The change will happen, it will just take more time than we would like.
It wasnt the purpose of the article, but as a side note the U.S. Government needs to focus on how to develop strategic teams, not just strategic Army leaders. A future GEN Eisenhower may be a lonely man or women if we dont develop strategic leaders throughout the government.