Over at Tom Rick’s Best Defense there is an interesting discussion regarding “what the Army has learned from the wars of 9-11?” I have posted a very long comment to his original blog post; I would recommend you read the blog and the comments and then come back and read my comments which are posted here at OP-FOR.
Tom,
Your question “what has the Army learned over the last ten years of war?” is very perceptive.
Since I first read the question yesterday I have been giving it a lot of thought. I read through some of the comments today and found some great insights and others that merely repeated oft heard commentary.
Brian Linn in his book Echo of Battle identified the three cultures within the Army; one of which is the Guardians. This culture guards what they believe are the historic ethos of the nation. Today the Guardians are the dominant culture in the Army; as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, they are determined to ensure they restore the Army they are comfortable with, the Army that focuses on winning the grand wars and to avoid fighting wars of stability. They are the culture that plays up the future threat of China and Iraq, and seek to define the need for the Army within the traditional boundaries understood since the end of World War II. But in order to dominate the culture of the Army they will have to work hand in hand with the Manager culture. The Managers are the ones who adhere to the rigid proprieties of the system—in some ways these two sub-cultures complement each other. The last sub culture with the Army is that of the Heroic. These are the ones who understand how to fight wars, where it be grand wars or insurgencies. They will be losers and will find it hard to deal with the bullshit of the Guardians and Managers.
I mentioned Linn for one reason; because few in the Army understand it roles and responsibilities. One of your commentators stated, “The failure in the use of analytics to make effective core decisions in how the US Army leads, plans, and executes its military operations and its Title X operations (train & equip) ultimately is a failure of basic leadership.[,]” highlighted one of the greatest failure of those in the Army, they Army does not plan or execute Operations. When I speak of the Army—of course I am referring to HQDA and the Institutional Army. Rather they support Joint Operations by providing trained, ready, and equipped forces to the Joint Commander. (Let me also be a little snarky—I am tired of seeing it written as Title X, whenever I do see it written this way it means the individual has never picked up a copy of Title 10.) But the author of that comment highlighted a fundamental problem with the Army over the last ten years—it has not adjusted it processes to support the war. Most of the Army’s uniformed Senior leaders do not understand what Title 10 means or how it effects the Army. Just like the commentator many believe they have a say in Operational matters, unless a Joint Task Force Commander their only role is to support.
Some of the failures of Army processes:
Procurement; why did the Army continue to procure Up-Armored HMMWV when it was evident in 2004 that they were death traps when hit by an IEDs, that they were overweight, top heavy, and underpowered because of all the additional weight. It took Secretary Gates to push the Army and USMC out of their comfort zone in order to procure the MRAP. He literally had to circumvent the overly bureaucratic service procurement processes.
Promotions; the Army has not adjusted it promotion guidelines to fast track those who have demonstrated ability to execute and fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Army failed to cull the deadwood. One of the great things George Marshall did at the beginning of World War II was to cull the deadwood within the officer corps.
While the Army instituted Operational Needs Statements (ONS) early in the conflicts, it allowed the system to become “Toys for Boys” where every Battalion Commander, when influenced by contractors, got what he or she considered to be the latest greatest toy. The end result was the Army bought a lot of kit that ultimately turned out to be crap.
The Army Combat Uniform. Enough said.
Rather than flattening command levels, the Army maintained the status quo and allowed the Headquarters to become too large. (Army HQs 1000+; Corps 800+; Division 700+; Brigade 200+). The larger the Headquarters makes harder it becomes to get the important information to the leaders.
Rotating General Officer forward through positions so they can get the coveted right sleeve patch.
In short, as much as possible the Army has maintained the “Status Quo Ante Bellum.”
Now we see the Guardians and Managers throwing around the buzzwords of a bureaucracy seeking to recreate the Army they grew up in:
Realigning Division to Corps, and Brigades to Divisions; we have suddenly determine that a Brigade Commander must be on the same post as a two star division commander in order to be properly supervised.
Realigning Combat Aviation Brigades with Corps and Divisions—remember the whole point of modularity was to make Brigade self-contained elements that could deploy with any type of Headquarters.
Realigning Fires Brigades with Division Headquarters.
While it has been articulated yet look for us to align Expeditionary Sustainment Commands with Corps, and Sustainment Brigades with Divisions.
There is concern within the Senior Leadership we have a whole generation who doesn’t know how to operate in garrison. True they do have to learn something about how to maintain and account for their kit, how to conduct their own training. But I have a startling thought for the Senior leaders, most of our junior leaders are pretty smart and will figure it out. An ass chewing from the Brigade Commander for shoddy maintenance or a Report of Survey or whatever we are calling it today will get a leaders attention on accounting for property. Sure they will need some mentoring. What I am afraid is the code word for how to operate in garrison means unnecessary meeting and formations; CSM deciding the rocks need painting white etc. All the bullshit the Army is famous.
The Sergeant Major of the Army talking about overweight soldiers, standards, getting rid of the bad apples I can see it now the soldier who has served four, five, or six tours in either Iraq or Afghanistan is going to be thrown out because he is overweight but can pass his PT test! There is no question there are bad apples we need to get rid of, but the Army being the Army we will mange to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Can starching uniforms be far behind—walking around the Pentagon I am amazed at the number who have their ACUs starched!
The Army as a Profession—while a needed discussion I worry is about getting rid of those who don’t fit our Senior leader mold of what a “professional is or should be.”
The Army says it needs to keep mid-grade leaders for expansibility—but based on the latest O6 board results, not so much. There was a 34% selection rate—including a number of former battalion commanders who had 2 or more 1 block OERs. This is a direct result of a number of factors—grade plate review, MTO&E changes, etc which when institute the second and third order effect were not considered or were ignored by the Colonels who developed the plans. (Remember a hog don’t slaughter itself!) Of course if the Army choose to get cull the herd of Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels who have no promotion potential and who are essentially robbing oxygen until they hit their mandatory retirement date.
The Guardian-Managers are going to make the rules and will make life hard for those who rightly belong to the Heroic sub-culture.
One of the points you touched on was why the Army can’t seem to develop Strategic leaders. Very simply it does not tolerate intellectuals. Yes there have been a few in recent years; I will name the ones I think fit that mold during my time in the Army (1976-2009): Bernard Rogers, Shy Meyer, John Galvin, Colin Powell, Max Thurman, Donn Starry, Eric Shinseki, David Petraeus, Gary Luck, Martin Dempsey and Dan Bolger. Rogers, Meyer, Galvin, Thurman, and Starry were a product of an era where being smart was not necessarily a sin. Powell because of his assignments developed into a Strategic thinker. The others developed their ability because of education, assignments, and mentorship. Because of their mentors they able to overcome the prejudice against smart people.
In recent years the Army created a functional area “Strategic Plans and Policy.” Many of those in this functional area have come be believe they are “Strategists.” While smart few of them are Strategists. (In fact the career field is misnamed it should be Operations, Plans, and Policy; with some being selected based on their performance to be a select core of Strategists.) The Army seems to believe that if you recreate the education experience of David Petraeus you will create the next generation of strategists. Unfortunately before someone can be a Strategist they must first be a creative thinker.
Most officers entering the Army are not creative thinkers. Either they are graduates of academically deficient institutions or they major in a discipline that was the path of least resistance. In short by and large the Officer Corps is intellectually deficient. Someone who has the potential to be a strategist must first be intellectually curious, a creative thinker, and willing to take on the status quo. Lastly the Army’s educational system does not encourage either creative thinking or intellectually curiosity. As they use to say at Command and General Staff College, “it is only reading if you read it.”
Back to your original question will the Army learn anything from the last ten years. Probably not. . .certainly the Center for Military History is not interested in what has happened in the last years. The Combat Studies Institute at Leavenworth is studying some areas of what has happened in the last ten years. But if we really want to know what the Army has learned or how it has changed it is going to be the work of someone outside the Army.
Πηγή
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου