-
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
Admiral "reassigned"
- Thread starter wink
- Start date
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Totally agree. The issue is that these NKOs/GMTs are like government agencies... once someone creates this training requirement, it's really hard to get another person to put his neck on the line to get rid of it. If a RDML manages to get rid of DOD IA training, he's putting himself in a situation to have a very unpleasant conversation with a VADM the next time a Sailor emails something classified over the unclassified network.phrogpilot73 said:
@Otto,
I don't think it necessarily takes wartime to make a good major commander. As BigRed pointed out, we have many examples of good General and Flag Officers who grew up in a peacetime military, and many examples of poor General and Flag Officers who grew up in wartime. I think that good leaders recognize the big picture and prepare for it, and in peacetime the big picture is to maximize readiness to win the next war. That is a huge leadership challenge to overcome when, in the case of the USN, you aren't actually up against an opponent, don't know who the next opponent might be, have to struggle to get funding to conduct training and exercises, and have to balance realistic training with safety. In the case of the Army and USMC, I don't think anyone would've guessed in the year 2000 that the next war, one year later, would be fought on the ground against non-uniformed combatants with no clear, centralized command structure while taking excrutiating measures to limit collateral damage. In a sense, it would be easier to plan unrestricted warfare where we utilize all of our assets to annihilate an enemy than to figure out how we can balance killing the bad guys with preserving the good guys, neither of whom wear uniforms and both of whom may be standing next to each other at the time.
The programs Phrog alluded to were all most likely created because the person instituting them actually thought it would reduce the number of servicemembers who will either miss time at work or be demoted for conduct outside the course of their normal duties. Unfortunately, it actually has the opposite effect, as it detracts from training on what's actually important and generally just pisses everyone off.
We're well into a 50-page thread to explain it.
If you don't think useless administrative or other bullshit requirements didn't exist 50, 70 or 100 years ago then you are sorely mistaken. All you have to do is crack a book about daily life in the 'good 'ol days'. At the height of the war a lot of it fell by the wayside but it was in full force in peacetime and even in war, just look at Bill Mauldin's cartoons about Army BS that Willie and Joe had to endure. A lot of it was different kinds of bullshit but it was still there.
And a lot of the training that we have to endure is because there are a lot of people that still do really stupid stuff, like marry hookers and bring them bad to the states where they can continue to work for their pimp, go to the wrong sites on the internet, wear jorts and a t-shirt that has a giant USMC bulldog on it in a country where the locals aren't fans of Americans, etc. And frankly while I complain about it too I got all my GMT training done in about 4 hours this last year. Big mission impact there.......
I'm not arguing it takes a war to make a good commander. I'm arguing that the metrics by which we evaluate leadership is more and more leaning towards the entrepreneurial admin bullshit and less about mission accomplishment and good old fashioned military results. Just like some officers are great from commissioning and some suck, regardless of their resumes. It's that ineffable quality. I'm just waiting for someone to set the right standard, cut the bullshit and tell a 4-star "Thanks for your service and thanks for playing, but you're fired. No hard feelings" when they can't hack it.
Whether it's wartime or peacetime, whether it's a homeguard cycle or deployment, whether it's an operational/strategic level 2/4-star admiral or a tactical level O-5, you can TELL (with a little experience) who is a good leader and who is not. Yes that's just an opinion, but it's a democracy and when everyone agrees one way or the other... sort of makes it de facto ... fact.
Those are just the "backup slides" that probably won't get briefed anyway.
Good leaders use their backup slides.
Then again, good leaders don't expect backup slides.
Not that I care or am bothered too much about annual training, but do you really think that in those 4 hours it actually made you stop and think about the issues those programs bring up? or was it just a check in the box?
The unfortunate reality about those programs is that they are more about how fast Lance Coconut can press the mouse with his index finger repeatedly and hit print rather than him actually consuming the content and then having it result in a lifestyle change. In my opinion at the very least those are things that Company grade officers and NCOs should be teaching and mentoring. That's the real issue. In my opinion.
That's why those paygrades have to click through the "xyz for supervisors" and "xyz for leaders" versions of those courses... so that they will understand how important the subject matter is that it get put into mandatory computerized training.
That's why those paygrades have to click through the "xyz for supervisors" and "xyz for leaders" versions of those courses... so that they will understand how important the subject matter is that it get put into mandatory computerized training.
And, of course, we also have to sit through the all-hands "XYZ" training lecture that shall be given by the CO, Smadge, or CMC (not to be delegated).
And, of course, there will be different Navy and Marine versions of the same XYZ training...and Marines assigned to Navy commands will have to endure both versions.
And, of course, if you're name's not on the roster(s)...
Crud...now that I've typed all of this and re-read it, it's too long for most, and I apologize. If you're still in the JOPA...feel free to take a pass. Work on the war fighting skills first and foremost. If you're in or en route to DH or XO/CO, you might find it interesting. If you're post-CO...your own well-formed views and opinions probably count more than my own.
I think all of the services genuinely try to use "best predictors" of essential operational leadership as best they can in the senior leadership selection process. As Spekkio said, the metrics are just so damned "fuzzy" short of the crucible of truly hard times, which is the only laboratory in which the Nimitzs, Halseys, Pattons, Eisenhowers, and Spruances boil to the top...by succeeding. Many are called (promoted); few are "chosen" (succeed). If anything good can be said about GO/FO "bloat" in today's services, it's that we have a full bull pen of folks who are ready to take the mound when someone else gets benched. Sort of George Marshall's mode...
As I said before, the Navy (IMHO) has had it "fuzziest". Honestly, we just haven't had too much by way of "truly hard times" in our domain...for a long time. Good for us...I frankly hope that doesn't change anytime soon. But absent near-peer competition in our domain, we've become "capability providers" to support others who have it harder (on the ground, usually, but often to the JFACC). We're tasked to provide, we provide...and no shame in that. Wardroom food's good (by and large)...etc.
I know many of us on AW have worked for and flown with a bunch of great Naval Aviation (or other community) leaders whom we would have followed anywhere (both on liberty and in combat). We can all rattle off 5 or 6 without breaking a sweat...and most never got beyond 2-stars, if that far. Why? Because, to some extent, they spent their lives being the best...and wanting only to LEAD the best... in the operational environment: squadron CO, CAG, deep-draft and CV(N) CO, CSG Commander...you get the idea.
The major command pipeline is key (a filter?) to be sure, but sometimes it's just a short "ticket punch" to get the guy or gal back to the Pentagon with that in their bio. Some really then "earned their bones" in what, in peacetime, is considered by many to be the most important "hostile environment": inside the beltway. We all like better/more aircraft/ships, more flight time/steaming hours, better training ranges, better ordnance...you name it. Those hard battles were fought within the confines of the DC environment, and it takes a different mindset to succeed there. They didn't any of them "suck"...they just got told to fight different battles. But that gets rewarded as well. Sometimes TOO well, since they are now adjudged to be "best qualified" to come back and do it again in a position of higher authority. Sort of a self-licking ice cream cone, I guess.
Not saying any individual mentioned in this thread (GEN Ham or RDML Gaouette) pertains to ANY of this at all...we've just sort of spun off in this direction. I, for one, would LOVE to find out that both were relieved for "hatching and prepping and almost launching" a rescue/relief plan for Benghazi that was not approved by higher authority. I doubt that's the case...but it would be glorious.
I think all of the services genuinely try to use "best predictors" of essential operational leadership as best they can in the senior leadership selection process. As Spekkio said, the metrics are just so damned "fuzzy" short of the crucible of truly hard times, which is the only laboratory in which the Nimitzs, Halseys, Pattons, Eisenhowers, and Spruances boil to the top...by succeeding. Many are called (promoted); few are "chosen" (succeed). If anything good can be said about GO/FO "bloat" in today's services, it's that we have a full bull pen of folks who are ready to take the mound when someone else gets benched. Sort of George Marshall's mode...
As I said before, the Navy (IMHO) has had it "fuzziest". Honestly, we just haven't had too much by way of "truly hard times" in our domain...for a long time. Good for us...I frankly hope that doesn't change anytime soon. But absent near-peer competition in our domain, we've become "capability providers" to support others who have it harder (on the ground, usually, but often to the JFACC). We're tasked to provide, we provide...and no shame in that. Wardroom food's good (by and large)...etc.
I know many of us on AW have worked for and flown with a bunch of great Naval Aviation (or other community) leaders whom we would have followed anywhere (both on liberty and in combat). We can all rattle off 5 or 6 without breaking a sweat...and most never got beyond 2-stars, if that far. Why? Because, to some extent, they spent their lives being the best...and wanting only to LEAD the best... in the operational environment: squadron CO, CAG, deep-draft and CV(N) CO, CSG Commander...you get the idea.
The major command pipeline is key (a filter?) to be sure, but sometimes it's just a short "ticket punch" to get the guy or gal back to the Pentagon with that in their bio. Some really then "earned their bones" in what, in peacetime, is considered by many to be the most important "hostile environment": inside the beltway. We all like better/more aircraft/ships, more flight time/steaming hours, better training ranges, better ordnance...you name it. Those hard battles were fought within the confines of the DC environment, and it takes a different mindset to succeed there. They didn't any of them "suck"...they just got told to fight different battles. But that gets rewarded as well. Sometimes TOO well, since they are now adjudged to be "best qualified" to come back and do it again in a position of higher authority. Sort of a self-licking ice cream cone, I guess.
Not saying any individual mentioned in this thread (GEN Ham or RDML Gaouette) pertains to ANY of this at all...we've just sort of spun off in this direction. I, for one, would LOVE to find out that both were relieved for "hatching and prepping and almost launching" a rescue/relief plan for Benghazi that was not approved by higher authority. I doubt that's the case...but it would be glorious.
Sure, nobody can see into the future, but given the way things are these days, I don't think anyone in the know would predict that we'd be engaged in a WWII-like scenario anytime soon. The reasons are manifold and too complex to address here, but bottom line, the world has changed in fundamental ways. Among other things, the globalized economy has rendered the possibility of major power on major power war fairly remote.
As for the current fight... don't look now, but people are already looking at COIN in the rearview mirror. Perhaps not at the tactical level (yet), but on the national-strategic level, we've already divorced ourselves from the kinds of fights we're engaged in currently.
Impossible. Not all GMT has been released. I even have the email from today saying that the IA training isn't ready yet. Then again, I also have the email telling me my unit is on a hit list for flu shots...that aren't due until a later date. Win-win.
Frankly, I'm surprised we can even operate without knowing which file to email to the Chinese.
That all makes perfect sense Brett, but we have never been ready for the next war we have fought (Gulf I maybe being the exception)......and I doubt we'll be ready for the next. Our strength has been the ability to adapt.