Admiral "reassigned"

[helolumpy]

It's easy to find fault with (and fire) a Flag Officer when they fail in battle:
See: Kimmel, Husband E, USN
See: Ghormley, Robert L, USN
See: Smith, Ralph C, USA (just to be joint)

It's tougher to fire an Flag Officer when it's adminstrative issues that are the cause which tends to be issue since we are not fighting a peer-competitor.

 

[Catmando]

I don't know if the major told you, but I was commanding officer of my ROTC detachment in college.

I was voted "Best Pledge" in my college fraternity. Does that count for anything?

 

[Renegade One]

You talking about this article?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/?single_page=true

GREAT find...and a disturbing read. Most telling point for me, near the end, is this [Didn't feel i could edit it any more or it would lose context...sorry]:

[Edited extract]: Casey’s lack of awareness began to undercut his support at the top of the Bush administration. On August 17, 2006, during a video briefing to top national-security officials, he said he wanted to stick with his plan to turn Baghdad over to Iraqi security forces by the end of the year. ...
In the wake of that briefing, the vice president began poking around for a different strategy—and different generals to lead it. Among those he met with was Colonel H. R. McMaster, the author of Dereliction of Duty, a book about the failures of top American generals in Vietnam. The colonel told Cheney that the U.S. government should abandon the view, held by Casey, that the American goal was to turn over control to the Iraqis as soon as possible. [End extract]

Uh...isn't that the same "strategy" we're holding to in Afghanistan now? A date certain of 2014?

 

[Flash]

I'm really curious as to what's behind this one. I actually like seeing some senior officers getting "knife-hand justice," in a way, and not just for schadenfraude's sake. As someone said about our troubles in OIF/OEF,"A private is punished more severely for losing a rifle than a general is for losing a war." However, most of these Navy reliefs seem to have been for either blatant leadership failings, e.g. abusing subordinates, or for screwing the help and such. I think there are some senior leaders out there who systemically don't "get it" and have continued to wreak havoc on our operational and strategic goals.

Nevermind, BigRed beat me to it!

 

[robav8r]

I'm really curious as to what's behind this one . . . and not just for schadenfraude's sake.

Funny - learned about this today

 

[Catmando]

I haven’t read Thomas Ricks new book, The Generals, yet to be released. But it is getting a lot of advance buzz. I have heard his lecture and read articles on the subject of why Generals succeeded back then in WWII, but repeatedly fail today. [He does state the Navy is better than the Army.]

He makes great reference to WWII General George C. Marshall’s management style. He would hand pick and then quickly would relieve flag officers immediately if they failed during combat operations.

“The Marshall system was intolerant of failure. If the wrong man got placed inadvertently in a position where he did not excel, he was ruthlessly relieved. However, relief was not an automatic professional kiss of death. Some general officers in the wrong spot were relieved early and rehabilitated.” LINK​

 

[Renegade One]

... the subject of why Generals succeeded back then in WWII, but repeatedly fail today. [He does state the Navy is better than the Army.]

I think the record shows that Army Generals were relieved frequently in WWII...part of GEN Marshall's understanding that he need "a full Bull Pen" in-theater of other qualified GOs to relieve the guy on the mound. That's how George Patton made his bones in North Africa...

Let's be totally honest and frank...I doubt that, since WWII, Navy Flag Officers have been placed in situations wherein their "Operational Expertise" (notice I didn't say "tactical"...that's the job of their subordinates) was a "do or die" part of the day's/week's/month's events. I could be wrong.

The Navy has been lucky in that regard. Let's hope our recognized advantages in our particular "domain" keep us that way.

To be fair [my perspective], our Ground Commanders have been put in increasingly untenable situations. No clear orders akin to those issued to Eisenhower: “You will enter the continent of Europe and in conjunction with other Allied nations, undertake operations aimed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces…”

I'm fairly certain that ANY of our Theater/Ground Combat Commanders in Afghanistan may have known what to do with that broad set of "mission orders". I could be wrong.

Never was Ike told to "Make them love us and embrace our ways of government, our societal norms, and our way of life." That came later...after we made them STFU. Call me a dinosaur.

 

[Picaroon]

I was voted "Best Pledge" in my college fraternity. Does that count for anything?

There is no best pledge, only the least crappy pledge, and that's not even really a thing because all pledges are equally disgusting

 

[Jim123]

There is no best pledge

There is in the movies!!

 

[jmcquate]

Greek crutch for a small dick. Proud GDI!!!!

 

[Catmando]

There is no best pledge, only the least crappy pledge, and that's not even really a thing because all pledges are equally disgusting

Where have I heard that before? But hey, it got me a "Best Pledge" engraved pewter beer mug! You got one of those?
I now use it only to hold pens and junk next to my computer .... because I drink far better beer today, and out of very desirable containers.

 

[BusyBee604]

Playing devil's advocate, but I recall someone mentioning how in WWII, senior leadership was fired WAY more often than today's nigh-untouchable flags, almost tenured if you will. Maybe this is a move in the right direction (not SPECIFICALLY this case. Just commenting on the trend) of firing leaders who aren't good leaders instead of holding senior leaders to a much lower standard and culpability than junior folks?

Good post... but I too would hope that the flag selection boards would scrutinize flag eligibles more carefully, not selecting O-6s who simply have the 'minimum' (Xs) required on the 'golden path'. Then perhaps, all the Officers & Sailors in the selectees area of command would be comfortable with their senior leadership. I imagine that an Admiral being relieved for whatever reason, would have a profound negative impact on morale all the way down to the "juniorest" E-2 under the Flag chain.
BzB

 

[MAKE VAPES]

With respect, I think you grossly over estimate the amount of "love" any of the juniors have for their seniors these days... I would be very suprised if anyone but the RDML's chosen golden children/sea spawn are probably 'rocked' by this relieving. I met him in the Five Sided House of Assclownery, talked with him on the phone a few times, seemed pointedly hard charging as N8 EA.

 

[helolumpy]

Good post... but I too would hope that the flag selection boards would scrutinize flag eligibles more carefully, not selecting O-6s who simply have the 'minimum' (Xs) required on the 'golden path'. Then perhaps, all the Officers & Sailors in the selectees area of command would be comfortable with their senior leadership. I imagine that an Admiral being relieved for whatever reason, would have a profound negative impact on morale all the way down to the "juniorest" E-2 under the Flag chain.
BzB

BZB, The problem is that we have very few senior officers in the Navy who are actually involved in combat. The CAGs do a lot of missions over the beach, but are SWO senior officers engaged in naval combat against other naval vessels? How many opposed beach landings have our Navy (not Naval which includes the USMC) had to plan since Operation Chromite?

Unlike previous generations, our Flag Officers have not had to prove themselves in naval combat. Since we don't have battles like the Naval Battles of Guadalcanal or other great naval fights, the pormotion boards have to consider other issues such as retention rates, command climate surveys and lots of stupid programs that have the word "enterprise" in the title.

Since we don't have the tests to prove COMBAT leadership that previous generations have had to weed out the inferior officers, we are left with great administrators, but they may not be the best warriors.

 

[squorch2]

Peacetime leadership and combat leadership are very different things. If what we're doing is, by and large, peacetime in nature, then combat leaders may be ill-suited for such jobs. To wit: Patton, MacArthur, etc. Saying that combat leadership is the solution to our problems ignores the lessons learned when we used to do just that.