Proverbial Grenade in the Punchbowl

[FlyinSpy]

Provocative article in this month's Armed Forces Journal titled "A Failure in Generalship". http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

Essentially, the author (an active duty Army officer, and deputy commander of the 3rd ACR - i.e., no chairborne commando) calls the general officers to task for failing to provide sage counsel to the civilian and military leadership, and for "lack of moral courage". Sort of a "Dereliction of Duty: The OIF Version". (Interestingly, the original author of "Dereliction of Duty", H.R. McMaster, was also commander of the 3rd ACR....)

I'm not sure I agree with all of the author's points, but he raises a number of issues that are certainly worth discussing. Publishing an article like that is also a pretty "risk seeking" career move; the author must have felt pretty strongly about his positions to go ahead with something like this.

(Heyjoe: You schooled me well in intellectual property rules - hopefully this post conforms!)

 

[Lawman]

He makes a lot of good points but his idea is unrealistic. Its very easy to ask somebody else to fall on their sword, its a bit harder to actually go and do it and he isnt in a position where he would have too.

Not to mention the fact that while you can thoroughly explain in detail after detail the capabilities and needs of the military if its falling on the ears of people that either dont hear you or dont care all you serve to do is alienate yourself from the inner circle.

And its not even clear if falling on your sword for the men would even work without it being a drastic near mutinous action at the hands of the General Corps. There is no set number on how many 3 and 4 stars have to say "No sir you cant do that and heres why" and be handed their walking papers as being uncooprative so nobody is gonna stand up and be the first.

 

[snake020]

I like most of what he says... until he gets to talking about peer and subordinate reviews as part of the promotion process. Military officers are not college professors.

 

[mmx1]

I like most of what he says... until he gets to talking about peer and subordinate reviews as part of the promotion process. Military officers are not college professors.

Why not? We use them here at TBS to help our SPC determine our rankings. Billet holders get evaluated by superiors and subordinates. I personally think this is more useful (and less divisive) than peer evals, but both are valuable tools.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I still get AFJ - great read! There are coupons for free subscriptions all over DC

 

[snake020]

Why not? We use them here at TBS to help our SPC determine our rankings. Billet holders get evaluated by superiors and subordinates. I personally think this is more useful (and less divisive) than peer evals, but both are valuable tools.

TBS is a school. He's talking about out in the force.

 

[mmx1]

TBS is a school. He's talking about out in the force.

I'm pointing out that the concept isn't so alien to the military. We certainly see fit to place officers in MOS's based (in part) on peer and subordinate evaluations, what is so different about the fleet that it couldn't work there? The concept of a 360-degree review is is fairly common in the corporate world as a more accurate way to evaluate an individual. It's not some academic tomfoolery as your comment implied.

 

[bluto]

It's nice to see someone publishing what the lowly company and field grade have been saying for years. Hopefully, more will get on the bandwagon. Let's just hope its not too late.

 

[Herc_Dude]

TBS is a school. He's talking about out in the force.

Even at TBS, how much does it really factor into the MOS selection? It seems to me that a much larger factor were field billets being evaluated by instructors. The spear evals seem to only point out who was nice or not while holding a garrison billet. Plus, it let to a bunch of a$$ kissing the week before we all knew we were about to be evaluated by our platoon.

Yes, it might be one tool for a superior but Im not sure if it would be worth setting aside time to do all of it on paper. A commander can probably tell what a squadron/platoon thinks about a certain person just by observing how the squadron/platoon mates respond to that person. Maybe someone who has been an SPC or in a similar position has a different opinion, but thats what it looks like from this side of the fence.

 

[snake020]

I'm pointing out that the concept isn't so alien to the military. We certainly see fit to place officers in MOS's based (in part) on peer and subordinate evaluations, what is so different about the fleet that it couldn't work there? The concept of a 360-degree review is is fairly common in the corporate world as a more accurate way to evaluate an individual. It's not some academic tomfoolery as your comment implied.

What I meant was it works in schools when students evaluate profs at the end of a course, and it may even work in the corporate world but as far as military environment, I can't help but picture a commander polling his troops in a Clintonesque way and happy with a 70% approval rating while his unit's readiness and combat capability is going down the toilet.