• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Building Better Officers (merged)

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
63
Points
530
The so called management virus was introduced by Congress. The guru of military management was Peter Drucker. He replaced case studies in combat leadership. While Westmoreland and Abrams get the blame for Vietnam,the blame should fall on the Congress who stopped funding the Vietnamese government and forced a pullout of our advisory effort. Now we have essentially done the same in Afghanistan. Remember at the time we had hundreds of thousands of people protesting the war. It was these protests that forced us out of the war.It was a victory for the left but it also was the death of the draft.Without a draft the left could never again leverage their agenda from the states.Instead they took the long view and took over the democrat party and the universities.Maybe one day the democrat party will return to their actual roots.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The so called management virus was introduced by Congress. The guru of military management was Peter Drucker. ...

I'm not sure to what extent Drucker influenced McNamara and to what extent McNamara was just a contemporary who developed much of the management practices he used by himself. It strikes me McNamara had already earned his MBA at Harvard and was employing management principles in the Army Air Corps during WWII before Drucker started becoming popular.

Whatever - I expect there was an influence in his later life before he came to be Secretary under Kennedy and started to "reform" the US military system.

By the time I became an officer in 69 we here in Canada knew that the US officer corps was heading in a very bad direction and we smugly sat back and criticised from the sidelines. What we didn't really understand was that we were destined to head in the same direction within a few years. I've always thought that we Canadians were even more to blame for what we did in going down the 'managing defence' track than the Americans because we could see exactly where their system was failing them.

Most of us knew we were in trouble when the recruiting posters for officers put out by the CF started showing a bright-eyed young Captain in his new green uniform stepping out of the door of one of our new Boing 707s carrying an attache case.

I've never blamed our government for that change in officer ethos. Governments don't know any better. They set defence objectives and allocate funding. Its the senior military leadership that decides how we as officers are trained and developed. The Americans' senior leadership failed them in the 60s and ours failed us in the 70s. What we are reaping now in our present senior officer corps is as a result of what we sowed then.
 
Forget McNamara. I am talking the post-Vietnam era 1975 on. The Army once again changed its doctrine to be ready for a war with the Russians. Much like todays Army is returning to a post Afghanistan doctrine. Meaning tanks,IFV's and self propelled artillery. Combined arms warfare while keeping the light forces for anti-terror operations.
 
Mods, can we split this into a separate thread?

The management virus started in the sixties with our defence establishment headed by the MND becoming mesmerized by the image of the "Harvard whiz kids" bringing modern management practices to the US DOD. I have just finished a goodly portion of lake trout along with a carafe of wine, so I will leave my magnificently profound insights for the morning.
 
I find Generals are too often the most self serving careerist douchebags imaginable. Too much politics, PR and taking credit for others work and not enough character. 
 
I agree with Old Sweat re: when the management virus spread. Its origins were in, actually before, World War Two:* think operational research, a subset of mathematics that led e.g. to the development and proper utilization of radar by the RAF, and the famous RAND Corporation. The management of logistics had been studied, seriously, by military staffs for over 100 years - the development and rail transport and associated ideas about e.g. mass production and warehousing fundamentally altered how nations, rather than just armies, could fight. The management of logistics, at the strategic level, was, or appeared to outsiders, an almost miraculous undertaking and it inspired Robert McNamara and it was what he saw in Washington in the 1940s that he took back to Detroit and married to e.g. Drucker's Management by Objectives theory. When he, McNamara, returned to Washington, as SecDef, he had a fully formed idea that a "systems approach" to management should and could work on the US defence-industrial base and, perhaps, even deeper in the military itself. He was right on the former idea, wrong on the latter - but it's not fair to blame McNamara for the systematic errors made inside the US military: generals and admirals were fascinated by his ideas, in part, at least, because the very notion of systemization seemed to promise less risk and "more bang for the buck," (one of the watchwords of operational research, but usually called utility in that domain). That's one of the reasons it spread to Canada, our military is always too cash strapped to accept risks ... but it also built bureaucratic empires which are irresistible in Ottawa, Canberra, London, Washington and Beijing.

The marriage of a systems approach and general purpose computing created a monster. The information management business succeeded at almost everything except: sorting the wheat (5%) from the chaff (95% of the information with which a 21st century staff officer must deal because the intellectual mill - the one which fascinated and inspired McNamara in 1942 - has been cast aside).

_____
* One can argue that the discipline began in the early 19th century when Charles Babbage examined and rationalized the UK's postal service.
 
I wonder how much of poorly executed command is a function of being bogged down in too large headquarters with too many sources of information being presented in a slick manner? Being headquarters bound was a failing of the British and Canadian armies in Normandy where the doctrine was that commanders could best exercise command from their headquarters studying maps and reports. One example was shortly after first light on 8 August 1944 during the consolidation on the Phase One objectives of Operation Totalize. The CO of the Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment realized that the Allies had broken through the German lines and, in his words, there were more Germans behind us than in front of us. Unfortunately the Canadian senior leadership were in their HQs essentially tidying up the battle and as a result the second phase formations did not begin to pass through the front for another seven hours. In the meantime the Germans were able to cobble together a force that delayed the inevitable defeat by a week or more.

Is there a parallel today with (some) commanders being tied to their headquarters by graphics and displays? Does the OPP contribute to this?
 
Old Sweat said:
I wonder how much of poorly executed command is a function of being bogged down in too large headquarters with too many sources of information being presented in a slick manner? Being headquarters bound was a failing of the British and Canadian armies in Normandy where the doctrine was that commanders could best exercise command from their headquarters studying maps and reports. One example was shortly after first light on 8 August 1944 during the consolidation on the Phase One objectives of Operation Totalize. The CO of the Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment realized that the Allies had broken through the German lines and, in his words, there were more Germans behind us than in front of us. Unfortunately the Canadian senior leadership were in their HQs essentially tidying up the battle and as a result the second phase formations did not begin to pass through the front for another seven hours. In the meantime the Germans were able to cobble together a force that delayed the inevitable defeat by a week or more.

Is there a parallel today with (some) commanders being tied to their headquarters by graphics and displays? Does the OPP contribute to this?


I think you are on the key terrain here. It is the staff's job to winnow the really important information, the wheat, from the "noise" or chaff in which it is, inevitably, cloaked. The knowledge that we had a breach was, or should have been, vital and should have led, very quickly, to a swift, violent offensive action, and it might have had we had a Rommel at the Meuse rather than a Simonds in the Chateau (and yes, I know that's a bit unfair but it's early in the morning here).

Adequate telecommunications makes it easy and highly desirable (even mandatory?) for commanders to command from forward, Tac HQs where they can see the vital ground impose their will, by force of personality, on subordinates. They, commanders, don't need all the unprocessed information; they are NOT staff officers; it is better to have a bit of useful, processed information than masses of data which is awaiting analysis. Chiefs of staff need to be able to set the priorities for analysis and the working staff need to get on with it. The big screens and elecronic map overlays and computers are wonderful aids - fewer, better trained staff officers can sift much more data and "mine" it for real information at much higher rates and with greater accuracy than was ever imaginable to people as old as Old Sweat and me. And the Chief of Staff can, also more quickly, pout it together and send it, only the "wheat", not any "chaff, "at the right time, in the right form and at the speed of light to a commander who is away from the distractions of a "main" HQ.
 
Today combat can be viewed in real time by a HQ whether its a battalion or a brigade or higher. With the advent of the UAV, staff's are overloaded with information. UAV's soak up most of the bandwidth which isnt good when troops on the ground need to communicate with each other.So far a happy medium has not been found.  With this technology the trick for a commander is not to micro manage his subordinates,but to allow them to fight the battle.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Today combat can be viewed in real time by a HQ whether its a battalion or a brigade or higher. With the advent of the UAV, staff's are overloaded with information. UAV's soak up most of the bandwidth which isnt good when troops on the ground need to communicate with each other.So far a happy medium has not been found.  With this technology the trick for a commander is not to micro manage his subordinates,but to allow them to fight the battle.

I submit that has been a problem for a very long time. Most generals have tended to have healthy egos and strong personalities. It was natural for them to direct their subordinates more than was necessary or even helpful. For a fairly recent example American officers have told me of their experiences in Vietnam when a bevy of helicopters would form up over a battle and more and more senior officers would begin to interfere bring their superior judgment and insight to bear on the situation. Perhaps the enhanced situational awareness provided by a helicopter has now been replaced by UAV feeds and all the rest.
 
German officer in the 19th century were saying this same thing.  Moltke warned of commander's tied to the telegraph.  Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.
 
We used to really enjoy having the masterful direction of some twit a 1,000 feet above us telling us that "we can do it so get moving!!"  ::)
 
Old Sweat said:
I submit that has been a problem for a very long time. Most generals have tended to have healthy egos and strong personalities. It was natural for them to direct their subordinates more than was necessary or even helpful. For a fairly recent example American officers have told me of their experiences in Vietnam when a bevy of helicopters would form up over a battle and more and more senior officers would begin to interfere bring their superior judgment and insight to bear on the situation. Perhaps the enhanced situational awareness provided by a helicopter has now been replaced by UAV feeds and all the rest.

I've long said that the CF suffers from over supervision from the top down, right to the recruit level. No one is allowed to make an error in training, and we all know the best lessons come from failure, not success. It irks me to see a WO, a Sgt and a MCpl watch a Cpl/Pte and all offering suggestions on how he could do it better. Give the kid the task, explain what you want, the limitations  and get out of he way.  Let him figure out the "how".

I imagine it is the same at higher levels except its much more polite.... :mad:
 
Jim Seggie said:
I've long said that the CF suffers from over supervision from the top down, right to the recruit level. No one is allowed to make an error in training, and we all know the best lessons come from failure, not success. It irks me to see a WO, a Sgt and a MCpl watch a Cpl/Pte and all offering suggestions on how he could do it better. Give the kid the task, explain what you want, the limitations  and get out of he way.  Let him figure out the "how".

I imagine it is the same at higher levels except its much more polite.... :mad:

Patton: Never tell your troops how to do something. Tell them what to do and let them get on with it.
 
General Failure

“To a shocking degree, the Army’s leadership ranks have become populated by mediocre officers, placed in positions where they are likely to fail. Success goes unrewarded, and everything but the most extreme failure goes unpunished, creating a perverse incentive system that drives leaders toward a risk-averse middle where they are more likely to find stalemate than victory. A few high-profile successes, such as those of General David Petraeus in Iraq, may temporarily mask this systemic problem, but they do not solve it.”



Looking back on the troubled wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many observers are content to lay blame on the Bush administration. But inept leadership by American generals was also responsible for the failure of those wars. A culture of mediocrity has taken hold within the Army’s leadership rank—if it is not uprooted, the country’s next war is unlikely to unfold any better than the last two.

On June 13, 1944, a few days after the 90th Infantry Division went into action against the Germans in Normandy under the command of Brigadier General Jay MacKelvie, MacKelvie’s superior officer, Major General J. Lawton Collins, went on foot to check on his men. “We could locate no regimental or battalion headquarters,” he recalled with dismay. “No shelling was going on, nor any fighting that we could observe.” This was an ominous sign, as the Battle of Normandy was far from decided, and the Wehrmacht was still trying to push the Americans, British, and Canadians, who had landed a week earlier, back into the sea.

Just a day earlier, the 90th’s assistant division commander, Brigadier General “Hanging Sam” Williams, had also been looking for the leader of his green division. He’d found MacKelvie sheltering from enemy fire, huddled in a drainage ditch along the base of a hedgerow. “Goddamn it, General, you can’t lead this division hiding in that goddamn hole,” Williams shouted. “Go back to the [command post]. Get the hell out of that hole and go to your vehicle. Walk to it, or you’ll have this goddamn division wading in the English Channel.” The message did not take. The division remained bogged down, veering close to passivity.

American troops were fighting to stay alive—no small feat in that summer’s bloody combat. One infantry company in the 90th began a day in July with 142 men and finished it with 32. Its battalion commander walked around babbling “I killed K Company, I killed K Company.” Later that summer, one of the 90th’s battalions, with 265 soldiers, surrendered to a German patrol of 50 men and two tanks. In six weeks of small advances, the division would use up all its infantrymen, requesting replacements of more than 100 percent.

General Collins removed MacKelvie on the very same day that his tour revealed no fighting in progress. Collins instructed the 90th’s new commander, Major General Eugene Landrum, to fire the commanders of two of the division’s three regiments. One of those two, the West Point graduate Colonel P. D. Ginder, was considered by many to be a disaster. One man, a mortar forward observer, remembered that Ginder “almost constantly made the wrong decisions.” He had been in command of his regiment for less than a month when he was replaced.
MacKelvie’s successor, Landrum, was given a few weeks to prove he was an able commander, but by midsummer he too was judged to be wanting. Before he was relieved, Landrum fired the assistant division commander he had inherited, Sam Williams, with whom he had clashed. “I feel that a general officer of a more optimistic and calming attitude would be more beneficial to this division at this time,” Landrum wrote. General Omar Bradley, the senior American general in France at the time, concurred. He topped off the dismissal by demoting Williams to colonel.

Within a few weeks, Bradley relieved Landrum as well, and sent Brigadier General Raymond McLain, whom he had brought from Italy to England to have on tap as a replacement when someone was fired, to take over the 90th Infantry Division. “We’re going to make that division go, if we’ve got to can every senior officer in it,” Bradley told him. Two days later, McLain gave him a list of 16 field-grade officers he wanted out of the division.

The swift reliefs of World War II were not precise, and while many made way for more-capable commanders, some were clearly the wrong move. Nonetheless, their cumulative effect was striking. The 90th Division, for instance, improved radically—transforming from a problem division that First Army staff wanted to break up, into “one of the most outstanding [divisions] in the European Theater,” as Bradley later wrote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/1/?single_page=true

 
I liked this article in the Atlantic. They pretty much nail it I think....

General Failure:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108334.0.html
 
Already been posted in the Patreaus thread.  Rick's grinds his usual pop-centric COIN narrative axe.
 
ModlrMike said:
Patton: Never tell your troops how to do something. Tell them what to do and let them get on with it.

Famous example is Patton's order to Grow's 6th Armoured Div to "Take Brest". Clear, simple, and direct. Unfortunately Grow's infantry light, armour heavy force covered the 200 miles to Brest in good order but then couldn't punch through the defences.

E.R. Campbell said:
Adequate telecommunications makes it easy and highly desirable (even mandatory?) for commanders to command from forward, Tac HQs where they can see the vital ground impose their will, by force of personality, on subordinates.

It's funny how in one thread we can chastise senior commanders for not leading from the front and at the same time say they shouldn't be hovering around their subordinates telling them how to suck eggs. The only lesson I can take from this is that commanders must have a flexible style which can be adapted to the circumstances and that no matter what one does, there will be someone who won't be satisfied with how it was done.
 
Nemo888 said:
I find Generals are too often the most self serving careerist douchebags imaginable. Too much politics, PR and taking credit for others work and not enough character.

As a Reserve Medic, how many Generals have you actually worked for?  Or even met?  In other words, what are you basing your opinion on?
 
FJAG said:
Famous example is Patton's order to Grow's 6th Armoured Div to "Take Brest". Clear, simple, and direct. Unfortunately Grow's infantry light, armour heavy force covered the 200 miles to Brest in good order but then couldn't punch through the defences.

It's funny how in one thread we can chastise senior commanders for not leading from the front and at the same time say they shouldn't be hovering around their subordinates telling them how to suck eggs. The only lesson I can take from this is that commanders must have a flexible style which can be adapted to the circumstances and that no matter what one does, there will be someone who won't be satisfied with how it was done.


In my opinion the two most important things a commander does in his HQ are:
.
.
.
.
.
1. Sleep; and
2. Eat.
.
.
.
.
.
It is also a very good place to make plans when his forces are resting . But leading and, albeit to a lesser extent, commanding are best done in the immediate vicinity of those being led and of those being commanded. But that's a very, very army-centric and tactical opinion.
 
Back
Top