It's not flawed. It's merely a different approach to leadership and its responsibilities and authorities.
I've never said not to do those things . . . they have to be done . . . and more.
You get tested at the next level of leaderships exercises. Our highest level of tactical formation is brigade. Yet the army holds divisional CAXs where the brigade commanders and staff's get tested by the army. Every brigade exercise I was ever involved in had visits by the army commander where he observed the progress of the training.
I did not say that. I said that in a proper army, commanders come to their job having been educated, trained and received experience to make them ready for command at the level they will be taking over. Subsequent to that they ought to be given the resources to fully train their command. Further I said that it is the job of commanders at every level to ensure that their subordinate commanders properly train their units/formations. Essentially that the chain of command functions the way that it should.
This is exactly where I diverge. This creates an organization that looks over the shoulders of the chain of command and, at least in part, usurps the authority of the chain of command from doing its job. The formation of an agency, created by the top commander - in our case the army commander - that goes around and looks into the standards of say battalions and companies and certifies them undermines the trust that various commanders should have in their subordinates to do their job.
IMHO, when such an agency exists it's much more likely that leaders at all levels either stop or do their own job less well because they check on outsiders to do their job for them.
It's a subtle thing. I see nothing wrong by having some form of centralized exercise support staff, like the gunners' IGs and AIGs that a CO invites out to advise him during his own exercises, or a group like a CAX team that develops particular training programs that the army commander wants to see done by his subordinates. If the role of those individuals is to advise the exercised commanders in how to improve their training then I'm all for it. If this staff, however, is there to "certify" the unit and its commander then I'm against it. That becomes the hallmark of an army that doesn't trust its subordinate leaders to do their job. It's an organization that is more concerned in covering its ass through check box staff action than through the proper observations and involvement of the various levels of the chain of command. This type of system is usually a knee-jerk response to an embarrassing failure in leadership - such as the Airborne regiment's problems which had been ignored for years until they came to a head in Somalia. Numerous changes were implemented at that time which, IMHO, resulted in an across the board disempowerment of the army's officer corps rather than narrow and necessary corrective action.
The point here isn't that subordinate units or formations aren't evaluated, but who is doing the evaluation. Such evaluations must come from within the chain of command rather than from outside agencies set up by the top of the chain of command.
