This Isn't 'Nam, There Are Rules

Discipline.

In a word, that's why we follow the rules. I am pretty conservative guy, and I generally believe that discipline is a virtue, and that contentment and success will flow from it. But rules must serve a purpose.

As a school teacher, I know that school and classroom rules are implemented and enforced to define a structure and atmosphere conducive to learning.

Sometimes I wonder if the Army is counting the number of rules, regulations and policies as points in a virtue contest.

In my command, Multi-National Task Force East in Kosovo, there are 64 policy letters that I have counted. The average readership for each one? Three.

A rule of thumb (no pun intended) in devising classroom rules is, the fewer the better. After a while, people just can't keep track of the web of regulation, especially when it seems so unimportant. I need to decide what are the most important things I want my students to do. How do I decide? By figuring what behaviors will help them learn better.

The Army could take a lesson from school teachers. Which behaviors are truly necessary to accomplish the military mission? I've been yelled at for wearing my hat a few too many steps indoors. Seriously?

And can we stop judging the worth of a Soldier on such trivial matters? Most of these rules—the big ones, like drinking, adultery, and other UCMJ crimes aside—are not the measure of moral men or worthy fighters.

Priorities folks.

Rules are good. We just need to remember why they exist.

Mea Culpa

I owe an apology to the bloggers at Army.mil.

Last week I reported, somewhat cavilingly, that the official "Year of the NCO" blog refused to publish my comments.

They didn't; they were just slow to accept them. Sorry.

The entire affair brings to mind a point that I need to refer to, and one that will help Soldiers do their jobs better. The point is humility.

I have learned that an effective teacher needs to be humble. One reason is that pupils need to trust in their leaders, and a teacher that is infallible is not trustworthy. Rather, those eager to learn see through the facade of gilded perfection the fake and flimsy intelligence.

Subordinates may feign respect for egomaniacs, but they heed little besides the most basic instruction.

Army leaders need to ingest frequent high doses of humble pie. Far from betraying weakness, their lack of pride will instill a deeper respect and confidence for what they do well.

Imagine a squad leader who defers to a younger Soldier in a situation requires the best possible decision. Having accomplished and learned from the mission, the squad will have more confidence in both leader and team members.

Or in a training exercise, consider the instructor who admits he doesn't know the exact best answer to a complicated dilemma. The group can discuss and learn, and the instructor's credibility is bolstered in areas that he doesn't claim ignorance.

It's hard for leaders to expose themselves as anything below demigod, but a good one needs to do it.

And I'll continue to monitor when I'm too quick to cast aspersion at the good people of Army.mil.

Blogging...Army Style

Why is the Army afraid of different perspectives?

As a good Soldier, I visited the Army's Year of the NCO site, and read up on some blogs. The posts are unsurprisingly sterile and unimaginitive, but I thought I'd do the bloggers a solid and chime in with a comment.

I learned that official Army bloggers are only interested in comments that reguritate the company line.

After submitting my response-- which wasn't subsersive, by any means-- I was given a message that my comment was "awaiting moderation."

Apparently that means, "sorry, we don't appreciate your comment."

For example, in response to a post about the importance of fitness, I wrote:

"I am a relative newcomer to the Army, and one of the things I love is the emphasis on physical fitness and general wellness. It’s nice to read an SGM talk about it. In fact, it would really improve morale if senior NCOs would place more emphasis on health–- improving APFT performance, nutrition, and smoking cessation. I think American Soldiers should be the fittest on the planet, and physical fitness certainly makes the force more ready and deadly than other things that tend to tie up NCOs’ time, attention, and resources.

It's pretty sad that the good folks at Army Public Affairs can't handle even the slightest tinge of an original opinion.

The U.S. Constitution and Blogger are wonderful things. I'll just spend time on my own blog, it's got the best persepctive anyway.

No One Is More Professional Than I...

The Year of the NCO has encouraged much reflection on the part of the corps of sergeants in the Army. Mostly it's a bunch of self-congratulatory back-slapping about how US Army NCOs embody the greatest mentorship, leadership, teaching ability and professionalism like some mutant combination of Socrates, Clausewitz, and Knute Rockne.

I would argue that an NCO should be, above all else, an effective teacher.

A brief analysis of the NCO Creed reveals some of the more fundamental characteristics of a good noncommissioned officer. First is competence. A competent leader is one who knows what his job is and can perform it without becoming a burden on his comrades. That's a tall order.

Compassion is needed in order to assure the welfare of subordinates.

Next is technical and tactical proficiency. In other words, knowing the warrior skills and the specific job skills.

Leadership comes next, followed by humility and magnanimity to put the needs of one's Soldiers before one's own.

Communication skills are specifically mentioned, as are respect and confidence. Loyalty, integrity, and courage round out the list of characteristics set at a very high bar.

Almost every single one of these virtues implies a good educator. In order to know one's job, for instance, one must be able to demonstrate and explain that skill to someone else. Humility and good communication are hallmarks of able teachers.

In my mind, teaching is the most important, aspect of being an effective NCO. I'm going to go ahead and assume no one has a problem with my thesis, although a few real gritty Soldiers might say that leadership or courage is more vital, but that's another post.

Given that teaching predominates the list, I thought it would be a good exercise to elaborate on sound teaching methods and philosophies. Doing so will serve several functions. First, it's a way to stay somewhat positive. Instead of complaining about poor Army training, I can offer helpful solutions. Second, it will help me further define and refine my teaching philosophy before I reintegrate with the civilian teaching sector. Third, it will provide me with an near endless supply of blog material.

Happy reading.

(Photo by SFC Paul Wade)

FLIPping Army

Armies are built, maintained, and deployed in order to destroy.

Is it a commentary on the overreach of ours that Soldiers are being charged for the damages to war materiel?

Whether in a combat zone or a peacekeeping area of operation, Army equipment takes a beating. Sometimes it is due to negligent behavior, but often it is simply the cost of doing business.

The powers that be have devised a brilliant way to determine whether a Soldier should be found liable, and therefore pay for, equipment damaged due to negligence. The protocol is called FLIPL: Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss.

There are too many good Soldiers who have been assessed damages to government equipment while performing their duty.

These are Soldiers who:
1. Have left behind families and jobs in answer to Uncle Sam’s call.
2. Are working to accomplish a mission that they can neither decline nor question.
3. Are charged with the protection of many other Soldiers and civilians.
4. Would go nowhere near Army equipment unless they were ordered to do so.

They certainly are not trying to scam anyone or defraud the government. But imperious colonels seem to be hearing voices screaming at them to pass responsibility on to those who are merely doing their jobs.

Save the government money. Good. But let’s not spend $1000 to save $300. I wonder if these people have any idea about market forces and financial efficiencies.

Rank, as always, permeates this sort of thing. It is easy for an investigating officer to magnify indiscretions of junior troops. How arbitrary are these decisions? And do investigators always meet with all parties involved? From what I have seen, no.

To those who think the object of the process is to assign liability, you are wrong. It’s to determine if there is liability.

It may sound strange to officers who never leave their offices, but there are hazards in a hazardous duty zone.