Loyal Cynics (and NSA employees who are tracking anti-government websites):
I am currently at an Army training school, which means I am spending much of my time cleaning latrines and tightening hospital corners on my bunk-- you know, the sorts of things that make us so fearsome to the enemy.
It also means I will have too little time during the next two weeks to post anything meaningful.
But fear not, for I am taking copious notes, which, if you know anything about the history of this blog, should provide me with bountiful opportunities to offer constructive criticism of Army teaching practices.
My list is already at 11, and it's only the first day.
Get ready NSA.
31 July 2010
23 July 2010
There Just in Case You Need Us
The more time I spend in the Army, the more I realize it is a contingency organization. That is, it prepares to do something it (or at least its civilian leaders) doesn't really want to do. Our armed forces are effective inasmuch as they can prevent war. In the event that war does break out, we must be ready to win decisively.
In summary, we are like the benevolent bully in the schoolyard of planet Earth.
Teddy Roosevelt famously said, "speak softly and carry a big stick." Good show, Theodore.
The United States Army has publicly adopted that mantra into its mission, strategies, and tactics in a few ways:
First, we invest heavily into our Armed Forces because we realize that excellence in military matters can secure our interests. The American People deserve much credit for taking the military so seriously, as I have written about.
Second, the United States has entered into multi-national partnerships that promote peace through a unified, deterrent military force. NATO is a perfect example of how nations with common ideals can prevent aggression by simply swinging around the big stick during batting practice.
Certainly the United States bears the heaviest burden among NATO nations. It is our prerogative, then, to influence its direction most. The more we train and fight cooperatively with allied armies, the more clearly we tell our enemies that it isn't prudent to start mess with any of our partners.
Third, we have effectively branded the American Soldier as the best warrior money can buy. Certainly it is expensive to train, equip, and stand up a Soldier. But it has proven worth the resources. The brand is successful on the home front, too, and helps ensure that the public will continue to support the Army, its personnel, and its mission.
Some folks wonder rather vociferously if we overspend on our armed forces. Surely we don't need to be 100 times better than the next best. We are like the New York Yankees in a little league.
But every dollar spent on the margin is more insurance that our force will not have to engage in larger wars. Sure, we are fighting two wars now, but how many other conflicts would we invite if our enemies saw cracks in the armor?
Just in case they start getting cocky, we are ready to fight.
In summary, we are like the benevolent bully in the schoolyard of planet Earth.
Teddy Roosevelt famously said, "speak softly and carry a big stick." Good show, Theodore.
The United States Army has publicly adopted that mantra into its mission, strategies, and tactics in a few ways:
First, we invest heavily into our Armed Forces because we realize that excellence in military matters can secure our interests. The American People deserve much credit for taking the military so seriously, as I have written about.
Second, the United States has entered into multi-national partnerships that promote peace through a unified, deterrent military force. NATO is a perfect example of how nations with common ideals can prevent aggression by simply swinging around the big stick during batting practice.
Certainly the United States bears the heaviest burden among NATO nations. It is our prerogative, then, to influence its direction most. The more we train and fight cooperatively with allied armies, the more clearly we tell our enemies that it isn't prudent to start mess with any of our partners.
Third, we have effectively branded the American Soldier as the best warrior money can buy. Certainly it is expensive to train, equip, and stand up a Soldier. But it has proven worth the resources. The brand is successful on the home front, too, and helps ensure that the public will continue to support the Army, its personnel, and its mission.
Some folks wonder rather vociferously if we overspend on our armed forces. Surely we don't need to be 100 times better than the next best. We are like the New York Yankees in a little league.
But every dollar spent on the margin is more insurance that our force will not have to engage in larger wars. Sure, we are fighting two wars now, but how many other conflicts would we invite if our enemies saw cracks in the armor?
Just in case they start getting cocky, we are ready to fight.
13 July 2010
History of the Citizen Army
More evidence that change is not always bad...
Armed Forces are usually very well suited to fight yesterday's wars. This makes perfect sense-- battle-tested warriors go on to train the next generation. In most organizations, said generation usually infuses its own personality and approaches into achieving organizational goals.
In the Army, that is much harder to do. Mores are codified, norms regulated.
But we should beware of too much reliance on tradition, especially in war fighting. Ambrose goes on to explain that the armies of the French Revolution (1790s) were more successful than their adversaries.
This point has been made by many historians before. Some claim there was no logical explanation. Ambrose asserts that the revolutionary armies were superior because they were larger and made up of the citizenry-- taken from the ranks of the middle class.
I agree. It was the Europeanization of the American militia model, which contributed to the defeat of the British land forces during the American War of Independence.
Our modern forces are so superior because their ranks comprise citizens who volunteer to lend their skills to the defense of a common good. Every U.S. Soldier freely takes upon himself an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies.
Particularly powerful are those militia forces-- now known as the National Guard-- who work in their communities, serve them in uniform, and often deploy to fight for them abroad.
These forces bring a much more practical skill set to the fight. They represent the oldest component of our Armed Forces, and they demonstrate that change and adaptation is a trait that Americans display proudly, and with great success.
"While the thinkers of the Enlightenment were destroying the intellectual justification for standing armies, the technological advances of the age were making it increasingly difficult for untrained noblemen to justify their possession of the officer corps.That from Stephen Ambrose' Duty, Honor, Country: a History of West Point. To extrapolate from his point, one could say that changes in society and culture often undermine our assumptions about how to best organize an army.
Armed Forces are usually very well suited to fight yesterday's wars. This makes perfect sense-- battle-tested warriors go on to train the next generation. In most organizations, said generation usually infuses its own personality and approaches into achieving organizational goals.
In the Army, that is much harder to do. Mores are codified, norms regulated.
But we should beware of too much reliance on tradition, especially in war fighting. Ambrose goes on to explain that the armies of the French Revolution (1790s) were more successful than their adversaries.
I agree. It was the Europeanization of the American militia model, which contributed to the defeat of the British land forces during the American War of Independence.
Our modern forces are so superior because their ranks comprise citizens who volunteer to lend their skills to the defense of a common good. Every U.S. Soldier freely takes upon himself an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies.
Particularly powerful are those militia forces-- now known as the National Guard-- who work in their communities, serve them in uniform, and often deploy to fight for them abroad.
These forces bring a much more practical skill set to the fight. They represent the oldest component of our Armed Forces, and they demonstrate that change and adaptation is a trait that Americans display proudly, and with great success.
03 July 2010
What is Gates Thinking?
All over the news lately, is a new directive guiding contact with media. Commanders must now, according to the reports, clear interviews with the Department of Defense. SecDef Gates is credited with the new policy.
For the record, I totally respect the guy. He has made a very effective Secretary of Defense, in my lowly estimation.
Sec. Gates seems more open, honest, and free thinking than most government officials; he has one of the toughest jobs, to boot.
This new directive, however, is either knee-jerk or meaningless.
But something like this is only going to stifle media access. In a world in which personnel are cultured to guard information, most Soldiers hate giving it out anyway.
Ask a typical commander his troops; favorite brand of coffee, and he'll clam up like a terror suspect after being Mirandized.
This in an era that is supposed to be more informative. As a Public Affairs Specialist, I have been consistently frustrated with the Army's seeming ignorance of very public guidelines.
To wit, DoD Directive 5122.5, Among other things, establishes that:
- A free flow of general and military information shall be made available, without censorship or propaganda, to the men and women of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
- Information will not be withheld to protect the Government from criticism or embarrassment.
- Open and independent reporting shall be the principal means of coverage of U.S. military operations.
Gates' new directive would have done nothing to prevent it. Nothing (as far as I can tell) violated operational security, and had McChrystal cleared it with the guys up top, he probably would have just told them it was a personality profile.
We were all just shocked that his personality was so off-putting.
Go media. Go public affairs. Everyone is going to have to go farther and harder now that military commanders have more excuses to not talk.
01 July 2010
Basic Training for Grumpy Old Men
In my day, we didn't have fancy training regimens. If you wanted to get ready for war, you just rode through the streets of West Oakland on your bicycle flying a flag that said "I hate black people! And we liked it!"
One can imagine the young Dana Carvey, playing his classic "Grumpy Old Man" describing how improvements in life make nothing but softies.
The following is an example why G.O.M. is so funny-- because it's so ridiculous. Nobody would argue that current condom technology is inferior to rabbit skins and bungee cords, so we can laugh at it.
The following news item (which I discovered three months late) illustrates how Army training is improving, too: Army training: Bayonets out, ‘ab blasters’ in
But for every reason some dimwitted old codger in an ACU can recite, I can rattle off two reasons why being a Soldier is more stressful today.
In fact, the current changes merely underscore the more difficult circumstances in which young men and women are volunteering to serve today versus three decades ago.
Getting beat up is infinitely easier than having to weigh the multitude of considerations in today's highly-politicized war.
In my day, we don't have the luxury of mindlessly going through the motions, and claiming we are good Soldiers just because we broke a sweat. Today's Army is a more dynamic and powerful force."
And we are better for it.
One can imagine the young Dana Carvey, playing his classic "Grumpy Old Man" describing how improvements in life make nothing but softies.
The following is an example why G.O.M. is so funny-- because it's so ridiculous. Nobody would argue that current condom technology is inferior to rabbit skins and bungee cords, so we can laugh at it.
The following news item (which I discovered three months late) illustrates how Army training is improving, too: Army training: Bayonets out, ‘ab blasters’ in
Sadly, there are thousands of grumpy old men in the military.
Talk to ANYBODY in the Army, and they will tell you that they had it harder at Basic than anyone who went through after them.
It's a bunch of crock. Maybe the drills could beat them or they had to polish leather boots all the time, but that doesn't mean it was harder.
I have heard a dozen reasons why BCT was harder in the past, before the Army got "soft," and started worrying about "feelings."
But for every reason some dimwitted old codger in an ACU can recite, I can rattle off two reasons why being a Soldier is more stressful today.
In fact, the current changes merely underscore the more difficult circumstances in which young men and women are volunteering to serve today versus three decades ago.
Getting beat up is infinitely easier than having to weigh the multitude of considerations in today's highly-politicized war.
In my day, we don't have the luxury of mindlessly going through the motions, and claiming we are good Soldiers just because we broke a sweat. Today's Army is a more dynamic and powerful force."
And we are better for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)