My Public Affairs

This Isn't Your Father's National Guard

2011-06-25T22:59:00.000-07:00

While serving as a public affairs specialist in Kosovo, I had the pleasure of conducting a brief interview with the Vice President of the United States. For those (83% of Americans) who don't know who that is, his name is Joe Biden.

His staff prohibited me from asking the questions that were most pressing and interesting, so I only threw unmemorable softballs. His answer, though, I have never forgotten.

"This is not your father's National Guard," he said with a folksy smile.

The gist of his comments was that our national defense strategy relies heavily on Citizen-Soldiers, who must leave families, jobs, and communities, to operate in technically and politically complex environments. More than ever, National Guardsmen bear the heaviest loads in our military operations.

I have written quite a bit about the phenomenon, which I happen to applaud. If the United States is going to send anybody to war, it might as well be those who represent our nation the best. They are the men and women of the various National Guard units across the country and its territories. They are well-trained, well-prepared, and ready to serve.

That preparation hasn't come easily, though. Sparing the explanations of how Guardsmen have always been shunned by regulars, it's enough to say that they have had to go above and beyond to prove their mettle. Meanwhile, our political leaders and the public have put their confidence in the National Guard's warfighting capability.

All that leads to one undeniable fact, which was summed up in Biden's epigram: the National Guard is a lot different than it was a generation ago. It has changed. It has adapted (and quite well) to its more prominent role.

The Army itself has adapted, too. In fact, "adapt and overcome" is a common saying for Soldiers, to advise them on how to cope with obvious challenges.

The advice is good for everyone. No matter what the expectation or demand, meet it with the confidence and determination of success. It might be attained by changing an approach, a perspective, or a timeline, but adaptation is a skill that needs to be practiced.

Is the National Guard the most adaptive organization? By no means. Institutionalism and orthodoxy are plagues that need to be fought at many turns. But the Army has shown, for example with the new directive on immediate repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, that it can adapt quickly.

Front line leaders should be teaching their Soldiers to be flexible. But usually it is the leaders who can learn a thing or two from their juniors. The newer members-- who tend to be younger-- of an organization are the ones riding the wave of new trends.

This is not your father's world. But your parents would be proud to see you adapt to it.

The Reasonableness Standard

2011-05-24T10:53:00.000-07:00

Let's be reasonable folks.

Seriously, how frustrating is it to deal with unreasonable people? They pretty much suck.

I have never had an unreasonable boss, nor have I had unreasonable teachers. I have dealt with unreasonable people, though. (Why are they, more often than not, government employees?)

Every teenager has unreasonable parents, and cops are generally unreasonable when they pull you over; are they not?

So we all know unreasonable when we see it.

At any rate, an unreasonable person in authority—whether she's a boss, teacher, wife, or other leader—is cheating herself.

We ought to stand up, as a people, and demand reasonableness from our leaders.

An example is in order here. An Army officer I knew on my overseas deployment, who we'll call Col. Jerkface, always said "no" reflexively. He looked for opportunities to say no to his troops. Any time there was a request for any type of amenity, the answer was "no."

Moreover, there was absolutely no pleasing this man. He looked for failure in his subordinates. You could never say the right thing, or do anything to make him proud. He was, in a word, unreasonable.

Did he ever get the best from his troops? Absolutely not! Some would say that his cantankerousness was the source of his effectiveness. Baloney. Yes, unreasonable people sometimes do get things done, but I would argue that he’d be even more effective if he was a little more reasonable.

Oh, I just thought of a better example of unreasonableness in action. Again, from the Army (we are proving the government employee rule, here).

In a class at my advanced Army journalism training, we were delivered a lecture via PowerPoint. Now these slideshows tended to be 40 or 50 slides long, chalk-full of text and dense information.

At test time, one particular question threw the entire class for a nut roll. To a man, we complained that we hadn’t gone over the information being tested. The instructor was skeptical of our pleas for leniency, but we stood firm in our defense.

This man scoured the slides for an oblique reference to the question material, and he found one. Never minding that he had skipped over that slide without mentioning it, he left us on the hook for the question.

UNREASONABLE!

Students need to operate in a real world environment. The real world, we like to teach them, is reasonable. In fact, we need to be to teaching them the lessons that supposedly buttress ours. Hard work, deadlines, follow though, manners—they are all rewarded in the real world because most people are reasonable.

If the world were populated only by Col. Jerkfaces or the instructors who find remote test questions from interminable lectures, then there wouldn’t be any incentive to do those things. Unreasonable people are arbitrary, and did I mention that they pretty much suck?

Let me now tell you how to be reasonable. If a student is sick, let him make up work. If a student needs help, help her. If a student doesn’t have access to a computer, work something else out.

A common practice for good teachers is to eliminate questions from a test that the entire class misunderstands. One of my students misread a question and answered the wrong question correctly. I knew she understood the material, so I made arrangements for her to earn the points.

We can get our jobs done while being reasonable. It is not a sign of weakness.

So the new standard is the reasonableness standard.

What are some horror stories from your organizations of people who don't meet it?

Teamwork Saves Lives and Time

2011-05-09T14:23:00.000-07:00

"I am a Warrior and a member of a team."

That line from The Soldier's Creed might apply even better to students. While individual achievement is on everyone's mind, teachers all want to develop soft skills in their learners.

One of the most valuable of those skills is teamwork, and it's here that teachers can take some tips from Army trainers. Needless to say, Army operations rely on effective team interactions.

A course on the topic, developed by the Army, gives some really useful insight.

“You get what you pay for; if you want teamwork, you must reward it.” When teachers demand (or even merely hope) that students work together, what are they doing to incentivize it? How many points is good team work worth versus neat homework or participation?

I made a parent angry in my math class by grading students on teamwork. The concerned mother assured me that her son would earn As were it not for his deadbeat teammates. I stood firm, insisting that I was just as interested in his ability to cooperate with and communicate to peers as I was of his demonstration of individual knowledge.

Even if he never joins the Army and has to deliver cover fire for his buddy who is bounding toward the enemy, he will likely land a job that requires team play. And one of the greatest lessons we can give our students-- far more important than how to find the solution set for a system of inequalities-- is the ability to cooperate and lead a team.

My incentive was to require classwork to be done in teams, with a strict formula for its evaluation. Each team's "foreman" would staple individual work into a packet. I graded random problems from the packet en toto, and assigned each team member the same corresponding grade.

The format lent itself to another team building recommendation from the Army: ensuring that responsibilities and decision making are clear. My math teams had specific roles assigned to each member.

There is no magic formula for bringing "community" to a team other than a sensitive leader who develops relationships based on understanding members' strengths and weaknesses. Students can learn how to be good, sensitive leaders. They know what their peers can do well.

They also need to learn to communicate. In an effective team, everyone knows 1) what they are trying to accomplish; 2) why; and 3) how.

Then the fun begins. Conflict is inevitable, as any Soldier will tell you (Just ask the NCOIC of our detachment who was almost accosted for joking about throwing balloons full of feces at a snoring Soldier). But conflict should seen as an opportunity to grow, and teachers need to recognize those opportunities to teach skills beyond keeping the volume down or "staying on task."

Certainly the Army model has major shortfalls. Conflict is often resolved by stubborn seniors, who operate on the "that's how it's done in the Army" paradigm. But when teams are clicking, seniority takes a back seat to group decision-making. Even tough leaders can get their groups to solve problems together.

Creativity can get students beyond the impasse, as can having them write down their understanding of the expectations and plans.

After all, until students get comfortable in assuming a variety of roles within the team, we are the leaders. And,

“[The leader’s responsibility is] to clarify the team goals, to identify those issues which inhibit the team from reaching their goals, [and] to address those issues, remove the inhibitors and enable the goals to be achieved.”

Building teams is a process that never ends, and there is much more to it than the few ideas above. And though students aren't facing life-and-death situations in the classroom (hopefully) they can take another lesson from the Soldier and his creed:

"I will never leave a fallen comrade."

Teams help students understand that mutual success is good for the individual, too.

Is It Better to Be Reliable or Excellent?

2011-05-05T20:55:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, I paid homage to Maj. Gen. John Schofield for his insight into what makes Soldiers successful. To be more specific, he referred to battlefield success as "reliability."

I instinctively concluded that reliability was a goal for every organization that required performance from individuals.

Then I was challenged. From a reader:

Interesting that you point out that the goal is "reliability" as opposed to something else like "excellence" or "commitment" or "creativity" or "sheer awesomeness." I think that sometimes in a non-battle situations, I'd actually prefer someone who's a little bit unreliable but capable of flashes of creativity and greatness.

It was a good challenge, but ultimately, the call on the field was upheld.

First, some concessions. Semantically, "excellence" could imply reliability. Some Army types would offer some rigamarole about how excellent means reliable and vice versa.

But the way the reader framed it makes it clear that it's possible to be excellent inconsistently. We know that there are pro athletes who are capable of excellence, or who can dominate one night, then not show up the next. As a teacher, I had many students with those flashes, or even longer glows, of brilliance, but who were hopelessly uncommitted.

When I coached, I would have loved to have amazingly skilled athletes. I rarely had them. Much more valuable to me were the reliable ones, on whom I could count for dependable performances. Slow and steady wins the race, as the saying goes.

In battle, General Scholfield knew, dependability and consistency is also more important than brilliance, if leaders don't know when it will show up.

How do Army leaders cultivate consistency, then? Drills and procedures. Their methods offer lessons to teachers who want consistency in the classroom, too. Best practice is rife with drills and procedures (without all the yelling).

That gets to Schofield's point: discipline-- based on drills, I presume-- is best developed by mutual respect. In that regard, the Soldiers can take notes from good teachers.

Yeah, yeah, we want to cultivate creativity, of course. We want our students to think as individuals. All that, of course, goes without even saying. What does need to be said is that none of those lofty goals are possible without a foundation of consistency, dependability, and yes, reliability.

As a teacher, I believe that all learners are capable of excellence. But just like the coach that needs consistent play from his athletes, I know that they will achieve excellence only if put into the right position.

So my readers were once again sage: By a 15 to one ratio, they also said that reliability was preferable.

I knew I could count on them.

Clarity, Part 3: Let's Be Honest

2011-04-28T22:46:00.000-07:00

Ever feel like you don't need to know anything?

I sure hope not. It's hard to do your job or move ahead when you're in the dark. As a junior Soldier, I was often frustrated when my leaders wouldn't shed light on what was going on.

There is just nothing so infuriarting as waiting excessively for your table/ appointment/ date to show up, without being explained the delay.

In the military, there's this really annoying phrase that covers all lapses in communication: "need to know."

Leaders who don't feel like spilling the beans will tell others that the situation is on a need to know basis.

Bull.

Well, sometimes it's not bull, of course. There are security concerns in the Army, but it's such an easy phrase to fall back on, and it masks all sorts of communication dysfunctions.

Example, we have to do this paperwork again. We want to know why. The leader just says that we don't need to know why. Come to find out, the leader lost the original documents.

Just be honest, folks! If you lost something, or screwed something up, tell us. We might be grumpy in our compliance, but we will comply for the sake of the mission. We were going to be grumpy anyway.

Another peeve (is every peeve a pet one?) is when the people in charge won't tell us what's coming up. Need to know, and all that. If you haven't planned that far ahead, tell us!

Which finally-- if you're still reading this, you're in the top decile of patience among readers-- brings us to the point of the post: to be clear, one must be honest.

Teaching my class, I often have to admit that I don't know the answer to something. My students usually let these things slide, because I am honest.

And I believe my students need to know just about everything. How I grade their papers, what topics will be covered later, and whether I really want them to read the entire chapter. There's just no benefit to deceiving them.

If I feel the need to mislead about my intentions or practices, then I really ought to rethink my plan.

Honestly.

Four-Star Accolades

2011-04-12T20:17:00.000-07:00

I'll cut right to the chase, here. Rewards work!

While I was working several years ago in Hayward, California, students arrived daily to a dilapidated elementary building that had been re-purposed as a high school. The classrooms were hexagonal, and had blackboards low enough to the ground for kindergardeners to use them.

On one wall, a huge display was labeled, "Stowell's 4-Star GENERALS." Names of various students were posted to indicate that they belonged to the exclusive club.

Teaching math, in my opinion, is so hard because it is so immediately apparent whether students are learning the material. When they don't, the frustrations mount quickly on them and their teacher.

The cadre of four-star generals was designed to motivate students to do well on tests.

The old school says that students need to study on their own and do their best because that’s what people are supposed to do.

In the real world, though, people want value out of their work. Young students, particularly, need to be taught how to recognize the value of academic success. They need practice succeeding, and even to learn how to want to succeed.

Four Star Generals helped them do that, in a small way. Our weekly tests were scored on a four-point scale, with the top score being very near perfection. It was very difficult to earn a four, so initiation into an elite group was an effective, yet simple reward. I saw my students work harder and demand more of themselves in order to earn a place on the wall.

Of course, rank has its privileges, so the generals had access to other perks in my class than those of lower rank.

The real power in the system was the mere recognition of hard work, and public acknowledgement of success.

Rewards get the job done.

Good Leaders: The Readers Speak

2011-04-05T20:19:00.000-07:00

The results are in. I will now proceed to inform you what 53 of my my closest friends/ email contacts/ their email contacts think are the most important traits of an Army leader.

But first, some setting of the stage.

While deployed, I wanted to know what others thought made for a good Army officer. Waiting in those famously long Army lines gave me ample opportunities to conduct a straw poll among comrades in my vicinity. The results were not surprising.

Most folks cited things like bravery and decisiveness. A senior NCO told me of the three Cs: Courage, Competence, and Compassion. I wanted to know what more people thought, and how rank influenced their perception of leadership. So I kept my list.

After the deployment I went back into teaching, and became more interested in what made for good educational leaders. A consultant who helps school and district leaders turn around their schools told me that an effective leader delegates properly, letting subordinates do their jobs while giving them clear parameters and goals; has efficient performance measures in place and analyzes the data frequently; and seeks to improve his expertise at every opportunity.

The Army has a phrase for the first two: "setting troops up for success." The third one it calls, "training."

I find it interesting that there is so much overlap between leading troops and being an effective educational leader. After the school year ended, I attended a course on the former. Warrior Leaders Course was fulfilling in many ways. We discussed leadership according to Army doctrine:

"An Army leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish organizational goals. Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization." (FM 6-22)

In that spirit, I sought the input of my friends and readers, asking them to list the three most important characteristics of an effective Army leader.

Knowledge or competence was a top choice of 62% of respondents. Forty-five percent put flexibility or adaptability in their top three. The two complement each other to inspire confidence in subordinates.

To my disappointment, only 11% chose humility as one of the three most important qualities. I have always thought that it is impossible to lead and teach without recognizing one's weakness. The ability to take input and criticism from subordinates also inspires confidence. It's a trait that gets overlooked too much.

A few other responses are worth mentioning. An effective leader:

Punishes privately, reward publicly
Makes decisions objectively
Is willing to sacrifice
Stands up to his superiors for his subordinates
Leads from the front

The last one is a favorite among Soldiers. It means that the leader doesn't expect from subordinates what s/he isn't willing to do. It may sound trite, but it's one of my favorites, too.

The My Public Affairs Loyal Cynics have leadership down.

What are the most important traits in leading your organization?

The Discipline Which Makes Men Reliable

2011-03-29T20:47:00.000-07:00

Some of the most inspirational words I have ever read came form a poster on the monochrome walls of the barracks at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

“The discipline, which makes the soldiers of a free country reliable in battle, is not to be gained by harsh or tyrannical treatment. On the contrary such treatment is far more likely to destroy than make an Army. It is possible to impart instructions and give commands in such a manner and such a tone of voice to inspire in the soldier an intense desire to obey, while the opposite manner and tone of voice cannot fail to excite strong resentment and a desire to disobey…

Attributed to Major General John M. Schofield, they were excerpt from his graduation address to the class of 1879 at the United States Military Academy, where he served as superintendent at the time.

Schofield began his military career as a cadet at West Point, then served for two years as an artillery officer. He went on to teach until the outbreak of the Civil War, when he volunteered with a Missouri regiment. (Missouri, incidentally, sent troops to both sides of the conflict.)

While his career with the Army is not without blemish, he is remembered for his high-minded words to his students in 1879. As a professor and a warrior, he understood well the need for mutual respect between commander and troop, teacher and learner.

Too often in the Army, leaders want unqualified loyalty. Schofield knew that such loyalty had to be earned. He knew that harsh treatment-- the kind too frequently mistaken for authoritative expertise-- comes at the expense of performance.

He knew that hard-earned respect-- the kind that comes from compassion, empathy, and a commander's genuine interest in his subordinates-- makes men reliable in battle.

The General may have understood that because he was a teacher. In fact, he found his way into Nine Weeks precisely because he gave me hope in Army training when the NCOs drained it.

An interesting exercise is to substitute the descriptors of war with words that connote learning. The quote thus reads:

“The discipline, which makes the students of a free society reliable, is not to be gained by harsh or tyrannical treatment. On the contrary such treatment is far more likely to destroy than make a society. It is possible to impart instructions and give lessons in such a manner and such a tone of voice to inspire in the student an intense desire to learn, while the opposite manner and tone of voice cannot fail to excite strong resentment and a desire to disengage…

Isn't reliability what we're after? Commanders want reliability in battle. In the business of warfare, nothing else matters. In school, we want reliable students. Put another way, we want students to engage in the curriculum, take an active part in their learning, and perform the tasks that the instruction demands so that they learn material. Reliable students are creative, adaptive, and smart.

Reliability men are discovered and developed by truly great teachers and leaders.

That's what the poster said. And the poster was right.

AARs and Nickelodeon

2011-03-22T23:01:00.000-07:00

DJ Lance would make a nifty Soldier. If you don't know who he is, you are missing out on one of the most captivating and entertaining characters on all of Nick Jr.

I was watching "Yo Gabba Gabba!" with my brother in law the other day when...what's that? Why was I watching? Oh, my little boy was really the one watching it and we just happened to be in the room.

Anyway, I don't need to rationalize it, the show is hilarious, in a psychedelic, creepy sort of way.

The one we saw featured guest Jack Black, who rode into the diorama set on a talking, flying motorcycle. He made friends with the Gabba creatures who defy all logic with their fraternal powers and ability to talk without moving their mouths.

At the end of show, the human host, DJ Lance (who is 1000 times bigger than guest Jack Black), asked the friends to remember what they did that day. A brief montage of the episode's highlights ensued.

My brother in law, by the way, was even more entranced than my son. But he's an officer, so he's easily mesmerized by bright colors and loud noises. He said he liked the AAR.

The AAR, or After Action Review, is one thing the Army gets right. After each mission, Soldiers at every level conduct a review of all its phases.

According to the Army, an AAR is to be open, honest, inclusive, positive, and should relate to learning and training standards. It has four main components:

1. A review of what was supposed to happen
2. An explanation of what did happen
3. A description of what went well
4. A critique of what could be done better

The AAR, done properly, is elegant in its simplicity. It is also a very powerful component of learning. In effective classrooms, teachers who spend just a few minutes on the four steps will see noticeable achievement gains over those who merely assume that what was intended to happen did, in fact happen.

Leaders see things from an entirely different perspective from their subordinates. The latter need to explain it from their point of view in order to grasp what they need to do and know. Leaders need to improve as well; to become better at their tasks and to make training more effective for their underlings.

I love the AAR.

Even more than my brother in law loves "Yo Gabba Gabba!"

Let Me Have Your Attention

2011-03-17T17:54:00.000-07:00

When two Soldiers appeared in my high school math classroom last year, every student came to attention.

It was a reflex thing. When those two men strode in, upright, full of confidence, and perfectly dressed in Army Combat Uniforms, the kids were in awe.

The reason they were there had to do with a course I was teaching. It has been documented in this blog before, so it suffices to say that I was teaching my students about the Warrior Ethos and how the Army can teach them skills for life.

My fellow teachers said they would love to have those Soldiers in their classes. There's just something about that uniform and what people in the biz call, "military bearing."

It's also that important to get students' attention. Perhaps the most important thing.

So, outside of dressing up in a combat uniform, what can teachers do to gain their learners' attention?

In a high school classroom, teachers do things like ringing a bell, flicking the lights, and offering up nifty sayings. My favorite was "one, two, three-- eyes on me!" Students (yes, my eager high school students) would reply with "one, two-- eyes on you!"

They are gimmicks, sure. You need a gimmick sometimes. Isn't a uniform a gimmick?

"At ease" is a good way of announcing a senior NCO. Most Soldiers respond pretty well to that. It's the military version of, "one, two, three-- eyes on me."

The worst thing a presenter can do is yell louder than the students. In the long run, however, yelling rarely works, devolving into a competition of volume. A classroom of 30 students will usually win that one.

Soldiers do that all the time, though. Yelling is stupid. It betrays a lack of confidence and authority.

The epitome of authority is high rank, and those with rank who rely exclusively on it are no better than the yellers. All presenters, whether a teach giving one of 180 lessons, or a commander briefing her troops, should demand attention from her listeners based on genuine authority-- the authority that comes from having something valuable to share.

When two Soldiers show up in a public school classroom, they probably have something interesting to share.

Teachers should work just as hard to make their stuff interesting.

Militarism Isn't All About Militarism

2011-03-07T12:08:00.000-08:00

Columbia University is twisting itself up trying to figure out if ROTC should have a place there.

When an Iraq War veteran stood up to support ROTC at a public hearing at the Ivy League school a few weeks ago, he was heckled, reinforcing the perception that elite universities are simply anti-military.

Militarism has no place in an elite university, some say.

Well, this is not your father's militarism. The United States military may be a lumbering institution, slow to change; but it can be very quick to adapt too.

Consider the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Service members (including me) received a memo from the Secretary of Defense that stated:

"This is not, however, a change that should be done incrementally. The steps leading to certification and actual repeal must be accomplished across the entire department at the same time, and consistent with the standards of military readiness..."

The Army culture, then, can be slow to adapt to changing times. But when an order is issued, the entire Army must respond as a matter of national security. Over the last 40 years, since some universities banned ROTC in an anti-war tantrum, the Department of Defense has ordered innumerable changes. The militarism of today is no longer just weapons training and combat tactics.

What does the Army teach, beyond fighting? For one, preparedness. This is the most important aspect of military training. A Soldier (and a student and citizen, for that matter) must be ready to act. That requires he know the situation, terrain, players, and different courses of action ahead of time.

Leadership is also a key component of learning how to become a Soldier. One might think that would appeal to the likes of elite universities, who see their role as training leaders. The Army shows its learners how to analyse and act decisively, and to make sure subordinates are set up to succeed.

Ironically, properly trained Army leaders will find ways to avert bloodshed. Good combat leaders will advise their civilian superiors on the best way to accomplish military ends that cost the least in blood. Many college educated Army officers end up serving in civilian capacities.

Ultimately, since war begins where politics fails, we should encourage our democratic leaders to have the most well-rounded training they possibly can.

It might sound crazy to those opposed to any form of military, yet is there a difference between it and firefighting, for instance? Because someone trains to fight fires, does that make him long to see fires break out so he can use his skills?

"I call on all our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation."

Those words of President Obama, delivered in his State of the Union speech, are falling on too many deaf ears.

The militarism of today's ROTC should be a welcome addition to any higher education program.

Not Differentiating Kills

2011-03-02T20:26:00.000-08:00

When I went to Basic, I assumed that they would put me with a bunch of older recruits.

I was, after all, 30 at the time. By the time I left boot camp nine weeks later, I was 31, but aged the equivalent of seven years.

I wish they had differentiated.

Not only was it hard to keep up physically with some of the younger guys, but it was near torture listening them argue over which one had the skankiest girlfriend.

Having gone from managing a classroom of high school students to living in the barracks with them, I can’t say that I was surprised. But I did get exhausted.

It reminded me of the need to differentiate, and taught me something new about one of the reasons teachers should do it more often.

First is the obvious: learners can hone in on those parts of the task that trouble them most. When I was learning to fire an M16, I was in the class of Soldier that didn’t know a lick about anything. Novice. Beginner. Idiot. Whatever the term was. I needed remediation, and so did a few others. We could have spent more time on the basics in our own differentiated small group.

Second is complementary to the first: teachers can spend more time teaching or re-teaching smaller constituent tasks or concepts, spending the overall time more efficiently.

The third reason—the one I learned at Basic—was one of motivation. When students are placed with skill level peers, they are less likely to get discouraged.

Now I wasn’t contemplating suicide over my incompetence. In fact, I eventually became quite a good marksman. But it is much more powerful—especially for younger learners—to have the confidence that comes with working alongside skill-level peers and progressing with them.

I learned the power of differentiation in the classroom. Trying to teach 35 kids some very complex and discrete things can be overwhelming. They all came in at different levels of understanding and skill.

Differentiating learning needs, then grouping accordingly, made tasks much more manageable.

Moving on to teaching college students, I have found that the best way to differentiate is to let them learn on their own or in small groups. Ultimately, it’s a metaphor for life. We tend to become very good at things we like to do, because we choose to spend more of our efforts in those areas.

By the time you’re 30, you will have figured that out. Hopefully, you won’t have had to live with a platoon of teenagers to get the lesson to stick.

The Big Picture: Clarity, Part 2

2011-02-22T09:39:00.000-08:00

Let's be clear, folks. Clarity is a two-way street.

By that I mean that in order for communicators to be clear, messages need to have sufficient detail. But getting lost in specifics doesn't clarify. One also needs to paint a the big picture.

In other words, for learners and workers to understand their tasks and objectives, they need to see where it leads.

Too often I see people-- usually older ones who have never been managers-- complain that subordinates just don't do their job. That they ask too many questions, or "step outside their lane." Those subordinates likely want to do the job well, they just might not know quite what the task is.

That's because leaders sometimes zero in on only the specifics of the pertinent task. We're not Charlie Chaplin assembly line workers, here. Our jobs, whether as students, Soldiers, or really anything else, for that matter, are a bit more complex.

It helps, then, to know the context from which the task derived.

When looking at a single brush stroke, it is impossible to say whether it is good, or what it means. Only when it is considered in relation to the thousands of other strokes is its meaning made clear.

It's part of the phenomenon called, "executive control," a term coined by pioneers in the field of instructional design. It refers to learners' ability to better perform tasks when they know what will be required of them.

You're probably yawning by now. Hang in there.

Showing people a broader perspective seems simple, yet it's something that leaders easily neglect, because they think that subordinates shouldn't be bothered with things outside their control.

News flash: the world is outside anybody's control, but we should still understand it. Even the lowliest Soldier can handle the big picture.

Some pictures are bigger than others. My students don't need to know calculus while I'm teaching them algebra. But they might benefit from me telling them when they would be eligible for calculus, and which algebraic concepts are going to be most important down the road.

Soldiers, by the same token, don't need to know strategic plans. But they ought to realize how their task helps the company's, battalion's, and brigade's mission.

Okay, we're done. I hope that was clear.

Students Just Don't Understand

2011-02-15T17:32:00.000-08:00

Remember that Will Smith...er, I mean, Fresh Prince song, "Parents Just Don't Understand."?

Classic. The funniest thing about that video is that the Prince's parents ended up being right about most things. The youngin's' clothes, after all, were hideous.

The rappers just couldn't fathom that their parents had a strategy, and some sense. It was really Will and Jeff who lacked understanding.

All this has something to do with teaching and the Army. Looking through some old notes I found a reference to "the difference between training and teaching."

The Army loves to talk about training, whereas in schools we talk about teaching. The former implies behaviors, while the latter connotes understanding. And we have come back to our friend, the Fresh Prince.

I'll keep going, though.

Students need to really understand. I would argue that Soldiers need to understand, too. If we were wearing red coats and toting muskets, and victory depended on our ability to stand in ranks under fire long enough to deliver another volley, then I would concede that training alone would suffice.

Today's warfare encompasses so much more than battlefield maneuvers. It is dynamic and chaotic. Besides, there are so many more activities to warfare than what occurs on the battlefield. In fact, leaders often speak of "battlespace," because they know it is so much bigger than the geography of engagement.

The difference between training and teaching, then, comes down to how much the learners really understand about the behaviors they must perform. A dog can be trained, but a Soldier and a student must be able to comprehend the rationale behind actions in order to predict and adapt when stimuli change.

Students, in turn, are expected to understand and use higher order thinking to demonstrate it. Analysis, evaluation, creativity, and application are all required skills in almost any academic pursuit.

The pursuits of Soldiers should be no different. Yes, many situations demand uncompromising discipline and obedience to prescribed methods. But such automaticity is better achieved when it is built upon a foundation of understanding.

Teachers too often make the mistake of assuming they taught something. Unless their learner can see it from many angles and apply higher order thinking to it, nothing was taught.

When Army trainers say that they trained, they are probably right. They need to go to the next step and start teaching.

I think Will Smith would be proud.

Still Trying to Be Professional

2011-02-09T00:06:00.000-08:00

I am guilty of often promising another post on this or that, without delivering much.

Consider that faux pas corrected herewith.

Referring to a post 18 months old, I now present a more detailed argument that the core function of an NCO is to educate.

An Army full of teachers? you ask. Why, soon we'll be having those much celebrated and often dreamed about bake sales to buy our weapons of war, and schools will have all the money they need, as promised by thousands of sarcastic, yet prophetic, bumper stickers.

Hold onto your brownies, we're not there yet, thank goodness.

Soldiers still exist to fight, no doubt. Yet, doing so effectively may prevent fighting. Force projection is a safeguard against needless bloodshed, and at the core of our national security strategy. Yes, it may be condescending and paternalistic-- we are Soldiers, after all-- but if other countries are afraid to engage the might of the United States Army in a head to head, then we have really done our job without really doing it, right?

That should establish Axiom #1: The more powerful an Army is, the less is will need to go into battle.

Thus, if we (our national defense forces and policy makers) do things right, we will spend more of our time training and less of it fighting.

Additionally, very few of all Army troops are part of direct combat operations. Most are on the support end: supply, logistics, training, etc. For them, fighting skill can hardly be the first concern, so something else must be. Naturally, if there is one function common across all branches, it is teaching junior Soldiers how to be effective.

Axiom #2 is: Training and teaching must and do occur at all times, at all levels, and across all occupations in the military.

Moreover, the organization of the Army is in constant flux. New Soldiers join at astounding rates, and many exit the service after only a few years. For those who stay in, their battlefield responsibilities tend to get bequeathed to younger troops.

For that reason, Axiom #3 is: The speed and effectiveness with which the organization can train its new personnel correlates positively to its overall health and strength.

The proof of my theorem will be easy to prove with the above axioms. So easy, in fact, that I will not even do it.

NCOs, in the meantime, focus on how to be good educators. Teachers, in the meantime, keep baking those yummy brownies.

Parkinson's Law

2011-01-27T13:36:00.000-08:00

Parkinson's Law is the adage first articulated by Cyril Northcote Parkinson as the first sentence of a humorous essay published in The Economist in 1955.

The rule (which is not a law at all but an insightful observation, like Murphy's Law or Clarke's Law) is that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

If you've ever been in an Army garrison you know how close to a law of physics that can be.

Parkinson arrived at his conclusion after working for the British Civil Service. Government jobs, man. Seriously, I travel by air about once a week, and I have long ago stopped to be amazed, but continue to be frustrated, by the sheer number of TSA personnel just standing around. It's monstrous!

Soldiers stand around a lot, too, but their job is different in many respects; for one, it is the military's job to be on standby in case of invasion.

Nevertheless, the Army could be doing a lot more with its idle time, but it is subject to Parkinson's Law, of which there are several offshoots equally applicable.

In a later book, Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress, he describes how bureaucracies expand over time. A humorous anecdote to support his idea is the reported fact that the British Colonial Office had more employees when the empire had its fewest colonies.

Two factors contribute to the phenomenon, according to Parkinson:

1. "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" and
2. "Officials make work for each other."

Now, what if we substitute the word, "officer" for "official?"

I knew I wouldn't need to say more.

To its credit, the military is the best federal institution that has done any meaningful downsizing. But at the unit levels, these laws are in full force.

Shoveling it Down: An Ode to Food

2011-01-18T22:40:00.000-08:00

I haven't reduced my holiday calorie intake. I think by mid-April I might return to normal levels.

Whether it's huge helpings, the need for dessert nightly, or taking advantage of endless choices for dining out, I am just plain eating way too much.

By the way, I love suburban restaurant chains-- their value and variety are part of my own little American dream. (I'll include McDonalds in that dream, too, though whether the fast food king belongs in the suburban category is a matter for another time.)

Recently I shoveled down good American dream-type food at the Texas Roadhouse. My family got together there because, as the rumor went, the ribs just fall off the bone. When it came time to order our waitress confirmed that "the ribs just fall off the bone."

I got the ribs. But that was after bread and sweet butter to die for, jalapeno poppers, and a deep fried onion appetizer. I also dug into my sweet potato with all the fixings before I went after the ribs. Sure enough, the meat just fell off the one.

It all reminded me-- in a very roundabout way-- of Army food.

OK, you're back on your chair? Check for bruises before you continue reading.

In Nine Weeks I describe Army food (chow) in very glowing terms: "delectable" and "fantastic" are two words you'll see in the chapter about chow. Here's another:

Breakfast in the chow hall was All-American. Nearly every morning one had a choice among eggs, sausage, bacon, waffles, pancakes, an entire array of fruits, yogurts, breakfast pastries, cereals, and a variety of milks and juices. It was a veritable smorgasbord of breakfast bounty, one for which I would cheerfully go out to PT each morning knowing that I was that much closer to a feast.

Now since Basic, I have tempered my enthusiasm of Army food, only because I have been to some really bad chow halls. But I stand by my assessment of the food at Fort Sill.

The problem was, we never really had time to enjoy it.

"Shovel it down! You can taste it later!"

Four years into the Soldiering thing, and I am still shoveling it down, much to my wife's chagrin.

Maybe that's why I am eating too much.

Questions Anyone? Too Bad!

2011-01-11T09:58:00.000-08:00

Raise your hand if you have kids.

Wow, that's a lot of kids.

I promise this won't be a post about my toddler, suffice it to say that he is only two... a little young to be asking questions. Yet as a teacher I can't wait until he starts.

The great thing about kids, and the reason they learn so quickly, is that they are able to take risks. Asking questions, which proves you don't know something, is risky business. Yet kids want to learn more than they don't want to look ignorant.

Looking ignorant in the Army is dangerous. So questions are out of order.

In my classroom, on the other hand, I regularly sustain a barrage of queries. Early in my career, I might have gotten a little defensive in the face of so many questions. You see, there are two ways to interpret them:

One might think they pose a challenge to whatever he has taught. If there are questions, after all, it means that a student didn't understand something, which proves some degree of ineffectiveness in the instruction.

The other way to look at questions in general is to see them as a sign of curiosity, inquisitiveness, and insistence on excellence.

I love questions now. Too often, Army leaders hate them. Guys with rank, ironically, are among the most defensive of all. Poor leaders don't appreciate being challenged, and they certainly don't want anyone to insinuate they are ineffective instructors.

More than that, the Army hates exceptions, and a question represents an exception to what the institution expects everyone to know.

Sure, Soldier leaders will all say they encourage questions. But in practice, they don't reward them. Asking a question, especially in a testosterone-driven atmosphere, such as a large group of Soldiers, is a risky proposition.

The risk-reward equation is much different in the Army than it is in my classroom. I can't even count the number of times that a Soldier leader has asked for questions, only to berate the guy brave enough to raise his hand and ask for clarification on the 20,000-slide lecture that was breezed through.

"I already explained that! Weren't you listening?"

Tends to stifle the spirit of curiosity.

Who doesn't believe me? Raise your hand.

(Photo by Army Sgt. Jacob H. Smith)

Get ’Em Doing

2011-01-04T10:39:00.000-08:00

Classes are starting soon.

For those of you still in high school, yes, I know they started yesterday. My apologies and condolences.

I'm in university mode. Most people, I suppose, are wondering what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about teaching and learning...again. There are infinite reminders of how important it is to teach effectively, and every time I think about how the Army teaches, I get slightly disappointed.

The Army teaches really important stuff. And it is uber-important, at least in the near term, for Soldiers to learn those lessons really well. Another post may speculate on the long term consequences of poor training.

For now, let's think about how to teach properly. Or at least better than the folks at TRADOC realize can be done. If one thing can be the difference maker for students, it is the notion of active learning.

I watch my two year-old mess around with the dental floss dispenser, or fold and tear a plastic bag, or stack blocks in a container, and I am amazed at how much fun he is having-- and how rapidly he is learning.

Doing is the best way to learn.

There are a number of reasons for this:

First, active learning is more engaging. When learners do stuff, they are more interested and invested in it than they would be looking at slides or reading a book.

Second, it is more memorable. Your mind will retain information better if you practice it with motor skills and by using different parts of your brain.

Third, it is customized to the student. When a learner does something, he makes choices along the way about how to process, repeat, or practice it. The task becomes his.

Finally, it is a great time saver, because the student actually prepares for real work, and gains confidence in his skills.

In short, active learning rocks. If you are an Army trainer, get your Soldier doing.

It is a blast to watch my son learn actively about his world. I can only hope that my upcoming classes are a fraction as interesting.

(Note on photo: not my son.)

Keeping Leaders Accountable

2010-12-28T17:42:00.000-08:00

I have been getting into Band of Brothers, both book and miniseries. One of the initial lessons I learned was how important it is for leaders to be respected by their troops.

Are our Army officers and command NCOs really accountable? If so, to whom?

While the men of Easy Company were at Camp Toccoa, they developed a distinct disdain for their commanding officer, CPT Sobel. Some hinted that if they had the chance they would accidentally shoot him in combat.

It hurts any organization to force leaders on people without the former earning the latter's respect.

Early on in the colonial militia system, officers were elected popularly. Men were willing to fight, and followed orders; they just wanted the men giving those orders to realize who chose them.

It seems like such a foreign concept in our modern armed forces, but why can't what we revere in our civilian government work just as well for our military leadership?

The argument against voting for leaders in the military, I would assume, is that it would become a popularity contest at the expense of Soldiers getting the most effective leader.

Anyone who believes that doesn't trust the judgment of men and women who have volunteered to fight and die for their country. Nor is he acquainted with some of the substandard leaders currently serving, which is simply to say, the current system isn't perfect.

I teach university classes, and every week that I deliver lectures, I wonder very thoughtfully about how they are received. You see, at the end of the semester, all my students complete anonymous evaluations of my performance.

So far they have all been good, but I never forget in whose good graces I need to be.

Ultimately, my supervisors decide whether to promote me or even retain me. They decide which classes I am best suited to teach.

Think back again to the Band of Brothers episode in which CPT Sobel gets reassigned. His leaders knew that he would have performed poorly in combat, though he was good at getting a unit trained for war. Often, those higher in the chain of command don't get the clearest picture of a leader's skills and capabilities. Those below him often have a better picture. The best is a combination of the two.

I know we have command surveys, but those are often muddled, confusing, and not taken seriously.

The best way to keep leaders accountable is to let their subordinates rate them.

It's an important part of a big organization for workers to have respect and confidence in their leaders. It's equally important for leaders to know that their subordinates have a voice.

The Awesomeness of Killing

2010-12-20T19:55:00.000-08:00

I was honored again to attend the commissioning of a family member.

Since the previous one had the crap beat out of him in SERE training, partly because I outed him as an officer, I will refrain from naming the most recent one. Also, I can't spell his name.

But congratulations, What's-Your-Name.

The ceremony, as tradition required, featured a first salute, whereby a non-commissioned officer renders that high sign of respect to his once-junior. Often, the NCO will accompany the hand signal with a clever saying.

I can't remember what he actually said, but the sergeant major who rendered What's-His-Name his first salute wanted to say:

"Sir, a dead enemy is a peaceful enemy."

To which 2nd Lt. What's-His-Face should have responded, "Blessed be the peacemakers."

Now that's very clever.

And very appropriate. The Army trains killers. I highlighted that very stark reality in Nine Weeks, because it caught me off guard when I first dove headfirst into Army culture.

From my debut at weekend drill, when entire platoons of 18-year-olds sounded off with "One shot one kill!" to Fort Sill, where we answered our drills sergeants' query, "What is the spirit of the bayonet?"

"To kill! Kill! Kill without mercy!"

It is kind of refreshing to find an organization that minces no words about what they want to accomplish.

The Soldier's Creed itself proudly proclaims, "I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States in close combat."

It's sometimes muddled when politics requires Soldiers to abide by silly feel-good phrases like "hearts and minds." Hardcore types interpret it as tactical doctrine: "That's where we aim first."

Soldiers kill. The Army is not a work program, nor is it a vehicle for social justice. It is a necessary component of our national security, and I am grateful that there are people willing to do what it takes to ensure it.

Photo by Air Force Master Sgt. Michael Haggerty; "Sniper! One Shot One Kill."

The Best Argument Against the AVF

2010-12-13T22:47:00.000-08:00

I have to get the last word in on the wisdom of the All-Volunteer Military.

It seems really odd that some people would still prefer conscription. For those of you younger than 25, that means that the military would draft young men and women into the armed forces involuntarily.

From both the left and the right, the prevailing logic is roughly the same: conscription compels the government to be more prudent in its use of the military, which becomes, in effect, a check against military adventurism.

Though two ideological opposites can have the same main argument, their motives would differ wildly. The left just doesn’t like the military, and they would prefer that the public at large share their disdain. In the late 60s and early 70s, popular support for the armed forces was at its nadir, partly because of the draft.

Folks on the right appreciate a capable military, but many would like to see our foreign involvements substantially reduced. They see conscription as an inducement to healthy dissent which would temper the government’s enthusiastic use of the military.

It is the best argument I have come across against the AVF.

Yet both versions suffer from two flaws. From a comment to a previous post:

“In earlier wars, the entire nation was expected to make sacrifices, but in the current situation, most of the nation blithely goes on enjoying the good life, not giving serious attention to the effects of these wars…”

The argument could be stated another way: we should make it harder to fight so that the government will be less likely to do it. Should we make other government functions less efficient for the same reason? Or should we make our weapons systems less safe so that the costs would be prohibitively high? The extension of the argument is as dangerous as it is laughable.

Moreover, it supposes an electorate that can’t properly calculate the costs and benefits of war. Whether or not you agree with our current wars, to think that the public can’t make such basic analyses at the polls is an indictment against our representative form of government, not against the arrangements for procuring labor in our armed forces.

The other flaw is the assumption that people would be protesting war if it affected them more. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. People may protest homeless shelters more if they were built in the middle of their neighborhoods, next to elementary schools. That doesn't mean homeless shelters are bad.

Also, the analogy with Vietnam is a tiresome and inappropriate one. Protests against the war in Vietnam were exactly that: objections to the policy, not to the draft. Leftist protesters simply created a convenient straw man in the draft.

Finally, here is an interesting excerpt from the Gates Commission Report, which advised President Nixon in 1972 to abolish the draft immediately:

“Decisions by a government to use force or to threaten the use of force during crises are extremely difficult. The high cost of military resources, the moral burden of risking human lives, political costs at home and overseas, and the overshadowing risk of nuclear confrontation ~ these and other factors enter into such decisions. It is absurd to argue that issues of such importance would be ignored and the decision for war made on the basis of whether our forces were entirely voluntary or mixed.”

The debate between the AVF and conscription will never die, of course. I am just glad that, for now, there seems to be no movement back to involuntary servitude in the armed forces.

A Well Regulated Militia

2010-12-09T15:53:00.000-08:00

The video from (part of) my presentation at CSU East Bay:

Also, check out the Prezi that I created and showed at the lecture. I must warn you, this is very cool, and if I may diverge from the point of this post, I would like to say, a very effective presentation tool.

I’ll give credit where it is due: several of my students at the University of San Francisco simultaneously tuned me in to this medium. Granted it was I who spent the seven hours building the darn thing, but I am nevertheless grateful for the tip.

Why Not a Volunteer Army?

2010-12-06T09:38:00.000-08:00

Last week I delivered a lecture at Cal State East Bay in Hayward about the power of the all-volunteer military.

It was really a blast. Well attended, according to the organizers, it was part of a series of lectures on free-market ideas.

Naturally, I set out to ground my thesis—that the All Volunteer Force (AVF) is better than its conscript alternative—in economic arguments. I think I was successful to the extent that I was trying to make economic sense of something that really has more aspects.

In fact, I concluded that the AVF is more powerful and more appropriate than its alternative for five reasons:

It is the natural byproduct of our national history.
It is constitutional.
It is more economical.
It is more effective.
It better represents our culture, tradition, and values.

During the course of my research, however, I was surprised to learn how many intelligent and well-meaning men prefer conscription. Yes! There are prominent folks who would like to see a draft reinstated! Charlie Rangel is in the latter category, but not the former.

They contend that theirs would be the more economic force, that it would be more equitable, and that it would act as a check on the government’s war making ability.

I won’t argue the economics, but neither do I concede. The equity is demonstrable, and in study after study, the military is about as representative of the U.S. population in key areas as any institution. The last point, that a conscript force would cause Congress to think harder about engaging in war, or to regain some of its authority over the executive branch, is hollow.

If anything, as I have argued before, a military composed of volunteers is a natural check on government abuse, simply from a free market labor standpoint. This deserves more treatment later, but in essence, if the public doesn’t like what the government is doing with the military, instead of burning draft cards in grandiose exhibitions of dissent, people simply won’t enlist.

My comments and answers to questions at the lecture reflected as much, but I wanted to make the point again here.

Nine Weeks Kindle Edition

2010-10-16T13:59:00.000-07:00

The winner of this year's "Anti Climax" award goes to... this post!

Applause, everyone, applause.

The book has been available on Kindle for several months, but this nifty new app allows you to read the first chapter for free. Please, enjoy, then buy. Then pass an endorsement to everyone in your contacts list to do the same.

Smaller Is Better

2010-08-21T20:17:00.000-07:00

The Army School System's outpost in Utah has figured out an important lesson about teaching: that students learn better in smaller groups.

I can hear the cry now from California teachers who bemoan class sizes in public schools. So, before I sell out to the dark side whose maxim is, "more money for smaller classes," I need to clarify.

The number one variable that affects how students learn is what the teacher does in the classroom. Most typical systemic deficiencies can be overcome by good teaching practices.

Army instructors don't learn teaching techniques, so systemic changes-- like class size-- are more important. By reducing class size, moreover, instructors can more easily implement good techniques without formal training.

Our class size, which came as a pleasant surprise to me, was 17. We had three instructors. That's a ratio that any high school teacher would kill for.

Our classes were called, "learning centers." Imagine everyone's absolute astonishment when we were encouraged to "share freely" our experiences, and see things from others' point of view in our small groups. What has the Army come to?

It's good senses, in this case. The military has resources to make teaching effective. The desire and ability to put them to good use in terms of learning lags a bit behind those resources, in many cases.

But at the Regional Training Institute at Camp Williams, they have figured it out.

A Warrior and a Leader

2010-08-14T17:08:00.001-07:00

The Army has over 200 more leaders today than it did last week. National Guardsmen from the West and Midwest graduated from the Army’s Warrior Leader Course yesterday; I was proudly among them. Though trained to use a camera in combat, I now know I can successfully flank a team of interviewers on an objective.

The two-week WLC was a mixed bag from a training and leadership standpoint. Our senior instructor pointed out that many businesses, organizations, and people spend thousands of dollars on leadership seminars and courses. I got paid to go to mine, with five-star meals and the opportunity to clean barracks every morning.

In fact, my garrison leadership did not “exceed course standards” because two windows sills were a mite dusty. You can’t buy that kind of training in the civilian sector.

The whole thing confirmed much of my conceptions about Army operations, though. For one, I received my orders three days before my report date, right smack in the middle of a hectic home move. I saved the California Guard a few bucks by driving a moving truck to Utah rather than taking a military-paid flight.

At any rate, on day one at Camp Williams, Utah, we got right into the classroom with a full complement of PowerPoint presentations. More on that later.

“They break you down to build you up.” Remember that? Didn’t happen here, either, but our field training was a bit more interesting and a lot funner than anything I had done prior.

Out in the field, the smell of the hot, black steel of my M16 reminded me of Basic Training. It ain’t napalm in the morning, but it’s a smell I will never forget.

Lots of other lessons will stay with me, too. Now that I am a Warrior-Leader, I have more skills to take to the classroom. I will spare you the jokes about the relevance of urban combat tactics in Richmond and Oakland area high schools. (There is some relevance, though).

Over the next couple of months, I will share some of what I observed and leaned during WLC.

For Soldiers, some examples of how to make the most of training by understanding how good instruction is designed and how real learning is achieved.

Teachers can expect a healthy dose of examples of getting things done simply by demanding that they get done. I have always said, the Army might not be efficient, but it is thorough.

And to my beloved civilian readers: the life and death battles waged in the mountains of Afghanistan are mocked up in the Oquirrh Range near Salt Lake City. It’s really dusty out there, by the way.

A Brief but Productive Hiatus

2010-07-31T19:55:00.000-07:00

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.

There Just in Case You Need Us

2010-07-23T22:23:00.000-07:00

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.

History of the Citizen Army

2010-07-13T23:48:00.000-07:00

More evidence that change is not always bad...

"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.

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.

What is Gates Thinking?

2010-07-03T22:55:00.000-07:00

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.

Assistant Defense Secretary Douglas Wilson promised that no "Iron Curtain" would fall between the Pentagon and the news media.

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.

It seems that a particular (and former) commanding general was simply a bonehead when he opened up in all sorts of strange ways to Rolling Stone.

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.

Basic Training for Grumpy Old Men

2010-07-01T22:16:00.000-07:00

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:

Sadly, there are thousands of grumpy old men in the military.

Army training: Bayonets out, ‘ab blasters’ in

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.

Happy Birthday, Army (and Old Glory)

2010-06-15T07:12:00.000-07:00

How many U.S. flags did you see flying around yesterday?

Flag day is on the Army's birthday coincidentally. When I was at Basic, I failed an impromptu quiz given by DS Martinez in the chow line about the very topic.

"When was the Army born?"

"1775, Drill Sergeant!"

Not good enough. He wanted exact dates.

At the time, the birthday of the United States Army seemed unimportant. But anyone who has been to an Army dining facility on June 14 realizes that, judging by the size of and amount of frosting on the cake, that the Army's anniversary is a VERY big deal.

As it should be. Two things that need to be given a little more respect: the Army and the Stars and Stripes.

It saddens me that most classrooms that I've been in are lacking any display of patriotism. Most schools have shrines to the likes of Che and Malcolm, and few if any of MacArthur and Grant.

It would be nice to see more flags flying...every day.

Shawn Benjamin: A Leader the Army Should Want

2010-06-11T23:38:00.001-07:00

Yesterday was my final day working as a high school math teacher in Richmond.

Among the most memorable moments was our group goodbye to all five staff members moving on to different pastures.

When it was my turn to speak, I lauded the leadership of my boss, Shawn Benjamin.

She is, by almost any conventional measure, an exceptional principal. She inherited a high school on the brink of failure and a culture that almost tolerated it. Three years later, she presides over the most successful school in the district. It is also the most improving. According to the state, it is getting better every year. It's a school that more parents want their kids going to.

Shawn Benjamin has done a remarkable job in a very tough position. This post could end up being very long if it were a profile of all the amazing and improbably things she has accomplished as the head of LPS Richmond.

I don't mean this to be a fawning profile though, but a case study in leadership.

I have spent a large portion of the last three and a half years as a full-time Soldier, surrounded by men and women trained to lead by and for one of the greatest institutions in the history of humanity.

On other institutions and leadership, several months ago I asked a man who consults and evaluates schools and districts what the three most important leadership traits are in school leaders. According to him, the best leaders:

1. Demonstrate an ability to make decisions based upon the priorities of student learning (hang on, I will get to the Army part in a bit).

2. Systematically evaluate the effectiveness of their personnel.

3. Find ways to communicate their vision to subordinates, and use the variety of skills among subordinates to achieve that vision.

The same traits apply to Army leadership. The best exemplar of those traits, though, is Shawn Benjamin.

Ineffective Army leaders are often poor communicators, relying on old authoritarian ways to get their message accross. Understanding or buy-in is generally not part of the message. Shawn, however, is a good communicator who has a defined vision of what she intends to accomplsih. She needs her staff to understand that vision, and she realizes each performs a vital function.

I have been struck by how she is able to decide when bold action and decisive calls are necessary versus thoughtful persuasion and motivation. What is particularly fascinating is how it seems that she employs the latter much more than the former. She trusts her subordinates, and we are integral pieces of her plan. She lets us know what we contribute, and that it's valuable.

The Army already has systems to evaluate performance of personnel, but it takes a solid leader to harness those systems, make them understandable to everyone, and help Soldiers evaluate themselves based on established criteria. The next step is to enact measures to remedy shortcomings. Make the organization better. Shawn has done that, and it is quite apparent.

A principal must make choices based on whether they will result in greater student learning. Sometimes deciding how to meet that lone criterion is obvious, often it is much more subtle. In the Army, the mission is obvious, and many leaders let the thousands of other concerns cloud what should be the central judgment.

Ms. Benjamin is a model leader. She could very easily fit in among combat or joint-force commanders. You see, the traits that make her so successul at a high school with a seemingly impossible mission are the traits that are necessary for anyone leading people in any situation-- peacetime military and combat included.

I will forever look too Ms. Benjamin as a paragon of leadership, in and out of the Army.

Hooters Girls and Harry Potter

2010-06-09T12:39:00.000-07:00

The life of a National Guardsman is NEVER limited to only one weekend a month. My unit NCOIC frequently emails me with tasks that need to get done before upcoming drills.

It's usually pretty important stuff, so yesterday, you can imagine my alarm when the following appeared in my inbox:

I’ll hire Hooters girls to direct traffic. This signing might get ugly like Harry Potter books or Twilight so get there early. I’m going to camp out with some homeless vets.

To my relief, it was only to inform me of the most stupendous event of the summer (besides the opening of Twilight 3: Eclipse):

The California State Military Museum will be hosting a lecture and book signing by Mr. Rich Stowell, author of Nine Weeks: A Teacher's Education in Army Basic Training. This event will be held at 7:00 pm, 23 June 2010 in the museum's Sgt. Maj. Doris Drennan Multi-Purpose Room.

This will be my first bona fide author event, so I am preparing diligently to make it informative and entertaining.

You must attend.

Just Thought You'd Like to Know

2010-05-31T11:40:00.000-07:00

Finalist in the Military, Non-fiction category of the 2010 National Indie Excellence Awards.

Why Disparage the Nasty Guard?

2010-05-26T20:14:00.000-07:00

I have served with a lot of full-time Soldiers. Though we train and fight together, the active duty personnel often have their fourth points of contact comfortably seated on horses of exceeding altitude.

When a disagreement over tactics arises, or when a difference in practice rears its beautiful head, or even when a Guardsman has a simple question; our active forces brethren go to the least clever retort possible: "oh, you're in the Nasty Guard, no wonder..."

Why do active duty Soldiers feel so insecure around Guardsmen? I see it all the time. On a deployment with active and reserve forces we had a "fun-run" (another post on the idiocy of that phrase later), and the active Soldier asked, self-righteously, "what's the uniform?"

PTs!

"Long-sleeve? short-sleeve? Shorts? Pants?" He threw in the dig that, since a National Guard first sergeant was in charge, we'd all be showing up in different uniform-- which would, in fact, defeat the meaning of that term.

Do we really need to be told everything? I guess the active Soldier is trained to believe that if half of the force wears long sleeves, and the other half short, that somehow al Qaeda or the Taliban are going to destroy us.

My own retort, cleverer than his, I'd like to think, was that Guardsmen are fairly adept at thinking for themselves, and we don't need a higher-ranking folks telling us how to dress each day, thank you very much.

That last point brings me to a more important one: the National Guard is a more effective fighting force precisely because we have a broad array of skills honed in our civilian lives that help us solving battlefield problems.

I know that many active duty forces will vehemently disagree, but that's like a union plumber arguing that a non-union guy can't do his job as well. It's bogus, and it assumes that warfighting is a discrete skill that has no relation to skills necessary outside of war.

Even Soldiers completely absorbed in the Army Way will tell you that soldiering is based on fundamentals of communication, teamwork, leadership, and discipline. All of the above are found in abundance in the civilian careers that compose the National Guard force.

I think, in fact, that America's national interests would be better served with a larger Guard force, even at the expense of the active duty force.

Go ahead, argue away. But you can't disparage Citizen-Soldiers who get much of their training in the world in which the vast majority of Americans live.

Tearing Down Walls

2010-05-21T16:36:00.000-07:00

It’s one for the Army this past week, as the warrior in me and my Soldier family taught me something for which my teaching experience was inadequate.

“In our week at Army boot camp we have improved our leadership skills, learned the importance of commitment to the group, and most importantly, developed the sense to prepare ourselves physically and mentally for whatever the future holds.

My high school students wrote the above about the special course I helped teach this past week.

“I will always place the mission first.”

It was a “Week Without Walls,” an experience unique to the network of schools that employs me. For five entire school days, students attend classes outside the walls of the traditional classroom and school. And they go beyond the walls built up by their own experiences and perceptions.

“I will never accept defeat.”

My group of 24 students chose Army Boot Camp to prove that they had the physical strength, emotional resilience, and mental toughness to go through just a little bit of how United States Soldiers train.

“I will never quit.”

This post is dedicated to the 24 students, who looked and moved beyond their own walls and became warriors.

“I will never leave a fallen comrade.”

Warriors because they have decided to live by the Ethos that guides the Soldier. Through Army training, they have a new focus on their mission—to do well in school, graduate, and go on to college.

They didn’t accept defeat, and articulated how victory is a mental exercise that is achieved when one insists on being victorious, no matter the odds or barriers.

They didn’t quit, and some of them learned for the first time how that feels.

Their comrades—schoolmates, community peers, and family members—now have a battle buddy who will not give up on them and will be there to pick them up when the going gets tough.

It was inspiring to me, as a teacher who has often been critical of Army training methods, to see how the Way of the Warrior touched these kids in a manner that their school experience couldn’t.

More than anything, it was a week that tore down the walls that I had built up.

Happy Belated Birthday, My Public Affairs

2010-05-13T01:01:00.000-07:00

It has been 428 days since this modest blog went live.

For those of you who went to California public schools, that's more than one year.

OK, so that's not very nice. But it is modest, since I teach math in a California public school.

On this belated anniversary post I reflect on what it means to blog about Army issues.

A virtual acquaintance of mine, whom I shall not name, but whom I hope is reading this blog, once expressed his concern that my command would shut me down.

I have to admit, I was pretty apprehensive at first about making some of this stuff public, but I threw caution to the wind and started making my feelings known about "the pros and cons of the modern American military."

It was only after a few weeks of writing boldly that I realized I had very little risk of somebody important reading it. In fact, it seemed I had to beg people to read.

I also realized, deployed as I was at the time, that my freedom of speech was just as precious to me while in uniform as it was to anybody not serving. The Bill of Rights was going to trump any command policy.

And I have to admit that nobody in a position of military authority over me has ever expressed concern with what I write.

That either speaks to the realization by all Soldiers of just how important individual expression is, or the size of the reading audience. Hmmmm...

It is still therapeutic to me, and I think I offer a valuable perspective in the greatest army. So as this 428th day of My Public Affairs comes to a close, I'd like to thank you for reading. Here's looking to the next 428 days.

An Experience to Remember: the First Salute

2010-05-11T23:59:00.000-07:00

My brother-in-law is now an officer in the greatest Army ever assembled.

Cadet Clint Chamberlain was commissioned last Friday, along with seven other reserve officer trainees from the University of Utah ROTC Ute Warrior Battalion. I had the honor of rendering him his first salute.

He is now 2nd Lt. Chamberlain, and he joins the corps of officers in the most powerful army in human history—the Army of the United States of America. Though many commentators have described our land forces in similar terms, I don't use the phrase lightly. It is almost cliché to say it, but it is, indisputably, the most dominant Army ever to go into battle.

Everyday more young men and women join the force and add to its strength. I was reminded of that strength at the commissioning ceremony of the eight Ute cadets, who represent the best qualities of American character.

The keynote speaker at 2nd Lt. Chamberlain’s commissioning ceremony declared we are the best because our Soldiers—officers and enlisted—are committed.

I believe that is only partly true. Other armies have committed soldiers. I served with many in the international Kosovo Force. Other armies have dedicated men, physically fit (often more than ours) and mentally tough. In many other countries it is considered more prestigious to serve in the armed forces than it is in the U.S.

So what sets us apart? It is commitment, but it's not all to be found in our Soldiers. The commitment lies with the American people.

Our Army hasn't always been the powerful force it is today. It won't continue to be, but for the commitment of the voters who insist on excellence. The American public understands that the key to maintaining our way of life is an armed force ready and willing to protect it.

Some speak of the disproportionate resources our military receives. Indeed, it is expensive to train and arm a Soldier. Rightly, most Americans think it a worthy investment.

Others would like simply to see our power recede. They misunderstand what American power represents in the world, and how it benefits our daily lives.

The American Constitution calls for a national armed force, but our founders, in word and deed, proclaimed their suspicion of standing armies, while enshrining the part-time civilian militia's central role in maintaining liberty in the Bill of Rights. So it certainly wasn't inevitable that our military became the dominant force that it is. And it isn't a certainty that it will remain so.

Decisions need to be made in order to maintain the superiority of our military. The most skilled and dedicated officer isn’t worth much without the material and moral support of the people he swears to defend. Many politicians have been elected who have undermined our military by promising to defund key projects, hamstring their fighting ability for political considerations, or ceding sovereignty to international bodies. For the most part, the public hasn’t handed such politicians the power necessary to diminish our military capability. For that, the American People deserve credit.

Commitment. Of our Soldiers, and of the People of the United States.

My salute to 2nd Lt. Chamberlain represents my pride in and respect for him, and my commitment to the military he serves.

Talking in Formation? Never!

2010-05-10T20:41:00.000-07:00

In class, why do students think they can get away with off-task behavior-- particularly talking-- simply because others are doing it?

My 9th-grade students do it all the time. The main rule in my classroom is to not talk during any type of presentation. Usually, it means that students should shut their pieholes while I am delivering instruction. I don't spend more than six or seven minutes at a time talking, but I have rarely made it without multiple interruptions.

Reminds me of the Army Formation-- that dreaded organism that is neither dead nor vibrant, a weird limbo-like collection of Soldiers who await the judgment of some higher authority.

While waiting for inspiration, revelation, or resucitation, Soldiers usually violate their oath of silence. At Basic, in fact, most of our troubles were the result of bad formation manners.

As I put it in Nine Weeks:

"Privates trickled out from the stairwell and laundry room and found their spots in formation. Once assembled, we waited like statues for DS Jackson to march us off somewhere. But before long, we were in a full-blown family argument. It would start with one soldier making a comment, inducing someone else to tell that private to shut up. Of course the first man would have to defend or explain himself, at which point several others would jump in trying to quite the first two or take sides. The reaction was thus unleashed, everyone trying to solve a problem that they didn’t realize they were a part of. The noise would reach a crescendo just as the drill sergeant appeared.

Open ranks, MARCH!”

I wish I could put my students in the front-leaning rest.

Whatever causes erect privates (get your mind out of the gutter!) to chatter and quarrel in formation is the same impulse that compels high school students to talk, and bicker about it, while in the classroom "formation."

In that way, my math students are a lot like the Soldiers in an Army platoon formation.

Frequently, students will claim innocence in the face of a charge that they were talking. Often, Student A will use the fact that Student B was talking as an excuse. Periodically, the lone student will start a chain reaction of misbehavior.

That when, sad as it is to say, the drill sergeant comes out. What can we do to instill discipline without resorting to yelling and group punishment?

Let me know if you have any ideas, because I hate scolding the group for the sake of a few. And it seems to be counterproductive anyway; the few miscreants seek safety in the group. I suppose I continue to punish everybody in hopes of building a group culture, one that does not tolerate substandard behavior.

That's certainly the idea behind collective punishments in the Army. Teamwork, we are told, is the goal.

It must take more than nine months to develop.

Five Posts in Five Days

2010-05-09T21:25:00.000-07:00

This blog has seen more active days.

I suppose that-- as its subtitle indicates-- it is a chronicle of a learning experience.

As a teacher I have learned that time and sleep are more precious than I ever realized as a full-time Soldier. There you have it...my excuse for skipping weeks.

When I began this blog as a regular cathartic exercise for venting my frustrations with the Army, I was pretty faithfully posting once weekly. After the deployment I proudly professed, "The Blog Will Go On!"

My fidelity to that promise has waned, but I am getting back on track.

In order to atone for my dereliction, I am offering:

FIVE POSTS in FIVE DAYS.

Look for exciting expositions on topics that you've come to expect from your humble Loyal Cynic, such as yesterday's (which is not included in the five-- it's like a bonus).

Read on.

Beat Your Face and Stop Thinking!

2010-05-08T08:39:00.000-07:00

In an effort to reach out to the military community and share some of my thoughts on the civilian education-army training nexus that is the “My Public Affairs” blog, I started a discussion thread on Military.com.

My main point is summarized thusly: If the tasks that Soldiers perform are different now than they were 100 years ago, would it be wise to adjust the training methods to teach those tasks? Some say no, I say yes. That's all. Relax.

With emphasis on the last word. Granted, I was a bit provocative and sarcastic in my original post, but I didn’t realize that I would strike such a sensitive chord in some of the Soldiers.

Evidence, and a best of list of the counterpoints:

“Sounds like you'll have yourself an excellent LIBS' rendition of Basic Training . . .you puzzy.”

“Aside from the above...Thank You for Volunteering...”

‘Preciate it!

“Dude, you are thinking too much. I went through Basic Training in the middle 80's and I have B.A. too. Back then, Soldiers with B.A. were rare and older ones were rarer still, I was in my 30's. Everything back then was very easy, nothing that required deep thought, remember, most of the recruits back then barely had H.S educations and I had more education than the D.S. Heck, One of my last units my C.O. still hadn't finished his B.S. I understand from U.S. Army Times that Basic is kinda reinventing itself.”

Sad when people within any organization don’t want you to think.

“Beat your face.”

I don’t even know what that means! Can a seasoned Soldier please comment on the origin of that phrase? Doesn’t sound flattering.

“Guess what- you're Ivory tower is now Green! As a private doctrine does not concern you in BCT, Learning the Army methods & way, learning the skills necessary to kill, survive and take care of yourself and buddy are what is important! You can try to judge BCT once and if you pass and become a soldier! Beat you boots!”

“Please Proffessor [sic] show me where in the business world where: you go without sleep for up to 96 hrs, march 30 miles in one day carrying 120-14-lbs of equipment, eat one meal a day if lucky, move while people are intent on killing you, move forward under fire to kill those who are trying to kill you, try to patch your buddy's torn body together while bullets are flying around you? The point of BCT is to tear you down, and reshape you into someone that will obey orders together unders [sic] stress (they don't shoot at you in training) so that you will follow and not set around a campfire holding a discussion on the orders before moving.”

Good times on Military.com. I’m still posting, holding my own, but it’s about 25 to one at last count, with the occasional nod to one of my better arguments (which are legion, I might add).

My goal is to grow this humble little blog to rival the behemoth that hosts my confrontational thread. Will you help me?

If you decline, I have only one thing to say—

Beat you face!

(Photo by David Dismukes)

How Many Words is a Video Worth?

2010-04-26T21:34:00.001-07:00

Peter Drucker: the Ultimate NCO

2010-04-12T12:23:00.000-07:00

Peter Drucker has advised his clients to ask subordinates to define their jobs. This isn't a way for workers to reduce the demands on them. Instead, it’s a way for managers to communicate job requirements to their workers.

It's brilliant, actually; though I'd be very surprised if many managers ever do it. I'd be downright stunned to learn of any Soldiers who do it.

At drill this weekend, a perfect opportunity came up, when complex instructions went out in a flurry, and the junior enlisteds went about trying to please their NCOs. All good so far, but an intermediate step could have been for the NCO to simply ask the Soldier, "What are you going to do?"

It reminded me of times I have moved on in a classroom lesson, almost sure in the knowledge that my students didn't understand exactly what the task was.

Why do I do this? Well, I don't think I do it often, but when I do it might be for a variety of reasons:

1. I might be afraid to get confirmation that my students don't know the task. Pure denial—the first phase of any pathology.

2. Maybe I feel rushed for time, and I don't want to burn it by asking questions.

3. Perhaps I assume that my instruction has been absolutely unambiguous, and it doesn't even occur to me to give a student the opportunity to deflate that delusionary bubble.

In fact, in my classroom, I do it often, though all three reasons tempt me not to. But the confirmation that my students don't know something early on should be music to my teaching ears. And of what use is my time if students aren't learning? Of course I do suffer from the egotism that claims student shortcomings are all their fault, and none of mine.

Army leaders should follow Drucker's advice. Take it from a teacher, understanding is key.

Too often an officer or NCO will assume that a single recital of verbal instruction should land in Soldier brains like a fly on flypaper-- stuck. But it is always the case that instructions and commands are more clearly formulated in the mind of the issuer than that of the receiver. And more important.

Teachers and Soldiers can learn a thing or two...or a thousand...from Drucker. Having subordinates articulate their understanding of tasks will help reconcile the differences. It will improve learning and performance.

Drill Sergeants Don’t Have Anything on Teachers

2010-03-29T22:37:00.000-07:00

Somebody asked me to autograph a copy of Nine Weeks for them today and I tried to think of a spiffy phrase to include with my signature. As I suspect might be the case with many writers, in my moment of need my mind drew a blank.

I wanted a phrase that encapsulated the main point of Nine Weeks; that the folk in charge at Basic Training often did a substandard job at teaching.

Make no mistake about it—Army drill sergeants do a fantastic job at many things: commanding respect, maintaining order, and yelling. But I have found that teachers on the civilian side are more effective at getting their pupils to really learn.

So what I would have written along with my autograph in that copy of Nine Weeks is, “Drill sergeants don’t have anything on teachers.”

A good teacher has a constantly full plate, cramped with unit & lesson development, assessment creation and grading, professional development and a host of administrative tasks. That’s all before students even come through the door.

A typical high school teacher has around a hundred students. The equivalent number of Soldiers would have four to six drill sergeants who never really have to do any of the above tasks. Drill sergeants don’t even have to develop the curricula.

Most teachers would think they have died and gone to schooling heaven if they could team teach, with a handful of colleagues, a fully-developed curriculum.

Civilian teachers must deal with a host of behavior issues that rarely manifest themselves in a Basic Training setting, and they can’t go near some of the remedies that NCOs take for granted. If I even hinted that I wanted a student to drop and give me twenty in my math class, I’d be laughed out of school by students, administrators, and parents.

So drill sergeants, NCOs, and Soldiers in general often acquire laudable skills. But, as I wrote in the title, in the department of meaningful learning, they don’t have anything on teachers.

Canada Leads the Way in Ethics

2010-03-13T15:26:00.000-08:00

I recently came across something at a nifty blog called, “The Agnostic.” The Canadian Army, it seems, has published an "ethics guide." It’s about time—those barbaric Canadian troops have been running helter-skelter for too long, terrorizing humanity the world over.

If you can sense the sarcasm, it's because I'm not sure if the Canadian Army has taken a major role in any significant operation since the time when soldiers could actually fight without a platoon of lawyers on either flank.

But to my main point: The ethics guide, which you can read about here, states that "detainees must be treated with dignity and respect. Sleep deprivation to soften someone up for interrogation is as unacceptable as physical assault."

What? Detainees are afforded more respect and greater freedom from abuse by the Canadians than even United States Soldiers?

At Basic Training, I was frequently subjected to sleep deprivation as a means of teaching third parties how to make bunks with tighter corners.

In fact, near the end of my BCT session, we were ordered to pull a fire guard shift with half of the platoon at a time for half the night. I got about two hours sleep that night, after a full day in the peak of summer temperatures.

Our fearsome friends to the north also "caution against verbal abuse, such as referring to enemies with dehumanizing labels, on grounds that will escalate to physical abuse."

As a Soldier in good standing, I have been subjected to verbal abuse countless times, and have witnessed NCOs physically abuse privates (there is no double entendre, there, perverts).

Is this analogous to police officers having to experience the taser before being authorized to use it? Once we are deprived of sleep, can we then make terrorists stay awake just a little while longer until they give up their buddy with the bomb control?

I'm all for ethics in the Army, but maybe with a little perspective, the Canadians will realize that servicemembers across the free world might violate such unrealistic "ethical standards" before even coming into contact with the enemy.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Tell Me What it Means to Me.

2010-02-26T21:29:00.000-08:00

Is "respect" a relative term?

In every school at which I've taught, "respect" was a central theme or value. At my last school, it was incoporated into almost every school activity.

It is also one of the core tenets of Army life. The seven Army values are:

1. Loyalty

2. Duty

3. Respect
4. Selfless Service
5. Honor
6. Integrity
7. Personal Courage

Obviously, then, respect is held in high regard in the ways of the warrior. If a neat mnenomic started with the letter "R," we might see respect at the top of the list.

But number three ain't bad. So, what does it mean? According to the party line, "respect" means to "treat people as they should be treated." The Initial Entry Training Soldiers Handbook goes on to read:

"In the Soldier's Code, we pledge to treat others with dignity and respect and expect others to do the same. Respect to a Soldier simply means treating people as they should be treated. It means giving others the same consideration we would like or expect to be given."

Those are wonderful words to live by. Yet there are so many times that I've seen it violated, often by those with rank.

I was once standing around with a SGT and a SSG just shooting the bull, when along came a Soldier with his hands comfortably and quite deviantly in his pockets. The staff sergeant bristled and mustered up a delightfully devilish mind to correct the Soldier with an NCO's flare.

"What rank is he?" he asked as he squinted toward the tiny insignia on his target's chest.

It turned out that the offending Soldier was a lieutenant, outranking the vigilant sergeant. "High enough ranking to walk around with his hands in his pockets in front of me," the NCO admitted.

"That's pretty hypocritical," I thought. This guy, whom I like, I might add, was all ready to yell at somebody, only if he had rank on the guy. Is that respect? Wouldn't a courteous reminder of proper Army protocol be more prudent, for all ranks?

Of course that's not the way it works. Respect is a relative term.

As it is in almost every facet of life. I call my spiritual leader by his title, not his name. When a principal talks, students listen a bit more nervously than when it's a teacher. Senators refer to the Commander in Chief as "Mr. President," not Barack. Yes, there is etiquette. But just because Obama outranks McCain doesn't mean he ought to talk down to him. We should all look to respect others for their innate diginity and worth as fellow workers, citizens, and people.

Church, work, family, and school-- all would benefit from a healthy dose of genuine respect.

The Army organization would certainly run much more smoothly if we all followed the Soldier's Handbook.

From Cynics to Marketing Consultants

2010-02-17T09:32:00.000-08:00

My wife is a marketing genius.

Nevertheless, I would like your help. Criticism and approbation are fine, but suggestions are better.

As you know, my book Nine Weeks: a teacher's education in Army Basic Training, has been on the market for almost three months. We are making progress towards our sales goals, but I need a second wind. Below is a flyer that will accompany the book in local stores and coffeehouses.

This way, potential fans-- who likely happen to be Bay-area die hard blue-blooded liberals-- won't be completely repulsed by the ACU on the cover. What's that saying, "you can't judge a book...?

Though I wrote the book for me, I want to share my story and what I've learned with others. We have realized recently that Nine Weeks is really a book for teachers. Though Soldiers and military families will enjoy the insight into Army Training, the real value and depth is in its portrayal of how a person (me) trained and committed to learning, responded to a program in which learning was imperative, but fell well short of how effective it could have been.

It's also an examination of how fundamentally different two worlds are. An excerpt from the book:

"Not a month earlier I was standing in a high school classroom in the Bay Area, teaching math to at-risk teens. I had done an abrupt ideological about face, going from such an anti-military mindset to one that took a statement declaring our alacrity to destroy our country’s enemies as a given. Needless to say, it was a culture shock—one that I thought I was ready for.

One would think that these two worlds have much in common: on one hand the world of teaching (expand your mind, be anything you want) is meant to prepare learners to be contributing, thoughtful, and productive citizens of this great Republic. On the other, military indoctrination (be all you can be) is designed to supply the Republic with Soldiers to protect it.

I could go on, but it's all in the book. For now, a call to arms, if you please.

1. Comment on the flyer.

2. Share what other messages from the book stand out. (If you haven't already, this would be a good time to buy the book and read it.)

3. Forward this post to anyone you know who has marketing experience, interest in design, or just a good eye for catchiness.

After all, many geniuses are better than one.

Teaching in the Army: Clarity, Part 1

2010-02-13T06:02:00.000-08:00

If you've followed this blog even half-heartedly for the past several weeks, you know that teaching has been on my mind. Some months back I began a series of posts on the importance of teaching in the Army, based upon the theme of leadership for the Year of the NCO.

Well, the year-long lionization of non-commissioned officers mercifully at an end, the Army nevertheless still has NCOs. And they are still leading troops.

I started with the premise that good teaching is the principal trait of a good leader. I defy anybody to contend otherwise.

Alright. With that readily agreed to, it's time to roll up our sleeves (or unblouse them) and get into some aspects of effective instruction that has benefitted me as a teacher and certainly has relevance into teaching other Soldiers.

One such aspect of teaching and instruction that my students have made me painfully aware is the necessity of explicit communication of instrutions.

Anyone who has to teach thinks s/he is clear about everything s/he teaches. I teach math, and thus it is on my mind a great deal. By the time I teach my last class, I have reviewed a discrete topic three times, in addition to the hundreds of hours I have studied and taught it previously.

I get it. But do my students?

When something makes perfect sense to me, I take it for granted that it will make perfect sense to somebody who is just learning it.

Likewise, Army leaders think they are clear about their instructions and orders. Of course. In a leader's brain, the plan makes perfect sense. It's his, and he has gone over it within the vastness of his form-driven mind. It is usually dictated by habit and an awareness that comes with time in a particular job.

Part of that job is to communicate expectations, and patiently cultivate the awareness that often comes with time, to junior Soldiers.

Couple this with the absolute reality that questions are culturally disdained in the Army.

I also have to remind myself that the mere fact that I teach math represents a significant life choice on my part. Math means a great deal to me, and it might not mean so much to my students. That certainly doesn't excuse them from not completing requirements to do their best to learn it in high school, but I would be foolish to ignore the affect it has on their learning.

NCOs and Officers could remember these realities from a typical high school teacher in a typical high school classroom, where, if a student fails, it's sad. If a Soldier fails, the results can often be tragic.

Clarity, then, is vital.

To the Loyal Cynics

2010-02-06T12:00:00.000-08:00

We recently tidied up the blog, and among some nice changes you'll find a new masthead to reflect the slight redirection in themes, labels on all posts for easier searching of the archives, and some new identifiers for blog elements.

One of my favorites is that "followers" are respectfully re-designated as "Loyal Cynics."

What is a cynic? Well, in ancient Greece they were philosophers who bathed fairly infrequently. By no means do I mean to asperse my readers. Instead, I point to a more modern connotation of the word.

According to Webster, a cynic is one who criticizes and "believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self interest." But the word also implies a tendency to question authority. Now I have to make it clear that, as a Soldier, I have NEVER disobeyed an order, and I am, by nature, a stickler for order. The teacher in me, though, realizes that questioning will solidify understanding and result in greater loyalty to the cause.

A good byproduct of cynicism is that authority will try to avoid it by becoming less tyrannical.

Even the ancient Greek coterie lived by the philosophy that suffering was caused by man's poor judgment, including all the trappings of society and its conventions.

No so here. We respectfully depart from our forebears in our promotion of regular and thorough hygiene practices, and we believe whole-heartedly that conventions are an indispensable aspect of a happy life.

We simply think that man is not infallible, and many of his judgments ought to be challenged. Even if that man is a commanding officer.

Criticism is good, especially when it bubbles up from the bottom. We have come a long way since the ancient Greeks, and up to this point we know that democracy, though imperfect, is the best form of government; that a more-educated, creative workforce, whatever the occupation, is a more productive workforce; and that progress, by definition, requires second-guessing and flexibility.

So thank you for your continued reading, and welcome to the ranks of the Loyal Cynics. I hope you take the title proudly. Pass this along to your friends, and we’ll grow the movement.

Now go take a shower.

What I Miss About the Deployment

2010-01-28T12:30:00.000-08:00

Last week was our "Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Whatzit." The Whatzit was a two-day conference for servicemembers who recently returned from deployment, so that they and their families could successfully reintegrate into civilian life.

Perhaps going from an environment in which our every move was controlled, restricted, and scrutinized to the laissez-faire of modern America is really rough on some people. But the last thing that I needed at the time was more of the former. So I didn't go.

My reintegration consisted of NFL playoffs, church, and lesson planning for the high school kids in Richmond that I teach.

But some time before we came home from overseas, my battle-buddies and I would engage in very serious conversations about our reintregration, with topics like "the first restaurant we'd go to" and "what was the first drink we'd have" (Mine was Pepsi). Such soldier interactions are important components in keeping morale high and the force alert.

One of my favorite topics was the list of things we'd miss about the deployment. A few that topped mine were:

> Cookies: the Camp Bondsteel D-Fac cookies have been made famous on this blog, for good reason. They consistently scored 7 out of 10, but more importantly, were available in abundance every lunch and dinner. Often they were my dinnner.

> D-Fac food: not the food per se, but being able to count on a hot meal at almost any hour of the day was a nice little luxury we had. I may be eating better now, but I'm thinking entirely too hard about it.

> Not doing dishes: 'nough said.

> Not doing laundry: this can't be said enough. Doing laundry stinks, but folding and ironinng is even worse. It has become a Saturday-night ritual for my wife and I, but I'd rather the Kosovars at CBS wash and fold my clothes.

> My NCOIC always mentioned Not having to decide what to wear. I didn't agree until now. After realizing that I need a few new shirts to keep people from thinking I never wash the ones I have, I had a change of heart. It was kind of nice to get up, shower, and put on the same damn thing daily.

If anyone doubts me on the cookie issue, then I challenge you to a duel. But before you accept my challenge, you should know that I've personally eaten 26.9 pounds of cookies since I've been home-- just a little over one month.

Reintegration has been a wonderful thing, and were it not for Otis Spunkmeyer and his deliciousness, I may have forgotten completely about that deployment to Kosovo.

Meetings of Mass Destruction

2010-01-16T23:15:00.000-08:00

Anybody who has been in the Army for any length of time knows that Soldiers must be adept at such battlefield necessities as weapons handling, calling in a medevac request, and staying awake in briefings.

On the civilian side they are called meetings, but the intent is often the same: to get important information into the hands of those who need it.

One would think that meetings involving Soldiers would be of the most important kind, yet sadly, the Army etched in stone the proper meeting format eons ago, whereby attendees sit in painfully dull silence as the person in charge drones on about his important information.

Meetings can kill, and I had several near-death experiences during my last deployment. This may sound insensitive to those who lose their lives in actual battle, but it's only to highlight the stakes of many military briefings.

This all brings me to another point that can be really annoying. Understanding that, in some cases military leaders send young men and women into life-and-death situations, they too often use that fact to make the most mundane and inconsequential personal projects seem a matter of national security. They pepper talk about coffee runs and photo ops with lables such as "missions," "tasks," and "orders."

But why is it that when the things are most urgent, they deliver the message in the least effective way? The typical Army briefing is a PowerPoint driven, one-sided monotone jargon fest in which most participants (to use the term loosely) leave feeling like part of their soul had just withered away.

You can then imagine my delight when, after way too many of those, I attended a meeting that uplifted and informed. It was my first full "professional development" meeting as a full time teacher since joining the Army nearly three years ago.

Consider a typical meeting I endured while deployed as a public affairs Soldier. It may or may not start on time. In fact, “on time” is relative only to the convenience of the highest ranking person attending. I never recall having a written agenda at any Army meeting, and participation was encouraged only to the extent that it meant saying “yes sir” and “yes ma’am” copiously. “Any questions?” was usually followed promptly by a “good” before anybody could open their mouths.

Contrasted to that, my recent meeting was refreshing, rejuvenating, inspiring, and enriching. The atmosphere was professional, fun, and developmental. We began punctually and a time keeper helped keep the facilitator on pace and efficient. Those with rank or authority certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to flaunt it, and conversations were on point, egalitarian, and creative.

A well known book, Crucial Conversations describes how the point of such meetings should be to "share meaning." At my teacher meeting, I felt like meaning was shared and understood.

As a matter of our school's protocol, we began with a check in designed to get everybody in the mood to collaborate. Then we handled routine business before moving on to the main focus. Decisions were made and intent was disseminated through small working teams who could converse and build understanding.

I made the comment during our evaluation that, in sharpest contrast to Army briefings, leaders didn't try to force anything onto us, but sought that we understood.

It might not have been an issue of national security, but if it were, this small group of teachers might have been able to handle it better than most Army commanders who rely on Talk and Yawn.

Out of the Uniform and into the Classroom

2010-01-09T22:04:00.000-08:00

I just concluded my first week back in the classroom since before shipping to Basic.

What a week it was. For one, it was exhausting. I haven't looked forward to the weekend so much since I was in AIT nearly a year and a half ago.

Teaching is probably like combat soldiering in one major respect. You have to arrive early, and be 100% on your game, or you'll get mowed over. That's no exaggeration. During a professional development day some years back and my colleague and I arrived "just before the bell" to a group of other teachers ready to absorb the presenters' knowledge. It was so relaxing to show up on time and not do anything more than that. My colleague said, "this is like every other job."

Most jobs, yes. Outside of teaching, a combat or training military job is one of the only types that demands as much at every moment of the work day.

Another thought was that teaching, as many things tend to be, is much easier said than done. A comparison I made in a recent interview was that anyone can be a soldier and anyone can teach, but it takes discipline, commitment, and skill to do either of them well.

I am not going to display a huge poster counting down the days until the school year ends like I did with the deployment, although I don't think my principal would be quite as annoyed with that as my command sergeant major was. Rather, I will enjoy the coming weeks getting to know my new students and watching them learn, and seeing myself develop as a teacher after so many years of talking about it.

For those of you downrange, stay on top of your game, tiring as it may be. Your weekend will come soon enough.

Merry Christmas to the Troops

2009-12-24T21:11:00.000-08:00

I just read a column by Rich Lowry on National Review Online about a green Christmas. Basically, he pokes fun at the environmental fanatics who are heatedly debating whether a natural or an artificial tree generates more carbon.

You'll have to go to National Review yourself to find out the dramatic answer to which is more eco-friendly.

While folks ponder the best way to have an environmentally friendly Christmas, other, less selfish and less sanctimonious people are having a green Christmas of their own-- in the Army uniform. Let us not forget that it is basically the American Soldier who is keeping us from worrying about other stuff, like whether the guy next to us at the Christmas tree store has a bomb strapped to his chest.

Men and women in uniform are all over the globe, keeping the fight away from us here at home, so we can enjoy the freedoms of our great country.

Unless you have served away from your family for an extended period of time, it is difficult to understand what it is like to be away during the holidays. I wish all servicemembers serving abroad right now, and their families, a safe and enjoyable Christmas.

Please remember them as you enjoy your holidays.

And Santa doesn't really care how much carbon you emit.

The Bible of Basic Training Has Been Written

2009-12-14T20:58:00.001-08:00

If you know me at all, then you know I have written a lot about Army Basic Training. In fact, I wrote an entire book.

It's called, Nine Weeks: a teacher's education in Army Basic Training, and it's now available on Amazon.

It was a labor of love, in more ways than one. First, it represents two things I am very proud of: being a Soldier and being a teacher. Second, it has been a joint project with my wife and has helped her to understand what I have gone through as a Soldier and helped me realize how amazing she is.

I would like to offer you an insider's view of the book, in hopes that you will want to read more.

A funny story:
During our final inspection, one unfortunate private actually fell asleep at parade rest. He crashed into the bunk facing him and disrupted whatever slim chances we had of winning that inspection. The sad part was that, after nine weeks, we were still as bored as ever, and that solemn moment when our first sergeant was determining our worthiness to go into battle, this young man said to himself, "screw it, I'm taking a nap."

An emotional experience:
To make more acute the pain of being away from my wife longer than I ever had was our first wedding anniversary, which came during my third week at Basic. Drill Sergeant Jackson took pity on me, and offered me unlimited time on our phone call on my anniversary day. When the phone call came, I monitored everyone else and went last. After 11 minutes of blathering on to my wife, I ended the call. There seemed nothing to talk about, like a final call before a death sentence. Jackson showed his compassion, however. He had been there before, and he understood that I couldn't function properly at Basic without a solid relationship with my sweetie.

A learning story:
As we paced around tents at our mock forward operating base, sleep nearly suffocated us. We had got less than six hours of sleep over the past 45, and the entire platoon marched with rifles ready in the black of the night. It was scary at the time, infuriating. In hindsight comical. But I realized at that moment that these were merely games, devious ways the drill sergeants tested us. It might have been silly, but real personal growth could take place during those times. I learned patience and forgiveness.

Something that wasn't in the book:
I had to cut a lot out. Basic Training was so much more than a series of stories, but books have limits. One thing I had to scrap was the time when Drill Sergeant Robertson ordered two Soldiers from another platoon to come and do exercises in front of us as we practiced our combatives. Then, he ordered them to drink unconscionable amounts of water until they threw up all over our floor. We felt for these guys, but our desire for vengeance against other platoons had to be quenched. And even though we all knew our drill sergeant was being abusive, we took some sort of perverted pleasure in it.

You'll have to buy the book to learn about the Code Red.

So get to know me a little bit, and check out Nine Weeks. Post a comment after you have gone to Amazon. I'm checking up on you.

Following the Leader

2009-12-10T10:00:00.000-08:00

What does getting excited about a math test have to do with the Army?

If you'd like to know, you've come to the right blog.

Several years ago, in my life before soldierhood, I taught math to "traditionally underserved" students, a term that basically means the school district they were in sucked.

But we had a good school, and an even better math department. One of my challenges was to get these kids excited to learn and excited to show what they learned.

Long before I was a member of the Army, I had a crowd of generals...looking up to me. One of my strategies was to reward students who scored a 4.0 on an exam (the equivalent of a near-perfect score) membership among Stowell's 4-Star Generals.

It was just one way to motivate kids to want to do their best, and many of my students genuinely looked forward to taking those tests.

In the real Army, a command sergeant major of mine once wrote, "We need leadership, not likership."

What about "respectership?"

The ironic thing is that nobody I knew liked the CSM, nor did they think he was a good leader. He certainly didn't garner any legitimate respect.

Now the tie-in. My students respected me, and looked toward me for leadership. They gave their all for me and performed well because I had set up a system in which they felt safe, valued, and respected, yet challenged. Guess what-- they also liked me.

Leadership and "likership" are not incompatible. In fact, they often complement each other.

Too many Army leaders will end up like the poor CSM: no friends, and nobody who will follow them anywhere unless forced.

A true leader can have positive influence without all the stripes.

So when Soldiers tell me they hated math, I tell them it's because they didn't have the right teacher. If you don't like the Army? I'll let you figure that one out.

(Photo by SPC Drew Balstad)

Home Sweet Home

2009-12-02T12:49:00.000-08:00

I am officially a civilian again. After a year with California's 40th Infantry Division, and a long week at Fort Lewis, we were released to our families for Thanksgiving.

And I am thankful to be away from the 40th.

A wonderfully talented unit form North Dakota has replaced us in Kosovo, so the mission in the Balkans is in good hands. You won't be seeing any more KFOR Files or Peacekeeper Videos.

But I still have plenty to write about. The blog will go on.

I have been doing a lot of thinking about the transition from Army to civilian life. Among my many mental strolls is education. I will begin teaching again soon, and I can't help but ponder, and celebrate, the distinct teaching model that dominates many good schools in the SF Bay Area. Contrasting that is the poorer Army model, so as I reintegrate in civilian teaching, many topics will beg to be blogged upon.

Another thought: I live in Oakland, a fairly dangerous city, by most measures, and I go about my business daily without a reflective belt, Kevlar helmet, or reporting to a headquarters. I'm fine. It makes me wonder why Soldiers are treated like toddlers when they assume the most challenging responsibilities.

Let me reconsider that last statement. I have a toddler (and one of the highlights of returning home is getting to know him). I don't denigrate him for every misstep and expect him to stand still until I get the count right. So Soldiers are often treated like babies, except without the fawning.

A final thought: President Obama has made the pitch to send more troops to Afghanistan. I will not comment on this blog. Politics has its own place, and if you're interested in my political views, visit my website and follow the links to my ChronWatch posts.

Check back weekly for some upbeat posts. I am happy to be home.

Demobilization = Demoralization

2009-11-17T17:14:00.000-08:00

Over 1000 troops from the California National Guard are returning from a near year-long deployment to Kosovo.

The mission is complete. Kosovo is safe. We did our duty, and our families are waiting to see us.

But there is tiny step we have to complete before that plane ride home. It's a series of procedures designed to close out our activation: dental and medical checks, final administrative documentation upkeep, and signing the all-important DD 214.

All this takes place (for us) at Fort Lewis, Washington, where we are given the hero's welcome and housed in run-down building almost 70 years old.

We have sacrificed our time and safety, left our families to fend for themselves, and served a foreign people in a foreign land without complaint all in the name of patriotic honor.

After all that we are met with one final indignity.

I'm not expecting the red carpet, but seriously, I'm sleeping in a bunk that may well have been a Korean War vet's bed. That should be some sort of honor, I suppose.

I just think that there are a lot of ways that the Army could pretend it appreciates its returning warriors more.

You've got to see this chow hall that we have. I think some of the canned foodstuffs were also left over from the Korean War.

To top it all off, a process that should last three days is being dragged out to eight. That's not exaggeration, either. Many of us arrived on Saturday. The contractors don't work weekends, so we began with briefing on Monday, and got our hour-long dental visit out of the way on Tuesday. The remaining three days of the work week will be filled with approximately six hours of tasks.

Gym usage is at a deployment high.

We'd like to get home. The Army doesn't seem to be responsive to Soldiers' needs or wants.

I'll bet those of you who have been deployed have some stories of your own.

A Penetrating Glimpse of Army Basic Training

2009-11-09T13:17:00.001-08:00

Many of you may know that I have completed my account of Basic Training.

During my horrendous stint at Fort Sill for Army boot camp, I recorded many thoughts in my daily journal and dozens of letters to my wife.

Basic Combat Training so scarred me that I decided to put my experience in book form. It's done. The wounds have healed, and I have successfully evaded complete indoctrination, so I am prepared to tell it like it is.

The book is about my time in Basic. Nine Weeks, it's called. And people tell me it's funny. My wife told me it's hilarious, and though I have to take any compliment she pays me with a grain of salt, others have corroborated her assessment.

So in approximately one month from now this book will be available on Amazon.com. I hope you get jonesed for it and decide to get yourself an early Christmas present.

Remember, Nine Weeks. You can read slightly more about it at my website: www.rich-stowell.com.

If you've served, I'd love to hear your stories of Army Basic Training. If you've never been, I'd like you to post what you think boot camp is really like. Because my misconceptions were shattered when I went over two years ago.

And all I have is a book to show for it.

Guarded Speech

2009-11-05T11:40:00.000-08:00

I had a wonderful conversation with two officers the other day. While discussing the pros and cons of Army organization and culture, I admitted that I could not be totally honest with them.

They seemed surprised and even disappointed.

But, as I often do with Soldiers who outrank me, I had to remind them that their world is colored by the insignia planted on their chests. We are all affected deeply by rank dynamics; it is impossible to avoid it. That is, after all, why the military has formal rank.

But it always surprises me when people claim that it doesn't affect them, that somehow rank doesn't matter. Such a claim is an utter delusion.

Not too long ago I was in a meeting with a couple of dozen Soldiers: two lieutenants, four captains, half a dozen majors, a handful of light colonels, a full-bird, and a smattering of staff sergeants, sergeants first class, and master sergeants. There was one other E4 besides me.

It was an informational briefing, and I was struck by how desperately everyone was out to impress the colonel with their information. It was the bling at BET awards night.

Even the colonel noticed, and brought it to a halt: "If you don't have anything don't put it in [the slide]. Don't make it up."

Aside from the sycophantic spewing of information, relevant or not, I also noticed how guarded everybody seemed to be. Opinions were offered half-heartedly, not-so-good news was explained away in the most rationalizing terms, and clarifications were cut short prematurely because of a perceived look of annoyance on the part of the high-ranking.

None of this is healthy for an organization that feeds on information. The main things that were accomplished from this particular meeting were that those who performed well or said the right things got a few brownie points with the colonel, while those who offered unflattering information or did anything timidly lost points.

Somebody needs to wise up to the fact that good decision must be based on a free exchange of information. The problem is that those at the top are probably not wise enough, and those at the bottom are too afraid to let anyone know.

How open and honest is communication in your organization?

This Isn't 'Nam, There Are Rules

2009-10-28T23:57:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-19T06:16:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-12T08:50:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-10-07T08:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-02T00:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Sign This!

2009-09-29T04:03:00.000-07:00

Some months back I wrote about the most asinine Army sayings, and "It is what it is" topped the list.

The advent of the NFL season makes it more appropriate than ever, but I digress.

An even more idiotic phrase is now vying for the top spot. "You signed on the dotted line" has to be right up there, not for the frequency of its utterance, but the ignorance of its meaning.

Let's put it in context. Leaders like to use this weapon of wit when Soldiers endeavor to complain about any illogical Army policy or procedure. An example: In a forward operating area, Soldiers are required to wear bright green reflective belts any time they have PT uniforms on. It's supposed to keep us safe by making us visible, but besides being a huge drag for a number of reasons, it isn't consistent with two facts. (1) The PT uniform has substantial reflectivity built in and (2) We can stroll about at our leisure anytime and anywhere in our camouflage uniform!

"This doesn't make sense," says the junior Soldier.

"You signed on the dotted line," replies his leader in a quick bout of argumentation.

It's supposed to convince us to abandon our human instinct to reason for eight years.

First of all, I don't recall any line being dotted, but that’s beside the point, which is, that nowhere in that contract does it say I have to consistently follow idiots.

I am not arguing that the existence of idiots in the Army nullifies my contract. But it certainly increases the likelihood that'll I'll complain, and simultaneously decreases the likelihood that I am going to sign a second contract.

Please, if you are an E-8 or above and you are reading this, don't say things like, "You signed the dotted line." It makes you sound foolish. And I'd like to have to stop adding sayings to my list.

Army Sneetches

2009-09-22T04:08:00.000-07:00

Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.
Those stars weren’t so big. They were really quite small.
You might think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all.

Soldiers, as Dr. Suess’s classist characters once did, wear our rank on our chest. The Army wants people to know who they are talking to, and that’s a good thing. But it’s not exactly the best way to facilitate good communication.

Once, as a young substitute teacher at a high school, I had parked my car in the faculty lot. The school’s principal stopped me and said I couldn’t park there. Annoyed, I politely informed him that I was a teacher, not a student.

As an older teacher told me at that moment, “he’s such a doofus.”

The Army doesn’t like doofuses, so they identify everybody clearly and boldly.

With rank so prominent in the equation, they forget the other two identifiers, the Soldier’s name and the US Army label on every single uniform. Aren’t these more important?

But, because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
Would brag, “We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.”
With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they’d snort
“We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!”
And, whenever they met some, when they were out walking,
They’d hike right on past them without even talking.

The rank insignia becomes an impediment to communication and an excuse for arrogant leaders to look down upon juniors and remind the latter to take it from the former.

Thank goodness we have civilian lives. After a deployment or drill, most Soldiers will go back home and back to work where artificial castes don’t prohibit good communication, cooperation, and respect.

Back to that place where all the Sneetches forget about stars
and whether they had one, or not, upon thars.

Trapped in an Army Box

2009-09-15T10:56:00.000-07:00

Sir Arthur Clarke is best known for his novel, 2001: A Space Odyssey. A science-fiction writer and futurist, he is also known for the Law that bears his name: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

Clarke is saying that when experienced people see possibility, they are being visionary. When they see limits, they are just plain shortsighted and stubborn.

Experience is supposed to bestow all sorts of wisdom, and nowhere more than in the Army. Senior leaders are to guide and mentor younger, less-experienced soldiers and prepare them to meet any kind of challenge.

Unless keeping one’s boots laced up tightly is what passes as challenging in today’s Army, then our leaders are failing us.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates famously urged warriors to think creatively: “An unconventional era of warfare requires unconventional thinkers," Secretary Gates told Air War College students in 2008.

"For the kinds of challenges America will face, the armed forces will need principled, creative, reform-minded leaders."

The secretary conceded that it will be difficult. "Virtually every institution is organized in a way to stifle out-of-the-box thinking," he said.

That’s an understatement in the Army. We have built the walls up so high that we’re suffocating.

People can only imagine what they know today, and it takes creativity and humility to consider what we haven’t experienced. The Army needs to encourage such thinking more, and admit that, very often, the most creative minds are at the bottom of the totem pole.

That’s what makes Gates’ admonition so tough—it assumes that current leaders aren’t doing enough. They are, after all, the most rigid and least humble of all.

And Clarke? Well, in the real world, elderly scientists are very near their expiration.

Guard More Important Than Ever

2009-09-04T14:08:00.000-07:00

The AP recently reported a reduction in National Guard recruiting. Ostensibly, the Pentagon doesn’t need such a large reserve component, and the Guard is oversized. Other theories include “suspicions inside the Guard and out that the reductions are part of an effort to shift the burden of fighting overseas onto the active-duty Army and ease the public outcry over the way that Guard units…have been sent on long, repeated combat tours in Iraq.”

Such outcries are usually standard fare in the demagogic ramblings of politicians who mask an anti-military worldview with feigned concern for service-members and their families. But if the public at large has reservations about the Guard’s role in the overall national military strategy, it is misplaced. America has long relied on its citizen soldiers. It should do so even more.

The Guard legacy goes back to 1636, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony formally organized its militia companies. Thus the National Guard, a direct descendant of the Massachusetts militia, is older than the United States itself.

The importance of our militia is enshrined in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 assumes the existence of state militias and authorizes the Congress to call on them “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Guardsmen and their militiamen forebears have served the people and their representatives with distinction since the Revolution. In all our major wars, victorious American Soldiers usually went home to families, farms, businesses, and careers, leaving the bloody mess of battle and its aftermath to the politicians.

Our founders entrusted the security of our Republic to its citizens acting as part time Soldiers. Although the Continental Army, commanded by George Washington, was instrumental in guaranteeing American independence, a successful break from the British Crown would have been unthinkable without the militia, both militarily and politically.

Politically because colonists took up arms to defend their rights against tyranny, and proved in action that such a defense was their natural and rational right. Mobilizing the citizenry for a common cause helped solidify public opinion in favor of the politics of independence.

Militias made political sense, but they also understood that it was imperative to the cause of liberty. To ask men to make the sacrifices that war demands in defense of their freedom makes for the most politically-active and engaged citizenry. An armed citizenry willing to fight for freedom also keeps the government honest, and its actions close to the will of the people.

The Bill of Rights famously refers to a “well regulated Militia,” as a necessary condition “to the security of a free State.” The Continental Army was all but disbanded after the Revolution, but the militias remained in place.

Today there are many practical reasons for the American people to put its faith in citizen Soldiers. For one, Guardsmen and women have valuable skills that military academies and training camps can’t teach. Our Guard force is filled with accountants, firefighters, plumbers, truckers, police officers, teachers, nurses, and more. They represent our nation more genuinely than a full-time active force ever could. The men and women in the Guard are more grounded in the communities they represent, and thus are ambassadors to the world. The Soldiers of the United States National Guard are the best our nation has to offer.

Maintaining a force of citizen warriors costs much less, too. They train regularly without requiring the burdensome costs of permanent garrison, salary, and family benefits.

With the recruitment reductions, they are becoming even more elite. Minimum test scores are up, bonuses down, and age and physical requirements more stringent. Still, folks are lining up, eager to serve.

Our active army plays an important role in our national defense, but one that ought to be minimized if we truly want to advance the cause of liberty at home and abroad.
Technology can fill the gaps left by a reduction in active forces. Advanced logistics and a strengthened national will to fight important wars—fueled by the understanding that America’s citizens will be willing to fight only the most important wars—will enable fast mobilization of reserve and Guard components.

The last thing America needs is a bloated, full-time, professional army. The founders were mistrustful of that, and we should be, too. Our founding fathers have been proven prescient on so many counts since. Too often we have ignored their example and warnings to our peril.

(Photo by SGT Teddy Wade)

The Paradox of the Military Ideology

2009-08-28T11:23:00.000-07:00

It is almost axiomatic in American politics that the military constituency is on the right. This fact can be attributed to several factors: the idea of American Exceptionalism that the military promotes, our history of fighting wars against the totalitarian left, the United States’ military flexing against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and the code of an absolute morality that motivates the citizen to be willing to sacrifice himself for country. Conservative positions all.

Yet, the military organization itself is about as far to the left as any could be. In fact, it resembles a veritable communist society, one that Orwell couldn’t have caricatured any better.

In the division of labor, management has total control as it might in some socialist commissar’s office, with none of the efficiency.

There are brain workers and laborers. The latter mustn’t ask too many questions of the former, lest they be labeled “enemies of the people.”

We have a strict rationing of resources that party leaders wisely calculate.

Party leaders have a way of getting better goods than do the proletariat. Perks above and beyond what are deemed suitable for the common man are set aside for party elders—the senior officer corps. If one disrespects a Party Man, he invites the wrath of the machine upon him.

All the while my fidelity to the cause is judged less by my effort to do a good job than by how snappy I am with a salute or citing regulations about uniform wear.

We still fight for the best way of life human history has ever recorded, but if we ever had to defend it against a socialist army, it might be difficult to distinguish our brand of fighting for freedom from our foes', much as Orwell himself declared, “the creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Why?

2009-08-25T07:02:00.000-07:00

It’s a powerful question.

Good teachers relish it, poor ones loathe it.

So it is in the Army—trainers and leaders ought to understand the potential that this query brings. It is a gift, an opportunity for them to instill in Soldiers an understanding, and a better fighting ability, than they would otherwise have.

Sadly, too many Army leaders are afraid of the question, “why?”

Why?

Glad you asked. It is because they misinterpret it as a sign of dismissive disrespect. They see it as a challenge to their authority. Having taught high school for several years before enrolling, in my thirties, as a freshman into the School of the Army, I can empathize with the view that experts should be trusted.

When I explain to my students the best way to tackle a complicated problem, or how best to work in teams, I shouldn’t be afraid to have to justify it. I should, and usually do, recognize it as either a desire to get down and dirty with the issue, or a chance to share and improve on a method.

George Santayana called skepticism “the chastity of the intellect.” According to his aphorism, there aren’t many virgins in the Army.

Too many Soldiers refuse to understand why they do what they do. The powers that be have a stake in creating the culture that despises understanding, similar to the way that Frederick Douglass’ slave master feared his slaves’ education.

Soldiers are often held in intellectual bondage. But our masters have no need to fear—we are here voluntarily! We can be trusted! Please, tell us why we do what we do!

When I get back to the classroom, I will encourage students to ask “why.” It makes for better learning, better students, and better citizens.
The Army should do the same—it will make for better Soldiers.

Cookies

2009-08-19T11:06:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, a friend mentioned that she thought I was sarcastic. Before you wholeheartedly agree with her, she said that, specifically, my mention of cookies as one of the best Army perks was sarcastic.

Here's the deal. There are a lot of things about the Army that I love. I made a whole list of them. And, yes, I did include the Camp Bondsteel chocolate chip cookies on that list.

In a rare moment of sobriety, I was not being sarcastic. I hereby defend my original declaration that "the cookies are amazing."

I even offered to my commander that, if they ever took the cookies away, he'd have to take my weapon. A bit of a scare erupted when the next day the good folks who do the baking at CBS substituted a new caramel cookie for the original, amazing, chocolate chip ones.

I almost flipped.

But the perks were back the next day, and I have been happy since. To respond publicly to the accusation that an otherwise serious Soldier would claim the cookies as an Army best sarcastically, I have two things to say.

First. The cookies are really good.

Second, there are only about nine things better.

Cookies rule.

Protecting the Force from Common Sense

2009-08-17T23:17:00.000-07:00

It's hazardous to our safety here to have trash receptacles near our barracks.

If it doesn't make much sense to you, then clearly you haven't been in the Army. Or long enough, like me.

One day, the dumpsters that had successfully received our refuse for months were gone. They must be getting cleaned or replaced, right? Well, as it turned out, no... they were removed to save our lives.

Setting new lows for risk tolerance, someone or some committee decided that it was safer to remove the dumpsters to a location unknown. It's an OpSec thing. I have heard that these dumpsters are just too tempting for bomb setters.

So, there are many dumpsters available around the work areas and the chow hall, but now we have to walk twice as far to throw things away. I suppose that they think we either need more exercise, or this is some sort of tax that they hope will result in the production of less trash. My guess is that folks will simply let it pile up higher in their rooms-- I think we need a Risk Assessment done on that.

Anyway, now what we get is a pile of trash at the former dumpster site. You couldn't hide a bomb in that, could you? What about all the grills-- perfect hiding places for explosive devices, right? (What's the over-under on how soon a policy letter will be released to regulate leaving lids off the barbecues?)

Instead of telling us what was going on, and giving us proposed alternatives, they just wanted us to guess at what happened to the dumpsters. After all, if the ordinary Soldier had a clue about what was happenning and why, we could start acting independently and making decisions for ourselves. And that's the biggest threat to the "Force."

The Flag Question Answered

2009-08-11T04:31:00.000-07:00

This was a can of worms. I will attempt to pack the slimy things back in and seal it up nicely without getting any slime on me. Many good points were made. Isn’t open debate wonderful?

First, my assessment of the situation.

There is undeniably a lot of antipathy in the United States towards Mexican immigrants. No need to open a new can of worms with a lengthy explanation. But Canadians aren’t immigrating by the hundreds of thousands, and even if they were, it wouldn’t be very apparent, given their language, customs, and complexion.

Having said that, I personally love the contributions of Mexican culture to our own. I just enjoyed a scrumptious meal of: one beef enchilada, one taco, and some strange potato dish that claimed to be part of the Mexican fare. That meal-—a refreshing change at the Camp Bondsteel D-FAC—-would have been unlikely but for the Mexican influence in the United States.

Alright, first is the point oft-made that Army Soldiers should pay homage to one flag. Agreed. But flying another doesn’t have to take away from the fidelity rendered to Old Glory, does it? The real issue behind some of the comments is that of sameness.

Army leaders—-leaders of any organization, for that matter, but especially Army types—-can’t stand individuality. They want to look over their dominions and say, “what a nice, tidy, uniform bunch of people I have.”

Anytime a leader makes a general rule to address a specific situation, he is overreaching and overreacting.

Better the attitude, I think, to (pardon the bumper sticker phrase) “celebrate diversity.” A leader should be saying, “Look here, I have 1500 troops that represent dozens of cultures, religions, language preferences, and sports teams, and we are all in unity as to the mission.

“Unity of Effort,” is, in fact, one of KFOR’s mottoes. Not “Unity of Thought” or “Unity of Appearance.”

Some in the Army can’t get past their fetish for conformity in appearance. The uniform is one thing, but there are many who can’t stand anything that deviates from their preferences or point of view.

So the Soldier who wants the Mexican flag taken down may be the most patriotic person in the force, and he may have friends who have died in combat, and he may send his grandmother flowers every week. But he’s the same guy who wants me trim back my bushes because they’re unsightly, or wants me to wash my car more often because it makes the neighborhood look trashy, or wants me to wear a tie to church because he doesn’t want others to get the impression that we all, God forbid, think differently.

Flying a flag of your choice doesn’t impede the mission.

Let’s not confuse tacky with right. It may be tacky to fly a Mexican flag. Hell, I live in downtown Oakland—not exactly the most military-friendly locale in the state—and fly an Army flag from my front porch. Most of my neighbors, and the radicals who pass by my busy street daily, think that’s tacky. Let ‘em.

I think Army leaders would be more comfortable if Mexican flags weren’t flown, and they wouldn’t have to worry about it. It’s reminiscent of a dialogue from the should-be classic The Breakup.

Vince Vaugn’s character: “Do you want me to do the dishes?”

Jennifer Anistons’ character: “I want you to want to do the dishes.”

Instead of trying to enforce a cult-like fanaticism of their preference for “Unity of Appearance,” they should spend a little time instilling the values that lead one to want to fly the American Flag. Then they can worry about regulating its size, fabric, etc.

So here’s a recap:

 Should a U.S. Soldier be allowed to fly a Mexican flag from his porch on a forward military base? YES
 What if the flag was Canadian or British? YES and YES
 Should the command craft a policy letter prohibiting offending flags? NO
 How would you deem which flags are prohibited, given the fact that the forward base is home to seven NATO nations? WHATEVER IS IN EXISTING MILITARY CODE: HATE GROUPS ETC., WOULD BE BANNED
 Would state flags be subject to the same regulations? What about athletic team flags? EVERYTHING GOES, EXCEPT FOR THE LAKERS AND YANKEES

A Return to Cynicism

2009-08-03T11:55:00.000-07:00

My wife recently told me that, after rereading all my posts on this blog, she saw an evolution in my attitude from resentment to contentment. Well that just made me mad! A content Army muckraker seems oxymoronic; so, in the spirit of resentment...

But perhaps there is a strain of resignation in my attitude, not from contentment, but from the numbing resignation that comes from working in a system designed to beat one into submission.

OK, that’s enough of that. This week, a particularly delicious ethical query was brought to my attention, and I’d like to test the engagement level of my tiny audience. Please post your comment on the blog! Many of you reply to me, and, as much pleasure as I take from corresponding with you, I think your fellow blog readers will benefit from your wit and wisdom.

Here we go! Keep in mind that this particular ethical query is based on actual events.

Should a U.S. Soldier be allowed to fly a Mexican flag from his porch on a forward military base?
Now, many of you will, no doubt, have reflexive responses to this question. I REALLY want to read your comments, and I am VERY curious about their variety.

Before you type out your answer, consider these additional thought-provoking questions:

 What if the flag was Canadian or British?
 Should the command craft a policy letter prohibiting offending flags?
 How would you deem which flags are prohibited, given the fact that the forward base is home to seven NATO nations?
 Would state flags be subject to the same regulations? What about athletic team flags?

I hope this has been a fun and exciting experience. Remember, the experience isn’t over until you post your thoughts.

And for you die hard seekers of truth, I will post the correct answers to all questions next week.

(Photo of the actual flag under controversy by me)

Ten Things I Love About the Army, Part II

2009-07-28T12:22:00.000-07:00

Contrary to popular belief, I was able to come up with ten things. Splitting the list was simply a nefarious marketing scheme to tease you into coming back. If you're reading this, it must have worked.

Without further ado, the rest of the things I love about the Army.

6. Bigness and Badness: So the Marine Corps may be first to fight, and the Navy has a fleet that can respond to any crisis, and of course the Air Force has devastating quick strike capabilities...but when we need raw manpower, it’s the Army that gets the call. It's the biggest force with the most firepower. We can take a piece of land and nobody can do a damn thing about it.

7. Respect for Civilian Authority: Ever since Washington resigned his commission to the Continental Congress, our Army has maintained that proud tradition of following our elected leaders. There has never been a serious thought about a military coup, and military leaders make it apparent by their deference to politicians that they have no interest in politics. Good stuff.

8. Physical Training and Hydration: Physical fitness is a virtue, and all efforts are made to encourage it. In addition to getting the troops to exercise, the Army keeps us healthy by getting us to drink tons of H2O. I love water, and I love that the Army loves me enough to make me drink lots of it. From cases of bottled water to the urine color charts, the Army does it darned best to keep the force hydrated.

9. The Army Strong Song. Listen to the full version and try to tell me it doesn't make you want to watch the Dirty Dozen or When We Were Soldiers again. You can download the mp3 and other songs at http://www.army.mil/fieldband/pages/listening/downloads.html

10.Camp Bondsteel DFAC Chocolate Chip Cookies: Army food is usually pretty good. Never mind the fact that it is rarely made by the Army, but...OK, OK, I almost forgot this is a positive posting. I have to keep reminding myself: things I love about the Army. The cookies are amazing.

The criticism resumes next week.

MILblogging-- We Are Engaged

2009-07-23T06:31:00.000-07:00

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Ten Things I Love About the Army, Part I

2009-07-21T02:46:00.000-07:00

If you only knew me by reading this blog, you might get the impression that I dislike the Army. Well, I am here to set the record straight. Nine out of ten postings may be unabashed, searing criticism of the Army, but the exception that proves the rule is here!

In all seriousness, I am proud of the Army, and still wear the uniform with humble admiration for what it represents. In that spirit of reverence, I proudly present, the Ten Things I Love About the Army Part 1:

1. Drill and Ceremony/ Pomp and Circumstance: It is impossible to watch an Honor Guard, a tightly choreographed drill, or Soldiers salute their fallen comrades or a noble leader without being moved. The United States Army is one of the last bastions of a codified time-honored respect in our culture.

2. Uniforms: ACUs are just cool. The digital pattern implies progress and modernity. The cut says utility and versatility. And there are even three pen pockets on the sleeve! I don't know what that says, but it's handy. It's also nice to not have to worry about what you're going to wear to work.

3. Constant Training Mentality: The U.S. Army is in a transitional phase, to an "Objective Force." The future force, say the optimists, will have smarter and more adaptive Soldiers. There's a lot to get ready for, and in order to prepare, the force is always looking to learn new things.

4. Benefits: I have earned a little latitude for selfishness, I think, as have all volunteer Soldiers. Some of the benefits are wonderful, from tuition assistance and student-loan forgiveness, to commissary privileges and military flights. Many civilian merchants offer military discounts, and there are a plethora of fringe benefits, like online libraries, free software, and legal advice. My wife and I were once considering forking over $80 a month each for a gym membership when we realized there was a military station not five miles from our home, whose gym we could use 24 hours for free.

5. Diversity: Call me touchy-feely, but I appreciate the variety. It is nice to know that our Armed Forces are fairly a portrait of our wonderfully diverse nation. I have met Soldiers from every racial, religious, ethnic, and cultural background while in the Army, and we are all better for it.

(DoD photo by Army SGT Teddy Wade)

Radio Talk Show Host Gives Love to Guard

2009-07-17T22:06:00.000-07:00

Hugh Hewitt, nationally-syndicated radio talk show host, author of a dozen books, columnist, blogger, and all-around good guy, paid a visit to the troops at Camp Bondsteel. His trip wasn't for a photo-op, but to really find out what the men and women of the California National Guard are doing here.

His latest column at TownHall is a pretty good indicator of what he found:
http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2009/07/17/kosovo_and_the_american_citizen_soldier_of_the_national_guard?page=full&comments=true

Top (or bottom) Army Sayings

2009-06-23T17:25:00.000-07:00

After some additional input, I updated the list. Please feel free to contribute your least favorite Army sayings.

10. "I'd like to echo what [so-and-so said]": This comes from sanctimonious senior leaders who think that Soldiers hang on their every word, but are incapable of forming an original thought. Thus, they hang on other people’s thoughts and simply echo them.

9. "At ease the noise/ Lock it up": In the Army, “be quiet” means nothing. We need our own special phrase, and it is more effective if it is ungrammatical and nonsensical. Is “at-ease” a single word, an intransitive verb? Or does it take an object, “the noise?” We will never know, because whatever Soldier uses the phrase has no knowledge of the simple parts of speech.

8. "Next slide": This qualifies because of the number of times it is uttered. It is perfectly sensible to say it, but let’s examine why Soldiers say it. Because the Army still hasn’t discovered the wireless remote for PCs! We spend billions on weaponry and training, even countless man hours preparing lame slide presentations, but we can’t invest in some clickers? Do we really need a sergeant sitting there by the computer so a presenter can feel important enough to not advance his own slides? Why does a slide advancer need to be of higher rank when the presenter is?

7. "The Risk Assessment is low": Do NCOs know what an assessment is? Risks are low, not assessments of them. Saying the risk assessment is low is like telling an overweight Soldier, “Gee, your tape measurement is long.” Just say, “You’re fat!”

6. "Tracking": the verb “to track” is synonymous to both “to pay attention to” and “to know.” You can track someone by looking at and listening to them, or you can know what they’re up to. Either way, it is overused and irritating.

5. "Secure your gear": Only in the Army can one phrase have simultaneous opposite meanings. Secure usually means “to put something away in a secure place.” But if you want to tell Soldiers to grab something, you simply say, “secure it.” So, put it down, or pick it up. One phrase fits all.

4. "As I was": Notably illiterate NCOs will say this instead of the preferred, though no less annoying, “as you were.” It is a very difficult order (?) to follow since, (1) there is no verb, and (2) it leaves itself open to extraordinary ambiguity. How was I? How far back do I go? Can I go back to before I joined the Army, when I didn’t have to stand and listen to retarded Soldiers tell me how they were?

3. "I say 'hooah'": “Hooah” is bad enough, but you don’t need to tell me you’re saying it. Just say it. I don’t go around announcing what I’m saying. “I say hello.” “I say I’m saying hello.” “I say the Army is retarded.” Oh, did I say that out loud?

2. "Too Easy": Everything is too easy in the Army. As a teacher, I had a saying in my classroom: "It's easy if you know it." If something is too easy, why do we constantly train at it. Of course, someone could say "too easy" as a way to hype up the job, only to set himself up for some big time disappointment if he fails.

Does It Have to Be What It Is?

2009-06-01T11:53:00.000-07:00

Number 1: "It is what it is." This detestable phrase rumbles off the lips of far too many Soldiers. The brainwashed Soldier will tell you that it is merely an honest acknowledgement that certain things are outside of his control, with the assurance that he is driving on with the mission stoically. In reality it is nothing but a gutless copout.

The Army should be creating Soldiers who can solve problems. Instead, they have assembled a crew of automatons who follow standard protocol and a host of rules and regulations. When a situation arises that challenges the norm, or when someone in authority puts the kibosh on something, instead of putting brainpower toward overcoming the obstacle, they throw their hands up in the air—“it is what it is!”

What a defeatist attitude. What if that was the Army’s response to the mounting combat deaths in Iraq? Or the surge in suicides? We should be the most resourceful team on the planet, yet that stupid, retarding phrase hinders Soldiers’ ability and desire to solve problems and think outside the box.

“It is what it is” is the stupidest saying in the Army.

The Retardation of Rank

2009-05-26T11:11:00.000-07:00

Rank retards you.

And the organization. Most successful organizations have figured this out, but the military has decided that it is an exception. The fact remains that a top-down, hierarchical command structure causes more harm than good. It results in inefficiencies, poor decision making, built in excuses for failure, and, worst of all, prevents the rank and file from reaching their potential as resources in the organization.

The problem with a strict rank hierarchy is that is enforces and reinforces a psychology of inferiority. Indeed, that is what is is meant to do: to remind those of lesser rank that their superiors are just that. The problem is that "superior" begins to mean all sorts of things that it is not, i.e, intellectual and moral superiority.

Any organization exists to solve problems. In the case of the Army, that truth is plainly evident. We don't deploy for kicks. The problems facing the modern American military are complex and deep. They require creative thinking and a systematic approach.

Decision makers in the Army rely on their rank to give their decisions force. Many times their decisions are good. Everyone makes good decisions. But everyone also makes bad decisions at times, and any smart organization would try to mitigate them or set up systems to keep them in check.

There are three ways in which the Army rank system thwarts good decisions:

First, most people end up making decisions not based on what is best for the organization, but based on the course of action most likely to please (or least likely to displease) their superiors. Such is human nature. Rank is inherently very conservative-- the rigidity is specifically designed to maintain the status quo, and ends up almost guaranteeing that the organization will shy from risk.

It is natural in armed conflict to be averse to risk, because the the results can often be death. History, however, is replete with examples of risk aversion leading to more suffering in the long term. But I digress. The point is that most Soldiers would rather make a mediocre or poor decision that will please a superior than a bad one that will upset the order.

Second, In a command structure, one's decision-making powers increase with his progression in rank. Thus, as one gets more responsibility to make choices, he surpasses more people on the totem pole. So naturally there are more below than there are above.

With more responsibility comes decisions of greater import. There are always going to be better ideas when more people are involved in the process. So as leaders need more minds on their problems, they systematically ignore them. Good decision-making power is summarily and perilously dismissed on the basis of rank inferiority.

Finally, rank and its trappings impede a healthy flow of information up and down the chain. James Surowiecki explains it nicely in his bestselling book, The Wisdom of Crowds:

"To state the obvious, unless people know what the truth is, it's unlikely they'll make the right decisions. This means being honest about performance. It means being honest about what's not happening. It means being honest about expectations. Unfortunately, there's little evidence that this kind of sharing takes place....One of the things that gets in the way of the exchange of real information is the deep-rooted hostility on the part of bosses to opposition from subordinates. This is the real cost of a top-down approach to decision making: it confers the illusion of perfectability upon the decision makers and encourages everyone else simply to play along. What makes this especially damaging is that people in an organization already have a natural inclination to avoid conflict and potential trouble. It's remarkable, in fact, that in an autocratic organization good information ever surfaces.

Th rigidity of military rank makes good decision making very difficult, and often impossible. Until it is too late, when the effects of poor decisions are already being felt. If decisions were made from the bottom up, or by people closest to the problems, then better choices would emerge.

Army Mal-Education

2009-05-26T11:08:00.000-07:00

There is a huge contradiction in the Army that bothers me particularly, probably because I am a teacher in my civilian life. There are many special programs offering us "free" education," yet the system seems to discourage Soldiers from acquiring more of it.

Now I know many will contend that is not true. I personally have seen dozens of Soldiers in classes, and according to folks at the Laura Bush Education Center here at Camp Bondsteel, nearly 300 troops are taking advantage of the education programs.

But, the vast majority are not. We have almost 2,000 Soldiers here, most of whom do not have college degrees. The command here is concerned about the number of Soldiers dropping classes. It was recently reported from on high that many classes would be cancelled because of lack of enrollment.

At the top, the Army would like everyone to have at least an associates degree. A smarter force is in everyone's best interest.

Why then , on this deployment aren't leaders more flexible in making these opportunities available to Soldiers. There is no excuse why a troop should not go home with at least 18 units under his belt.

I have yet to see a leader truly encourage his Soldiers to get educated. Many will say mission first. Why isn't getting educated part of the mission. Can't a Soldier, who is willing to dedicate many of his free hours to study, be given less hours in the field, on patrol, or in the office? Shouldn't a leader find it within his prerogative to let the Soldier study during the slow times during the work day?

Leaders are not giving their troops the time necessary to succeed. Why?

Three likely reasons come to mind.

1. Education undermines the Army system. In the civilian world, education opens opportunities for advancement, and bestows expertise and credibility, whereas in the Army, time in service, tours, and rank does. A parallel path instills fear in those who rely on the latter.

However, a Soldier with rank and experience should be able, willing, and good at incorporating a younger Soldier's education into the mission. It will enhance his team and his leadership.

2. Formal education's benefits are not directly visible in Army duties. Holding ground, patrolling a route, or clearing a building are all very kinetic tasks. Their performance relies on mastery or certain motions and reactions. Whether someone is good at math or understands the perspectives of the First World War has no perceivable effect on his accomplishment of any of the actions listed above.

Yet, if Soldier's have a better understanding of their world, they will be able to understand what is required of them even in the most myopic sense. And, the discipline, organization, and analytic skills that come with formal education will help every Soldier perform his job better, reactions more quickly, assess and develop better courses of action, and take proactive steps to avert crises.

3. Leaders are not educated, and don't see its value. Politicians have implemented all the programs available for Army education. It makes them look good. But the Soldiers who lead do not put it in the same high esteem as their civilian counterparts.

It is up to higher commands and civilian leadership to impress upon everyone the reality that a more educated Army is a more effective Army.

How Efficient Is the Army?

2009-05-12T04:14:00.000-07:00

The entry below originally appeared on my blog, "Musings of a Factotum back in February 2009." It is one of several repostings that fit the theme of My PA blog.

I was a Truck Commander today. That’s a glorified way of saying that I sat in the passenger seat while my buddy drove the humvee from the dispatch lot to our working area.

We had been assigned a vehicle, but the only one available was a tactical humvee. With any tactical vehicle come too many rules and restrictions. You need a ground guide to move in and out of parking lots, Kevlar helmets must be worn by all vehicle occupants, and drivers need to place blocks and drip pans whenever shutting down. So even though we are only driving the truck on paved roads in a one-mile radius at no more than 18 miles per hour, we are burdened with all these inefficiencies.

I understand that the United States Army is not designed to run with ruthless drive for profits. But the mentality of thoroughness translates into other areas. It took several man-hours to get the vehicle signed over to us. Two Specialists, a Sergeant First Class, a Major, and a civilian contractor all had their hands in the transaction. What productive items of business could at least some of these soldiers been engaged in?

There is no such thing as “military efficiency.” The U.S. Army is not efficient. It is thorough. Thoroughness can serve us well, but should it be the highest priority?
How many bright, talented people are stifled in the military because they are forced to comply with endless regulations and redundancies? In the world of the Army, even these people, as smart as they may be, end up as mindless automatons, more worried about compliance and approval from their superiors than about getting a job done right.

Frustration is the call word, even among these people. Everyone in the Army loves to say express how screwed up it is. One high-ranking officer told me not too long ago, “You need to become an officer so you can fix this.”

“You’re an officer!,” I shouted in my mind! It seems everyone can see how fouled up the system is, but no one sees how screwed up it is in their own area of responsibility, and nobody wants to tell their superiors that the way we’ve been doing it sucks.

At Basic Training, when I thought twice about executing a command that sounded mistaken, my drill sergeant told me not to second guess myself. As I noted then, even when you’re right, you look like an ass if you’re the only one.

That truism holds in the everyday institutional army. It is much easier to hide behind caution smothered in ineffectiveness, then to tread into open ground of risk, where the potential of figuring out better ways to do things lurk.

The Army is effective at being a behemoth of an organization, and can run itself for the sake of running itself.

Rank Is Obsolete

2009-05-06T11:38:00.000-07:00

It is an oft-repeated line in the Army that “we have a rank structure.” It is usually said by Soldiers to their inferiors as a way to excuse their lack of logic applied to a particular decision. They will maintain that the rank system, with its power and privileges, creates a smoother running organization—one that is quick and absolute in times of crisis. If it weren’t for rank, the argument goes, then there would be friction at all levels of decision-making and communication. Subordinates would question their leaders, and parallel parts would move in dissonance.

But what of other organizations that are much more efficient without rank?

A well-run school, for instance, surely relies on a power hierarchy; but the absolutes that accompany rank are absent. Juniors are free to question their superiors and push back on controversial decisions. Many items are brought to the vote of committees and informal groups, where give and take, compromise, and consensus rule the day.

But every organization must have some type of hierarchy in order to get things done. Well, maybe not. Malcolm Gladwell writes of Gore Industries (manufacturers of Gore-Tex) in his bestseller, The Tipping Point, that relatively small groups of employees get work done in a very efficient and effective way. There are no rank privileges, and bosses are not afforded any undue authority. Everyone works as a team, and they have a very successful business.

But in wartime, neither the taxpayer nor and the Soldier has the luxury of such cavalier associations, according to the rank theory. The risks are too great, one may argue, and the price for deliberation or indecision too high.

The fatal flaw in the argument is that it assumes a wartime posture. Fortunately, however, the United States military is rarely in a combat posture. For example, even during “wartime,” most Soldiers are in training or a readiness mode. Deployments take only a fraction of the professional Soldier’s obligation. Even when an element is deployed to a forward position, few of the Soldiers actually work in combat jobs. Out of all those, even fewer see battle.

Many who have been in forward deployments may debate this, but the fact of the matter is that out of all the man-hours available in the Army, very, very few are spent in scenarios in which split-second decisions mean life or death.

If that’s true, then wouldn’t an organizational model that encourages every worker to think through procedures and challenge bad decisions be better prepared for any situation, combat included? Just because things need to happen precisely in battle doesn’t mean that it can’t be well-thought and understood by everyone involved.
Besides, most military activities are not life-or-death situations. They are usually in preparation for a worst-case scenario, thus minimizing risk to the organization. What if the Army taught all Soldiers how to think and lead?

But thinking means questioning, and as a veritable aristocracy, the military elites would never allow for that sort of revolutionary change.

The modern American military is still very ancient in many ways. It’s rank structure, as we know it, is as old as nation-states themselves. Is it too radical to imagine a military in which rank is obsolete? Have we evolved enough to change our way of thinking?

I wonder if all the tasks the military has to accomplish could be better accomplished without the weight of rank bogging down decision-making. How many bad choices and policies could be avoided if underlings felt empowered to call it as they saw it? If more people questioned orders, and leaders anticipated questions, how much better would those orders be? If more could participate in the formulation of plans, how much more thorough would those plans be?

We have developed as a society in positive ways, tending toward democracy and active participation for all. We also have learned a lot about how humans think and what motivates them. Might it be time for the military to catch up?

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/916216

The Biggest Federal Work Program

2009-04-14T08:31:00.000-07:00

The entry below originally appeared on my blog, "Musings of a Factotum." I think a repost is appropriate here. It is the first of several repostings that fit the theme of My PA blog.

One realizes on an Army deployment that there are many Soldiers who don’t do much work. They represent all ranks and branches, and they are a drag on Army Efficiency.
But, if you’ve ever read anything I’ve written about the Army, you’ll know that I’ve never accused the Army of being efficient. Nevertheless, the reality is that too many Soldiers take advantage of the opportunity that Uncle Sam gives them to collect a paycheck without much effort.

A certain Sergeant Major—-representative of many, many more—-is past the point when he can retire. There are likely many E-8s who can fill his shoes admirably, so in the spirit of preparing the younger generation and giving troops an opportunity to grow, what does he do?

He stays on. And why not? He can take one more short year of his life away from home to collect good pay on deployment. He’s pulling in over $6,000 a month base pay. Add to that the housing allowance of over two grand, plus a few little extra goodies like sustenance pay, separation pay, and hazardous duty pay. All this is tax free.

So while the Army looks to replenish its ranks with young men and women, enticing them with bonuses and college money, it is merely adding to the dole of the largest Federal Work Program. Many politicians lament the size of our military, saying the money is better used helping put people to work. It already is.

Mean People in the Army, Theory One

2009-04-08T12:15:00.000-07:00

Mean people are attracted to the Army.

Our culture is replete with images of hardened men. The tough guy is still highly-admired, and a prototypical Soldier is one who looks serious, almost menacing, and emotionless.

To be sure, our military wants to portray to the public the image of a Soldier who is ready to help, assisting the downtrodden more like a Peace Corps worker, armed with not much more than a smile and a helping hand. Yet, in recruiting and one gets an entirely different portrait. The American Soldier is a professional warrior.

He must be ready and willing to kill in the name of country. Even of there are many jobs in the Armed Forces that will never require the use of deadly force, everyone is trained to use it. And it takes a certain meanness to be able to do this.

Applicants know this. New recruits often know exactly that they might face one day, and the fact of it attracts the kind of person that can handle it. In some cases Soldiers aren't made of the kind of mettle that a killer needs, and they often fulfil their contracts honorably and get out. Who stays? The killers. The mean ones.

Thus, the Army is an organization with a decidedly meaner profile than almost any other. Shouldn't it be?

Mean People in the Army

2009-04-05T12:43:00.000-07:00

Why are there so many jerks in the Army? There are at least two theories.

One says that the Army, and the nature of being a Soldier, attracts mean people. Knowing that military life can involve extreme violence, disruptions in personal and family life, and a lifestyle of deprivation, the meaner elements of society volunteer.

Another holds that the Army takes otherwise decent people and makes them mean. The rank structure, a culture that stifles and demeans, and an organization that frustrates natural human tendencies of freedom and creativity will ultimately drive niceness out of a person.

A third plausible explanation is based on my small sample size. I am deployed with the 40th ID from Southern California, and many would argue that SoCal has more than its share of jerks, so they are highly-represented on this deployment.

The third option is intriguing, but doesn't explain all the mean people I've met along the way or the many mean transplants to Southern California. No, either of the two main theories seems to offer a better explanation.

The Power of "No"

2009-03-23T06:20:00.000-07:00

Why do certain people reflexively say "no?"

"No" is a powerful word. It can stop an idea in its tracks, or take all the wind out of someone's sails.

It is also a much easier word to say than "yes."

Some people are gatekeepers. They have to say "no," and it can be hard. For such as these-- others rely on their ability to mean what they say. They protect people.

But too many people fancy themselves as gatekeepers when they are not. The Army has an overabundance of this type of naysayer. He feels he is doing a great service when he shuts someone down. He also ends his involvement in the process. If he says "yes," maybe", or "let's see how we can get it done," he invites more work. The man who says no too often is a lazy man.

Yet, shouldn't we be in the business of proactively solving problems? In such a world, shouldn't we facilitate instead of guard the gates? It takes more courage, creativity, and work to say "yes."

If the Army wants to be more successful in the future, it needs to teach people the power of "yes."

And soon.

Rank is Everything

2009-03-14T09:49:00.000-07:00

Rank is everything in the Army.

No matter how bad an idea is, rank determines its value.

No matter how rude somebody gets, their rank decides if it is proper.

There is no such thing as collaboration in the Army, because there is always a boss who has grown up in the Army system learning that stripes equal power. Authority too infrequently comes from time in service instead of wisdom or leadership. Thus, when it comes time to think through a problem systematically, the Soldier with the most rank can stop the process in its tracks the moment it gets too uncomfortable for him.

Discomfort is often a byproduct of a wonderfully constructive progression of idea development. Solutions are born from a sometimes painful introspection that requires criticism.

In the Army, criticism in anathema.

I walked past a Staff Sergeant, whom I knew, this morning. She was utterly rude. Though clearly having a bad morning, her comportment was disrespectful. People are entitled to bad days, but if the tables were turned and someone of lower rank committed the same social disgrace, he would suffer consequences. It is a “no go” to forego a polite greeting to someone of higher rank.

Army instructors fall into the rank trap. When delivering instruction, high-ranking people expect complete attention and respect during a class. When they have to present to officers who outrank them, or even peers, they can’t gain students’ attention with charisma or effective teaching tactics, because the social structure has never forced that skills upon them.

Blind obedience to rank is critical in battle, no doubt, but the modern Army does so much that is not combat related, that a change in culture may be due.
It will never happen until a general says so.

Too Big for its Own Good

2009-03-10T01:54:00.000-07:00

Like a bridge that collapses under its own weight, the United States Army is becoming too big; too heavy; to encumbered with its structure—regulations, rules, forms, and all the other trappings of a behemoth bureaucracy.

The Armed Forces of the United States of America is powerful enough to crush anything foolish enough to stand in its way, to be sure. But that reality is probably more a function of economic might than anything else.

The U.S. spends billions each year on the Army. Nobody can compete with that, and certainly nobody can argue that it does not do many things very well.

It scares people. It can occupy territories. It’s soldiers can provide security for nations to rebuild.

But as it gets more powerful, it relies on too much of that power to accomplish its mission. Far from a nimble fighting force, the U.S. Army has become a monster that may soon not be able to function in its own morass of density.

Specialist Stowell, Combat Correspondent

2009-03-01T12:03:00.000-08:00

I am a 46 Romeo.

In Army-speak, that means I am trained to gather and produce Army video news packages. We use the term "news" very loosely in the Army.

I am currently on deployment with KFOR 11, the NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo.

These are a few of my thoughts in the world of Army Public Affairs.