Tom: I'm no fan of PowerPoint, which I think undermines clear thinking. But in this case I think the colonel's gripe really was with mindless military bureaucracy. But let him speak for himself:

By Col. Lawrence Sellin (U.S. Army Reserve)
Best Defense guest columnist

I was assigned to the ISAF Joint Command (IJC) in Kabul for the last two months. Since arriving in Afghanistan my job had changed twice and in both cases I had no clear duties. Twice I asked my superiors for a more substantive assignment. Once I provided a high-level overview of proven management methodologies that I offered to the command as a means to address the quite apparent organizational issues at IJC. Nothing happened.

That frustrating situation was one of the triggers for writing my now infamous article "ISAF Joint Command -- Power Points 'R' Us."

The second trigger was more serious. Last autumn the US government announced that after 8 years and $27 billion, the Afghan Army training program was being declared a failure. Despite the fact that symptoms of failure were already appearing in the press years earlier, apparently no one in the chain of command spoke up. I wondered how much American, coalition and Afghan blood was shed while the program was heading toward failure. I wonder how much blood will be shed before the Afghan Army is ready.

With that in mind and after two months of observing the IJC function and speaking with people from all the sections, I decided to write a tongue-in-cheek description, an obviously over-the-top and sarcastic article hopefully containing threads of constructive criticism woven into the text. I largely succeeded in those aims with the very slight exception of how my superiors might react.

One of the main themes of the article involved the use of PowerPoint. I don't hate PowerPoint. In fact, I use it often. I do object to its use as a crutch or a replacement for serious thinking. Also, the overuse of PowerPoint can give the illusion of progress, when it is really only motion in the form of busy work. It can confuse the volume of information with the quality of information.

A second theme was the way in which organizations function and why they don't e.g. stovepipes, ad hoc or absent processes, run-away egos or adding bodies as a solution to every problem.

My favorite IJC "idea" was a senior officer's recommendation to install steel girders in the Joint Operations Center (JOC) so he could build a booth 10 feet off the floor where he could oversee operations on the JOC floor. Of course, the JOC floor is already supervised by the JOC director. So, there is nothing to oversee. It sounded more like he was building a throne room.

In any case, after the article was published and after a helpful colleague slipped a yellow-highlighted copy under his door, my major general supervisor politely and professionally asked me to leave Afghanistan. Another major general, who I had never met, but who had a previous unpleasant experience with an article-writer, ordered me behind closed doors so he could call me names. A case of projected anger, I suppose.

Seriously though, I think it is time for the American people to hold the senior military leaderships' (colonels and up) feet to the fire. When they make their reports to Congress, one can be sure that it is the best possible scenario that they can justify without lying. The phrase "progress is being made" should not be accepted as an answer. It is like saying "the check is in the mail."

Everyone should remember that these are military careerists. War provides the opportunity for testing their skills, getting medals and promotions. A compromise peace without their definition of "victory" might be considered a failure. They all want to march down Pennsylvania Avenue like General Norman Schwarzkopf. Likewise, the contractors want to continue making their huge profits. It is the common soldiers, however, who are providing the sweat and shedding the blood.

We must stop treating the Afghans like children. They are not. It is their country and for better or worse, they should start taking responsibility for it. There is little reason not to begin turning over responsibility now. Regional Command West is possible because it is the most peaceful part of the country. That could be followed by Regional Command North. Between now and next July, the coalition can concentrate on Regional Commands East, South and Southwest.

After that no more blank checks. In my opinion, time's up.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D., is a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and a veteran of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Until recently he was serving his second deployment to Afghanistan. The views expressed are his own and definitely do not reflect those of the U.S. Army or U.S. government. He was not compensated for this article.

DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

BURRCDR

5:03 AM ET

August 30, 2010

Very funny

I enjoyed the PowerPoints 'R' Us article. I agree with Col Sellin's characterization of the inane stupidity of a large volume of staff work. The generals are looking to get from their staffs what they gave their generals when they were in a staff role themselves. The holy grail of briefing involves taking a complex problem and making a short presentation that simplifies the problem, it's solutions, and measures of success in an easy to understand visual package (green-yellow-red anybody?) that is received without disagreement by the senior officer in attendance. There's no room for meaningful discussion in a tightly wound battle rhythm. Rather than getting angry at someone who's gone "rogue" and spoken out about the realities within their command, generals should be demanding to know why the only outlet for such lively insight is to go to the press. If the commanders and their chiefs of staff did a better job harnessing the potential of intelligent and motivated officers who are stifled by the structure of the system, everyone would be better off.

 

SEANROSSI

4:20 AM ET

August 31, 2010

August blues.

just back from vacation and time to ck Ricks' blog --- what's new????

some lame ass highly educated Colonel as a guest blogger talking about stuff that has been kicked around for months or years...
A call for the draft. AVF good riddance!!!!!
A chorus railing against for the scourge of powerpoint.
A bemoaning of staff bureaucracy in our military.
A discussion of tactics vs. strategy....where's Gian????
An insightful blog rehashing the need for the Powell Doctrine to regain its rightful place in our National Security discourse.

ahhh.

i beat booze; why can't I stop looking at this blog.

 

RUBBER DUCKY

12:00 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Ah, My Favorite Army. It

Ah, My Favorite Army. It takes a reservist to point out from inside the organization what is starkly visible from the outside: the US Army is broken, it needs overhaul and reform, it needs to take a giant step away from confusing tactics with strategy, it needs a serious look at the resources, national commitment, and time needed for COIN to ever succeed ... and acknowledgement of the absolute certainty that none of these will be provided.

And too, time to again ask just how great is the AVF, which has failed to provide desired outcomes in both Iraq (gee, that ended well...) or Afghanistan. The latter is our longest war ever. We have a defense budget of $685 billion. Is it unreasonable to ask that the vaunted AVF actually do something right. And then, with no answer, to challenge this vaca sagrada and consider a return to the draft.

Perhaps it asks too much of the Army to heal itself. But surely this nauseating display of wrap-in-flag patriotism of our national leaders might be backed up with actually giving a shit whether it works and whether our national interests are being served by just shoveling money to the poor souls trapped in the AVF and the shadow army of mercenaries from whom we contract war. We have a serious problem. Let's address it.

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

10:57 PM ET

September 1, 2010

Ducky

Honking the horn again as usual? Must I remind you AGAIN, the Draft Army and how well they did in Vietnam? Korea? Or how out of touch you are with what is and has been going on in the Military for a long time? The Army has been like this (Broken and poorly lead) for decades, the wars just brought it to light. The Navy is not much better, the only thing saving them is that the Oceans themselves tend to keep the ships and the crew's tight even in peace but the Navy does not know it is at war still and has the worst officer corps of all the branches IMHO as far as leadership goes, they just have not had to fight anyone yet so their ass does not show. The Marines and the 05 and below Infantry Officers in the Army as well as the SOF Communities and Air Communities are the only thing keeping any form of real leadership going.
As for you baseless, ad nauseam whines about the AVF you have yet to offer up a solution that is based on strategy and almost all based on a draft Military keeping us our of war or getting us out of the current ones due to what you think will be a rise in public furor. That is it, all of you past arguments are based on that.
Now, on topic that the Col. presented, yes, the Military Officer Corps in the Army is terrible, but that is what you get when over 60% of your 03's are getting out due to micro-management by upper echelon O's. Even NSW is losing a huge slew of O's who are 04 and below due to the same problems. You want change? Force out 50% of the Flags and 06's, the military is too heavy with them and they all look for busy work and ways to advance themselves, the days of caring about the men and the mission are pretty much gone with the rare exception at the Flag Level. The Col. makes a good point about some of them but he is also going off on a bit of tangent too, it is the same complaints that have been around for decades:
-Remove the business model for leadership
-Train the officers in tactical leadership
-Install REAL mentorship to the lower ranking officers
-Professional Training not based on 3M, TQL, or SIGMA
-Longer terms of command, 2 years and out for O's from one spot to another only keeps the ticket punching silliness going and gives no real time to learn the job they are in or make real changes if they are needed.

 

RUBBER DUCKY

11:29 PM ET

September 1, 2010

Simple response

Having a draft got us out of Korea (Eisenhower, '53: "Screw it. We're done here.") and Vietnam (peace talks began 10 May 1968 under Johnson, concluded in Paris in 1973 under Nixon, both presidents pressured to end the conflict by draft-created pressures at home). I've not said that the draft brings victory (whatever that would be in the current context) but rather than it ensures that our nation does war only for reasons that the people support and continue supporting.

Be assured, the people will fight for survival and contribute sons (and daughters, or at least should be) to defend our vital interests. But when the goals are vaporous and the cause as flighty as now, a draft would create the domestic pressures needed to end these forlorn wars. These are not sacred causes. The lives of our soldiers are precious, though, and too the cost of these conflicts (a trillion dollars! that's precious!).

Finally, the existence of a standing army is abhorrent to the nature of our nation and its history. It makes war too easy. It did, in Iraq. It makes war too distant, the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan from 2002 until recent months. The decision for war is a national decision. The nation should make it. The nation should be in it. We have no investment in the AVF whatever - these are someone else's kids.

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

12:21 AM ET

September 2, 2010

Not enough of a reason to scrap it

Sorry Ducky, this is a bit off the topic so I will refrain from doing the usual dance with you. That has not been shown and our history, if you read it a little more, will show that even in the Revolution they were hardly conscripts, they did not stay till the end of the conflict and that happened throughout our history. The argument you make is a weak one for abolishing the AVF, especially with the snide remarks you also make about the personnel in the AVF. A final note, getting us out of Vietnam cost the S. Vietnamese a lot, Congress only had to provide support via air and supplies and after both Ford and Nixon had promised to do so they reneged, hardly a great showing for the US with that. Korea? Really, it was a good idea to get out? Hmm...I wonder if that would turn out to be a problem 60 years down the road? Hmmm..........Yeah...we got out of Vietnam and Korea but at what long term cost to our allies, our integrity and the people we pledged to support? Sorry Ducky, I think you are way wrong on this and last I checked, you are part of that AVF you deplore so much if you were a "Cold Warrior", maybe you got caught on the tail end of the draft but you stayed on well into 20, so not sure why you keep to make terrible remarks like you have in the past such as calling those in the AVF mercs (Not on this post but in the past you have) and belittling their accomplishments as well. The argument and your attitude simply do not hold water on it Ducky.

 

RUBBER DUCKY

1:17 AM ET

September 2, 2010

Maybe ...

I have a low tolerance for twits...

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

7:46 PM ET

September 2, 2010

Wow, if that is true then..

The strength you must have to get up everyday and keep on going is truly remarkable.

 

PHIL RIDDERHOF

12:37 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Rest of the Story?

While I don’t know this story very well, my experience is that there is usually more to it than a simple: soldier tells “truth to power” and gets fired. In viewing the long string of “guest columns” that Col. Sellen has penned while in uniform and while deployed (tip to Wired’s Danger Room): http://www.upi.com/search/?sp=t&s_l=articles&ss=%22Lawrence+Sellin%22&s_term=ea, this might have been an outcome already coming, or just the last straw.

 

JPWREL

1:36 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Too much brass

My first impression on reading Co. Sellin’s comment was that the Army in particular but probably all the forces have way too many officers and too few constructive officer status assignments of value. The regular Army today employs 88,000 officers about 16% of the force about one officer for every 5.1 enlisted. If we were looking at a global situation where we might have to ramp up to 50 divisions this surplus might make some sense but the reverse is more likely. The USMC has about 10% officers and roughly 9.1 per enlisted man while the USN about 15% or one for every 5.4 enlisted. One can make their own conclusions about what this all means.

 

SOLDIERSDIARY

7:27 PM ET

August 30, 2010

some conclusions

some things you probably did not consider in those calculations:
-The U.S. Army has certain commands and functions that the USN and USMC do not have. for example, running numerous instillations, Medical Commands (many more Army Doctor/Nurses/Vets than the USN and USMC). The number of ROTC programs, etc.. All of these positions are top heavy. The list goes on, but to simply say the percentages are more or less in one branch of service than another lacks analysis. If you look at an Infantry Company/Battalion MTOE in the USMC and the USA, you would find that the ratio is just about the same. Your better than that JP.

 

JPWREL

10:04 PM ET

August 30, 2010

SoldiersDiary

All your points a quite valid and pretty much underscore that the U. S. military and the Army in particular does not run a tight and efficient ship (the Navy is little better and the USAF likely worse). The proliferation of ‘commands’ and the manning of other ancillary non-teeth functions while obviously inevitable to some extent seems out of control. While through the years we have radically altered technologically our combat, communications and support systems we still seemingly assign manpower little differently than we did in the Korean War. It seems that Bob Gates agrees with me.

 

SOLDIERSDIARY

5:19 AM ET

August 31, 2010

more

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at...the responsibilities of the services are directed by law. For example, all Joint Instillations (e.g. those in PACOM, EUCOM, etc...) are managed by the U.S. Army. So the garrison staff heads those operations up, they will be more officer heavy. Likewise, the FAO program is U.S. Army specific, yes, the other services assign officers to work in embassys, but no top heavy programs like FAO, and other functional areas.
I would think that the USAF has a a higher percentage of officers, as one friend once told me...the Air Force is the only service that puts its officers on the "front lines" while the enlisted are back doing support...albeit the front lines being at 20,000 feet.

 

WALKING WOUNDED

9:48 PM ET

August 31, 2010

USAF doctrine nearly precludes exposure to fire

JP, as I read the reports, USAF doctrine has precluded exposing their expensive strike and close air support platforms to fire in Afghanistan back to 2001. Maybe the A10's and Harriers (such as are still flying) are cleared for direct fire/getting shot at, but even the spec-ops AC135's are ordered back to base, and out of reach, during daylight. Marine/Navy jets are also to expensive and heavy/fast for their commands to send into mountain valleys, at the speeds that make them vulnerable.

Marine and Army helo and gunship crews are very nearly the last of the exposed aviator-warriors in our arsenal. And if they could get any higher, I bet they would.

 

WALKING WOUNDED

9:51 PM ET

August 31, 2010

oops

The above was in response to Soldiers Diary, re USAF officers taking the risks, which certainly was the case in VN.

 

WHISKEYPAPA

1:37 PM ET

August 30, 2010

PowerPoint -1.0

Did the French Army have powerpoint in 1940?

Walt

 

JPWREL

2:19 PM ET

August 30, 2010

WHISKEYPAPA

No, the French Army did not enjoy the fruits of PowerPoint in 1940 but what they did share with today’s U. S. Army is an infatuation with hardware and bureaucracy (indeed micromanagement) at the expense of initiative and technique. The French also misjudge the changing influence of technology upon the battlefield and continued the First World War practice of centralizing operational and tactical decision making while the Germans went in the opposite direction and increased the influence of local front line commanders to make assessments and decisions (‘Auftragstaktik’) of substance (at least until the winter of 1941 when Hitler began his own micromanagement of the growing disaster in Russia). This ‘Auftragstaktik’ practice on the part of the Wehrmacht that was directly derived from their successful ‘Stoßtruppen’ experience in the Great War.

 

WHISKEYPAPA

2:59 PM ET

August 30, 2010

I knew that!

But you said it better. :)

Walt

 

GTWICKLER

11:17 AM ET

September 3, 2010

Auftragstaktik

JPRWEL wrote:

"This ‘Auftragstaktik’ practice on the part of the Wehrmacht that was directly derived from their successful ‘Stoßtruppen’ experience in the Great War."

Actually, as Eitan Shamir writes, "Auftragstaktik was the German response to both the genius of Napoleon and the unavoidable friction and fog inherent to the phenomena of war. "

"The Origins of Mission Command

Mission command origins are usually traced to the reforms instituted in Prussia following the humiliating defeat at Jena (1806). The reformists concluded that the rigid, mechanistic army of the Ancien Régime was incapable of facing the challenges posed by Napoleonic warfare. The size, composition and tactics of modern armies had rendered obsolete the traditions of old. New technologies introduced by the mid-nineteenth century Industrial Revolution (primarily the rail, telegraph and breech loading gun) also called for new agile and flexible military organization and command systems.
Though decentralized command was practiced by many commanders throughout history, it had been more a reflection of an individual style. In contrast the Prussian-German army systematically developed it into a comprehensive body, and integrated it into doctrine and practice. Auftragstaktik was the German response to both the genius of Napoleon and the unavoidable friction and fog inherent to the phenomena of war. By successfully adapting these ideas into their military culture, the Germans were able to transcend personal style, units and time.
The fact it emerged in Prussia was due to a specific Prussian and German historical circumstances and forces that produced a unique strategic mind-set and military culture. It has developed top down by the German General Staff as well as bottom up through tactical innovation. It was also cultivated in the famous military academy the Kriegsakademie. Daniel Hughes was probably correct in stating that ‘Auftragstaktik was more than a system of command; it was part of a particular life style typical of Prussian officers for more than a century’. This latter point is crucial to understanding the difficulties faced by contemporary modern Western militaries, possessing different traditions of command and historical experiences, attempting to revive and adopt this style of command.
It was Helmuth von Moltke the Elder who recognized the need to revolutionize command in a time of great technological and social changes. During his tenure as the Prussian Chief of Staff Moltke has done more than anyone else to embed mission command in the Prussian military culture and to articulate its essence. According to Moltke, subordinates should be told what to do and for what purpose, not how to do it. Superiors specify the mission objectives and constraints and allocate resources leaving the rest to their subordinates. The latter's skills, creativity, and commitment, or lack there off, will ultimately determine the battle plan and its execution. Auftragstaktik is therefore not merely a technique for issuing orders, but a type of leadership. Subordinates were not relegated to the status of simply following orders, but rather regarded as individuals capable of making independent judgments. Within its unique historical, strategic and social context the Prussian-German army, combined military theory and praxis that enabled it to practice Auftragstaktik.
However, when other militaries came to emulate this practice they have discovered that as it involves delegation of authority and decision it requires also a change of organizational culture. . A number of authors have listed cultural and organizational elements necessary for mission command. The most common element is trust, respect between commanders and subordinates as well as acceptance of responsibility and acceptance of risk. Trust is acquired through professional development aiming at developing confident leaders who would not hesitate to exercise initiative. Indeed Auftragstaktik was enabled by a German military culture which strongly emphasized ‘initiative, aggressiveness, and subordinate freedom of action’; it valued personal initiative even at the cost of disobedience – calling instead for adhering to a higher intent. Subordinates were expected to demonstrate sound judgment grounded in military professionalism, inculcated through training and education. "

Source: Eitan Shamir, "The Long and Winding Road: The US Army Managerial Approach to Command and the Adoption of Auftragstaktik (Mission Command)"

 

JIM GOURLEY

1:42 PM ET

August 30, 2010

A Tale of Two Insubordinates?

It's funny to me that some may hold Sellin up as some kind of rebel with a cause, but McChrystal as wholly inexcusable. The truth may set you free, but I don't feel like that alone justifies the way in which he blurts it out. It's one thing to be a rebel-- it's quite another to simply be a jackass.

For starters, this is nothing new. Anyone who reads this blog (or doesn't live under a rock) is at least passively aware of the ineptitude and inertia at the top levels of our command structure over there. Sellin is one of the people who recognized that and tried to fight against it. When he felt like he couldn't make any progress, he used his rank and wit to take to the blogosphere. Did he really think the internet would provide him change he could believe in? If he did, then he'd stopped believing he could do it himself. Now he's removed himself from the equation as a change agent.

Again, I see layers of irony. Every Specialist in the Army complains about "those bastards up at Platoon." I'm sure several Majors at lower echelons who interfaced with Sellin thought the only thing he was good for was substituting as the "or something" referred to by the instructions on the back of an MRE heater. That's obviously not the case. He "gets it", and was trying to get other people to "get it." When people seemed resistant to his ideas, he wrote them off as rocks themselves and decided to work outside the system.

It's kind of the same thing as a pilot who hits the ejection seat because he hates the way the plane jolts when it hits the ground.

I go back to Petraeus's philosophy behind his whirlwind tours of the US and the way he describes his approach to taking over in 'stan. "First you've got to get the big ideas, then you've got to sell the big ideas." That sounds easy enough, but anyone who's tried to sell something knows otherwise. Petraeus didn't just walk in with a COIN manual and say "here ya go." He spent years succeeding in Iraq and convincing people he might actually know what he's talking about.

How long did Sellin spend?

We've seen a lot of entries here from senior-level leaders who are punching out because they, like Sellin, feel that their promotion is just a flying leap into a wall of stars. I'd say that somehow, some way, that wall has to come down. Maybe cracks can't be put in it today, but the bricks get replaced over time. If all the good guys bail on us, we're going to be left with nothing but bad bricks.

Full disclosure on irony, here-- part of the reason I got out is because I felt there was a wall of oak leaves. It was "those bastards up at Division." Regardless, I did my part to the best of my ability. If I saw something was wrong, I pointed to it and took flak from more than one O-5/O-6 if that's what I believed was necessary. But blogging it? It may increase situational awareness among the populace, but I really don't see that as making the real differences we need.

In this case, Sellin did make a difference, but I don't think he can be totally satisfied, because it's far from the one he hoped to make.

 

LAWRENCE SELLIN

5:51 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Jim Gourley's comments

I respectfully disagree. Since publishing the article I have received enormous feedback from Specialists to Colonels, who agree that we need to stem the grow of needless bureaucratic procedures in the military. If at least some of these individuals are encouraged to question unproductive processes, it could go viral and help move the system in the right direction. It would be more than a single old colonel could do in a brief period as a small cog in his own stifling bureaucracy. It may turn out to be far less than hoped for, but one never knows until one tries.

 

HUNTER

11:42 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Huzzah LTC Sellin

You said what many have thought.

I too think blogging is a somewhat circumspect way of doing business. But you got the attention your subject deserved and more in spades.

I often wish (and wonder) if Shinseki had been so vocal - after being made a lame duck - whether we would have committed to that mostly silly endeavor in Iraq. I guess there is karma though - as Sec of Vet Affairs he gets to see the net results of his former lack of moral courage.

The RC has empowered you with both the common sense to recognize a boondoggle and the teflon coating to not give a shit about the repercussions. I have often said "Whadda they gonna do, fire me? ...from the Guard?".....My wife would thank them.

I wish you well in your next endeavor. A fellow RC LTC still trying to make a difference.

 

HUNTER

11:42 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Huzzah LTC Sellin

You said what many have thought.

I too think blogging is a somewhat circumspect way of doing business. But you got the attention your subject deserved and more in spades.

I often wish (and wonder) if Shinseki had been so vocal - after being made a lame duck - whether we would have committed to that mostly silly endeavor in Iraq. I guess there is karma though - as Sec of Vet Affairs he gets to see the net results of his former lack of moral courage.

The RC has empowered you with both the common sense to recognize a boondoggle and the teflon coating to not give a shit about the repercussions. I have often said "Whadda they gonna do, fire me? ...from the Guard?".....My wife would thank them.

I wish you well in your next endeavor. A fellow RC LTC still trying to make a difference.

 

JIM GOURLEY

1:03 AM ET

August 31, 2010

From E-4 to O-6... vs. O-7?

Sir,

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. I don't believe you've really helped to encourage change. You've encouraged people to question things, sure, but moreover you've set yourself up as the example of how NOT to question things and an object lesson of just how violently those in power will react when they are questioned.

If I'm a Captain in the Army, you've shown me nothing new. As others on here have indicated, a blind man can see the problems you indicate. Your actions, and their consequences, are about the same as pouring gasoline over your head and torching yourself just so everyone in the room can have a little more light. What we need, as the saying goes, is a guy that can invent a better light bulb. The disgruntled are the disgruntled, and they are no more so because of your article, nor are they any more empowered. What they are is more cautious than ever before. If an O-6 can't go to the press without getting his head bounced against a 2-star's wall, what's an E-4 supposed to do? "Face out and pull security", he's told. If he's smart, that's what he'll do. He might agree with you, and you might feel like that somehow justifies what you wrote, but it doesn't really do either one of you a lick of good.

I think we've seen enough dramas play out between the home front and the front lines to realize the fallacy in your approach. If media coverage of the Army's response to the leadership debacle of Wanat can't arouse enough public sentiment to force DoD to change course on such a crucial issue, do you think you can? The people, by and large, aren't educated enough on the subject to rally in sufficient numbers. And too many of them don't want to be educated. It's confusing and frustrating to them, and they just want it to go away.

This can't be an externally-driven thing. Change must come from within. Again, I readily admit that I quit running the race long before you did, and thank you for going as far as you did. But the way you ended your run was without grace. You took some cheap shots at people, insulted and ridiculed them in a (very) public way. I have yet to see an instance in which that kind of tactic produced real positive change. If you wanted to quit, that's understandable and within your purview. But now if your replacement comes in and questions anything, the road he has to hoe is twice as steep, because the first thing he's going to be told by his co-workers is "don't make waves, things have been pretty tense here after Sellin's public rant."

You're probably right that the guys in charge of you were doing some messed up stuff. But now they're still doing it and you're not there. At the end of the day, a million people can "like" your article on facebook or whatever, but your real responsibility was to the people in your place of duty. What's the impact you had on them?

 

ZATHRAS

4:47 AM ET

August 31, 2010

I appreciate the sentiment...

...but the line of reasoning that change in the Army can only come from within does not commend itself to me, after almost nine years of war in Afghanistan and seven in Iraq.

If it were likely to come from within, it would have done so by now. The implications of the fact that it hasn't -- that the Army is still trying to fight a war using peacetime procedures -- must leave officers in the great machine in an awkward position. Try to affect change from within, and fail; don't try to affect change from within, and look no worse than if you had tried and failed; try to inspire change from without, and inspire resentment without having much influence.

The Army was the subject of the main post here, so I make no comment about the other services. It just looks to me as if the only two forces successful at effecting major changes in the Army recently both did it from outside the institution: Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban on the one side, and Robert Gates on the other.

 

LAWRENCE SELLIN

5:15 AM ET

August 31, 2010

From E-4 to O-6... vs. O-7?

Both of Jim Gourley's comments have been thoughtful and valuable contributions to this discussion and they should be seriously considered by anyone embarking on the path of attempting to change the system.

Each day in the Joint Operations Center I watched the casualties mount. Admittedly, mine was not a graceful approach, but this is war.

I will defer to the comments of my unknown ISAF Joint Command colleague, posted on this blog, who has stated the case far more eloquently than I could.

 

JIM GOURLEY

12:41 PM ET

August 31, 2010

Peacetime Procedures?

Not according to the recent Army Suicide Report, which declares that the Army has become "too combat-oriented" and doesn't ensure enough good 'ol fashioned garrison discipline. The Army has made INCREDIBLE changes in the last ten years. I think to make the sweeping generalization that it's the same organization as it was in 2001 is to totally mischaracterize the problem.

However, "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose", as they say in France.

I make that reference intentionally, because of the previous nod to pre-WWII France. Sure they failed to embrace technology and new tactical ideas, but that was a consequence of stunted thinking. It seems the same with us, though the process is masked by our reception of technology.

The problem is not Power Point, UAVs, too few troops, or Afghan corruption. These are all conditions-- part of the essential "task/conditions/standards" model of Army training. Conditions cannot be changed. We have gizmos. The Taliban has the ISI and skullduggery. Deal with it. The same goes for our less-than-stellar leaders. Every platoon has a dirtbag trooper. The PSG still can't shoot him. That Soldier is a condition of your operating environment. It doesn't excuse you from operating.

The big problem here is that we consistently attempt to make that excuse, though. We lash ourselves to a machine of our own making and then bemoan the fact that we're slaves to it. Failure isn't an option anymore, we believe it comes bundled in our software. That's preposterous. "I had to change my slide fourteen times in a week. I had to sit through a boring meeting. My boss doesn't understand what's really going on out there." Okay, what did you DO about it?

The IBAs and helmets all got lost. We initiated Operation TOTAL RECALL. We hit IEDs. We invented JIEDDO and MRAPs. We were losing the hearts and minds, so we invented "clear/hold/build." We got top-heavy, so Gates cut people. We are constantly adapting to the conditions of our environment so that we can operate and meet our standards. Anyone who's been in Ranger School for longer than a day understands that, in the face of adversity, you always have two choices. You can keep putting one foot in front of the other or you can quit. But don't sit there and tell me that giving up accomplishes anything.

The ISAF staffer who says a General just can't be convinced that he's wrong is no different than the faux-historians who drone on about how Afghanistan has never been conquered and is a graveyard of empires. That's the stuff of defeatism. I said before that I got out of the Army, but I never spent a day in the Army feeling sorry for myself or giving up on having ideas. I hit a finish line in my race, but I never pulled up along the course.

The Army changes all the time. Let's give credit where credit is due-- it's changed by Army leaders, most of which don't wear stars. They recognize that the problems aren't going away, so they figure out solutions. Putting some JB-weld on a Humvee oil pan is an easy fix. Convincing the Pentagon to get on board with a whole new paradigm for counter-insurgency warfare is going to take a minute or two. But neither Joe six-pack nor any of the other of us online commenters (myself included) are going to make one iota of difference at the ISAF headquarters. I don't wear a uniform, so why should anyone give a darn what I think? You've got the ACUs on, it's your cat to skin. There's more than one way, but at the end of the day the condition is that the cat is going to put up a fight and the standard is that his skin is wholly separated from his body.

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

11:07 PM ET

September 1, 2010

JIm

You make some great points but the fact is that outside of the Infantry or SOF, the Army is not Combat Oriented and the average Support Troop is still poorly trained, lead and motivated but still thrust into infantry situations. The Army has yet to adopt the Marines vision of training every man as a rifleman. The kit you speak of and the wonder adaptions? It took a lonnnngggg time for those things to be implemented. I also saw with my own eyes an 04 tell an E4 to take off a Blackhawk Holster the kid had paid for because it was not issued and he was not the only O or Senior NCO I saw do that. Initiative and adaption should be encouraged in a troop not discouraged. I even saw examples of that in an SOF Batt. I saw it discouraged by Army O's and E-9's. in 04' and as recently as 10'. The Army is slow to change and many top O's find it easier to say No than to fight that battle you talk of but thanks for fighting it just the same.

 

CAPTAINVAN

3:04 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Great Reference

This is one of the best comments I've read in awhile:

"I'm sure several Majors at lower echelons who interfaced with Sellin thought the only thing he was good for was substituting as the "or something" referred to by the instructions on the back of an MRE heater."

 

TYRTAIOS

3:16 PM ET

August 30, 2010

The Devil's Tools

There is an old saying: a person who doesn't have something particular to occupy himself with doing will be tempted to occupy himself with sin - or idle hands are the devil's tools?

Obviously our Colonel never had enough to do and his sin was finding fault, which I'm sure existed - it always does, especially at a headquarter staff.

Now on the other hand, in a time long past, another general noted often here on Ricks' blog would not have politely and professionally asked Sellin to leave country, but would have sent the Colonel to the front (wherever that is) so he could report back about the lack of shower facilities, and dining silverware.

 

JPWREL

9:56 PM ET

August 30, 2010

TYRTAIOS

Which begs the question of why the good Colonel was posted to Afghanistan if there were no important duties to assign him worthy of his rank? This is not the first time I have heard that there seems to be two classes of HQ types in Iraq and Afghanistan, those who are over-worked and those who are underemployed.

 

TYRTAIOS

10:31 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Naw KUNINO.

I was just being lightly sarcastic. The Colonel gave me the impression he didn't feel he had that meaningful of a job discription, and anyway, you will note I did mention there are always things to be found wrong, especially at a higher echelon staff (where everyone is probably vying to get the boss’s attention or create a fiefdom).

However, picking ones battles to fight - important ones that really might make differance can be important, but when there is a constant drum beat, regardless of how well meaning, it starts to fall on deaf ears - know what I'm saying here hoss?

All you pilgrims that are getting a taste of combat, and staff asssignments for the first time want to see someone really make a statement? View Major Munson's article in the "Marine Corps Gazette" or view it at SWJ - now that's panache!

Vive la Mort - Vive La Guerre

 

WOMBAT

3:24 AM ET

September 1, 2010

Idle hands

My son, a CPT in the army was about to get out when he was asked by his BN CO to go with him to Afghanistan as an augmentee to another unit. He has been gone for six weeks, and still does not have a job. As he put it, "just hanging out."
Why? How many more like him are taking up space, doing nothing?

 

IRONCAPT

3:21 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Once again, life imitates an episode of the Wire

Or worse, could have been lifted from “A Bright Shining Lie.” Yeah, bureaucratic skullduggery is rampant in the Military Industrial Complex. This is true in peace or war, but in war, its failings are more pronounced. I’m with Monsieur Gourley about the great wall of field grade careerist incompetence. If you can keep your head down and mouth shut between years 9-17 of your career, you can make 20 and retire safely. Of course, there are significant consequences for stowing your moral courage in your locker for 8 years. There is a reason I got out as a captain.

I’m reminded of Tom’s comments about the Marine Corps Gazette being a vessel for internal dissent and discussion among professionals in Making the Corps. It may have been at the time, but I do not think it is anymore. I tell junior folks that writing a good Gazette or Military Review article is good for your career but writing a great one is bad for your career. After the professional rear end chewing I got for one of mine, I’m glad there are blogs (like this one) where folks can talk openly, behind a somewhat thin veil of anonymity.

It is hard to accuse a Reserve O-6 of too much careerism (though I’ve seen it). I think he was trying to make things better and I’m glad he used humor and the internet to do it somewhat professionally. Shooting off your mouth to a Rolling Stone reporter is unprofessional and is insubordinate. Leaking classified docs to an activist posing as a reporter is a crime.

I’m also reminded of the saying that Tom referenced in the Gamble about the old British Army. It was better to be a little better than your peers than much better. Vietnam, the colonial British Army, or a fictional Baltimore Homicide squad, the machine is the same. I also remember my old Vietnam history instructor (Vietnam and Korea Marine), suggesting that things might have gone differently if more officers would have thrown their bars on the table and said what was happening was wrong.

 

LITTLEMANTATE

3:46 PM ET

August 30, 2010

Laudable, respectable, but futile

The good Col's statements and actions are to be commended and in a sane country such selfless actions might bring change, but the US is too far down the path towards militant corporatism. The forces of bureaucratic inertia, careerism, an American cultural need for bellicosity and unrealistic boosterism (thank you Evangelicals and Calvinists), politicians' venality and cowardice, and overpowering economic interests all preclude any real change.

Col S has reached out to the citizenry, and I respect him and thank him for it. But his actions are futile as are those of civilian whistle-blowers. The citizenry are a major part of the problem, all these revelations of ineptitude might increase anger on the part of the populace, but no meaningful political actions will come of this. It's a case of "thank you for your recommendations, we will take those into consideration, but please try to be more helpful and positive next time."

 

LITTLEMANTATE

3:34 PM ET

August 30, 2010

I should have added, more damning than wikileaks

but there is no mysterious Australian albino involved, so the story is just too boring for most people.

 

SOLDIERSDIARY

4:52 PM ET

August 30, 2010

"Likewise, the contractors

"Likewise, the contractors want to continue making their huge profits."
As an aside, something I am learning in my current job that I now keep in mind is the measures of success when working with contractors, although most are patriots and do great work, the bottom line is success is defined by renewing the contract each year, and the profits for the company... and at the individual level, the ability to stay hired...something I now always keep in mind during meetings with contractors.

 

LAWRENCE SELLIN

7:11 PM ET

August 30, 2010

From one of my colleagues at ISAF Joint Command

"I WORK IN THE IJC RIGHT NOW. It’s amazing how someone like Colonel Hans Bush can say “his duty position and responsibilities did not offer him the situational awareness needed to validate his postings to the media”. Every single position in this headquarters has the situational awareness to understand the stove-piped powerpoint crutch that holds us back from getting anything done. At one point, we changed the format of our slide 7 times within 14 days. ‘16 point font rather than 14.’ ‘No, the background needs to be one lighter shade of red’. The bureaucracies of this place are astounding. If you were to poll our headquarters, I’m assuming 80%+ would agree. Lastly, it’s not Colonel Sellin who’s unpatriotic for speaking the truth and attempting to make this headquarters better; it’s those like the unnamed general who disrespect him by calling him unpatriotic after two deployments, while refusing to change due to pride and control. A true leader would take Colonel Sellin and his ideas, put him on the General’s staff, and start implementing change. Until our command takes this as a wakeup call, the IJC will not provide added value to this war."

http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2010/08/30/career-death-by-powerpoint/

 

OCL

10:06 PM ET

August 30, 2010

The above reminds of...

the Very Important Email (DTM) we all received a few weeks ago from OSD via one of the numerous, spam-riffic "RSS/MLA" lists in the Pentagon (those things are about as bad as the Viagra spam)...I paraphrase:

Effective immediately all correspondence to SecDef or DepSecDef will be 12pt Times New Roman. Until such time as (all the various DoD directives / instructions) are updated 12 OR 13pt Times New Roman is acceptable.

Reminds me, too, of the times when there is some HOT tasker that needs to be pushed through the glass doors...after endless rounds of coordination some poor AO misplaces a comma somewhere and one of the administrative workflow Nazis kicks back the package to the entire Staff highlighting some trivial thing buried in pages of the staff tracking sheets. Absolutely maddening.

 

HUNTER

12:10 AM ET

August 31, 2010

A green initiative

My current employer is pushing small but meaningful green initiatives. Among them are setting all printers to default double sided - which sounds good in theory - at least til wear and tear breaks the things faster...oh well.

In any case one of their smarter decisions of late was to suggest choosing fonts other than Times New Roman. They shared how TNR is actually quite wasteful from a page count perspective. I found it quite interesting (but I am a bit of a font geek anyway). I think Verdana was picked as one of the more efficient fonts.

Here's an extreme version.
http://www.thegreenworkplace.com/2009/09/green-fonts.html

As for switching fonts every other day or changing colors...Hang the douchebag forcing that shit. Warning personal anecdote...In Combined Arms Staff Services School (CAS3) our instructor allowed us to set our own group norms. We had a few simple rules for slides. No colors, simple fonts, no pictures. One day one of our classmates put a SOCOM patch on his opening slide, we nearly lynched him right there. We knew that one pic would breed more and more oneupmanship. That was the first and last pic seen on a slide in our class. He was lucky to be alive and apologetic at his error.

Indeed the few slides I did for that class, including the vaunted POTO brief were all done in Word in Landscape mode...my '97 era laptop wasn't capable of running PPT at the time. My instructor never knew different and wouldn't have cared if he did. He was more concerned in our learning the material instead of how to present it. Huzzah LTC Lamb.

 

RETIRED_IN_2009

1:04 AM ET

August 31, 2010

It needed to be said

I concur 100% with COL Sellin. “Been there done that” I was a USAR 04 staff officer in Afghanistan in 2003 assigned to an active duty divisional staff. I was in Iraq in 2008 running a security detachment supporting a 3 star command that included 12 Generals and over 40 0-6s. In Afghanistan our CTF was a text book example of how a combat staff should function. Teamwork and initiative were rewarded, honest mistakes were underwritten and there was a sense of purpose. The focus was always on doing everything possible to support the guys on the ground. When we once got too carried away trying to get info from a BDE HQ during a fire fight, we were told (by a one of the best 0-5s I’ve ever worked for) to back off and let them develop the situation. Leadership and teamwork weren’t just words for a PowerPoint…

Fast forward to Baghdad 2008 and a bloated self perpetuating bureaucracy with what appeared to be competing goals, way too much ego while completely out of touch with reality on the ground. I finally lost all faith when I was forced to do training style written risk assessments for convoy missions in the red zone, an ordered that came from a well meaning but out of touch 0-5 staff officer. These risk assessments were, you guessed it, added to the multiple daily PowerPoint briefings called BUBs or battle update briefings; and this was for a HQ that had NO combat mission…

Bottom line up front is that the longer an Army sits in one place the more the bureaucrats take over from the warriors and the more staffs become dysfunctional. When someone from outside the military comes in and sees this (COL Sellin in this case) and calls BS on the whole thing it forces the leadership to do a little soul searching and they often don’t like what they see but are too ingrained in the system to make any changes...

 

MARTY MARTEL

3:53 AM ET

August 31, 2010

US covers up its own failure

Col. Lawrence Sellin is also missing the forest for the trees when he sermonizes that Afghans should take more responsibility for their country and US should let chips fall where they may if Afghans can not take care of their own country and society.

US government has been covering up its own failure to contain Pakistan’s duplicity by ignoring Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

General McChrystal had warned about Pakistan’s sheltering of Taliban terrorists in his August 2009 report to Obama: Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year‘.

But Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus have continued to justify Pakistani government’s (Pakistani Army as well as civilian government) terrorist connections by always evading to answer most fundamental question - why haven’t they ordered drone attacks on Mullah Omar’s QST in Baluchistan?

As Karzai told a news conference in Kabul on 7/29/2010 after WikiLeaks leaks, “The time has come for our international allies to know that the war against terrorism is not in Afghanistan’s homes and villages. But rather this war is in the sanctuaries, funding centers and training places of terrorism which are in Pakistan. Our international allies have the ability to destroy these Pakistani sanctuaries, but the question is why they are not doing it?“

Even Afghanistan’s national security advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta has asked the same question in Washington Post on 8/23/10: “While we are losing dozens of men and women to terrorist attacks every day, the terrorists’ main mentor (Pakistan) continues to receive billions of dollars in aid and assistance. How is this fundamental contradiction justified? Despite facing a growing domestic terror threat, Pakistan “continues to provide sanctuary and support to the Quetta Shura, the Haqqani network, the Hekmatyar group and Al Qaeda. Dismantling the terrorist infrastructure “requires confronting the state of Pakistan that still sees terrorism as a strategic asset and foreign policy tool”.

Poor Karzai’s call to his Western allies ‘to destroy Islamist militant sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan’ is falling on deaf ears in Washington, where powers to be are hell bent on sacrificing Afghanistan to mollycoddle Pakistan.

 

LAWRENCE SELLIN

4:57 AM ET

August 31, 2010

A little bit of forest

Marty, I agree with much of what you have written.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/2010/08/05/Outside-View-Is-Pakistan-the-enemy-in-Afghanistan/UPI-22011281014048/

 

LAWRENCE SELLIN

7:49 AM ET

August 31, 2010

Would Patton survive in today's PowerPoint military?

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/08/30/powerpoint-firing-draws-fire.aspx

 

AWESOME

2:19 PM ET

August 31, 2010

Recommendations

Sir,

As one who is still serving I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment but question your methods. In any case what would be helpful to those of us still in are your specific recommendations for change. If they had taken your advice to heart what would you have told them? What sort of changes would you recommend to the organization structure, the systems and processes?

Best Regards,

Awesome

 

LAWRENCE SELLIN

3:45 PM ET

August 31, 2010

Recommendations

Awesome,

Very briefly - for the types of challenges IJC was experiencing, I would give the same advice that I gave IJC. They need to identify their activities in terms of individual business functions or components i.e. what is it, what are its activities and what products or services does it produce? One can then link this activity to others based on which of the other functions use those particular products or services. One then ends up with a type of wiring diagram or schematic of the business and how each component is connected based on functionality rather than structure. Simultaneously, the methodology identifies unnecessary components and also limits the products or services produced by each component to only those absolutely necessary for the enterprise to be efficient and effective i.e. no unnecessary slide decks or slide shows.

 

BILL KELLER

11:35 AM ET

August 31, 2010

Are we growing too flippant?

If all we have is satire then we have been reduced to the weapon of the powerless or isolated.

Next we will observe the logo of FP becoming the yellow flag with the snake coiled in the form of the dunce hat.

Woffie is on the Times today advocating a Korea commitment to maintain our current control of the Iraq West Bank extension. Could settlements in URH be the next biblical entitlement?

 

BILL KELLER

12:00 AM ET

September 1, 2010

but where?

nice quote; but, with no evidence to support its content.

 

SILENTSHWAN

1:47 PM ET

August 31, 2010

Reverberations are being felt.

In a time where the U.S. Army is desperately trying to recruit talent for a Cyber-Command and retention of critical-skills MOS (MI, Signal, Aviation) is at rock bottom this is a major reinforcement to those "Specialists" who are every sense of the word, not E-4 super privates. Why should a 35M (HUMINT) or 25S (SatCom Maintainer/Operator) Specialist stay in when they see the inherent issues with a broken Army from the top down AND can get paid more in the civilian market OR if they truly wish to defend their nation they can do more at a higher level agency.

Is it going to come down to a "Proper Powerpoint Usage" module at WLC and CCC? Not that It matters because a staggering amount of O-3s without CCC are taking commands and WLC has be relegated to a 14-day running joke. Someone someday is going to have to take a good hard look at the U.S. Army and realize it's going to need another burning like the late 80's early 90's. I'm talking wrath of God type stuff,

- MOS/Branch competency exams and those who fail are kicked out.
- Purging of most Permanent Profiled soldiers.
- Early retirement for at least 5% of the Officer Corps.
- Increase of critical skill bonus pay (I get paid more for jumping out of a plane but I'm making the same as that cook even though I know how to repair and handle a multi-million dollar piece of equipment.)

Lets face it, with our affinity to technology if the Navy Fails, and the Air Force Fails, then a draft is going to be made and we'll have all the trigger pullers a nation needs. Draft Officers are going to be commissioned, and we'll start handing out battlefield commissions if the enemy is that determined. The only thing an Officer in today's army has to learn that one in WWII didn't is how to handle a FBCB2. Tanks still roll and Infantry still march the way they used to.

A smaller, smarter, fit Professional Active Duty Army is needed. I've yet to see what (besides putting a sizable soldier/square mile ratio) a full BCT can do in COIN/LIC operations that a competent MICO, SIGCO, MP Battalion, and 2 ODA's can't.

Kudos to the good Colonel for standing up and putting the bullseye on his back.

 

JKOLAK

2:24 PM ET

August 31, 2010

That really irritates me when

That really irritates me when the military is offered an opportunity to improve through competent professional assistance from the more-competent civilian sector, and rejects it out of hand.

Who knows how much the military might have been able to improve its efficiency had it availed itself of this service? The army might have paid Col. Sellin hundreds of thousands of dollars had he come in as a civilian consultant to observe operations and make suggestions for improvement.

But instead he offered to do it for free as part of his military service, and look what it got him. And we wonder why military intelligence is laughed at as an oxymoron.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More