Looks like the Army has inadvertently stumbled upon the ‘Peter Principle’ ("in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence") at least for non-three and four stars. As the Iraq and Afghan fiascos are brought to a conclusion and the Army shrinks in size it seems plausible to think that tolerance for non-stellar performance will lessen and more officers finding themselves in over their heads will get the sack.

Tom, the Atlantic article you link to is really interesting. I had the author's point about our rigid, anti-meritocracy personnel system brought home to me by two incidents at West Point, where I served as a military history instructor. First- in an auditorium full of active duty USMA faculty, I heard the then-chief of Officer Management tell the assembled group that we were "on the outside track" compared to our peers out in the muddy-boots Army. Because we chose, and were selected, to go to graduate school and teach the next generation of Army leaders. Second- when PERSCOM sent my branch manager to USMA to conduct interviews and personnel file reviews, said branch manager told me with a straight face that he "wasn't sure what we all did here" (USMA faculty). Awesome.

Those incidents tell me that we won't revolutionize our leader development system in my lifetime.

Seeing the piece on Nagl immediately brought this story to mind.

So no kidding, there I was, a LT in JRTC working as battalion AS3. A few weeks prior I'd been at a flea market and saw a large fold-out knife that had a detachable fork and spoon in the handle. It was sturdy as all heck and the utensils were metal. Being a gear head and constantly hungry, it was a no-brainer steal at $5. One night they serve chow to us and, sure enough, someone forgot to grab the plastic-ware to eat the meal with. My S-3 split a pack with someone and drew the knife. We were standing there watching a video feed of some unit when he looks over at me and sees my high-speed utensil-rig. With a completely straight face, and as he's trying to balance peas on this plastic knife long enough to get them into his mouth, he asks me "you bring a ridiculous looking thing like that to the field?" With an equally straight face, I look back and say "beats trying to eat peas with a knife." The assembled group chuckles. I offer him my spoon attachment, but it's too late. He takes me outside the tent and hollers at me for about ten minutes about how I "failed" to correctly fill out some forgettable report two days prior and that I should watch my mouth before I smart off to the guy who writes my OER.

The punchline? I walk by his desk the next day and there's a copy of "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife" on his desk. My immediate reaction was "you can't make this stuff up."

I lost the knife at an airport security station. I kept the memory every time someone mentioned the prospect of sending me back to a battalion to be their S-2. And it was with me when anyone asked me if I had second thoughts about leaving the Army.

That, and a few other such stories kept my heart light enough to smile and say "nope!"

The Peter principle has been one of the guiding principles of the military over the last two decades if my experiences are representative.

Let's think about this for just a second. The % of Officers in the Army who will make O-4 (a field grade officer) hovers at or above 90-96% according to the last time the Army actually released those percentages . I think they stopped trumpeting it because it was a bit embarrassing that on the enlisted side we won't even trust that many Sergeants to become Staff Sergeants, let alone SFC's being promoted to Master Sergeant. But LTs, no problem, just move them on up to MAJ. Mask those first few OERs, after all they are still learning. Just move them up after they've punched their ticket in the required billets.

Really, we are so good at picking kids fresh out of college that we can say with confidence that 90+% of the ones we pick will make good field grade officers? Or is that the demands of the modern field grade officer that our selection criteria is good enough that we can pick them with 90+% accuracy when they are still college kids?

Rather I think we are a bit more starved for officer candidates so that their promotions have become a pump not a filter.

So is it really that surprising that someone made it through all of the more junior, nearly automatic, ranks before someone finally says their leadership style just isn't what they want?

Let's assume he does have some grounds, would this really be the first time a senior leader choose to be discrete in why they were relieving a fellow officer? I seem to recall a fairly well established tradition of leaving the troops in the dark with official pronouncements, although the scuttle-butt will often get the word out if one listens for it.

I checked the 172 website and saw that they have had 3 soldier deaths in less than a year. While I have no proof, I suspect that such a run of bad luck helped to remove this officer.

There must be something beyond the Peter Principle at work here. This guy's got all the right Army bling and while there is a lot to be said bad about the promotion system (love the pump vs filter analogy) you don't get to his level without some demonstrated competency. His SAMS experience and War College experience ARE filters where the promotion system has failed to filter. And BDE CMD is usually a pretty good filter too. There's lots of knucklehead bird COLs, but many fewer in CMD.

That both the CDR and the CSM are being relieved tell me there is something mo bigger about this problem.

when I was a private in the 82nd I had a weird run in with this guy. He was the XO of 2nd Brigade. They were doing a big Joint Forcible Entry Exercise - mass tac, combat equipment, all that good stuff - and after the jump I found myself on the DZ next to Zachar, the S1, and a few other joes from HHC. A real motley crew. Anyway, for some reason Zachar became convinced that the OP4 were trying to kill him. Like, him, exclusively. Not just everybody on the DZ.
So, instead of moving out to the objective, our little group spent the night huddled in a ditch trapped in some kind of paranoid delusional fantasy.
Like I said, I was a private and new to the division. It was kind of a tip off for me that the Army wasn't as squared away as it likes to think it is.
Just thought I'd share that. Thanks

wow man.
but ain't that the truth. who knows what the real story is behind him being fired. but I was too in the 82nd and as a brand new private I also encountered similar situations, and although I thought the leadership was looney, in their own defense was simply to train us. To prepare us for the worst and test our abilities under pressure. But anyway, there are many things the Army does and choses to do that just leaves me dumb founded. Yet I still remain a Soldier. Honestly, I love the Army, just wish it was less political.. Sheesh