do we really expect a different conclusion from a survey of 250 _former_ junior officers?

Makes a good point. It's highly likely these former junior officers saw themselves as the "best" officers, and so they wouldn't be a statistically valid sample to use for that particular question.

The reasons they gave for leaving are interesting though.

I think the above is an important question as it greatly frames perceptions and responses. Would these responses change if asked of the same cohort of officers at age 50 or 60 following a civilian career in the public or non-private sector? I think so.

I ask this because being an Army LT was my first "full time" job after college. Although I never planned on a career and always expected to leave after 3 or 4 years, I do remember being very frustrated at what I perceived at age 22, 23 and 24 as an intractable, mindless bureaucracy. How naive I was. I was essentially a "kid" with no prior career experience. I had no frame of reference and, in retrospect, didn't know what the hell I was talking about.

Now, I'm 34 years old. I left the Army and went to grad school and now have a GS-14 position in the Federal bureaucracy. I've worked a number of *high profile* and *important* incidents in GS land. I was also an editor on Law Review in Grad School. None of these experiences measure up to the level of responsibility and, yes, autonomy that I had during my 23 months of being a Medical Platoon Leader in a light Infantry battalion between the ages of 22-24. Now, I am just another cog in the machine. One of many cogs in an endless layer of decision makers.

Perhaps my experience as an LT was unique, but I was afforded the privilege of working under some great leaders who gave me wide lattitude to experiment, occasionally fail and, when appropriate, challenge the status quo. At 22, I had an office, a platoon of 26 soldiers, a Class VIII budget, 7 pieces of rolling stock and the atonomy to develop training for my men. I took this seriously and made many inevitable mistakes, but learned a lot during those 2 years. At 25, I was in NYC occasionally interacting with graduate school deans on behalf of the Surgeon General of the Army as an AMEDD Recruiter.

I think it's all about perspective. The answers I would give in response to this survey at 34, after 4 years of grad school and 4.5 year's in the DC bureaucracy would be a lot different than the ones I would have given on my 26th Birthday when I ETS'd from active duty.

....to poo poo data. Or one might just think outside that box (those young officers are complaining about) and actually listen to what they have to say.

For some reason I am reminded of Marilyn Manson (god help me) who was asked what he might say if he was to sit and talk with Klebold and Harris (of Columbine Massacre infamy). Klebold and Harris were thought to have drawn some inspiration from Manson's music. Manson (smartly) said "I wouldn't say a thing, I would just sit and listen...that's the problem...no one ever listened to them." [parapharsed from Bowling for Columbine IIRC].

Now I don't want to conflate dumb punk murderers with officers who choose to leave (believe me on this). But that seems pretty smart thinking on Mr. Manson's part. You can find a million reasons not to listen to these guys as they leave, or have left....but the only real benefit will be drawn if we open our minds and ears to what they have to say...and maybe actually change some things.

I'll tell you when I left the active force I was forced to sit down with the CG of 4ID to explain my reasoning. I walked away having thought that he hadn't heard a thing....plus he fucked me out of some of my leave because his schedule was more important than mine (probably true but maddening nonetheless).

for different reasons. I have close to 20 years in with Reserve and Active time and have seen the same thing over and over again, good Officers getting out due to the reasons stated in the surveys and this is from the SOF side of the house. Between the personnel system, the promotion system, the incredible micro-mangement they get from 05's and above who also tend to be VERY risk adverse on top of that it is a wonder they do not resign their commissions before their time is up.
-We do a horrible job at putting the right people in the right place, anyone who has been in can tell you that. Qualifications and experience are often trumped by seniority and the "just fill the billet" with whatever rank they require.
-We do a horrible job of micro-mangement and second guessing from the TOC/JOC's, the technology has only made this worse. This can be a real problem with a Time Sensitive Target (TST)
-We have a VERY risk adverse Senior Officer Corps, it starts to show itself around the O5 area and is there by the time they put on O6 for sure. A lot of this has to do with a combination of the "zero defect" mentatlity and career over mission attitudes of the Senior Officer Corps.
-We have far to many Officers period, it is an outdated system and needs to be changed.
-We have an overly "Safety" centric Military focused on things that should not matter in a war, this focuse leads to more micro-mangement and wasted man hours that could be better spent.
-We only use Officers in a real Combat Command Capacity for 4-6 years, after that they are riding pine in a TOC/JOC, on Staff or in some other admin job, a total waste and it is one more step removed from ground truth that would help them later in their careers as leaders.

Those are just some of the reasons that O's have pushed to get out. We are losing the actual folks who have seen combat while the O5-G4's for the most part have not fired a shot in anger, this will cause us a lot of leadership problems down the road. I have often stated how we can fix these problems in past posts but since this same cycle repeats itself I doubt much will change unless we get into a major conflict that requires the need for such drastic changes that if not made would cost us our Nation, otherwise I doubt much will happen.

It is not just JOs, over 40% of O4s in one SOF Community are getting out, that is guys at the 8+ year mark folks, all saying the same things that the JOs are as to why on their exit interview.

I was one of those junior officers who got out at the turn of the century (I just love typing that.). I was fleeing the "zero defect army" and all that, but I stayed in the reserves just in case there was a war. Look what that got me. I got back on active duty a few years ago after a two-year reserve mobilization.

One of the reasons, like IRR soldier said, is that I never had it so good. Nothing has ever challenged/motivated/excited me like being a soldier. Hell, I worked in Emergency Management on actual disasters and responses, but the Army always was better.

I concur that we ought to listen to our JO's as they get out. I also think that we do a horrible job of educating our youngsters about what the Army is all about. If you had told 2LT Alexander what MAJ Alexander was going to up to fifteen years later, it would have blown his young mind.

Recently I had a chance to brief cadets at my Alma Mater. I told them about what I did in the Army, where I did it, etc. Lots of minds blown. We do a disservice to them by not teaching them about the military. There is more to life that what they've been exposed to, and there are lots of ways to be in the military--active and reserve.

We also ought to be honest with them about some of the flaws in the system. This asshat CPT they worked for as a 2LT will most likely culminate right then and there. We ought to tell them the Army tries to do a good job of weeding them out. (yeah, yeah I know there are multitudes of examples to prove this wrong, but compare it to the civilian sector) It was a coversation like that with a former battalion commander when I was getting out that kept me in the Army as a reservist.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs or even this topic? That site is also wayyyyyy off on a lot of things, not a good ref to use. I see that apparently in the authors mind if a sapper gets into an Airfield and does some damage that counts as a lost battle as it does if one groups if US soldiers gets rescued by another, whoever the poster is on that blog they have some problems with reality. If this is where you get you military info from I would go somewhere else.
On your question, that is an old one, if the North invades they can shell Seoul with 500,000 rounds of arty in one day and the guys there will pretty much be a speed bump who fight to hold onto a foothold until re-enforcements arrive within <6 months. The US alone would suffer at least 30k casualities in the first few weeks of the conflict. Estimates for first wave invasion were not great either, 50% casualty rate for some units. It is why no one wants that thing to go off, it will be a mess.

I noticed a marked increase in the number of single company commanders by 2007. Kind of hard to do anything more meaningful than chase tail around the bar when you're off to go fight the war every 12 months. Divorce rates among enlisted service members have traditionally been higher than officers. I don't have the data at hand, but if memory serves the officers caught up by 2005.

These trends have dramatically affected the service culture, in my opinion. We have 1SG wives running the FRGs instead of those of Company Commanders. There are fewer wives at the wives' coffees. There are fewer family men in command positions. I'm not sure that any of the other elements make for positive or negative consequences (personally, I think 1SG wives have greater understanding of what spouses need, but that generally FRGs and coffee groups are vicious, back-biting rumor mills that produce situations like what happened in the 82nd), but I definitely believe a guy who's stood by his wife in the delivery room and held his own child in his hands will be a better leader for the experience. Guys who only have their careers to think about tend to only think about their careers, if you get my drift. I've seen exceptions to this rule, but those guys weren't much at being family men, either.

I was a midway through my Captain time when I got out. I'd like to think that I was professional enough to temper my emotions and provide an objective assessment of the state of the Army from my perspective with regard to my reasons for getting out. Given that, my assessment would have echoed those of the JO's in the study. At a point, if everyone is wrong except for you, you have to entertain the notion that maybe they're not wrong. 250 is a good start.

First, who’s to say this same statement couldn't be made in 1985, 1995?? Do we know if this is a historical trend? Surely, there is historical data, information and/or metrics on this topic. Second, this sample is clearly biased. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the assertion, but the sample is not indicative of the population as a whole, unless you assume all separated Military Officers are a sample set of all Officers who have ever worn a uniform. I would suggest you’re leaving out 2/3rd of the population: retired and current Active Duty (AD) Officers. Take a comparable sample from AD and retired Officers and then you'd have an accurate sample set. I would say this is a good article to garner a reaction, but it’s not statistically valid.

Tom,

I strongly recommend you post the actual study. A lot of the commenters here need to read it in its entirety to see the actual data set and such.

This shouldn't have to come down to scholars at the Kennedy school or the Atlantic. Active duty soldiers should demand the Army release its own results. Why quibble with this study when every active duty officer takes around a thousand surveys every year, at least one of which is one Officer Satisfaction?

why these junior officers are getting out. I am now in my mid-60s and have been a retired RA officer for a very long time already. And, oh, BTW, the amount of money I've drawn in retirement is not inconsequential and it looms ever large as a target now that the nation has discovered just how profligate it's been over the years. This is just as an aside to express my opinion that there will soon come a point where the nation will not be able to afford its wars of choice and the relatively large standing military it's got. I think there is going to be much pain in the defense establishment in the not-too-distant future. I think a lot of you folks who are still serving are going to learn that no matter how much you believe, no matter how much you want to kill bad guys, no matter your dedication, there won't be room for you.

I go back to virtually the beginning of these blogs with IRR Soldier, who knows me as "Publius." I think he's a real sharp guy and I'm not surprised to learn that as he ages, he learns just how cool the military can be in some respects. He's voicing a sentiment that 90-year-olds will tell you: there is a certain high associated with military service, especially in combat, and even WW2 guys will tell you that they've never approached that, not even since 1945. And BTW, it's been the same for me since I retired. Made more money, but it was never the same. You know who else says that? Professional athletes. Anybody who's gone through a crucible of any kind, who's been young and in great physical and mental shape and who was once someone who could conquer the world.

So the military is great, right? Why would anybody ever want to leave? Well, there is this little thing about integrity and how a system that constantly proclaims "integrity, integrity, integrity" may ultimately fail its youngest and most vulnerable members. And it may be that despite all of the other issues—most having to do with (IMO) stupid wars—moral failings kind of dictate that those who might stay decide not to do so.

Let me tell you the story that most irked me most during my entire career. I went through Vietnam, spent a total of almost ten years overseas, served under many fine and not so fine officers. Went from 18-year-old private to retired officer with a master's degree—thanks to the Army—and generally had a good time. Then I retired. And I went back to work for the Army. I was an intelligence officer with kind of hard-to-find skills, so they wanted me back, doing a certain line of business. I went along, even though this was back in the days when retired regular officers actually had to pay for the privilege of being a GS-13 or 14. That's now changed, because guys like me lasted only a couple of years before we said, "hey, this is stupid."

I never saw my final OER at retirement. My OERs were classified, so I couldn't keep them at home. That last one was finally forwarded to me "through channels" to the office where I was working. I noted it and put it in the safe, but not before I noted it was the worst one I' d ever had. A month or so later, the general officer who was the senior rater on my OER—the one who'd given me a "3" when I'd never had less than a "1" before—made a visit to the place where I was working. He was a very genial fellow, this general, until I asked him why he'd given me a "3" when he'd never met me before that day. Yeah, I'm a prickly sort. And I'm also a realist. I know why that guy gave me the "3" rating. It was because the Army weighted these things, so he figured he'd take a free shot at someone he didn't know, someone who was retiring, so that he could take care of someone who was continuing on active duty.

Yeah, I knew why this general did it. But it was then that I fully appreciated what a rotten system we've come up with. I was better than any of the other dudes he wanted to protect. Many were my friends and I knew why he did it. Didn't even feel all that bad, although my pride was wounded. But what the hell message does that send to younger guys?

You gotta clean up the system. From what I see now, I think it's sickest it's ever been. I've told you about one general you can't trust; he compromised his job, which is why I told him I would never respect him. There are few senior officers now in the system I would trust. I think it's getting worse and I understand why junior officers get out. Sorry.

why these junior officers are getting out. I am now in my mid-60s and have been a retired RA officer for a very long time already. And, oh, BTW, the amount of money I've drawn in retirement is not inconsequential and it looms ever large as a target now that the nation has discovered just how profligate it's been over the years. This is just as an aside to express my opinion that there will soon come a point where the nation will not be able to afford its wars of choice and the relatively large standing military it's got. I think there is going to be much pain in the defense establishment in the not-too-distant future. I think a lot of you folks who are still serving are going to learn that no matter how much you believe, no matter how much you want to kill bad guys, no matter your dedication, there won't be room for you.

I go back to virtually the beginning of these blogs with IRR Soldier, who knows me as "Publius." I think he's a real sharp guy and I'm not surprised to learn that as he ages, he learns just how cool the military can be in some respects. He's voicing a sentiment that 90-year-olds will tell you: there is a certain high associated with military service, especially in combat, and even WW2 guys will tell you that they've never approached that, not even since 1945. And BTW, it's been the same for me since I retired. Made more money, but it was never the same. You know who else says that? Professional athletes. Anybody who's gone through a crucible of any kind, who's been young and in great physical and mental shape and who was once someone who could conquer the world.

So the military is great, right? Why would anybody ever want to leave? Well, there is this little thing about integrity and how a system that constantly proclaims "integrity, integrity, integrity" may ultimately fail its youngest and most vulnerable members. And it may be that despite all of the other issues—most having to do with (IMO) stupid wars—moral failings kind of dictate that those who might stay decide not to do so.

Let me tell you the story that most irked me most during my entire career. I went through Vietnam, spent a total of almost ten years overseas, served under many fine and not so fine officers. Went from 18-year-old private to retired officer with a master's degree—thanks to the Army—and generally had a good time. Then I retired. And I went back to work for the Army. I was an intelligence officer with kind of hard-to-find skills, so they wanted me back, doing a certain line of business. I went along, even though this was back in the days when retired regular officers actually had to pay for the privilege of being a GS-13 or 14. That's now changed, because guys like me lasted only a couple of years before we said, "hey, this is stupid."

I never saw my final OER at retirement. My OERs were classified, so I couldn't keep them at home. That last one was finally forwarded to me "through channels" to the office where I was working. I noted it and put it in the safe, but not before I noted it was the worst one I' d ever had. A month or so later, the general officer who was the senior rater on my OER—the one who'd given me a "3" when I'd never had less than a "1" before—made a visit to the place where I was working. He was a very genial fellow, this general, until I asked him why he'd given me a "3" when he'd never met me before that day. Yeah, I'm a prickly sort. And I'm also a realist. I know why that guy gave me the "3" rating. It was because the Army weighted these things, so he figured he'd take a free shot at someone he didn't know, someone who was retiring, so that he could take care of someone who was continuing on active duty.

Yeah, I knew why this general did it. But it was then that I fully appreciated what a rotten system we've come up with. I was better than any of the other dudes he wanted to protect. Many were my friends and I knew why he did it. Didn't even feel all that bad, although my pride was wounded. But what the hell message does that send to younger guys?

You gotta clean up the system. From what I see now, I think it's sickest it's ever been. I've told you about one general you can't trust; he compromised his job, which is why I told him I would never respect him. There are few senior officers now in the system I would trust. I think it's getting worse and I understand why junior officers get out. Sorry.

WIMINS! I did not know that women in the Army were an Al Qa'ida plot. Thank you for the information.

When the Army went to percentage body fat and wouldn't use the calipers on my thighs; I knew that women were being catered to and I didn't like it. But, everything in the Army and even in SOF isn't physical. There are female CIA agents who cannot do a fireman's carry of another person. But there are circumstances when advance work and collection can best be done by a female. The Israeli kill team had female members. Everything is not direct action and heavy lifting. Given thew choice between someone who speaks trhe local dialect and a 220 pund intelligent athlete - I'll take the language qualified male or female, I wonder if Grey Fox has used females?

So I'll view the assignment of females as a distraction and focus on the idiots who lower standards to accommodate them. I'm in favor of an above board double-standard where appropriate. It's the accomplishment of the mission that counts.

It has always been hard to like those who make assignments; especially when they take such good care of themselves. Unfortunately, changing the system and changing a risk adverse environment is a top down job. It may also involve the civilian leadership's changing their attitudes. Can you imagine today's public reacting to the casualties of the Battle of the Bulge (80,000)? Regardless of the vital importance of that cause, today's public would be horrified and would let their politicians know that.

Even though today's military is a Praetorian Guard, it is still a reflection of the mores of our society. So, even though some of us believe our soldiers and Marines represent our best citizens adhering to different and higher standard;, most of the public applies their lame standards and expectations to the profession. Those in charge are most interested in satisfying that public and their politicians. Instead they should be focusing inward and downward.

In re RVN SF Vet's latest, it occurs to me that here we sit, with maybe 20-50 people reading our purple prose on this or any other web site. Most of the readers of these sites are inside baseball geeks.

"....most of the public applies their lame standards and expectations to the profession. Those in charge are most interested in satisfying that public and their politicians. Instead they should be focusing inward and downward."

Right. RVN SF Vet—nice name, BTW—needs to realize we're all just along for the ride. More people watch "Dancing with the Stars" on one night than read Ricks's blog, books and newspaper articles in a year. When I compliment someone here for a good post, 30 people in the entire world at most read it.

Face it, the mouthbreathers hold our destinies in their hot little sweaty palms. If you're on active duty, you should be very, very worried. If you're older and/or retired, think twice about where you invest your money. The inmates are taking over.

My Commander told me one day "If your good, the Army will keep you."

and I retorted "If I'm good ma'am, then the State Department or Defense Intelligence Agency will accept me."

I'll completely believe the statement by many people saying that there's no rush or great responsibility of being a PL, no doubt. Though after seeing what the Army has devolved into (if your not SOF, or in an eager beaver combat arms unit then your year in Iraq/Afghanistan is being a check in the box, not doing much) I didn't want to stay in either. I could see where out of dread of being thrown into some bureaucratic hell hole assignment for most of your career, one would leave.

Why wait for this impending drawdown that may or may not happen when you can cut bait early using your degree, clearance, and military leadership experience to enter a more "professional" organization. I'd rather be some measly DIA Analyst publishing half useful IED reports than that XO who's purpose in life is mostly reading over these reports to brief your battalion commander, who will probably not do anything with it anyways. At least with the DIA job I know my product has the potential to save people's lives. As some S6 OIC I know my job of making sure the CO and CSM having access to their fantasy leagues has the potential to make other people's jobs less stressful.

Once you come to the realization that you have a better shot at reforming the system if you get out early and run for congress rather than stay in and maybe make O6 if your lucky (or is everyone entitled to it now?), then one can see their lives better spent outside of the system.

I came up with the name because my first post was a rather candid critique of the battle at Wanat and I wanted my fellow readers to understand that I had some experience to bring to the critique.

I stick with it because we did learn things that apply to today's fight. JTINSC, you're right because even our complaints about higher remain the same and revolve around integrity and downward loyalty. I worked with a combat engineer LTC who had led a company in combat in the hills of Korea where he stopped a panicked retreat with his .45. In RVN, he tried to tell CINCPAC that the Shell oil depot in Danang was wide open to attack. He was silenced by the Army BG who was responsible for the security of those facilities. Of course the BG succeeded in stopping the report. A week after the BG rotated out to a new, European assignment, the depot was attacked and burned as Rich had predicted. Sound familiar?

It occurs to me that this is the one that gets you the $64,000. I asked a friend a long time ago in conversation, and only now does RVN SF VET remind me...

If the system is so broken any that girl scout or left handed midget can get promoted to general, then why NOT take care of your people as you go up the ladder? If you're going to get promoted either way, and at the same speed as anyone else, why put a premium on screwing people?

Many of the best are getting out; it’s the nasty secret behind the Army’s officer retention numbers. It is true officers are leaving at a rate relatively close to historical norms, but what is never mentioned is the population of officers who are leaving and who are staying has changed. I don't say that as a former officer, but as a current one - and I'm in the target age group as well, so the officers leaving are my peers and immediate subordinates. The fact remains that there are few opportunities for broadening or interesting assignments in such a rigid career track system. As the talented leave, those who should have had less opportunity for advancement remain.

While I understand the argument for rotating commanders out to make room for others, I fail to grasp the reason why everyone gets a chance to command. Removing just the officers who don't deserve it would give us more time and further develop the officers the Army wants most to keep.

It is extremely difficult to obtain the broadening/interesting assignments I talked about above, but contrary to popular belief - grad school is becoming easier to get. That's helpful, but now I want an assignment where I can use the degree the Army paid for but unless something changes in the next year, I will not have that opportunity. I believe retention would be substantially boosted by encouraging (and providing of course) opportunities for officers to have non-traditional jobs. However, that would require a substantial change in the way officers are managed and near as I can tell, no one is serious about doing that.

I'm good at what I do – and I’m going to stay in the Army because at the end of the day I love what I do as well. That said, I strongly believe that doing something other than maneuver assignments, something other than traditional military assignments, would give me extra tools and another set of lenses to use when addressing problems - in short, I think it would make me a more effective combat arms officer.