Couple of questions to HUNTER:

H, would it make sense that all prospective officers must first demonstrate one to two years of successful service in the ranks similar to the Israeli model? Prospective candidates for officer selection would participate in a process where their service to date is evaluated and their academic and leadership potential gauged?

Would an officer selection board using this process have likely eliminated the likes of Col. Harry Tunnell? I can’t imagine any parent or wife of a soldier serving under this character being too pleased with a process that put him in command of their kids or husbands lives.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2011/11/army-report-blames-lapses-on-stryker-commander-112711w/

I'll be honest - and biased - I've seen as many problems with mustang officers (aka former NCOs) as I have any other commissioning source. In the Guard they make up the predominance of the force. Some are good, others not so much....just like every other commissioning source. Most of the latter are the kind that never realize that being an O vs an E means doing some things differently, with a different focus.

So, while I see some merit in enlisted time before officer time I think the current mix has value too.

As for Tunnell, I don't know anything more than what I have read. It's not clear whether Tunnell was truly a toxic leader (I hate that term btw) or just a guy who didn't buy into the COIN guidance of his higher HQs. He may just have been a real bitter guy after getting shot in Iraq. That's understandable, but not acceptable.

In other words, we don't know enough to ascertain if he went wrong, or where? And even if we assume he was a terrible BDE CDR perhaps he was a good BN CDR. Peter principle and all that. It's clear that some liked him and some didn't. I certainly don't like to go back to when he was commissioned 35+ years before to make an assessment. That strikes me as both unfair and dumb.

I can't help think, sometimes, that there but for the grace of God, go I. I've made mistakes in my career, who hasn't? I like to think the good far outweighs the bad, but this willingness to tear a man apart and find every fault is no more healthy than having a bad character in the ranks. Doing my research, I read a Luke Mogleson article titled "The Beast.....", he interviewed a sociologist named Stjepan Mestrovic, who was a expert witness at the 5-2 Stryker trials. He notes that the American public will accept collective responsibility for her military's foibles, but that only comes when the force itself recognizes that the problems are institutional rather than individual. There's some real power in that. The Army loves to blame 'bad apples' and 'rogue platoons', that makes the problems go away when those individuals are put away. But the problem is usually bigger than that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/magazine/mag-01KillTeam-t.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1322506520-awlqqOE4ESPRIix/VRLLVw&pagewanted=print

There needs to be some balance. Like I said, maybe Tunnell deserves all the acrimony....but maybe he doesn't.

25+ years before.

HUNTER, I don't know how I missed that article but thanks for directing me to my evenings reading. Ah yes, now I remember I was visiting my daughter in Charleston, SC at the time and was in a self-imposed news blackout.

Isn't the system you recommend analogous to the Navy's system of earning a rating? Don't SWO have to go through rigourous test throughout their JO years to earn the rating SWO? Same with Aviators? My thought, though, is that those test are very technically based ie propulsion for submariners, navigation for SWOs. What would be the tests to earn a certification for, say, an AG officer--my branch? If this is what you're intimating, then all we have to do is look at our sister service.

I was a college option OCS grad. I chose the USAR because I already had a good civilian career. The USAR has a lot of prior-service officers--many of whom were Direct Commissioned (a "commissioning source" I don't much care for). I see a serious issue with many of these officers; they are still in the NCO mindset because they never had the acculuration that a true commissioning source can bring (and even some of those who go G2G via ROTC or OCS can miss the acculuration). I am deployed with a DC CPT--a company commander. He treats his company as if it were a giant squad. He's too hands on. I see this a lot.

That having been said, my rater, an LTC(P) is a prior-service NCO who went to OCS in the '80s. He's the best officer I've ever worked with.

"The Army loves to blame 'bad apples' and 'rogue platoons', that makes the problems go away when those individuals are put away. But the problem is usually bigger than that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/magazine/mag-01KillTeam-t.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1322506520-awlqqOE4ESPRIix/VRLLVw&pagewanted=print"

HUNTER, what is the point you are attempting to make with this article in relation to the article written on the blog?

JPWREL,
Hunter is right about prior E's not always making the best O's, many have been my worst, seems to be a coin flip on how well they do in comparison to the regular officer corps. Some are the best O's I have ever seen and others shouldn't be allowed to lead a mouse to cheese never mind be put in charge of men in combat. That said, that problem and the problem as a whole for the military officer corps is mostly due to poor development, mentorship and professional military education in the branches. PME and development is done pretty well in the USMC, terrible in the Navy and Army, cannot speak to the Air Force though. Why not look at the model the USMC has and not re-invent the wheel?

Otter, thanks for checking in with the comment. I certainly can see how a former NCO may not be suitable officer material. But that situation would likely be mitigated if the selection process for OCS were more rigorous than it seems to be at present?

Hope all is well with you.

Thanks, doing well, back at it soon enough.
I don't think it is the OCS process so much as it is the follow on process that is really lacking. You get a lot of top guys coming in and then they are left to do everything after OCS by On The Job Training. The Army and Navy both do not do a great job of developing guys via PME, Mentoring, Leadership Training (Not the Business Model) but man, they both do a great job with PC, feel good platitudes! ;)

I agree that I've seen plenty of bad examples of NCO making the transition to the officer corps.. It seems like only a tiny percentage of them become good officers.

BUT.. the Israeli (and German) system would be different in my opinion. When EVERYONE has been enlisted before being an officer, I think the whole culture is changed. This would be very different than when we see former NCOs in our Army becoming officers.

Sorry, either I did not state well or you did not understand. I don't necessarily think a LT is going to make a good NCO or EM, should he/she fail as an officer. Just think it nice to hold the ability to revert them to EM over their head in order to put pressure on them to uphold their part of the free college education they receive. Understand that does not apply to the "rankers." If you don't revert them to EM, and just let them out of the Army, there will be many who use it to get released from Active Duty and to beat the system.

In all my time in the Army I've only seen one LT who was seemingly trying to get out of the Army. After much gnashing of teeth I facilitated his departure, even though when it became clear what I was doing - on his behalf, cough, cough - he backpedaled furiously. Just like Privates, most Lieutenants don't wake up in the morning thinking "what can I screw up today?"

We expect a lot more from LTs than to just not be waking up thinking what can I screw up today.

I like Petronius Arbiter's idea a lot. I like the German and Israeli system even better - everybody enlists, and all officers were former enlisted. This would create officers that are a lot different from the American experience of former NCOs becoming officers.

They call it a cadet cruise or midshipman cruise.

Perhaps in the short term or as long as the separation between officer and enlisted is more than just functional. Other professions with similar cultures such as policing or firefighting have no problem recruiting newcomers into the bottom entry level positions rather than midlevel. No one (or almost no one) starts off as a detective no matter how uninteresting patrol seems to be.

I have always felt that it was good for the services if an officer had served some time as an enlisted Soldier prior to getting commissioned. But, I don't think there is an proof that Dave Petraeus, Dwight D Eisenhower, George Marshall or hundreds of others would have been better officers had they been enlisted first. Now, they very well could have benefited for 2 years as a LT, but doubt it would have had any benefit as a senior officer. That said, given the choice, I would be enlisted first, then commissioned.

As one of my wise old Platoon Sgts once said, " If NCOs are the backbone of the Army, why is it that when officers were Riffed or passed over, they made them NCOs? Now, we have someone talking about putting ineffective officers in enlisted status. Oh give me a break! They are going to be better soldiers? Why not just get rid of them?
Oh , and the idea that an officer serve on probation until he makes captain, you have to be kidding! This has to have come from someone who has either never been in the military, or never been a company grade officer in an Infantry, Armor, or Artillery unit.

No, I am not "really kidding."

First, let me address your first point. In Reduction in Force (RIF) actions, largely due to a downsizing of the military, we reverted officers back to their NCO rank they held before they were commissioned. The reason to do that was usually to allow them to stay in the military and in particular allow them to continue towards retirement. It had nothing to do with dumping substandard officers on the NCO corps. Most of them were very good NCOs in the first place and either were direct commissioned or went to OCS in order to assist the Army in time of need of more officers. Morally, this was the Army taking care of people who had dedicated their lives to the service. I think absolutely the right thing.

Now, as to the second point. The purpose of the probation is to provide some incentive to those who receive an education from our country by attending ROTC on a scholarship, West Point or some other commision producing program. It would provide them the opportunity to "soldier well" during their initial years as an officer, or if they don't meet the standard of some administrative body, they would revert to enlisted status. There are just too many junior officers who are provided an education and then just go through the motions to their 5, 4 or 3 year obligation.

And, last, I have spent a few years in uniform.

This is just a "fire all the generals and make the JOs prior enlisted" rants that I have seen for the past 30 years. Coupled with 72 other random observations.

I see the point, and some of this is ranting - we are all doing that a bit, right? It's a blog after all.

However, if we try to polish this up and craft it well, eventually it goes to PowerPoint or in some other way gets "Army-fied" and it will quickly lose its substance.

Pushing the sentiment, seeing the dialog, and forming opinions is the crux here. You and I may both see the same problem but we may also have different ways of fixing it. It may cause me to refine my opinion and possible solution. This is how we get to a consensus.

"Fire all the generals" may be the sentiment. Obviously it's not the solution. But there's no doubt we have problems with our GO community: too many of them, selection criteria poor, too much good ole boy, etc. I think we can find a workable solution but there must be some dialog first. I, personally, happen to believe that enough sentiment expressed will get to the GOs eventually. Will they push back? Yes, some will. But most will be pretty upset to see what the force actually thinks about them and their worth. They'll work to fix that. They are people and they have pride. I believe that will benefit the force in the end.

This is just one example. To ignore all of this is to embrace the status quo, which is not a very good status right now.

"The essence of the military service is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service- US Supreme Court 1986 "Goldman v Weinberger"

Great quote huh? Too bad that the Media and usually a lot of people with little to no knowledge don't buy into that and see fit to make policy based on politics and PC. Wish some of our Flags would embrace that view. Anyway, you can either mandate birth control, clamp down on frat (never gonna happen, EO complaints would fly like bullets at Iwo Jima) or you can get rid of a woman who does get pregnant, which the military did the until the 70's. I would say cut down on the amount that come in by getting rid of the "goals", raise standards physically and get rid of co-ed boot camp, would go a long way to helping that and causing so many manpower problems.

Great books to read on the women in the military debate:

"Co-Ed Combat: The Evidence that Women Shouldn't Fight" by Kingsley Brown, has a whole chapter just on pregnancy. Also gives you stats on the whole "Injured vs Pregnancy" numbers, the real numbers skew toward pregnancy and family issues that come from that.

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces 1992'

"How to Make War" and "The Dirty Little Secrets of Vietnam" by James Dunnigan

For kicks, google the PTSD rates of women in the services and the studies that are going with them and what they say. Look up the strength and VO2 max differences, the load bearing ability due to skeletal frame. If you go to Navy Times, they screw up and leave articles on pregnancy problems, look up rates of pregnancy on ships (estimated), etc...etc..
What is great is then reading female comments on suggestions that this be controlled or of course the Public Affairs Officer Comments, some are simply priceless. There are a lot of good books on the topic, most of the ones that are pro- almost always go with the "it's their right" argument but should read a few just the same, helps you understand the other side is not basing it's reasoning on logic or practicality.

The problem with your first point is that for the past 8 years or so both the Army and Marine Corps have often promoted every Lieutenant to Captain, regardless of failure. On the Army side, this coincided with an accelerated timeline with 38 months total in service as a lieutenant, which helped reduce the effectiveness of whatever mentorship system should exist. The idea of routinely the average officer company command after 2 years of time in a battalion and a quick school cycle at captain's career course doesn't seem like a recipe for success.

It also doesn't help the Army was also promoting over 90% of officers to Major and Lieutenant Colonel at points during this period, kicking the weed-out can well down the road. It seems that a below average officer commissioned in the mid-90s could have made Captain by inertia before suddenly getting a nearly free pass up to Lieutenant Colonel (and the chance to stay past 20) in his branch or a functional area if his time in service was just right. The majority of officers holding those ranks would have made it under "normal" promotion rates but clearly a few that would have been weeded out are still here in higher pay grades.

The Marine Corps didn't speed up promotions and maintained their standard 99% promotion rate to Captain, but the once highly competitive augmentation/career designation program to allow officers to remain on active duty after their initial obligation essentially went on hiatus from about 2006 to 2009. That pruning of the junior officer ranks is now back with about 30% of junior officers around the 4 year mark (pilots and lawyers not included) not being invited to stay on active duty in 2011.

On the plus side, promotion rates for USMC field grades didn't spike like the Army's did, staying under 88% for Major, averaging 70% for Lieutenant Colonel, and about 51% for Colonel over the past six years.

I can't speak the Air Force and Navy during this period, didn't spend enough time around them. I will say that the contrast between the relatively non-competitive retention of the past years and the likely large scale personnel cuts to approaching is going to leave some people rather surprised and upset. I think the Air Force saw a preview this year as it forced a small group of Majors out short of their 20 year mark.

You nailed it, people are going to be surprised. We are going to add to the unemployment numbers and morale will plummet. The ones paying the price will be the ones that had nothing to do with the mismanagement that created this mess.

"The problem is so few LTs actually get to follow the model."

Yeah I know the model I proposed is a good one, and I know that (as Sertorious notes) the normal glidepath of a LT would sorta meet that model.

But we let the model break itself don't we?

Now riddle me this Batman. Your sorta-certified doctor has gone through the ad hoc Army-way of certification, vs. the standard gates, tests, and constant implementation of specific terminal and enabling learning objectives, with direct supervision of an attending for four or more years....you going to volunteer to go under his/her knife?

Doctors deal in saving lives, military folks deal in taking and saving them. Where do you want your priorities? I know my answer.

"The problem is so few LTs actually get to follow the model."

Yeah I know the model I proposed is a good one, and I know that (as Sertorious notes) the normal glidepath of a LT would sorta meet that model.

But we let the model break itself don't we?

Now riddle me this Batman. Your sorta-certified doctor has gone through the ad hoc Army-way of certification, vs. the standard gates, tests, and constant implementation of specific terminal and enabling learning objectives, with direct supervision of an attending for four or more years....you going to volunteer to go under his/her knife?

Doctors deal in saving lives, military folks deal in taking and saving them. Where do you want your priorities? I know my answer.

DARPA has awarded a research contract to Halliburton and Victoria's Secret to ascertain the causes of pregnancy, the remediation of pregnancies, and the roles that pregnant soldiers can play during gestation on Active Duty. Another line of inquiry will be why male troops do not become pregnant and how these lessons learned can be applied to female troops.

DARPA is confident of a successful outcome owing to DARPA's successful development of the first Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system, It is strongly felt that since they were able to stop incoming MIRVed warheads, they can certainly stop a single missile if research can satisfactorily identify a high correlation between a single incoming missile and pregnancy. A new method for shooting blanks will be explored. One possible concept to be pursued is the modification of current generation armor with a view towards extending coverage. It is believed that this armor will have to be adapted for long-term wear and would likely contain silver-based anti-microbiological halides. Two historical periods will be investigated: the Crusades and high school.

"One year is not enough platoon time. Not if we seriously consider a PLT to be a fighting element. Perhaps one year as an "assistant PL" and one year as the actual PL."

That's a terrible idea. Have you ever been in or around a line platoon? This would be an interpersonal disaster...too many cooks in the kitchen. What does the assistant platoon commander do, supervise the platoon guide?

"I'm suprised no one has brought up the fact that you have to volunteer for the Infantry as an enlisted guy, but as an Officer you can be assigned to the Infantry against your will. That's pretty dumb."

You can't be assigned grunts as an enlisted open contract? Are you sure?

Also, my own experience suggest this is a bit of a red herring; I have never met an 0302 or 11A who hadn't volunteered for that MOS. Then again, I don't have a lot of experience with Army Reserve/Guard units.

"I don't like the USMC concept of Infantry in practice. I don't like the fact that the 1st Sergeant or Sergeant Major is branch immaterial (and from what I'm told, mostly likely recruiter, drill instructor, or MSG, right?) Senior Enlisted Advisor should not simply be a repository of information on rules and regulations. They should also be leaders. You can't lead if you haven't been there, done that. (The Army screws this up too.)"

Look, I've had my trouble with first sergeants. My least professional moment in the USMC was during OIF when I (salty jaded 1stLt at the time) got in a screaming match with a 1stSgt from another unit who was harassing my Marines about wearing their beanies during the daytime (it was January and 25 degrees outside, and we'd been awake for a few days and were in no mood for "garrison forward" stupidity). If I had a dollar for every hour I've spent whining about 1stSgts getting all worked up about things like moustaches in combat zones....

At the end of the day though, it's two sides of the same coin. Yes, 1stSgts can be tiresome to deal with. That said, they are a huge value add in that they enforce USMC standards relentlessly, even when it's unpopular, and they tend to be very good at personnel administration, which is vital to mission accomplishment in any environment, combat or not.

You mentioned that PSGs shouldn't have to babysit PLs.... I could have used some mentoring when I checked into Lejeune, but my first platoon sergeant was a mess. Ultimately I had to fight to get him fired for gross incompetence and disobeying several direct orders during the workup. Guess who helped me deal with that very awkward and challenging situation? Yep, my first sergeant, who incidentally was a helo crew chief and former DI--by your logic shouldn't have gotten any respect--yet the Marines both loved and feared him.

S/F

...I should have been less USMC focused. Again, the idea is best practices, not "my tribe is better than your tribe". But some quick thoughts, not in any order.

I get your view on "too many cooks in the kitchen", and I think the key is in clearly defining responsibilities. The "2nd Officer" can perform a variety of roles; he can relieve the PSG of the "beans and bullets" role, allowing the most-experienced (in theory) member of the platoon to focus on readiness and training, especially in supervising SL and TL development.

And yes, I have had 2LTs shadow 1LT PL's in the field and on ops. It can work, this isn't a pipe dream. There's a reason that some units want Officers who have proven themselves to be able to lead a platoon prior to assuming another platoon position; I'm simply stating that we can apply that concept to the line.

Outside the wire, the PL can focus on Key Leader engagement and terp management while static (as one method), while the PSG can focus on perimeter security and the "Asst PL" can focus on the radios (how many times have I been trying to fight a platoon whilst listening to higher asking for updates on the radio...)

In a major TIC, the Asst PL is there in case the PL is hit. If the PSG is good, the PSG can run the fight and the APL can set up the Casevac. If the PSG isn't tactically inclined, then vice-versa.

A PL should be able to be an asset to a platoon. It's okay to be mentored by the CO and the PL and 1SG. However, if that 1SG has never served as an Infantry PSG and SL, then there's not much he can offer regarding tactics and training. Hence less mentoring, b/c there's not the practical experience.

I don't think it's okay to say "the system is fine, we just don't pay attention to the system". If we don't use the system, then it is broken.

And yes...I have met too many 11A's who didn't have Infantry as their first, second, or third choice...

Vet, I have had a different reaction to that, I think that the fact that a Marine is a Marine is one of their strengths. I know it is not always the reality, if given the choice I would prefer a Rifle Platoon over a Artillery, a Recon Platoon over a Rifle Platoon, etc...but there is a consistency with them and it is part of their culture. They of course, like all forces (even SOF suffers from this at times...sigh....) have their garrison POGs but that is something we can maybe change too with the right kind of focus or perhaps re-focus of what their SNCOs do?

Leroy, did the 1stSgts. use their "knive hands" in camp or was it a "no knife hand area"? ;) Have a lot of former marines in my community and they often have 'flashbacks' to those deadly, slicing killer hands.

For anyone who is not familiar with the knife-hand, a primer:

http://terminallance.com/2010/08/27/terminal-lance-59-knife-hand-anger-gauge/

Dude, there was a knife hand around every corner on Camp Fallujah...

I'll repeat again that I think the role of the 1stSgt is in fact to be a POG - a great POG who takes care of the admin stuff and reinforcing garrison standards and all the other unsexy, occasionally absurd USMC cult-of-motivation details which are vital to us remaining who we are. I think people who whine about POG 1stSgts are just totally missing the point. And I say that as someone who has complained bitterly about garrison-forward silliness on multiple occasions.

To Veteran 9's last post...did you not have a radio operator? The idea that you need another Lt in the platoon to handle comms - c'mon really?!?!

What happens when a salty former enlisted guy checks into the Bn, does he have to do a tour as an assistant PL under a guy who he is likely better than in terms of tactical/technial proficiency? Have you really thought through the interpersonal dynamics of this?

Also, sorry to hear that about 11As, didn't realize it was a problem in the Army, that's a bummer.....

You are taking the classic PC company line. How does my argument hurt? It is the reality? Does it hurt someone's feelings? Does someone need council due to my argument? We do not need our armed forces at a 15% manning rate by females, they are not mission critical at that percentage. The Navy is even shooting for a new "goal" of 20%. You can stand by your assertion all you want but it does not add up when you see the rates for single mothers who get out due to pregnancy, females who cannot deploy or single females who cannot deploy due to inability to get child care. It is not just "getting pregnant", it is all those things that go with it as well. The Center for Naval Analyses reported the following-"a quarter of women and a tenth of men are lost from ships every year for unplanned reasons". The CNA report also stated that pregnancy alone was at 11% for losses by themselves. Now, that study is ten years old and for the Navy, I doubt the Army numbers would be much different. It is funny though, have not seen a similar CNA study since then and yet have not noticed a dip in pregnancy in that time and have seen an increase in females, hmm.......well, I am sure the numbers went down.

We are talking about improving the quality of the Army and IMO we should also be doing this in all the branches. You do not improve quality by ignoring facts. We need to raise physical fitness levels, raise standards and focus on the combat mission and developing people. The attitude of so many that maintains the status quo does nothing to improve the situation.

I also gave a few solutions-mandated birth control, cracking down on frat, etc...those would go a long way but these are available now and yet it is only recently that getting pregnant in theater was actually acted on under the UCMJ. So, outside of mandated birth control, cracking down on frat, what do you propose? I assume you are an officer or a senior nco? So, you have to remember, it is not just the pregnancy itself that causes problems, it is the perception (usually the reality) that females receive preferential treatment due to those pregnancies, due to being female, going off deployment early, frat, etc.....and not being punished for those things. It is a huge morale problem and if you think it does not have any effect on your people I think you are mistaken. Let's be honest with each other though, no one is going to mandate birth control, it would be hammered on by Congress and various women's groups as well as being a statement that the Brass are just going to throw their hands up at frat. Cracking down on frat? Never gonna happen either, watched it time and time again and with a few exceptions I have always seen the guy pay more heavily than the girl when frat is enforced. So, moral courage is lacking in our officer corps and that flows from the top, what would you do to counter this problem? Keep in mind, it is not just the pregnancy, it is all the things that come with it.

The knife hand is not about physical violence; rather it is a directed hand gesture used to reinforce a point. Basically, it is talking with your hands in a way different than the aviators, in that it is direct and lacks accompanying airplane sounds

"accompanying airplane sounds" That's funny.