Yes, to go or not to go to war is the responsibility of the policymakers, but the conduct should not be. If that were true, the current crop of congressmen would be dragging all of the military back home. Some are trying to do just that, and we see the mess they are making.

I also wonder if Yingling can offer us some ideas what wars will be like ten years from now.

No where can I find any proof this is a military publication. Its owners are all liberal rich guys, who happen to own several publications. This one included.

Google it yourself.

Papa Ray

Overall, I enjoyed the article.

Any experienced Soldier who has been to Iraq, especially in the beginning of the occupation knows that there were not enough troops to do the job of stabilizing the situation. Still we rucked up and did it as best as we could and are still doing it today. Would it have made more of a difference if a few high rankers had done more in an effort to get the right number of troops from the beginning? For that matter, would have have made a bigger difference back in the ’90’s, when we so eagerly cut land forces by more than 50%, if a few more high rankers had put their careers on the line to protest this short-sighted effort to reap the “peace dividend”? I don’t know, but if it isn’t the generals’ job to fully explain the consequences of the civilians’ plans, whose job is it?

I’m here by way of the Mudville Gazette and an email from a fellow graduate of Harvard on the Hudson (not to be confused with Canoe U).

That email contained LTC Yingling’s article. I read through it upon receipt and said “WOW!” Pretty biting stuff. At a more leisurely and analytical pace, it reads a little less hard-hitting. Still there are some key insights I think that the Army/DoD might consider implementing.

1. 360 evaluations/appraisals are pretty eye-opening. I had the opportunity to have one done on me as part of a course I took at Fort Belvoir several years ago. This leadership course used the assessment to show students how others thought of them as leaders, compared to a self assessment. Not surprisingly, my superiors gave me glowing, walk on water remarks. However when peers and subordinates took their swings, they were far more candid and frankly much more useful. I think that this type of system should be piloted not only for GOs, but for all officers and NCOs as well.

2. LTC Yingling correctly, I believe, identifies something of a GroupThink mentality that’s far too prevalent in today’s force. Successful officers seem to be more “go along, get along” kinds of guys rather than strong willed individuals with minds of their own. While it is hard to believe that Patton would have been one to welcome dissent, he has been quoted as saying “If we’re all thinking alike, then someone’s not thinking.” That’s happening far too often these days. When’s the last time you’ve heard a junior officer toss a turd in the punchbowl at a staff meeting?

3. LTC Yingling appears to be quite enamored with the concept of classroom and university education. While I can’t argue that you want to have officers with good heads on their shoulders, I would challenge him to look back on his training within the Army. Has he ever truly been as challenged in an Army classroom as he ever was in one at a university? When I have friends and subordinates that worry about going off to a course or a class, I ask them, “Is it an Army class?” If the answer is yes, then I tell them not to worry. Everyone in the class, with very few exceptions, is going to pass it. It’s just the way things go… What I would say to LTC Yingling is not to be too “doe-eyed” when it comes to reading a bio sheet. I’ve run across too many dopes holding post-graduate degrees to think that I need one to do well.

All in all, a good article…but certainly not the ground-shaking one that I had initially thought it might have been. I’m sure he got a good grade on it.

See you on the high ground!

MajorDad1984

Yingling is not trying to fix a mess that is already in progress. His purpose is to remind folks of how we got into the mess to begin with-in the hope it is not repeated-and its a good analysis. One has to read the article in its entirety though and …..