Christmas is in the air at Fort Leavenworth -- this morning, every soldier on post (and most sailors, marines, airpersons, and more than a few civilians with their dogs or small children) gathered at o-dark-thirty in the crisp morning air for a "fun run." In all my years in the Army, there is still nothing quite so motivating as a 3-mile jog while singing along with 2,500 of your closest friends. The 17-degree temperature brought out the best in everyone: non-uniform snivel gear, mass chaos formations, frozen spittle on the sidewalks, people throwing up in the grass, and even at least one fistfight between two field grade officers. (Apparently they got into it when one called the other a naughty name for a part of the female anatomy because he was running too slow, so he told the first guy what to do with himself, and fists started flying. There were also apparently about two dozen various others who threw up in the grass not even halfway through the run.)
We're all professionals here, right?
It is little wonder that an Air Force friend of mine, who was here at the same school a year ago, told me by December that he had had "too much of the hooah."
Gecko-6 bowed out of this one, opting instead to play the "old man" card and save my knees. I'm proud to say I showed up, stood around shivering with my classmates for half an hour, saluted the flag, and drove home in my warm car as they all shuffled along. Sounds like I didn't miss much.
With that in mind -- remember as you celebrate Christmas this year, wherever you are in the world, that we are fighting for at least one person's right to be an idiot.
Sounds like one person is guaranteed coal in her stocking on Dec. 25 -- and should be beaten senseless with it.
12.07.2011
11.22.2011
Will work for conventional threat doctrine
Check out "United States is Restarting WWII To Accommodate Demand". Although it is satire, the article might be onto something.
For the last few weeks at Majors' School, there have been amazingly few Godwin references despite a rapid approach to WWII in our history studies. However, our tactics studies over the last two weeks have been centered on how to plan tactical campaigns around a hypothetical, "conventional military" threat (as opposed to terrorists or insurgents, this refers to linear-type formations with lots of tanks and airplanes). This is commonly known as the "Military Decision Making Process," or MDMP. Strangely, however -- perhaps disappointingly -- the designers of this school apparently think that we as Majors are somehow inculcated with the precise knowledge of this imaginary enemy's doctrine, tactics, and capability.
Some 20 years ago, we studied the old Soviet Union's tactics in depth. My first unit in the Army back then was the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, a storied unit that guarded Germany's "Fulda Gap" against the coming Soviet hordes (successfully, mind you). As a new soldier, I was inundated with all manner of classified and unclassified knowledge about the inner workings of the Red Army's formations. One of my sons was even born in Fulda.
So here we are, winding down over a decade of "asymmetric" warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our Army leaders say we need to focus on our "core competencies" (read: linear warfare) and away from counterinsurgency training in our formations. Fine enough -- even though the Soviet Union is no more, many of our enemies still employ their doctrines, equipment, and tactics. Iraq did in 2003, China and "Best Korea" still do, Russia of course still does (but their military is purely defensive), and smaller belligerents still do as well. So why don't we get at least some training on their doctrines?
I'm not really sure, and neither are our instructors.
Maybe we should restart WWII, just so we can use some MDMP training on a real enemy. Any takers?
And that is the last I will think about anything military until next week. Happy Thanksgiving!
For the last few weeks at Majors' School, there have been amazingly few Godwin references despite a rapid approach to WWII in our history studies. However, our tactics studies over the last two weeks have been centered on how to plan tactical campaigns around a hypothetical, "conventional military" threat (as opposed to terrorists or insurgents, this refers to linear-type formations with lots of tanks and airplanes). This is commonly known as the "Military Decision Making Process," or MDMP. Strangely, however -- perhaps disappointingly -- the designers of this school apparently think that we as Majors are somehow inculcated with the precise knowledge of this imaginary enemy's doctrine, tactics, and capability.
Some 20 years ago, we studied the old Soviet Union's tactics in depth. My first unit in the Army back then was the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, a storied unit that guarded Germany's "Fulda Gap" against the coming Soviet hordes (successfully, mind you). As a new soldier, I was inundated with all manner of classified and unclassified knowledge about the inner workings of the Red Army's formations. One of my sons was even born in Fulda.
So here we are, winding down over a decade of "asymmetric" warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our Army leaders say we need to focus on our "core competencies" (read: linear warfare) and away from counterinsurgency training in our formations. Fine enough -- even though the Soviet Union is no more, many of our enemies still employ their doctrines, equipment, and tactics. Iraq did in 2003, China and "Best Korea" still do, Russia of course still does (but their military is purely defensive), and smaller belligerents still do as well. So why don't we get at least some training on their doctrines?
I'm not really sure, and neither are our instructors.
Maybe we should restart WWII, just so we can use some MDMP training on a real enemy. Any takers?
And that is the last I will think about anything military until next week. Happy Thanksgiving!
11.21.2011
NOT A TANK
(click on pic for link to story)
Just because it's armored, doesn't mean it is a tank. Even laymen know that.
For the unknowing laypersons, these would be tanks:
Any questions?
11.03.2011
in God we trust
Aren't you glad things are so good in our country that Congress has time to pass meaningless resolutions? This week, the House debated for 35 minutes on the resolution until deciding once again that "In God we Trust" is our national motto -- despite the fact that it's already been done. Twice. So, since everything and everyone in our country is so happy and peaceful and well-fed and employed, our elected officials figured they needed to officially acknowledge the big man upstairs. The bill apparently was in response to a speech Obama gave a year ago, where he flubbed the national motto and declared it , "E pluribus unum."
Never mind that both mottoes appear on the dollar bill, and the correct one is permanently etched in just about all our money. Maybe Congress would do better by finally replacing our dollar bill with coins -- thus not only saving $5.6 billion, but also finally modernizing our monetary system like the rest of the industrialized world. Even though we've been debating the issue on and off for at least 25 years, the euro never had a 1-note, and most European nations did away with theirs well in advance of that. Coins last practically forever, while dollar bills are only in circulation for about 18 months. Has anyone actually used the presidential $1 coins? I've never even held one, although they've been in circulation for a few years now.
$1 coin doubters in our country cite the fact that the Treasury has almost $2 billion in 1-dollar coins just sitting in storage, because no one uses them. Well, duh -- what did you expect when you keep making the bills? Of course no one will like them, given the choice. I don't know what genius bureaucrat thought it was a good idea to try and keep both in circulation, but I'm sure he has a nice, healthy government pension -- while our government continues its free-fall into crushing debt that could be alleviated, at least a little, by the switch.
And while we're at it, we should stop making pennies all together, and seriously consider nickels as well -- they both cost more to make than they're worth, and continue to waste taxpayer dollars...er, cents. We should do it because it's the right thing to do -- not keep putting it off just because some mid-West grandmothers like to send dollar bills in the mail.
The fact we are even debating the topic in this country is about as stupid and cheesy as my favorite 80's Christian glam-metal band, Stryper. Which of course is a good reason to embed this really cheesy (and related only in title) music video:
Never mind that both mottoes appear on the dollar bill, and the correct one is permanently etched in just about all our money. Maybe Congress would do better by finally replacing our dollar bill with coins -- thus not only saving $5.6 billion, but also finally modernizing our monetary system like the rest of the industrialized world. Even though we've been debating the issue on and off for at least 25 years, the euro never had a 1-note, and most European nations did away with theirs well in advance of that. Coins last practically forever, while dollar bills are only in circulation for about 18 months. Has anyone actually used the presidential $1 coins? I've never even held one, although they've been in circulation for a few years now.
$1 coin doubters in our country cite the fact that the Treasury has almost $2 billion in 1-dollar coins just sitting in storage, because no one uses them. Well, duh -- what did you expect when you keep making the bills? Of course no one will like them, given the choice. I don't know what genius bureaucrat thought it was a good idea to try and keep both in circulation, but I'm sure he has a nice, healthy government pension -- while our government continues its free-fall into crushing debt that could be alleviated, at least a little, by the switch.
And while we're at it, we should stop making pennies all together, and seriously consider nickels as well -- they both cost more to make than they're worth, and continue to waste taxpayer dollars...er, cents. We should do it because it's the right thing to do -- not keep putting it off just because some mid-West grandmothers like to send dollar bills in the mail.
The fact we are even debating the topic in this country is about as stupid and cheesy as my favorite 80's Christian glam-metal band, Stryper. Which of course is a good reason to embed this really cheesy (and related only in title) music video:
I'm sure I had a good time watching those guys in concert 25 years ago -- but what was I thinking?
10.20.2011
got risk?
Risk aversion, according to military pundits and economic zeitgeist, is when someone is too scared to make a decision that accepts risk -- in effect, staying in one's comfort zone. By being the polar opposite of decisiveness, risk aversion can keep a person or organization too safe, thereby missing opportunities or perhaps disenfranchising certain population segments. Some current military critics argue that "risk aversion is rewarded" in our military, a supposition that is apparently causing our best and brightest to leave in droves.
Fort Leavenworth is not immune.
Last month, I was informed by the base's finest that Grant Avenue, the only four-lane road on this small post, is the only road where bicycles are prohibited due to high volumes of traffic on normal work days. After I filed a formal online complaint suggesting that the road be open to cyclists on the weekends, I actually got a response from the garrison's Command Sergeant Major (sort of the senior "Town Hall" representative, like a deputy mayor). We met later and he informed me that he was examining the complaints from me and others to determine the best course to accommodate everyone. This was refreshingly positive -- especially since at Fort Sill (my last post), any complaint I ever submitted was ignored, or else I was told where to go and how to get there.
But, here is the rub: the CSM said that some of the leaders involved (probably retired senior officers who don't ride) stated, "...if we open up Grant to cyclists, we have to include 65-year-old grandmothers and 10-year-old kids. That's too dangerous."
Which of course is like saying I need to dig a foxhole in my front yard in order to keep the elephants away.
The grandmothers, kids, and especially perambulators are the very ones cyclists like me are trying to avoid at 20 mph on the narrow, cracked sidewalks, never mind that the roads we are allowed on are narrower and, at certain times just as busy, ergo making those routes inherently more dangerous -- or that almost every traffic light along Grant has signs facing the cross streets that say, "WATCH FOR CYCLISTS."
So yet again, another Army post is subjected to silly rules enforced by the whims of people who don't really think things through or perhaps overthink them -- all in the elusive name of safety. They might as well ban all bikes on all roads, period.
Now, this is obviously too trivial to make me want to retire, but the issue is indicative of the larger problem of risk aversion -- which has ended up with our military in deep trouble more times than I'd like to admit.
Fort Leavenworth is not immune.
Last month, I was informed by the base's finest that Grant Avenue, the only four-lane road on this small post, is the only road where bicycles are prohibited due to high volumes of traffic on normal work days. After I filed a formal online complaint suggesting that the road be open to cyclists on the weekends, I actually got a response from the garrison's Command Sergeant Major (sort of the senior "Town Hall" representative, like a deputy mayor). We met later and he informed me that he was examining the complaints from me and others to determine the best course to accommodate everyone. This was refreshingly positive -- especially since at Fort Sill (my last post), any complaint I ever submitted was ignored, or else I was told where to go and how to get there.
But, here is the rub: the CSM said that some of the leaders involved (probably retired senior officers who don't ride) stated, "...if we open up Grant to cyclists, we have to include 65-year-old grandmothers and 10-year-old kids. That's too dangerous."
Which of course is like saying I need to dig a foxhole in my front yard in order to keep the elephants away.
The grandmothers, kids, and especially perambulators are the very ones cyclists like me are trying to avoid at 20 mph on the narrow, cracked sidewalks, never mind that the roads we are allowed on are narrower and, at certain times just as busy, ergo making those routes inherently more dangerous -- or that almost every traffic light along Grant has signs facing the cross streets that say, "WATCH FOR CYCLISTS."
So yet again, another Army post is subjected to silly rules enforced by the whims of people who don't really think things through or perhaps overthink them -- all in the elusive name of safety. They might as well ban all bikes on all roads, period.
Now, this is obviously too trivial to make me want to retire, but the issue is indicative of the larger problem of risk aversion -- which has ended up with our military in deep trouble more times than I'd like to admit.
10.19.2011
Clausewitz: On Poker
While researching this evening for a history paper I have to write about the great military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, I ran across this interesting gem. In it, the author compares Clausewitz's seminal philosophical work, On War, to the game of poker -- and even suggests that the military should adopt poker into its training regimen as fervently as it does physical training.
Need I mention this was written by a Marine? At least he does quote the late Colonel David Hackworth, one of my personal heroes.
Need I mention this was written by a Marine? At least he does quote the late Colonel David Hackworth, one of my personal heroes.
10.06.2011
Shades of "Pentagon Wars"
Did someone hit their head on a toilet before dreaming up this monstrosity?
Read the article here.
I feel sorry for the SIGO's that have to deal with this nightmare. Might as well paint a bright red target on it too.
For those that don't get the title's movie reference, the military's R&D and acquisitions process is just a little... shall we say, tweaked. Suffice it to say that here at Majors' School to explain the complexities and politics of the DoD's acquisitions process, we recently played a card game. You read that right: a card game.
The game, for what it is, is pretty simple. At the start, each team gets $150 notional dollars to buy five of any 10-A card, at various prices each up to $56. There are 5 cards lain face-up, in sequence, lengthwise on the table -- 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. In each round, teams lay one card face-down next to their target card. The highest card wins the face-value points, and certain suits are higher than others. Ties result in no points for either team, and the losing card goes back into the deck. In all subsequent rounds, each team gets $50 more to spend and must always have five cards at the start of every round. The winner is the first to get to 51 points, or the highest after five rounds.
And that, folks, is how the services each get money each year for big-ticket programs from Uncle Sam. No kidding.
I haven't actually seen the whole movie yet, and until Netflix streams it I probably won't.
Read the article here.
I feel sorry for the SIGO's that have to deal with this nightmare. Might as well paint a bright red target on it too.
For those that don't get the title's movie reference, the military's R&D and acquisitions process is just a little... shall we say, tweaked. Suffice it to say that here at Majors' School to explain the complexities and politics of the DoD's acquisitions process, we recently played a card game. You read that right: a card game.
The game, for what it is, is pretty simple. At the start, each team gets $150 notional dollars to buy five of any 10-A card, at various prices each up to $56. There are 5 cards lain face-up, in sequence, lengthwise on the table -- 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. In each round, teams lay one card face-down next to their target card. The highest card wins the face-value points, and certain suits are higher than others. Ties result in no points for either team, and the losing card goes back into the deck. In all subsequent rounds, each team gets $50 more to spend and must always have five cards at the start of every round. The winner is the first to get to 51 points, or the highest after five rounds.
And that, folks, is how the services each get money each year for big-ticket programs from Uncle Sam. No kidding.
I haven't actually seen the whole movie yet, and until Netflix streams it I probably won't.
10.03.2011
quotable Rooney
Andy Rooney, from his last essay on 60 Minutes (last night):
"There aren't too many original thoughts in the world; a writer's job is to tell the truth."
"There aren't too many original thoughts in the world; a writer's job is to tell the truth."
9.27.2011
I don't know if it's "operational art," but I guess I like it.
Group case-study on operational art.
Now, discuss the Allies' centers of gravity, decisive points, lines of operation, and culminations.
Back in that day, this was a SIGO's life:
9.23.2011
Thought for the weak
Not long after we started here last month, some messages were sent out from senior leaders reminding us to adhere to standard uniform policies. What follows here is a direct quote from one of those messages (and was originally sent from a Sergeant Major), with a few points of clarification in brackets:
"All:
"I notice this morning an international students was riding his bike without a jacket. I couldn't turn around in traffic to stop him, but there were several ILE students [some of us] who walked and rode past him. So if students are not policing each other then the violation continue. Not to be preaching, but when an enlisted Soldiers ask me 'can we ride our bike without our ACU jacket [uniform top] or wear other backpacks that are not authorized'. How do you response except with the truth.
"We have a systemic problems with the wear of the uniform from the students which needs to be address. I'm sure it has been, but maybe they don't care. So when I hear the CASCAL survey [???] about 'Soldier are not discipline,' its start with them.
"Maybe we need to do a lamp [our august newspaper] articles on standard uniform wear. I'll work that piece.
"Thanks you all for your support. Hooah!!"
Mind you, if I understand the intent of this, this esteemed senior noncommissioned officer is right in that Field Grade officers should set the example, and should know better than to even ask those kinds of questions. Uniform policy is an accepted fact of soldiering -- an artifact of our culture, if you will.
Apparently however, correct English grammar and spelling are not -- assuming, that is, that the SGM is not a foreign soldier himself (his name doesn't appear foreign, anyway).
The senior officer who initially forwarded the verbatim comments -- who, ostensibly, is himself a CGSC alumnus -- should have known better than to embarrass the NCO corps by forwarding the exact message, thus detracting from the heart of the message itself (which apparently was: wear your uniform like a professional). More importantly, the senior NCO -- as a professional -- should set the example himself and either get professional help with his writing skills, have someone smarter screen his messages before blasting them out, or else just not bother. The message is lost, largely because the NCO tried too hard to sound smart.
Especially in this environment, where we thousand-plus Majors areexpected required to get it right the first time.
This is nothing new. Maybe it's just that our Army has left the professional writing skills exclusively up to us officers for far too long.
"All:
"I notice this morning an international students was riding his bike without a jacket. I couldn't turn around in traffic to stop him, but there were several ILE students [some of us] who walked and rode past him. So if students are not policing each other then the violation continue. Not to be preaching, but when an enlisted Soldiers ask me 'can we ride our bike without our ACU jacket [uniform top] or wear other backpacks that are not authorized'. How do you response except with the truth.
"We have a systemic problems with the wear of the uniform from the students which needs to be address. I'm sure it has been, but maybe they don't care. So when I hear the CASCAL survey [???] about 'Soldier are not discipline,' its start with them.
"Maybe we need to do a lamp [our august newspaper] articles on standard uniform wear. I'll work that piece.
"Thanks you all for your support. Hooah!!"
Mind you, if I understand the intent of this, this esteemed senior noncommissioned officer is right in that Field Grade officers should set the example, and should know better than to even ask those kinds of questions. Uniform policy is an accepted fact of soldiering -- an artifact of our culture, if you will.
Apparently however, correct English grammar and spelling are not -- assuming, that is, that the SGM is not a foreign soldier himself (his name doesn't appear foreign, anyway).
The senior officer who initially forwarded the verbatim comments -- who, ostensibly, is himself a CGSC alumnus -- should have known better than to embarrass the NCO corps by forwarding the exact message, thus detracting from the heart of the message itself (which apparently was: wear your uniform like a professional). More importantly, the senior NCO -- as a professional -- should set the example himself and either get professional help with his writing skills, have someone smarter screen his messages before blasting them out, or else just not bother. The message is lost, largely because the NCO tried too hard to sound smart.
Especially in this environment, where we thousand-plus Majors are
This is nothing new. Maybe it's just that our Army has left the professional writing skills exclusively up to us officers for far too long.
9.22.2011
U.S. walks out of Iran speech at U.N.
Read the article here.
While it is amazingly stupid that Iran is still trying to play the Holocaust-denier card, it is sadder still that the entire assembly did not follow America's lead.
Maybe they should have just had the band play him off.
While it is amazingly stupid that Iran is still trying to play the Holocaust-denier card, it is sadder still that the entire assembly did not follow America's lead.
Maybe they should have just had the band play him off.
9.21.2011
Welcome to the best year of your life
Or so we were told, many times over the first couple of weeks of school.
We are the Chosen Thousand, having intrepidly descended upon the Army's Command and General Staff College in northeastern Kansas, from the four corners of Planet Earth. Though mostly Army, we come from all the services and many foreign nations. Segregated into 16-member "Small Groups," have embarked on our 10-month course to learn how to be better Field Grade officers.
So, here's a wrap-up of the first few weeks:
Week 1: Mall cop convention (we all had to wear our Class A uniforms) -- lots of do's and don'ts, for instance:
DO: Read on a graduate level but write essays on an 8th grade level, try hard, find balance, and have the best year of your life.
DON'T: get in trouble, bring coffee into the main auditorium, bring pets to the Commanding General's reception, plagiarize anything, or fail your Physical Fitness Test.
Weeks 2 through 6:
We study military history, particulary European military history after 1300 a.d., because all the famously dead generals did it.
NEVER cite wikipedia as a source.
Strategy is good. Don't look for any in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Toxic leaders are bad.
Our military has a LOT of ships, planes, and tanks. Don't mess with us or we use it all, jointly.
For all future scenarios, we will use some real countries and some fake ones. Try not to get confused.
Week 7:
"Dead Carl" von Clauzewitz was a Prussian general who really liked Napoleon and wrote a lot of very ethereal stuff about the fog and confusion of war. Pay no attention to any similarities with Sun Tzu.
However, Colin Powell apparently did understand Clausewitz -- even though no one would listen to Powell in 2002.
So far, at least one instructor per day will Godwin the lesson. See future posts for weekly Godwin tallies as our history studies close in on WWII.
We are the Chosen Thousand, having intrepidly descended upon the Army's Command and General Staff College in northeastern Kansas, from the four corners of Planet Earth. Though mostly Army, we come from all the services and many foreign nations. Segregated into 16-member "Small Groups," have embarked on our 10-month course to learn how to be better Field Grade officers.
So, here's a wrap-up of the first few weeks:
Week 1: Mall cop convention (we all had to wear our Class A uniforms) -- lots of do's and don'ts, for instance:
DO: Read on a graduate level but write essays on an 8th grade level, try hard, find balance, and have the best year of your life.
DON'T: get in trouble, bring coffee into the main auditorium, bring pets to the Commanding General's reception, plagiarize anything, or fail your Physical Fitness Test.
Weeks 2 through 6:
We study military history, particulary European military history after 1300 a.d., because all the famously dead generals did it.
NEVER cite wikipedia as a source.
Strategy is good. Don't look for any in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Toxic leaders are bad.
Our military has a LOT of ships, planes, and tanks. Don't mess with us or we use it all, jointly.
For all future scenarios, we will use some real countries and some fake ones. Try not to get confused.
Week 7:
"Dead Carl" von Clauzewitz was a Prussian general who really liked Napoleon and wrote a lot of very ethereal stuff about the fog and confusion of war. Pay no attention to any similarities with Sun Tzu.
However, Colin Powell apparently did understand Clausewitz -- even though no one would listen to Powell in 2002.
So far, at least one instructor per day will Godwin the lesson. See future posts for weekly Godwin tallies as our history studies close in on WWII.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)