Risk Aversion & the Command Structure.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't the first glaring example of this imbecilic 'micromanagement from afar' (made hugely worse by improved comms, which allow the armchair generals at HQ 'real time' contact with the PBI in the field) the debacle of attempting to rescue the hostages held by the Iranians, (when was it?) back in 1980?
From what I've read, the small cheese decisions in that cluster***k went as high as Jimmy *** Carter himself.
I've head similar comments made about the (again unsuccessful) attempt to rescue prisoners from North Vietnam (the Son Tay raid) in the early 70s.
From what I've read, the small cheese decisions in that cluster***k went as high as Jimmy *** Carter himself.
I've head similar comments made about the (again unsuccessful) attempt to rescue prisoners from North Vietnam (the Son Tay raid) in the early 70s.
Illustrating the title of this thread nicely, and showing that risk aversion is starting earlier and earlier amongst the greasy-pole-climbers, I heard scuttlebutt* around the crewroom that an individual recently elected not to apply for his type's QWI/QHTI/QMETI course (left deliberately vague to obscure identity). So what, you might say? Well, his reasoning (apparently) was that attempting and failing the course would not look good on his career profile, and simply not having the qualification was good enough. This spineless decision was duly rewarded with promotion on the recent list. It makes you wonder what kind of stuff is floating to the top of our wonderful organisation - whatever happened to leading by example?
* well, this is meant to be a rumour network!
* well, this is meant to be a rumour network!
Easy - just goes to show that you don't get promoted for being good at your job - I bet this guy had some great high-profile secondary duties though
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I have always had the feeling that becoming a QFI was the kiss of death. How many SOs are Q qualified? I know there are exceptions, I think BEagle's friend B Bill was a QFI. The difference there was that he was one of the initial QFI on the F4.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAS ACM Torpy was a CFS QFI apparently, but I agree, QWI is the way to the top, not QFI - they don't tell you that when they need people to go instruct the baby pilots though - creates real problems with your OJAR!
When I was at baby staff college, a lecturer from a local Uni asked the class of 40 to name a senior officer who had inspired them. Honestly, nobody could, I felt that was pretty bad - let's not get into a 'who inspired me' type bit here but I feel that the Americans have some pretty inspirational senior guys right now, ours seem too political and remote.
When I was at baby staff college, a lecturer from a local Uni asked the class of 40 to name a senior officer who had inspired them. Honestly, nobody could, I felt that was pretty bad - let's not get into a 'who inspired me' type bit here but I feel that the Americans have some pretty inspirational senior guys right now, ours seem too political and remote.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
It is the analysis of the Operation Anaconda fiasco prompted by risk aversion, remote commanders ignoring on-scene commanders.....and the fallacy that an Air Force C-141 pilot (having made General) knows something about commanding Army Infantry, Rangers, and Navy/Army/Air Force/SAS Spec Ops personnel engaged in close combat.
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
A 4-star general should be able to lead and use his experts subordinates.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s endemic, I think, and not new. To quote Major Harry Smith (CO D Coy, 6RAR) in part 5 of the 5 part documentary that can be seen here YouTube - THE BATTLE OF LONG TAN , as his unit was looking like it was about to overrun by vastly superior forces:
(I suspect there'd be quite a few junior and middle ranking officers in today's armed forces who'd echo those sentiments with some feeling.)
Earlier in the same engagement, Sergeant Bob Buick, 11 Platoon Commander after his officer had been killed, called for the arty onto his own location – not, I would imagine, a fire order that too many arty FOO’s have received.
The documentary is well worth watching. (The links to the other four parts are in the sidebar.) And it has an aviation aspect. The resupply sorties to the beleaguered company by two RAAF Hueys at the height of the battle were seriously 'John Wayne' affairs.
(With classic understatement...) “We looked like being in trouble so I asked (the Arty FOO) to drop the guns by 50, which means they come 50 metres closer to us... and the word came down the line from the Task Force Operations Centre: ‘We consider that is unsafe.’
“Well... that was like holding a red rag to a bull with me, and I think my words were: ‘Look, just put the effing guns down where we want them, otherwise you’ll lose the whole bloody lot of us.’ I just got a little bit upset that people from somewhere else were trying to direct a battle we were involved in.”
“Well... that was like holding a red rag to a bull with me, and I think my words were: ‘Look, just put the effing guns down where we want them, otherwise you’ll lose the whole bloody lot of us.’ I just got a little bit upset that people from somewhere else were trying to direct a battle we were involved in.”
Earlier in the same engagement, Sergeant Bob Buick, 11 Platoon Commander after his officer had been killed, called for the arty onto his own location – not, I would imagine, a fire order that too many arty FOO’s have received.
The documentary is well worth watching. (The links to the other four parts are in the sidebar.) And it has an aviation aspect. The resupply sorties to the beleaguered company by two RAAF Hueys at the height of the battle were seriously 'John Wayne' affairs.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To broaden the scope of what is an interesting debate. I suspect that pretty much all readers here will have been fed doctrine regarding leadership styles at some time or other. ....and most military analysists in history have decreed that a different style of leadership is required in a peacetime force to that of a force in conflict. How often is "politics" or "lining his nest" used when condemning the leadership qualities of starred officers.
So to get to the point: Are we mismatched with our current leadership across the board, as in a peacetime politically correct band of brothers as opposed to slightly autocratic leaders of men engaged in battle. (Apologies to lady viewers for the terminology, please treat it as men and women) The alternative is that we are perhaps balanced or compromised and not actually providing what is needed in war or peace.
......and with that little hand grenade; over to you.
So to get to the point: Are we mismatched with our current leadership across the board, as in a peacetime politically correct band of brothers as opposed to slightly autocratic leaders of men engaged in battle. (Apologies to lady viewers for the terminology, please treat it as men and women) The alternative is that we are perhaps balanced or compromised and not actually providing what is needed in war or peace.
......and with that little hand grenade; over to you.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my mind, the fundamental problem is that military service has become intellectualised. In the late 60s / early 70's the Royal Air Force started working towards an all graduate officer corps. It became a self fulfilling prophesy.
Naturally, degrees were seen as an attribute that outweighed other officer qualities and, in my opinion, some poor officers were promoted beyond their military ability. Decision making authority, inevitably, drifted up the pay grades.
The problem was exacerbated by the fact that many of the graduates had not been immersed in the military culture from youth. Some were most definitely not the sort that one would want to 'share a fox hole with'. These tended to be, I suspected, those who saw the service as a career and thought their ambition a virtue. My view was that it was a vocation and my duty was to serve to the best of my ability, whatever the post or rank.
I served on one squadron, as a senior Flt Lt, with a bunch of execs (Sqn Ldrs) who were virtually ineffective as they devoted the great majority of their effort into management initiatives that would appeal to their reporting officers. Little effort was put into maintaining, or even building, operational effectiveness and we had a large number of, IMHO, lazy and incompetent junior officers.
I left the service, got a degree and became an academic. I found to my horror that the problems became worse. An American very senior officer told me that it was planned that no officer might become a colonel without a PhD. I wondered how much operational experience an officer of that rank might have - at say 40 y.o.a. - having done a Bachelors (3 yr) , Masters (1 yr) and PhD (3 yr) degrees.
It may be that the services (I have been out a long time now) have become far too management oriented and not enough people oriented. Certainly, I find laughable the management guff that one sees coming out of the MoD. The very idea of 'customers' would have been laughed at out loud up to the mid-70s. The procurement management scandals have not become fewer nor less ludicrous since the adoption of 'new management practices'.
If we have to go to war big time, i.e. to directly defend our sovereign territory again, we are going to need some pretty amazingly strong politicians because the first thing they will need to do is fire all of the managers in uniform and find some leaders with a bit of back bone.
Naturally, degrees were seen as an attribute that outweighed other officer qualities and, in my opinion, some poor officers were promoted beyond their military ability. Decision making authority, inevitably, drifted up the pay grades.
The problem was exacerbated by the fact that many of the graduates had not been immersed in the military culture from youth. Some were most definitely not the sort that one would want to 'share a fox hole with'. These tended to be, I suspected, those who saw the service as a career and thought their ambition a virtue. My view was that it was a vocation and my duty was to serve to the best of my ability, whatever the post or rank.
I served on one squadron, as a senior Flt Lt, with a bunch of execs (Sqn Ldrs) who were virtually ineffective as they devoted the great majority of their effort into management initiatives that would appeal to their reporting officers. Little effort was put into maintaining, or even building, operational effectiveness and we had a large number of, IMHO, lazy and incompetent junior officers.
I left the service, got a degree and became an academic. I found to my horror that the problems became worse. An American very senior officer told me that it was planned that no officer might become a colonel without a PhD. I wondered how much operational experience an officer of that rank might have - at say 40 y.o.a. - having done a Bachelors (3 yr) , Masters (1 yr) and PhD (3 yr) degrees.
It may be that the services (I have been out a long time now) have become far too management oriented and not enough people oriented. Certainly, I find laughable the management guff that one sees coming out of the MoD. The very idea of 'customers' would have been laughed at out loud up to the mid-70s. The procurement management scandals have not become fewer nor less ludicrous since the adoption of 'new management practices'.
If we have to go to war big time, i.e. to directly defend our sovereign territory again, we are going to need some pretty amazingly strong politicians because the first thing they will need to do is fire all of the managers in uniform and find some leaders with a bit of back bone.
It doesn't just happen at the top end, there are some JOs & seniors who think they must keep creative thinking underwraps, thus tieing the hands of some very capable people. High profile secondary duties and arse licking can only get you by so far, you get found out eventually when others have to pull in the slack to do the job for them. IMHO.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic but can anyone tell me the difference between "leaving the Service" and "retiring from the Service". Someone I joined up with 32 years ago and who has made it to Air Cdre is doing the former so just curious that's all.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, have been trying to fix this problem ...
No, wrong, Casey is part of the pee cee problem. The sooner he's retired, the better.
No, wrong, Casey is part of the pee cee problem. The sooner he's retired, the better.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
There is certainly a miss match between leadership and management, between say Lt Col and Col (I used Army ranks advisedly).
The organisation I just left has a CEO and a COO. These are civilian terms and readily recognisable in industry. It helps in arguing for pay comparisons and also transfer between the public and private sectors.
The CEO I have in mind is 3* admiral and the COO a 2* civil servant who has come in from industry.
The organisation I just left has a CEO and a COO. These are civilian terms and readily recognisable in industry. It helps in arguing for pay comparisons and also transfer between the public and private sectors.
The CEO I have in mind is 3* admiral and the COO a 2* civil servant who has come in from industry.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High profile secondary duties and arse licking can only get you by so far, you get found out eventually when others have to pull in the slack to do the job for them. IMHO.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brakes
Leaving the Service implies that they are exiting at a point other than the retirement date originally set. So for example if you exit at an option point you are leaving if you exit at your 55th birthday then you are retiring. Conversely not sure that "stars" can retire as they are subject to imediate recall and get a higher pension because of it. But then again I left a while back and it could all have changed the "stars"
You served with these fellows? You must be getting a bit long in the Tooth!