re: Could any strategy have worked in Vietnam?

Tell him that wasn't always the case so he knows you're half cool.

quote:

---

You never give me credit for the fun side of my career

---

I said half cool.

You should be wearing a Star in my book! Semper Fi!

quote:

---

There was no confusion in WWII. But afterwards confusion set in and in my opinion it started with the notion of having a large standing army (military) that would/could deal with world problems not just national strategic objectives, that needed to be treated as an institution with rigid controls on personnel. We brought in the up or out system which has been nothing but a disaster.

In WWII numerous commanders were fired on the spot. They were sent elsewhere, they learned some lessons, and were put back in the pool and most ended up commanding again and they were better for the experience - which meant the units were better. After WWII with OPA which later became DOPMA, that all changed.

With OPA there was now a concern for someone's career, not just the mission. When you combine that with downsizing and budget reductions after a war, yet the intention to maintain a large military that could go anywhere you end up with Task Force Smith.

A by-product of this is a handoff of the strategy piece to the flag ranks because the military comes to be viewed as a political tool in and of itself, rather than part of the national strategy apparatus. Those in charge of the military don't fight this because it ends up granting them a lot of power, increased budgets, and so forth. They have no business fricking with the strategy piece, however. Civilians are supposed to do that, the people with stars are supposed to understand this and translate it into suitable tactics that will aid in accomplishing those strategic objectives.

---

I excerpted this because there is a related point that hasn't been discussed.

In WWII there were around 10 million men on active duty in the US military.

Now it's been a while since I saw the numbers. But do you realize we have roughly as many flag officers active now as in WWII?

Just saying this thing isn't "pure." I mean if you had a time machine and showed an officer from 1939 a chart with a breakdown of how many officers we have compared to actual fighting forces he'd probably think it was some kind of screwed up chart of the rank structure of a screwed up 3rd world nation with all the supreme leader's relatives getting an army commission or their very own ship to command.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the military itself would have to make some painful changes - if we ever were really going toe to toe with a serious enemy.

I have family who are Vietnam vets. They all went into the war gong-ho to defeat communism. They all left realizing the war was a crock of shite and we should have never gone it.

We could have invaded properly with Generals calling the shots and taken over Vietnam in 8 weeks!

quote:

---

I agree. His series on the Civil War was very biased also.

---

People keep saying this. Why? It's not biased to the facts at the time. If anything it's only biased to the writings 35 years after the war and the start of "lost cause" mythology that happened in the late 19th century.

But regardless, he's not even biased to that. The #1 guy is someone who was born and raised in Mississippi in 1916...

This is the guy who wrote the 3-Volume Narrative that supplied Ken Burns with most of his material for the documentary.

I think it's the most readable and thorough treatment of the Civil War...reads like a novel...(as he started out as a novelist) but it's been accused of being very Pro-Southern...which makes sense, he was a deep South Southerner during the apex of total Jim Crow.

Ken Burns using Shelby Footes Narrative made more heroes out of Southern commanders and officers than the North by far in the documentary, even if they were scoundrals personally...Burn's doesn't go there..

But he spends a considerable amount of time labeling Grant a drunk and a loser.

The North comes off looking like buffoons with McClealan in the first 4 episodes.

Burns was almost way too fair. He treated slavery as a national issue and basically said the nation as a whole is to blame. The doc wasn't cops and robbers or Cowboys and Indians, he didn't paint the Army of Northern Virginia as Hollywood Nazis.

quote:

---

I am a colonel my friend.

---

And a DAMN good one

Outstanding thread, sir. Have learned a lot from following the discussion.

quote:

---

I excerpted this because there is a related point that hasn't been discussed.

In WWII there were around 10 million men on active duty in the US military.

Now it's been a while since I saw the numbers. But do you realize we have roughly as many flag officers active now as in WWII?

Just saying this thing isn't "pure." I mean if you had a time machine and showed an officer from 1939 a chart with a breakdown of how many officers we have compared to actual fighting forces he'd probably think it was some kind of screwed up chart of the rank structure of a screwed up 3rd world nation with all the supreme leader's relatives getting an army commission or their very own ship to command.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the military itself would have to make some painful changes - if we ever were really going toe to toe with a serious enemy.

---

The problems are real. Policies like 'up or out' breed careerism and likership as opposed to leadership. The promoters tend to pick like-minded individuals. It's terrible for any organization. Officers are continually placed in a position of following regulations and making the boss angry, or keeping the boss happy and ignoring the regs. Also the protectionism and favoritism among academy grads is a real thing, though DoD will never allow that to come out.

People like Patton would never see Major in today's military. Same with Chesty Puller. When Patton was a Captain, his evaluation said he would be of great value in war but was a terrible pain in the arse during peace time. The phrasing was different but it was just as bold. That phrasing today will get you passed over for promotion multiple times and you'll be discharged because of it. Many if not most of the traits associated with top leaders are the exact opposite of what you want to do to get promoted in today's military. Being bold, brash, assertive, impatient, and creative can start Apple, it can win the Battle of the Bulge, but will get you a non-select and discharged in today's military personnel system.

For those that don't know, an Army officer's evaluation all boils down to the 'senior rater comments' which are written in a space that is smaller than a 3x5 index card. An officer's career is made, or broken, and definitely steered, by those comments. If the senior rater likes you he can send you on to success and if he doesn't he can ruin you.

This organizational structure, coupled to the influence of the MIC, has led to a huge growth in the number of special programs, directorates, commands etc, and thus a huge growth of flag rank officers. You can look at the empirical results, the theory, the anecdotes, and the historical record - they all demonstrate that this is a bad thing for our military.

Bloated Flag Ranks


If you go back and examine the number of flag rank officers around 2010, and then look at the reductions started by Obama around 2012 you'll see that while the military was reduced greatly, the flag ranks took less of a hit.

We could fix the majority of our organizational problems in the military by simply getting rid of up or out. Another big portion would be handled by taming the MIC.

Thanks my baw. I am soaking in the comments and mulling it over. Very good stuff.