Command Incest

This condition is way too common in civilian organizations, too. The difference is that in most civilian settings, nobody dies if the boss is an idiot.

i have a fiend who is a vice president in a bank. he gets very little sleep and or personal time as his subordinates (of whom there are 10,000+) are always kicking decisions up to him as they are afraid of making the wrong one and getting fired.

yes he does make money by the tubfull in salary.

c

I see the Air Force hasn't changed since I left active duty.

That's one of the reasons I got out. After four years of having to take orders from individuals that had no clue how to lead. I called it quits, at least in the civilian world I can quit when I discover I'm working for an idiot.

My father was a career officer in the "Blue" Air Force (S&E, IG). Three bits of advice that he drilled into me as I was growing up were:

- The regs are a guideline. Following them to the letter all the time gets people killed.

- Let people do their jobs, they know them better then you do.

- Trust your NCOs; Not listening to their sergeants kills more lieutenants then anything else in war.

I ended up not going in, but those bits advice have served me very well as a civil engineer doing construction management.

Evidently USAF hasn't changed much since I left either and that was a long time ago.

President Lincoln had much the same problem.

Ah, tradition.

Lord save us from the ticket punchers.

.

President Lincoln had much the same problem.

You served under Lincoln?! Damn, you are a geezer.... ;)

I think there's something missing here, or at least not fully fleshed out: the imperative to avoid risk.

This officer, while Air Force, describes many Army officers - to get the next promotion, do not make a mistake, and do not allow your subordinates to make a mistake.

I have noticed two characteristics to Army personnel policies:

1. The best war-fighters get only Garrison and Training jobs - never command of a combat unit.

2. The best warriors leave before the 10 year mark.

My two cents...

Sorry folks...

The military is an authoritarian regime with a centrally planned economy...virtually all militaries are...something to do ith making sure it marches in the direction it is told.

In authoritarian regimes no one gets points for "building a better mouse trap"...they get points by performing to spec...this is why there is no Soviet Union...they all did their 'jobs' but no one ever built a better mousetrap.

This problem is widespread in the Army as well.
I recently attended a mandatory "sensing" session where our BN commander explained to us, that his primary focus (as our commanding officer), was to formulate policy. that's all. After the meeting, I asked our First Sergeant to clarify. I was confused. You see, I thought the CO's job was primarily to lead. Go figure. Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have heard something like this. I guess we as a military can look forward to a war effort that will just audit, inspect, formulate and litigate our way to victory. Interesting times ahead, no doubt.

This is the untangible quality in the Army that I believe contributed to our defeat in Vietnam and is causing a stalemate in the War on Terror. It is about risk-aversion, careerism, legal mumbo-jumbo, and political correctness.

The cavalry squadron I was attached to in Iraq as a PSYOP team chief had some great, imaginative, and free-thinking staff NCO's and JO's. The squadron staff... well, not so much.

There was one incident in which a town in our sector had regularly been getting pounded with mortar fire. One of the cav troop commanders took his mortars and snipers to the town, set up, and waited. When the enemy mortar crew set up and fired, he responded with instant counter-battery fire (called in by the snipers) and destroyed the enemy mortar teams. The snipers policed up the rest.

Elation was the word of the day when he returned to the FOB. The company commander was told he'd have gotten a medal had he not violated a half-dozen protocols on firing into someone else's sector without coordination, blah, blah, blah. Needless to say, the incident earned him a good ass-chewing. He was a terrific troop commander... he said, "whatever" and drove on with the mission.

The best warriors and leaders are those that have the "In case of war, Break glass" label attached to them. You know them, the ones that are held back or put into austere positions or like the one joel pointed out.

Perhaps we can tolerate this sort of careerism in peacetime. We certainly cannot tolerate or accept it in wartime.

Our services have good combat command leaders in the ranks. We need to do better at giving them the authority they need, and at getting the careerists out of positions where they can make hard missions even harder.

You know, I just started reading Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, and this rings true when taken in the context of what a "learning organization" should be. And what a lot of folks are not.

Mustang
I couldn't say it any better then what you wrote.
The way I see it how many troops now a days have the ethical and moral understanding to be the next leaders for the next combat role? Why do some think the military is a place just to get college money and forget the chance of War is possible?