Military Officers and Creativity

Article infers a reference to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The assessment has its critics but I have found it has been a useful tool – I’m generally pretty accurate in identifying preference which helps improve communications.

Op-Ed. An Officer and a Creative Man, By MARK MOYAR, December 19, 2009, New York Times

Researchers have found that the leadership ranks of big organizations are dominated by either "sensing-judging" or "intuitive thinking" personality types. Those in the former category rely primarily on the five senses to tell them about the world; they prefer structure and standardization, doing things by the book and maintaining tight control.

.. . But this personality type functions less well in activities that change frequently or demand regular risk-taking, like technological development or counterinsurgency. Organizations that thrive under such conditions are most often led by people with intuitive-thinking personalities. These people are quick to identify the need for change and to solve problems by venturing outside the box.

Comments about the Article: Small Wars Journal.

Army: Training for Full Spectrum Operations

ARTICLE: Army’s New Manual: Peacekeeper Training, AP, December 17, 2008

The Army has released its first new training field manual in six years, highlighting the need for units to be ready to conduct stability operations after traditional combat has ended.

 

The manual, titled “Training for Full Spectrum Operations” and written at Fort Leavenworth, explains what soldiers can expect when in combat.

“While we will never be able to fully comprehend the thousands of variables in a complex system, we can train to recognize those which are found in most. So the first time our soldiers come across a certain type of situation is in training, not on the battlefield,”

Joint Strike Fighter

A Defensive Strike For Its Fighter Jet (Dallas Morning News)…Eric Torbenson, Jan 6, 2009.

Seven years ago, Lockheed Martin Corp. won a bitterly fought contract for what would end up being the world’s most expensive fighter jet program. Today, it finds itself in an odd position: having to defend the plane it won the right to build.

Published reports saying the F-35 – featuring the latest in avionics – fared poorly in a military exercise with Russian jets also stirred up military watchers.

Both criticisms were rebutted by Lockheed and generals who called the plane a racehorse. It carries much more fuel to expand its range and hides many of its weapons internally, both big advantages over current aircraft, they said. Its three variants will have many common parts, lowering maintenance expenses.

Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor fighter program has already been scaled back and faces more budget cuts in the next Congress, analysts say. A program initially devised to build 750 F-22s has been cut to 183 – and some in Congress want even fewer.

Afghanistan: Supply Route

Khyber Action Near End, (Washington Post)…Unattributed, January 2, 2009, Pg. 13  

Pakistan will reopen the main supply route for Western forces in Afghanistan in the next few days after security forces achieved most of their objectives in an offensive, a Pakistani official said Thursday.

Authorities suspended the shipment of supplies through the Khyber Pass to the Afghan border on Tuesday to clear the way for the military to launch an offensive aimed at ending surging attacks on the route.

“We have achieved more than 80 percent of objectives, and from tomorrow the curfew will be relaxed, while the main road will be opened in the next two to three days,” Tariq Hayat Khan, the top government administrator in Khyber, told reporters.

The U.S. military sends 75 percent of supplies for the Afghan war through or over Pakistan, including 40 percent of the fuel for its troops, the Pentagon says.

Insurgents in Khyber have been trying to choke off supplies for months and have destroyed hundreds of trucks and killed several drivers.

Khan said 15 people wanted by the government were captured or had surrendered, while 37 hideouts had been destroyed.

Military Funding

POST: Tough love for the Pentagon, by Thomas P.M. Barnett on December 22, 2008

OP-ED: How to Pay for a 21st-Century Military, New York Times, December 20, 2008

You want some tough love on the Pentagon budget to pay for the interventions (overwhelmingly SysAdmin in nature) we’re still waging and are likely to wage in the future, well . . . this is what the hit list looks like.

Simply brutal, but well chosen.

The much fabled train-wreck seems to have finally arrived.

(Thanks: pilgrimstevec)

Army: Future Combat Systems (FCS)-Funding

The Planned Change principle generally includes three courses of action: Maintain/sustain the current system/process, evolutionary/incremental improvement or revolutionary improvement through re-design.  The higher degree of change, the higher the risk. Risk can be minimized through use of the concept of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).  FCS incorporates all three approaches and a strategic assessment will help identify priorities for funding.

Why Funding Future Combat Systems Is A Must, (European Stars and Stripes)…Sen. John Cornyn, December 19, 2008, Pg. 19

The federal government has a solemn duty to provide our men and women in uniform with the best equipment available to ensure they can fight and win against any opponent on any battlefield on Earth. That is exactly the intent be­hind Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Army’s flagship modernization program, which represents a quantum leap in mili­tary technology. By making our ground forces lighter, faster and more lethal, and equipping them with weapon systems that are more survivable, more deployable, and more sustainable, FCS will change the way our Army does business.

In short, FCS is an interoperable fam­ily of cutting-edge ground vehicles, UAVs, ground robots, indirect fire weapons and sensors. Each component is interconnect­ed through the FCS communications and data network, allowing for unparalleled information sharing. FCS will provide our soldiers the means to execute both coun­terinsurgency operations, now the most critical piece of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the conventional war­fare for which Bradleys, Abrams tanks and other legacy systems were designed. Whether battling uniformed military forc­es or insurgents who conceal themselves within a civilian population, FCS will en­able our soldiers to see the enemy first, un­derstand the situation, then act decisively.

But that’s only part of the story. FCS, at its core, is about soldiers; it’s about em­powering them to make decisions that are quicker, better-informed and more sound. With individual soldiers functioning as in­telligence assets, FCS will allow 360-de­gree information flow — streaming up to unit commanders, down to individual sol­diers, and out to adjacent units — enabling better integration of actions against a foe.

We will digitally link our soldiers at every level, thanks to the FCS network and the new Ground Soldier System, which is separate but fully complementary to FCS. Soldier-worn and integrated into the body armor, the lightweight system consists of a compact computer, GPS unit, helmet-mounted display and communications sys­tem. It will allow us to maximize soldiers’ situational awareness.

Unfortunately for soldiers, the FCS pro­gram has had an uphill climb since con­ception. With a large price tag, it has been repeatedly targeted for funding cuts in Congress. FCS is highly complex — with 14 different platforms, more than 300 dif­ferent technologies, and more than 600 contracts in place — which has made it dif­ficult to tell the story of its potential.

The name itself has contributed to broad misperception, arguably sounding more like something intended to fight space-age enemies on distant battlefields than what it actually is: a family of game-changing weapon systems ideally suited to fight enemies on the streets of Iraqi cities, the unforgiving terrain of Afghanistan, and conventional battlefields. As such, it is past time for the Army to change the name.

FCS nonbelievers, some of whom argue that FCS will be of limited value in mod­ern-day counterinsurgency operations, should take note that FCS addresses more than 80 percent of all “operational needs statements” (requests for new equipment and situational awareness capabilities) generated in the past two years by our sol­diers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, early versions of FCS equip­ment are helping soldiers take the fight to the enemy and save American lives today. Our Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams are using small FCS-derived robots called “Packbots” to clear improvised explosive devices from the roads our troops travel. Packbots are also being utilized to clear buildings, caves and bunkers. In addition, for the past year, U.S. troops in Iraq have been flying more than 20 FCS-derived, back-packable UAVs, called “Micro Air Vehicles,” to spot IEDs before they kill or injure anyone. Even the latest enhanced armor kits for HMMWVs are based on FCS technology.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that our military should be “moving ag­gressively in wartime to provide resources needed now on the battlefield,” and the Ar­my’s two-phased fielding strategy for FCS follows this guidance. Because infantry Brigade Combat Teams have been in the highest demand during post-9/11 combat operations, the Army will “spin out” essen­tial FCS equipment to these units first.

New FCS equipment arrives on a regular basis at Fort Bliss, Texas, where the Army Evaluation Task Force is based. The AETF, whose ranks are filled by combat-seasoned soldiers, provides immediate feedback on the equipment before it is fielded to troops, representing a huge leap forward in the way the Army acquires weapon systems.

Our current inventory of Army weapon systems is aging rapidly and may not last as long as intended. That makes it even more crucial that the Army’s next weapon sys­tems be fielded now, with the capability to defeat the threats of both today and tomor­row. With FCS, we have that technology in hand, and we have a golden opportunity.

John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is the ranking Republican on the airland subcom­mittee, which is responsible

for oversight of Army weapons programs and funding levels.

Defense/IG Report: Financial Mismanagement- Common or special?

You make the call … does the headline reflect a new event or a problem that’s been around awhile?

IG’s Report Highlights ‘Material Weaknesses,’ Financial Mismanagement At The Pentagon, (Washington Post)…Walter Pincus. Dec 15, 2008. Most critiques of the Defense Department’s spending focus on macroeconomic issues that are so large, readers can only groan and move on. Last week provided yet another example: The Pentagon’s deputy inspector general for auditing released a 140-page independent auditor’s report on the department’s financial statements for fiscal 2007 and 2008.

Army Doctrine (system change)

Army Releases Newest Manual, (Washington Times)…John Milburn, Associated Press

The Army has released its first new training field manual in six years, highlighting the need for units to be ready to conduct stability operations after traditional combat has ended.

The manual, titled “Training for Full Spectrum Operations” and written at Fort Leavenworth, explains what soldiers can expect in combat.

It replaces a 2002 edition and comes on the heels of the Army’s release earlier this year of its latest operations doctrine, which emphasized that soldiers must be prepared and proficient in offense, defense and stability skills. The Army says it is the first time it has synchronized the manuals for operations and training.

Afghanistan: "Start winning the war. "

The Commander,  NBC Nightly News, 7:00 PM, Jim Maceda, Dec 17, 2008.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: On our last trip to Afghanistan, we heard it often from the soldiers on the ground. They didn’t like what it was called, the “Other War,” or even worse the “Forgotten War.” They’re in a tough fight there. President Obama will inherit it. He has vowed to pump more soldiers in. He’ll have help in improving the situation there from the point man on the ground in that war, Gen. John Nicholson, a man with one of the toughest jobs in the U.S. military.

Our own Jim Maceda spent some time with Nicholson in Kandahar Province.

JIM MACEDA: He rolls through town like a new sheriff getting used to the neighborhood, but this is the very heart of Taliban country.

REPORTER: So have you had suicide bomber attacks recently in Kandahar City?

MACEDA: Gen. John Nicholson is the first and only U.S. general in Southern Afghanistan and his orders are as clear as they are daunting: start winning the war.

BRIG. GEN. JOHN NICHOLSON [U.S. Army]: We are now going to be able to secure the vast majority of the population in the south and deliver the basic services through the government that they were unable to do this point.

MACEDA: He’s already expanding bases with a 15,000-20,000 additional U.S. troops expected in the coming year, effectively doubling NATO’s punch in the crucial south.

NICHOLSON: We will see more U.S. forces and more U.S. investment in Southern Afghanistan, which will be a game changer.

This will be the first of many visits here –

MACEDA: As much nation-builder as warrior, Nicholson’s day is a whirlwind of meetings with USAID officials, visiting lawmakers, and Afghan leaders. The boss still surprises his longtime military assistant.

MAJ. FRED TANNER [U.S. Army]: His ability – whoever he’s engaging with to be able to think at their level, you know, whether that be a congressman or be a company commander.

MACEDA: But the 51-year-old West Point grad with two Masters Degrees knows how tough victory will be. In 2006, we embedded with then Col. Nicholson and his brigade in Eastern Afghanistan coming under ambush, trying to flush out the Taliban from the Pakistan border. The Taliban was relentless. By the end of that tour, his unit had lost 45 men and 350 wounded – the highest U.S. toll in the war.

NICHOLSON: For me, there’s a moral obligation to my soldiers who’ve sacrificed so much here to come back and deliver on what they started.

MACEDA: And there’s something else.

NICHOLSON: I believe I was spared on 9/11 to do my duty here in Afghanistan.

MACEDA: The plane that struck the Pentagon on 9/11 destroyed his office, killing his closest colleagues. Nicholson should have been there, but instead was moving into a house that day with his family.

NICHOLSON: I’m grateful to have that purpose.

MACEDA: But with Taliban attacks and government corruption on the rise, Nicholson says he’s no Mr. Fixit.

NICHOLSON: You know, Mr. Fixit would imply that I had all the answers, but I certainly don’t.

MACEDA: What he does have is a mission to turn around a war he can’t walk away from.

Jim Maceda, NBC News, Kandahar.

South Korea: Nomalization of Tours

USFK Begins Process Of Normalizing Tours, (Pacific Stars and Stripes)…Ashley Rowland

U.S. Forces Korea eventually will allow half of the 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea to serve here with their families, a dramatic change in an area once considered too remote, and too dangerous for families because of the threat from an unstable North Korea.

As a first step toward what the military calls “tour normalization,” USFK roughly will double the number of command-sponsored slots in the next year — to 4,350 in Seoul, Osan, Pyeongtaek, Daegu and Chinhae.

As many as 2,100 troops in Area I, just south of the heavily-guarded border between North Korea and South Korea, also will get two-year command sponsorships, U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. Walter Sharp said Wednesday.

“I think it adds deterrence value for North Korea,” Sharp said. “It says: ‘OK, we’re comfortable enough in our capabilities, we’re comfortable that we’re bringing families over here, and you better not miscalculate.”

About the same number of troops in Area I, officially called U.S. Army Garrison-Red Cloud, have already brought their families to South Korea, but haven’t received family housing or cost-of-living allowances because they aren’t command sponsored.

Dr. David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, signed a memorandum on Dec. 1 that approves USFK’s request for the shift, and authorizes changes to the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, which sets tour lengths for U.S. military installations around the world.

Most of those 28,500 U.S. troops in South Korea serve on one-year unaccompanied tours.

Under the new policy, troops serving in accompanied billets will stay for three years in all areas except Area 1. Accompanied tours to Area I will be set at two years.

Unaccompanied tours for most troops will remain at one year, but some “key personnel” will serve 2-year unaccompanied tours, USFK said.

Services may begin extending tour lengths now but are required to submit plans for implementation to Chu by March 1 USFK spokeswoman Col. Jane Crichton said Wednesday.

The move comes after two USFK commanders — Sharp and his predecessor, retired Gen. B.B. Bell — pushed Congress, the Department of Defense and South Korea to approve extended tour lengths. Longer accompanied tours are standard in Japan, Europe and at many U.S. bases in the rest of the world.

Sharp said there was little resistance, but cited many questions among Defense Department officials — “a lot of: ‘How are you going to do that? Do you really have the infrastructure to do that?’ ”

Bell, who retired in June, began lobbying for normalized tours about three years ago, saying the yearlong unaccompanied tours were outdated and that South Korea was modern and safe enough for families. Accompanied tours also would reduce stress on servicemembers who had to leave their families behind, he said.

Sharp said having longer tours “greatly increases” USFK’s military capabilities, and will let him have a more cohesive staff in place as he approaches the critical 2012 transfer of military operational control on the peninsula to South Korea’s military leaders.

“I don’t have to train new people every year,” Sharp said.

Sharp said he didn’t know how long it would take to reach full normalization, but Bell predicted in May that it could take 10 to 15 years.

Crichton said the changes to tour lengths in South Korea will affect worldwide troop rotations, and could take awhile to implement. Services with a small presence in South Korea, like the Marines, may be able to increase tour lengths and command sponsorships faster than those with larger numbers, like the Army, she said.

Sharp said the new policy will affect mostly incoming servicemembers, but those already stationed here can apply for the extended accompanied tours.

He said the pace of normalization depends on how quickly the United States and South Korea pay for the facilities — particularly schools — needed to house and support families. The two countries are in discussions to determine how much each will pay toward the cost of stationing U.S. troops here.

South Korea now pays about 41 percent under a two-year agreement between the two countries. Before negotiations began this year, U.S. officials called for South Korea to increase its support to 50 percent and to have a longer agreement.

Sharp said the longer tours also mean that more middle-grade officers and noncommissioned officers — ranks in high demand in Iraq and Afghanistan — could be stationed in South Korea.

Under the old system, an NCO or middle-grade officer who deploys to the Middle East probably would not be stationed in South Korea immediately before or after deployment, because troops can’t be forced to serve back-to-back unaccompanied tours.

“Effectively, he’s not deployable to Iraq or Afghanistan for a three-year period,” Sharp said.

With the new system, the number of troops available for deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan won’t be affected by increasing tour lengths here, he said. After full normalization, South Korea-based units might be deployable to combat zones, the general said. During a news conference Thursday, he said deployed troops’ families may remain in South Korea.

Sharp said he expects the Defense Department to put more importance — and possibly more money — into the U.S. military presence in South Korea after the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review, held every four years to assess U.S. military strategic direction.

U.S. bases in South Korea are a key point of its presence in the strategic Northeast Asia region.

“Korea’s a very important part of the world for us,” he said. “It will be after 2012.”