This thesis feels like such a positive step for the US military. I admire your courage for sticking your neck out like this.
Taking these thoughts to the full conclusion of a security force tied to the free market would be such a radical overhaul, but man what an overall better solution. Certainly no more pointless multigenerational conflicts in Central Asia. But I can hear the cries of both how this is “fascist” and wouldn’t “support our troops” at the same time. It’s going to take a long uphill battle to cut through the mire of institutional inertia the DoD has going for it.
Challenging the status quo may be easier for some than others. Take for example a young armor officer who has just been married, has a kid on the way, and majored in underwater basket weaving. With few outside prospects, they are going to do what is necessary to support their family/preserve their retirement, morality be damned. Few will be willing to bite the hand that feeds them unless they know they can find food elsewhere.
It would be patently unfair to expect someone in such circumstances to shoulder the risk of being one of the first to speak truth to power. It will take those uniquely situated with civilian career prospects and/or some degree of financial independence to take the first critical steps. I would argue with your choice of language, however. I do not believe speaking your true feelings and beliefs would be "biting the hand that feeds." I submit to you what I consider to be a more accurate framing of this issue: This armor officer is unable to behave ethically in his or her professional life for fear of reprisal that represents an unacceptable threat to personal ethical obligations. This is a moral hazard and the reason investigating this issue is so critical. If I had to choose between my family and the Army, I would choose my family every time.
Thanks for participation in the conversation by the way, it takes courage. I appreciate you and look forward to working with you to help the Army become the organisation it claims to be!
This was refreshing to say the least and I intend to read the essay you referenced in the beginning shortly. I think what you expanded on is really a substantial contributor to anxiety in soldiers like myself, at least in personal experience.
Interesting point Vae. The threat posed by an upcoming combat deployment does provide an incentive for honesty, and I've heard this verbalized during my career. I can recall specifically a conversation with someone when I was in the 25th saying something to the effect that the 25th was trash until they got punched in the nose a couple times on deployment, then they did a good job of getting their shit together.
I would like to point out though that this incentive only provides general motivation. Absent the price mechanism we still have to contend with the fact that senior leaders have no means of assessing whether or not a given operation will support a strategic victory. I'm concerned that most Soldiers on the ground saw our adventure in Afghanistan for the last 20 years as an obvious waste of blood and treasure, but this same culture ensured that essentially zero senior leaders acknowledged this. I was pretty vocal about it while attending my basic course, but it was understandably not well received. When you're looking down the imminent prospect of deployment and facing down hostile fire the last thing you want to hear is that it won't accomplish anything that the establishment is claiming it will, especially if you suspect it may be true.
perfect bookend and a nice glance over the shoulder to pre-2nd great patriotic war
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/825/
This thesis feels like such a positive step for the US military. I admire your courage for sticking your neck out like this.
Taking these thoughts to the full conclusion of a security force tied to the free market would be such a radical overhaul, but man what an overall better solution. Certainly no more pointless multigenerational conflicts in Central Asia. But I can hear the cries of both how this is “fascist” and wouldn’t “support our troops” at the same time. It’s going to take a long uphill battle to cut through the mire of institutional inertia the DoD has going for it.
Challenging the status quo may be easier for some than others. Take for example a young armor officer who has just been married, has a kid on the way, and majored in underwater basket weaving. With few outside prospects, they are going to do what is necessary to support their family/preserve their retirement, morality be damned. Few will be willing to bite the hand that feeds them unless they know they can find food elsewhere.
It would be patently unfair to expect someone in such circumstances to shoulder the risk of being one of the first to speak truth to power. It will take those uniquely situated with civilian career prospects and/or some degree of financial independence to take the first critical steps. I would argue with your choice of language, however. I do not believe speaking your true feelings and beliefs would be "biting the hand that feeds." I submit to you what I consider to be a more accurate framing of this issue: This armor officer is unable to behave ethically in his or her professional life for fear of reprisal that represents an unacceptable threat to personal ethical obligations. This is a moral hazard and the reason investigating this issue is so critical. If I had to choose between my family and the Army, I would choose my family every time.
Thanks for participation in the conversation by the way, it takes courage. I appreciate you and look forward to working with you to help the Army become the organisation it claims to be!
This was refreshing to say the least and I intend to read the essay you referenced in the beginning shortly. I think what you expanded on is really a substantial contributor to anxiety in soldiers like myself, at least in personal experience.
Interesting point Vae. The threat posed by an upcoming combat deployment does provide an incentive for honesty, and I've heard this verbalized during my career. I can recall specifically a conversation with someone when I was in the 25th saying something to the effect that the 25th was trash until they got punched in the nose a couple times on deployment, then they did a good job of getting their shit together.
I would like to point out though that this incentive only provides general motivation. Absent the price mechanism we still have to contend with the fact that senior leaders have no means of assessing whether or not a given operation will support a strategic victory. I'm concerned that most Soldiers on the ground saw our adventure in Afghanistan for the last 20 years as an obvious waste of blood and treasure, but this same culture ensured that essentially zero senior leaders acknowledged this. I was pretty vocal about it while attending my basic course, but it was understandably not well received. When you're looking down the imminent prospect of deployment and facing down hostile fire the last thing you want to hear is that it won't accomplish anything that the establishment is claiming it will, especially if you suspect it may be true.