Thanks for digging that up. Very worthwhile read.

So what's new? We've known for generations that the real strength of the US Army is it's adaptability in combat. During my period of active duty (1977-81) we were taught all the little things that aren't in the manuals by returning Vietnam vets. All the online talk about convoy ops in hostile territory could have been answered by my instructors in Transportation Officer Basic Course, who learned the exact same lessons personally in Nam. Today it's the same, only the means of dissemination have changed.

The Army always loses lessons it doesn't immediately use and becomes static in its methods until it encounters something new (or old) on the battlefield. That's when the captains, lieutenants, sergeants and privates throw out the book and find new ways to win. We do that better than anyone else in the world.

I remember two quotes a friend had on his office wall: "The US Army is so good at war because war is chaos, and the US Army operates in chaos on a daily basis" (attributed to a Wehrmacht officer) and "The problem with learning to fight the US Army is that they feel no compunction to read their manuals or follow their doctrine." (Attributed to a Russian officer.)

Note too, that after all this good news on how we're adapting, sharing lessons and learning better ways to fight and survive, the New Yorker writer has to end his article with several paragraphs on how bad things are and how we can't possibly win.

Well, I was about to post something similar to Cap'n Dan. The first of which, my brother being in the Air Force Guard and working his civilian job at AMARC, he has noted several times to me that people in positions above him or with long tenure, tend to look at things in a straight line and operate under these lines regardless of whether they make the most sense or are efficient in producing what was requested. He also notes that certain things are so "regulated" that you may wait for days on end to do something because the people on the other end are doing their part of the job in an excruciatingly regulated way.

Bein a generation X kind of guy, he spoke up on a number of occasions asking why something was a certain way and why it wouldn't be changed.

Here are two simple things that he said nearly caused people to have apoplexy(amarc having a military commander):

1) They had a position of a "scheduler" who's job was actually a glorified data entry position that did not require any thinking what so ever. Their position stayed open for nearly an eternity because they couldn't find a person with a G9 level who was interested in taking the position. He pointed out that this level requirement was ludicrous and paid too much money for the position and it's requirements and asked why they didn't a) change the title to something more suitable and with a more suitable ranking or b0 change the necessary ranking to something lower.

He also pointed out the cost savings of putting this job in the hands of a person that didn't require those advanced skills and would be paid less.

Imagine the response to that?

2) IN his shop, they were preparing for inspections. as the newly appointed lieutenant for this section, he was still responsible for insuring it passed. One of the things that was required by the manual was that certain pieces of the ejection seat (the explosives) be painted with a specific green color. color, mfg and other items specified regarding the paint meant that had to be used. He called up supply. They didn't have any and weren't planning on ordering any because a new order regarding discontinuation of that product had come down and they were waiting for three months for the new orders to be cut.

Since he had imminent inspection, he got the specs and ran to the local paint shop that had the product. But they only had one can, so they gave him another can of the same paint, different manufacturer and then rapidly disposed of the evidence because, if the wrong paint had been found on the premises, he would have been reprimanded.

This is of course only a couple of stories he's told me, but I believe they show the militaries want to regulate everything and insist on following those regulations even if materials and circumstances don't allow. Thus washing out the soldiers' ability to think.

Grayhawk - This was a very interesting article, thanks for the link.

Remember TQM and Quality Circle jerks?
do something
talk about what you did right
talkabout what you did wrong
do it again better

as much as we hated the messenger ... DR. Demming... it works

That was... interesting. I printed it out for my "history of the world" binder.

I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, I'd probably have been expecting a disaster just as much as the author if I were watching that scene, live, as he was. On the other hand, I'm not surprised that the officer chose to take a posture of submission in order to get his people out. What made that possible, though, is the exact sort of un-thinking obedience that the author seems to see as a besetting sin of Army organization. The officer said "Take a knee," and his men did.

He says, "My questions barely made sense to Hughes." and "Hughes made it sound obvious, but..." and the author goes into a researched defence of his belief that the Army stifles creative thought, rather than examine if perhaps his questions didn't make sense to Hughes because they didn't make sense.

There's some good stuff about innovation and communication. Is it rightly attributed to Gen-X attitudes toward authority? Enlisted asking Rumsfield about armor is used as corroborating evidence, so... maybe, maybe not.

The snippets of conversation is the absolute best. I'll remember the juxtaposition of Jolly Ranchers forever.

Still, the author seems to see the innovation of officers in Iraq as some sort of Pandoras box leading logically to his mention of officers reading subversive literature and then back again to soldiers turning off the violence "like a good hunting dog" repeating the mindless obedience meme.

But hey, I've never been in the Army. What do I know?

Great read. It's refreshing to see the military adapting well and disseminating information at internet speed. This will ultimately transform the DoD and make this country even better.

Well, it was a great read until you get to this:

"No matter how clever its captains and lieutenants are becoming in the face of the insurgency, the Army may never be able to declare victory in Iraq. Thirty years after the fall of Saigon, the military finds itself thrust into another war with limited public support, insufficient resources, and a murky definition of success."

Then it becomes another quagmire story. They should have ended it before this paragraph. But, then what can you expect from one of the most liberal mags in the country.

To add to my earlier comment, only somebody under 40 would see this as a gen-Xer phenomenon. As I said, the same thing happens with each generation of American soldiers as they enter their own war and find the current doctrine too restricting or flat wrong - they throw out the book and find their own way to win. Same as it ever was.....

Ha! That's why the gen-X thing struck me as wrong. I'm 40. ;-)

Seriously, though, the author needed to find some explination of why the Army wasn't behaving the way he knows that the Army behaves.