# How to Fix the Army: Sack All the Generals



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Aug 12, 2013)

Pretty bold statement coming from an O-5.  While I think he has a few valid points, it is hard to tell what his motives are (trying to fix a legitimate problem or disgruntled for being passed over for promotion).  I am surprised he hasn't already been sacked if he is a known whistleblower.



> Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis doesn’t have faith in Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno.
> 
> Or the rest of the U.S. Army’s generals, for that matter.
> 
> ...



More HERE


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 12, 2013)

Tom Ricks had a similar article on his Foreign Policy blog.  Give me a few

Edit: It is cited in the article


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 12, 2013)

I have zero experience with GOs, minus guest speakers at USMA or the USMA leadership but I can tell you that I've seen more than a few O-4's and O-5s that should have been fired.  Instead they were promoted or rewarded.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 12, 2013)

The quote below:

He added: “Ironically, our generals have grown worse as they have been lionized more and more by a society now reflexively deferential to the military… No one is pushing those leaders to step back and examine the shortcomings of their institution. These are dangerous developments. Unaddressed, they could lead to further failures in future wars.”

I think that really sums it up. What congressman wants to get all up in a Generals shit only to be hamstrung as a non-supporter of the military.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 12, 2013)

Hmmmm, you all know how I feel....but I do believe there are a few good GO's out there. Not many but a few. I would hate to see the Army with a total exodus of GO leadership (shit would get fucked up quick like and in a hurry). I think putting up with the jackasses we have,while being heavily selective, and grooming the next crop of GO's to achive the leadership and guidance, that we won't our Army to have.

Probably won't happen, and understanding that the system is broke doesn't do much for the future, with the Army. By the time young officers who get it today, become the leaders of the Army. The Army will have changed completly and the officers who learned those lessons, will be far disengage from the current issue of the time.

I honesty believe GO's (and Btn command and up) need to be younger. Finding the best performers/leaders younger, promoting them faster, thus keeping them from becoming disfranchised with the Army (waiting on promotion,  forced into staff jobs, seeing the problems and not being able or allowed to fix them, etc.).

Big point is 50+ year old, 30+ year TIS, General Officers are so far detached from the real Army and the implications of their orders/policies, it becomes a "well my Army needs this" (the Army 20+ years ago they remember) kind of thing.

You also have the factor of who is advising the GO's (45-50 year old LTC-COL's) who are also way out of touch.

I've said it before on here (a few times), we need younger, better officers being promoted faster, proven leaders, who are not on their way to nursing home. We also need to getaway from the careerist ideology and get back to a profession with leader who poses pride in the profession, not simply pride in achievable rank.

I have a lot to say about it, but that's enough for now.

$.02


----------



## AWP (Aug 12, 2013)

Firing the generals won't change anything because the next crop will know that the worst which can happen is they retire at Whatever Star rank. If you wanted teeth in the argument, there would be more of a penalty such as a mandatory reduction down to O-4 or O-5. Forfeit a ton of money for non-performance and maybe things would change, but considering the golden parachutes seen in corporate America...

In other words, the guy might as well make an argument for a cavalry division mounted on unicorns.

I'll bet a dollar the author finds a job at one of the very institutions he decries.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 12, 2013)

Lets not forget firing the senior NCOs who are no better.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 12, 2013)

Guys-  PLEASE read the original source material before you start commenting on the wisdom of something a reporter says someone in the military wrote, said, or did.  Most of the time, what is translated by the reporter is over-exaggerated, factually inaccurate, or just plain wrong.  

The reporter makes the claim that someone in the Army is recommending to "sack all the generals" in order to "fix the Army."  Well, that certainly is startling!  It's also WRONG.  "Sack all the generals" is not what LTC Davis recommended at all.  What he actually said was:  *Replace a substantial chunk of today’s generals, starting with the three- and four-star ranks. * "Substantial" is not "all."  Not even close.  Of course, one would have to read the whole article in order to get to that, and "fire all the Generals!" makes for such a better headline.

IMO there is nothing particularly new or earth-shattering in this article.  Nor is there anything new in the press's efforts to undermine America's most-respected institution by repeating mistruths or making a story up that simply isn't there.

Here's the article:



> _Armed Forces Journal_, 7 August 2013
> 
> BY DANIEL L. DAVIS
> 
> ...


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 12, 2013)

A good Officer fights for his men, listens to them and doesn't care what the next Officer in his chain says.
His OER will write itself with the success of his men!

We need Officers with BALLS!!!!!

That's how you fix the Army.....
If an Officer is more worried about getting a good OER and not pissing off those writing it.....because he is gaming his next 1-3 jobs down the road.
Then he should be fired......


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 13, 2013)

That's most officers in the Army though...it's not the meritocracy I thought it was.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 13, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Firing the generals won't change anything because the next crop will know that the worst which can happen is they retire at Whatever Star rank. If you wanted teeth in the argument, there would be more of a penalty such as a mandatory reduction down to O-4 or O-5. Forfeit a ton of money for non-performance and maybe things would change, but considering the golden parachutes seen in corporate America...
> 
> In other words, the guy might as well make an argument for a cavalry division mounted on unicorns.
> 
> I'll bet a dollar the author finds a job at one of the very institutions he decries.


Then you fire them, and keep at it until you get what you need.
Look how many Generals Lincoln fired.
I'd also change up or out, lengthen time between promotions and make the 15 year retirement (with penalty) permanent.


----------



## reed11b (Aug 13, 2013)

JAB said:


> I honesty believe GO's (and Btn command and up) need to be younger. Finding the best performers/leaders younger, promoting them faster, thus keeping them from becoming disfranchised with the Army (waiting on promotion,  forced into staff jobs, seeing the problems and not being able or allowed to fix them, etc.).



How could we make them any younger? Skip unit level command? Make leadership positions 6 months instead of a year? I think the up or out and short times in positions has more to do with the disconnect then age. It is also the reason behind the risk aversion and lack of aggressive leadership. I have to get to work so more later.
Reed


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 13, 2013)

You make themyounger by doing away with staff time, and promoting faster on merit. Risk adverse leaders (less aggressive) is caused by two things IMO, 1) careerist who want to get promoted so they retire at X rank, and 2) maturity, 50+ year olds do not take the aggressive/risky route. That's been my experience anyway.

If you look at some of the greatest military commanders of history (not just US, but worldwide) you will see they were in their prime during their 30s and that very few made it as successful military commanders past their 50s. In fact most of the great leaders turned out to be worse in their older ages. That's not to say that older leaders cannot still be effective leaders. But historically speaking they are less likely to be great leaders.

I think a great Army such as the the US Army, needs great leaders, not ok or good enough, but great. Who are the Napoleon's and Alexander's of our time? Hell if you look at some of the great leaders of our history: Stonewall Jackson, Grant, Bradley, they were younger when they were most effective. Now look at Robert E Lee, Patton, MacArthur and compare their greatness to their failures and demise in older age.

History doesn't lie IMHO. Although I think we have a few older GO's who are really good leaders, I don't know or think of any of them as truly great. 

That said, I think commanders of Btn to BCT need to be in their early to mid 30's, Div to Corps need to be late 30's to early 40's and Army to Theater needs to be late 40's to early 50's


----------



## AWP (Aug 13, 2013)

Jim Gavin and Robert Frederick were 37 when commanding their divisions in WWII (82nd and 45th).

Accounts vary, but according to the US Army the youngest division commander was 33, the oldest 58, and the average age was 47.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/worldwar.pdf

For corps commanders the youngest was 47, the oldest 62, and the average age was 57.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/berlin2.pdf

Randonly looking at Corps commanders in recent years, Colin Powell was 49, William Wallace was 55, James Conway (USMC) was 55, Lloyd Austin was 53, Buck Kernan was 52, and Ricardo Sanchez was 50.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 13, 2013)

You need to "Dual Track" Officers and NCO's; put the careerists in (supporting) staff position and let guys who want to fight stay in leadership rolls.  Warriors tend to be crappy staff officers, and good staff officers tend to be crappy warriors.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 13, 2013)

JAB said:


> *I honesty believe GO's (and Btn command and up) need to be younger. Finding the best performers/leaders younger, promoting them faster, thus keeping them from becoming disfranchised with the Army (waiting on promotion,  forced into staff jobs, seeing the problems and not being able or allowed to fix them, etc.).
> 
> Big point is 50+ year old, 30+ year TIS, General Officers are so far detached from the real Army and the implications of their orders/policies, it becomes a "well my Army needs this" (the Army 20+ years ago they remember) kind of thing.
> 
> ...


 
We agree on this point.


----------

