# Are Our "Best" Officers Leaving?



## Marauder06 (Jan 6, 2011)

Lengthy but interesting article in The Atlantic:

_



			Why are so many of the most talented officers now abandoning military life for the private sector? An exclusive survey of West Point graduates shows that it’s not just money. Increasingly, the military is creating a command structure that rewards conformism and ignores merit. As a result, it’s losing its vaunted ability to cultivate entrepreneurs in uniform.
		
Click to expand...

_The author starts with the premise that "the best" officers are leaving the military, resulting in "mediocrity" versus "meritocracy."  Do you accept that premise?  Are our "best" (your definition of "best") officers leaving?  If so, what can we do to fix it?


----------



## Etype (Jan 6, 2011)

I'd say of the ones I've known in my short time in the military, the majority of GREAT officers, not good, were either uninterested in doing 20 or fed up with the games and ready to leave.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jan 6, 2011)

Etype said:


> I'd say of the ones I've known in my short time in the military, the majority of GREAT officers, not good, were either uninterested in doing 20 or fed up with the games and ready to leave.



I'm with E Type.  Also I have seen great Capts and Majs leave to do their staff postings with higher and come back completely indoctrinated into the BS.
I think once an O reaches a certain point they get sucked into the empire building vortex of a higher officers ego.  The good ones that don't conform and refuse to play the BS games fall by the wayside.  Their are infrequently some good ones up the top but their underlings become the ones that cause the problems.  You know the type, those clinging to the shirt tails of a better man hoping for advancement.

Being an O should be about leading men and enabling them to do their job.  Sadly I see them forced to play politics IOT survive more often than I do either of those.

I have a dream that 10 years from now every Brig Gen and above will have led troops at Pl/Coy and BN level and thus be able to remember the reality of the job and not some vague recollection of the distant past.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 6, 2011)

I won’t post my opinion on this (I will piss off a few people); I will only say that I have seen the best “soldiers” walk away from the Army over the last 10 years for the same stupid reasons. Leadership


----------



## AWP (Jan 6, 2011)

Are "the best" leaving? Some are and some aren't. Are a large number of exceptional officers leaving? Without a doubt. Don't take risks, conform, cut and paste your way to a promotion, micromanage, your NCOs and soldiers are expendable.

Again, does this encompass all officers out there? No. Are a large number in this category of exceptional medicority? I believe so.

This story reminds me of Paul Yingling's "A Failure in Generalship."


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jan 6, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> This story reminds me of Paul Yingling's "A Failure in Generalship."



That was a very interesting read.   Did he ever make Colonel?  The self licking ice cream does not like to be told it tastes like shit.


----------



## AWP (Jan 6, 2011)

Mac_NZ said:


> That was a very interesting read. Did he ever make Colonel? The self licking ice cream does not like to be told it tastes like shit.



He's still in as an LTC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Yingling


----------



## Teufel (Jan 6, 2011)

He never made it to Colonel because he didn't have the time in service.


----------



## Manolito (Jan 6, 2011)

I don't care for how this whole subject is presented. Just the title and content infers any officer that chooses to remain is suspect as a less than capable officer. Up until recently I have interviewed and hired former officers for employment and two very distict topics come out. #1 an officer can be accused by EEOC and even if the officer is clean as can be he is suspect and hard pressed to move up the chain. #2 my senior officer would throw me under the bus to save his or her own ass. #3 I love the military and after four or five deployments in the last 6 years my kids are growing up without a parent.
Just my thoughts.
Bill


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 7, 2011)

Manolito said:


> I don't care for how this whole subject is presented. Just the title and content infers any officer that chooses to remain is suspect as a less than capable officer. Up until recently I have interviewed and hired officers for employment and two very distict topics come out. #1 an officer can be accused by EEOC and even if the officer is clean as can be he is suspect and hard pressed to move up the chain. #2 my senior officer would throw me under the bus to save his or her own ass. #3 I love the military and after four or five deployments in the last 6 years my kids are growing up without a parent.
> Just my thoughts.
> Bill



I agree with #1 and 2.
SOF guys have had this deployment schedule/rate for years and stick with it.


----------



## Teufel (Jan 7, 2011)

I think the article is pretty accurate.  I'm not going to say that all of the best officers are leaving but a lot of my buddies took off after their fleet tours were over.  I would say that poor leadership was the biggest factor, and that is largely a result of promoting based on time instead of merit.  Some guys stuck around a little longer but took off after their second fleet tour.
SOF guys had a 7 months on and 7 months off deployment before the war?  Besides, I know MARSOC and the Marine Reconnaissance community have been having a retention problem for quite some time now.  I am sure that holds true in the other services.  I know for me, the hardest thing for me was seeing how tough missions, poor leadership and decision making resulted in unnecessary casualties.  I thought a lot about leaving myself after each of my deployments because of how frustrated the system has made me.


----------



## Manolito (Jan 7, 2011)

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG.../dacowits/docs/aug2005/3NovRetentionDraft.doc
This is 03 and 04 data but around page 24 is some information that I found pretty interesting.
My thoughts are based on what I saw in the DOD work force and I don't have any first hand experience like either of you.
The attached article has some information on SOF but not enough to get a good feeling on the cause and effect of SOF officers leaving before retirement.
Bill


----------



## moobob (Jan 7, 2011)

PC and Risk adversion. The military may be a "values based" organization, but a lot of people forget that our #1 value is really accomplishing the mission, which usually entails killing things and breaking shit, not Equal Opportunity, Sensitivity Training, etc. Someone shouldn't get promoted because he had less alcohol related incidents in the command, or his unit collected more money for the Combined Federal Campaign. Yes, discipline is a direct reflection of the command climate... but our priorities for moving people up are very skewed.

That said, you'll never going to eliminate favoritism and the good ole boy system when it comes to promoting people.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 9, 2011)

I'm not sure all of our "best" officers are leaving short of a 20-year career, but I am convinced we're losing a lot of "very good" ones.  The reasons for this are many- the deployment tempo, the fact that there's a war going on, the evolving culture of the military... plus the fact that the officers we consider "good" probably have a lot of options outside of the military as well.  I think we can all recall officers who we thought stayed in the military because they would be utter failures in the "real world."

I think a lot of attrition could be solved with early and meaninful involvement from the chain of command.  It's too late to change a lieutenant or captain's mind about getting out when the first time you see the person is at the exit interview.  I think if junior officers get the sense that their work is valued, that they are rewarded commensurate with the level of job performance, and that non-hackers are called to account, it would go a long way towards keeping the kinds of people in that we need to have stay in.

One of the problems now is that less-than-stellar officers often have the ability to rise to very high rank because of simple attrition- at the end of the day they're the "last man standing" when it's time to pin on that bird or that star.  That, of course, has a trickle-down negative effect throughout the Army.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jan 9, 2011)

moobob said:


> ...The military may be a "values based" organization...



Or so they say...

I have watched quite a few team leaders (CPTs) leave the Army because of the risk-averse leadership styles which seem to permeate the Army, including SOF/SF.

I spoke to one recently, whom I have known since the SFQC.  He is a great leader, great SF soldier, great officer but horrible at toeing the party line, if you will.  Told me he came to SF to do a job and since the Army apparently doesn't want him doing said job he will find employment elsewhere.  He even turned down MAJ to stay on an ODA...

He is going to work for an alphabet agency; I am sure he will be unhappy there as well.


----------



## Brill (Jan 9, 2011)

surgicalcric said:


> He is a great leader, great SF soldier, great officer but *horrible at toeing the party line*, if you will.  Told me *he came to SF to do a job and since the Army apparently doesn't want him doing said job* he will find employment elsewhere.   He is going to work for an alphabet agency; I am sure he will be unhappy there as well.



Sadly, I believe you are correct.  Management simply wants to hear that everything is great, there aren't any problems, and everyone is special in their own individual way.  USG = everyone on the soccer team gets a trophy.

It's nucking futs I tell ya!


----------



## JJ sloan (Jan 9, 2011)

SOWT said:


> I agree with #1 and 2.
> SOF guys have had this deployment schedule/rate for years and stick with it.



Not sure what you mean here.  SOF guys are no different than anyone else.  I know alot of guys that are slowing down in order to be closer to their children.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 9, 2011)

JJ sloan said:


> Not sure what you mean here. SOF guys are no different than anyone else. I know alot of guys that are slowing down in order to be closer to their children.



SOF had a high deployment rate prior to 9/11/01.
That rate hasn't slowed, and won't after we are out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Guys still stick with it.
I think Military BS and risk aversion cause more folks to leave then deployment schedules.
i can tell the boss I am tired of deploying, and get no grief.  tell the boss that I am tired of risk aversion ass kissers, EO classes, and other non-warfighting BS and see what the response is.


----------



## JJ sloan (Jan 10, 2011)

SOWT said:


> SOF had a high deployment rate prior to 9/11/01.
> That rate hasn't slowed, and won't after we are out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Guys still stick with it.
> I think Military BS and risk aversion cause more folks to leave then deployment schedules.
> i can tell the boss I am tired of deploying, and get no grief. tell the boss that I am tired of risk aversion ass kissers, EO classes, and other non-warfighting BS and see what the response is.



Agreed.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 10, 2011)

I wonder if we aren't moving into a similar type of situation that our military found itself in after the Vietnam War. During this last decade of war we have lowered standards and that is especially visible for enlisted basic training standards and the kinder softer Army Basic Training. We work to lower standards so we lose less recruits and retain people that should have been weeded out of the ranks because we need bodies to fill a slot. After Vietnam it took nearly a decade to for the military to shake off the acceptance of mediocrity and start kicking people in the butt and start expecting a higher standards. I think we are beginning to reep what we have sewn by lowering standards and retaining people for the sake of meeting short-term manning goals.

It has already been mentioned that the highest quality officers have other opportunities outside the uniformed service and that statement has never been more true then in today's world of defense contractor. I think it's real comparable to the fights the Navy and Air Force have had in the past to retain pilots against the money that could be made as a commercial pilot. There are so many opportunities for exceptional officers to bring there experience and skills to the contractor market. I would like to see stats of how many officers end up leaving the service and end up working for defense contractor.


----------



## Manolito (Jan 10, 2011)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/military_dod_contractors_071025w/
This question has been asked for a long time. This is a 2007 article but as far as I know nothing has changed. As long as it is not illegal to hire people with previous military service why would you want to know how many now work for contractors.
Bill


----------



## Scotth (Jan 10, 2011)

Manolito said:


> http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/military_dod_contractors_071025w/
> This question has been asked for a long time. This is a 2007 article but as far as I know nothing has changed. As long as it is not illegal to hire people with previous military service why would you want to know how many now work for contractors.
> Bill



I agree with you that you can't block people going to a contracting company. It was more of a question about what is your biggest competition in retention and what are possible solution to make the military more competitive.

I wasn't so concerned about the ethical question which is a fair question especially from the procurement side. I was thinking more about financial and deployment type issue and losing combat leaders.

Thanks for the link.


----------



## DoctorDoom (Jan 10, 2011)

It's not just defense contractors (who tend to have spots for program managers and acquisition officers, especially those of high rank) but all sectors of private industry.  Leadership is valued everywhere.  Good officers tend to leave because they want to go somewhere where they can lead.


----------



## Manolito (Jan 10, 2011)

DD the conversations I had with the ones I worked with agree 100% with your thoughts. Leading is making a difference in their eyes. Knowing that a program was theirs and they controlled the outcome was satisfying to them. There is a learning curve for military leaders once they cross over to the private sector. Things like overtime costs and people skills are sometimes hard to learn.
Scoth I agree with the ethical part  and would like to see some restrictions put in place. DOD is full of retired 05 and 06 officers drawing their retirement and now drawing down GS-13 pay in some department and to be honest they are often the saving grace of that department.
Bill


----------



## Centermass (Jan 14, 2014)

This is an older thread, but with all that has been going on lately with more and more upper level echelons jumping on the PC bandwagon, and the fall out that has ensued because of it, I have to wonder if a shift in the white house come 2016 might have the same witch hunters changing their stripes they're now currently wearing.

Personally, it's makes me sick to my stomach.

Former Sec Gates and his recent revelations I believe paints a clear and accurate picture of an administration, that is nothing more than a hollow shell, appearing tough on terrorism on one hand, and how damaging it (Administration) has been to a lot of top officers with promising potential on the the other. Not to mention the effect it has had on the ROE and the current picture of morale on our war fighters. 

An example I have recently been made aware of is LTC Dooley. Even though his case goes back to 2012, it is just another accurate portrayal of islamist appeasement gone viral. As part of this was his discussion on islam and the war on terrorism, (One part of the equation that got him in hot water) I believe this statement he made as part of his curriculum is what made him a down range target for Dempsey, Panetta and other mouth pieces for this administration, both of whom, slammed him for slandering islam and stifling freedom of religion.

Truer words have never been spoken by Col Dooley with regards to all of this:



> “Political Correctness is killing us: How can we properly identify the enemy, analyze his weaknesses, and defeat him, if we are NEVER permitted to examine him from the most basic doctrinal level?”



Political correctness, its impact on national security and the toll its taking on the rolls of our best and finest, and is a travesty Americas adversaries delight in witnessing on a regular basis as we continue to be weakened within, by our own swords.

I don't blame any leadership for hanging it up as soon as they get their 20 in. Seems if you are anything worth your salt nowadays, and make it that far, you've cheated the hangman already.

In the words of Pogo, "I have seen the enemy, and they, is us."


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 14, 2014)

Have you read the article that _Wired_ published about him?  He said some really, really hateful stuff http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/#slideid-121421



> The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a “total war” against the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: *using the lessons of “Hiroshima” to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the “civilian population wherever necessary.”*
> 
> The course, first reported by Danger Room last month and held at the Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College, has since been canceled by the Pentagon brass. It’s only now, however, that the details of the class have come to light. Danger Room received hundreds of pages of course material and reference documents from a source familiar with the contents of the class.
> 
> ...


It sounds to me like he's straight-up advocating war crimes.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jan 14, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It sounds to me like he's straight-up advocating war crimes.



Have you heard of the Total/Absolute (there is a lot of argument on the definitions) war?  

For example if you were a Soldier in the Mongol horde in the 1300s you wouldn't even know what a war crime was, everyone was a legitimate target.  It's a fantasy concept because political and (the majority of)  modern society values are at odds with it and it would never be achievable without that support.

You guys will still have a plan kicking around somewhere for a massive nuclear first strike against the Soviets, Chinese and the North Koreans.  Doesn't mean it's going to happen but the plan will still be there.  What he's putting forth is really no different to that.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 14, 2014)

"Total war" is something that should only be considered in conventional force-on-force wars.  It's absolutely not an option in counterterrorism.


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Have you read the article that _Wired_ published about him?  He said some really, really hateful stuff http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/#slideid-121421
> It sounds to me like he's straight-up advocating war crimes.



That wired writer is a liberal idiot. 





> _Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley's Joint Staff Forces College presentation on ... *calls for violent measures in a war against Islam*_


_. _Violent measures, in a war! OMG!!_  _
I didn't see anything hateful in that article. It maybe a bit shocking to hear about proposals to nuke cities but it's not hateful, it's a strategy.
I could read the shock and horror of the writer when he wrote 





> He even justified the Crusades, writing that they “were initiated after hundreds of years of Muslim incursion into Western lands.”


 Well no shit Sherlock, that is what happened. Like it or not it's history, it happened.

Like it or not, whether it's policy to mention it or not, Islam is a violent religion, one that advocates murder and child rape. Convert or kill, that's Islam for you.

This seems to be conveniently glossed over... 





> Dooley added the caveats that his views are “not the Official Policy of the United States Government” and are intended “to generate dynamic discussion and thought.”


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> "Total war" is something that should only be considered in conventional force-on-force wars.  It's absolutely not an option in counterterrorism.



History would not agree with you. But in the modern age in our current mindset, you are correct.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jan 14, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> "Total war" is something that should only be considered in conventional force-on-force wars.  It's absolutely not an option in counterterrorism.



I don't even see it being used in this age in those circumstances.  Can you imagine CNN etc glossing over a Dresden bombing part 2?

As to total war being considered for counterterrorism, well it's an option but it doesn't mean it's the right option.  It also depends on the context you look at it in, when its a West vs AQ group then no, you still have some hope that the indigenous population that said group is operating amongst is not fully supporting them or is redeemable.  But if you look at it from a West vs Islam thing then your options start to become pretty slim.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 14, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Have you read the article that _Wired_ published about him?  He said some really, really hateful stuff http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/#slideid-121421
> It sounds to me like he's straight-up advocating war crimes.



You jumped on this as quick as a june bug on a duck. If you had done any kind of digging behind the Wired article, you would have discovered those slides and presentation were not his. He never advocated "total war" against Islam. The discussion about all out war, was conducted by a guest speaker which involved theoretical "out of the box" thinking on what happens if Islamic extremists get a hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and begin destroying U.S. cities. In other words, how does the U.S. or anyone else respond?

I would say the same about wired, however, like Dempsey and the rest, they were quick to rush to judgement, jump to conclusions and with one knee jerk reaction, assassinate the character of a stellar Army officer with an impeccable record and destroying his career before knowing all the facts. Like McChrystal, essentially he got Rolling Stoned.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 14, 2014)

Centermass said:


> You jumped on this as quick as a june bug on a duck. If you had done any kind of digging behind the Wired article, you would have discovered those slides and presentation were not his.


http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf
His name is on it.



> He never advocated "total war" against Islam. The discussion about all out war, was conducted by a guest speaker which involved theoretical "out of the box" thinking on what happens if Islamic extremists get a hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and begin destroying U.S. cities. In other words, how does the U.S. or anyone else respond?


What's your source for this?  I've looked through the other presentations and none of them mention "total war".  I am left to assume that the words are his.  Granted, I wasn't there for the presentation itself and all I've got to go on is the presentation slides and the context surrounding it presented by Wired (and others).  I also saw no mention of a Pakistan situation, just references to DP III (which I would presume is the aftermath).

EDIT: Did you get that Pakistan quote from the Washington Times article? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/14/colonels-class-on-radical-islam-leaves-career-in-l/?page=all  
That bit came from his lawyer and there's seemingly nothing in the presentation to substantiate it.  It is strange that in his branching decision points (page 13) it skips right to Phase II.  But if this is the case, I'll take back all my comments.
Second edit: In retrospect, he really should not have been fired, considering the NDU's policy on academic freedom.  Like his lawyer suggested, he should've been counseled.


----------

