Assessing the surge

[Administrator]

U.S. commanders with whom I spoke in Anbar province in August were worried — worried that their Marines would get bored in the absence of combat action. Enlisted Marines on return tours of duty expressed surprise verging on bewilderment that cities such as Fallujah, long wracked by insurgent violence, were calm and open for business. Foreign terrorists who once ruled the streets still launched minor attacks, but had been marginalized across the province. And last year’s Sunni-Arab enemies were busily scheming how to profit from the American presence.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/10/3026423

[MEL1776]

A great article. I especially liked the line "One quality of a first-rate commander that too often goes overlooked is the ability of a leader to recognize when his subordinates already have it right and either to build upon their success or get out of the way." In unconventional warfare I really see the job of anyone over O-3 is to "Get out of the way and back the play." In other words, to listen to the company commanders and to serve and support them, rather than trying to get into the action by micromanaging with a one-size-fits-all mentality. This seems to be happening more recently in conjunction with the surge.

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by MEL1776

In unconventional warfare I really see the job of anyone over O-3 is to "Get out of the way and back the play." In other words, to listen to the company commanders and to serve and support them, rather than trying to get into the action by micromanaging with a one-size-fits-all mentality. This seems to be happening more recently in conjunction with the surge.

One of the problems you run into when you are dealing with a tribal/village culture is that what works in one center won't necessarily work in the next center.

This isn't a problem if you are only responsible for one center, but when the number of centers multiplies then it is very hard for the person responsible to come up with a "unified" solution that can be put down on their pers forms as "theirs". Face it, "I told everyone to do what worked in their village and not to worry about whether or not that was the 'approved' way of dealing with the situation." simply does NOT garner very many "promotion points" and, in fact, has a nasty tendency to be read as "This officer did nothing original and abandoned his command responsibilities to subordinates without providing them with appropriate guidance in following the established policies.".

[MEL1776]

Universal Curmudgeon
I agree and part of what I am arguing for is that for the foreseeable future commanders who are O-4s and above should also be graded for performance by their O-3s. 360 performance reviews have been argued for in the past and are really important when most of the command action is at the O-3 and lower level. Also, what they are graded on should be changed; more serving and supporting, less guidance and much less micromanagement.

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by MEL1776

Universal Curmudgeon
I agree and part of what I am arguing for is that for the foreseeable future commanders who are O-4s and above should also be graded for performance by their O-3s.

I quite agree. In fact I go even further. Everyone should be rated on the performance of everyone two ranks below them.

However, that grading should NOT be based simply on the performance of those subordinates, but should include whether the person has attempted to rectify any problems, the success of those efforts, and what they have done to improve the success of those efforts (which includes asking both peers and superiors for suggestions/guidance in difficult situations).

Exactly how that grading would be carried out could well be a subject of almost endless debate (read as "career boilerplating for O-6s and better"), but I would think that one of the criteria should be "percentge improvement" (i.e. someone who inherits a situation rated at 10 out of 100 and manages to improve that to 20 out of 100, that would be a 100% improvement and would carry the same weight as someone who inherits a situation rated at 50 out of 100 and improves it to 100 out of 100 [alternatively there could be a fudge factor to also recognize magnitude of improvement] - this is predicated on the theory that it is harder to improve total crap than it is to improve the merely bad).

Originally Posted by MEL1776

360 performance reviews have been argued for in the past and are really important when most of the command action is at the O-3 and lower level.

Again, agreed. But, if the O-4 isn't capable of improving the performance level of their subordinates - and doesn't seek assistance/guidance - then a percentage of the failure is ascribable to those "up the line" from the O-4 (for not knowing what is going on in their unit).

Originally Posted by MEL1776

Also, what they are graded on should be changed; more serving and supporting, less guidance and much less micromanagement.

As far as I am concerned "guidance" falls within the rubric "supporting".

"Micromanagement" falls within the rubric "bullshit".

[MEL1776]

I think we are in general agreement. Now back to something more core to the paper.

Iraq’s PM, Nuri al-Maliki, seems to have won a psychological victory with what is generally accepted as a militarily failed attack against the cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, in Basra. The Economist even reports that he seems have gained in popularity. But if he is to really gain broad support he should also start spending all the oil money that has been collecting up unspent. What is the primary reason that it is going unspent? Is he just waiting to see what the outcome of the U.S. elections are in November to see if he wants to spend it in support of his own faction if America starts withdrawing quickly, or is the bureaucracy just that messed up? Or is it something else. The U.S. legislature is apparently threatening to decrease funding for Iraq and/or switch to loans as they are so annoyed with this situation.

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by MEL1776

I think we are in general agreement. Now back to something more core to the paper.

Iraq’s PM, Nuri al-Maliki, seems to have won a psychological victory with what is generally accepted as a militarily failed attack against the cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, in Basra. The Economist even reports that he seems have gained in popularity.

Given that the one thing that is immediately apparent about Iraqi "politics" is that nothing is as it seems, whether he "won" a "victory" or if someone else (read as "Mr. al-Sistani") thought that it was in his own best interests to make it seem if Mr. al-Malkik did something right is open to question.

Originally Posted by MEL1776

But if he is to really gain broad support he should also start spending all the oil money that has been collecting up unspent.

In order to "gain broad support" he would have to actually spend the money so that it actually produced what it was advertised as being spent to deliver AND he would have to spend it on "non-Shi'ites" which is likely to be political suicide amongst the Shi'ite.

Additionally, as things are developing, it appears that the best bet on the identity of "America's Best Buddies in Iraq" isn't the Shi'ite but the Sunni. (You remember then, they are the evil oppressors that had to be removed from power in order to liberate Iraq.)

Originally Posted by MEL1776

What is the primary reason that it is going unspent?

"S - ? - I - ? - S - ? - A - ? - K - ? - C - ? - O - ? - N - ? - S"

Maybe?

Originally Posted by MEL1776

Is he just waiting to see what the outcome of the U.S. elections are in November to see if he wants to spend it in support of his own faction if America starts withdrawing quickly, or is the bureaucracy just that messed up?

The word "or" isn't the applicable one. The correct word is "and".

Originally Posted by MEL1776

Or is it something else.

Personal greed?

Originally Posted by MEL1776

The U.S. legislature is apparently threatening to decrease funding for Iraq and/or switch to loans as they are so annoyed with this situation.

The US government always gets annoyed when a government that it installs doesn't do what it is told to do.

Admittedly I do find it humorous to hear someone who is rapidly going broke threatening to stop giving money to someone getting richer by the hour.

[Laxman]

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon

"Micromanagement" falls within the rubric "bullshit".

When dealing with many O-5s & O-6s, you are nearly forced to become a micromanager to answer all the questions.