1
1
0
Has the loss of spit-shine boots and ongoing conflict in an asymmetrical environment created a loss of core skills such as proper military writing skills and the ability to perform as staff officers? If so, what should we do to fix it?
Posted in these groups: 
DisciplineStaff Officer
DisciplineStaff Officer
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
Sir,
You've presented an "If, then" question which doesn't quite follow. I "think" I see where you are going with it, so let me if I can follow the intended logic chain.
We have extremely basic skills like spit shining boots & ironing cammies, which are no longer relevant due to technological advances. Have these advances resulted in parallels with similar "attention to detail" related tasks like technical/professional writing?
As these tasks are essential for staff members, is it creating a hole, and do we need to find a basic skill to replace it, so we can learn "attention to detail" as a tier 1 skill?
You've presented an "If, then" question which doesn't quite follow. I "think" I see where you are going with it, so let me if I can follow the intended logic chain.
We have extremely basic skills like spit shining boots & ironing cammies, which are no longer relevant due to technological advances. Have these advances resulted in parallels with similar "attention to detail" related tasks like technical/professional writing?
As these tasks are essential for staff members, is it creating a hole, and do we need to find a basic skill to replace it, so we can learn "attention to detail" as a tier 1 skill?
(2)
(0)
CH (COL) Geoff Bailey
I'd agree with your rephrasing of the question. However, I wouldn't necessarily attribute the uniform changes to advances in technology.
But in short, has the loss of attention to detail and the subsequent accompanying discipline it inculcates, combined with a frenetic pace of operations which seem primarily reactive in nature led to parallel loss of staff officer skills?
But in short, has the loss of attention to detail and the subsequent accompanying discipline it inculcates, combined with a frenetic pace of operations which seem primarily reactive in nature led to parallel loss of staff officer skills?
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CH (COL) Geoff Bailey I called it Tech Advances mainly because the transitions happened around the MARPAT/ACU & Flame-Retardant time-frame. I can definitely see the arguments both ways though.
But, back to the theory.
Loss of Primary Attention to Detail skills leading to loss of Staff skills seems like a valid logic chain.
Much like loss of Drill maneuvers in Boot Camp would lead to loss of Infantry maneuver skills later on. Basically, we're removing a Level 1 skill, so a Level 2+ skill is being affected.
That said, the correct "fix" would be to replace it with a similar Level 1 skill. If we can't fix it in Recruit/Cadet training, it needs to be corrected at MOS School training with something as comprehensive.
But, back to the theory.
Loss of Primary Attention to Detail skills leading to loss of Staff skills seems like a valid logic chain.
Much like loss of Drill maneuvers in Boot Camp would lead to loss of Infantry maneuver skills later on. Basically, we're removing a Level 1 skill, so a Level 2+ skill is being affected.
That said, the correct "fix" would be to replace it with a similar Level 1 skill. If we can't fix it in Recruit/Cadet training, it needs to be corrected at MOS School training with something as comprehensive.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CH (COL) Geoff Bailey I don't know if I can be put in so grand of company, but there's a reason Mr. Lombardi was so successful. Basics work.
To test your theory though, Sir, have you tried comparing Services? Each of them went through similar transitions in uniforms during the same time-frames. In theory, they should have experienced similar losses in Staff skills. How have the USMC, USN, and USAF fared?
To test your theory though, Sir, have you tried comparing Services? Each of them went through similar transitions in uniforms during the same time-frames. In theory, they should have experienced similar losses in Staff skills. How have the USMC, USN, and USAF fared?
(1)
(0)
I have heard many people say that our ongoing wars have distracted us from being good at our military jobs... which I find very ironic and quite opposite. I believe that our conflicts have made us better at our job, but there are people who still want to measure our military skills based on things that no longer matter so much (shining boots, etc.). Should Roman Legionnaires look at WWII soldiers and say that they lacked discipline because they didn't know how to buff a shield?
Our military is probably as strong right now as it ever has been. We need our military to fight the wars that we face, not to train to a manual which may be nostalgically outdated.
Can our staff officers become better? Of course they can, but I don't believe the myth that previous staff officers would be winning more battles today than those actually in the field.
Our military is probably as strong right now as it ever has been. We need our military to fight the wars that we face, not to train to a manual which may be nostalgically outdated.
Can our staff officers become better? Of course they can, but I don't believe the myth that previous staff officers would be winning more battles today than those actually in the field.
(1)
(0)
CH (COL) Geoff Bailey
I agree MAJ Yinon Weiss that our staff officers are just as effective on the battlefield as their predecessors. However, can they function with that same precision in garrison? If not, have we then lost proficiency in certain core staff skills?
(1)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
CH (COL) Geoff Bailey - That's a good question, which I can't really answer because I have never served as a active duty staff officer in garrison in peace time. However, I think it would make sense that if staff officers gain significant proficiency in wartime skills, they will inevitably lose some "garrison skills" -- as nobody can be great at everything. We can only focus on so many skill sets at once. That said, there are probably a lot of garrison skill sets which are not really necessary skill sets, if they become unlearned every time you actually go to war.
If I can read a bit more into your question and follow ups... you may be surprised/disappointed with officers who lack sufficient writing skills, planning skills, and general communication skills. If that is the case, I would think that staff officers are not really worse off today in those areas than previous generations; it's an area that the military can always improve in.
If I can read a bit more into your question and follow ups... you may be surprised/disappointed with officers who lack sufficient writing skills, planning skills, and general communication skills. If that is the case, I would think that staff officers are not really worse off today in those areas than previous generations; it's an area that the military can always improve in.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Yinon Weiss CH (COL) Geoff Bailey Conflict chips off the "fluff," but (eventually) leads to a fast & looser process. Garrison polishes it up, but (eventually) leads to a more cumbersome & bureaucratic process.
I think Maj Bailey's premise that a loss of core skill "attention to detail" is showing in Staff skills is an interesting Theory. But as Maj Weiss points out we don't have comparable evidence, either anecdotal or empirical. I come from "Intermediate-war Era (USMC)" which will gives us no usable data to compare to the Army.
Perhaps some of the seasoned Colonels (COL Charles Williams & COL Jean (John) F. B.) we have in RP could provide more insight? They would be able to give better anecdotal data?
I think Maj Bailey's premise that a loss of core skill "attention to detail" is showing in Staff skills is an interesting Theory. But as Maj Weiss points out we don't have comparable evidence, either anecdotal or empirical. I come from "Intermediate-war Era (USMC)" which will gives us no usable data to compare to the Army.
Perhaps some of the seasoned Colonels (COL Charles Williams & COL Jean (John) F. B.) we have in RP could provide more insight? They would be able to give better anecdotal data?
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
My experience is that attention to detail in administrative matters suffers as a result of deployments, while actual execution of the mission is enhanced. My opinion, however, is that both are essential to an effective organization. Chaos would ensue if all a unit commander is concerned about is the wartime focus at the expense of the peacetime requirements. An effective commander finds the right balance, which, by necessity, changes depending on the situation, location, mission, etc. Those who lean too far in one direction, at the expense of the other, soon find themselves in very hot water.
An effective commander figures out ways to translate peacetime skills and requirements into a wartime training focus. Planning, organizing, coordinating, supervising and completing the paperwork for a peacetime mission trains one to do so in a wartime setting, as well.
There is a famous quote from a Frenchman, Jean Larteguy, that says: "“I'd like to have two armies: one for display with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering Generals, and dear little regimental officers who would be deeply concerned over their General's bowel movements or their Colonel's piles, an army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country. The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflage uniforms, who would not be put on display, but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That's the army in which I should like to fight.” While there is certainly some truth and common sense to that, the fact is that, in the real world, one must be in both of the armies he describes. Those who can't make that balance work are doomed to failure.
My experience is that attention to detail in administrative matters suffers as a result of deployments, while actual execution of the mission is enhanced. My opinion, however, is that both are essential to an effective organization. Chaos would ensue if all a unit commander is concerned about is the wartime focus at the expense of the peacetime requirements. An effective commander finds the right balance, which, by necessity, changes depending on the situation, location, mission, etc. Those who lean too far in one direction, at the expense of the other, soon find themselves in very hot water.
An effective commander figures out ways to translate peacetime skills and requirements into a wartime training focus. Planning, organizing, coordinating, supervising and completing the paperwork for a peacetime mission trains one to do so in a wartime setting, as well.
There is a famous quote from a Frenchman, Jean Larteguy, that says: "“I'd like to have two armies: one for display with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering Generals, and dear little regimental officers who would be deeply concerned over their General's bowel movements or their Colonel's piles, an army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country. The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflage uniforms, who would not be put on display, but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That's the army in which I should like to fight.” While there is certainly some truth and common sense to that, the fact is that, in the real world, one must be in both of the armies he describes. Those who can't make that balance work are doomed to failure.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google