Posted on Apr 14, 2015
Project Solarium: What are the most important issues the Army is facing right now?
6.64K
20
15
6
6
0
"In the summer of President Eisenhower’s first year in office he commissioned Project Solarium. His purpose was to bring together a collection of experts to debate and propose alternate directions for U.S. Foreign Policy with regard to the Soviet threat. In 1953 the Cold War was just beginning and the Korean War was coming to an indecisive conclusion. It was clear to President Eisenhower that the United States needed to carefully develop a comprehensive Foreign Policy Strategy. It was code named Solarium because the idea for the project occurred in the White House Solarium, a sun room on the 3rd floor where President Eisenhower enjoyed spending leisure time. At the time, Project Solarium observed very strict operations security and was only declassified in 1985. After its declassification, many historians and scholars have pointed to Project Solarium as a superb example of strategic planning that should be emulated."
I would like to see the Project Rally Point Solarium kick off. We have a great deal of professional insight here in this group. If you had to pick the top 3-6 issues the Army is facing today, what would they be, and why?
My opinion is as follows;
1) Talent Management: How to retain and progress the right people.
2) Career Management: Reshaping the way we control our careers. The much needed transition to a corporate style career management system
3) Reshaping the Army Culture: The Army's internal AO campaign
4) Training: Effective training with a restrictive budget/Training Focus
5) Reshaping the Army's Benefits: Retirement Savings option
6) Mitigating the degradation of Combat Readiness: Remaining effective as we draw down.
I would like to see the Project Rally Point Solarium kick off. We have a great deal of professional insight here in this group. If you had to pick the top 3-6 issues the Army is facing today, what would they be, and why?
My opinion is as follows;
1) Talent Management: How to retain and progress the right people.
2) Career Management: Reshaping the way we control our careers. The much needed transition to a corporate style career management system
3) Reshaping the Army Culture: The Army's internal AO campaign
4) Training: Effective training with a restrictive budget/Training Focus
5) Reshaping the Army's Benefits: Retirement Savings option
6) Mitigating the degradation of Combat Readiness: Remaining effective as we draw down.
Lessons Learned
Force Shaping
Leadership
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
3
3
0
CPT (Join to see) You get the best RP topic of the day award.
This is exactly what should be discussed here. And I think the points you've made on priorities for what the Military needs to focus on are well made.
This is exactly what should be discussed here. And I think the points you've made on priorities for what the Military needs to focus on are well made.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Thanks a lot, Sir. How can I get that award on my ORB? Is there an S1 in the house?
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
OER comment "Led guided Professional Military Education discussions on a wide variety of topics including leadership, history, professional development and enterprise wide priorities."
(1)
(0)
I would generally agree with the list as you presented it, and I think this is a great topic. I think talent management is the #1 challenge we face right now. The world is not just changing quickly, but is changing more quickly each year. The military is falling way behind the rest of the country in terms of how talent is managed and retained, and that can create serious long term problems. Those that have been "on the inside" of the military for a very long time may not have a perspective on just how disconnected the military has become in terms of talent management best practices.
I would also add what I am observing as an obsession with self-preservation across the force as we see cuts and draw down, with each unit or branch fighting for relevancy and numbers in order to justify their existence and budget. The arguments tend to be motivated by simple self-preservation and not necessarily for national military objectives.
Most of these discussions tend to be "we need to show better numbers so somebody else gets cut and not us" -- and most of the discussions are therefore about how we can position ourselves for self-preservation rather than how do we position ourselves to accomplish the needed mission. Instead of focusing on organizational goals like combat readiness, leadership development, and training, there is a tendency to focus on meeting administrative metrics and quasi-poltiical goals in order to make the sub-organization look better than the next. Thus we are competing against each other more than we are trying to prepare to fight an enemy.
The above is unfortunately probably a natural human tendency, but I would like to see less of it. Ideally, we should all be thinking "what is best for the Army and our Nation" rather than "how do I preserve our budget?" -- The problem right now is that there is not a clear vision for our military in context of foreign policy, at least not at the level I see, so it's easier for people to gain tunnel vision for "what is best for my organization?" rather than best for our military and country.
I invite SGM Matthew Quick, CSM Michael J. Uhlig, and CSM (Join to see) to add their own separate response to the original question. I would love to hear your thoughts.
I would also add what I am observing as an obsession with self-preservation across the force as we see cuts and draw down, with each unit or branch fighting for relevancy and numbers in order to justify their existence and budget. The arguments tend to be motivated by simple self-preservation and not necessarily for national military objectives.
Most of these discussions tend to be "we need to show better numbers so somebody else gets cut and not us" -- and most of the discussions are therefore about how we can position ourselves for self-preservation rather than how do we position ourselves to accomplish the needed mission. Instead of focusing on organizational goals like combat readiness, leadership development, and training, there is a tendency to focus on meeting administrative metrics and quasi-poltiical goals in order to make the sub-organization look better than the next. Thus we are competing against each other more than we are trying to prepare to fight an enemy.
The above is unfortunately probably a natural human tendency, but I would like to see less of it. Ideally, we should all be thinking "what is best for the Army and our Nation" rather than "how do I preserve our budget?" -- The problem right now is that there is not a clear vision for our military in context of foreign policy, at least not at the level I see, so it's easier for people to gain tunnel vision for "what is best for my organization?" rather than best for our military and country.
I invite SGM Matthew Quick, CSM Michael J. Uhlig, and CSM (Join to see) to add their own separate response to the original question. I would love to hear your thoughts.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Self preservation is a serious underlying problem for the Army and all large organizations. As I've said before, I recommend looking to the corporate world at ways they have dealt with this issue. It is very hard to get an honest and clear perspective from those inside an organization who have natural bias, interpersonal relationships, and in some cases professional and monetary gain to be had tied up in different aspects and people in the orgainization. This is precisely why there are consultant firms. Outside entities that come in, review the organization, learn its mechinisims and make unbias and sometimes harsh recommendations. The Army has had top consultants from leading firms come in and do exactly that on a smaller scale. In most circumstances, the recommendations of the consultants were deemed as "too radical" or "not in line with current culture". These responses are exactly why we are in the situation we are currently in right now. We are incredibly adverse to change.
The inability to change quickly is at the heart of many of our current issues. The slower we adapt, the farther behind we fall. And right now we are bleeding our most valuable assets; talented leaders. We are so far behind in investing in and retaining talent that many good leaders leave the Army. What future "Pattons" or "Eisenhowers" have we already lost to the civilian sectory?
The inability to change quickly is at the heart of many of our current issues. The slower we adapt, the farther behind we fall. And right now we are bleeding our most valuable assets; talented leaders. We are so far behind in investing in and retaining talent that many good leaders leave the Army. What future "Pattons" or "Eisenhowers" have we already lost to the civilian sectory?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I see a number of opportunities that are complex and challenging:
1) Army sustainment - Particularly related to personnel. As many of the external forces that play a part in the making of a successful service member recruit are out of the Army's domain, such as laws for the legalization of drugs and education policies that pander to minimal standards, the Army needs to figure out how to do more with less. Maybe multiple MOS's will be required, cross training, larger reserve and guard numbers to address the area.
2) Acquisition process - The current system has digressed into a series of capitulating failures that the Army seems unable and unwilling to fix. The current system for all branches is more interested in aggressive resistance to the reporting of problems, suppression of failed test results, public declaration of success where none was justified, and the absence of accountability.
3) Strategy for asymmetrical war - To me it seems that we to often use a traditional strategy when engaging an asymmetrical force. We have billion dollar comm systems while the enemy is using snap chat. Seems to me we should be working on low tech solutions for low tech problems as apposed to using a tomahawk cruise missile to take out a guy jockeying a camel wagon.
1) Army sustainment - Particularly related to personnel. As many of the external forces that play a part in the making of a successful service member recruit are out of the Army's domain, such as laws for the legalization of drugs and education policies that pander to minimal standards, the Army needs to figure out how to do more with less. Maybe multiple MOS's will be required, cross training, larger reserve and guard numbers to address the area.
2) Acquisition process - The current system has digressed into a series of capitulating failures that the Army seems unable and unwilling to fix. The current system for all branches is more interested in aggressive resistance to the reporting of problems, suppression of failed test results, public declaration of success where none was justified, and the absence of accountability.
3) Strategy for asymmetrical war - To me it seems that we to often use a traditional strategy when engaging an asymmetrical force. We have billion dollar comm systems while the enemy is using snap chat. Seems to me we should be working on low tech solutions for low tech problems as apposed to using a tomahawk cruise missile to take out a guy jockeying a camel wagon.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google