Interesting article on the Garrison Army and Mission command

Vince, interesting article.

LTG(Ret) Barno relates his observations about the CSA's comments in 1979 about 'selective disobedience". This hasn't really changed much today in spirit, it's merely in wording. I remember a conversation I with my boss about my job being to manage failure because there were too many requirements to satisfy and not enough resources (time, $$, people, etc) to complete them. It was my job as the commander to figure out which were the 'glass balls' and which were the 'rubber balls'.

I agree with his assessment of risk taking in peacetime being eliminated. We have a larger focus on minimizing risk in garrison to the point that we fail to adequately appreciate the impact of the failure (both good and bad) and instead just look at in a single-minded view that "Failure is bad .. ABSOLUTELY BAD!". From a leadership view, leaders have to be given the opportunity to fail, we just need to ensure that there is something there to ensure that they aren't going to fail catastrophically.

However, I disagree with his views on the technology having corrosive effects being a new thing though. I imagine that Grant was complaining about the corrosive (probably didn't use that word) effects of the telegraph because Lincoln was able to directly and more frequently communicate with him. I do agree with the effects though, but I see the challenge of mitigating those effects as nothing new and something that all leaders throughout the military need to handle.

What's the answer? In order to break the compliance culture that he speaks about (and I agree - it seems we're morphing more and more into that), leaders need to exercise self-control and push-back. How's the saying go? ... Lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part. Put another way, just because it's important to you doesn't mean it's important to me. I have a job to do and missions to accomplish. If it's important to my organization, mission, or my soldiers, then it's important to me. If some requirement is there but doesn't have the importance ... well, refer to my comments above about my role being to manage failure.

A failure to do the same today would exact high costs. As a young captain with multiple combat deployments recently told me: “They won’t have to shrink the force; lots of great people will leave because they are going to make it too painful for them to stay.”

The above sums up the article well. The military IS losing its best and brightest but the politicians don't care. Why?

I do disagree with one thing. The headline. The enemy isn't going to be peace. It will be ourselves.

I was asked in another forum how one goes about countering the trends listed in the article. My answer was as follows:

It really gets down to prioritization (focus groups better than "selective disobedience" among Flag Officers. ), knowing "what hill you're willing to die on", and moral courage.

You need to know your unit, what is important to its performance, and what isn't. You have to ensure that the important things get done and get to the unimportant things when and as they can be fit in - or not.

The trick is this may ruin your OER and end your career. Seniors may not appreciate your waving the BS flag. Especially about what they just stated was the "Army's #1 priority" of the day.

I have more than once informed a senior "Roger, understood, not doing it." As I have always had strong reasoning, that has worked when I've played that card (which has NOT been often). That said, I am a reservist and the Army isn't my livelihood. I acknowledge that I might not have done so were my ability to pay the mortgage impacted. I like to think I would, but I don't know that I would.