Posted on Oct 31, 2019
9
9
0
When I was going through the MAGTF Intelligence Officer Course, we had a fine officer (LT M) that was a brilliant tactician whom everyone turned to when it came time for mission planning. Whatever we were tasked to do, he was quick to see the best, most simple and direct way to accomplish a task. To be honest, there's more than one way to skin a cat and I got tired of the group always going with his plans because I thought I had some pretty good ideas, but he was usually first to come up with a plan and his plans were often more elegant in their simplicity. Less can go wrong if you follow KISS when planning... and that holds true for virtually everything in life!
I always thought he would go far in the Corps and that he would probably be a General Officer some day, other than the fact he was an Intelligence Officer and most don't go on to become Generals. A couple years later I heard through the grapevine that LT M was getting out. Personally, I feel like the Corps lost a very fine officer. I have to believe that a part of him felt frustrated by the bureaucracy and that he wasn't very challenged by military life. He was loyal and didn't speak ill of anyone. His work was exemplary and spoke for itself. Perhaps he grew tired of being held back and felt constrained. He may have felt that the Private Sector offered him more opportunity to shine. His peers may have resented him or he may have worked for a senior that was intimidated by his brilliance. Instead of allowing him to shine, they may have set obstacles in his way so that he wouldn't make them look mediocre. I also suspect family considerations were a big factor in his decision to leave. It's a shame because he had a LOT to offer the Corps. LT M was a class act and textbook role model Officer.
Has anyone else served with someone that was head and shoulders above their peers that left the military because they felt they weren't being valued? What do you think we could do to keep our best and brightest motivated to stay in and make a difference?
I always thought he would go far in the Corps and that he would probably be a General Officer some day, other than the fact he was an Intelligence Officer and most don't go on to become Generals. A couple years later I heard through the grapevine that LT M was getting out. Personally, I feel like the Corps lost a very fine officer. I have to believe that a part of him felt frustrated by the bureaucracy and that he wasn't very challenged by military life. He was loyal and didn't speak ill of anyone. His work was exemplary and spoke for itself. Perhaps he grew tired of being held back and felt constrained. He may have felt that the Private Sector offered him more opportunity to shine. His peers may have resented him or he may have worked for a senior that was intimidated by his brilliance. Instead of allowing him to shine, they may have set obstacles in his way so that he wouldn't make them look mediocre. I also suspect family considerations were a big factor in his decision to leave. It's a shame because he had a LOT to offer the Corps. LT M was a class act and textbook role model Officer.
Has anyone else served with someone that was head and shoulders above their peers that left the military because they felt they weren't being valued? What do you think we could do to keep our best and brightest motivated to stay in and make a difference?
A Marine officer: I'm leaving the Corps because it doesn't much value ideas
Posted from foreignpolicy.com
Retention
Military Life
Intelligence
Leadership
Edited 5 y ago
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
The military’s stifling of young officers in their aspirations is also a famous exit line as the depart the military.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I suspect that he thinks things will be different in "the real world" of civilian life. Boy, is he in for a rude awakening
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
I think the Military is often too quick to judge an officer's career based on their performance the first decade in- I also think many JOs are too quick to judge their own place in the Military as well. Part of that may be somewhat logical, in that we start out in the "middle"... you either learn fast, or fall behind faster. Maybe we "get it", and perhaps we don't... the enlisted and commissioned tracks can't be equally compared, and there are critical skills in each that simply take time to develop. If I could go back and advise my own young self, I would've suggested sticking to the basics; ensure you hit the "wickets"... your time will come when you're ready.
(2)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
It was my observation that the Marines spent more time training JO's to lead. The Corps kept them out of the FMF for 6 months (TBS) and weeded out the misfits before sending them out to the Fleet where the troops would be subjected to their "leadership".
I observed Ensigns in action and some didn't have a clue how to lead troops. For them, life was very tough. The troops often blew them off and they didn't get much in the way of support or mentoring from their seniors. The Chiefs seemed to be given the responsibility of training them and they would jerk their chain and put them through the wringer. Their career could be made or broken by the Chiefs and the Chiefs knew it. For the Ensgins, it was sink or swim... more of a baptism by fire. You Sir, obviously survived your ordeal. Congrats!
I observed Ensigns in action and some didn't have a clue how to lead troops. For them, life was very tough. The troops often blew them off and they didn't get much in the way of support or mentoring from their seniors. The Chiefs seemed to be given the responsibility of training them and they would jerk their chain and put them through the wringer. Their career could be made or broken by the Chiefs and the Chiefs knew it. For the Ensgins, it was sink or swim... more of a baptism by fire. You Sir, obviously survived your ordeal. Congrats!
(1)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Jeff-Ensigns actually don't hit the Fleet right away either. Aviators obviously spend as much as two years (at least when I was there) at TRACOM, and I think the SWOs spend at least six months at SWOS before taking their first division. There is a (vast) difference however between the training models at the VTs and SWOS vs. TBS. The Navy is trying to develop one kind of leader... the Marine Corps another. In my personal opinion (for whatever that's worth), the Navy could/should focus more on how to lead people, but there "may" be a technical skills development curve to get over, and simply not enough time to make the process more "well-rounded". In addition, I think many Navy JOs are unaware of the ways they can demonstrate the same virtues within a division, as a young second lieutenant can in a platoon. Qualification is paramount, but not everything... and young naval officers can/should "get in it" so to speak. I was fortunate beyond words for the Chiefs I had during my two sea tours... they let me get my hands dirty, and it helped.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google