The New Generalship
From the Washington Post via the SWJ Blog:
“The choices suggest that the unusual decision to put the top U.S. officer in Iraq in charge of the promotions board has generated new thinking on the qualities of a successful Army officer — and also deepened Petraeus’s imprint on the Army. Petraeus, who spent nearly four of the past five years in Iraq and has seen many of the colonels in action there, faces confirmation hearings next week to take charge of Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Army Secretary Pete Geren asked Petraeus to head the board, which convened in late 2007, and instructed it to stress innovation in selecting a new generation of one-star generals, the officers said. Several of the colonels widely expected to appear on the resulting promotion list, which has not yet been released, are considered unconventional thinkers who were effective in the Iraq campaign, in many cases because they embraced a counterinsurgency doctrine that Petraeus helped craft, the officials said.
They include Special Forces Col. Ken Tovo, a veteran of multiple Iraq tours who recently led a Special Operations task force there; Col. H.R. McMaster, a senior Petraeus adviser known for leading a successful counterinsurgency effort in the Iraqi city of Tall Afar, and Col. Sean MacFarland, who created a network of patrol bases in Ramadi that helped curb violence in the capital of Anbar Province, according to the officers. “
General Petraeus has been given an opportunity to shape the worldview of the Army in a way that is historically, quite rare. The USAF being formed out of the old Army Air Force in the aftermath of WWII with a strategic bomber, “Air Power” ethos is one example. Another would be General Marshall’s handiwork as the father of the “Benning revolution” and the architect of the mighty WWII U.S. Army, where he ruthlessly cashiered deadwood, timeservers and elderly colonels to make way for a new generation of rising talent.
The scale of Petraeus’ efforts are far smaller, of course, as the current Army is only a fraction of it’s Cold War size, to say nothing of Marshall’s gigantic force built by conscription; but it looks like Pertaeus will leave his mark on the institution of the U.S. Army as surely as did Marshall.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:24 am
While serving in the Army I remember having conversations with officers about the problematic aspects of the promotion system. They often complained of a system of "checking the box" in which infantry officers did their required "line time, earned a Ranger tab, did staff time, a Balkans rotation, and most importantly; didn’t step on any toes. As long as all "the boxes were checked" promotion was gurenteed.
I served from 99-2003 but the promotion system appeared to have been a legacy of the cold war. Everything about the cold war force seemed to be built around the idea of "checking the right boxes." Basically the Army was designed to be in the right place at the right time and ready to listen to orders from higher in preparation for waves of Soviet armour columns.
As we all know, today’s conflict requires much more out of leaders. Instead of just being at the right place and at the right time and in proper uniform, today’s leaders need to decide where the right place is and when to be there (While being in the right uniform).
While the Army of the cold war was a "check the box" organization, today, the Army must be an "outside the box" organization.
General Petraeus certainly displays many of the characteristics needed as a leader in modern warfare. I remember being impressed with General Petraeus for something he did after the invasion. Within his sector, he had several thousand Iraqis on the pay-role in various government positions but they had little in goods or service available to purchase. Fearing the possibility of inflation, he ordered the opening of the Syrian border in order to free up the flow of goods. He did this without being ordered to and appartently this pissed off some people at the Pentagon.
That whole episode epitomized the kind of decision making required by leaders in modern warfare.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Very good news. The combination of Petraeus and Gates continues to be very good. It’s ironic that one of Bush’s greatest legacies (naming Gates) may have happened on his first day as a lame duck.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Seerov-
See Donald Vandegraff’s "The Path to Victory." It details the roots of the current promotion systems, from their 1890s origins.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:25 am
"While the Army of the cold war was a "check the box" organization, today, the Army must be an "outside the box" organization."
.
That’s a great comment.
.
To build on Smitten, we have an Army personnel system going back to the 1890’s and a State Department structure designed by Charles Evans Hughes in the 1920’s. Time for an upgrade, I think.