thedrifter
06-12-06, 05:58 AM
06-09-2006
Military Transformation Requires Cultural Change
By Matthew Dodd
Can two people look at the same thing, assess it differently, and both be correct with their assessments? If yes, can two people use the same title for two articles and present two opposed viewpoints?
I am using the same title as a June 8, 2006 Armed Forces Press Service article. The title caught my eye, and I was cautiously optimistic as I clicked on its link and prepared to read it. My optimism was shattered when I read the very first sentence:
“To be sure, the Defense Department's transformation initiative is about improving military technology, mobility, lethality and speed to meet the 21st century's asymmetrical threats.”
That one sentence spoke volumes to me not only for what it said, but also for what it did not say. I instinctively knew from that one sentence that the article would be yet another sermon from a worshipper at the altar of technology who would minimize (at best) or completely ignore (most likely) the critical importance of striving for tactical excellence of our individual troops and small units. Sadly, the rest of the article proved my instincts were as sharp as ever.
When I first read that sentence, I thought to myself: “If you pushed back the hands of time ten (or maybe twenty) years, you could replace the last four words with “20th century’s remaining Cold War threats” and you would have a sentence that was more accurate than the 2006 one.” So, the keys to winning our ongoing global war on terror are through technological improvements that will give us more precision firepower and greater speed and mobility. While it may be implied in those keys, I have to work way too hard to make the necessary connections to our precious troops who will still have to deploy and employ their weapons up-close-and-personal against those asymmetrical threats.
The article contained many other thoughts, ideas, and propaganda-like phrases to support the worship of technology and the dismissing of folks who may have other ideas:
"Transformation is really about cultural changes as much as anything else," said Thomas Hone, the Defense Department's Office of Force Transformation assistant director for risk management, in a June 6 interview. "It means a change in people to maximize their potential."
“Changing the way people think about their work will yield better results, he added.”
“…Because transformation represents a shift in fundamental and long-held conventions, it has not been welcome by everyone.”
“…In his commencement speech May 31 at the Air Force Academy, Rumsfeld reiterated that the U.S. must continue to transform and streamline its military forces to meet future challenges. He then pointed out that some people will always be resistant to change and urged the airmen to challenge inherited assumptions and seek out better approaches.”
"I urge you to make that the bedrock of your careers," Rumsfeld said during his graduation remarks.”
I actually agree that transformation goes beyond physical changes (new, better gadgets and equipment) and must include changes in the way people think (especially about themselves as warriors or those who support the warriors, or both). I am also talking about “a shift in fundamental and long-held conventions (although I would say “beliefs” or “practices” vice “conventions”), but my shift is to an actual emphasis on the troops. This includes no-kidding priorities on abundant and realistic individual and small unit training opportunities, and on unit personnel cohesion and stability (no more ad hoc troop rotations or massive last-minute troop plus-ups prior to deployments).
I wonder if Secretary Rumsfeld appreciates the fact that I am challenging inherited assumptions and seeking out better approaches.
I am not against improving technologies. If we can develop advanced technologies that our troops can use to kill more bad guys faster and with less danger to our troops, then by all means we need to do it, but not if it means that we do not place appropriate emphasis on ensuring that our troops are the best trained individual and small unit warriors they can be.
I generally concur with Hone’s assessment of what technology can do for our ground troops:
"Information can displace firepower," Hone said. "You don't need so much firepower, because you know where the target is and you can hit it with precision munitions. You find a target and then you attack it. You'd do all of this in a matter of minutes instead of in a matter of hours or days."
“Hone said transformed concepts and technologies have already been put to good use in Iraq. Joint close-air support is provided to ground troops around the clock and in all weather conditions. "Technology and organization makes this possible," he said.”
The main problem I have with Hone’s assessment is that technology and organization mean nothing without the excellence of individual and small-unit warriors to employ them properly at the right place, the right time, and the right ways.
Another troubling insight from Hone was his myopic “big-picture” perspective that was insulting at best to our combat units and the troops assigned to them:
“He also stressed the positive impact transformation will have on the U.S. Army as it moves toward brigades that are designed to be highly mobile, self-sufficient and interchangeable.”
"You will be able to pull one out and put another in its place," Hone said. "(It's) as though you were pulling a brick out of a wall and putting another back in."
I know that in his position, a “big-picture” perspective is important. However, equating brigades to bricks in a wall shows a complete lack of appreciation for what those brigades and troops bring to the asymmetric battlefield of today. A better analogy to interchangeable, highly-advanced, and capable components would have been computer chips in highly-mobile and powerful hand-held computers. Confusing bricks that have been around in their present form for generations with today’s evolving and transforming combat brigades goes beyond mere semantics when it is spoken by a man in such a prominent position within the Defense Department.
I believe that although Thomas Hone and I may both agree that it is possible for two articles to share the same title yet present opposing views, I do not believe that both our assessments are correct. The best advice I have for Mr. Hone is a paraphrased quote from him: “Changing the way you think about your work will yield better results.”
Ellie
Military Transformation Requires Cultural Change
By Matthew Dodd
Can two people look at the same thing, assess it differently, and both be correct with their assessments? If yes, can two people use the same title for two articles and present two opposed viewpoints?
I am using the same title as a June 8, 2006 Armed Forces Press Service article. The title caught my eye, and I was cautiously optimistic as I clicked on its link and prepared to read it. My optimism was shattered when I read the very first sentence:
“To be sure, the Defense Department's transformation initiative is about improving military technology, mobility, lethality and speed to meet the 21st century's asymmetrical threats.”
That one sentence spoke volumes to me not only for what it said, but also for what it did not say. I instinctively knew from that one sentence that the article would be yet another sermon from a worshipper at the altar of technology who would minimize (at best) or completely ignore (most likely) the critical importance of striving for tactical excellence of our individual troops and small units. Sadly, the rest of the article proved my instincts were as sharp as ever.
When I first read that sentence, I thought to myself: “If you pushed back the hands of time ten (or maybe twenty) years, you could replace the last four words with “20th century’s remaining Cold War threats” and you would have a sentence that was more accurate than the 2006 one.” So, the keys to winning our ongoing global war on terror are through technological improvements that will give us more precision firepower and greater speed and mobility. While it may be implied in those keys, I have to work way too hard to make the necessary connections to our precious troops who will still have to deploy and employ their weapons up-close-and-personal against those asymmetrical threats.
The article contained many other thoughts, ideas, and propaganda-like phrases to support the worship of technology and the dismissing of folks who may have other ideas:
"Transformation is really about cultural changes as much as anything else," said Thomas Hone, the Defense Department's Office of Force Transformation assistant director for risk management, in a June 6 interview. "It means a change in people to maximize their potential."
“Changing the way people think about their work will yield better results, he added.”
“…Because transformation represents a shift in fundamental and long-held conventions, it has not been welcome by everyone.”
“…In his commencement speech May 31 at the Air Force Academy, Rumsfeld reiterated that the U.S. must continue to transform and streamline its military forces to meet future challenges. He then pointed out that some people will always be resistant to change and urged the airmen to challenge inherited assumptions and seek out better approaches.”
"I urge you to make that the bedrock of your careers," Rumsfeld said during his graduation remarks.”
I actually agree that transformation goes beyond physical changes (new, better gadgets and equipment) and must include changes in the way people think (especially about themselves as warriors or those who support the warriors, or both). I am also talking about “a shift in fundamental and long-held conventions (although I would say “beliefs” or “practices” vice “conventions”), but my shift is to an actual emphasis on the troops. This includes no-kidding priorities on abundant and realistic individual and small unit training opportunities, and on unit personnel cohesion and stability (no more ad hoc troop rotations or massive last-minute troop plus-ups prior to deployments).
I wonder if Secretary Rumsfeld appreciates the fact that I am challenging inherited assumptions and seeking out better approaches.
I am not against improving technologies. If we can develop advanced technologies that our troops can use to kill more bad guys faster and with less danger to our troops, then by all means we need to do it, but not if it means that we do not place appropriate emphasis on ensuring that our troops are the best trained individual and small unit warriors they can be.
I generally concur with Hone’s assessment of what technology can do for our ground troops:
"Information can displace firepower," Hone said. "You don't need so much firepower, because you know where the target is and you can hit it with precision munitions. You find a target and then you attack it. You'd do all of this in a matter of minutes instead of in a matter of hours or days."
“Hone said transformed concepts and technologies have already been put to good use in Iraq. Joint close-air support is provided to ground troops around the clock and in all weather conditions. "Technology and organization makes this possible," he said.”
The main problem I have with Hone’s assessment is that technology and organization mean nothing without the excellence of individual and small-unit warriors to employ them properly at the right place, the right time, and the right ways.
Another troubling insight from Hone was his myopic “big-picture” perspective that was insulting at best to our combat units and the troops assigned to them:
“He also stressed the positive impact transformation will have on the U.S. Army as it moves toward brigades that are designed to be highly mobile, self-sufficient and interchangeable.”
"You will be able to pull one out and put another in its place," Hone said. "(It's) as though you were pulling a brick out of a wall and putting another back in."
I know that in his position, a “big-picture” perspective is important. However, equating brigades to bricks in a wall shows a complete lack of appreciation for what those brigades and troops bring to the asymmetric battlefield of today. A better analogy to interchangeable, highly-advanced, and capable components would have been computer chips in highly-mobile and powerful hand-held computers. Confusing bricks that have been around in their present form for generations with today’s evolving and transforming combat brigades goes beyond mere semantics when it is spoken by a man in such a prominent position within the Defense Department.
I believe that although Thomas Hone and I may both agree that it is possible for two articles to share the same title yet present opposing views, I do not believe that both our assessments are correct. The best advice I have for Mr. Hone is a paraphrased quote from him: “Changing the way you think about your work will yield better results.”
Ellie