Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: mcgp1!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dan Flak) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: _Military_Incompetence_ by Richard A. Gabriel Message-ID: <11859@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 1 Dec 89 04:20:13 GMT References: <11763@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., Seattle, WA Lines: 81 Approved: military@att.att.com From: mcgp1!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dan Flak) In article <11763@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mrchards@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Richards) writes: > > > From: Matt Richards > I have just finished reading the book _Military_Incompetence: > Why_the_American_Military_Doesn't_Win by Richard A. Gabriel. > > Another interesting number: "Experience suggests that a corps > that ranges between 3 and 6 percent of total strength is the > most effective in battle." By corps, he is referring to the > officer corps. Comments? It depends upon the mission of the unit. Most of my background has been with flying units. To be a pilot or navigator, you must be an officer. (I won't argue why/why not here). Therfore, flying units are officer "heavy". Indeed, fighter units which only have pilots (and possibly navigators) will be almost 100% officer with a few enlisted administative personnel. For units with enlisted crew positions (e.g. Airlift, Bomber, Refueling, etc.) the ratio is about 50-50. I also did an active duty tour at AF Systems Command, Electroics Systems Division (ESD), at Hanscom AFB. The main job there was acquiring Electronics Equipment for Air Force use. Most of the positions there required an Electrical Engineer degree. It's hard to fill enlisted ranks with E.E.'s. (Not too many E.E.'s are willing to settle for E-4 pay). The breakout there was 67% civilian 33% officer. Now, I'm in the Air National Guard. I am part of a non-flying unit which engineers and installs communications and navigation factilites world wide. Our "mix" is 1 full time officer, 17 full time enlisted, 9 "weekend" officers and 213 "weekend" enlisted. My personal perception is that Guard units have a higher quality NCO than their active duty counterparts. This may be due to several reasons: They stay put. Some of our NCOs have been in the same career field for 20 - 30 years. Some of them have been with the unit that long! They are there because they want to be there. There are other weekend jobs, so why pick one that may send you to Korea in the middle of the winter? They get the latest training from their civilian employer in related fields. Since a lot of our work is telephone, it's not surprising that many of our Guardspersons have "day jobs" with AT&T, Pacific NW Bell, etc. They are froced to be better (higher expectations). My "full timer" (Air Technician) is the guy who keeps things going between drill weekends. Even if I were the type of manager who didn't like to delegate, I am forced to do so. I have to give him a very "long leash" and trust him. (This experience, alone, has made me a better civilian manager). On the drill weekend, there is simply too much going on to even monitor it all in "real time". I find out about most of my "problems" after they've been fixed. If you don't empower your people, you don't get things done. The key to military success is the same as the one for civilian success: Get good people. Train and equip them. Give them a job to do, and get out of the way and let them do it. Too many military "leaders" (particularly Army) are unwilling to relinquish control. Let people do things on their own and they make mistakes -- they also make progress. DANIEL J. FLAK, Maj., WAANG OIC Engineering also (Former FAC, C-141 Pilot, ESD Program Manager, C-130 Aircraft Commander) -- Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W., Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-283-2658, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak) Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com