Mentorship is a big factor in pinning on the Star. Many West Pointers have a built in connection that gets them into key positions early. I knew a CPT who had a Corps Commander as a mentor, and father-in-law, he punched his command and staff officer tickets. I’m sure he earned his Star but it’s nice to have someone opening the doors.
That's a good insight. I've seen a few cases of it, but never thought about the larger implications. Even beyond opening doors, just having someone to say "take this, not that" can help steer you towards success.
Very true. Family and connections count for a lot. I was a escort officer for a GO at Knox, a fast mover. He said his promotion success was based on his knowing the senior amry officers back in Vietnam as 0-1's and 0-2's.
In the early 80's a West Point instructor (Col Hamburger) published the "Hamburger Report". It was an analysis of the traints of successful generals in history and then one of US general officers. The conclusion? The US system does not select for battlefield success.
I haven't been able to dig that up (if you find it I'd like a copy at chuck.weko@gmail.com)...But I'd say that is likely true. I've done a lot of work looking at what does contribute to selection to COL and nothing seems to prioritize or try to measure "battlefield success". Even their new way of screening BN CDRs isn't really geared for that.
Great post using just the available data. You were in within a percentage point of the actually mark (which is available if you can login, odd as the GO demographic stats are a public document reported to Congress each year). I've watched the BG list come out each year since I became a 2LT in the late 80s. I've seen years where the USMA grads have been a heave majority of the BG selects, and a few years when the number was zero. So, great variability. Another factor that you need to consider is the Congressional requirement that 70 percent of USMA grads commission into combat arms, which in 1997 was AR, ADA, AV, EN, FA, and IN. These branches provide the lions share of new GOs each year. This is similar to stacking one leg of your March Madness bracket with all the teams from the BIG 10. You chances of having one team from the conference make the final four are pretty good under that construct. In the mid 90s (93-97) as the Army was in the midst of the post Cold War drawdown it was extremely difficult for ROTC officers to branch combat arms compared to the previous 20 years. This is one of the reasons why we now have a lower percentage of African American combat arms field grade officers than we had in the 80/90s.
That point about combat arms is huge and one that I started out trying to collect data for. Most of the bios had a single sentence that said what year they graduated, where they graduated, their major and their first branch. But so many were missing that info that I gave up. In addition to the factor that it can be hard for ROTC to get combat arms commissions, it seems some are actively trying to get into more "civilian" branches. The ROTC guys might make early decisions to lay the ground work for leaving the military that limit their potential for staying.
@@the_bureaucrat This year's ROTC branching model is 35% combat arms. I took a peak at the rosters. At the 3/4 Star level there are 49 Combat Arms officers and 15 non combat arms (I exempted the special branch and weird functional areas from my count). At the one and two star level there does not appear to be a great a disparity, just a small skew. (Note: You can use your retiree DS login to pull the rosters in excel).
Like you've said before, some saw ROTC as a way to get the degree they wanted as well as a way to serve. West Central State may have a ROTC program but they certainly don't offer a degree in field artillery. Even if you get a degree in accounting and would fit perfectly with finance, you can end up with an Infantry commission.
I like the way you say "degree in field artillery"...West Point passionately declares that they grant degrees just like any other accredited university (and that may be true), but deep down, they know they are training cadets to be officers. They are conferring "degrees in Army".
Longevity aside, I wonder if any of the West Pointers' success in earning stars has to do with advantages they might have had through the early to middle stages of their careers. Generals may not be selected for having gone to West Point, but a ring-wearing lieutenant/captain/major might have an edge in job selection and OERs over OCS/ROTC grads that could eventually make them better O-7 candidates.
There is a special name for this phenomenon in the study of Human Resource decision making (I forget what it is)...effectively, a certain class of individuals is given special privileges when they are early in their career (like higher chances for combat arms jobs, Ranger school, what have you)...then that shapes the selection pool...THEN the selection process makes an "unbiased" decision from the biased pool. The problem with this kind of biasing is that it is terribly difficult to detect and most organizations are resistant to changing the process even if there is a hit of bias.
I'd like to reinforce one of your last points. I'm not Army, hut I do have the kind of ring you would "knock".... And I've never seen any ring knocking. I think Academy and, to a lesser extent, SMC grads are already a little more set on making the military their whole life than most irher commissioning sources. The prior E OTS guy with a family and the ROTC grad who only wants to do 1 contract in exchange for free college (lucky him) are more likely to trea it as just a job - and therefore perform slightly less well - and then also more likely to be content with 20 years and a pension.... The military school guys want to do it until they die or wear 5 stars much more often.
"Ring knocking" is more about the behavior of telling people that they are from West Point. It includes things like name dropping ("he was two years ahead of me") and imparting cadet lessons & stories into unit activities. Oh, and some of the "knocking" is accidental...you'll see a WP cadet wearing that big heavy ring and every time he moves his hands on a table it makes this loud clacking sound. More importantly, that point about wanting to make a career of the military and aspiring to GO is true. I've been reading a lot about the developmental process of adult men lately and one of the big points that the researchers make is that young men 17-25 tend to internalize a "life goal" or an "aspiration" which plays a significant role in how they assess themselves later in life. The idea of "I will become a GO" would have a massive effect on people and I would agree that most ROTC folks simply establish different life goals early on.
The demographic holds with the good, bad, and ugly. There is a stability advantage over time, but as recent conflicts show. There is also a matching casualty/killed cost as well. As a prior tour second command ROTC commission, we would watch last minute West Point favored “command swaps” across entire formations shortly before deployments. We got put into the career derailing ‘special’ jobs. While our twice seasoned 1SGs became defacto commanders. And the young commanders feeling they had to prove themselves rushed to their bloody fates on point. A buddy of mine said his unit lost so many west pointers, it took three whole years to get through the IG investigations. It will be interesting to see how much the advantage grows with the new retirement system. It’s a lot easier to leave after minimal service with a transferable 401k style system.
Majority were already leaving after initial commitments anyways. It'll be an even higher attrition now with the new blended retirement. I remember they were handing out bonuses to officers around '08 cuz everyone jettisoned. Maybe 10% of my ROTC class actually did a full 20.
@@articrecon Yup. I returned from joint world in 2014 and the regulars referred to it as ‘the rapture of 08’post surge. Which a lot of branch chiefs kept excusing for the hostage situation we had in the ‘controlled draw down’.
You know how the BRS has that "continuation pay"? and the services get to set the amount? I have a suspicion that the first indication of problems will be that the continuation pay will get maxed out. And if that happens, we might be in for a new round of retirement system tinkering.
West Point by it's self accounting for a third of General Officers is not too unusual since it is the nation's premier school to turn out professional officers as it's main curriculum. I do remember during the draw down in the 90's after the Soviet Union collapsed, that all the junior officers who left the service instead of pursuing a career were ROTC or OCS. West Pointer's knew their path in life was to be on Joint Chief's of Staff or a combat Division command, where as a large percentage of the ROTC and OCS was college followed by a career in their field of study after an adventure while they were still young. Kind of like college kids back packing in Europe after graduation, only they were ruck marching in Europe after graduating.
True. I had a West Pointer comment at some point that there was data to back up the idea that they knew they were headed towards those command staff jobs. Plus, like you say, ROTC can see it as an adventure or a way to pay for college without it being a vocation.
Yes it is. Met a lot of West Point grads in the service. Most of them will let you know they are a West Point grad. First assignment in 2ACR on the border, the 0-4's and 0-5's routinely asked if someone was a West Point grad.
Your analysis about those who stay in service get promoted is right on with my own observations. I saw a lot of really good officers get out between 4 to 8 years of service, and around CPT rank. As I observed horses asses moving up every time these good officers left, I thought to myself, hey, if I just stick it out and keep sticking around, when all of the good officers are gone, I will still have a strong chance of moving up myself 😂
That pattern is always interesting to watch. Not only did it happen at the 4-8 year mark, it also happens right at the 20 year mark. Huge numbers of high potential officers leave to try their hand at civilian life. And that leaves mediocre officers like me well positioned for advancement.
OCS should be Officers Commission Selection not Officers Candidate School; OCS is the process to see if the Ones that got the Selection will make it to be come Commission Officers;
@@the_bureaucratI was Commission into the Marines through OCS PLC 2 - 6 weeks: Junior and Senior and this is establish on my U.S.MARINES OFFICERS DD-214; the Military University, since the University had a Military Department: Army ROTC, I graduated from is NOT listed on My DD-214;
That's the level of bias that the military likes...just enough that there seems to be something there, but just a small enough amount that it can be explained away... You make some good points!
That's a good point. I'd particularly say that we have too many 3 and 4 stars...those things seem to crop up like mushrooms and when they do they generate a whole new set of demands for staffs.
So, how many of those freshly minted 2LTs are still lost on the landnav course? Sorry, had to go there lol. I've often wondered about this, and you put up a pretty good explanation/data. Thanks!
@@the_bureaucrat Young whippersnappers have GPS now. My father, a WWII Infantry officer, told me that the most dangerous thing in the Army is a 2LT with a map and a compass. Thus, this trope has to date back to at least the 1940s lol.
Listening to some of the comments, I'm starting to see a deeper reason that would be true. Most universities have some kind of assumption about the environment that their graduates are going to work in (my school assumed I would work in a mid Western manufacturing facility). That assumption impacts the way the school prepares folks. Without a sense of what the military is like, the school can steer an ROTC cadet the wrong way.
Interesting points. Thanks for the entertaining posts. That being said(InB4 TH-cam Censor hopefully): Kind of commenting on what another posted. There is some degree to truth about being promotion because of political affiliation. I think most libertarians see this more clearly. The best example I think I can give is what's known as the Chief's board convening order and presepts. In these official messages put out it usually highlights three areas that the board is looking for. One of the more recent ones is they were looking for Petty officer mess involvement. I.E. if you were the acting presedent of the First Class Petty Officer's association you would be consider before someone who helped out at their local VFW /etc. I just voiced a concern at the assembly that this should have been a clear violation of equal oppertunity. The FCPO is a indavidual group that is not 'officially' affiliated with the US NAVY. If the board was looking for veteran outreach they should have said as much. To single out any organization should have been a violation. Side note: I too would like to call myself a bureaucrat of sorts. I love the rules and regulations. I honestly like them when they are more clearly defined with speficity. When a command can not give specifics on the why's / how's IMO it is usually a good sign that there is some kind of 'foul play' going on.
I think there is a funny dynamic to political affiliation. It reminds me a bit about the thing about Alpha wolves. Every baby wolf is the offspring of an alpha wolf. But most wolves spend the largest part (even all) of their lives as non-alpha wolves. In essence, they all have the potential, but they all hide that potential until the moment is right. I feel like many military folks try to hide their political leanings for as long as they can and might be willing to tilt one way or the other if it was beneficial to their career.
Meh. There are good officers no matter what their sources. And bad ones. Generally speaking a "Mustang" [commissioned through the ranks] is probably less likely to get you killed, and yet still achieve the mission, than a junior officer with all balls and no brains. On the other hand [at least in the past] an officer who comes out of an elite training establishment, such as West Point, Sandhurst, Duntroon, etc, can have a firmer grounding for the technical side of leadership/management of a battle. of course these days, it is a little less elitist, and if you are good you will get selected for war college etc, not matter how you got your Lt. bars or pips. A reservist or ROTC, OTU that spends a year as an officer cadet, rather than 3 or 4 years at an officer's academy will have two to three years more time with troops after commissioning, so the non-academy officers are more settled and experienced in leadership. As much as the USA might deny it has a class system, it is pretty clear that a candidate with a wealthy or influential family can get a lot of informal strings pulled. So it can be partly based on merit, and partly on elitism for some officer's careers. I have a theory that any officer, NCO, or enlisted who spends less than a year of intense training before being deployed into combat is little better than murder. Military instincts and skills have to be well-ingrained, so that the soldier is free to think, and especially "think outside the square" to solve problems quickly, successfully, and with less cost on the battlefield. The German army of WW2 was a good example of this. Lots of intense training, but the officer corps, NCO's and soldiers were encouraged in using initiative. Unlike in training schools in the USA or UK, etc, there were no "school solutions" to solve tactical problems. For example both in the UK, and USA, there was no consistent doctrine for Armour, and less combined arms training. And sure, the "Combat Command" [~brigade] system for US armoured divisions was a step in the right direction, but the more ad hoc German Kampfgruppe was extremely flexible, and of varied size, and may be built on by plug-ins on a company, battalion, regiment or division sized battle-group. This was possible because all arms were aware of the contribution that armour, artillery, infantry, engineers, etc, tailored to the mission, had a "force-multiplier" effect. German Panzer-grenadiers were specialized mechanized/motorized infantry within Panzer or motorized divisions. But even ordinary foot soldiers were given every opportunity [where possible] to train with other arms. pre-war, a German soldier was trained to act effectively three ranks above his current appointment. This applied to all officers, NCO's and soldiers who passed their courses. In France etc in 1944, there were some German "PFC's" in charge of platoons, Captains in charge of battalions, and colonels commanding divisions. So even after catastrophic losses, the German army was able to maintain some quality and fighting power. Apart from ideological training SS panzer and Heer panzer individuals and units received exactly the same training. Most flak units, although Luftwaffe, were integrated into Heer and SS divisions, and very familiar and practiced in army ways and missions. [eg "88's" were used not only for AAA, A/T but also as field artillery]. A lot of these doctrines and practices were integrated into allied post-war armies.
This is going to sound weird, but consider what life as a GO is like when you are a straight, white, male...There are literally hundreds of you. Hundreds of people right behind you who look indistinguishable to you. Any f**k up means that they put your head on a pike as a sacrifice and replace you with a clone the next day.
The DEI is there because white people have it extremely easy in the US. If you are poor and struggling as white man in America you just suck at life. No one is ignoring your application because you have a non-white name. Police aren’t harassing you and give you a benefit of a doubt.
@@edb2441 I don’t think that’s the point. Even a majority white, straight body of general officers still has to fall in line with the CINC and his appointed Secretaries or they’re easily replaced with someone who will. The problem is General Officers are very much political pawns. Their true job is to project any given administrations ethos into military doctrine and training. It works both left and right.
Name a General not named Powell or Swartzkopf who have won a war in the last 30 years. We have more General Officers per soldier than during the Civil War when Brigadiers actually led Brigades. The fat needs trimmed.
This is true, but I'd argue that it is an unintended consequence of a post WWII decision to cut officer careers from 40 years to 30 years. There are many jobs where the service needs someone with 25 -35 years of experience. Under the pre-WWII personnel model that job would have been done with a senior Major to COL. Today, the only person with that level of experience is a GO. I'm not sure your Civil War analogy stands up. The average size of a regiment during the Civil War was 250 men commanded by an O6. A brigade would have been two to four regiments, so around 1000 men commanded by a BG. That is 1/3 the size of a current US divisional brigade which is commanded by an O6.
@l4c390 Read the OR's the Official records of the American Civil War. A regiment led by a full Col was supposed to be a thousand men they rarely exceeded 500. A Brigade would consist anywhere from 3-6 or more Regiments led by a Brigadier General. 3 Brigades made a Division led by a MG or due to attrition a BG. Not only am I a retired Infantry NCO but I've spent the last 30 years voraciously studying the American Civil War.
@@mikebrase5161 There was rampant rank inflation in the Civil War, at the O6 and O7 level. So, it is not just recent phenomenon. An interesting leadership study is looking into the US regimental rosters in the early 1870's. It is not unusual to find units where 5-8 of the top 9 officers had been GOs during the war. I'm sure that led to more than a few personality conflicts over the next two decades of service. OTOH, it would take a good deal of stress out of life knowing that you are going to retire at the highest rank held.
@l4c390 Brevet Promotions can be a little confusing. They were given partially due to wartime need and partially because the Army only had the MOH starting in '62. Custer Major General of Volunteers was a Brevet or temporary for the duration rank. When he died at LBH he was only a Lt Col. The antebellum peacetime Army was only 18,500. The Army went from that to 2.1Million. The rank inflation was for good reason, if an officer in the RA took a state commission which oftentimes included promotion it was under the understanding that rank was temporary and only for the duration. Benteen was only a Captain at LBH but had been a Brigadier during the war. The bottom line is we have too many Generals and too many made up slots for them to fill. The Army has 31 BCT's and 125 Brigadiers and not one of them is leading a Brigade as it's now a Col slot. The current Brigade system is outdated anyways, the Army should go back to the Regimental system that the USMC never left. The Cold war has been over since the early 90's, but that is a whole other rabbit hole.
I have been stewing on this idea of "winning wars". I'm suspicious that the military isn't for "winning wars". Instead its for "winning battles". And "winning wars" is a much larger political task that requires strong will. I often think of the March to the Sea or using Nukes...in order to win a war, the nation has to be willing to do some pretty harsh stuff. And no matter how willing the military might be to do it, if the national leaders aren't willing, it won't happen.
Mentorship is a big factor in pinning on the Star. Many West Pointers have a built in connection that gets them into key positions early. I knew a CPT who had a Corps Commander as a mentor, and father-in-law, he punched his command and staff officer tickets. I’m sure he earned his Star but it’s nice to have someone opening the doors.
That's a good insight. I've seen a few cases of it, but never thought about the larger implications. Even beyond opening doors, just having someone to say "take this, not that" can help steer you towards success.
Very true. Family and connections count for a lot. I was a escort officer for a GO at Knox, a fast mover. He said his promotion success was based on his knowing the senior amry officers back in Vietnam as 0-1's and 0-2's.
In the early 80's a West Point instructor (Col Hamburger) published the "Hamburger Report". It was an analysis of the traints of successful generals in history and then one of US general officers. The conclusion? The US system does not select for battlefield success.
I haven't been able to dig that up (if you find it I'd like a copy at chuck.weko@gmail.com)...But I'd say that is likely true. I've done a lot of work looking at what does contribute to selection to COL and nothing seems to prioritize or try to measure "battlefield success". Even their new way of screening BN CDRs isn't really geared for that.
Great post using just the available data. You were in within a percentage point of the actually mark (which is available if you can login, odd as the GO demographic stats are a public document reported to Congress each year).
I've watched the BG list come out each year since I became a 2LT in the late 80s. I've seen years where the USMA grads have been a heave majority of the BG selects, and a few years when the number was zero. So, great variability.
Another factor that you need to consider is the Congressional requirement that 70 percent of USMA grads commission into combat arms, which in 1997 was AR, ADA, AV, EN, FA, and IN. These branches provide the lions share of new GOs each year. This is similar to stacking one leg of your March Madness bracket with all the teams from the BIG 10. You chances of having one team from the conference make the final four are pretty good under that construct. In the mid 90s (93-97) as the Army was in the midst of the post Cold War drawdown it was extremely difficult for ROTC officers to branch combat arms compared to the previous 20 years. This is one of the reasons why we now have a lower percentage of African American combat arms field grade officers than we had in the 80/90s.
That point about combat arms is huge and one that I started out trying to collect data for. Most of the bios had a single sentence that said what year they graduated, where they graduated, their major and their first branch. But so many were missing that info that I gave up.
In addition to the factor that it can be hard for ROTC to get combat arms commissions, it seems some are actively trying to get into more "civilian" branches. The ROTC guys might make early decisions to lay the ground work for leaving the military that limit their potential for staying.
@@the_bureaucrat This year's ROTC branching model is 35% combat arms.
I took a peak at the rosters. At the 3/4 Star level there are 49 Combat Arms officers and 15 non combat arms (I exempted the special branch and weird functional areas from my count).
At the one and two star level there does not appear to be a great a disparity, just a small skew.
(Note: You can use your retiree DS login to pull the rosters in excel).
Like you've said before, some saw ROTC as a way to get the degree they wanted as well as a way to serve. West Central State may have a ROTC program but they certainly don't offer a degree in field artillery. Even if you get a degree in accounting and would fit perfectly with finance, you can end up with an Infantry commission.
I like the way you say "degree in field artillery"...West Point passionately declares that they grant degrees just like any other accredited university (and that may be true), but deep down, they know they are training cadets to be officers. They are conferring "degrees in Army".
Longevity aside, I wonder if any of the West Pointers' success in earning stars has to do with advantages they might have had through the early to middle stages of their careers. Generals may not be selected for having gone to West Point, but a ring-wearing lieutenant/captain/major might have an edge in job selection and OERs over OCS/ROTC grads that could eventually make them better O-7 candidates.
There is a special name for this phenomenon in the study of Human Resource decision making (I forget what it is)...effectively, a certain class of individuals is given special privileges when they are early in their career (like higher chances for combat arms jobs, Ranger school, what have you)...then that shapes the selection pool...THEN the selection process makes an "unbiased" decision from the biased pool. The problem with this kind of biasing is that it is terribly difficult to detect and most organizations are resistant to changing the process even if there is a hit of bias.
I'd like to reinforce one of your last points.
I'm not Army, hut I do have the kind of ring you would "knock".... And I've never seen any ring knocking.
I think Academy and, to a lesser extent, SMC grads are already a little more set on making the military their whole life than most irher commissioning sources.
The prior E OTS guy with a family and the ROTC grad who only wants to do 1 contract in exchange for free college (lucky him) are more likely to trea it as just a job - and therefore perform slightly less well - and then also more likely to be content with 20 years and a pension.... The military school guys want to do it until they die or wear 5 stars much more often.
"Ring knocking" is more about the behavior of telling people that they are from West Point. It includes things like name dropping ("he was two years ahead of me") and imparting cadet lessons & stories into unit activities. Oh, and some of the "knocking" is accidental...you'll see a WP cadet wearing that big heavy ring and every time he moves his hands on a table it makes this loud clacking sound.
More importantly, that point about wanting to make a career of the military and aspiring to GO is true. I've been reading a lot about the developmental process of adult men lately and one of the big points that the researchers make is that young men 17-25 tend to internalize a "life goal" or an "aspiration" which plays a significant role in how they assess themselves later in life. The idea of "I will become a GO" would have a massive effect on people and I would agree that most ROTC folks simply establish different life goals early on.
The demographic holds with the good, bad, and ugly. There is a stability advantage over time, but as recent conflicts show. There is also a matching casualty/killed cost as well. As a prior tour second command ROTC commission, we would watch last minute West Point favored “command swaps” across entire formations shortly before deployments. We got put into the career derailing ‘special’ jobs. While our twice seasoned 1SGs became defacto commanders. And the young commanders feeling they had to prove themselves rushed to their bloody fates on point. A buddy of mine said his unit lost so many west pointers, it took three whole years to get through the IG investigations. It will be interesting to see how much the advantage grows with the new retirement system. It’s a lot easier to leave after minimal service with a transferable 401k style system.
Majority were already leaving after initial commitments anyways. It'll be an even higher attrition now with the new blended retirement. I remember they were handing out bonuses to officers around '08 cuz everyone jettisoned. Maybe 10% of my ROTC class actually did a full 20.
@@articrecon Yup. I returned from joint world in 2014 and the regulars referred to it as ‘the rapture of 08’post surge. Which a lot of branch chiefs kept excusing for the hostage situation we had in the ‘controlled draw down’.
You know how the BRS has that "continuation pay"? and the services get to set the amount? I have a suspicion that the first indication of problems will be that the continuation pay will get maxed out. And if that happens, we might be in for a new round of retirement system tinkering.
West Point by it's self accounting for a third of General Officers is not too unusual since it is the nation's premier school to turn out professional officers as it's main curriculum. I do remember during the draw down in the 90's after the Soviet Union collapsed, that all the junior officers who left the service instead of pursuing a career were ROTC or OCS. West Pointer's knew their path in life was to be on Joint Chief's of Staff or a combat Division command, where as a large percentage of the ROTC and OCS was college followed by a career in their field of study after an adventure while they were still young. Kind of like college kids back packing in Europe after graduation, only they were ruck marching in Europe after graduating.
True. I had a West Pointer comment at some point that there was data to back up the idea that they knew they were headed towards those command staff jobs. Plus, like you say, ROTC can see it as an adventure or a way to pay for college without it being a vocation.
Thanks!
You're Welcome.
The WPPA (aka Ring Knockers) is a real thing.
Yes it is. Met a lot of West Point grads in the service. Most of them will let you know they are a West Point grad. First assignment in 2ACR on the border, the 0-4's and 0-5's routinely asked if someone was a West Point grad.
Indeed.
Great Info! Thanks!
Thanks.
Your analysis about those who stay in service get promoted is right on with my own observations. I saw a lot of really good officers get out between 4 to 8 years of service, and around CPT rank. As I observed horses asses moving up every time these good officers left, I thought to myself, hey, if I just stick it out and keep sticking around, when all of the good officers are gone, I will still have a strong chance of moving up myself 😂
That pattern is always interesting to watch. Not only did it happen at the 4-8 year mark, it also happens right at the 20 year mark. Huge numbers of high potential officers leave to try their hand at civilian life. And that leaves mediocre officers like me well positioned for advancement.
@the_bureaucrat same here.
I dont know why we stopped at 4 stars (5 in some cases). We should just keep adding stars as a monuement to rediculousness.
LTG Timothy Maude the only Gen. officer, killed at the Pentagon on 911, graduated from our OCS company 92nd OC on 17 Feb '67!
🫡
Wait, we actually have a General Admiral?
OCS should be Officers Commission Selection not Officers Candidate School;
OCS is the process to see if the Ones that got the Selection will make it to be come Commission Officers;
Are you thinking something a bit like how the Marine Corps does it...maybe with some added screening?
@@the_bureaucratI was Commission into the Marines through OCS PLC 2 - 6 weeks: Junior and Senior and this is establish on my U.S.MARINES OFFICERS DD-214;
the Military University, since the University had a Military Department: Army ROTC, I graduated from is NOT listed on My DD-214;
So, the answer , " no idea".
That's the level of bias that the military likes...just enough that there seems to be something there, but just a small enough amount that it can be explained away... You make some good points!
We have way too many GOs and don’t win wars anymore. Tom Ricks and Paul Yuingling were right.
That's a good point. I'd particularly say that we have too many 3 and 4 stars...those things seem to crop up like mushrooms and when they do they generate a whole new set of demands for staffs.
So, how many of those freshly minted 2LTs are still lost on the landnav course? Sorry, had to go there lol.
I've often wondered about this, and you put up a pretty good explanation/data. Thanks!
I wonder how much that old trope about the lost 2LT predicts his future?
@@the_bureaucrat Young whippersnappers have GPS now.
My father, a WWII Infantry officer, told me that the most dangerous thing in the Army is a 2LT with a map and a compass. Thus, this trope has to date back to at least the 1940s lol.
The best prep school is basic training.
Listening to some of the comments, I'm starting to see a deeper reason that would be true. Most universities have some kind of assumption about the environment that their graduates are going to work in (my school assumed I would work in a mid Western manufacturing facility). That assumption impacts the way the school prepares folks. Without a sense of what the military is like, the school can steer an ROTC cadet the wrong way.
Interesting points. Thanks for the entertaining posts.
That being said(InB4 TH-cam Censor hopefully):
Kind of commenting on what another posted. There is some degree to truth about being promotion because of political affiliation. I think most libertarians see this more clearly. The best example I think I can give is what's known as the Chief's board convening order and presepts. In these official messages put out it usually highlights three areas that the board is looking for. One of the more recent ones is they were looking for Petty officer mess involvement. I.E. if you were the acting presedent of the First Class Petty Officer's association you would be consider before someone who helped out at their local VFW /etc. I just voiced a concern at the assembly that this should have been a clear violation of equal oppertunity. The FCPO is a indavidual group that is not 'officially' affiliated with the US NAVY. If the board was looking for veteran outreach they should have said as much. To single out any organization should have been a violation.
Side note:
I too would like to call myself a bureaucrat of sorts. I love the rules and regulations. I honestly like them when they are more clearly defined with speficity. When a command can not give specifics on the why's / how's IMO it is usually a good sign that there is some kind of 'foul play' going on.
I think there is a funny dynamic to political affiliation. It reminds me a bit about the thing about Alpha wolves. Every baby wolf is the offspring of an alpha wolf. But most wolves spend the largest part (even all) of their lives as non-alpha wolves. In essence, they all have the potential, but they all hide that potential until the moment is right. I feel like many military folks try to hide their political leanings for as long as they can and might be willing to tilt one way or the other if it was beneficial to their career.
Meh. There are good officers no matter what their sources. And bad ones. Generally speaking a "Mustang" [commissioned through the ranks] is probably less likely to get you killed, and yet still achieve the mission, than a junior officer with all balls and no brains.
On the other hand [at least in the past] an officer who comes out of an elite training establishment, such as West Point, Sandhurst, Duntroon, etc, can have a firmer grounding for the technical side of leadership/management of a battle. of course these days, it is a little less elitist, and if you are good you will get selected for war college etc, not matter how you got your Lt. bars or pips.
A reservist or ROTC, OTU that spends a year as an officer cadet, rather than 3 or 4 years at an officer's academy will have two to three years more time with troops after commissioning, so the non-academy officers are more settled and experienced in leadership.
As much as the USA might deny it has a class system, it is pretty clear that a candidate with a wealthy or influential family can get a lot of informal strings pulled. So it can be partly based on merit, and partly on elitism for some officer's careers.
I have a theory that any officer, NCO, or enlisted who spends less than a year of intense training before being deployed into combat is little better than murder. Military instincts and skills have to be well-ingrained, so that the soldier is free to think, and especially "think outside the square" to solve problems quickly, successfully, and with less cost on the battlefield.
The German army of WW2 was a good example of this. Lots of intense training, but the officer corps, NCO's and soldiers were encouraged in using initiative. Unlike in training schools in the USA or UK, etc, there were no "school solutions" to solve tactical problems.
For example both in the UK, and USA, there was no consistent doctrine for Armour, and less combined arms training. And sure, the "Combat Command" [~brigade] system for US armoured divisions was a step in the right direction, but the more ad hoc German Kampfgruppe was extremely flexible, and of varied size, and may be built on by plug-ins on a company, battalion, regiment or division sized battle-group. This was possible because all arms were aware of the contribution that armour, artillery, infantry, engineers, etc, tailored to the mission, had a "force-multiplier" effect.
German Panzer-grenadiers were specialized mechanized/motorized infantry within Panzer or motorized divisions. But even ordinary foot soldiers were given every opportunity [where possible] to train with other arms. pre-war, a German soldier was trained to act effectively three ranks above his current appointment. This applied to all officers, NCO's and soldiers who passed their courses.
In France etc in 1944, there were some German "PFC's" in charge of platoons, Captains in charge of battalions, and colonels commanding divisions. So even after catastrophic losses, the German army was able to maintain some quality and fighting power. Apart from ideological training SS panzer and Heer panzer individuals and units received exactly the same training. Most flak units, although Luftwaffe, were integrated into Heer and SS divisions, and very familiar and practiced in army ways and missions. [eg "88's" were used not only for AAA, A/T but also as field artillery].
A lot of these doctrines and practices were integrated into allied post-war armies.
I like your theory.
Where do officers come from their mother's 😂😂😂
birth parent...
I also helps if you are black or gay during a Democrat administration. DEI over quality, that's what Dems love.
This is going to sound weird, but consider what life as a GO is like when you are a straight, white, male...There are literally hundreds of you. Hundreds of people right behind you who look indistinguishable to you. Any f**k up means that they put your head on a pike as a sacrifice and replace you with a clone the next day.
@@the_bureaucratthat’s kinda true in any career. The police chief, fire chief, CEO, etc. are all easily replaced political pawns.
The DEI is there because white people have it extremely easy in the US. If you are poor and struggling as white man in America you just suck at life.
No one is ignoring your application because you have a non-white name.
Police aren’t harassing you and give you a benefit of a doubt.
Is there any data that supports an overrepresentation of Black and/or gay general officers?
@@edb2441 I don’t think that’s the point. Even a majority white, straight body of general officers still has to fall in line with the CINC and his appointed Secretaries or they’re easily replaced with someone who will. The problem is General Officers are very much political pawns. Their true job is to project any given administrations ethos into military doctrine and training. It works both left and right.
Name a General not named Powell or Swartzkopf who have won a war in the last 30 years. We have more General Officers per soldier than during the Civil War when Brigadiers actually led Brigades. The fat needs trimmed.
This is true, but I'd argue that it is an unintended consequence of a post WWII decision to cut officer careers from 40 years to 30 years. There are many jobs where the service needs someone with 25 -35 years of experience. Under the pre-WWII personnel model that job would have been done with a senior Major to COL. Today, the only person with that level of experience is a GO.
I'm not sure your Civil War analogy stands up. The average size of a regiment during the Civil War was 250 men commanded by an O6. A brigade would have been two to four regiments, so around 1000 men commanded by a BG. That is 1/3 the size of a current US divisional brigade which is commanded by an O6.
@l4c390 Read the OR's the Official records of the American Civil War. A regiment led by a full Col was supposed to be a thousand men they rarely exceeded 500. A Brigade would consist anywhere from 3-6 or more Regiments led by a Brigadier General. 3 Brigades made a Division led by a MG or due to attrition a BG. Not only am I a retired Infantry NCO but I've spent the last 30 years voraciously studying the American Civil War.
@@mikebrase5161 There was rampant rank inflation in the Civil War, at the O6 and O7 level. So, it is not just recent phenomenon. An interesting leadership study is looking into the US regimental rosters in the early 1870's. It is not unusual to find units where 5-8 of the top 9 officers had been GOs during the war. I'm sure that led to more than a few personality conflicts over the next two decades of service. OTOH, it would take a good deal of stress out of life knowing that you are going to retire at the highest rank held.
@l4c390 Brevet Promotions can be a little confusing. They were given partially due to wartime need and partially because the Army only had the MOH starting in '62. Custer Major General of Volunteers was a Brevet or temporary for the duration rank. When he died at LBH he was only a Lt Col. The antebellum peacetime Army was only 18,500. The Army went from that to 2.1Million. The rank inflation was for good reason, if an officer in the RA took a state commission which oftentimes included promotion it was under the understanding that rank was temporary and only for the duration. Benteen was only a Captain at LBH but had been a Brigadier during the war. The bottom line is we have too many Generals and too many made up slots for them to fill. The Army has 31 BCT's and 125 Brigadiers and not one of them is leading a Brigade as it's now a Col slot. The current Brigade system is outdated anyways, the Army should go back to the Regimental system that the USMC never left. The Cold war has been over since the early 90's, but that is a whole other rabbit hole.
I have been stewing on this idea of "winning wars". I'm suspicious that the military isn't for "winning wars". Instead its for "winning battles". And "winning wars" is a much larger political task that requires strong will. I often think of the March to the Sea or using Nukes...in order to win a war, the nation has to be willing to do some pretty harsh stuff. And no matter how willing the military might be to do it, if the national leaders aren't willing, it won't happen.
Oh boy, another’expert’ running off at the mouth
Don't you hate it?