My Response to: Everyone Needs to Soldier On by Martha Sisk
August 31, 2010
I SAW THIS POST on Twitter and decided that it needed to be addressed. So of course I’m going to address it. My response to “Community Advisory Board: Everyone Needs to Soldier On,” by Martha J. Sisk:
Ms Sisk,
Your post misses a couple of critical points. During the previous wars, there was little to no concern for military families because military service was largely compulsory. Men had no choice but to register with the Selective Service and many were called to service against their will, especially during Vietnam.
The focus on military families has occurred over the generation since the all-volunteer service was implemented simply because now, the norm is a soldier with a family. During those previous conflicts and previous generations of soldiers, military families were the exception, not the norm that it is today.
The simple fact is that a family’s well-being is critical to whether or not quality soldiers remain in the military. That is why we care about quality of life. That is why we have Family Readiness Groups to help young, inexperienced spouses handle everyday life while their soldier is off to war. We want to retain good, quality soldiers because, as you pointed out, this is an all-volunteer force.
Despite your husband’s service, you obviously have no idea what it’s like to be half a world away and worry about a child with a fever or a child struggling with schoolwork or a spouse so overwhelmed that she can’t leave the house. You have no call to suggest that our soldiers and our soldiers’ families are not sacrificing as we as a military enter our tenth year of constant war. No recent war has gone on longer. No group of soldiers has faced a more steady stream of combat. No soldier’s children have ever faced the constant on-again off-again rotation of their parents heading into combat. A combat tour is not the same as going to Korea for a year-long hardship tour. A combat tour damn sure isn’t the same as living in Germany for a couple of years and learning to speak German fluently.
Have a care how you tread on the notion of sacrifice. Congratulations, you’re tougher than many but your years as a military spouse were different than the years faced by this generation of spouses. You state in your article that your husband served in Vietnam from 1967-1968. I applaud your husband for his service but I wonder if you might look at the sacrifice our young soldiers are making if he had been gone every other year for four, five, six, or seven years. Would you allow yourself to say, man, this is tough? Just maybe?
Our military families are cared for because the strain of constant deployments—something that no previous generation in the last hundred years has had to deal with—is a sacrifice. And still spouses wash the uniforms and kiss their soldiers goodbye so that people like you, who enjoyed the Pax Americana of the Cold War, can say that we are a nation of complainers.
Bravo. I applaud your willingness to join those who spat on your husband and his peers a generation ago by spitting on the notion that our soldiers and their families are not sacrificing today. I hope you’re proud and you achieved your goals. Your thanks at the end of your piece are paltry and hollow. You should have saved your breath, but I will don my uniform and defend your right to say it.
Not Just What, But Why: Thoughts on Leadership
September 2, 2010
SO THE LAST COUPLE weeks I’ve been reading Living in the End Times by Slavoj Žižek. Yesterday, I started reading Justice by Michael Sandel. I freely admit that Žižek’s book was over my head in many cases. There were large sections that I had no earthly idea what he was talking about. But other cases resonated deeply. Justice is much more up my alley and I’m absolutely hooked on the philosophy behind our ability to make decisions, so much so that I’m seriously considering using his lectures at iTunesU as part of a Leader Development Program in my company (obviously have to check into copyright and fair use first).
Here’s why. In our current operational structure, the lowest level of authority in my organization may not be the platoon. It very well could end up being a section or even a team. So I need to have young NCOs, young sergeants, and specialists who can step up and make decisions—ethical and moral decisions—that will bear out in support of the mission and the commander’s intent. I think that by making them think and learn about how they make decisions and why, it will challenge them to consider their actions in a more meaningful way. Plus, it’s not the same old lectures about EO (equal opportunity), Sexual Assault, etc., that make everyone’s eyes cross because it doesn’t challenge them to think. I want to challenge my future organization to be better than they think they can be. They already know they’re good. I’m hearing nothing but positives about the organization I’m becoming a part of and that, to me, is exciting.
As I move into my new organization, I realize two things, both of which I’m learning (at least formally) somewhat late in my military career but early enough in my officer career. The first is that people need to know what you expect. You, as a leader, cannot assume that people understand your expectations, especially if your expectations are out of step (notice I did not say wrong) with the current organization’s norms. Every organization has norms and values and, yes, I do believe in casting a value judgment on those to say these are good and these are not so good and here’s why. Clearly articulating your expectations to your subordinates is a critical step that so many of my peers fail in. Why? Because they assume a similar basis of experience, they assume too many things. You must articulate it and then you must ensure that it is understood.
The second thing is that it’s not about the organization. In three years’ time, no one is going to remember that I was C Company’s commander. A few folks might remember me but overall, I will pass into history with every other company commander this unit has had. The organization will continue but where I believe I can truly make a difference as a leader is in my impact on the individuals. If my soldiers know that I truly give a shit about their well-being and truly believe in enabling them to perform and truly believe that I care about their families, then the organizational stuff will follow. It has to, because an organization that takes care of the individual’s needs is going to get supported by those individuals.
There are so many factors that go into making decisions and that’s one of the things that I’m really taking away from the Harvard Justice lectures. I’m not just listening to them because I’m an uber-nerd who enjoys philosophy (true, however). I’m listening to them and reading these books because I have to be able to articulate to my soldiers why I’m making the decisions I’ve made and gaining education is a way to help me to do that. If I understand it, I can then explain it in a way to make them understand it. If I can teach them how and why I make decisions, then maybe they can learn how and why to make their own decisions. Because it is at the E5 level—the early NCO level—that the Army must teach, coach, and mentor if we are to truly impact our ability to take care of our soldiers.
When I interviewed for this command position, my new battalion commander asked me why I wanted to be a commander. I told her that I wanted to help teach, coach, and mentor the next generation of leaders because I believe I can still make a difference. So that’s why I’m looking at my leader development program. That’s why I’m looking so hard at not only what decisions I will make but why. Because there is huge potential for me to screw this up and this responsibility isn’t something that I’m taking lightly. I won’t. But it’s not about the Army. It’s about the soldiers in the Army. Who can I make a difference with today? I bet if all of us, civilian and soldier alike, went out into the world with that mentality, we could dramatically improve the world around us.
One person at a time.
Thoughts on Justice and Military Service
September 3, 2010
AS I CONTINUE TO read Michael Sandel’s Justice and listen to the lectures through justiceharvard.org and iTunesU, I admit a nerve has been struck when the discussion has turned to military service.
The question has been posed: if you own yourself (libertarianism), do you have the right to sell yourself? Into servitude, parts of your body, your womb. And if you do have the right to sell yourself, are you doing the same thing by either (a). paying someone to serve in the military for you or being paid to serve for someone else, or (b). being conscripted if drafting you into the military violates your rights to self-ownership, or (c). letting the market determine who will serve (today’s volunteer Army).
Essentially the choices are: Conscription, Conscription with the option of paying someone else, or Volunteerism. And the illustrative points are comparing the Iraq War with the way the Union Army used a mix of conscription and allowing someone to have someone else serve in their stead.
Of course, this struck a nerve when I hear the upper socioeconomic kids sitting in the lecture hall talk about how “Well, the military isn’t really a death sentence so it’s not fair to say that you will die if you go in” (true, but if that’s the case, why aren’t you serving? Oh yeah, Harvard), and “Most people in the military are from disadvantaged backgrounds or parts of the country where they can be coerced into serving because of patriotism” (Really? Don’t you mean the redneck hillbillies who don’t know any better than to be patriotic [insert sarcasm here]?).
The whole conversation of military service and whether today’s volunteer Army is any different than mercenaries—the disdain that some in the audience showed for values such as civic duty or patriotism notwithstanding—is very interesting. If there is no compulsion to serve, if there is no obligation to provide for the common defense of our nation with your own blood, then are you truly committed to the society in which you live? Granted, everyone cannot serve: There aren’t enough positions in the military for everyone to serve. Some simply aren’t fit due to being sick, lame, limp, lazy, or crazy. Military life really isn’t for everyone (but I do think that everyone could benefit from a little dose of reality that military life forces you to confront).
But the greater question that has been raised is if—as is assumed by the lecture and by Sandel’s book—the military is made up of lower socioeconomic members of society who also hold values such as civic responsibility and patriotism and a willingness to die for this country, how do you explain people like Pat Tillman? Was he simply noticeable because he gave up a life of luxury to sacrifice, an ideal that many of those praising him could not even fathom? How do you explain men like McChrystal and Chiarelli and Odierno and Petreaus who are great leaders and great thinkers who could easily depart the military and serve in a Fortune 500 company making many times the pay they could make in the military. How do you explain the fact that millions continue to serve despite the war, despite the family hardship, despite the “risk of certain death”? If the military is no better than mercenaries because we volunteer and are paid, then why is it that people stay? Through thick and thin, war and peace, people stay and sacrifice to continue to serve.
I don’t believe that we are mercenaries but I do believe we, as a nation, must confront the issues about civic responsibility and whether it is truly ethical if you reap the benefits of this nation and only have to pay a few dollars (in taxes) not to have to give anything up. Hell, when we were attacked on September 11, we were told to go shopping instead of changing our way of life to ease our dependency on the very oil that financed the attacks.
I fear that a nation that raises a generation of citizens who look down on those who serve as poor ignorant hillbillies (my words to illustrate the point) who can be coerced into believing in things like patriotism (which then assumes that patriotism is a bad thing, not a genuine belief) is losing part of its soul. If there is nothing worth sacrificing for, if there is nothing worth fighting for, then what’s the point? Why is America so great if America isn’t worth fighting for (this is not a commentary on either war but on the values across American society)? And if you can simply write a check and forget about civic responsibility, then are you truly invested in the welfare of this nation or are you simply able to get a service without a relationship?
I ask these questions because I don’t have the answers. I don’t know that everyone at the Ivy League schools look down on those of us in the military but I do hazard a guess that many of the people sitting in that lecture on Justice have the luxury of saying that stealing is always wrong because they have never been hungry enough to steal. I believe they have the luxury of saying that killing is always wrong because they have never seen a good friend die or had to fight for their own survival or the survival of their families. I believe many (not all) of them can sit back and say that a person has no obligation to provide for the common good of the nation because they have never been put in a situation where they have to work together to survive.
Ethics and philosophy are fascinating. I love the subjects. But I think at a certain point in human life, when desperation and fear and hunger are the overriding factors influencing your decisions, those discussions may become irrelevant. Maybe I’m wrong. I know I’ll still enjoy having the conversations and listening to the lectures. I’m learning a lot.
And as always, it’s a good debate.
Tom Made Me Do It
September 4, 2010
OKAY, MY LITTLE ONE has a very active imagination. In addition to having an amazing memory, things I wouldn’t think an almost four year old would recall, she’s got a couple of imaginary friends, Tom and Jerry (yes, the Tom and Jerry).
Today, I hear my name called and get told to go check on her. Well, sitting on my bathroom floor is my daughter, a pair of scissors, and a pile of blond hair. Oddly enough, she actually did a good job and gave herself bangs. But when asked why she did it, she said Tom told her to do it. (You may recall that my oldest had a couple of rounds with scissors, which resulted in both children having pageboy haircuts for a while that are just now growing out).
Not only does she have an imaginary friend, she knows to blame things on him.
So I calmly explained while fixing her bangs that the next time Tom tells her to do something, she needs to ask Mommy or Daddy first.
Tonight, she fills the bathtub up to swimming pool depths with cold water. Why? Tom told her to do it. She washes her hair twice. Why? Tom.
I’m not exactly sure how to handle this whole thing. It’s funny at the moment but I also realize that she thinks she’s getting away with things by blaming it on Tom. I believe she really thinks I believe her.
For now, I’m content to continue to try and explain that she needs to not listen to Tom. And while we’re learning that lesson, we’ll be growing out a pseudo-mullet.
Oprah Called
September 6, 2010
WOW, I JUST REALIZED that I hadn’t posted a blog in something close to two weeks. It’s been insane around here lately. Here’s a brief snapshot of life since then.
Oprah Called
It was one of those heart-stopping, holy shit moments that makes just about every writer in the country just about have a heart attack. And then, the letdown came. First, it wasn’t Oprah, it was one of the research producers. Second, they didn’t actually want to talk to me. They wanted a friend of mine’s information because I’d mentioned a good friend of mine who’d nearly lost custody of her kids. I couldn’t in good conscience give that information out because not only have I’ve lost touch with said friend since all of this happened, but also that information was dated to about four years ago. And that was the end of my Oprah adventure.
I will say the excitement was really cool but for future reference, I will wait until I find out what the show (or anyone else) wants before announcing to the world that holy crap, Oprah called. But damn, it would have been so cool.
I Changed Units
I moved from the 1st Cav across post to the 57th Sig. It’s a major attitude shift. The hyper-aggressiveness I’m used to in the Cav is not nearly as present nor as strong over here, making me somewhat of an outlier. I think it’s going to be a great change, however, because I learned a lo
t of valuable lessons in the Greywolf Brigade that I will carry with me. I won’t lie and say there aren’t some things I miss (like my old company and my old command team) but I will honestly say I’ve got a great vibe from my new unit and I really believe that serving in this unit is where I’m supposed to be right now.
And, on a plus side, I’ve been in the unit three weeks and have only managed to piss one person off. Kind of surprised by that number but, hey, my tour here is young and let’s face it, with my charming and tactful demeanor, those numbers are bound to go up.
Inventories
September 15, 2010
Started inventories last week and have to say, it’s so refreshing to be in a unit that has so many systems in place. One of the downsides to being in division is that there simply is not enough time for a commander to properly account for his equipment. When you have less than one year to reset and train for the next rotation, something’s got to give and usually, property accountability is one of those somethings. It’s a shame because there is an entire generation of officers who do not fully understand the importance of accountability. Look at it this way: if you’re accounting for your property and your people 100% of the time, those actions become automatic and instilled in the lowest level private. They’ll notice that SPC Snuffy is missing if they’re used to accounting for him.
I’ve also gotten to know a key member of my future team, my supply sergeant. She’s young, energized, and hard-working and for that, I’m excited. The worst thing to have is a supply sergeant who doesn’t care, is lazy, or can’t grasp the myriad of requirements and regulations involved in property accountability. I’m thankful that my supply team is off to a strong start and we’ll only get better.
The Long Way Home Page 14