Posted by: James Atticus Bowden | September 23, 2009

Last Day at Infantry Conference

Last day at the Infantry conference.  The day started with Lieutenant General and former Ambassador Dell Dailey’s presentation.  When I saw him last night, it was the first time in 31 years.  31 years.  Thirty-one years since service together in 2nd Battalion 21st Infantry, 24th Infantry Division, Ft Stewart, GA.  Heard more presentations from 4 star Generals to Command Sergeant Major.  They engaged an audience wearing camouflage I never wore.  The audience lives in a different Army galaxy.

It’s a galaxy, not a universe, that is complete unto itself.  Rotating and spinning away to its own forces.  The Army draws soldiers from America and returns them to America.  But, while on Army time, it’s the Army stars, sun and moon soldiers see.  It’s Army earth, fire, water, and air as basic elements.  Soldiers are the band of brothers.  Families serve too.  The Army is life – or it was for me.  Which is why I call my present time – life after Army. 

Several things shouted out to me at this conference.  I’ve been to a lot of technology, concepts and business conferences in 17 years.  This was all of that, but more fraternity than anything else.  Here is what I heard:

 The Army is at war.  Has been since 9-11.  It’s still at it strongly.  The Army is focused, fighting, and adapting to the complexity of every changing situation.  The soldiers’ combat experience makes for an incredibly competent, confident – not cocky – force.  Unlike Vietnam, this time, the Army didn’t kill off its NCO corps. 

It’s awesome to recall all the lessons I learned as a field grade officer about the Big Army on the major muscle movements to organize, man, equip, train, deploy, engage and redeploy 50 or so brigades a year – year after year.  The U.S. Army – and our national defense of all services – is superbly organized for war.  Our organization – planning and understanding of what to do, how – is the best, ever, in the world.  The lessons learned to organize for war were learned step by step – the hard way.

Our Allies are learning the ‘how to’ for global power projection.  They have a different scale, but they are learning valuable lessons on organizing for war.  The Romans would be proud.  Even the British Empire would learn new lessons.  Although, the old Imperial Brits would smile knowingly at the partnership the new Iraqi and Afghanistan forces have with Americans – which will change history.

Meanwhile, the Army leadership is preparing, already,  for a different, new war – whatever it might be – wherever.  Truly, America, has global interests and reach – since we divided the whole world into our operational areas of interest.  As I keep writing – Imperial responsibilities without imperial ambitions.

Our lack of ambition was accentuated by a 4 star General ending his presentation with talk from the Book of Galatians – alluding to the moral purpose of the American Army.

The platoon of old generals – too many of my old bosses are in their 70s now – asked questions that were more like speeches.  They were colorful and incisive as well as amusing.  

Listening to officers and NCOs talk about very recent experiences in OIF and OEF, I was very surprised and pleased to hear a Brigade Commander describe his operations using concepts I put into words in 2000-02.  No brag, fact.  He talked about “see first, understand first, act first and finish decisively with Infantry.”  My concept team put my idea of “see first, understand first, decide first, act first, strike more often (this was dropped), finish decisively with Infantry” in our Future Concept Systems presentation to the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) in October 2000.  I don’t get residuals or credit – which is okay.  But, I know what I put together – when – and have the artifacts.  I wish I had thought of the term – Quality of Firsts.  I didn’t, but still very pleasing to contribute.

 So, endeth my last day with the Infantry.  Not in the Infantry, just sharing air, space and time with younger Infantrymen.  I sure know what I would be doing if I were younger.  Lord, I loved being a soldier.  Absolutely loved it.  It’s the most compelling reason to ever want to be young again – to soldier anew in these days.


Responses

  1. Congratulations. Its rare for someone to go back and actually see the fruits of one’s labor.

  2. Your thoughts on our lives in service are very true for me as well. For 31 years the Marine Corps was home for me and my family.

    As I now still work with the military (deputy in the division 3 shop), I am so pleased that, as you pointed out, we haven’t decimated our NCO corps as we did in the early 1970’s. Each soldier’s war experience on the line, in the TOC, or on patrol, is valuable for it has given us a new force composed of professionals who actually know the business from experience rather than just exercises.

    However, I remain concerned about the moral component. While some old war dogs still share America’s traditional morality (like Pete Pace who was canned for it), more and more of the new generation never has been exposed to it in school, church or family. We need to teach it, but alas, it not only isn’t politically correct, it is attacked by the left as bourgeois. Note the attacks on McDonnel’s graduate paper. While most haven’t, I have read it, and rather than distancing himself from it, we should encourage him to “own” it. Every bit of it is true and relevant.

  3. Thanks CS.

    DV, thanks too. The experience you speak of could be viewed as a live fire exercise with incoming. It provides a pyschological boost that no single direction for fires exercise can ever do. It’s what was referred to in WW II as “bloodying a division.”

    By morality do you mean Judeo-Christian moral-ethical system or real religious faith?

    The forces are gathering now to get rid of don’t ask, don’t tell – which will,ultimately, have profound influences on the character and quality of U.S. Armed Services. I don’t think the GO or retired GO corps – or any other leaders of veteran organizations,etc, – are getting their act together to fight it. It will pop up and the enemy will be through the wire in no time.

  4. While I’d like to see real religious faith, I was speaking of Judeo-Christian ethics.

    DADT has already had disasterous implications as it has institutionalized lying. The law passed by Congress frequently incorrectly referred to as DADT is nothing of the sort. The law states that homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service period. No homosexuals period. That is what Sam Nunn and the Congress gave us. A good law.

    Clinton’s policy was called DADT which says we just won’t ask anyone if they violate the law (just wink and nod) and we only have to enforce it if they tell us (admit) to it. This is Executive policy not law.
    This policy which Bush could have rescinded in a nanosecond does not take Congressional action. The DADT policy itself harms our morals as it amounts to institutionalizing lying.
    The Dims plan was to use the policy a few years, get Hollywood to make perversion seem not only normal but attractive and change the culture. After a few years, (now) get Congress to change the law.
    Clinton got them across the LOD and now we are right on phase line for their plan.

  5. Excellent post, JAB. Thanks, as always.

    RE DADT, while the military faces many challenges now, they are doing a superb job in the circumstances. Maintaining or eliminating DADT, even if elimination means no prohibition or inhibition on homosexuals serving if otherwise fit, will not affect combat capability one way or the other. The challenges are far more profound in other areas.

  6. NoVa: Thanks for attaboy, but penalty on the play. BS flag thrown. Open homosexuals serving in combat units makes a difference in combat effectiveness.

    I’m sure I’ll be writing about it later when the frontal assualt kicks off next year some time.

    Thanks, DV. It’s going to get worse.

  7. I agree that it degrades military effectiveness and all is not rosy in the British Army. But military effectiveness is not the most important thing. The Wermacht was quite effective.

    If I might draw from history, the fall of ancient Israel was not due to lack of military capability or prowess but due to rejecting God’s commands.

    It does not pay to ignore reality just because some don’t believe in Him. God is, even if the atheists don’t believe it. And He has given very clear instructions on this matter and a vivid illustration of the consequences of disobedience in the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Disobedience is much more serious and entails far more dangerous implications than carbon footprints. We need to focus and get our heads back in the real game. This doesn’t mean that just because we call to Him we will always achieve military success. The belt buckles on the uniforms of the Reichswehr said “Gott mit uns” yet they did not win WWI and probably no army in history prayed more than the Army of NoVA yet as Lee said, Let His will be done.
    So, realizing that His will will be done, regardless of what we do, still does not entreat us to “spit into the wind”.

    Even though we are not a Christian nation, our success historically has had a lot to do with our national adherence to Judeo-Christian law and morality even by the non-believers among us.

    We used to not “trust in chariots” but our motto was “In God we Trust”.

    Sound advice that.

  8. Well, JAB, I’m not sure how one sorts out “open homosexuals” from not so open ones. If openness is what degrades military efficiency, then DADT may have merit (I’m not sold on that, but that’s the logic of your approach). I would rather get rid of the policy and just make the clear point that if any hetero- or homo-sexual person in uniform ever lets his or her sexual preferences compromise the fighting effectiveness of his/her unit, the consequences will be condign.

    DV goes a bit beyond that point, however, and argues that military success depends on accepting God’s commands. He makes a very interesting point (I think this is the point) that a number of ultimately unsuccessful military organizations have had at least a surface texture of religiosity. Presumably their ultimate failures are due to lack of doctrinal correctness in their Christian beliefs.

    My military experience is far more limited than JAB’s and maybe DV’s also, but I have found the American military in my lifetime to be chock full of religious diversity and heterodoxy (including atheists, blasphemers, and completely off-the-charts hedonists). For most of that time our armed forces have been a very effective fighting force. I don’t think we can reasonably expect to achieve Cromwellian military optimality by sorting out the religious viewpoints of our fighting men (OK . . . and women). We take a very diverse and eclectic raw material and train it, train it very intensively to fight. We can’t train it to adopt DV’s sense of orthodoxy. There are not enough scripturally-trained DIs to work that wonder on new recruits. I just want them to know how to keep themselves physically fit, to follow lawful orders, to keep their weapons clean and in working order, and to wreak havoc on our enemies.

  9. NoVA Scout:

    Such topics are difficult to adequately discuss by blog. I fear you may have misunderstood me, or more likely that I have done a poor job of explaining myself.

    I do not advocate a Cromwellian New Model Army nor a “Christian” version of the Waffen SS. We would muck that up terribly and would end up with a tyranny similar to that which we try to avoid.

    I advocate returning to what we had.
    A Judeo-Christian based republic whose military represented that foundation. A force composed of Christians, Jews, atheists yet all dedicated to the Judeo-Christian principles that define our liberty. Just think about our “fight song”, the Battle Hymn of the Republic: Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. . .as Christ died to make men holy let us die to make men free. . .
    I don’t think they would allow us to sing that anymore as it isn’t politically correct.

    You see armies fight for something and against something. They aren’t neutral. We have always tried to be fighting for the Judeo-Christian ethic and I believe our faithfulness to that has accounted for a good deal of our success, but because we aligned ourselves with what was right not because we tried to be more technically and tactically proficient.

    I do not look to have God on our side but for us to be on His side.

    Our law on homosexuality in the military is a good law. Not simply for the utilitarian purpose of avoiding conflict and friction in the ranks that homosexuality has always brought (that is why closet homosexuals don’t cause a problem and open ones do) but more importantly because it is wrong. Sexual perversion (and I can think of no better example of perverting something’s purpose than homosexuality) is morally repugnant. Morally. It is wrong, whether we think it is or not, just as murdering Jews in the KZ’s was wrong even if the laws of the Reich say it is legal and good for society.
    If our military ceases to defend what is right, then I and many others (recent polls show 40% of active duty members) will not serve in such an organization. Talking about a recruiting nightmare.
    But more importantly than the loss of people for recruiting, think of how the character of our officer corps would change without believing Christians being a large component. They provide moral clarity and set a tone. The old German army had many Christian officers, the Nazi army drove them out and it changed the character of the force. They were still very effective, but monstrously different. War is tough and ruthless, and without moral officers to temper the actions of the army horrible things happen.

    Speaking only of military effectiveness, is the wrong approach. We saw that with women in combat. By only talking about what a woman could or could not do, we gave up the game as they just lowered the standards for everyone to what the women could do and women came to combat. The discussion should have been not on what they can do, but what they ought to do. A subject for another blog thread).

    So I believe we should look to do what is right. Post modernism won’t help here as there is a “right and wrong” on homosexuality. Look I agree that there is much in Scripture that is confusing, but that isn’t one of those topics. He has been quite clear on this “abomination” (His word, not mine).

    I think that Lee summed up my approach best:

    “At present, I am not concerned with results. God’s will ought to be our aim, and I am quite contented that His designs should be accomplished and not mine.”

  10. It’s a lot to talk about, DV, and, at least for my tastes, it could be done well with you, JAB, a few others and some beers on the table. It would be fun and interesting. I salute you, however, for starting my day off right by quoting both the Battle Hymn of the Republic and General Lee. I revere both.

  11. Indeed it would be fun. Perhaps JAB might chair a roundtable some evening to discuss issues that bear on our time.

    One other clarification, as I reread your previous post, I do not mean to imply that correct religious doctrine ensures success. It does not. Not militarily or otherwise in life. Many true believers were fed to the lions in Rome. . .
    But God does not measure success the way man does. That is why Lee could take comfort even after Appomattox that despite man’s desires, God’s will was done.
    We can never be more successful than when we are in His will.

    By the way, your handle: NoVA Scout, is that referring to BSA or Scout/sniper or just a Scout for us in NoVA to keep an eye on the otherside of the Potomac?

  12. 2 of the 3, DV.

  13. What do you do with BSA?


Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Categories