This is an interesting article discussing, in part, what makes a good commander given the way modern warfare is conducted.

Turnover at top in wars worries U.S. military - U.S. news - Washington Post - msnbc.com

This quote in particular caught my eye.

 

I think a better solution is to SLOW the personnel process, not speed it up. If you make a thirty year career the standard, then you can insure that you get mature, experienced, intelligent leaders at the top. Instead, we ID guys after three or four years as "potential" leaders, then send those same guys to school at the 8-9 year mark. After that, the only significant thing they will do is make a pit stop at SQ/CC a few years later. They're usually hurried out of that job so they can get a better one in order to compete for GP/CC a couple of years later, then WG/CC then perhaps a general officer billet. They spend very little time in any leadership position, spending many of those years in school. Learning what? Whatever the current flavor of academia is. The real problem is identifying those guys in the first three or four years. If you don't get "picked," then you can kiss below the zone promotions goodbye, in-residence schools as well. Command becomes almost impossible and good guys are forced out at 20 years after filling some ridiculous staff job in the last few years of their careers. A 30 year career gives the real cream a chance to rise to the top rather than just guessing at it. If you miss the initial "anointment" phase, then it's almost impossible to get it later on.

Disclaimer: No sour grapes here. I was promoted to 0-4 with an in-residence IDE slot. I was working at the USAF WPS at the time, and was lined up on the inside track when I got out. I have no axe to grind, as I feel if I had stayed in I would have benefited from the system as it currently is.

 

They will "throw" more, all right. So do these:
Large Capacity Meyer's Manure Spreaders

 

Holy ****, Batman! That was your 1200th post! Congratulations!

 

Only 1200, eh? I lack throw-weight.

 

:

The military was never able to perfect the megaton manure spreader fleet.
An ounce or two of truth is far more potent and creates much less mess and stink. Spreading manure for a decade hasn't helped the crop yield.

The military should stick to what it does best-killing as many people as possible as quickly and cheaply as possible.

 

Excellent idea. You'd still have to offer a 20 year retirement to allow people who are tired of the ride a chance to get off.

 

This may have been a throw away line, but I actually agree with it. I'm reading the article thinking they're grasping at straws to find commanders who can perform miracles. Counterinsurgency operations are extremely difficult, and in a place like Afghanistan, that hasn't had the remotest semblance of civilization in decades, maybe impossible. Note to our civilian leadership... don't overreach and expect to turn the whole world into democracy loving capitalists. We don't have the resources or the willpower for it. I've always liked the "Vlad The Impaler/kids in a station wagon" approach. Stick your enemies heads on posts (the Vlad part), toss the keys to the kingdom to someone who is tolerable (probably barely) and tell him "don't make me come back here" (The kids in a wagon part... I guess it would be an SUV now).

 

Vlad is a hero. We are set up for that, nation building-not so much. War is only difficult when you limit the ferocity and war is only about ferocity. Anything else is just fluff and failure.

Unfortunately we keep having to come back because we lack resolve and ferocity. Dialog ends when war starts and war ends dialog.

Either you impale your enemies or leave. There will never be a middle ground and spreading manure will never resolve the problem.

 

I think it is more important that leaders have good people skills, common sense, and can make a decision under fire; rather than have a PhD.