But that is not to say I will do so without hesitation.
Recently, Atlantic Monthly posted an article which detailed the reasons officers (and in this case it was specifically West Pointers but the generalizations the author made, and conclusions he reached, are apt no matter the commissioning source) get out of the Army before their 20-year retirement window is up. Most Americans would think that Soldiers are tired of time spent away from family on dangerous deployments, or that they want to move out to the private sector where they can stay home and earn three times as much. They would be wrong. People do not get out because of back-to-back deployments - or, at least, it is not the main or even second reason officers elect to be released from active duty. Only 63% of respondents put "many deployments" as one of their top three reasons for leaving. Why not? Deployments can stink, but young single Soldiers are affected much less by separation from loved ones. Simply put, they are generally leaving less behind and so are worrying about less while deployed. And the Army compensates officers quite well - a newly commissioned lieutenant will make a base salary of just under $34,000 and that does not include Basic Allowance for Housing (averaging about $1200 tax free per month) or other entitlements (in the neighborhood of $300 more tax free per month). In fact, a graduate of West Point would leave college completely debt free with a guaranteed job paying him or her nearly $52,000 before taxes. I would argue that you would be hard-pressed to find another 22 year-old similarly compensated - in fact, the 2010 college graduate made less than a 2010 West Point graduate, and probably had to deal with student loans while not having a separate, tax-free income solely devoted to housing.
While the Army might have a number of good, camaraderie-based things down, it can frustrate people to no end. This was the main goal of the article. Forget military bureaucracy, the one thing young officers - like my friends and me - are frustrated with the most is the comically inept way of promoting people and the even more head-scratching way of assigning people to important, decision-making jobs. Consider: a lieutenant who was commissioned on May 15, 2008 knows that he or she will make captain on August 15, 2011. There is no scoring system, no ranking system and certainly no meritocracy. You could have spent your whole career up to that point failing schools and being shuttled between jobs because no one can stand to work with you. You could have spent those three years being honor graduate of Ranger School, saving nuns' lives and teaching blind homeless kids to read Braille while killing terrorists. You know what? Both people become captains on that day, so both are the same. There is no meritocracy - it is a linear progression of rank. And every captain gets the chance to command a Company, Troop or Battery at some point while they are captains, and that should scare the crap out of a lot of people. 26 year-old Soldiers commanding - and being responsible for the lives of - up to 130 other people. Who among us was ready for that responsibility at 26? Hell, my hand is glued to the floor here.
What is more annoying is the amount of time you do not get to do fun things. You know why there was no Top Gun: II? Because after twelve months of flying jets, Maverick, Merlin and Ice Man would have been given desks and told to plan missions for the new crew of hotshot pilots. The entire movie would have been three has-been pilots bullshitting by the coffee urn waiting for a private to make them more and eating one too many jelly donuts.
Top Gun II: Revenge of Power PointAs much as we want to think that the best people for the job should keep that job, the fact of the matter is there are always people below you who need a chance to prove that they are just as good as you. So you get "promoted" to a desk and a computer. All those cool stories about leading Soldiers in battle and shooting your weapon with one hand while planting the American flag in the some terrorist's chest your other hand? Well, unless we go invade Iran, it's not in the cards for me.
Pictured: My Exit Strategy for IraqAnd this isn't a sob story for me. My replacement is a damn fine officer and will probably end up doing a better job with the motley assortment of "Soldiers" I had than I did. In a 20-year career, assuming I get to be a Battalion or Squadron commander, I will spend no more than 5 years directly leading Soldiers (Platoon Leader, Company Commander, Battalion Commander). Three years in and I am already 1 year down. Sucks...
The article was more an indictment of the whole process. Officers who are acknowledged to be good should lead. Officers who are acknowledged to be bad should not lead. It is pretty simple. We have a yearly reporting system, called an Officer Evaluation Record (or OER) which attempts to do just that: classify an officer as "good" or "bad." However, a quick survey of the officers in my unit revealed that each officer was ranked "among the best." So unless there is a unit where every officer is ranked "among the worst," we are dealing with a top-heavy, artificially inflated officer corps. Was I truly "among the best" when I was a platoon leader? I don't know. I did my job. I did what was asked of me. Does that mean I am "excellent?" No. It means I am average. So unless every other officer was average, then I was not "among the best." I was, for lack of a better phrase, normal.
So why do officers get out? Well, when you are dealing with a skill-blind promotion system that is based on an artificially inflated ranking system, you can be frustrated. When you tell your commander "Sir, I just want to lead Soldiers" and he says "well you can still lead Soldiers by putting together these briefing slides that show other lieutenants leading Soldiers" you can either shake your head and wait until command, or get out of the Army. The easy option - the more soon-to-gratify option, is sadly the road more traveled.
No comments:
Post a Comment