Thread: Contrary Peter Principle

JAD,

Let me try and remember to get back to this thread in a few weeks/months with my recommendations. I've yet to read a book (I have it on the shelf) that's been highly recommended to me related to the subject - Amazon.com: Raising the Bar: Creating and Nurturing Adaptability to Deal with the Changing Face of War: Books: Maj. Donald Vandergriff (U.S. Army; Ret.). I've seen MAJ Vandergriff present, and his spoken word was singularly unimpressive, so I hope that's not the case with the book. In any case, I think that I could give a better answer in a few weeks.

However, I think that you'll find the following oped from a more recent edition of Parameters interesting: Fashion Tips for the Field Grade. This gets at the fact that we incentivitze officers down a very narrow path, and the Petraeus and McMaster with a PhD, who are highly educated and have thinken strategically since being a junior field grade, are an anamoly. Our system discourages this at first, and then it quite often punishes it.

As another angle at this, think about the impact this has on junior officers and their retention if they don't see the right people being rewarded. Do you want to stick around in an organization that seems random in whom they select for higher promotions?

Originally Posted by Shek

JAD,

Let me try and remember to get back to this thread in a few weeks/months with my recommendations. I've yet to read a book (I have it on the shelf) that's been highly recommended to me related to the subject - Amazon.com: Raising the Bar: Creating and Nurturing Adaptability to Deal with the Changing Face of War: Books: Maj. Donald Vandergriff (U.S. Army; Ret.). I've seen MAJ Vandergriff present, and his spoken word was singularly unimpressive, so I hope that's not the case with the book. In any case, I think that I could give a better answer in a few weeks.

However, I think that you'll find the following oped from a more recent edition of Parameters interesting: Fashion Tips for the Field Grade. This gets at the fact that we incentivitze officers down a very narrow path, and the Petraeus and McMaster with a PhD, who are highly educated and have thinken strategically since being a junior field grade, are an anamoly. Our system discourages this at first, and then it quite often punishes it.

As another angle at this, think about the impact this has on junior officers and their retention if they don't see the right people being rewarded. Do you want to stick around in an organization that seems random in whom they select for higher promotions?

Great article

I have seen this first hand. A very fine young officer I know was selected for advance civil schooling....twice. Both times DA pulled him away from that and sent him back to Iraq first as a SPO and then as a battalion XO. While they did it for the "good of the Army" what they have done instead is guarantee that this officer will leave the Army with 20 years of service no matter what they offer him.

Originally Posted by S-2

"...I still have trouble with the implication that the system is broken because it didn't select a celebrated expert."


I stole this outta Wikipedia but it would seem "celebrated expert" might be glossing this man's accomplishments. High School to the present. Take a look-

"Colonel McMaster graduated from Valley Forge Military Academy in 1980, where he served as a Company Commander, with the rank of Cadet Captain.

McMaster graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1984. His first assignment after commissioning was to the Second Armored Division at Fort Hood, where he served in a variety of platoon and company level leadership assignments. In 1989, McMaster was assigned to the 2nd ACR in Bamburg, Germany, where he served until 1992, including the deployment to Operation Desert Storm.

McMaster served as a military history professor at West Point from 1994-1996, teaching, among other things, the battles in which he actually fought.

From 1999 to 2002, McMaster commanded 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment. He then took a series of staff positions at U.S. Central Command, including planning and operations roles in Iraq.

In his next job, LTC, and later COL, McMaster worked on the staff of U.S. Central Command. More specifically, he worked for the then Deputy Commander, LTG John Abizaid as his Executive Officer. As LTG Abizaid made his fourth star and became Central Command's head, McMaster gained his current rank and served as GEN Abizaid's Director, Commander's Advisory Group (CAG). In other words, Colonel McMaster served as the head of USCENTCOM's brain trust. He excelled in this job, transforming the command's CAG into a world-class brain trust. After McMaster's depature from the Headquarters, he retained GEN Abizaid's total trust and open-door access, meeting with the CENTCOM head more than a dozen times in the resulting four years.

In 2004, he was assigned to command the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Shortly after Col. McMaster took command, the Regiment deployed for its second tour in Iraq in early 2005. In May 2005, the 3rd ACR was assigned the mission of securing the Iraqi city of Tal Afar. The culmination of that mission came in September 2005, when the 3rd ACR conducted Operation Restoring Rights to defeat the insurgent strongholds in Tal Afar. The success of this operation has been touted by President George W. Bush, and was the subject of an article in the April 10, 2006 issue of The New Yorker.

The PBS show Frontline broadcast a documentary in February 2006 that featured interviews with Col. McMaster during which he described his personal experiences in Tal Afar, Iraq.

Col. McMaster handed over the reins of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment on 29th June 2006 and headed for the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, England, to devise "better tactics to battle terrorism." According to the Institute's website, Col. McMaster is a Senior Research Associate with a mandate to "Conduct research to identify opportunities for improved multi-national cooperation and political-military integration in the areas of counterinsurgency, counter-terrorism, and state building."[1]

Since 2007, Col. McMaster has been part of an "elite team of officers advising US commander General David Petraeus" on counterinsurgency operations in Iraq.[2]

Despite Presidential acclaim for his counterinsurgency campaign in Tal Afar and his position as an adviser to General Petraeus, Col. McMaster has been passed over for promotion to Brigadier General two years in a row."

This man's career is too auspicious to escape scrutiny. The above C.V. failed to mention his silver star at 73 EASTING. At a minimum, there's an unseen battle being fought and this constitutes a shot across somebody's bow. Beyond that, it's difficult to surmise what a man has to do to achieve the relatively mundane accomplishment of B.G. in the U.S. Army. Given all the unmitigated idiots that have achieved this "exalted" status, McMaster is an absolute no-brainer.

It should have been a relatively restful way-station on the way to the top. If this is as far as he goes, give him a Cav Regt. until the day he decides to hang up his spurs.

The guy was born to be a soldier.

Sterling background...by the look of it he is as you say "a no-brainer" choice for BG. But I wonder who is promoting him outside military channels. Who, for example, wrote the wiki bio on his career? I am not implying that it is inaccurate, only questioning whether it is part of a rump campaign on his part to get promoted. The system reacts negatively to self lobbying. I think the man is brilliant...Tal Afar proved that. Perhaps the less well endowed general officers on the selection boards, react badly to people who beat their own drums. We just don't know the inside story, but I am with you in regards to undeserving 0-6s getting a star while deserving ones are passed over. It happens, but how often? Often enough to condemn the system? Would a new system prevent "mistakes"? My quess is Patraeus will pass the word that this man needs to be moved up if he indeed values him as highly as it seems. Let's hope justice is done.

"My quess [sic] is Patraeus will pass the word that this man needs to be moved up if he indeed values him as highly as it seems."

JAD, your comment presumes that Petraeus doesn't possess powerful enemies of his own.

Originally Posted by S-2

"My quess [sic] is Patraeus will pass the word that this man needs to be moved up if he indeed values him as highly as it seems."

JAD, your comment presumes that Petraeus doesn't possess powerful enemies of his own.

That may be, but I presume he also has a good deal of influence inasmuch as has an active command. And, in any case, enemies don't always win.

JAD, so far "enemies" 2, McMaster 0.

"I wonder who is promoting him outside military channels. Who, for example, wrote the wiki bio on his career? I am not implying that it is inaccurate, only questioning whether it is part of a rump campaign on his part to get promoted."

Tacky. As I mentioned, his career is "too auspicious to escape scrutiny". He hardly needs a "rump campaign" to trumpet his accomplishments. By the ultimate measure of an officer, he's excelled twice in combat commands of the highest profile (armored cav command at the troop, squadron, and regimental levels is VERY desirous).

You simply can't replicate this man's existing accomplishments uniformly amongst our newly-promoted B.G.s.

Originally Posted by S-2

JAD, so far "enemies" 2, McMaster 0.

"I wonder who is promoting him outside military channels. Who, for example, wrote the wiki bio on his career? I am not implying that it is inaccurate, only questioning whether it is part of a rump campaign on his part to get promoted."

Tacky. As I mentioned, his career is "too auspicious to escape scrutiny". He hardly needs a "rump campaign" to trumpet his accomplishments. By the ultimate measure of an officer, he's excelled twice in combat commands of the highest profile (armored cav command at the troop, squadron, and regimental levels is VERY desirous).

You simply can't replicate this man's existing accomplishments uniformly amongst our newly-promoted B.G.s.

You may be missing my point which may be my fault. I am not saying McMasters isn't deserving of promotion or that his feats are less than extraordinary. I am speculating that the system is biased against self-promoters and wondering if he guilty of it. That's the impression I got when I was at DoD. The top officers did their thing and relied on their annual evalutions to tell the story. As a civilian head of a directorate with several military subordinates I had to write evaluations, so I know how tricky they can be and how they can be composed to ensure promotion or prevent it. Now this is the honest to God truth, I ASKED THE OFFICERS TO WRITE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS. Then I took them to a BG, a good guy I knew well, and asked him to vet them for me. I had two fire-breathing 0-5s who I thought ought to be moved up and the BG made sure the wording was right. They both made it. I had another 0-5 who I thought didn't have the right stuff; he was passed over and retired. But the one thing that didn't fly was self-promotion. So that is why I asked about the wiki entry...who wrote it, and why?

Thank you for your interesting reply. An unusual technique, to be sure. Having never evaluated O-5s, I can only speculate upon the nuances of vocabulary that can separate the wheat from the chaff!

"the one thing that didn't fly was self-promotion. So that is why I asked about the wiki entry...who wrote it, and why?"

You, too, may have missed my point. I could have easily provided sections of the C.V. Removed fifteen years from service, much was nonetheless well-known to myself. I can only presume that McMaster's career has been more carefully tracked within the corridors of OPMS.

Explicitly, the wiki entry could have been gathered by anybody- not simply circles within the Army interested in seeing his promotion. However, given that McMaster has been declined TWICE, perhaps there is a movement afoot. Desperate circumstances may require desperate solutions.

Perhaps McMaster himself penned such a C.V. in full knowledge of the promotion board's reliance of such sources to vet his accomplishments.)

Originally Posted by S-2

Thank you for your interesting reply. An unusual technique, to be sure. Having never evaluated O-5s, I can only speculate upon the nuances of vocabulary that can separate the wheat from the chaff!

I am sure you know what I mean. I've never seen a truly bad evaluation, but I was introduced to the magic verbage that moves careers along. Very subtle stuff.

I can only presume that McMaster's career has been more carefully tracked within the corridors of OPMS.

That's what makes his being passed over twice very odd.

Explicitly, the wiki entry could have been gathered by anybody- not simply circles within the Army interested in seeing his promotion. However, given that McMaster has been declined TWICE, perhaps there is a movement
afoot. Desperate circumstances may require desperate solutions.

It was a very bland entry in the sense that it merely listed his stops along the way...no superlatives. It took someone who was very familiar with every step of his career to do it. A friend, a supporter, himself?

Perhaps McMaster himself penned such a C.V. in full knowledge of the promotion board's reliance of such sources to vet his accomplishments.)

Could be, but the ususal tendency is to rely on the evaluations of his superior officers throughout his career and his record of continuing education.

"It took someone who was very familiar with every step of his career to do it. A friend, a supporter, himself?"

No. It didn't. That's twice now that you've made these insinuations. They're tasteless and you've no call to make them. I was making light of your suggestion but now I see that you hold these thoughts in earnest.

Too bad. You disparage without substantiation with your vague speculation. The bald facts speak for themselves. Any of his assigned duty positions from troop commander forward, because of their prominence, could have been career stoppers. They weren't. In fact, his last assignment was a highly successful command of a CAV REGIMENT. From there, he was detached to IISS in London.

Rubbed wrong by his success at Tal Afar perhaps but command failure would be the last thing possible for a board to construe from that assignment.

Originally Posted by S-2

"It took someone who was very familiar with every step of his career to do it. A friend, a supporter, himself?"

No. It didn't. That's twice now that you've made these insinuations. They're tasteless and you've no call to make them. I was making light of your suggestion but now I see that you hold these thoughts in earnest.

Too bad. You disparage without substantiation with your vague speculation. The bald facts speak for themselves. Any of his assigned duty positions from troop commander forward, because of their prominence, could have been career stoppers. They weren't. In fact, his last assignment was a highly successful command of a CAV REGIMENT. From there, he was detached to IISS in London.

Rubbed wrong by his success at Tal Afar perhaps but command failure would be the last thing possible for a board to construe from that assignment.

No. No. No, S2; that was not an insinuation; just a question arising from an
an observation. I am just working my way through the issue step by step. What is disparaging about that? Indisputably, neither of us really knows the man aside from his exploits. So, how then am I wrong and you are right? Actually, I am neither--just being wary of first impressions.

"that was not an insinuation; just a question arising from an [sic]an observation."

From my eyes it reads as though you've therefore innocently suggested a cabal of interested parties or McMaster himself have conspired to make Wiki entries as a clumsy career-promoting gimmick.

You developed your "question" from this observation-

"It was a very bland entry in the sense that it merely listed his stops along the way...no superlatives."

Why would you conclude that a "bland entry" chronicling the way-points of his considerable career and accomplishments would require the closest familiarity? Here are the Wiki references used to develop the article. The sources are open and not at all unusual for ANYBODY interested who might choose to write his wikibio-

Official Biography at 3rd ACR website
Armored Cav, Tom Clancy, 1994
Online Video of Frontline program The Insurgency, see part 4.
Nov 2003 Crack in the Foundation: Defense Transformation and the Underlying Assumption of Dominant Knowledge in Future War, H.R. McMaster (PDF)
13 Sep 2005 defenselink.mil
19 Dec 2005 telegraph.co.uk
29 Jun 2006 gazette.com
12 Oct 2006 LA Times
13 Oct 2006 CNN
20 Nov 2006 Washington Post
22 Nov 2006 Assyrian International News Agency
01 Feb 2007 TIME's Joe Klein

"Indisputably, neither of us really knows the man aside from his exploits."

Overwhelming, aren't they?

"So, how then am I wrong and you are right?"

Hmmm...JAD, perhaps by suggesting that the reason McMaster is not promoted to BG is because the ONE thing unforgivable in the halls of OPMS is self-promotion-

"I am speculating that the system is biased against self-promoters and wondering if he guilty of it."

In the absence of anything incontrovertibly damaging to McMaster's career, you've suggested the above as rationale for being twice passed over. You've suggested that he may have even taken pen in hand.

I don't know, having not served at the Pentagon, but your allusions suggest the type of conversation that must swirl about his file at the promotion board.

JAD,

He has done everything that the U.S. Army has asked of him in an exemplary manner, to include graduate studies. You and I both know that's understating his success, given the prominence and difficulties of his assignments.

You have insinuated self-promotion when you speculated to that possibility. You've no reason to do so of which I'm aware. Surprisingly, what you haven't insinuated is a promotion board capable of manifesting petty personal/professional jealousy on matters of this import.

THAT would be a far more likely possibility, IMV.

Originally Posted by S-2

"that was not an insinuation; just a question arising from an [sic]an observation."

From my eyes it reads as though you've therefore innocently suggested a cabal of interested parties or McMaster himself have conspired to make Wiki entries as a clumsy career-promoting gimmick.

You developed your "question" from this observation-

"It was a very bland entry in the sense that it merely listed his stops along the way...no superlatives."

That's right, and I could have added that it was a very professional entry; it did not try to inflate with adjectives. So, that was bland in my eyes. I actually preferred it that way. Had it been peppered with words like "outstanding", "heroic", "brilliant" and the like, I would have seen it differently.

Why would you conclude that a "bland entry" chronicling the way-points of his considerable career and accomplishments would require the closest familiarity?

Look at it again, S-2. It's right on the numbers. Bland wasn't a reference to his career but to the objective presentation of his career steps.

Overwhelming, aren't they[referenced]?

Helpful.

"So, how then am I wrong and you are right?"

Hmmm...JAD, perhaps by suggesting that the reason McMaster is not promoted to BG is because the ONE thing unforgivable in the halls of OPMS is self-promotion-

Well, you're arguing with me over realities. Self-promotion can be suicidal to career officers. (MacArthur got away with it because of his dad, and he was indeed brilliant. ) Another career-ender is criticizing senior officers out in the open, by name or by implication, even if they deserve it. But all I intended to remark on in this thread was the nature of promotion boards, not to pass judgement on McMasters.

But now you've peaked my interest in McMasters' situation. So, I've been doing a little research. So far, I think you're right; we can rule out self-promotion on his part, at least in any public forum. He has no service weaknesses which we both agreed on already, except that, ironically, he may be TOO good, which sometimes doesn't sit well with promotion boards made up of average generals, who tend to look for clones of themselves. But let's set that aside, because promotion boards are sentitive to making glaring mistakes. Colin Powell's run up the chain was an example of that caution, not that he didn't deserve promotion.

Back to the point. For McMaster to have been passed over twice, it almost seems as if there is some higher influence above the promotion board blocking his promotion. Keep in mind that the board's picks are essentially recommendations, not final choices.

The reason he is being blocked may have something to do with his book Dereliction of Duty. The theme, as you know, is that the JSC advised Lyndon Johnson badly on the Vietnam war. Although the book is considered a must-read for officers, the theme is eerily similar to what happened in the run up to the Iraq war and for the first year or two afterwards.

The following, from the NYTimes article cited as a reference on the Wiki entry for McMasters, bears out what I said earlier about there may be a good reason why he wasn't promoted, but offers an excellent insight into why passing him over was a mistake, and I agree with the reasoning.

A retired Army two-star general, who requested anonymity because he didn’t want to anger his friends on the promotion boards, agreed. “When you turn down a guy like McMaster,” he told me, “that sends a potent message to everybody down the chain. I don’t know, maybe there were good reasons not to promote him. But the message everybody gets is: ‘We’re not interested in rewarding people like him. We’re not interested in rewarding agents of change.’ ” [bold added]

That says it all, IMO. So, may I have my skin back.)