Leaders for America's Army

Military Review, May-June, 2003 by Frederic D. Brown

The Active Army U.S Army Reserve, and the U.S. Army National Guard share a high level of military competence. These remarkable levels of citizen-soldier competence, created by training to common task, condition, and standard, have never before occurred in U.S, military history. Author Frederic J. Brown argues that this competence mandates a searching review of leader development policies and practices.

Leader development is arguably the most important single program of any army.

GROUND COMBAT, the most complex of Military endeavors, is characterized by infinitely variable terrain, human interactions under great stress, and complex missions. Ground combat often combines military, political, economic, social, and religious elements, always in an uncertain environment. The quality of America's Army's leaders, from corporal to general, determines the outcome of ground combat. As combat evolves to incorporate highly variable land, sea, and air power mosaics, combined increasingly with special operations, leaders must assume even more dominant roles.(1)

Genuinely new leadership requirements have arisen since the events of 11 September 2001. President George W. Bush put the mark on the wall: "All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price. We will not leave the safety of America and the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants. We will lift this dark threat from our country and from the world."(2) National Security Strategy now identifies preemption, recovery of failed states, and Homeland Security as major military/missions. Each new mission, alone and in combination, places new joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) responsibilities squarely on the plates of Army leaders at every grade. Leaders must discharge their responsibilities in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and within the United States in support of the Department of Homeland Security and of the commander of the U.S. Northern Command.

The emerging requirements that the Nation is placing on leaders of all grades are formidable. Leaders most have the ability to understand, then achieve, harmony among the imperatives of doctrine, training, leader, organization, materiel, soldier (DTLOMS). Company commanders must be able to see and act in combat across the battlefield operating systems (BOS) from the perspective of the battalion or perhaps even the brigade commander; squad leaders must understand their first sergeants' cross-BOS perspectives) Increasingly, the character of operations requires that--and more. Recent events have required the Armed Forces to transition rapidly from combat in preemption to stability and support operations (SASO) in failed states or to emergency relief to civilian authority in Homeland Security. These missions add to an already broad spectrum of commitment.

Understanding the skillful application of landpower imperatives across BOS is necessary but increasingly insufficient. A leader must also understand the mosaic of land, sea, air, and Special Forces at current and higher echelons. Combinations of land, sea, air, and Special Forces are available to leaders operating together in variable modular organizations composed to dominate immediate combat requirements. This just-in-time leader team building includes profound new leader development challenges.

Clearly demands on leaders are changing. The excellent work that training and leader development panels conducted in the past several years has aged. The Army needs to open a dialogue regarding current and emerging wellsprings of leader requirements and their likely effect on bow America's Army develops its leaders.(4)

Discussion Points

Topics that Army leaders should discuss include the following:

All soldiers corporal and above are leaders. They should be as diverse as is the U.S. citizenry and be prepared to lead others under stress whatever their other service competencies might be. As the Army accesses national samples of youth, it will find that it will change to meet the new generation's expectations, which in turn will bring about a cultural change in the Army. Despite this, as the nature of likely commitment broadens and traditional Army warrior values come under stress, the Army might require an increased "soldierization" of youth during their initial entry training.

Digitization of the battlefield vastly increases information flow vertically (by function) and horizontally (by echelon). Leaders do not act alone. They perform routinely as members of larger teams. Preparing leader-teams is as important as preparing individual leaders.(5)

America's Army is uniformly competent. Across selected functions and echelons, at least at the battalion echelon, the Active Army, the Army National Guard (ARNG), and the Army Reserve (USAR) share competence. These remarkable levels of citizen-soldier competence, created by training to common task, condition, and standard, have never before occurred in U.S. military history. This competence, combined with high personnel tempo across both Active and Reserve Components since the end of the Cold War, mandates a searching review of leader development policies and practices.