You’ve undoubtedly heard much about “The Point” in the media recently, with much of that news negative. First, the world was introduced to a former cadet, Spencer Rapone, whose images and anti-American rantings on social media ignited a firestorm of controversy. In short order, retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Heffington, a former history instructor at West Point, released a sworn statement documenting a bitter encounter with Rapone from 2015. This week, Colonel Heffington followed that statement with an “open letter” to West Point graduates, in which he levied a stinging series of accusations against the Superintendent, staff, and faculty of the institution.

Unfortunately, I can’t really provide any personal context or commentary behind the actions of Spencer Rapone; he was a “Firstie” in another regiment during my Plebe year and we had no interaction. His social media activity, however, is both disconcerting and disturbing. Regardless of his military status, the fact that he finds it necessary to blatantly violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice is another issue entirely. I’ve heard rumors of current instructors substantiating Colonel Heffington’s assertions from his sworn statement; from Rapone’s demonstrated online behavior, it’s probably not much of a stretch to assume that he was openly disrespectful to instructors. Beyond the fact that no one here who remembers Rapone seems to have a positive opinion of him, I can add nothing to that discussion.

However, I have mixed feelings about Colonel Heffington’s open letter to the “Old Grads.” A good deal of what he wrote is not necessarily untrue, but several of his accusations rely on information to which he was not privy on a regular basis. As I sit with his letter before me, I want to address some of those accusations and provide context from my perspective as a cadet.

“…2LT Spencer Rapone — an avowed Communist and enemy of the United States…”

Honestly, I think this is a somewhat “over the top” statement. I understand that Rapone is a “card-holding member” of whatever analog to the Communist Party exists in our country, but I think that we forget that he also deployed in support of military operations, and (so far as we know) has not acted to sabotage those operations. Not to minimize his actions on social media, but I’m not sure that the “Better Dead than Red” mentality is a good enough reason to declare him “an enemy of the United States.” Derelict in his duties? Probably. But saying he is an enemy of the state is a bit much, I think. But, that’s only my opinion.

“…standards at West Point are nonexistent.”

I completely disagree with this statement. Below a certain Grade Point Average, cadets lose all privileges. Period. Civilian clothes, passes, trip sections, sometimes even Spring Break. Fail to pass your Indoor Obstacle Course Test? Same deal. Hell, even the classic Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) standards are not enough. APFTs are evaluated for a letter grade: if I’m not mistaken, 180 is a “D” while a perfect score of 300 only earns a cadet an “A-”. If you want an “A”, you need to “superscore” the test. If cadets fail to meet the physical minimums set for their class, they lose all privileges and are placed on remedial workouts until meeting these requirements. And, just to maintain privileges as a Firstie, you need to score a minimum of 250 on the APFT.

I could continue with a point-by-point rebuttal of the accusations made in this paragraph, but it’s fair to say the majority of his sweeping assertions are not supported by facts. I will say that our current Commandant most certainly enforces the standards. He has been known to bring in a cadet’s entire chain of command, to include the TAC team and instructors, to explain why a particular cadet failed to shave that day. The standards not only exist, they are routinely enforced.

“Every fall, the Superintendent addresses the staff and faculty and lies.”

Again, I can’t speak with authority on the admissions process, so please take everything I say with a proverbial “grain of salt.” I am unsure as to what role a three-star general assumes in admitting individual cadets to this institution; Admissions is led by a colonel with a number of field grade officers operating in support. With respect to the assertion concerning sub-par standardized test scores (for example, the ACT), I am led to believe that the academy believes in the “whole-person” concept and cares about more than simply academic endeavors. If West Point admits someone with scores in those ranges, there are other accomplishments in consideration (preparatory school, etc.) that assures the admissions team that the prospective cadet can meet the academic standards.

I would very much like to meet the cadet Colonel Heffington refers to as “illiterate.” Often, the textbooks we use are “custom made” and riddled with small errors that may make them difficult to read. To infer that there are people here so dumb they are unable to read is a fanciful notion that, in my opinion, contradicts his claim that his comments come from a place of “intense devotion and loyalty.”

“The Cadet Honor Code has become a laughingstock.”

Absolutely not. I think there is a misconception here that the Honor Code is a tool used to separate cadets with character flaws at odds with the code itself. The level to which we are expected to cite academic documents is the stuff of legend here. If we forget a source used in a cited work, we are subject to an Honor Board, one of the penalties of which is separation from the Academy. Obviously, if cadet is so morally odious, the Honor Code should be used as a separation metric, though that is usually not the case. Ultimately, dadet perception of the Honor code is at complete odds with the picture painted by Colonel Heffington in his letter.

Every year, we hear about cadets unsure of their graduation status because their case is being decided by the Superintendent the day of graduation. It’s not uncommon for a cadet to learn on graduation day that an Honor Code violation is preventing them from graduating with their class. The Superintendent has to weigh the merits of someone who, if part of an ROTC program not subject to the same rigid Honor Code, might be a good officer, otherwise. This is not to say that a cadet shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions, but there is a reason we have certain event-specific punishments that allow someone to “dig themselves out of a hole.”

“Academic standards are nonexistent.”

The main point of Colonel Heffington’s argument is that the Academic Board process is flawed and doesn’t typically result in the separation of cadets who routinely fail classes. I can attest to the fact that the current Dean’s policy is to separate cadets who fail the same class more than once. I have witnessed this with many cadets, so I am not entirely sure of the basis for his assertion. If a cadet fails different classes, each only a single time, their case still goes before the Academic Board for review, after which the board submits a recommendation to the Dean’s office. It’s worth noting that the Academic Board is not usually capable of seeing the whole picture when it comes to the individual life of a cadet, so the final decision falls on someone with legal authority. Separating a cadet is not a simple matter; many people are invested in the success of every cadet here, and because someone is having a rough year academically is not reason enough to separate them. In the end, however, the insinuation that cadets can simply fail until they pass is simply untrue.

“Curriculum has suffered”

On this point, I have very little to contest Colonel Heffington’s statement; this is his department. I think his deep personal passion in this area is evident and, as such, might be somewhat overstated. During my time at West Point, I took U.S. History and, while I might not have received the greatest grade in that class, I certainly did not come away thinking it was framed to be anti-American. Likewise, I took a class in international history class focused on a region of the world related to my assigned language. Latin American history taught me about the volatile nature of governments in South America between the 17th and 20th centuries, but I don’t remember learning anything about gender and have absolutely no idea what Colonel Heffington might have been referencing.

As far as removing a semester of military history, the faculty replaced a 19th century military history course with one more focused on modern conflict to accommodate the supplementary engineering tracks non-engineering majors take. History majors are still required to take both courses. Personally, I like this. I still get my World War II fix, but also get to learn about Nuclear Engineering and Chemistry. I don’t think I’m suffering all that much, considering that we still have dedicated military science courses and summer field training pretty much every year.

“Conduct and discipline are in the worst shape of all”

Boy howdy, is this one a doozy. I am unsure of the cadets with whom Colonel Heffington interacted to leave him with such a strong negative opinion on the current state of the institution. I have NEVER seen a cadet snap or interact unprofessionally with an instructor, to the extent he describes in his letter. To offer some perspective on the issue of civilian clothes, we currently DO enforce the requirement that 4th class cadets leave in the prescribed duty uniform, as outlined in policy. It’s not a huge infraction, but it’s punished accordingly, typically with a negative counseling for a first-time offense. Sometimes — as was the case my Plebe year — this policy is adjusted to account for security concerns, such as large numbers of cadets gathering in highly public places like New York City.

In the case of cadets wearing civilian clothes in the barracks or around post, we have specific policies that address who is authorized to wear what type of clothing, and where. If the Firstie mentioned by Colonel Heffington was in the state he described in his letter, I have no doubt that he would be punished via his TAC team. But, if he was within his privileges as a Firstie, Colonel Heffington would very much be in the wrong. First- and Second-Class cadets (Seniors and Juniors) do not need to observe Evening Study Period and have extra privileges with respect to the wear civilian clothes. While Old Grads who did not enjoy these privileges might be upset to read this, it is authorized. I’m not surprised that the Brigade Tactical Officer (a colonel) would address this with directly with Colonel Heffington; there are often “differences” in expectations between officers working under the Dean and those working for the Commandant. The officers serving under the Commandant exercise command authority over cadets, which is why they have the final word when it comes to administering punishments (something they are not afraid to do).

“Senior leaders are intimidated by cadets”

I am not exactly sure who Colonel Heffington defines as a “senior leader,” but I can assure you that the Commandant (a brigadier general) is not at all afraid of cadets. Honestly, I am not sure if he has any fears at all. He routinely spot checks cadets and, sometimes, entire companies, to ensure they are doing the “right thing.” In my time at West Point, I have never had the impression that any officer is afraid to correct a cadet, much less a senior field grade officer. The same can be said of the non-commissioned officers assigned here. They very much are fearless when it comes to making corrections.

If you want my honest assessment of Colonel Heffington’s letter, here it is: as a cadet, I disagree with most of it. I think that, as a whole, he is upset with the administration and is using his newfound platform to voice his opinion in hopes of incite some change in the direction he sees as necessary. Much of what he writes can be attributed to the fact that personnel assigned to academic roles are often oblivious to cadet life outside the classroom. Teachers have subjects they need to teach, and shouldn’t be bothered with an OPORD of an upcoming weekend training operation. I doubt that Colonel Heffington, even at his rank within the academic department, was privy to all of the cadet-specific information regularly put out by the Brigade Tactical Department and the Commandant’s Office. I don’t disagree that oversight of cadet personal conduct is necessary, and actions need to be taken to ensure that the behavior of a cadet (along the lines of Spencer Rapone) should be corrected before it escalates to the level we’re seeing today. But, to portray this as a systemic issue is a stretch. While many of the cadets with whom I’ve spoken agree with some portions of Colonel Heffington’s letter, most can’t shake the fact that it reads like an Old Grad’s “The Corps Has” ramblings.

On a personal level, I think that Colonel Heffington’s letter further exacerbates an already sensitive situation by striking at the credibility of West Point in a way that can’t be addressed to any meaningful degree. His status as a graduate and former professor elevate his opinion above most others, which only amplifies the negative repercussions. Colonel Heffington undoubtedly contributed a great deal to our Army and our nation, and is deserving of his retirement and his opinion. Despite this, I feel compelled to say that I disagree with the majority of his letter.

I’m a guy who loves a good, well-deserved punch. I grew up knowing that, from time-to-time, I would have to be able to stand my ground and defend my values and beliefs. I never shied away from a fight, even when the odds were stacked against me. I never started a fight, never threw the first punch, but also never backed down. I was stubborn, I was young, and I had a temper. Not a good combination. And I was 17 years old when the police first introduced me to the concept of the legal consequences associated with inflicting physical harm on someone, even if they had it coming.

But the temper never really faded and I still had a strong taste for schoolyard justice. In the late 80s, when a group of protesters burning the United States flag on the steps of the Tennessee state capitol were beaten senseless by a ragtag collection of bikers, I applauded. I cheered more when, after their arrest, the judge fined them each a dollar and sent them on their way. I thoroughly enjoyed the entire spectacle and it was a hot topic in the First Sergeant’s office.

Except the First Sergeant wasn’t amused. He was pissed.

“Sir, you might not like it, but them boys have rights.”

“How do you figure, Top? They were burning the flag. They deserved what they got.”

“No, sir. The Supreme Court said that it’s free speech.”

“That’s bullshit. How can burning the American flag be free speech?”

“I don’t know, but it is. And you swore and oath to support and defend the Constitution. So, you might not like it, but it’s your job to defend it.”

“Well, shit.”

It’s been nearly 30 years since that conversation. I still don’t like it when I see someone burning the flag, but at least I understand. After spending most of that 30 years defending their 1st Amendment right to free speech (among others), I begrudgingly accept the fact that just because I don’t like what I see (or hear), my oath wouldn’t mean much if I didn’t stand behind it.

Fast forward to the aftermath of a fairly tumultuous inauguration day, and I find the internet ablaze with people celebrating “the sucker-punch heard around the world.”

Now, I think most of us can agree that the recipient of the punch, so-called white-nationalist Richard Spencer, is pretty much the epitome of what the Urban Dictionary defines as a “douche canoe.” His views are offensive, his rhetoric antithetical to our national values, and his haircut, well… reminiscent of a bad day from a Three Stooges film. He’s also quite proud of his Pepe the Frog pin, which has become an internationally-recognized symbol of hate and intolerance. So, yeah, not exactly the guy you want to exchange cards with on Valentine’s Day.

The only thing? The Constitution protects his right to be an asshat.

If anything, this is Karma coming full circle, in the form of a hooded and masked version of the aforementioned “douche canoe,” who throws a punch like my sister after a few too many glasses of wine, then proceeds to run away, ostensibly to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. Looking back on the flag burning incident at the Tennessee capitol, at least those bikers had the courage to face off against their opponents, and hung around to face the music when the law arrived. So, while I have no sympathy for Spencer, I also have no respect for the act of moral cowardice shown by his antagonist.

C’mon, man. If you don’t like what the guy is saying, at least have the guts to face off with him, debate him in public, hell… challenge him to a battle royal on the streets of DC. If you feel obligated to throw a punch, then don’t make it a sucker-punch. Go mano-y-mano, toe-to-toe. Stick around to pay your $1 fine (or whatever it is today). Take off your mask and hood. Let everyone know it was you and what you stand for… but don’t level a cheap (and poorly-thrown) sucker-punch and run away. That makes you no better than the knucklehead you punched.

As I watched the internet celebrations gain momentum, I weighed in on a couple of the more animated discussion threads. Some were led by servicemembers who clearly don’t fully understand the meaning of their oath (I get it, I was once in the same boat), but many more were generated by some of my more liberal friends, most of whom haven’t sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but would vigorously defend it if pressed. In most cases, it was just schoolyard banter. “We’ve been punching Nazis since World War II!!” “It’s our duty!” Throw in images of Captain America or Superman going hell-bent for leather on Hitler, and you get the picture. (As an avid fan of comics, let me point out that neither Cap nor Kal-El would have run away after punching Hitler.)

Then I stepped into the swamp (literally, because the discussion thread was led by three highly-educated acquaintances who are mid-career officials in a traditionally free-thinking government department located in Foggy Bottom). These are people who, for years, have served as beacons of free speech and civil rights for me. People who would — as I mentioned above — vigorously defend the Constitution… or so I thought. In their post-sucker-punch reverie, they were taking turns shouting down another member of their department who pointed out that, as reprehensible as he might be, Richard Spencer has a Constitutionally-protected right to free speech. Hate the man, hate the speech, but respect the Constitution.

So, I added my two cents to the conversation. In fact, I used the example of the flag burning incident, explaining briefly how Spencer — no matter how much we may disagree with him — still has a protected right to free speech. That sucker-punch, as satisfying at it might seem at the moment, was both an assault on his person and the Constitution itself. A short, but reasoned response. Facts, not emotions.

“Counterpoint: Boston Tea Party.” came the first response.

“That’s not a counterpoint. It’s not even a point. That sucker-punch was no more right than throwing a brick through the window of Starbucks (a reference to the vandalism perpetrated by members of the same mob).” The Boston Tea Party was an inflection point in our history. It would be a bizarre stretch to compare the actions of the Sons of Liberty that night in Boston Harbor to some idiot sucker-punching a white nationalist and running away. But I rolled with it.

“The point is that violence is acceptable” in these cases. He went on to explain that the vandalism — specifically the destruction of property — was warranted in protest to the white nationalist movement. Spray-painting obscene graffiti, breaking windows, burning a limousine… all perfectly reasonable responses to the words of Spencer and others like him.

“Yeah, I’m sorry. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, even when it means protecting the rights of assholes like Spencer.” I get it. I really do. People like Spencer spew ideas that are blatantly inconsistent with our values as a nation, with our rights as citizens. But our own Constitution protects his rights to spew those ideas, even if we don’t like them, or if the realization of those ideas would threaten our own rights.

“… I have sworn an oath to violently oppose anyone who threatens to infringe upon my 14th Amendment rights.” Okay, I think he meant either the 15th or 19th Amendments, but chose to let that slide.

Then another commenter weighed in: “… we have a moral mandate to use violence. It might be illegal, but it’s morally correct.”

“So,” I responded, “if I saw you burning a flag and decided to run up and punch you, that would be okay?”

“No, that would be wrong and illegal. The Supreme Court recognizes that as free speech.”

At this point, I realized that I was knee deep in the swamp, but still quite bothered by the fact that people I thought to be well-educated and seemingly-intelligent could rationalize not just violating the civil rights of another, but committing a felony in the process. That such rationalization came so freely and easily to them was a matter of no small concern. That they appeared to have such a flexible interpretation of the Constitution was even more disconcerting.

I’m not advocating for or even defending Richard Spencer (or any of his ilk). Hell, I’d like to punch him, too. The same way I feel like going full Negan when I see someone burning our flag. But, years of standing behind the Constitution — and an appreciation for the consequences associated with violating the rights of others — have tempered my attitude a bit. The words “We the People” have to apply to everyone — even those we don’t agree with or particularly like — or they mean nothing at all.

As far as Spencer and others like him are concerned, we have to be satisfied with the idea that “what goes around comes around.” Karma remembers, even if we forget.

Punching Nazis was originally published in Indivisible Movement on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

It was a conversation that’s been played over and over again. A child, embarrassed and humiliated, confessing to friends about a disturbing revelation from a family member. My cousin, who in his late 40s confessed to being homosexual, endured a similar fate. Family members who, despite well-paying jobs, couldn’t keep themselves out of bankruptcy court, faced the walk of shame. Friends who stumbled morally or ethically at some point in their careers eventually had to admit their failures. It happens. It’s part of life.

This morning, I overheard the familiar conversation from a group of undergraduate students just down the hall from my office door. The words were the same, the reactions similar to those I’d heard before. It could have been a revelation about a relative who identified as a transgender woman. It could have been a conversation about a close friend who admitted to committing a heinous crime. Or it could have been about someone who confessed to some bizarre form of forbidden love.

But it wasn’t.

“I just found out that my dad’s a Republican,” a young female student told the other four sitting at the table.

“Oh, no,” one replied.

“You mean like a registered Republican?” said a male student.

“Yeah. I’m so embarrassed. I thought I knew him.”

“That’s so weird. He seemed so cool.”

“Have you told your mom?”

“She already knew. She just never told me.”

“I’m so sorry. Are you okay?”

“No, I’m not. I feel so betrayed.”

“You should talk to someone.”

“I know. But who?”

“I don’t know. Someone.”

“Yeah, you can’t be the first person this happened to.”

“I just don’t think I can talk to him, now.”

“This totally sucks. But you’ll be okay.”

“Yeah, it’s not your fault.”

“Thanks. That means a lot.”

So, yeah, that really happened. You can’t make up something quite that good. Another time, another place, and it would have been the same conversation with a completely different context. Replace “Republican” with “axe-wielding furry” or “compulsive streaker” and you’d likely get the same reaction from the same group of friends, whether it was 40 years ago or today.

In today’s divisive environment, your political leanings are probably far more likely to stir controversy than any other aspect of your personal identity. The fact that I’m a registered Independent seems to confuse my friends and family members who identify as either Republican or Democrat. It used to be something they ignored, or assumed could be corrected with proper treatment. They were patient with me, almost patronizing. They tried to reason with me: if only I understood their party better, I’d see the light. But, now, I’m just an anomaly, a curiosity. They don’t loathe me as much as see me as “one off.”

So, it was with no small degree of amusement that I absorbed the conversation outside my office. I wore my ugly sweater today, but I really wished I’d had a “Make America Great Again” cap to sport when I walked past the group to get a cup of coffee. If there was ever a time I wanted to play the role of the political Elephant Man, it was then.

“I am not an animal… I’m a Republican.”

Instead, I had to be content to tell the story. It’s a low down dirty shame.

The following post was penned by a U.S. Army soldier, who also happens to be a woman and represents a racial minority in the armed forces. Her previous post, The Irony: An Unequal Application of Gender Equality, remains the most widely-read post on The Pendulum and continues to draw comments from readers. The views of the author are her own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army.

INTRODUCTION

Diversity, equality, and inclusion have once again fought their way to the forefront of issues in the U.S. Army as societal change has paved the way for subsequent policy change. Research and countless studies have acknowledged that there is value in organizational diversity — it can become a competitive advantage by increasing creativity, innovation, organizational flexibility, and problem-solving capabilities.[1] It’s simple: People with different backgrounds offer different ways of looking at problems, leadership, and the world. The Army has made several policy adjustments in an effort to promote diversity and inclusiveness. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed in 2010, and homosexual Soldiers can now openly serve. The Combat Exclusion Rule was lifted, and females can now serve in all Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs). And in the past year, the Army granted long-term religious accommodations to Sikh Soldiers to allow for turbans and beards.

While the U.S. Army has taken an active role in promoting diversity, equality, and inclusion, some of the policies we’ve implemented or may implement run counter to the alleged goals of these policies and are potentially detrimental to merit-based talent management. I’ll provide a snapshot of the current state of diversity, equality, and inclusion policies and initiatives in the Army. Then, I’ll unpack the rationale behind these policies and movements. Ultimately, why are we doing what we are doing, and does it make sense? Finally, I’ll conclude with recommendations.

CURRENT CONDITIONS AND POLICIES

The most obvious manifestation of the Army’s diversity efforts is the Equal Opportunity (EO) Program. Army EO provides education for the force and a channel for Soldiers to report discrimination. The Army’s website states the goal of the EO Program is “to cultivate and sustain an environment free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior.”[2] Discrimination and offensive behavior very clearly exhibit themselves in either discriminatory policies or discriminatory people. Therefore, we should direct our efforts toward modifying or removing policies and people, rather than nebulous issues such as alleged inherent systemic discrimination. Identify a sexist person and we can remove him or her. Identify a racist policy, and we can change it. What would happen if I asked you to describe institutional discrimination against female service members? What does that look like? Where is the evidence of such systemic discrimination? There is plenty of evidence for discriminatory policies and people, which — as a whole — results in large-scale discrimination, sure. But we can rationally confront this through recognizing the problem: policies and people.

No discriminatory policies exist that preclude an individual from serving. The desegregation of the Armed Forces occurred in 1948 with Executive Order 9981.[3] Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed in 2010.[4] The ban on women in combat arms positions was lifted in 2015.[5] The ban on transgender Soldiers was lifted in June of 2016 and the Pentagon has announced it will provide gender-reassignment surgery to some active-duty transgender service members if a military doctor determines that surgery is necessary.[6] Individuals from all faiths are allowed to serve as long as their religion is not associated with an extremist organization.

Discriminatory people will always exist, and Army EO has established systems to identify people who display discriminatory behavior in order to punish or remove them from the organization. I think we can all agree that those who discriminate based upon race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation don’t have a place in our Army. If our goal is to assign the right person to the right job at the right time, then discrimination based on any of these demographics is detrimental to meritocracy and talent management.

In addition to addressing discriminatory policies and people, the Army EO Program also identifies and compares trends in the statistical demographic profiles of major Army commands, the entire Army, and the United States population. Disparities are identified and examined. For instance — why is the percentage of Asian Pacific Islanders in the United States x%, but only y% of Asian Pacific Islanders are represented in the Army? Army publications vaguely define success. Guidance straight from the top — The Department of Defense Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity — says, “We are working to build our military into a force that is representative of the nation it serves and protects.”[7] This activity led by the Army EO team doesn’t combat discriminatory people or policies, but more so focuses on the perception of discrimination based on statistical disparities. This rationale can potentially pave the way for quotas for particular demographics. Just this October, the U.S. Air Force announced it will mandate diversity quotas with the aim of increasing opportunities for women and minorities.[8]

Aside from EO, the second method I’ve seen used to promote diversity is the creation of sub-groups and diversity recognition campaigns. In 2013 at Fort Bragg, the 16th Military Police Brigade established the Women in Uniform female mentorship program in order to “help better develop female Soldiers in the unit and support strong women leaders.” The 369th Adjutant General Battalion initiated a parallel effort in 2014 and Fort Jackson currently hosts a similar program. The ROCKS, Inc. is a mentorship program for active and former African-American officers. In a 2012 speaking engagement with The ROCKS, Inc. and an audience of mostly African-American Soldiers, former Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno said, “It doesn’t matter what race you are, an officer is an officer is an officer, and what we need to know is why we’re not meeting what we believe are proper numbers for our diverse Army.”[9] What did General Odierno mean by the “proper numbers?” This Veteran’s Day, Lean In Women Veterans and Think Broader championed an “I serve/served” awareness campaign to “promote the diversity and celebrate the accomplishments of women who serve or have served.”[10] Do these sub-groups and campaigns encourage divisiveness instead of inclusiveness? Do these groups and movements alienate others in the organization by highlighting differences?

ANALYSIS

Fundamentally, it seems some of these policies and initiatives are based on assumptions that ignore basic principles of rationality and ultimately undermine diversity and inclusiveness efforts.

Areas of the EO Program that address education and grievances are valuable. Educating Soldiers and providing a mechanism to report discriminatory policies and people are important. Where I would offer criticism for the EO Program is its lack of transparency and vague allusions to “diversity goals.” Furthermore — whether organizationally sanctioned or not — sub-groups and diversity campaigns undermine unity and inclusiveness.

EO initiatives that promote diversity goals, statistical demographic profiles, or quotas are logically flawed. Their existence is justified by assuming that systemic discrimination inherently exists and a goal or quota will bring equality to the system. There is no evidence to support this. I offer two basic facts: A statistical disparity does not equal discrimination and correlation does not equal causation. The fact that female officers only make up 4% of the top Army ranks does not necessarily indicate systemic discrimination exists.[11] Countless variables could contribute to this statistical disparity. Again, there are either discriminatory policies or discriminatory people. If either of those two phenomena are potentially the cause of a statistical disparity, reporting channels exist to investigate those allegations. So is the goal equal opportunity, or is it equal results? A lack of transparency can make motives seem disingenuous and cause cynicism. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said “What matters most is what someone can contribute.” If that’s the case, why has the Air Force established female and minority quotas for certain positions? Will the Army follow suit?

Though not mutually exclusive, there is the potential for friction between diversity and meritocracy. Who decides which of these is more important for the organization? What’s the priority? Rationally, fighting our Nation’s wars is serious enough for merit and ability to trump diversity. However, as U.S. military organizations begin to promote diversity goals and implement quotas, the lack of transparency grows and distrust intensifies.

Demographic profile goals, quotas, minority sub-groups, and diversity campaigns are counterproductive to the genuine organizational integration of minorities because — while well-intentioned — they defy logic in many ways:

• Quotas and goals are essentially a patronization of minorities. As a racial minority female, quotas stipulate that since I am incapable of earning a particular position based on my own merit or ability, I need the organization to improve my potential for success based on my gender and race.
• Quotas and goals perpetuate stereotypes: “The only reason he got that job is because he is Hispanic.”
• Quotas and goals create a perception of “equal results” as the goal instead of “equal opportunity.”
• Quotas and goals fundamentally contradict the principle of gender, sexual orientation, color, and religious “blindness” in talent management. Instead, they do just the opposite.
• Minority sub-groups and campaigns create divisiveness by seeking celebratory attention for minority groups for nothing more than their existence in the organization.
• Minority sub-groups and campaigns undermine inclusiveness by highlighting differences that make minorities special, while simultaneously advocating for minority-blindness.

RECOMMENDATIONS

How can we best address equality of opportunity and inclusiveness in our organization? First, we should minimize officially-sanctioned minority sub-groups and campaigns. These initiatives quite literally highlight the differences between us, instead of working toward forging a unified, difference-blind team. On a micro-level, if you were to take a squad of Soldiers and single out a homosexual Soldier or a female Soldier for recognition and celebration within the squad for doing nothing more than merely existing as a minority, it would very quickly cause resentment and cynicism. In the same manner, when organizations and groups do this on a macro-level, byproducts include resentment and divisiveness. No one should be discriminated against because of gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation. Similarly, no one is any more special than another based on their gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation. It goes both ways! The act of dividing our organization into exclusive minority groups and special campaigns contradicts the ideas of inclusiveness and integration.

To promote equality of opportunity, we should remove names, genders, religions, races, and photos from ERBs and ORBs for selection boards for promotion and nominative assignments. Candidates won’t earn the opportunity to interview if they don’t advance beyond initial minority-blind screening. If we want equality of opportunity, “minority blindness,” and the removal of alleged institutional discrimination, this is a potential method.

We need more transparency. The Army hasn’t explicitly stated that it won’t compromise standards in the name of diversity. Army leaders and publications have only used vague language. The Army’s Diversity Roadmap says one goal is to, “Develop and implement a strategy that contributes to mission readiness while transforming and sustaining the Army as a national leader in diversity.” A statement like this is largely meaningless. The Army certainly doesn’t owe an explanation to its Soldiers. However, if the aim is to change culture, then clearly explaining what we are doing and why we are doing it is crucial.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, the organization absolutely cannot compromise standards. The expectations of our Army are far too serious for us to allow less-qualified individuals to permeate our organization in the name of diversity. Diversity is certainly beneficial — but not beneficial enough to justify deviating from established standards. What can my fellow minorities do to promote inclusiveness and diversity appreciation in the Army? First, do your job, and do it well. Second, use appropriate channels to report discriminatory people and policies — they have no place in our Army. Third, as leaders, always be fair and impartial, and take a hard look at yourself to identify potentially discriminatory biases you hold.

[1]. Nicola M. Pless and Thomas Maak, “Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes and Practices,” Journal of Business Ethics 54: 2004, accessed November 7, 2016, and Jacqueline A Gilbert, Bette Ann Stead, and John M Ivancevich, “Diversity management: A New Organizational Paradigm,” Journal of Business Ethics: 1999, accessed November 8, 2016.

[2]. “Army Equal Opportunity Program,” last modified March 21, 2014.

[3]. “Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the Armed Forces,” accessed November 13, 2016.

[4]. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010,” accessed November 8, 2016.

[5]. Bill Chappell, “Pentagon Says Women Can Now Serve In Front-Line Ground Combat Positions,” NPR, December 23, 2015.

[6]. “Army Directive 2016–35, Army Policy on Military Service of Transgender Soldiers,” accessed November 8, 2016.

[7]. “DoD Diversity and Inclusion 2013 Summary Report,” accessed November 11, 2016.

[8]. “Fact Sheet: 2016 Diversity & Inclusion Initiatives,” accessed November 9, 2016.

[9]. J.P. Leipold, “Chief Asks for Mentorship Help from ROCKS,” April 3, 2012.

[10]. Women Veteran’s “I SERVE” / “I SERVED” Campaign, October 13, 2016.

[11]. Daniel Sagalyn, “Report: U.S. Military Leadership Lacks Diversity At the Top,” accessed November 11, 2016.

by Tim Stolinski

Today, I learned of another soldier whom I served with has passed on to Fiddler’s Green by his own hand. Sean Long was still a kid when I last saw him, barely able to grow a mustache. He was a 14S in 3rd PLT, E/1–43 ADA at Camp Casey, in the Republic of Korea. I was the platoon leader for 4th platoon. While I knew Long and saw him every day, we weren’t buddies. That’s just part of the job. My platoon and Sean’s platoon often trained together though, as they would both get attached to the same MLRS battalion. I can remember checking on him while making rounds to all the Avenger positions during one particularly sloppy training exercise. His whole platoon was more or less stuck in place, so I was running hot chow to them while my crews were on higher ground and able to rotate back in. Sean was a good soldier in a place where good soldiers were hard to come by. He did his job well and kept out of trouble. Not always the easiest thing to do.

So where does that leave us? Is that 22 or 20? Does it really matter? Another one of us is gone. Whether it was intentional or an accident, we’ve lost another brother needlessly. This seems to continue on without end, and that is unacceptable. Every day we see another person doing the 22 Push-up Challenge, but nothing really changes. There are few things more gut wrenching than seeing someone you care for struggle and not knowing what to do, to see someone slowly fade in front of you and feel helpless to stop it. We need to keep trying, though, each other is all that we have. Looking out for the person next to you doesn’t stop when the boots go over the wire.

I write this as a challenge to all of us. Check your buddy, stay in contact with as many people that you serve with as possible, reach out to the stranger (veteran or not) and show them you care. We all have a role in this fight. It’s time to move past what the VA isn’t doing. It’s long past time to stop complaining about civilians not understanding or caring. It’s time for us to step up and take action for one another.

A couple years ago, I met a Vietnam veteran at a charity fundraising walk for an Iraq and Afghanistan memorial in Buffalo, NY. I really didn’t want to talk to him that much. I wasn’t comfortable and I didn’t want to hear some old fart’s bellyaching. I was an Iraq vet. Different war, different time, different problems. This guy was persistent, though, and I’m grateful today that he was. The aging veteran told me that we (post-9/11 vets) need to stick together, stay in touch, because — whether we realize it or not — we need each other. It didn’t sink in very well that sunny autumn day. It’s starting to sink in now.

Please, reach out to someone. Even if you have no reason to think a person is struggling. We all carry wounds, most of which aren’t visible. Let someone know that there is another person out there who cares about them and is there to help. We’re dying, and we are the only ones who can save us.

Sean Long was a former NCO. He was a son, he was a brother, he was a person who was struggling. Not a number for the day. Sean Long was not a friend of mine, but he was a brother-in-arms and I weep for his loss.

Tim Stolinski is a former Air Defense Artillery Officer who served from 2006–2011. He now lives near Buffalo, NY with his wife, step-daughter, and five dogs. He currently works for the Department of Homeland Security. His opinions are his own and in no way reflect those of DHS or the United States government.

A Simple Proposal for a Simple Solution to a Simple Problem

by Edward M. Van Court

The Army has been identified as the executive agent for the Department of Defense’s search for a new service pistol, designated the Modular Handgun System. The goal is to replace the aging M9 Beretta 9mm pistol, so the contract could be for up to a quarter of a million pistols. The goal is to acquire a pistol for all soldiers and all seasons. The ideal pistol would be multi-caliber and compatible with numerous accessories like suppressors, laser aiming devices, and lights. This pistol would be the single pistol issued to every service member assigned a pistol, whether Special Forces and SEALs, pilots, military police, vehicle crewmen, or — God help us all — staff officers. *

On the other hand, insisting that the DoD get a single handgun for everyone authorized one, when anyone with a lick of common sense knows that SOCOM will acquire and issue whatever pistols they fancy seems like an exercise in futility. Look at the initial fielding of the M9; SOCOM immediately sent out the request for proposals that resulted in the acquisition of the Heckler & Koch Mk 23, and soon after, the M11 9mm from SIG was adopted for Naval aviators, concealed carry, and theoretically for female service members. It might make more sense to have SOCOM acquire the pistol for cool kids with all the accessories, bells, whistles, and decoders, while having the Army acquisition program focus on a pistol best suited for service members with more pedestrian needs in a sidearm. The things that matter most for service members issued pistols are safety, reliability, and simplicity. An APC driver doesn’t need a suppressor. A major on JTF staff doesn’t need a laser aiming device. A pilot does not need a bulky handgun with attachment points for exotic gadgetry. These soldiers need a pistol that is safe to handle, going to function every time. Most soldiers issued a pistol also need a compact sidearm.

There is no use in issuing a weapon a person cannot carry in their duty environment, which can often be very cramped, like the crew compartment of an armored vehicle, or the cockpit of an attack aircraft. Leave suppressors, laser aiming modules, infrared lights, under-barrel grenade launchers*, bayonets, and other novelties to SOCOM. Get a conventional pistol for conventional forces.

And more than a decade into the twenty first century, there is an answer.

Major George W. Schofield (brother of Lieutenant General John Schofield, the Civil War Medal of Honor recipient for whom Schofield Barracks in Hawaii is named) saw potential in the Smith and Wesson Model 3 revolver, and that potential lays the groundwork for a modern military sidearm. As a revolver, it is reliable with a minimum of potential failure points and in the event of a round failing to fire, the next round will chamber without having to clear the weapon. The break-top revolver is simple, with fewer components than a semi-automatic pistol in a similar caliber. Even the most basic double action revolvers have a half-cock safety as an integral aspect of their design, and the break top revolvers have a positive clearing mechanism that range personnel and leaders can easily verify. Distinctive to the break top mechanism is ease of one-handed operation. Release the catch, the barrel and cylinder pivot forward ejecting the shells, and the barrel can safely be placed into the soldier’s belt for reloading. Withdraw the pistol in the open configuration, tap the underside of the barrel on a firm surface, or even a thigh or forearm, and the pistol is fully loaded and ready to fire, without ever violating good muzzle discipline (as the open configuration, even loaded, is impossible to fire). The Schofield revolver was excellent, but still had room for refinement, and perhaps later refinements of the break top revolver offer concepts for the new U.S. military side arm.

Smith & Wesson Model 3

The catch that releases the barrel and cylinder to pivot forward on the Schofield revolver includes some improved features over earlier models, especially the hardened and replaceable contact surfaces where the greatest wear occurs, but could be easier to manipulate. Another venerable design offers an answer for the most modern military sidearm concept; the Webley revolver. The top break catch is operated with the firer’s thumb, and still is easily replaced if worn. While the original Webley catch is right handed, the design is amenable to adaptation for ambidextrous use.

Webley Revolver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like any revolver, a modern break-top would be adaptable for multiple calibers, especially if the basic design is chambered in .357 magnum (9x33mmR). With this, the pistol could fire .357 magnum, .38 Short Colt, .38 Long Colt, .38 special, and with minor modifications, NATO standard 9mm Parabellem (9x19mm). By engineering the revolver around the 9mm Parabellem chamber pressures (the highest of the aforementioned cartridges), and the length of the .357 magnum (the longest of these cartridges), a wide range of chamberings is possible. The break top is also suitable for use with half- or full-moon clips, allowing fast, easy reloading, and easy ammunition storage, transportation, and accountability.

• Ruger Security-Six
• M1917 revolver

An exciting possibility would be the integration of a “gas seal” system. In a gas seal system, as the hammer is cocked, the cylinder slides forward and engages the barrel, closing the cylinder gap. By closing the cylinder gap, all the force of the propellant is directed against the bullet in the barrel rather than being vented, wasted, and posing a minor safety hazard. This mechanism was pioneered in Belgium by Mr. Nagant in 1895, and his revolver design was widely fielded and remained in service until the first decade of the twenty first century, well over one hundred years of service.

Nagant M1895

Obviously, the best choice for a new U.S. military sidearm is a break top revolver for the twenty first century. ** The LeMat revolver, with its integrated shotgun barrel complementing nine rounds of conventional ball ammunition was popular in its day.

LeMat Revolver

*Because nothing, and I mean NOTHING, puts the fear of God into someone more than idea of an armed staff officer running around a command post loaded for bear with PowerPoint slides.

**Actually, an under-barrel grenade launcher on a pistol has potential. Hypothetically, a 15 to 18 mm (roughly between 20 ga and 12 ga) using a mechanism like the Russian muzzle loading GP-25 grenade launcher could give a person armed with a give you a very nice… edge. With a range of ammunition including flares, buckshot, and HE, it could give a soldier like a pilot in a survival situation a weapon that would be appropriate to a wide range of tactical needs.

GP-25 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward M. Van Court, Lieutenant Colonel, Military Intelligence, United Stated Army Reserve, is currently working on his memoir “From Seaman Recruit to Lieutenant Colonel; How the *!#% Did That Happen?” He has taught from third grade to graduate level including Army SROTC and ILE, served on staffs from Battalion to JTF levels, and has lectured on the evolution of military technology. He misses being a crewman on Coast Guard helicopters.

Memorial Day

May 30, 2016

Always a hard day. Mixed feelings of what my service meant, its utility, and how to honor those who did not come back. Nobody I served with died, I didn’t even know many who were wounded — a privilege of being Air Defense Artillery I suppose. So when I see others who share pictures of a friend lost I wonder if I was really part of it all. I don’t envy them, but I can’t fully understand it, as if I missed part of a game by coming in late. It’s always awkward when a person finds out you were in Iraq and assumes you lost friends.

One of my best friends had a soldier in his platoon in Korea who later shot himself in Afghanistan. I met him a few times. Rogers was someone I liked immediately. He was a specialist, and we were lieutenants. He hated the combat dodgers hiding in Korea even more than we did. He seemed more honest, more real than most others at Camp Casey. I only met him a few times.

So what to do today? Go to the parade, visit the cemetery so that I can feel like I did my duty of remembrance? That seems hollow. It’s an odd notion to think about all those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Knowing that it could have been me instead of almost any of them save for some twists of fate that all add up to some measure of improbability that I cannot calculate.

What if no ROTC scholarship was offered and I had enlisted after high school as an infantryman in 2002, as was my backup plan? What would have happened if I had branched any of my other top five choices besides Air Defense (Infantry, Armor, Engineer, or Field Artillery) in 2006? What would have happened if my branch transfer request from ADA to Armor had been approved in 2008 following my assignment in Korea? What would have happened if I was accepted into Civil Affairs in 2009? What if I had just resigned my commission after my required four years of service instead of requesting a Military Transition Team assignment in 2009? What if I had stayed in?

Six questions out of many that often circulate through my head. Some things I do know though. I served honorably. I met great people and made lifelong friends. I have no regrets about serving and would it it again in a heartbeat. I do wish some things had worked out differently, but that’s life. I miss it.

So as I sit here comfortably with my wife and dogs what is my lasting obligation and duty? A roll of the universal dice puts my happy ass on my couch and another person in the ground (or worse). So many others died and I remain. Survivors guilt? I don’t think so, but something is not right. Something lingers.

Displacement, inability to feel at home or part of a community. Seething contempt for anyone who doesn’t meet my standard for caring or not holding their share of this burden. But who am I to pass that judgement? What good does it do me? Great, I can say I did more, but that anger kills.

Memorial Day, time to remember those not with us. To honor them by enjoying our lives which they died to defend, and to be happy that I am still here to honor them.

This post was graciously penned by Timothy Stolinksi, a former Air Defense Artillery officer currently tripping the light fantastic for the Department of Homeland Security. The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security.

There’s a new sheriff in town. And his name is Eric Fanning.

From the moment he took the oath as the 22nd Secretary of the Army, people knew something was different about him. Despite the media’s bizarre obsession over his sexuality, that wasn’t it. Some speculated that it might have been his choice in designer silk neckties, but that wasn’t it. And it could have been his tumultuous confirmation process — Let’s hear a rousing “Bad Grandpa!” for Kansas Senator Pat Roberts — but that wasn’t it, either.

From the moment Secretary of Defense Ash Carter swore him into office, Eric Fanning owned social media. Like a boss.

U.S. Dept of Defense on Twitter

SecDef Carter administers the Oath of Office to the 22nd Secretary of the @USArmy @SECARMY Eric Fanningpic.twitter.com/iR0IosLPJZ

Perhaps in response to the seemingly incessant media references, those crazy kids at the Duffel Blog were first out of the gate.

Duffel Blog on Twitter

BREAKING: Army says reporters will attend SHARP over constant mention of openly-gay Sec. http://theduffel.co/1OO7oLu pic.twitter.com/Mp8doATT7f

To which the new Secretary was quick to respond.

Eric Fanning on Twitter

@DuffelBlog @Malcolm_Frost do you think the press can survive mandatory @USArmy death-by-PowerPoint training?

And the party was just getting started.

BG Malcolm Frost on Twitter

@SECARMY @DuffelBlog @USArmy I'm not sure the press can handle the truth... @Doctrine_Man

Doctrine Man on Twitter

@Malcolm_Frost @SECARMY @DuffelBlog @USArmy Somebody had to say it.pic.twitter.com/YJ69T5ATHD

Even the Army Times, often referred to by stick figure cartoons as the ‘National Enquirer of the Pentagon’, got into the game.

Oriana Pawlyk on Twitter

@Andy @BravoWWHL Weds mazel goes to newly confirmed @SECARMY! The Bravo realities & the military finally collide.pic.twitter.com/iT5IbPdNkM

The Oath Heard ‘round the Beltway echoed across the Twitterverse like an intellectual revelation from the Kardashians. Everybody who was anyone was talking about the newest service secretary, including the other secretaries.

Deborah Lee James on Twitter

I echo all of the congrats to my dear friend and wingman Eric Fanning. The @USArmy is in great hands!https://twitter.com/pentagonpressec/status/732738708126896128 ...

To which, it’s rumored, Fanning replied “Bullshit, you can be mine.”

Not missing a beat, the trained howler monkeys at the Duffel Blog opened the morning today on time and on target.

Report: Openly gay Secretary of the Army does job

And the Secretary’s PAO was waiting at the keyboard.

LTC S. Justin Platt on Twitter

BREAKING: @DuffelBlog writes great articlehttps://twitter.com/DuffelBlog/status/733632271756988416 ...

To be fair, the Duffel Blog doesn’t write anything but great articles. Ask them yourself.

Yes, 28 tweets into his tenure as the Secretary of the Army, Eric Fanning has shown the world his sense of humor, his ability to lead, and an incredible selection of designer silk ties. Oh, and he owns social media… like a boss.

One is a proven wartime senior commander long known for keeping a thumb on the pulse of the shifting dynamics of conflict and its impact on national security. The other is a seasoned scholar and mind mentored under the guidance of some of the most experienced foreign policy leaders our country has produced. Together, they form a intellectual powerhouse poised to pack a policy punch not seen in the Beltway since the heyday of Woodward and Bernstein.

Retired Lt. Gen. David Barno is a product of West Point, a member of the Class of Generals, the 1976 class noted for producing at least 33 general officers from a group of 855 graduates. He parachuted into combat at night in Panama during Operation Just Cause, commanded Rangers at Fort Lewis and Paratroopers at Fort Bragg, and pinned his third star at the young age of 49, the first in his class to do so. And he commanded the war in Afghanistan during a particularly tumultuous period as Washington’s focus shifted away from that region toward the Arabian peninsula. When he finally threw his boots over the wire in 2006, he emerged as one of the most prolific voices on foreign policy and national security, a role ideally suited for the square-jawed warrior scholar from New York.

After graduating magna cum laude from Cornell University, Nora Bensahel continued her education at Stanford, earning both her MA and PhD, while serving as a research assistant for former Defense Secretary William Perry. Fellowships followed at both Stanford and Harvard, as well as more than a decade at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. It wasn’t long before the think tanks took notice, and RAND provided a proving ground to hone her considerable skills. Joining the Center for a New American Security in 2011, it’s unlikely that anyone realized that a dynamic duo would soon form with Dave Barno, or that their careers would take parallel paths from that point forward.

Few professional partnerships have proven as meaningful to the national security arena as Dave Barno and Nora Bensahel. From their work together at CNAS to their writing for War on the Rocks, their fingerprints can be found on every major issue at stake in our nation’s capitol. In short order, they have become the E.F. Hutton of foreign policy and defense-related matters: When they talk, people listen. And for the next 20 questions, they’re talking to you.

1. You two seem to be everywhere these days. Are there limits to your creative energy?

Barno: Of course not. That’s what coffee is for. Lots, and lots of coffee.

Bensahel: Yes. May I take a nap now?

2. Recently, you wrote in Time about women registering for the draft. In your opinion, why does the Selective Service system lag so far behind in recognizing gender integration and equality? Is the current Selective Service System even relevant, anymore?

The Selective Service system was built for an era when only men served in combat. The Supreme Court has allowed women to be excluded from the draft because ground combat positions were closed to women. Since that is about to change, the draft exclusion no longer makes sense. Equal rights and opportunities mean equal responsibilities — and the most fundamental responsibility of citizenship is to defend the nation when needed.

Yes, the Selective Service does remain relevant today. As we recently wrote, the chance that the United States will have to fight a big war — with many hundreds of thousands of troops and high levels of destruction and casualties — remains very low, but since the consequences could be enormous, we must retain the ability to mobilize the population into national service. It’s the nation’s only deep reserve of military manpower. And changing the law now to register women could also send a strong deterrent message to potential U.S. adversaries who may question our willingness as a nation to fight big or bloody wars.

3. Both of you have dedicated considerable thought to how we develop our military senior leaders. What are we doing wrong? What are we doing right?

What we’re doing wrong: the number of opportunities for civilian graduate schooling has shrunk dramatically during the past couple of decades, which means that fewer and fewer military officers are being exposed to the broad diversity in thought that such programs provide. There’s too much uniformity in the backgrounds of senior leaders, and they are too operationally focused in a world of strategy and policy. And there’s too little formal education for senior leaders after they leave the war colleges — which is precisely the time that general and flag officers need to think far more strategically than they ever have before. We recommended ways to improve the development and assignment of our senior ranks some time back.

What we’re doing right: the U.S. military continues to maintain the most extensive professional military education system in the world. The most senior military leaders recognize the value of broadening assignments and encourage people to take them (even though officers further down the chain of command don’t always do so). And there are lots of good executive courses and short programs available for general and flag officers.

4. Your anecdote on the DA Form 31 stuck a nerve with a lot of people. Simplicity is a principle of war for a reason. Why do we seem to forget that so often?

Many things start out simple and become complex over time. We invaded Europe in 1944 using manual typewriters and carbon paper to draft directives. The 82nd Airborne Division’s operations order for the D-Day jump into Normandy was only a few pages long. DOD and the services today are densely packed with computers and cell phones, but have added layers and layers of new requirements on top of old ones rather than rethinking whether the old requirements even need to exist any more. The explosive growth in military staff sizes has added even more layers of unneeded work and complexity. And technology has been used to facilitate that complexity, rather than streamlining or eliminating unnecessary work. We think that the anecdote about DA Form 31 resonated so deeply because it is a very clear example that every member of the Army encounters on a regular basis, and which makes no logical sense at all.

5. Let me switch topics on you. Have we learned enough to save Afghanistan from imploding? If so, what are the right conditions for us to make a dignified exit?

Barno: We’ve recognized that we’re going to need to maintain a larger number of troops there than planned for an extended period of time — not tens or hundreds of thousands, but not just 500 or 5,500 either. Afghan forces are going to need Western advisors and dollars for many, many years into the future to be able to continue to fight. There is no illuminated exit sign in view.

Bensahel: I agree that the Afghan forces will continue to require very significant Western support for the foreseeable future. Withdrawing that support now would almost certainly cause Afghanistan to implode. Ultimately, though, the United States cannot determine whether Afghanistan becomes a somewhat stable country or not. That will depend on decisions made by the Afghan government and the Afghan people.

6. The situation in Iraq and Syria is increasingly complex. Can we have our cake and eat it, too? Or do we need to compromise and find consensus among the key actors in the region?

The problems of Iraq and Syria are nested inside an even bigger regional problem of the next Middle East. And violent jihadist ideologies originating in the region are cropping up all across the global stage — North Africa, Europe, East Asia, and even the United States. Some kind of compromise in Syria with Assad will do nothing to tamp down these flames. The United States and its allies are in for a multi-generational battle with no obvious solutions.

7. General James Mattis once told me that leader development was our greatest challenge in ongoing training efforts with the Iraqi Security Forces. How long will it take for them to develop the leadership culture required to secure their own country?

The ISF is never going to look like the U.S. military, and it was a mistake to try to build it in our own image. It will not develop the leadership culture required to defend Iraq unless it is at least somewhat protected from massive politicization and promotions unrelated to merit. An even more fundamental question, though, is whether members of the ISF can maintain the will to fight on behalf of the national government while the country further fractures along ethnic and sectarian lines. A deeply sectarian government won’t create a multi-ethnic armed forces that can fight credibly on behalf of the entire nation — and a sectarian Iraqi military is unlikely to defeat ISIS or keep both the Sunni minorities and Kurds on side. That looks like an irresolvable disconnect right now.

8. You both have extensive experience in the think tank circuit. Who do you think is best postured to see the future clearly? Why?

It’s always hard to see the future clearly, but the think tank environment has changed dramatically during the past several years in ways that make this an even more difficult challenge. The lingering effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the deep polarization of U.S. politics have dried up many of the funding sources that think tanks relied upon in the past. Donor interests — either political or commercial — are driving research agendas more than ever before. This often leads to research on narrow or relatively unimportant questions instead of more complex strategic problems. That undermines creativity and originality — which are exactly what’s needed to think about the future.

9. You’re churning out a new discussion topic every couple of weeks, now. How do you balance writing with all your other priorities?

Barno: We write, we teach, we do media, we do leader development, we have a book project. Weekends go away. Sleep goes away. I can’t remember what I was going to say next.

Bensahel: What an excellent question. If you figure it out, please let us know.

10. You’ve both had the opportunity to offer advice and counsel to a fairly eclectic group of senior military and government leaders. Who stands out to you as our most capable leaders?

Trick question: In other words, who are the dummies?

Seriously, we both have been impressed with Ash Carter’s four-star choices. He has tapped a slew of unconventional picks to lead the Pentagon (including Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson) and combatant commands (including the SOCOM commander taking over CENTCOM and the commander in Korea taking over as SACEUR in Europe). Few of his picks would have made the expected short list 18 month ago.

11. Who do you see as the rising stars in terms of influence and potential on the future?

By the end of this summer, all of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have taken office within a 12-month period — only the fourth time in history that has ever happened. That means that they and the newly appointed combatant commanders each have 3 to 4 years of running room in front of them. Down the road, they will be likely replaced by key players who right now are moving from the field into the Pentagon’s Joint Staff principal director jobs. The senior officers who are serving long tours in combat commands like Iraq and Afghanistan are also likely to move up to other key leadership positions once they rotate home to take advantage of their operational experience.

12. What makes you laugh?

The Duffel Blog. The 2016 U.S. presidential race. And of course, Doctrine Man.

13. You’ve both worked closely with Tom Ricks. Are the rumors true that his beard is actually a sentient being that uses the rest of his body as a host?

Not true. But his beard does have to be polygraphed separately to keep its TS SCI security clearance.

14. There’s nothing quite like the Beltway Grind. What motivates you?

Barno: Living half my week in Pennsylvania. In D.C. — coffee. Writing. Working out. Teaching. Coffee. Writing. Coffee. Red wine. More coffee. Repeat.

Bensahel: This is going to sound trite, but trying to make the world a better place, especially through teaching and mentoring the next generation.

Barno: Okay, what she said.

15. Tell me about the last good book you read.

Barno: First off, I’m appalled to confess that I read only a tiny fraction of the number of books I read fifteen years ago; it’s not just how I digest most content anymore. But I do read lots of parts of books. Probably my favorite last full book I’ve absorbed is Ghost Fleet, a novel about near-future war by P.W. Singer and August Cole. A stunning, prescient chiller.

Bensahel: William Perry’s My Journey at the Nuclear Brink. It’s a remarkable story of how and why the 19th Secretary of Defense has devoted his career to reducing nuclear threats around the world — and why he believes that the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe is greater today than it was during the Cold War. (Full disclosure: I worked as a research assistant for Perry when I was a graduate student at Stanford and he sat on my dissertation committee.)

16. If Hollywood invaded American University, who would direct the film adaptation? J.J. Abrams, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, or Woody Allen? Why?

Woody Allen. You can only imagine the daily humor in thousands of undergrad students encountering life for the first time. But it would have to be a comedy, because the students wouldn’t believe anyone would seriously want to take over the Davenport coffee lounge. Besides, only Woody Allen could adequately capture our favorite moment on campus last year: watching 40 ribbon-bedecked U.S. Army sergeants major (who came to hear us give a talk) encounter a gender-inclusive restroom for the first time.

17. iPad, Kindle, or old-fashioned book?

Barno: Yes, yes, and yes. Plus a Fire, and two laptops. Gotta have digits for ease of reading for travel, but otherwise I love having a real book in my hands. Even if I don’t read the whole thing.

Bensahel: Books. Why is this even a question?

18. You’ve been selected for an interstellar voyage to search for life in other galaxies, and you get to select a co-pilot from your former cronies at the Center for a New American Security. Who do you take and why?

Barno: Ummmm. Maybe Ellen McHugh, their director of operations. She’s Irish, a part-time EMT at Fairfax Fire and Rescue, and never loses her cool. Just steely and unflappable — even when she’s provoked. Which used to be often.

Bensahel: Definitely Ellen, but not as my co-pilot. I’d put her in charge of everything and get back to writing.

19. Tell me about the last really good movie you watched.

Barno: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot with Tina Fey. Comedy-drama that covered my time in Afghanistan — that was weird! We actually wrote a column on it. One of my closest former Army friends commented: “In the future, that might be the phrase that gets most associated with U.S. foreign policy over the last fifteen years.”

Bensahel: Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I’m pretty sentimental, so I really enjoyed how the eternal themes of the original movies are playing out with the next generation. Plus I loved that it had a strong female lead, steadily growing into her powers. I hadn’t realized that I hadn’t seen any role models in the original movies as a kid until I saw Rey and the other female pilots in this one. I even liked that there was a female commander on the Dark Side — showing that all people, male or female, are complex and fallible.

20. What’s next for you?

Barno: We’re waiting for the tryouts for live blogging the first Mars Mission. In addition to our other, earthly duties. Anything is possible.

Bensahel: Don’t we have a column deadline to meet?

“…what we do in life, echoes in eternity… ” — Maximus Aurelius

I named the Green Zone, and I am so sorry. I truly am. There, I’ve said it, in public. Funny, I don’t feel any better.

Since retirement, I’ve made a list of topics I feel compelled to write about. My career put me in so many places at the right time, and I have participated personally in so much history. These many events compel me to write, not so much to preserve their memory, but to add a personal perspective. In addition, maybe, to provide a younger generation with lessons so they can learn (or not) from my few successes and many mistakes. With the Green Zone in the headlines recently, I have moved this quickly to the top of the list, and believe me, I do not consider this a success.

I have a witness to confirm this story. However, he continues his service on active duty and I would never dime him out in public, taint him with his supporting role in this indecent act, and clearly shorten his career. I will ensure he receives this rant and allow him to comment in public if he so wishes, which I doubt. To protect his identity, I will refer to him only as the Force Protection Officer (FPO); more on that in a bit. I also admitted to naming the Green Zone in an Operational Leadership Experiences interview[1] with the Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth while I was a tactics instructor immediately after my combat tour. However, I think the only person who actually read the report was the poor interviewer who had to transcribe it.

First, let me dispel a couple incorrect inferences that many have drawn from the Green Zone name. In the summer of 2003, when I did this, there wasn’t a bit of green anything in this area of downtown Baghdad. It was one of the most heavily bombed and damaged areas of the city. Yes, there were some grass and tree groves; but nothing worked — no power, no sewer, and no running water. We watched as any remaining green quickly wilted under the summer sun. When we could get the water to run, we would flood these areas on our camp simply to try to keep the dust down. However, this only resulted in near Biblical sized swarms of flies. To this day, I can’t remember which smelled worse in the TOC, the open plates of SNIP or the piles of dead flies they created.

Next, “secure” was only a relative term when referring to the Green Zone. Yes, we did this to provide additional security around the Civilian Provisional Authority’s (CPA) headquarters in the Republican Palace, but it was by no means perfectly safe or secure. When we would leave our camp, in the Green Zone, to go to another location, in the Green Zone, we considered it a combat patrol — full combat gear, mission brief, force protection, etc. Those who lounged at unsanctioned, open-air cafes that popped up inside the boundaries as if they were sitting at a Starbucks in downtown DC did so at their own risk.[2] Of course, these where the same types who liked to go for a jog through the Baghdad Zoo every morning before we even thought of creating the Green Zone. I chalk this perception up to a chronic lack of situational awareness and wishful attitudes (sheep).

So if it wasn’t green and lush, and it wasn’t perfectly secure, how did it get its name? Well, there I was…

I was the S3 for 3rd Squadron, 2nd ACR, and we had arrived in Baghdad shortly after 3rd Infantry Division in May of 2003. After several changes of mission, the Regiment detached us and placed us in direct support of CPA. We moved to the area near the Republican Palace and found a location for our camp. We were some of the last to arrive to this part of the city’s version of the Oklahoma land grab. Therefore, our camp comprised of the former Ministry of Ministries (the largest shoe box shaped building I have ever seen) and the pyramid shaped office building for Saddam’s elite (or so we were told). Airstrikes had absolutely gutted both buildings and their surrounding compounds; living conditions were accordingly austere.

Our mission had three main elements — secure the palace, Al Rasheed Hotel, and conference center; oversee the personal security detachments for all CPA ambassadors; and provide security patrols for all CPA personnel as they moved throughout Baghdad and Iraq. The more patrols we could man, the more CPA could do (don’t go there). Clearly, the more combat power it took to secure our own FOB meant the less we could apply to our assigned missions — and this was a “mission first” environment.

As I developed relationships with the CPA operations staff and more importantly, their FPO, the complexity of the physical environment became apparent. Military units and all manner of three-letter agencies had grabbed whatever facility they could near the palace and established their own 360-degree security plan. We actually had guard posts creating fire plans and range cards with other FOB’s guard posts as reference points. A tank battalion across the four-lane street from us was in the same predicament. I mean, seriously, if a bad guy acted the fool in the right spot, he’d end up looking like Daffy Duck at the end of Duck! Rabbit! Duck!.[3] Since CPA didn’t have direct military authority to order the coordination of FOB boundaries across different brigades and divisions, the task fell to me.

A little known fact was that this area of town was already a controlled access area under Saddam’s rule, it already had some walls and gates (like Assassin’s Gate). The FPO and I realized we could build on this and show to all those disparate entities in this area that by working together, we could all be more secure and reduce force protection costs to our missions. This was going to be no easy task. Anyone who knows me knows that my negotiation skills are on par with a blacksmith’s. None the less, with the CPA FPO’s clout generally getting us in the door, we began developing and negotiating a consensus way ahead.

To do this, I used a laptop armed with a mission command software suite known as C2PC. I had mastered this software as a battle captain in Third Army/ARCENT’s G33 shop during a previous tour (remember, this was 2003, CPOF wasn’t close to fielding). Its overhead imagery database offered us a precise view of the urban terrain. Unfortunately, when either viewed on the laptop or projected screen, the gray scale imagery negated the doctrinal use of blue or black lines for unit boundaries; you just couldn’t see them. I had to use a color that stood out, especially since the boundaries were the crux of the matter. I chose bright green (you can see where this is going). But wait, there’s more!

In a room at CPA headquarters, we had gathered all pertinent commanders and chiefs of mission for the final decision and approval brief. It was a great brief. The FPO and I outlined current and future boundaries, control point responsibilities, and every other tactical detail. It was all already negotiated, so this briefing was merely a formality to set the plan in motion. At the end, the head table discussed it briefly amongst themselves then turned to me and said, “Approved! So what do we call this?” Caught flatfooted, I anxiously looked to the FPO standing next to me; he shrugged and stared blankly back at me. The whole room stared at me. I looked at the final slide and blurted out, “I don’t know sir, how ‘bout ‘Green Zone’?” A hand slapped the table and that was it.

I’m sorry, that’s it. For as many times as the world has been assaulted with the term, that’s the amount of thought that went into it. A foreign national contractor working in the FPO’s office showed the slides to a friend and reporter and the name took off. Somehow, some of my actual slides leaked and two have wound up on GlobalSecurities.org’s Green Zone webpage.[4] They’re the ones about a third of the way down, with the green lines, duh.

So what’s the lesson? I (we — yea, I’m talking to you FPO) failed to think strategically and control the narrative. Yes, the tactical realities of my existence at the time fully consumed me. We had nearly 1200 soldiers and 7 companies conducting nearly 40 daily patrols, securing diplomats, and defending Iraq’s “White House.” Yes, the pressure was on and I generally had about 32 hours of work a day, but what S3 didn’t. I simply needed to get this approved to save combat power for the mission. Excuse max range = zero meters; none of this mattered. The FPO and I should have taken the time to just think about it, if not consult others. No matter what level you are at, you must consider the operational and strategic consequences of your actions, beyond simple second and third order effects.

I did this way before FOBs started getting cooler and more PC names like Freedom, Victory, Liberty, and Union. Moreover, calling this zone something else would not have changed its nature nor diverted any of the enemy’s attention to other locations. It remained, and remains, the seat of national power in Iraq — it was always going to be a rocket magnet. However, think of every negative inference the name “Green” allowed — elite, exclusionary, safe, lush, clean, etc. Think of what you thought of every time you heard the term in the news, as recently as yesterday. I can’t speak to what this area became after my departure, maybe these false inferences are indeed facts today. I do know that during my tour and through the difficult years that followed, the name “Green Zone” did no one any favors. Even later attempts to rename it the “International Zone” have failed to overcome the original name.

This moniker echoes today in the news and haunts me. To the iron majors (XO’s and S3’s) of today, fully immersed in your tactical realities and achieving 36 hours of personal effort a day, please take the time to stop, detach, take stock, and think through your actions and their potential implications. I so wish I could simply tuck this memory away in that dark, moldy corner of my head I no longer go, but today’s headlines won’t let me.

God’s Blessings and Speed to all the Iron Majors!

- OCD (Old Cav Dik)

p.s. — In the cartoon, if you watch it, you’ll notice Daffy had the solution. After being briefed and wrongly shooting the duck yet again, Porky asks, “More Bwiefings?” And of course Daffy replies through the cordite, “More Briefings.”

Colonel Tom Isom (USA, Ret.) was commissioned an armor officer in 1988 and served in various armor and cavalry positions through battalion command and senior staff. He served two combat tours in Iraq, both with 3/2 ACR, one during Operation Desert Storm and another during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Since retiring, he has continued his service as a Veterans Treatment Court mentor and a volunteer for A Soldier’s Child and Endure Athletic Foundations. The views expressed in this post are those of the author.

[1] http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll13/id/155

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31692-2004Oct14.html

[3] http://kisscartoon.me/Cartoon/The-Bugs-Bunny-Show/Episode-117-Duck-Rabbit-Duck?id=30013

[4] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/baghdad-green-zone.htm