By Master Sergeant, Colonel (Ret) Dr. Larry Chandler
Like the book and television series, “The Highlander,” there should be “only one” generalist officer and we should address that officer as, “General.” When all our officers are generalist, the result will likely be the situation Admiral Kirtland Donald described to Secretary of Defense Gates in the 2008 report on the Taiwan nuclear weapons-related incident. See his remarks below. The bad news is that not much has changed. The USAF response to the Minot and Taiwan nuclear related incidents was to create three new major organizations, each organization with ~100 manpower positions. If the USAF stated one of the root causes of these two incidents to be, “The erosion of nuclear weapons expertise,” how is dividing the admittedly small number of nuclear weapons experts by 300 more positions requiring that nuclear weapons expertise a fix?
6.3. (U) The Declining Trend of Air Force Nuclear Expertise Has Not Been Effectively Addressed (U) There have been multiple reports over the last ten years that outlined the erosion of nuclear expertise in the Air Force. Most recently the February 2008 report of the Air Force Blue Ribbon Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies and Procedures stated that there "are some leaders with little, no, or dated nuclear experience who hold key positions in the USAF nuclear enterprise. including supervisors and enlisted members as well as squadron, group and wing commanders,"
6.3.1 (U) This investigation confirmed that the issues of nuclear experience and technical competency persist. Only half of the 22 commanders and vice commanders (0-6 and above) at the pertinent operational. engineering, and maintenance commands have a background in a missile-related field. Furthermore, the Investigation Team noted that some of these individuals in leadership positions lacked the technical and professional experience necessary to effectively analyze problems and develop sound solutions.
6.3.2 (U) This investigation identified several instances of a lack of wing, group and squadron leadership on the floor of the WSAs where build-up and disassembly of reentry systems occurs. The same observation was made during maintenance operations at the missile maintenance depot. As documented in this report the investigation Team identified many deficiencies in material control and work execution during tours of the WSAs and missile maintenance depot which should have been identified by the command's leadership.
Considering the situations described above by ADM Donald, some of us know the answer to the paramount question …”How could these incidents have occurred?” A: There can be only one generalist officer rank and these officers will be addressed as, “General.” If all the support officers are generalists, the “general” will have no expert captains - colonels to rely on to manage critical nuclear weapons maintenance and logistics organizations. The key to military success is developing the deep expertise of all the officers below the rank of general officer. For generalist to succeed they depend on organizations led and staffed by expert officers in each functional job specialty.
Sadly, now the USAF seems to have decided that all support officers (Officers who are not pilots) should be generalist, not experts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If that delusional conclusion were true, NFL teams would be composed of all left guards and professional baseball teams would be comprised of all right fielders. Teams of generalist players would be easier to manage because any player could play any position and it is less expensive to pay for generalist than for expert specialist. It is amazing that no senior officer has yet seen how dumb it is to allow the Director of Personnel (A1) to drive the USAF to support a policy of developing generalist support officers. In part two of this article, I will provide specific examples and additional evidence to support my main argument: The USAF desperately needs expert officers to lead munitions and aircraft maintenance organizations (i.e., support officers).
No comments:
Post a Comment