- Home
- Archive by category "Resilience"
This week, New America hosted a forum entitled “The Future of War”. The speakers included the Service Chiefs from the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, and the Air Force’s Vice Chief was on one of the panels. Add in panels representing academia, media, technology, and retired flag officers who aren’t afraid to speak their minds, and some short discussions about human enhancement and cyber (cyber rifle, anyone?), and it was an impressive, thought-provoking line up.
GEN Milley, in a conversation with Barbara Starr, talked a lot about acquisition and the (desperate, IMO,) need for acquisition reform. Many of his comments centered around the acquisition of a new pistol: a proven technology that is readily available at Cabelas. After many years, and hundred of pages (just in the requirements document – the rest of the documents would easily get the page count into the thousands, I’m sure), the top contenders are now undergoing a two-year, $16M test. To say the approach is slow would be an understatement, and GEN Milley does not even try to hide his frustration about that.
Presumably because the acquisition is so slow, and he knows what is in the pipeline, GEN Milley mentioned that he does not see any fundamental changes coming to the Army for the next 5-10 years. Beyond that, yes, but not in the next 5-10 years.
I have a number of concerns about this, as should anyone reading this. First, our primary adversaries (Russia and China) have not spent the past 15 years at war; while we have been depleting ours, they have spent that time beefing up their own arsenals.
But more importantly, to me, is that it assumes that fundamental change can only come through materiel. What about the human dimension? It is significantly faster and less expensive (though also significantly harder, due to necessary culture changes) to strengthen the human capital of the Army – the soldiers – both physically and mentally than it is to buy a new piece of gear.
Simply focusing on the Performance Triad in a meaningful way – making sure all soldiers get sufficient amounts and quality of sleep; good, healthy, nutritious food; and daily exercise – will increase readiness, reduce injuries, and increase performance. Eight solid hours of sleep at night. Eating right. Exercising daily – preferably in the afternoon, as that has been shown to increase the likelihood that soldiers will get the sleep they need in the morning. At no added cost to the Army. Going farther, there are techniques to improve training – physical and mental – thereby improving the capabilities of each soldier. Add in more physical monitoring – which many soldiers do on their own anyway – whether through a FitBit or any of the other commercial applications, and Army leadership can be proactive in maintaining the health and readiness of the force.
Near-term improvements – even fundamental changes – are possible, and will result in a stronger, more prepared Army. But they require changes to the Army’s culture.
On second thought, acquisition reform might be easier.
Every October, the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) holds a conference. It is quite the event. Especially if you like looking at the Big Toys being sold to the Army. The Washington DC Convention Center is filled to the brim with tanks and helicopters and everything else you can think of.
Besides the various materiel, and social events, and athletic events (Army 10 Miler anyone?), there are also Professional Development Opportunities, full of panels on different Army-centric topics, and always with an impressive lineup of speakers. This past year, for the first time, I attended one of the Family Forums.
The panel included Secretary McHugh, just a few weeks before his retirement, GEN Milley, and SMA Dailey. The focus of the panel was Taking Care of Soldiers and Their Families. If you take care of your people, they’ll take care of the mission.
Very few 17-24 year old Americans are eligible to join the military, even using fairly low standards. Obesity and academic performance (graduating from high school and obtaining a minimum score on the ASVAB) are two of the key reasons.
But even once they’re in the Army, many young people do not succeed in boot camp and in their initial years in the Army. I’ve heard that 1/3 of recruits do not complete their initial term. That’s a huge number.
SMA Dailey opined that part of the reason for so many issues in boot camp is that recruits enter the Army having never failed at anything before. Their parents, school systems, even athletic organizations (participation trophies anyone?) protected them so much that many fail for the first time in boot camp. Here’s the thing: boot camp is designed so that everyone will fail. How can they build you up if you they don’t break you down first? (Also, there’s that thing about the enemy not caring if they hurt your feelings.)
So everyone fails at boot camp. Hopefully, everyone also recovers from that failure. That’s what resilience is all about. But many recruits, having had no experience in recovering, don’t know how.
Since October, I’ve been thinking a lot about resilience. Has our society become less resilient? Is the amount of PTSD more “proof” that soldiers today are weaker than soldiers of WWII? Or has it just become more acceptable to admit your weaknesses? Or, maybe, it’s both.
My contention is that there are two forms of non-resilience:
A baby is born and, assuming all else is equal, will hit certain milestones within standard windows. A baby who tries to stand and falls down will, generally, try again. Some will take longer. Some will get frustrated. But they will (again, with all standard caveats), eventually, walk. But as children age, far too often, parents step in and help the child. So the child stops learning how to pick himself up and try again. This is learned non-resilience.
On the other hand, some children – some people – are just softer. They do not have the emotional reserves to try again. This could be because they never had them. This could be because they’ve already reached their emotional limits and have nothing else to give (either until they heal, or ever, depending on the depth of their scars). This is natural non-resilience.
It is pretty important for the Army to distinguish between these groups. But simply conducting resilience tests may not provide the necessary data. As I said: these distinctions are MY idea, and they are totally untested, and I’m unqualified, in a have-the-professional-background-to-prove-it kind of way, to know whether both groups would test the same way.
But I do know this: WMC (see last week’s post) has been correlated with resilience. Because it is not a direct test of resilience, I believe that it will show the individual’s ability to learn to be resilient.
If we know that the person can be resilient, boot camp becomes the perfect place to teach them. Preferably without breaking them.
© 2016, Analysis First LLC