4 ms·

This is definitely the institutional culture within the US Army. Technical work is seen as being beneath an officer. I'm an officer in a specialized IT career f

This is definitely the institutional culture within the US Army. Technical work is seen as being beneath an officer. I'm an officer in a specialized IT career field (BA and MS in CS, starting a PhD program next year) and we constantly struggle against this culture. The Army wants us to have graduate degrees in engineering or scientific disciplines so that we can almost exclusively fill management positions overseeing enlisted troops, warrant officers, contractors, and low-level federal civilians with high school diplomas doing the technical work. Those of us who get hands-on to be in touch with reality, add value, and sharpen our skillset do so at risk to our careers. We are only rewarded for what we do as leaders, especially expanding our scope of responsibility (mission, people, budget, etc.). When I was an officer in the aviation branch, it was the same problem. The rewards for briefing PowerPoint slides were greater than the rewards for competently flying helicopters.

ethbr0 5y ago
> The Army wants us to have graduate degrees in engineering or scientific disciplines so that we can almost exclusively fill management positions The former AF/SF CSO observed that the lack of technical expertise in commanding officers is a problem. [0] > Please stop putting a Major or Lt Col. (despite their devotion, exceptional attitude, and culture) in charge of ICAM, Zero Trust or Cloud for 1 to 4 million users when they have no previous experience in that field – we are setting up critical infrastructure to fail. [...] They do not know what to execute on or what to prioritize which leads to endless risk reduction efforts and diluted focus. IT is a highly skilled and trained job; Staff it as such. But 100% agreed with you that top-loading degrees isn't a solution either. It feels like the military's historical solution to a lot of problems (forced, regular duty station rotation, with assumed interchangeability based on rank) isn't suited to the types of technical project it's now being asked to execute quickly and successfully. There's a huge amount of good that comes from rotating people, but it feels like there's a new local optima that needs to be found. A starter might be to make technical position rotations more pull / resume / experienced -based, and less solely on billet rank. I.e. Does a given position want you? Or who of a stack of applicants do they want most, for the job they're currently executing? [0] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-say-goodbye-nicolas-m-chaillan/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-say-goodbye-nicolas-m-ch...
- post_from_work 5y ago
  >>>It feels like the military's historical solution to a lot of problems (forced, regular duty station rotation, with assumed interchangeability based on rank) isn't suited to the types of technical project it's now being asked to execute quickly and successfully. This is my experience as well. We have combat-arms guys who would probably be exceptional infantry regiment commanders or fighter squadron commanders, brought into a combined-arms, high-level headquarters where they are expected to weigh in on things like EM signature reduction, and issues with how IT infrastructure impacts their ability to execute Command & Control....and they don't even know what most of the relevant terminology means. By the time they learn enough via OJT they PCS to another duty station. I'm so sick of field-grade officers saying "I dunno, I'm just a dumb grunt." Then drop papers and resign your commission! Stop hiding behind your ignorance or faux-modesty. Educate yourself to confidently fight fifth-generation warfare, or go away.
  - warner25 5y ago
    I agree with most of what you wrote, but I will say that "I'm just a dumb grunt" is better than senior leaders who just spew buzzwords like "Big Data, AI, Cloud, 5G, Zero Trust, etc." as if they know what they are talking about, and convincing everyone above them that they are technical wizards.
    - post_from_work 5y ago
      Yeah, when I read a white paper for the next Combat Operations Center and saw they wanted to "run AI applications on a local server at the tactical edge" I knew the document wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. You can tell some O-6 or GS-15 who read a Popular Science article insisted on that being in there. Then I ask people who the fuck is gonna tune the models when the "AI app" spits out garbage at a battalion CP? Are we gonna train Marines on linear algebra, tensors, and adversarial neural networks? Or even bother to run them through an AI code bootcamp? Are we gonna be shocked when our Lance Corporal AI technicians leave the Marine Corps to 10x their salaries in Silicon Valley?.... I get blank stares in return.

ethbr0 5y ago

> The Army wants us to have graduate degrees in engineering or scientific disciplines so that we can almost exclusively fill management positions The former AF/SF CSO observed that the lack of technical expertise in commanding officers is a problem. [0] > Please stop putting a Major or Lt Col. (despite their devotion, exceptional attitude, and culture) in charge of ICAM, Zero Trust or Cloud for 1 to 4 million users when they have no previous experience in that field – we are setting up critical infrastructure to fail. [...] They do not know what to execute on or what to prioritize which leads to endless risk reduction efforts and diluted focus. IT is a highly skilled and trained job; Staff it as such. But 100% agreed with you that top-loading degrees isn't a solution either. It feels like the military's historical solution to a lot of problems (forced, regular duty station rotation, with assumed interchangeability based on rank) isn't suited to the types of technical project it's now being asked to execute quickly and successfully. There's a huge amount of good that comes from rotating people, but it feels like there's a new local optima that needs to be found. A starter might be to make technical position rotations more pull / resume / experienced -based, and less solely on billet rank. I.e. Does a given position want you? Or who of a stack of applicants do they want most, for the job they're currently executing? [0] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-say-goodbye-nicolas-m-chaillan/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-say-goodbye-nicolas-m-ch...

post_from_work 5y ago
>>>It feels like the military's historical solution to a lot of problems (forced, regular duty station rotation, with assumed interchangeability based on rank) isn't suited to the types of technical project it's now being asked to execute quickly and successfully. This is my experience as well. We have combat-arms guys who would probably be exceptional infantry regiment commanders or fighter squadron commanders, brought into a combined-arms, high-level headquarters where they are expected to weigh in on things like EM signature reduction, and issues with how IT infrastructure impacts their ability to execute Command & Control....and they don't even know what most of the relevant terminology means. By the time they learn enough via OJT they PCS to another duty station. I'm so sick of field-grade officers saying "I dunno, I'm just a dumb grunt." Then drop papers and resign your commission! Stop hiding behind your ignorance or faux-modesty. Educate yourself to confidently fight fifth-generation warfare, or go away.
- warner25 5y ago
  I agree with most of what you wrote, but I will say that "I'm just a dumb grunt" is better than senior leaders who just spew buzzwords like "Big Data, AI, Cloud, 5G, Zero Trust, etc." as if they know what they are talking about, and convincing everyone above them that they are technical wizards.
  - post_from_work 5y ago
    Yeah, when I read a white paper for the next Combat Operations Center and saw they wanted to "run AI applications on a local server at the tactical edge" I knew the document wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. You can tell some O-6 or GS-15 who read a Popular Science article insisted on that being in there. Then I ask people who the fuck is gonna tune the models when the "AI app" spits out garbage at a battalion CP? Are we gonna train Marines on linear algebra, tensors, and adversarial neural networks? Or even bother to run them through an AI code bootcamp? Are we gonna be shocked when our Lance Corporal AI technicians leave the Marine Corps to 10x their salaries in Silicon Valley?.... I get blank stares in return.