Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

While I was in the military, I was known as a bit of a maverick. I seldom took things at face value, and often butted heads with people who outranked me. I also tolerated people below me who wanted to butt heads with me. I was careful not to cross the line between argument and insubordination, and made sure people around me understood the difference.

I was pretty fortunate. I had terrific bosses. They actually liked my willingness to ask the hard questions and point out bad decisions without being arrogant or demeaning.

The only boss I had problems with in this regard was a captain I worked for right after getting my commission. When I arrived at Arnold Engineering Development Center, I was a brand new second lieutenant with eleven years of service. He was a careerist, intent on becoming a general. Friction right away. But the LtCol we both worked for asked to have me assigned to his office because he wanted a crusty “old” former NCO.

The captain liked “visibility,” and was always volunteering for escort detail in order to meet visiting colonels and generals. He offered my services on occasion as well. We once had a group of colonels fly in, and the landing gear on their aircraft collapsed. When time came for them to leave, we had to drive them up to the Nashville airport to catch a commercial flight. The captain decided he would drive the senior colonel (a brigadier-select), and I would shuttle the others.

We were on a tight schedule, and I told the colonels we would get there as quickly as we could, but I couldn’t guarantee they’d catch their flight. One of them said, “I know how to guarantee it, Lieutenant. If you don’t get us there on time, I’ll have your ass.”

I just said, “Go right ahead, sir. All you’ll be getting is scar tissue.” The others all laughed. They made their flight, and the colonel told me, with a smile, “I guess I won’t chew your ass after all!” The captain, when I told him about it, almost choked. “You’ve got to be careful what you say to senior officers.” I didn’t get escort duty any more.

My experience has been that senior military people tolerate, at a minimum, dissent. Their goal is to have the right information in order to make the right decisions. Where this changes is when people get to the Pentagon. There, the job is purchasing, not fighting. Civilians seem to think the Pentagon is the nerve center for all warfighting. It isn’t. The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff make broad policy decisions, and the day-to-day work is handled by the various commands. The majority of people at the Pentagon are involved in personnel policy, research, budget, and acquisition.

Now, that’s a long way around to getting where I wanted to be in this post. But I felt I needed to set the stage a bit about two different military personalities: Colonel David Hackworth, and Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters.

“Hack” has an impressive background. He worked his way through the ranks as a fighter and leader. He has many decorations for bravery, and has become the voice of the GI through his web site Soldiers for the Truth. He has a big following. Of interest in this post is his disciples working in the Pentagon–junior officers appalled at the way things are done there.

Peters has a completely different background. He is an intelligence analyst. His duties carried him around the globe working in the black world. His career is one of secrecy and little recognition. He became a writer and security consultant. His following is the relatively small group of professionals who read publications like Parameters. Unfortunately, this is a small group in the military.

I respect both men. Both built their careers with hard work, intelligence, and integrity. They come at issues from a different angle, and often their analyses are identical.

But sometimes they aren’t. And these are the areas where I generally fall in line behind Peters rather than Hackworth.

Hack has become almost a caricature of himself in the last year or so. He still takes on the establishment regarding soldiers’ individual equipment and the Pentagon’s love of high-priced machines which have little to offer in the way of improvements over existing stock. He also is quick to point out deficiencies in new buys and equipment research. All of which comes to him through people in the Pentagon. But he has begun to delve into the intellectual side of things regarding strategy and theory, and these are not his areas of strength. What troubles me about this excursion is that he may minimize himself in pursuit of the things he knows in trying to be all things. He is becoming arrogant and demeaning rather than simply argumentative.

Peters understands the strategy and theory side of things far better, but doesn’t impose himself in the tactical/leadership areas. Both he and Hack agree on the need to restructure the military to imrove the quick reaction capability, as this is apparent to both strategists and tacticians. But Peters focuses on what he knows best–intelligence, diplomacy, and international relations. The brushes he has with the tactical level are cursory, and used to establish perspective in the broader picture he wants to examine. Where Hackworth blasts new programs as irrelevant and too expensive, Peters explains how their implementation would sidetrack the ongoing effort to change our strategic approach. Hack speaks to the GI, and Peters speaks to the policy makers.

Until the policy makers change their thinking, GIs will continue to purchase the things they really need out of their own pockets. I wish Hack would get a clue from Peters and fight the battle more effectively. Right now, he simply pisses people off. The top folks in the Pentagon aren’t about to change just because Hack wants them to, especially if he appears to simply want to embarrass them. And there’s too much at stake not to change.