“Men build too many walls and not enough bridges.”

 - Sir Isaac Newton

Over the last 28 months, the great members of the Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth Team have spent their time, energy, and intellectual effort not only building bridges, but knocking down walls. Together we have improved our leader development programs ability to build bridges through our diverse student body in the Command and General Staff College that includes International Military Students, Sister Service Officers, our Army Civilians, Warrant Officers, and our Interagency partners.   

We have also knocked down walls and built bridges through our efforts to increase interagency integration. This interagency bridge was also constructed through the comprehensive approach we took in all our endeavors. We have found ways to reach out to our interagency partners in education, training, and experiences. This increased interagency coordination is a direct result of the relationships and trust we have created.  Our Nation is better for it today and will be in the future.

We have also knocked down virtual walls in order to build cyber bridges. We knocked down the walls in the information domain and built bridges through the power of communication in the 21^st Century information environment.  We have shared the Army story, provoked thought, and created discussion through our CAC YouTube site, CAC Facebook, CAC Twitter site, and over 40 CAC blog sites.  We’ve ventured into new territory with our work on Wiki and the Army Training Network.  Building a bridge is useless if there isn’t anyone on the other side.  You have been there to add to the quality and engagement of this and other blogs on the CAC site and we can’t thank you enough for your time and effort.

The collective efforts and energies of all our organizations at the “Intellectual Center of the Army” continue to provide world class support to our war fighters. Those on point for our Nation now and in the future rely on the knowledge and training provided by this fine team. Lessons learned from the field, the study of our history, training concepts for the future, and doctrine that guides us along the way is all instrumental in our ability to meet future challenges.

We have also built and maintained bridges with our surrounding community and Army Families. We’ve provided a network of care for all our team members and their Families through programs like the Army Family Action Plan Conference, counseling by Family Life Chaplains, and the Army Family Covenant. Support didn’t stop at the front gate of Fort Leavenworth. Just over a year ago, our local communities signed the Army Community Covenant formalizing a partnership with our surrounding communities.  

This will be my last blog as Commander of the Combined Arms Center.  Please accept this note as a personal ‘thanks’ for your support.  Although this is the end of our tour here, you all will forever be a part of our lives.

We are grateful for the privilege of serving with you all over the past two-plus years.  Our Army is in good hands with your support.  I am sure I will see you in the blogosphere soon.  Thank you for your service, courage, and commitment.

As the Army confronts the realities of eight years at war, it is more important than ever to ensure Soldiers and their families are fit—physically, mentally and spiritually. Fit Soldiers confront challenges with the strength and tools needed to surmount adversity. Hand-in-hand with fitness is a high quality of life that eases transitions and affords basic comforts for Soldiers and their families. The Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth take pride in the people and programs that make this installation “the best hometown in the Army.”

To reinforce the emphasis on wellbeing, the Army recently launched Comprehensive Soldier Fitness, with the objective to “develop and institute a holistic program for Soldiers, families, and Army civilians in order to enhance performance and build resilience.” The program was unveiled at Fort Jackson earlier this summer. Here at Fort Leavenworth, BG Rhoda Cornum, the program’s director, spoke to students about CSF. Her presentation focused on the five dimensions of strength: physical, emotional, social, family and spiritual.

At Fort Leavenworth, a number of programs and initiatives exist that reinforce the elements of CSF.

Physical: In addition to two workout facilities—Harney Sports Complex and Gruber Fitness Center—another gym is under construction. Gruber offers a wide variety of workout options and according to this blog, is one of the better gyms in the Army.

In addition to workout facilities, Dr. Pam Peeke, author of  “The National Body Challenge Success Program for the Whole Family,” recently spoke about the Army Physical Fitness Research Institute—a program available to all Soldiers, spouses and Army civilians at Fort Leavenworth. APFRI is designed to detect possible health issues and teach elements of a healthy lifestyle with the purpose of mitigating possibly dangerous conditions before they exact damage.  APFRI testing saves lives. Don’t delay, get yourself and your family tested.

Emotional:  Munson Army Health Center offers a variety of programs and specialists who can assist with mental health issues. Leavenworth’s Family Life Chaplain provides counseling for a wide variety of emotional and spiritual issues as well as sponsoring weekend retreats. Army Community Services supports Army families through financial counseling, substance abuse counseling and information concerning Family Support Groups, among many other programs.

Social: Fort Leavenworth’s Morale, Welfare and Recreation sponsor’s a wide variety of events that are fun for all ages on a regular basis. On Friday, 25 September, the Golden Dragons will perform at the Lewis and Clark Center.

Family: Beyond entertainment, the Army Family Action Plan Conference will be held on October 14^th and 15^th at the Frontier Conference Center. Click here to download a form to advance suggestions for improving quality of life at Fort Leavenworth. The Army Family Covenant provided $1.4 billion to improve family quality of life. Visit the AFC site to find out more about the programs available to your family.

Spiritual:  Two chapels serve Fort Leavenworth, Memorial Chapel and Main Post Chapel. Both offer a variety of services at different times. Information about bible study and other religious programs is available here. Additionally, the St. Ignatius Church, which was destroyed in a fire, is being replaced by a new chapel that will be finished by next spring.

Besides fitness and wellness programs, CAC has implemented a number of changes designed to improve the overall quality of life at Fort Leavenworth.

• CGSC now begins at 0830 instead of 0800. A slightly later start allows students to walk their children to school or see them off as they board the bus.
• The College has worked to make its schedule more predictable, affording parents the possibility of meeting their children after school at the end of the day.
• The CGSC schedule is now synchronized with the command, Unified School District #207, as well as the Leavenworth school district.
• The Installation indoor swimming pool are now free for all I.D. card holders and their family members.
• Our new miniature golf course and skateboard park are now open.
• Updates are scheduled for the Single Soldier barracks, including large screen televisions, theater-style seating, and electronic as well as outside games.
• The Battle Command Training Program has been designated as Unit Mission One, with the intent to provide families with various benefits, including free childcare and youth sports, to name several.

These efforts represent just a few of the programs and initiatives underway at Fort Leavenworth for extending care to Soldiers and their families. In fact, the installation is one of eight finalists for the Army Community of Excellence Award! In the future, we will seek still more ways to improve quality of life and to make sure this installation remains the “best hometown in the Army.” We welcome your suggestions.

In a recent article in Joint Forces Quarterly, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asserts that strategic communication needs reexamination. He writes,

We have allowed strategic communication to become a thing instead of a process, an abstract   thought instead of a way of thinking. It is now something of a cottage industry.

The Chairman goes on to argue the United States military’s biggest problem is credibility—words matching deeds to establish trust with local populaces. He also says the military needs to improve its listening ability. Complex cultural and ethnic landscapes demand the kind of understanding born of listening and awareness.

Admiral Mullen hits the nail on the head. Strategic communication is a process not a product. Notice there is no “s” at the end of strategic communication. Add an “s” for strategic communications, and you wind up with a disparate group of actions that generate a product. The term connotes completion or end point. In contrast, Strategic communication is a means, not an end. Strategic communication is ongoing . . . not only is it iterative, but it is also collaborative, cooperative and inclusive. Higher strategic requirements must drive it. Without strategy, there is no strategic communication.

Strategic Communication requires a climate that encourages engagement. In a recent Military Review article, we defined the elements of a “Culture of Engagement.” Such a culture must be proactive, adaptive, innovative, leader driven and sustainable.  Without these elements operating in the near background, it becomes difficult to assure, in Admiral Mullen’s words, that we “[have] the right intent up front and [let] our actions speak for themselves.”

Another article in the current issue of JFQ details the central role that strategic communication plays in the commander’s sense of situational awareness:

These commanders realize that every member of their commands who interacts with any international audience, no matter how large or small, is their most strategic communicator at that moment and location.

Such assertions emphasize the contemporary understanding that distinctions among strategy, operations and tactics are often blurred or indistinct in today’s operating environment. For this reason, every Soldier must possess a rudimentary grasp of the hallmarks for effective strategic communication. With that understanding comes a sense of the many channels through which communications flow.

Admiral Stavridis, current SACEUR, highlighted the key elements (or considerations) inherent in strategic communication when he commanded SOUTHCOM:

• An enabling capacity for policy and planning decisions as well as actions.
• Provides truthful information about those decisions and actions.
• Use messengers who are likely to be well received.
• Measure efforts.
• Adjust messages and delivery as needed.

By communicating in a timely and transparent fashion, embracing the tenets of a “Culture of Engagement” and putting into practice the basic elements of strategic communication, our military forces can better inform and educate the  American people of the tremendous sacrifices of our military members and their families, gain consensus and support from our  allies, and shape a more positive perception of our efforts.

One year ago today, nine American Soldiers gave their lives for the future of Afghanistan and a better world. A contingent of 43 U. S. and 24 Afghan National Army Soldiers fought more than 200 militants in a pitched battle at Wanat, located in Afghanistan’s Waigal valley.  Before dawn, insurgents armed with rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons hit the small outpost with an integrated and coordinated attack.

C Company, 2d Battalion, 503d Infantry Regiment held on through four hours of intense combat.  Courageous Soldiers repeatedly sprinted across the patrol base under fire to resupply forward positions and evacuate wounded. In the face of injuries and overwhelming odds, U. S. Soldiers and coalition troops refused to give ground.

Combat was particularly intense at OP Top Side, an observation post located east of the main position. Two waves of reinforcements bolstered Top Side, but not without losses. The first wave was led by the outpost platoon leader, 1LT Jonathan Brostrom.  He was killed upon arrival, but his example and drive inspired his Soldiers to persist in the fight.  Although the several hours witnessed combat at close quarters, it was the insurgents who broke and withdrew from the battlefield.  For his actions that day, Lieutenant Brostrom was awarded the Silver Star. Eight other valiant Soldiers died with him.

Although the battle for Wanat ended a year ago, memories of the fallen remain with us and with their families.  It is our duty as a Nation to remember and reflect on the sacrifices made by our Soldiers in distant lands. Even in death, the defenders of Wanat continue to serve their country and fellow Soldiers because they inspire us to sacrifice, bear loss, and, in the end, to learn and to triumph. Their example gives meaning and special poignancy to the burden of more than 60,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan today.

Here at the Combined Arms Center, the Combat Studies Institute has retold the Battle of Wanat and distilled its lessons for a special study and virtual staff ride to be released early this fall.  Although the losses at Wanat were tragic, a close scrutiny of the action with an eye to lessons learned can save lives in the future. In fact, the Center for Army Lessons Learned recently published an Afghanistan handbook that successfully captures best practices in small unit operations in Afghanistan. Other experiences like the ambush of almost 30 Taliban by a patrol of 1^st BN, 26^th Infantry in the Korengal Valley in April 2009 can provide even more valuable information for soldiers gearing up for deployment.  This ambush scenario, together with our Virtual Battlespace System, affords junior officers and NCOs the ability to experience similar combat actions virtually during their professional military education and training.

“If you’ve ever read an Army manual and thought you could make it better if only the Army would give you a chance, your moment has arrived.”

                                                                                —Army Times

For the first time, the Army is using wikis to update its doctrine. The pilot program—Army Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (ATTP)—converts the contents of field manuals into a wiki format and posts them online. Anyone with an AKO account can edit the manuals by submitting changes in the wiki system. ATTP is a pilot program with seven manuals:

·         FMI 3-04.155 Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations

·         FM 3-07.20 Modular Brigade Augmented for Security Force Assistance

·         FM 3-21.9 The SBCT Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad

·         FM 3-09.15 Site Exploitation

·         FM 3-97.11 Cold Weather Operations

·         FM 5-19 Composite Risk Management

·         FM 6.01-1 Knowledge Management Section

The software powering ATTP is the same software Wikipedia employs. Users can submit changes, review changes proposed by others, search documents and view previous versions of the field manuals. By converting manuals into wikis, the Army hopes to make doctrine a living document and reduce the traditional three to five year period it takes to staff and write field manuals. This system will allow lessons learned in the field to become an immediate part of doctrine, with rapid dissemination. More than 200 manuals are slated to be converted into ATTPs.

The ATTP program is a collaborative effort among several Combined Arms Center subordinate organizations: Battle Command Knowledge System, the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate and personnel at Fort Huachuca implemented the program in less than two weeks.  During the 90-day trial period, site managers will refine their own TTPs for running this kind of collaborative endeavor.

After receiving comments on the manuals, site managers and subject matter experts will review the comments and adjudicate them with existing content and other suggestions. This manner of continuously updated field manuals will ensure doctrine creation is an all-embracing, grassroots effort that serves the needs of our Soldiers more effectively.

Where does this effort fit within big Army? In an interview last fall, GEN Peter Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, spoke about using technology to communicate more effectively and share information:

                “We have to find a way to flatten our organizations and pass information faster than we’ve ever passed it before. Take advantage of these tools. There’s a natural tendency not to. There’s a natural tendency to go back to our hierarchical nature, our bureaucratic ways.”

In other words, by participating and supporting ATTP, you are helping drive institutional change within our Army. By embracing technology, the Army can save money, break down barriers, streamline processes and build a bright future.

To access ATTP click here or sign into AKO, click on the “Self Service” tab, select “My Doctrine” and find “ATTP Pilot” on the left hand side of the page.

Please contribute to our Army’s store of knowledge and share your insights through ATTP. This is a great opportunity to flatten traditional Army hierarchy and leverage technology to benefit Soldiers who are deployed or training to deploy.

Yesterday afternoon someone on my team said, “Sir, have you seen the New York Post article about Afghanistan written by Ralph Peters?” I sat down at my desk and read through the article, and a couple of things occurred to me:

1.    Ralph Peters is as provocative now as he was when he was a battalion S-2 in the same battalion where I was serving as the battalion S-3 over 20 years ago. It made me smile as I thought back to some of the great discussions we had over tactics and strategy. Ralph states that “The conflict in Afghanistan was a special-operations war in 2001, and it’s a special-operations war in 2009. Everything in between was deadly make-believe.” He also asserts that “killing works” and that “getting it right in Afghanistan – and across the frontier in Pakistan – means digging fewer wells and forcing our enemies to dig more graves.” Ralph chastises the Army’s counterinsurgency manual and suggests that the “huggy-bear” programs be jettisoned and that the focus shift to “the destruction of our enemies.”

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05142009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/afghan_graveyard_169185.htm?&page=0

2.    There is a sharp contrast between the approach Ralph Peters advocates and the one that Mr. Anthony H. Cordesman (Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the think tank CSIS in Washington, D.C.) expressed at a guest lecture series to the Command and General Staff College students at Fort Leavenworth, KS, not two hours before. Cordesman told the auditorium full of Majors, “If you are resigned to be strictly a kinetic warrior, do the U.S. a favor and resign your commission.” Cordesman believes that our tactical victories are largely irrelevant and that many of our kinetic “wins” are actually contributing to losing the war.

 The Afghan-Pakistan War: "Clear, Hold, Build" Slides

3.    The first two views appear to be at polar opposite ends of the spectrum, and they made me think back to a third solution that addresses the perceived “gap” between the Peters and Cordesman viewpoints. Thomas P.M. Barnett was here last August, and he posed the questions, “Who is the master of the middle? What is the Department of Everything Else?” Barnett advocates creating a “Leviathan Force” that conducts the majority of all kinetic operations and a “SysAdmin Force ” that wages the peace after the Leviathan Force has successfully waged the war.

http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2008/08/tom_in_leavenworth.html#comments

Here we have three incredibly bright individuals, all with vastly different opinions on how to proceed in places like Afghanistan. It is striking just how monumental our challenges are in this region of the world, and how diverse the possible solutions may be. You all will be the agile and adaptive leaders that will help formulate solutions to this challenging and complex battlefield calculus.

We need our best and brightest to continue to brainstorm the details of possible approaches to “getting it right” in Afghanistan. Perhaps the organizations that are required don’t currently exist….or borrow from existing organizations and abstractly apply them to different problem sets. Many of you have personal experience serving in Afghanistan, and you have undoubtedly reflected on what you thought did/did not work well. We’re very interested in what you think is the right approach to this conflict in Afghanistan.

A recent article in the Armed Forces Journal by MAJ Myles Caggins, III, discussed possible incentive plans to retain U.S. Army majors. Caggins asserts that qualified enlisted recruits receive up to $40,000; Army captains $35,000; Navy officers $121,000; and a typical Army major – nothing.  He offers some creative proposals he believes would help retain more of our field grade officers – you all.

The Global War on Terror has tested our Army’s personnel management systems. The shortage of majors has many causes, not the least of which is junior officer retention rates, the creation of modular brigades, and growth of our Army.

Consider, for example, the “cohort” of Army officers who were commissioned in 1998. They originally numbered 4,155. Those the Army retained have now served 10 years of active duty. Although the Army still requires about 2,200 of these officers, it has only kept about 1,800. Additionally, the ranks of captain through lieutenant colonel are only manned at 80 percent strength.

The Army cannot accept risk in its officer corps, and the consequences of how we act now will have generational impacts. We’re soliciting your help. Please provide feedback on how you think we can retain quality field grade officers.  Specifically, what motivates you and your peers to continue to serve? Do you think there should be increased incentives? Should there be changes in assignments, policies or education? What would you recommend?

Would encourage you to read MAJ Caggins’ article and comment on the pros/cons of his argument. We need to get this right and we need your help.

Thank you for helping shape the public debate on this important subject. We will highlight your feedback with leaders at the highest level in our Army as they look for creative solutions to today’s complex personnel management environment. Nothing would send a more powerful message than to have the entire CGSC class sound off and provide input. We look forward to your thoughts and recommendations.

Nearly one year ago, the Combined Arms Center embarked on a journey of allowing open discussion and debate using a publicly accessible blog site. During that time CAC has pioneered efforts, which have resulted in a watershed of support by not only Army senior leaders, but our sister services, international and interagency partners. In fact, this last week we hosted a visit by the US Air Force Research Institute. They are examining how we leverage new media through the CAC blog, YouTube site and other initiatives within the command.

It is extremely complimentary and refreshing that one of the premiere intellectual thought leaders within DoD would come to CAC to look at best practices. Each of you are pioneers in these efforts and the Army appreciates all that you have done individually and corporately to propel CAC to the forefront in this unchartered territory.  Our efforts are helping to change an entire culture that must adapt to advances in new media or risk completely ceding the new mediascape to our adversaries. As we move into this next year, we would welcome your comments and ideas on ways we could make the blog site and our policies even better. Reversing direction and succumbing to old habits and ways of doing things is not an option. Throughout American history, the Army has led the way and it will continue to do so especially in this new frontier.

Recently, the senior leadership of the Combined Arms Center gathered to dialog, debate, and discuss a topic vital to our Army’s ability to prevail in the complex, ambiguous environment of the 21^st century – design.  Of the many lessons drawn from over seven years of wartime experience, one that stands out prominently is the critical need to improve our ability to exercise the cognitive aspects of battle command – understanding and visualizing.  In this era of persistent conflict, we confront challenges that are often ill-defined and multifaceted.  Where such “hybrid threats” defy convention and easy definition, traditional Cold War planning paradigms alone are insufficient.  Design is not a process, but a set of “thinking tools” that complement and reinforce our operations process with a rational, logical approach to an increasingly complex and dynamic operational environment.  

We have taken this on in multiple sessions where we have “peeled the onion back” on design.  Drawing from their own rich experience, knowledge, and education, our leadership addressed the myriad issues at the core of this critical debate.  It became quickly apparent that our existing taxonomy – the operational language of our Army – must evolve to allow design to take root.  While the ideas underpinning design are both sound and timely, many of the words we use to express those ideas still reflect a distinctly linear – and often antiquated – approach to planning and executing operations.  The language and logic we use to articulate the principles of design must be clear and unambiguous, understood by leaders at all levels.

Much of the debate centered on how best to “lash up” design with our proven, deliberate planning process.  We believe the appropriate venue for this is FM 5-0, The Operations Process; there, we will mature the principles of design, fully integrating them within our operations process.  This effort will serve as the bridge between the developmental concept and enduring doctrine, where we will cement the tenets of design in our knowledge base.  Design is the next step on a path to maturing our battle command model for the complexities of operations in an era of persistent conflict.  It will provide future generations of leaders with the cognitive tools necessary to master our operations process at a time when our adversaries are adapting at a rate unprecedented in our history – forging an operational paradigm that is as flexible and adaptive as the leaders we are developing.

The current issue of Military Review includes two touchstone articles on design, penned by our leadership in the School of Advanced Military Studies, where the topic has been in experimentation for the past several years.  These articles provide a detailed overview of design and offer invaluable insight into the direction that we currently intend to take in the coming months. 

We live in an era in which time annihilates space and information is the currency of the 21^st century. The pace of technological change has become so rapid and so pervasive that the remotest parts of the world are now connected by globe-spanning communications. Every month, as innovators press the limits of technology, the amount of data transmittable via fiber optics triples. Last month there were 31 billion Google searches, while the total number of text messages sent outnumbered the population of the world.

Historically, the invention of print news and later the telegraph facilitated the kind of communications that fed the development of nation states and empires.  Now, computer and telecommunications technologies are creating foundations for the possible advent of virtual nations and hyper-civilizations. If MySpace were a country, it would be the eighth largest in the world, with a population of more than 250 million. Online communities blur distinctions among nation states and erase traditional boundaries both within and between formal governmental and non-governmental organizations. Meanwhile, the same kind of virtual communities enable al-Qaeda and other extremist groups to disseminate their messages and attract recruits the world over. In fact, the improvised explosive device provides a dark example of the power of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum, where electronic devices detonate the tactical military weapon, while the videographer uploads the strategic information weapon to the Worldwide Web. Because the Internet is an ungoverned space, allowing misinformation and disinformation to spread without a competitive voice, ensures the enemy’s version of events becomes accepted fact through audience perception.

For this and other reasons, our Army cannot remain blind or indifferent to the accelerating pace of change in the virtual domain. Indeed, if the United States is to defend against and counter external threats from this domain, as well as exploit it as a warfighting enabler, the Army must remain attuned to change and in step with—if not ahead of—technological advances. However, the Army is no Lone Ranger: in addition to functioning in concert with other services and agencies, we must partner with private industry to develop countermeasures against emerging threats.  At the forefront of this important effort is the Capabilities Development Integration Directorate (CDID) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  Our CDID cooperates actively with computer, information, and communications technology experts from business and academia both to assure the Army’s electronic warfare capability and to incorporate into the future force a robust offensive cyber-electronics capability.  Our CDID is integral to the Army’s fight for the future technological high ground.  In that light we just released a new Field Manual, FM 3-36 “Electronic Warfare in Operations,” that will serve to spur future innovation and become our Army’s underpinning for operating in an uncertain cyber future.

While the Army adapts and adjusts to exponential technological change, the Combined Arms Center, on behalf of TRADOC, actively solicits comments and suggestions for how the Army can lead in an era where cyberspace increasingly allows our adversaries to use electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum as their asymmetric weapons of choice.

As an Army officer you have two large considerations in relation to Army Selection Boards (ASB.) The first is to manage your career through your Officer Record Brief (ORB) and the second is to understand your responsibility as a rater during the OER, or Officer Efficiency Report process. The ASB consists of approximately 17 members who are representative of our Army in terms of gender, race and experience, and probably former commanders too.  Each board is different, but there is a requirement to overall representation from our Army.  AR 600-3 is useful reference for Army personnel matters, but PAM 600-3 offers more specific career guidance. Your ORB represents your career history to the ASB while your OER serves as a snapshot of your career performance, and more importantly your potential to continue to serve in our Army and in command positions.

Before any Board, take time to ensure your ORB is up-to-date; accurately conveys your service and captures all of your qualifications.  Due to the number of records to review, many Board members will review your complete file in three to five minutes, or even less. Any inaccuracies or inconsistencies will make it difficult for the Board member to evaluate your true strengths and potential. Needless to say, a dated photo will make a negative impression on the Board from the moment they see it. Concise writing that is clear and precise will allow Board Members to understand the breadth and depth of your experience in mere seconds—every word matters.

The OER should also use clear, plain language. There is no need to use all the white space. Concentrate on relevant details while ensuring duty description is clear if it is not a commonly practiced specialty. Often times, Board Members will focus on the first and last words of sentences, looking for trends or inconsistencies in a career. AR 623-3 and PAM 623-3 offer more in-depth advice for preparing OERs. When you are a rater, try and develop a strategy. Be consistent and remember you have the opportunity to determine the Army’s future leaders. Use quantifiers to enumerate capabilities.  Avoid spelling out numbers. Again, brevity is of the essence -- but must also capture the potential -- you are talking to each board member in that OER.

Positive and well-developed OERs are a reflection of the time and attention leaders lavish on subordinates. Developing leaders through education, training and mentoring remains a hallmark of our Army’s success. Today’s operational environment requires more adaptive and agile leaders than ever before and we cannot forget this or fail to devote the time and attention leader development deserves and requires.

Today we only had a chance to answer a few questions. It is our hope this blog will stimulate discussion and dispel myths while empowering officers to take charge of their ORBs and OERS and make them the best products possible -- and even more importantly, allow you to be the mentor that you should be for your subordinates ...it is all about serving others.  Please continue the dialogue -- ask your questions and let us know if this type of professional career engagement is something your found valuable and would like to continue.

The Department of Defense released Directive 3000.07 last week. The Directive builds on lessons learned from Irregular Warfare (IW) over the last seven years, while seeking formally to incorporate them into core military competencies. The Directive states, “Many of the capabilities and skills required for IW are applicable to traditional warfare, but their role in IW can be proportionally greater than in traditional warfare.” Real and potential adversaries have proven adept at using compound and hybrid warfare in the modern battle space. When Russia attacked Georgia earlier this summer, the conventional attack featured a simultaneous cyber attack, as well as the employment of paramilitary groups.  Within TRADOC at the Combined Arms Center, we educate and train our leaders for conventional and irregular warfare.  We released the Army Stability Operations manual in October, we are launching a new training manual next week—which will incorporate the new core Army field manuals FM 3-0 and FM 3-07 into training practices—and we are nearing completion of the new Cyber-Electronic Warfare Doctrine.

Indeed, as ret. Col. T. X. Hammes has noted, past insurgencies consisted of military campaigns supported by information operations, whereas now we are witnessing strategic communication campaigns supported by military operations. The recent terror attacks in Mumbai are a prime example of this phenomenon. By sustaining an action for days, the terrorists were able to prolong the life of the story through multiple media cycles. Once again, the enemies of freedom and peace have found devastating ways to manipulate strategic communication to suit hostile agendas.

By improving DoD capacity to conduct irregular warfare, the U.S. elevates its ability to respond to the asymmetric threat posed by extremists the world over. Among the activities the Directive outlines are counterterrorism, unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, counterinsurgency and stability operations. These activities embrace the skills required to stabilize failed and failing states as we adjust to a climate of persistent conflict. The National Intelligence Council recently released its report, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. According to the report, “Opportunities for mass-casualty terrorist attacks using chemical, biological or less likely, nuclear weapons will increase as technology diffuses and nuclear power programs expand.” Further, the report maintains that future terrorists are likely to be descendants of long-established groups that use technological advances for devastating attacks.

Three short years ago, DoD signed another Directive 3000.05, which mandated that Stability Operations would become a core military capability. Directives 3000.05 and 3000.07 represent DoD’s commitment to adapting to an ever-changing operating environment. These documents chart a course through the turbulent complexities of a flatter world where the U.S. confronts the “rise of the rest.” Fareed Zakaria, foreign affairs editor of Newsweek International, has coined this phrase to describe and emphasize the blurring of the developed and less developed worlds. Although symmetric threats loom in various quarters, the Army must broaden and strengthen its core competencies in order truly to constitute “the strength of the nation.”

“Valor is stability, not of legs and arms, but of courage and the soul”

                                                -Michel de Montaigne

Eighty-nine years ago, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed today, November 11, Armistice Day. Seventy years ago Congress passed legislation establishing it as a legal holiday, renamed in 1954 as Veterans Day. There are very few callings more fulfilling than a tour of duty or a career spent in military service. For the men and women who serve, the credo “duty, honor, country” extends far beyond the walls of West Point. These words capture the essence of core values that govern personal and professional behavior in service to our Nation.

Nearly 24 million Americans have the honor of calling themselves Veterans. Their number embraces all ethnic groups, men and women, and a broad diversity of backgrounds. These Veterans held their ground on the Marne, liberated the Philippines, anchored the Pusan perimeter, advanced under fire in the Ia Drang Valley and raced through the sands of the Middle East. These and other exploits in the name of freedom will never be forgotten.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s immortal words from another context, perhaps never have so many living Americans owed so much to so few. Today, take a moment to remember those who have served, suffered, and given their lives in defense of our precious liberties.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.” Echoing his sentiment, it is our sacred obligation, in the name of those who have gone before us, to go forth and to earn our freedom every day.  Above all, we must remember those Veterans who gave the ultimate sacrifice to safeguard our way of life. Let their exploits endow us with the strength, so that we might, in the words of President John F. Kennedy, “bear any burden” and “meet any hardship . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

In light of the momentous challenges facing our Nation today, it is more important than ever to cherish the values inherent in service. Our sense of duty, honor, and country will sustain our Nation in the future as it has in the past. The English poet Laurence Binyon wrote eloquently about service, sacrifice, and memory. Excerpts from his verse, “For the Fallen,” like Churchill’s words of gratitude, might apply equally to the eternal debt we Americans owe our Veterans, especially those who have paid the ultimate price for freedom:

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted:
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

A year ago today, I met with a group of influential key leaders in government service at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington.  At that meeting, senior leaders from the various departments and agencies of the United States Government sat alongside members of the nongovernmental community, major think tanks, and the Department of Defense.   As they discussed a variety of issues central to their own particular efforts, I announced that the Army would soon begin rewriting our manual on stability operations, and solicited their support in what was sure to be a long, arduous process.

A month later, writing began in earnest and many of those present provided subject matter experts to assist the CAC team.  It was a unique community of practice with an interesting mix of personalities, experiences, and opinions.  But they quickly gelled, and in a little over two months the team released the first draft and began a review process that would redefine how the Army develops doctrine.  Along the way, something changed.   What began as an effort to craft a doctrinal product became a very special process – a process forged through team building, hard work, and mutual respect.  A process that highlighted the possibilities of what can be achieved when we exercise a comprehensive approach – uniting different people from different organizations with different goals, and focus them toward a common objective.

When we announced the release of FM 3-07, Stability Operations, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies this week, I stood alongside key senior leaders from the interagency and nongovernmental community – four exceptional men with long, distinguished careers built on the tenets reflected in our new doctrine.  This event, the culmination of months of hard work together, was attended by a standing-room-only crowd, a crowd as excited about the release of the manual as they were about the process that brought us together.  That process not only produced a groundbreaking manual certain to drive unprecedented change, it built enduring friendships that highlight our continued need to leverage such opportunities to train together, conduct joint education programs, and build a common body of principles that drive our ability to operate in a comprehensive manner.

Feel free to visit our Stability Operations blog to find out more about the new doctrine.