Army officer: I think I know why those departing Marine LTs wrote anonymously

By Lt. Roxanne Bras, US Army

Best Defense office of JO issues

Speaking
authoritatively for a cohort is difficult and dangerous, but what's been said
in the two Marine JO's blog posts resonates with much of
what my peers say daily. That's not to
say that their ideas are correct; perhaps junior officers always feel
marginalized and hostile to the senior officer promotion system. But I'd
argue that the spirit of the posts is accurate, both as perceived by JOs and as
demonstrated by the military's HR system.

But
first, to the anonymity and its ensuing controversy, I'll bet that the Marines
didn't use their real names for precisely the same reason that I hesitated to
write this.  Instead of engaging with an idea on its own merits, many
quickly look to the author to discredit him. Detractors love any evidence of
inexperience as an excuse to ignore the substance. The chorus of critics cry,
"He only served like 6 months. Never saw real combat." Or "he's
not infantry/isn't tabbed." Or "he's such a self-promoter and only
wrote that for attention." The ideas are forgotten and what remains is
slander. So why attach your name to something if it will only detract from the
argument? Until the military community becomes more idea and less
individual/ORB/ribbons focused, people will hesitate to participate in open
forums.  

As to
the ideas, identifying the top 20 percent of JOs isn't easy. There are late
bloomers, people who are academically talented but are poor leaders, etc. But
just because talent identification is hard, doesn't mean the Army shouldn't
make incremental steps toward improving it

Just
one example: The first experience JO's have with Army promotions systems is
with the Order of Merit List, used to determine branch and first assignment.
The OML weights PT, academics, and military proficiency. It also sends a huge
message: academics is about checking the block. While GPA is weighted as
something like 40% of the OML, there are no adjustments for rigor of
institution or major. A 2.0 at MIT is the same as a 2.0 at any other school.
That only makes sense if the army thinks there is zero correlation between the
standing of the institution, or the relevance of the major to a specific
branch, and a JOs performance. And if that's the case, why care about GPA at
all? Just make the Army an institution that promotes PT and other metrics of
proficiency.

Improvements
don't have to be complicated. Many institutions and businesses identify,
incentivize, and promote talent. How to tailor these existing solutions to the
unique nature of the military? That would
be a conversation worth having.

And
even small improvements in the military's HR system would be significant to JOs
because they're symbolic. Instead of the mantra, "a degree's a
degree," something countless officers have told me, the Army could have the
mantra, "we are a profession and so value education." That doesn't
mean that we are a profession that gives extraordinary weight to eggheads, just
that we acknowledge that education, self-improvement, and rigor are real things
and might eventually impact the way an officer conducts a war.

Seeing
incompetents and careerists advance is frustrating, but is something I imagine
I'd see even if I left the military. But the inevitabilities of bureaucracies
shouldn't excuse the specificities of the military's talent retention
problems. 

(For
what it is worth: I am not getting out, am not infantry, do not claim to be a
bad ass or an expert in anything, and am always interested in learning how to
better think about these issues.) 

Roxanne
Bras is a 1LT in the U.S. Army, serving at Fort Bragg, NC. She is a graduate of
Harvard College and Oxford University. The views expressed here are her
own and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Army, the Department of
Defense, or the U.S. government.