Wouldn’t it be nice if those who wrote about the military had to do the job for a year or two?

chas

If I am correct, the point of your article is to express a lack of communication up and down the chain of command within the US Army and how it would be useful if we encouraged soldiers to voice their ideas to assist in the success of the bigger picture.

That being said, I would like to give you a brief synopsis of the method we use to communicate ideas to improve things for the next time training, a mission, or event is performed.

After each of these events, we perform what is called an After Action Review. These reviews can be simple or complicated. They are all recorded in some manner, and then passed up through the chain of command. Depending on the level of the event, it can go all the way to senior leaders in the military.

We discuss the event from beginning to end, discuss what was good, what was bad and in the end we come up with the three main positive and three main negatives to take away from the event, write a report, and send it on its way. The more complicated the event, the more complicated the report, the higher it gets sent up the chain of command.

Some of the rules I use are:

No personal attacks. (PVT Schmedlap is an idiot.)

Have a thick skin. (Don’t get offended when someone says, “CPT America, your mission failed, let’s examine why.”)

If you have a problem/issue, offer a solution. (“This sucks!” is not a solvable problem.)

Stick to the subject. (“The lobster at the mess hall was chewy” has no bearing on the mission.”

Essentially, this is how the US Army’s soldiers are used as a brain trust to pass useful knowledge and information with the intention refining how we do business.

If you are interested in expanding your knowledge base about the military and how it works, you are always welcome to shoot me an email and ask me questions. There is also an imbedded reporter program that I would recommend to journalists and writers that are interested in following the military.

I think it is presumptuous of you to assume that her point was misinterpreted by any or all of the commenters here. It was her opinion, after a 5 day workshop, that “…These soldiers deserve an opportunity to analyze the big picture. Instead, they are broken down by hoarse drill sergeants, trained to scream, “Hoo haa, I want to kill somebody!” as they stab their bayonets into old tires, and conditioned to follow orders instead of their own moral compass.

Where is the “creative and critical thinking” in that? ”

It is the opinion of others (you called us “You people”) that she is incorrect. To me the statement severely demeans the soldiers, as if they aren’t intelligent enough to use their knowledge to actually make a difference.

This is a blog. It is here to insight debate, “creative and critical thinking”, and share opposing views in a respectful forum. So I will not apologize, nor will I be embarrassed for “espousing” my opinions. I don’t believe that anyone else should either. That is the right that this country gives us as citizens, and our military protects.

Furthermore, in my opinion, Ms. Martin only wrote her story to “one” audience. Not addressing an another audience, or the one that lives those lives. Maybe she forgot that there are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Veterans, and family members, who KNOW a different side to her story. I don’t know if she did or didn’t, however I think that she thoughtfully and respectfully tried to clarify her point here.

It should be noted that comments may be written and submitted well before they are posted. So rebuttals to a story or another comment may come well after another is even viewable. Just like many other blogs out there. It helps alleviate spam postings.

Maybe, you are good friends with Ms. Martin, (She is your “friend” on your Face book account) and maybe you took the response to her too personally. I don’t know. Maybe, she posted something about it to her Face book account that elicited your response as well as Ms. McElroy’s, since you both are not regular readers of the blog. Again, I don’t know.

I can say this, however, this is not the only response that interpreted Ms. Martin’s article differently than both you and she stated.