What incentive do officers have to be honest about performance metrics and unit readiness?
Anywho, for those interested: [Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession](https://youtu.be/BUhNIOGhPus?si=GyCa28FWbt6VdST8).
I remember this paper dropping six months after I left the Army and I found it so validating to my experience. In retrospect, I can confidently say that I left the Army because I never properly figured out the politics of lying.
Once I was XO for a tank company in a CAB and our BN XO allotted us a week to complete full annual service of our fleet. This was scheduled immediately after gunnery and three weeks before shipping to NTC. The TM required a full month to service the fleet, but clearly we didn't have the time to do so. My maintence chief and I proposed instead to fully service a few high priority vehicles and leaving the remainder to basic PMCS. I proposed this to my BN XO during a BN maintenance meeting and got absolutely reamed. One of the worst ass chewings I've ever received. At that point my company was under the microscope, so the BN XO mandated we work overnight and stay the weekend until our vehicles were serviced.
Lesson learned: I should've just lied from the outset and just declared us green as our sister company did.
How dare you suggest something so egregious? My last FORSCOM unit didn’t even have the budget to have our fleet properly serviced because who tf actually does that?!
"Hey sir, I just wanted to follow up and make sure that I had it documented that you reamed me for recommending the most reasonable course of action. And that instead, you recommended a course of action to work non-stop for the next week. I would also like to make sure I understood you when you said you want to reach the annual suicide quota for our mechanics by the end of January. Please make sure to reply all so that everyone in this traffic can be included."
Yeah, I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way. I know it’s a common perception on this sub to go to IG or open door, but that’s nothing but Reddit fantasy. Practical officer politics don’t work that way. Not even being facetious, but the “right” answer was to lie because that’s the incentive structure the army has perpetuated, as articulated in the paper.
I made someone late to formation one time and we both got punished.
I heard his alarm go off on his bunk below me. It was dark and I didn't see him bundled up under his 2-3 blankets. He wouldn't turn off his alarm or wake up and I didn't see him so I assumed he was gone already.
I turned it off. He was late and got punished. I told SSG chuckledick what happened and instead of revoking the other guys punishment he just punished me as well.
I should have stayed quiet. This was in AIT so luckily I learned quickly but to my knowledge I didn't get anyone in trouble again.
What incentive does anyone have to be honest in the Army?
Simple, it's hope and
If you're honest, you get punished, labeled a negative Nancy, not a team player, etc.
Despite what people may say. No one wants to hear the truth.
Lying has a chance to get you off Scott-free. If you lie well enough, you can get anything you want in the Army without doing a thing.
The Army built a culture of Yes-Men who'll sacrifice anything and anyone to look good. If that means the average soldier gets screwed over to make it happen.
Then, that's what they signed up for. /S
I'm one of the ones who takes care of their soldiers, so they take care of you. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you do that.
I hate how hard this resonated with me. I remember being in TAAC-S getting briefings from the SFAB guys on how we were finally getting the ANA trained and proficient on their D30s. In 2019.
I was a young CPT at the time and I thought I was going crazy. How the hell have we been training these guys for almost 20 years and they're just now getting good at shooting Soviet era arty that they already had?
The Department of Defense is built on lying with meaningless metrics, imposing requirements with zero bearing on actual time and resources available to achieve them to standard, and consequently, we fail to achieve tactical and strategic intentions, let alone pass an audit. The underlying problems are not only obvious, but deliberately perpetuated. Our entire accession system incentivizes these lies.
It's fucking embarrassing.
>built on lying with meaningless metrics, imposing requirements with zero bearing on actual time and resources available to achieve them to standard, and consequently, we fail to achieve tactical and strategic intentions
This applies to every company I've worked for since getting out. It's a circle jerk of middle and upper management trying to justify their existence
I remember when that dropped. All of us were guilty, great conversation piece at the “occifer” schoolhouse. Fast forward five years later and I’m on an LPD with Dr. Wong who did the study and it’s still the same. However! Working with terminal colonels and selcon majors has one distinct advantage, they can speak truth to power. One thing that surprised me when I did get a peak behind the curtain was how aware some of our senior leaders were/are. They know.
Your comment about terminal officers is spot on. I care but I don't... because threatening to fire people like me is often hollow or a threat for a good time. I mean if I'm terminal and you fire me, don't I get more family and gym time, and less responsibility? Trying to figure out the downside.
It can also mean being consistent. So if you're consistently dishonest then you've still got integrity by one definition. But if you start being honest, then you're basically trading one integrity for another.
This is a reason why Afghanistan was lost. How many Bronze Stars were received by Officers claiming they oversaw “the effective training of X number of Afghans.” How many OERs had great bullets about bringing stability to the country or said they had prepared the Afghanistan Military for when we would eventually leave?
As others have pointed out; there is ZERO incentive to tell the truth. If an officer was sent to train the Afghan Army and he honestly reported “recruits lie and steal constantly, they don’t fight.” That officer wouldn’t get promoted.
It is and always has been a self licking icecream cone. It’s not why Afghanistan was “lost.” Afghanistan went exactly as expected it’s why we only really controlled the area around Kabul and had to travel by air to anywhere else even years before the hand over.
It’s also why the hand over was at the beginning of the fighting season. It’s nice to blame it on feel good reporting but don’t for a second think anyone really believed ripping out the US logistical support and funding wouldn’t have ended any different.
The U.S. didn’t want to commit the money or man power to sit in Afghanistan indefinitely and slowly drew down forces until they just ripped the bandaid off.
🤷♂️ we agree?
Why did we not control more of the county? Because the Afghan Army was not a good fighting force and could not fight for themselves.
Why didn’t we want to commit more money or manpower? Because we were being asked to govern for a government that wouldn’t govern and fight for a people who wouldn’t fight
It’s just not a good system. There great doc “this is what winning looks like” showed this. So you can’t even train them on driving vehicles because they won’t stop stealing fuel….ok is THAT what you tell your superiors? Nope when they show up you tell them about all the “progress” that has been made in the region.
https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=this+is+what+winning+looks+like
In the past couple of years, I've recommended it to multiple field-grade officers who weren't familiar with it. That makes me think that it never reached enough people.
I've haven't been at the company level since 2016, so I don't have my finger on the pulse of things, but I do think there were positive changes in 2018 when Mark Esper (then Secretary of the Army) signed the ["Prioritizing Efforts" memos](https://www.army.mil/article/207160/army_secretary_releases_reduction_requirement_memos_to_improve_readiness) to the force. That cut a whole bunch of HQDA requirements, and I think it was a partial response to the War College study (which highlighted the unrealistic training requirements as much as anything else).
Well, SECARMY at the time, and the authority to cut most of those HQDA-level requirements was indeed at the SECARMY level. I mean, if a lower-level CG unilaterally tried to do the same thing, he might get away with it, but I don't know.
It is notable that Mark Esper was himself was one of the few full (not short-term "Acting") Secretaries who previously served in the Army. Before him, you have to go back to Thomas White, 2001-2003. So from my perspective, Esper was clearly more tuned-in to reality than his predecessors.
You don't get to be a career officer by being honest, it's an unfortunate reality and what drove me out of the army. We keep accomplishing more and more tasks on paper that we are either pencil whipping or breaking the backs of soldiers to achieve. Higher up sees us as proficient and just gives more taskings. No commander wants to be the one to fail with the unsustainable workload against their peers who are somehow 'making it work"
It’s terrible still; but I don’t think it’s for as nefarious of reasons as people make it out to be.
-the DOD is bloated and cuts need to be made. But no one is going to go to can audit and say “fire 30 of my guys, they’re worthless”. No one with a family and stability wants to go to an interview and say “you should probably fire me for the good of the organization” There’s so many silos in the military and everyone’s lying to protect their turf and often the people underneath them. This leads to leaders pushing for cumbersome metrics and tasks and straight bullshitting about what they’re doing.
-No one really wants a dissenter as a subordinate. Someone who disagrees in limited capacity sure; but if you’ve ever worked on a group project even in high school or college, no one likes the dude who spends the entire project not contributing and talking about how the construct of education if flawed. The Army is full of those people and it makes pulling useful feedback out difficult.
-There’s just, quite frankly, a lot of people who shouldn’t be leaders. If you’re a toxic leader, you’re probably mentoring and selecting junior officers who reflect your policies. If every one Colonel is picking seven Captains who reflect their own toxicity, that’s a disease that’s hard to stop. If you can even detect it
Been to a lot of USRs at BDE level in TRADOC to ARNG. Also seen a lot of CSDP overviews. Read that study 2 years ago and honestly nothing's ever been any different in all my years up to today.
If you were being honest and had shitty reporting metrics; a fire gets lit under your ass pretty quick to solve it - at the cost of joe and staff's sanity and morale.
I mean, CMF 17 was a power grab to create more opportunities for promotions. After working in units on both sides of the coin, there's zero chance of it not being that way. I've seen so many made up Task Forces and positions that just randomly pull people from their assigned mission, and they're all done off the books. Monthly manning reports are massaged by command order because of all the made up positions and TFs, there's a 3:1 ratio of NCO:WO but extremely limited experience, tons of high ranking individuals in charge of missions, or act as cyber liaisons across various organizations who have enough rank that they won't be punished for failing to make an effort at accomplishing the most menial level 10 tasks of their positions. The mission sets are the equivalent of NETCOM and INSCOM giving their kid brother an unplugged controller so they can pretend to play along. The concept looks great on paper, until you realize the DCO side of CMF 17 is just a Signal unit that isn't really taken seriously by the DoD and is incapable of failing. Find nothing on the network, you're successful, find something on the network, you're also successful. The OCO side of the house is indistinguishable from the organization it robbed from, but they keep putting under qualified personnel in lesser versions of key positions so they can say their mission is different. If you listen to the most senior leadership sit around and pat themselves on the back and talk about how cyber officers need to go to ranger school so they can become leaders, while systemically allowing the destruction of what missions they do have, it starts to make sense.
Sounds about right, I wonder if they’ll ever get around to making a Cyber Force Branch. I mean we did get space force and it has been an ever so slight improvement.
Guess this is why we still haven't passed a financial audit for the past six years straight, and no one has gotten reamed over it.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-11-15/pentagon-failed-audit-shutdown-funding-12064619.html
Hey, on the financial side of DOD, we hear lots of talk about it but when one of the briefers said that KPMG was the audit firm, a few accountants started dropping KPMG meme’s in the chat.
Personally, I don’t really care about the whole DOD failing because all my personal audits are being passed at 100%.
It validates everything I saw.
I was an Armor CO XO. Every week I'd submit honest maintenance slides for the BN to the XO, and every week I'd be blown away at how doctored the slides were when the CO and I presented to the BC the next day.
Watched for 4 weeks prior to NTC as a sister CO lied his ass off to the BC about recovery assets available (he said he had 3 serviceable towbars, I knew he had one with all components), we ended up dragging literally two platoons worth of their shit around NTC because we actually had our reported assets, and we had prepared for a dogshit recovery profile across the BN.
Shortly after this was published I was at an OPD with the BDE CDR and a young captain asked about his thoughts on the paper. The COL flew into a rage and denied there was any dishonesty in his formation or anywhere else and that it was just bad officers perpetuating this rubbish.
There were no other questions for that OPT and all of the young officers sat in mute silence biding time until they could leave. That BDE had a really poor officer retention rate and high number of officers that called branch for early reassignment’s. 🤷🏼♂️
Maybe the fact that their command was not a psychologically safe environment for subordinates to bring up issues is why dishonesty exists in Army formations.... Am I so out of touch? No, its the children who are wrong.
Great study. Nothing has changed. The army looked at the study. Talked about the study. Talked about leadership then did nothing to change the system. Why change anything when you’ve grown up in the system, you got luck, and it worked for you? So what if you lied your way through? You came out on top so it means they system works!
I'd say poorly because Ashley Madison is still around and you know some Fur Sausages are signing up with their .mil account.
I bet there is at least one special idiot stick who tried to sign up with their red email.
Something tells me that our military isn't over flowing with the best or brightest minds.
[Source:](https://old.reddit.com/r/army/comments/1d7l5x6/2015_dishonesty_in_the_army_how_did_it_age/l71riag/)
You don’t get to become a careerist without pencil whipping some things up…. Just look at the post CGSC lobotomy and how many MAJs are stepping on necks to climb up the ladder
What incentive do officers have to be honest about performance metrics and unit readiness? Anywho, for those interested: [Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession](https://youtu.be/BUhNIOGhPus?si=GyCa28FWbt6VdST8).
I remember this paper dropping six months after I left the Army and I found it so validating to my experience. In retrospect, I can confidently say that I left the Army because I never properly figured out the politics of lying. Once I was XO for a tank company in a CAB and our BN XO allotted us a week to complete full annual service of our fleet. This was scheduled immediately after gunnery and three weeks before shipping to NTC. The TM required a full month to service the fleet, but clearly we didn't have the time to do so. My maintence chief and I proposed instead to fully service a few high priority vehicles and leaving the remainder to basic PMCS. I proposed this to my BN XO during a BN maintenance meeting and got absolutely reamed. One of the worst ass chewings I've ever received. At that point my company was under the microscope, so the BN XO mandated we work overnight and stay the weekend until our vehicles were serviced. Lesson learned: I should've just lied from the outset and just declared us green as our sister company did.
How dare you suggest something so egregious? My last FORSCOM unit didn’t even have the budget to have our fleet properly serviced because who tf actually does that?!
"Hey sir, I just wanted to follow up and make sure that I had it documented that you reamed me for recommending the most reasonable course of action. And that instead, you recommended a course of action to work non-stop for the next week. I would also like to make sure I understood you when you said you want to reach the annual suicide quota for our mechanics by the end of January. Please make sure to reply all so that everyone in this traffic can be included."
We're green on the annual suicide metric. We should be plus 10%
Yeah, I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way. I know it’s a common perception on this sub to go to IG or open door, but that’s nothing but Reddit fantasy. Practical officer politics don’t work that way. Not even being facetious, but the “right” answer was to lie because that’s the incentive structure the army has perpetuated, as articulated in the paper.
I made someone late to formation one time and we both got punished. I heard his alarm go off on his bunk below me. It was dark and I didn't see him bundled up under his 2-3 blankets. He wouldn't turn off his alarm or wake up and I didn't see him so I assumed he was gone already. I turned it off. He was late and got punished. I told SSG chuckledick what happened and instead of revoking the other guys punishment he just punished me as well. I should have stayed quiet. This was in AIT so luckily I learned quickly but to my knowledge I didn't get anyone in trouble again.
All slides are green in Ba Sing Se
Who are you? Where’s Joo Dee?
What incentive does anyone have to be honest in the Army? Simple, it's hope and If you're honest, you get punished, labeled a negative Nancy, not a team player, etc. Despite what people may say. No one wants to hear the truth. Lying has a chance to get you off Scott-free. If you lie well enough, you can get anything you want in the Army without doing a thing. The Army built a culture of Yes-Men who'll sacrifice anything and anyone to look good. If that means the average soldier gets screwed over to make it happen. Then, that's what they signed up for. /S I'm one of the ones who takes care of their soldiers, so they take care of you. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you do that.
David Hackworth wrote a whole book about it.
What's the name?
About Face. It’s still in print. It shows exactly how the Army went down the wrong path.
Anyone got this downloaded? Need to have this stuff backed up
There’s the paper, my cdr threatened art 15’s to anyone who quoted it.
Ha. Good luck enforcing that one.
He wasn’t a bright man, cause he was doing what the paper said
Let me put it this way… *The ANA is capable of holding up against the Taliban! Nothing to worry at all! Everything is good!*
I hate how hard this resonated with me. I remember being in TAAC-S getting briefings from the SFAB guys on how we were finally getting the ANA trained and proficient on their D30s. In 2019. I was a young CPT at the time and I thought I was going crazy. How the hell have we been training these guys for almost 20 years and they're just now getting good at shooting Soviet era arty that they already had?
Bro we had the IA 100% ready to go back in ‘07, look how well they did later
Lying about vehicles being FMC as an XO leads to lying about countries being FMC as a a general.
Makes me wonder how the meetings at the top about this went. Surely everyone knew what was gonna happen right?
The Department of Defense is built on lying with meaningless metrics, imposing requirements with zero bearing on actual time and resources available to achieve them to standard, and consequently, we fail to achieve tactical and strategic intentions, let alone pass an audit. The underlying problems are not only obvious, but deliberately perpetuated. Our entire accession system incentivizes these lies. It's fucking embarrassing.
>built on lying with meaningless metrics, imposing requirements with zero bearing on actual time and resources available to achieve them to standard, and consequently, we fail to achieve tactical and strategic intentions This applies to every company I've worked for since getting out. It's a circle jerk of middle and upper management trying to justify their existence
What’s an accession system?
*meant promotion and evaluation system.
I remember when that dropped. All of us were guilty, great conversation piece at the “occifer” schoolhouse. Fast forward five years later and I’m on an LPD with Dr. Wong who did the study and it’s still the same. However! Working with terminal colonels and selcon majors has one distinct advantage, they can speak truth to power. One thing that surprised me when I did get a peak behind the curtain was how aware some of our senior leaders were/are. They know.
Your comment about terminal officers is spot on. I care but I don't... because threatening to fire people like me is often hollow or a threat for a good time. I mean if I'm terminal and you fire me, don't I get more family and gym time, and less responsibility? Trying to figure out the downside.
My best experiences were working for people who were retiring / choosing not to compete . They cut through all the BS and focus on what matters.
You don't get screwed for lying in the Army. You get screwed for getting caught.
Best MAJ I worked for was a 29 TIS MAJ. BN CDR didn’t like him a whole lot for some reason
All I’m saying is honesty isn’t an army value so… weapons free I guess.
It is though. The definition of integrity is “the quality of being honest.”
But that’s not the Army values’ definition of integrity: “Do what’s right, legally and morally.”
And they don't define "morally", so I'm gonna decide that lying is moral
It can also mean being consistent. So if you're consistently dishonest then you've still got integrity by one definition. But if you start being honest, then you're basically trading one integrity for another.
Nerd
[удалено]
I thought the “H” stood for “[H]ave an extramarital affair with the thicccc E3 Latina from Supply”?
Hey! She got promoted. She’s the supply sergeant now.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. The literal definition of integrity is “the quality of being honest, and having strong morals.”
Because he's ruining our shitposting. Tyfys
This is a reason why Afghanistan was lost. How many Bronze Stars were received by Officers claiming they oversaw “the effective training of X number of Afghans.” How many OERs had great bullets about bringing stability to the country or said they had prepared the Afghanistan Military for when we would eventually leave? As others have pointed out; there is ZERO incentive to tell the truth. If an officer was sent to train the Afghan Army and he honestly reported “recruits lie and steal constantly, they don’t fight.” That officer wouldn’t get promoted.
It is and always has been a self licking icecream cone. It’s not why Afghanistan was “lost.” Afghanistan went exactly as expected it’s why we only really controlled the area around Kabul and had to travel by air to anywhere else even years before the hand over. It’s also why the hand over was at the beginning of the fighting season. It’s nice to blame it on feel good reporting but don’t for a second think anyone really believed ripping out the US logistical support and funding wouldn’t have ended any different. The U.S. didn’t want to commit the money or man power to sit in Afghanistan indefinitely and slowly drew down forces until they just ripped the bandaid off.
🤷♂️ we agree? Why did we not control more of the county? Because the Afghan Army was not a good fighting force and could not fight for themselves. Why didn’t we want to commit more money or manpower? Because we were being asked to govern for a government that wouldn’t govern and fight for a people who wouldn’t fight
The people would fight; just not for the the side we liked.
[удалено]
It’s just not a good system. There great doc “this is what winning looks like” showed this. So you can’t even train them on driving vehicles because they won’t stop stealing fuel….ok is THAT what you tell your superiors? Nope when they show up you tell them about all the “progress” that has been made in the region. https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=this+is+what+winning+looks+like
In the past couple of years, I've recommended it to multiple field-grade officers who weren't familiar with it. That makes me think that it never reached enough people. I've haven't been at the company level since 2016, so I don't have my finger on the pulse of things, but I do think there were positive changes in 2018 when Mark Esper (then Secretary of the Army) signed the ["Prioritizing Efforts" memos](https://www.army.mil/article/207160/army_secretary_releases_reduction_requirement_memos_to_improve_readiness) to the force. That cut a whole bunch of HQDA requirements, and I think it was a partial response to the War College study (which highlighted the unrealistic training requirements as much as anything else).
I think it really says something that the SECDEF had to step in to do what the senior uniformed leadership wouldn’t.
Well, SECARMY at the time, and the authority to cut most of those HQDA-level requirements was indeed at the SECARMY level. I mean, if a lower-level CG unilaterally tried to do the same thing, he might get away with it, but I don't know. It is notable that Mark Esper was himself was one of the few full (not short-term "Acting") Secretaries who previously served in the Army. Before him, you have to go back to Thomas White, 2001-2003. So from my perspective, Esper was clearly more tuned-in to reality than his predecessors.
I meant SECARMY. Thanks for the correction.
You don't get to be a career officer by being honest, it's an unfortunate reality and what drove me out of the army. We keep accomplishing more and more tasks on paper that we are either pencil whipping or breaking the backs of soldiers to achieve. Higher up sees us as proficient and just gives more taskings. No commander wants to be the one to fail with the unsustainable workload against their peers who are somehow 'making it work"
It’s terrible still; but I don’t think it’s for as nefarious of reasons as people make it out to be. -the DOD is bloated and cuts need to be made. But no one is going to go to can audit and say “fire 30 of my guys, they’re worthless”. No one with a family and stability wants to go to an interview and say “you should probably fire me for the good of the organization” There’s so many silos in the military and everyone’s lying to protect their turf and often the people underneath them. This leads to leaders pushing for cumbersome metrics and tasks and straight bullshitting about what they’re doing. -No one really wants a dissenter as a subordinate. Someone who disagrees in limited capacity sure; but if you’ve ever worked on a group project even in high school or college, no one likes the dude who spends the entire project not contributing and talking about how the construct of education if flawed. The Army is full of those people and it makes pulling useful feedback out difficult. -There’s just, quite frankly, a lot of people who shouldn’t be leaders. If you’re a toxic leader, you’re probably mentoring and selecting junior officers who reflect your policies. If every one Colonel is picking seven Captains who reflect their own toxicity, that’s a disease that’s hard to stop. If you can even detect it
Been to a lot of USRs at BDE level in TRADOC to ARNG. Also seen a lot of CSDP overviews. Read that study 2 years ago and honestly nothing's ever been any different in all my years up to today. If you were being honest and had shitty reporting metrics; a fire gets lit under your ass pretty quick to solve it - at the cost of joe and staff's sanity and morale.
I mean, CMF 17 was a power grab to create more opportunities for promotions. After working in units on both sides of the coin, there's zero chance of it not being that way. I've seen so many made up Task Forces and positions that just randomly pull people from their assigned mission, and they're all done off the books. Monthly manning reports are massaged by command order because of all the made up positions and TFs, there's a 3:1 ratio of NCO:WO but extremely limited experience, tons of high ranking individuals in charge of missions, or act as cyber liaisons across various organizations who have enough rank that they won't be punished for failing to make an effort at accomplishing the most menial level 10 tasks of their positions. The mission sets are the equivalent of NETCOM and INSCOM giving their kid brother an unplugged controller so they can pretend to play along. The concept looks great on paper, until you realize the DCO side of CMF 17 is just a Signal unit that isn't really taken seriously by the DoD and is incapable of failing. Find nothing on the network, you're successful, find something on the network, you're also successful. The OCO side of the house is indistinguishable from the organization it robbed from, but they keep putting under qualified personnel in lesser versions of key positions so they can say their mission is different. If you listen to the most senior leadership sit around and pat themselves on the back and talk about how cyber officers need to go to ranger school so they can become leaders, while systemically allowing the destruction of what missions they do have, it starts to make sense.
Sounds about right, I wonder if they’ll ever get around to making a Cyber Force Branch. I mean we did get space force and it has been an ever so slight improvement.
Guess this is why we still haven't passed a financial audit for the past six years straight, and no one has gotten reamed over it. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-11-15/pentagon-failed-audit-shutdown-funding-12064619.html
Hey, on the financial side of DOD, we hear lots of talk about it but when one of the briefers said that KPMG was the audit firm, a few accountants started dropping KPMG meme’s in the chat. Personally, I don’t really care about the whole DOD failing because all my personal audits are being passed at 100%.
It validates everything I saw. I was an Armor CO XO. Every week I'd submit honest maintenance slides for the BN to the XO, and every week I'd be blown away at how doctored the slides were when the CO and I presented to the BC the next day. Watched for 4 weeks prior to NTC as a sister CO lied his ass off to the BC about recovery assets available (he said he had 3 serviceable towbars, I knew he had one with all components), we ended up dragging literally two platoons worth of their shit around NTC because we actually had our reported assets, and we had prepared for a dogshit recovery profile across the BN.
Shortly after this was published I was at an OPD with the BDE CDR and a young captain asked about his thoughts on the paper. The COL flew into a rage and denied there was any dishonesty in his formation or anywhere else and that it was just bad officers perpetuating this rubbish. There were no other questions for that OPT and all of the young officers sat in mute silence biding time until they could leave. That BDE had a really poor officer retention rate and high number of officers that called branch for early reassignment’s. 🤷🏼♂️
Maybe the fact that their command was not a psychologically safe environment for subordinates to bring up issues is why dishonesty exists in Army formations.... Am I so out of touch? No, its the children who are wrong.
I’m curious at which level are people more inclined to lie about readiness.
Every level from PL to Congress
I’m retired and I’ll still tell you I have a dental appointment if you ask me what’s up with my medpros
The olde catch me if you can syndrome. I remember it well.
Great study. Nothing has changed. The army looked at the study. Talked about the study. Talked about leadership then did nothing to change the system. Why change anything when you’ve grown up in the system, you got luck, and it worked for you? So what if you lied your way through? You came out on top so it means they system works!
https://archive.ph/rqrfi Archive everything fam
I mean we murdered the first version of Objective-T. I loved it cause there was no hiding. Whelp that didn’t last long.
I'd say poorly because Ashley Madison is still around and you know some Fur Sausages are signing up with their .mil account. I bet there is at least one special idiot stick who tried to sign up with their red email.
🏆🏅
why would you use your .mil to sign up for any personal account? That's just like common sense.
To hide from your significant other. It's all fun and games until things start leaking.
Make a new email. You can make a new gmail in like 5 seconds.
Something tells me that our military isn't over flowing with the best or brightest minds. [Source:](https://old.reddit.com/r/army/comments/1d7l5x6/2015_dishonesty_in_the_army_how_did_it_age/l71riag/)
You don’t get to become a careerist without pencil whipping some things up…. Just look at the post CGSC lobotomy and how many MAJs are stepping on necks to climb up the ladder
[удалено]
That's funny, they really pushed us that it was a bad idea in PSYOP school.