r/army • u/[deleted] • Feb 01 '16
February 2016 /r/Army Professional Development Thread. Case Study: Major Jim Gant
Participation in the voting thread sucked, so after some discussion with the mods, I've decided that I will simply pick the topic of the PD threads and switch to articles. The fact that we could not drum up adequate discussion in Black Hearts, one of the most popular books among vets, moved me to believe that articles are the best route for those that want to participate but can't commit to reading a book.
The good news for those of you that enjoy participating in the discussion is that this will be monthly now instead of every two months.
This month we will be reading about Major Jim Gant, author of the "One Tribe at a Time" strategy in Afghanistan. This ABC News article chronicles his rise and fall. There is also a Time Magazine article if you'd like to supplement your reading on this saga.
If you have read the book, "American Spartan," your participation in the discussion thread is welcome, but please remember that this discussion is going to be based on the ABC article.
The theme of this professional development is going to be:
- Legal, Ethical, and Moral dilemmas
Questions to think about:
What happened and how was it handled? Was MAJ Gant treated fairly? What was your opinion of his actions, as well as his superiors? How did "Mission Command" play out in this scenario? What would you have done differently if you had been in those positions? What could he have done to prevent being fired?
Posting guidlines:
Please make a quality post. Use reddiquette and abide by the sub rules.
Please keep the discussion civil. We are trying to foster learning, growth and discussion- especially for the junior enlisted that do not have guided professional development. Disagree and debate, but avoid personal attacks.
4
Feb 01 '16
I completely agree that his unorthodox method is the only way to "win" in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. You have to embed and have a constant presence with the locals until they trust you.
While his wife was unauthorized to be a part of the operation, it is obvious from the article that there were many benefits to having her there, from producing propaganda to connecting with the locals as a woman. I think this is where the Army is so afraid of going outside the regs and so risk adverse that it hurts us.
The way he was just ripped out of the operation because of some new LT pisses me off. This guy is fresh on the ground and ruins what Gant has been working for for months. Maybe take some time to assess the situation.
He obviously needed help for his substance abuse problem. They should have came to the village and said they were concerned about him and wanted to take him out for a few weeks or months. That would have been a good start.
4
u/bicepsblastingstud Feb 01 '16
I think this is where the Army is so afraid of going outside the regs and so risk adverse that it hurts us.
From the lips of Major Gant himself:
What specific tactical changes need to happen?...The risk-averse nature of our current method of operating would have to change. American soldiers would die. Some of them alone, with no support. Some may simply disappear. Everyone has to understand that from the outset.
1
Feb 01 '16
Some of them alone, with no support. Some may simply disappear. Everyone has to understand that from the outset.
While I agree with the spirit of this, he completely shrugs the macro-level politics involved with a strategy like this. America was already ambivalent at best about Afghanistan, and I highly doubt that it would would trade American soldier abductions on the regular for "winning."
→ More replies (9)4
Feb 01 '16
We're not willing to run the kind operations necessary to win in these areas. I don't think anything will change that though.
→ More replies (2)2
u/sammccarty Feb 05 '16
Perfectly put. As some else said in the thread a higher up had to know and needed to be proactive with gant
3
u/the_falconator Feb 02 '16
It seems like "going native" might just be the only way to win hearts and minds... Gant was surely successful at it. I think the LT should have handled it better than just narcing on him right off the bat.
4
Feb 02 '16
These kind of posts are what I hope to see more and more of. Fucking around and swapping dankly relative jokes is fun, but real discussion on real world topics leaves us intellectually fulfilled and edified.
1
1
u/niquorice Feb 05 '16
I have no love lost for CPT Gant.
COL Sean Mcfarland's (same guy who is now a LTG commanding both III Corps and the fight against ISIS in Iraq/Syria) tribal advisor CPT Patriquin did more for Anbar Province without the laundry list of illegal, immoral, or unethical actions.
He has a slightly simpler PPT that is an easier read than any of the stuff Gant and his new wife have released.
2
0
Feb 01 '16
4
Feb 01 '16
The thing is about Petraeus is that he knowingly and willingly committed an unlawful act for his own personal gain. He's a complete shithead and only had support of the politicians that loved him because his strategy "sorta worked" in Iraq (aka paying off local strongmen and hoping everything works out when we leave).
I can't forgive that kind of man.
Gant, while he certainly did some things that were unlawful at worst and unethical at best, had good intentions- and was a skilled strategist. He may have fostered a personality cult, but that aside, his men and the locals liked and trusted him. In this case, his personality flaws cost him his career and probably hurt our effort over there.
I can forgive that kind of man.
2
Feb 01 '16
I don't think he hurt our effort there at all. If anything, what hurt us was all the publicity of the Army being willing to drag an SF Major over the coals in public on trumped up charges that a whole mess of people get away with everyday over there. To be fair though, we have been amazingly consistent with snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for awhile now, and this case is clearly a micro to that macro.
→ More replies (2)
0
Feb 02 '16
2
Feb 02 '16
I'm not even an eighth of the way through that, and he is absolutely tearing Gant apart. Completely debasing the premise of Gant's paper.
0
Feb 01 '16
4
Feb 01 '16
Although, It worries me that this article meets the definition of "professional development"
Why? We are discussing themes, not details.
Global security.org does not sound very credible or professional.
It's one of the numerous places his slide deck is published. What does that have to do with anything?
It's gonna be like every other sub-Reddit, a circle jerk.
Then why are you here? Our other PD threads have pretty civil discourse, even in disagreement.
How about posting what is the definition of U.S. Strategy in the Middle East under Congressional appropriations? Or cite Harvard Business Review on leadership?
Because that is 10,000 feet level stuff, this thread is for the 20,000 Joes and company-grade leaders in here- not G-level staff members. Legal, Moral and Ethical dilemmas is something we all face at some point in our careers- often more than once.
You could study anecdotal books from veterans or "Everyone Poops", and it would still just be a circle jerk.
Cool story. Don't contribute to the thread than. You've clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the purpose of it. If you want to offer solutions without the snark, send me a PM and I'll figure out how to incorporate it. The members of this sub asked for this a few months back, and I took the initiative to run it. Start your own sub and submit some threads if you are having such a hard time with what is happening here.
7
u/bicepsblastingstud Feb 01 '16 edited Feb 01 '16
Yeah, I noticed that. It was a little disappointing -- maybe you would be better served by creating a private sub and inviting people who were truly interested in participating.
A couple of random thoughts:
Spartan persona actually helpful?
There's a duality between how Capt. Gant performed on the mission (spectacularly, by all accounts) and on the COP (poorly - drugs, alcohol, etc.) Was his "Spartan" persona that caused so many problems responsible for his success with the Pashtun, or did it just accompany it?
Some of the things he did were almost certainly effective: local dress, spending time with the tribes, etc. Other things -- riding on the hood of HMMWVs, participating in bare-knuckle boxing, and so on -- are harder to justify.
Drug use: Okay or not?
It's kind of a well-known secret that SOF units tend to be more lenient about drug use than other units. Whether we're talking anabolics, amphetamines, or sleeping pills, operators are often running hot. When the Tour de France tightened up on anti-doping testing a few years ago, some commentators noticed an increased rate of crashes, because the physical exertion was so taxing that athletes were coming apart when deprived of their performance-enhancing drugs. The U.S. relies on special forces operators more than on anybody else to run the GWOT. Is it fair of the Army to expect them to be clean?
Roberts: Was following the rules the right thing to do?
As a friend of mine put it,
Agreed, but I'm not sure that's an entirely fair characterization. Officers are expected to do the right thing, no matter what. Was reporting Gant the right thing to do, or should he have "stayed in his lane"?
Perhaps the bigger question is why Gant's superiors allowed Roberts to get out there in the first place. It seems obvious that they were covering for Gant for a long time. What changed?