CASE STUDY - WAR ON IRAQ

US army officer:  Subordinates should evaluate military leaders' performances

A US army officer has launched a stinging attack on the military top brass in an article titled "A failure in generalship" published in the Armed Forces Journal.

Lt Col Paul Yingling, whose unit was cited in a speech by the US President for its performance in Iraq, has said the generals have morally and intellectually failed in Iraq.

 Lt Col Yingling says that to prevent such mistakes of having the wrong generals at the top in future, subordinates should evaluate their leaders. Yingling writes, "The views of subordinates and peers play no role in an officer's advancement; to move up he must only please his superiors. In a system in which senior officers select for promotion those like themselves, there are powerful incentives for conformity. It is unreasonable to expect that an officer who spends 25 years conforming to institutional expectations will emerge as an innovator in his late forties."

Yingling adds "Junior officers and noncommissioned officers are often the first to adapt because they bear the brunt of failed tactics most directly.

"Junior leaders have valuable insights regarding the effectiveness of their leaders, but the current promotion system excludes these judgments. Incorporating subordinate and peer reviews into promotion decisions for senior leaders would produce officers more willing to adapt to changing circumstances, and less likely to conform to outmoded practices.

Yingling makes the point that "If America desires creative intelligence and moral courage in its general officer corps, it must create a system that rewards these qualities."

Read the full article here.