I am amazed that we would give credence to the academic theory of “adaptive leadership” (“Adaptive Leaders Course: Old Dogs Teaching New Tricks,” November) when we have forces in the field in active combat. That discussion is better suited to a peacetime think tank (such as the Army Capabilities Integration Center, whatever that means), where it was first broached as part of the transformation effort. Despite the cute dogs, this way lies madness.

To begin with, there is a basic mismatch between the abstract theory of a learning organization and the reality of the active Army. A learning organization is typically an organization that is low in specialization, formalization and centralization, which is the antithesis of the Army. Such an organic organization is typically small and manned by highly educated, technically skilled professionals who need little guidance to accomplish technical tasks. As an organization grows in size, it requires a more mechanistic organization, with greater standardization, formalization and centralization, lest chaos replace effectiveness. In addition, organizational strategy determines whether an organic or mechanistic approach is appropriate. Providing an efficient, effective service—defense of the nation—clearly dictates more standardization and centralization.

Were that mismatch not reason enough for skepticism over the application of the theory to today’s at-war Army, any philosophy that allows “those who make a mistake in action [to] attempt to explain why they erred” has no place in combat. Tolerating failure ends with training, where lives are not involved.

Encouraging initiative and involvement in subordinates does not require anything but good old-fashioned leadership of the kind espoused by frequent contributors Generals Kroesen and Meloy. Comparing the overblown, jargon-laden explanation of an adaptive leaders program with the concise writing found in the “CompanyCommand” feature clearly supports that point.

COL. MICHAEL D. MAHLER, USA RET.
Bozeman, Mont.


Col. Kingseed

For years I have opened my new issue of ARMY Magazine with the eagerness of a young boy in the 1950s opening Boys’ Life or the Saturday Evening Post. My favorite place to turn is the book reviews section. Your reviewer, Col. Cole C. Kingseed, U.S. Army retired, is by far one of the most interesting and readable writers for ARMY. Occasionally, he even displays a sense of humor when necessary. You can tell he has researched his material well, compared his reviewed book with others of its type and developed a style that makes you just want to go out and read it. His turns of phrase are mixed with knowledge of his subject and a comfortable understanding of his readers’ military history experience level.

Please encourage him to continue reviewing.

COL. DENNIS L. CRIPPS, USA RET.
Colorado Springs, Colo.


AUSA Membership

Twenty years ago, I wrote a lengthy letter to ARMY Magazine and was delighted to see it published in the next issue. Through the mid-1990s, I submitted several more. One was even cited in the source notes of a book published in 1999. After that, ARMY’s content no longer raised written responses from me. I became too immersed in supporting the mobilization and demobilization activities of Army Reserve units and soldiers for operations in Bosnia and Kosovo and in post-9/11 contingencies to make any further intellectual attempts at doing so. However, faced with the deadline for deciding whether or not to renew my membership in the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) for the first time since my transfer to the retired list, I feel I must try to explain myself.

For me, and perhaps others, this has not been a happy time in which to bring a long and active Army career to its conclusion. At this time last year, when I began my retirement processing in earnest, I determined that, for the sake of benefits due to my family, I would be as thorough as possible. Given the state of duress the Army was in, however, and the less advantageous fates of many of my fellow soldiers, I also decided there would be no celebration or commemoration associated with my retirement. In short, the American flag that was privately presented to me by my commander was then given to the family of a member of my infantry training squad at Fort Jackson, S.C., who died before an enemy bunker in Vietnam less than a month after we got there in December 1970. The certificates supposedly signed by President Bush and then-Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Peter Schoomaker, which were enclosed in the envelope containing my active duty certification documents, were brought to Rep. Martin Meehan’s (D-MA) Lowell, Mass., office, with a request that they be returned to the White House and the Pentagon. The daily flow of bad news and ensuing controversies, which have continued at full steam since my retirement in February, have confirmed in my conscience that I approached my last months on the active rolls correctly.

For a time, I was sure that this letter reflecting my decision would be a negative one. But, as I try to follow Gen. Robert E. Lee’s advice to the members of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox—to go home and be as good citizens as they were soldiers—I have decided that it is essential to remain a member of AUSA.

I now realize that my current dissatisfaction with where the course of events since 2003 led us should not obscure the legacy of my father’s Army, which wrote its greatest chapter in World War II and then helped contain the communist powers so that much of the noncommunist world would achieve freedom and prosperity. I cannot disavow my own comrades, who endured the strategic missteps of the war in Southeast Asia and worked so hard to achieve decisive victories in Panama and the first Persian Gulf War, then effectively intervened in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo before answering the call to respond to the attacks on the United States on 9/11. These legacies, along with most of the Army’s pre-World War II history, should be sources of pride for all Americans. I now realize that I owe it to my fellow veterans to promote them in every way I can.

I also realize that my role as a retiree and veteran calls for me to do whatever I can to improve our national chain of command, so that it leads the Army through these current troubles into an era in which its role is more intelligently defined by the consensus of a less fragmented electorate, more effective Congress and less isolated executive branch. I pray that the influential members of this chain of command will overcome the prevalence of careerism to realize that they owe servicemembers, in the words of Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), “sound judgment, clear thinking, concern [and] a guarantee that the threat to our country [equals] … the price … to pay in defending it.”

Further, in fellowship with those still on active duty and members of the Army Reserve and National Guard, I must be concerned with the improvement of the quality of life of those soldiers and their families who are preparing for, participating in or recovering from our nation’s ongoing military operations. Finally, I must be just as concerned about improving the lifelong support system established for veterans and their families, primarily by the Department of Veterans Affairs, but also in the form of retirement benefits from the DoD. These issues will not be adequately addressed until the national leadership follows through on its current pledges to overcome bureaucratic indifference and reform arcane regulations and procedures, which prevent many in need from accessing the care and support promised to them as part of their acceptance of the risks of military service.

Therefore I am including with this letter my AUSA membership renewal form and dues as a step toward fulfilling my obligations as described above.

FRED JOYCE
Acton, Mass.


“Protecting the Warfighter”

I read with interest the article “Protecting the Warfighter” by Cols. William Schafer and Cassie Barlow (November, “Front & Center”) and the discussion of the problems and opportunities related to the prevention and treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the warfighter. The authors mentioned the possibility of implementing training and education that would reduce the warfighter’s susceptibility to PTSD as well as teach him or her to recognize the emergence of PTSD. It seems there is a good possibility this could be accomplished through the education of the individual soldier and the addition of neurofeedback training to the basic regimen. Soldiers could be trained with neurofeedback before, during and after combat. Neurofeedback—also called electrocephalogram (EEG) biofeedback—is an evolution of biofeedback that uses computerization to analyze an EEG and give feedback to the brain about its very recent performance. It is a training system that uses operant conditioning to teach the brain maximum efficiency and self-regulation.

Neurofeedback should be looked at as a tool that could form the basis of a PTSD solution.

BRAD BURROUGHS, RN
Ashtabula, Ohio


The Army Uniform

Over the past year, I have read many articles and letters about the wearing of the Army uniform and green versus blue. After reading the letter by SSgt. Mark Racicot in the September issue of ARMY Magazine, I decided to put in my two cents worth.

First, let me say that I agree with what Maj. James H. Centric, U.S. Army retired, said in the July issue (“Letters”). The battle dress uniform (BDU) and the Army combat uniform (ACU) were not designed to be worn everywhere. Their very names indicate where they were designed to be worn: battle and combat (or at the very most at work). Also, the physical training (PT) uniform was meant to be worn for PT. None of these uniforms (BDU, ACU and PT) was designed to be worn to the local department store in the evening or to the local restaurant for the evening meal with the family. Local commanders can stop this practice if they want to.

During World War II, Korea and Vietnam, the fatigue uniform was not worn off post. There was no doubt by the civilian population during those years that we were at war. When civilians saw a soldier wearing the Class A uniform, the ribbons, awards and “Hershey Bars” reminded people that we were at war, as did the news media.

If the BDU, ACU and PT uniforms are meant to be worn everywhere, why have a Class A uniform?

I entered the Army in 1959, during the changeover to the green uniform. In his book U.S. Army Uniforms of the Cold War: 1948-1973, Shelby L. Stanton does a good job of explaining why the Army changed uniforms from olive drab to green.

My suggestions for uniforms are:

• Keep the Class A green uniform and issue one set to everyone entering the Army.

• Issue the dress blue uniform to everyone after they complete six months service. This would give those with more than six months service both the green and blue uniforms. The only cap authorized with the dress blue would be the service cap.

• Do away with the beret and return to the overseas cap with the green uniform, except for Rangers and Special Forces. The airborne units could wear the overseas cap with the glider patch; it has tradition.

• Return to the patrol cap for wear with the ACU.

• Authorize the permanent-press khaki uniform as an optional uniform.

• The ACU, or other work uniform, would not be authorized to wear off post after 1700 hours or when appearing at a public civilian function.

Put some pride into the wearing of the Class A uniform and stop using the ACU as an all-occasion uniform. It all starts with the leadership.

CSM LOWELL A. MAY, USA RET.
Riley, Kan.