If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame.
--Sun Tzu
The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the goddamned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, "Jesus Christ, it's the goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-* bitch Patton!"
--Gen. George Patton
I t wasn't that long ago we found out that the United States military had a computer force. Or something like that. Some of us old-timers should be forgiven for not knowing how it works. There are still those of us who can't operate a cell phone without pulling a hamstring.
But at a UCA event recently, we saw some young officers wearing a new kind of military insignia and asked about it. They were with the U.S. Army's Cyber Command. And thank heavens for them. We sleep better o' night knowing they're standing on the wall, too. Even if it's a computerized firewall.
This past week, the Pentagon came out with details about its so-called "artificial intelligence task force." A report was declassified so the media could talk about it publicly. But the declassification process, whatever it was, might have been unnecessary. The language used by the high-ranking officers in this report was so foggy, it could have been printed by a WWII Enigma machine.
When did the brass in the United States military begin talking like modern CEOs? Years ago, somebody told us the U.S. military could teach any dummy to move, shoot and communicate. But it must not be teaching communication in officer schools these days. For surely what we read in that report was not communication. It was not clearness. It necessarily could not be clearness. Even an American jury would have penetration enough to discover that. (Twain, M.)
One officer among the Artificial Intelligence types told the papers this: "Helicopters are a vital part of our force structure, but aviation equipment is resource and maintenance intense. We are able to leverage expertise to develop and refine algorithms. We can get to the granular level of specificity, not just for the fleet but eventually for tail numbers. We are working to refine the analytics and machine learning to not only increase the specificity but also improve the time horizon to predict when maintenance needs will occur."
Do what?
Time horizon? Leverage expertise? Granular level of specificity? This reminds us of the belly-laugh we got several years ago when an officer mentioned that a particular piece of equipment wasn't "problem-divorced." You mean, soldier, that it ain't working? Then say so!
Where is George Patton when you need him? He fought the way he cussed: with great seriousness but with great effect. Nobody misunderstood his words, or his mood. We'd like to have watched him as a modern field grade officer explained granular levels of specificity. Just to watch the air turn blue.
But modern officers only repeat what they're taught. And what kind of things are they reading? The Pentagon put out its National Defense Strategy earlier this year, and here are some excerpts:
"The re-emergence of long-term strategic competition, rapid dispersion of technologies, and new concepts of warfare and competition that span the entire spectrum of conflict require a Joint Force structured to match this reality."
"A more lethal, resilient, and rapidly innovating Joint Force, combined with a robust constellation of allies and partners, will sustain American influence and ensure favorable balances of power that safeguard the free and open international order. Collectively, our force posture, alliance and partnership architecture, and Department modernization will provide the capabilities and agility required to prevail in conflict and preserve peace through strength."
Dilbert would understand. Actually, the joke is that he wouldn't. Because none of this corporate-speak is understandable.
An outfit making widgets can have this kind of stuff in its reports, on its websites, and in its conference rooms. The United States military isn't making widgets. Language is the Little Round Top of debate and discussion. The brass can't give that up for long without consequences.
If orders are not understood, the generals are to blame. Somebody in the Pentagon should add that lesson to their weekly presentations.
Any living language changes. But it still must be understood. Language is supposed to enlighten, not conceal.
Leave concealment for camoflage class. That's another lesson the brass should learn.
Editorial on 09/22/2019