In last week's "You know you're a planner when..." post, KimcheeGI brought up HANDCON, FISTCON and FAVORCON - and didn't explain any of them.
HANDshake CONtrol (being nice and friendly and consensus-building), Balled FIST CONtrol (pretty much the opposite of HANDCON), and FAVOR CONtrol (having or gaining leverage).
The pseudonymous LTC Francis Parks is a strategic planner, and one of the better minds operating in the US Army today.
The Litany is making it's way through email circles in the Army (and I assume elsewhere). It's funny. It's biting. It's critical of how the Army does business. It's critical of how the government does business, but not in a carping way - in a way that runs you through the thought processes of a man trying to figure out how to accomplish his mission and help us succeed, building on our strengths, and examining our weaknesses.
It's also a little window into the kind of life the Heartless Libertarian is leading now - because he, too, is a strategic planner.
Bearing in mind my Army school days are decades behind me - but I learned more about how to go about planning by reading the Litany than I ever learned in an Army school - because in my era, we were really focused on the tactical, to the exclusion of much else.
The Litany is an excellent look at the inside, good, bad, and ugly.
Here's an example:
I don't have permission to publish this (I've asked, just not heard back) but I can email it to you on request. For those with an interest, whether personal or professional - it's worth the read. Bear in mind, it's very much an insider document - it will be tough reading if you don't have some idea of the argot.
HANDshake CONtrol (being nice and friendly and consensus-building), Balled FIST CONtrol (pretty much the opposite of HANDCON), and FAVOR CONtrol (having or gaining leverage).
The pseudonymous LTC Francis Parks is a strategic planner, and one of the better minds operating in the US Army today.
The Litany is making it's way through email circles in the Army (and I assume elsewhere). It's funny. It's biting. It's critical of how the Army does business. It's critical of how the government does business, but not in a carping way - in a way that runs you through the thought processes of a man trying to figure out how to accomplish his mission and help us succeed, building on our strengths, and examining our weaknesses.
It's also a little window into the kind of life the Heartless Libertarian is leading now - because he, too, is a strategic planner.
Bearing in mind my Army school days are decades behind me - but I learned more about how to go about planning by reading the Litany than I ever learned in an Army school - because in my era, we were really focused on the tactical, to the exclusion of much else.
The Litany is an excellent look at the inside, good, bad, and ugly.
Here's an example:
It's a topic that Dusty has ranted about, I've ranted about, Bill has ranted about, and Ry, oddly enough, has lectured about...3.a.5. The nagging question of interagency cooperation
The lone forcing agency for the interagency that exercises directive control over the Departments representing the USG is that of the National Security Council, which operates far, far above JTF level. This means that true interagency cooperation below that level is inevitably ad hoc. When I was in Iraq, this was the domain of the Joint Coordination Centers from provincial level on down, at least for achieving coordination among different parts of the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, there is no such function in the USG, so barring lead agency relationships (which are fungible in any case) we return to HANDCON.
It took two elements of nigh-catastrophic failure (EAGLE CLAW and URGENT FURY) to act as the impetus for Goldwater-Nichols (and Nunn-Cohen by extension). I’m not sure what it would take to do a Beyond Goldwater-Nichols to unify the interagency, but that has to compete with the American state religion of separation of powers (or so it seems). One possible explanation for the enduring workability of the American system is that it has never centralized power in one place. That begs the question of whether the price of stability is eternal inefficiency. It may very well be. If the closest thing to a proconsul is a combatant commander, and that there are more interagency and military seams than I can shake a stick at in Afghanistan, this may lead to the de facto execution falling to the Defense Department. That may not sit too well with the American civil religion of civilian primacy over the military.
I don't have permission to publish this (I've asked, just not heard back) but I can email it to you on request. For those with an interest, whether personal or professional - it's worth the read. Bear in mind, it's very much an insider document - it will be tough reading if you don't have some idea of the argot.
Because, even though all are *theoretically* on an equal footing, some footing is more equal than that of the others -- in the minds of those who have that particular footing, anyway.
One of these days, I'll be able to tell y'all a story that'll churn your guts.
And about zero seconds after I hit the "Submit" button, I'll get an "Oooooh! Oooooooh!" e-gram from JoA...
Whatever it is.
To all: As I look at this, it sounds *so simple*. It sounds like everybody is saying, "Hey, John, just tell us!" Be careful of what you want, you're liable to receive it. The bigger problem is where you'll get it. Then, there's the issue of removing it, *ouch!* The real thing you're asking for is "The Truth". Are you willing to have your whole view changed? "The Truth" is willing to be tested, are you?
@XBradTC and @BillT , Gentlemen, I use that term loosely, I would ask your permission to focus on your comments. The term "Gentlemen", always seems like a straitjacket. I just don't see either of you there, I see in your writing, that healthy impishness, (Troublemaker). Me, I'm a "Board-Certified Rectal Discomfort, Royalty Status Pending". I was a patient at a VA Med. Ctr., I had an old fashioned, "Iron Pants" Head Nurse. She came in to my room to do an interview, the first words out of her mouth, "Watch your language!" I used that description word for word, she broke out laughing.
Getting to your comments, @XBradTC, you raise three issues, 1. National Team, 2. DoD running the show and 3. looking to the past for Lessons Learned. We have a problem with legal issues, "nuts and bolts" type of issues, plus cultural issues to be solved *first*. This is required for a practical application of a "National Team." Is the DoD running the train or running like crazy to catch the caboose? We should look at the past, but be willing to see *ALL OF IT!* This is no minor issue.
To @BillT, you write a rather profound sentence in your comment. "One of these days, I'll be able to tell y'all a story that churn your guts." I think you're right on the button about the response. You have raised the issue of having information, but then what? You are a "gentleman" and "diplomat", therefore you stated the location of the "churning" as in your "gut". I personally believe it will be a little further south. Yes, exactly where you don't want it.
To both of you, *Thank You, for your Service*
I am *soooooooo* disappointed.
(Besides, I'm trying to cage a ride on the new jeep)
Cadge! Cadge a ride!
Oh, wait - yer a chem major. Never mind.