GEN Dempsey’s writing campaign

The latest issue of ARMY magazine hit my mailbox a few days ago.  It includes an article (read it here) by GEN Martin Dempsey, Commanding General (CG) of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), which is the fourth in a series of articles by Dempsey that, as he stated in his first article, “highlight [TRADOC] initiatives that support our campaign of learning.”  His purpose for the series is to “generate an Army-wide dialogue about our emerging concepts in order to establish a broader understanding of Army adaptation as an institutional imperative in an era of persistent conflict.”  Given GEN Dempsey’s recent nomination to be the next Chief of Staff of the Army, the ideas in these articles will likely be at the forefront of the Army for years to come.

In his first article, A Campaign of Learning to Achieve Institutional Adaptation, Dempsey explains his intent for the campaign of learning–that it serve as “the foundation of institutional adaptation”–and he provides a general outline of the topics for the series.

Dempsey’s second article, Concepts Matter, summarizes The Army Capstone Concept and The Army Operating Concept. Then he states, “These concepts matter.  They provide the intellectual foundation for how we design our Army and produce the doctrine, organizations, training, materiel, leaders, personnel and facilities to support it.”

His third article, Mission Command, discusses the establishment, in the upcoming revision of FM 3-0, of mission command as a warfighting function to replace the command and control warfighting function.  He emphasizes that this change:

…is not merely a matter of rhetoric.  It represents a philosophical shift to emphasize the centrality of the commander, not the systems that he or she employs.  It seeks a balance of command and control in the conduct of full spectrum operations; it asserts that command is likely to include not only U.S. military forces but also, increasingly, a diverse group of international, nongovernmental and host-nation partners.

In Dempsey’s latest article, Leader Development, he asserts that “the most critical adaptations we can make within our campaign of learning” are to “[align and connect] our leader-development programs and policies with our conceptual foundation and doctrinal changes such as mission command…”  He goes on to describe “a series of substantive adaptations to re-balance the three pillars of leader development…and…several [proposed] personnel policy changes to make it clear that we are elevating the importance of our leader-development programs.”  He introduces two documents–the Army Leader Development Strategy for a 21^st Century Army (ALDS) and a December 2010 white paper The Profession of Arms—that will “guide our efforts to adapt our leader-development programs and policies.”  Some of the initiatives he describes include:

• “…replicating the complexity of the operational environment in the classroom and at home station.”  This is to be accomplished by implementing the Army Training Concept (ATC) which is “designed to make training more rigorous and relevant by leveraging technology to create challenging training environments for our leaders.”  A core enabler of the ATC is TRADOC’s “Training Brain,” which is “a data repository operating out of the Joint Training Counter-IED Operations Integration Center (JTCOIC)” and which “allows us to pull streams of real-world data from current operations…and use it to build realistic scenarios to support training throughout the Army.”  He also highlights the value of “massive multiplayer online role-playing games.”
• The need “to move away from a platform-centric learning model to one that is centered more on learning through facilitation and collaboration.”

These aren’t the only words from Dempsey on these topics.  In October 2009, he spoke to the AUSA’s Chapter Presidents’ Dinner on Our Army’s Campaign of Learning.  In February 2010, Dempsey spoke to the AUSA’s Winter Symposium and Exposition on The Army Capstone Concept and Institutional Adaptation.  And the October 2010 edition of the ARMY Green Book carries an article by Dempsey titled Driving Change Through a Campaign of Learning.  I’m sure there are other articles out there, in places such as Military Review and Small Wars Journal.

In addition, GEN Dempsey’s subordinates are helping him carry the message.  Here’s some examples:

• The September 2010 issue of ARMY carries the article Concepts Lead Change for the Army, which is written by two key members of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC)–one of Dempsey’s subordinate organizations.

• The November 2010 issue of ARMY includes an article by LTG Michael Vane (TRADOC’s DCG Futures and the ARCIC Director) titled Charting the Army’s Direction.

• In the February 2011 issue of ARMY, the article Introducing the Mission Command Center of Excellence is written by LTG Robert Caslen (TRADOC’s DCG Combined Arms and CG of the Combined Arms Center) and COL(P) Charles Flynn (Director of the Mission Command Center of Excellence).

Obviously, GEN Dempsey and his staff are executing a very thorough strategic communications plan!

The articles contain much food for thought.  Here’s some that comes to mind:

1. How goes the “Army-wide dialogue about our emerging concepts”?  What have learned from it so far?  Has it prompted any changes?  Is the dialogue being summed up anywhere?  (Although TRADOC has a blog with posts for many of these articles, the relatively low number of comments suggests that the Army-wide dialogue isn’t occurring there!)
2. Have these concepts already been validated?  If not, how are they being validated?  Are we plunging ahead with implementing these concepts before validating them?
3. [Note to self:  Find and read the ALDS, the Profession of Arms white paper, and the ATC.]
4. What will it cost to replicate “the complexity of the operational environment in the classroom and at home station”?  Can we afford it?
5. What are the implications of moving “away from a platform-centric learning model to one that is centered more on learning through facilitation and collaboration”?  For example, what changes will be needed to TRADOC Reg 350-70 Systems Approach to Training?
6. For companies that support the Army in doctrine development, training support, etc., what can they do now to better prepare for the changes that will occur as a result of these concepts and initiatives?

I welcome your thoughts.  Please post them below.