Our Association is a not-for-profit fraternal organization. It's purpose is a) to foster camaraderie among the graduates of Signal Corps Officer Candidate School classes of the World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War eras, b) to organize and offer scholarships and other assistance for the families of Officer and Enlisted OCS cadre who are in need, and c) to archive for posterity the stories and history of all of the Signal Corps OCS Officers who served this great country. We are open to ALL former Army Signal Corps OCS graduates, their families and friends, as well as other officers, enlisted men, those interested in military history, and the general public. Please, come join us. For more information about our Association, to see a list of our Officers and Directors, or for contact details, click on the OCS Association link at left.

Please note: The views and opinions expressed on this website are offered in order to stimulate interest in those who visit it. They are solely the views and expressions of the authors and/or contributors to this website and do not necessarily represent the views of the Army Signal Corps Officer Candidate School Association, its Officers, Directors, members, volunteers, staff, or any other party associated with the Association. If you have any suggestions for improvements to this site, please send them to WebMaster@ArmySignalOCS.com. We are here to serve you.                       

Comments under this byline are those of the Managing Editor of this website. They represent the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Army Signal Corps OCS Association.

Is This The Best We've Got?

An Analysis Of Leadership Traits

Generally speaking, from Congress through to the presidency, on both sides of the aisle, we have been given a typical selection of fair-to-middlin’ candidates from which to pick in filling the political posts up for election. There may be one or two good ones in the midst, but for the most part the field we have been presented with shows nothing great.

The question is, why? With over 307 million people in this country, why can’t we find a better group of prospects to select from when it comes to leading this great nation. Why are we not being presented with some 50 – 100 superbly qualified leaders jockeying for each available post? Instead, over and over again, we are given the chance to pick from people that appear to have selected politics for their career only after having failed miserably in trying to become the night manager at their local 7-11. What we need are leaders, not career vagrants.

Worse, they all seem to think that the duty of a political office holder is to change things. From the left and right they come, telling us how prepared they are to change America. Has anyone stop to consider that America doesn’t need to be changed, or remade into… and let’s get personal here… the next president’s image of what it should be… only to be remade again four years later when another dolt is elected… and then again four years after that, and again, and again, and again. Instead, perhaps all that America needs is to be competently administered.

Accept for a moment if you will that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with America. If so, then what the country needs is a group of leaders that will administer the country… instead of changing it to make it into what they think it should be. And to do that, all they have to do is enforce the laws that already exist, and lead the country on all other matters that come across their desk, instead of trying to change things by legislating an average of 300+ new laws each year until they leave office, and in the process ignoring the laws we already have.

Which raises another question: does anyone really think that we need 300 new laws each year, each of which has an average of 163 regulations included in it, to govern our collective behavior? And that we have needed this insane approach to leadership since our inception 236 years ago? 11,500,000+ laws and regulations at the federal level? Another 13,000,000+ in each state government, times 50 states? As a people, are we that much out of control and in need of regulation?

Perhaps what is lacking is leadership, not legislation. Leadership combined with a superb ability to administer a very complex, very large organization.

A short story so that you will see my point: when I was drafted I thought that the Army was the most messed up organization I had ever seen. To me it seemed like this big, bumbling albatross that couldn't get out of its own way. As far as I was concerned, it couldn't do anything right. Strangely, by the time I left OCS, a mere 8 months later, I thought it worked pretty gosh-darn well for its size. So, what happened in the middle?

Sure, the increase in pay from PVT to 2nd Lieutenant helped me change my opinion a bit. But the truth is, the real reason I began to think that the Army ran pretty well for its size was that I now had an insider’s look at how decisions were made, and more importantly, the quality of the leaders making those decisions.

When I went into the Army I thought it needed to be changed. By the time I left OCS I thought the only thing it needed was to be administered… by qualified and competent leaders. Leadership was what was needed, not change. Perhaps that’s what’s needed in our government too.

Take a minute to consider some of the leaders we as military people have had the blessing to have in our midst, and you will see what I mean when I say that the integrity, character, ethics, morals, and leadership traits that these men exhibited far exceed those of the dunderheads running our government, and many of those running for office today. And yet while we should bear in mind what Field Marshall Montgomery said when he warned that the qualities that are required of a combat leader are different than those required of a politician, and that neither is effective in the opposite role, here we will take the position that in today's modern world that is no longer the case.

Today, as a people, we know what's going on. We don't need silver tongued politicians using doublespeak to make the truth palatable to us. Instead what we need is leadership. Specifically, the same leadership traits required of a good combat Officer are those that we need in our president and congress.

Consider, if you will, these men:

[Note: key leadership traits of each man are shown in italics]

General  James Longstreet

General James Longstreet, considered by General Robert E. Lee to be a superb battle leader, began his career at West Point. He detested study, a common thread among both combat and business leaders, but was considered a “natural leader.” He had personal courage, displayed a high degree of force in battle, and because of his understanding of men, inspired his troops. He was charismatic and outspoken, tremendously self-confident, truthful, and a tenacious fighter.

General William Tecumseh Sherman

General Sherman, also a mediocre scholar from West Point, was very independent of mind. He learned easily, desired action, had a voracious thirst for information, was detail oriented and had a forceful personality. He had the moral courage to take unpopular stands when others chose to sacrifice truth for policy. His genius of intuition was well recognized. He was a cool, aggressive fighter, who relied on his personal presence and force of character. His personal courage resulted in his being wounded several times. He was aggressive, tenacious, and had a nervous energy that wouldn’t break under stress.

   

---

 

Please Note: Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the U.S. Army Signal Corps OCS Association.

This article is the third in a series regarding the Signal Corps and its path of evolution from WWII through Korea to Vietnam. The first two, The Signal Corps During World War II, and The Signal Corps During The Korean War, can be found on our Brief Histories page. Use the Brief Histories link above left to find them.

In each article we have tried to take a 50,000 foot view of what the Signal Corps did during these wars, and determine from such observation how it affected the Corps’ evolution from the simple mission it had when it first came to prominence during the Civil War, to the complex mission structure it holds today. If one looks back on those early days and considers that at the time of the Civil War the Signal Corps’ primary task was simply to observe the enemy (usually from a hot air balloon), report on its activities, and deliver messages via pigeons or signal flags, one can see that today its mission to do everything from manage strategic DOA and DOD assets to being responsible for…

• Automation, communication, electronics and network planning, design, engineering, evaluation, management, installation, operation, logistical support, and maintenance of signal equipment and systems; to

• Advising commanders, directors, and staff on command and control signal requirements, capabilities, and operations, including com­puter systems, data management, signals intelligence, signals monitoring, and network operation; to

• Developing requirements for the design and implementation of local, regional and global data, mobile, and fixed communications systems and networks; as well as

• Establishing, preparing, coordinating and directing programs, projects and activities engaged in unit level supply, logistics, maintenance, and life-cycle management of worldwide signal materiel; to

• Integrating tactical, strategic and sustaining base communication, information processing, and management systems into a seamless global information network able to support knowledge dominance for the Army as well as joint and coalition operations; to

• Directing and controlling of the units and activities involved with the application of electrical, electronics, and systems engineering and management principles in the design, test acceptance, installation, operation, and maintenance of signal systems, equipment, databases, networks, and facilities; to more esoteric activities such as

• Operating photo and video service undertakings that run the gamut from documenting combat activities to archiving the same, performing radio, data and other signal intelligence functions, to

• Developing document storage, processing, retention and delivery platforms, to

• Developing and implementing radio and radar countermeasures, establishing airway communications systems; and of course

• Participating in all manner of combat activities from support of joint-assault signal operations through to the most simple but critical defense of individual signal sites,

...one can see that the mission of the Signal Corps has changed over time.

The question we have been trying to answer through these three articles has been how did these changes come about and why. The answer we found is that the real time pressures of war, followed (in most cases) by government mismanagement of military budgets between wars, caused these changes.

In great part, the bulk of the changes in the Signal Corps’ approach to its duties came about during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam... and the times between them. It’s because of this that our focus over the past two articles has been on the Signal Corps during the first two of these wars. In this article we finish our series by looking at how the Vietnam War forced further change upon the Signal Corps.

Looking back over the prior two pieces, we can see that one of the key lessons we learned in looking at the Signal Corps during WWII and Korea is that unlike most branches of service where the task is singular, comprising little more than one of giving combat in a manner that contributes to winning a war, the Signal Corps has evolved during these periods to fulfill two roles. In military speak, it could be said that while other branches of service focus narrowly and almost exclusively on their task at the operational level of war, the Signal Corps found that in order to meet its ever evolving mission, it needed to expand its operational concept to take in not only the application of military art and science to areas within the operational level of war, but also external to it.

In this regard, the first role the Signal Corps carries out obviously relates to being a partner war fighter, along with all of the other branches of the U.S. military. Considering that over the past 60 years the Signal Corps has been first a part of the combat arms, then not, and then later included again, being a partner war fighter has not always been easy. Whether formally a partner war fighter or not, in this role the Signal Corps, like its sister branches, puts its men on the line—engaging the enemy where and when needed, as it goes about its task of providing any and all support required to deliver the communication capabilities essential to the other branches sharing the combat field with it.

The second, as the reader can intuit from the list above, relates to providing the kind, type, and quantity of communication and signal capabilities necessitated by the nature and characteristics of the war, situation, or conflict underway. And while the glory in what the Signal Corps does may rest within the former role of a war fighter, it is the work done within this latter category that earns the Signal Corps its stripes.

Continued at top of page COLUMN AT RIGHT 

---

    

---

  This page last updated 1 February 2012. New content is constantly being added. Please check back frequently.

---

Posted 2 February 2012 - We were happy this week to have received a Reader Response from MG (R) David Gust, Class 25-67, offering his thoughts and comments on our lead-in Editor's Note article, above left. His comment's are posted on the following link, which you can get to by reading the above article and then clicking on the link button at the end of it... or clicking here.Got your own thoughts on what we say on this site? By all means send them in to us at Info@ArmySignalOCS.com.

Posted 1 February 2012 - As kids we all climbed trees. Little did we know back then that there were lessons to be learned in the process. But there were, and if your memories are still clear of your youthful adventures, you can learn from them even today... so many years from your youth. Click here to read this month's Devotional, and remember again what life is supposed to be about. God bless.

Posted 1 February 2012 - New and better quality class picture for Class 19-66. Click here to see, and while you are at it, browse the photo album submitted by Walt Welsh back in June. Thanks Walt.

Posted 1 February 2012 - New helpful links added to our Other Links page. Find the menu item above left, click on it, and then look for the flashing NEW icons.

Posted 1 February 2012 - Don't miss the video at right. Click on the play button in the lower right corner of the Civil War picture at right to enjoy a 4.5 minute video you won't soon forget. Turn up your volume and enjoy the special music score we added too.

Posted 6 January 2012 - New high resolution picture of WWII OCS Class 12-42. Click here and scroll down page to see. Use your computer tools to zoom in for details. Photo courtesy Richard Marks, Class 09-67. Thanks Rich, you're a great supporter of this website, and we truly appreciate it!

Posted 3 January 2012 - New links to a couple of interesting sites: one on the history of the 8th Army, and the other on the truth behind some old  Vietnam War conspiracy theories. If you're tired of the same old stories, you can always take a break and spend some time poking through these sites. Click on the "Other Links" tab above left, and then look for the flashing red "New" icons.

 

Continued from left column... 

Two simultaneous missions: that of a war fighter, and that of the provider of any and all manner of communication—or as we know it today, Information Technology (IT), Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Information Systems (IS), Information Management (IM), Knowledge Management (KM), Technical Science Management and Application (TSMA), and Data Management (DM)—as may be required by the nature and characteristics of the conflict in question.

Without these two tasks being successfully performed by the Signal Corps, combatants from the other branches would find themselves existing and fighting within a vacuum... a vacuum void of information about the enemy, his position, intentions, status, and pattern of methodological behavior. For if the truth be told, these latter five elements form the determinants of war in the modern age, and it is the Signal Corps that is first and foremost responsible for assisting in their identification, documentation, and communication to the rest of the military.

One can see then that as both the foundation and the glue that makes possible an effective response to the numerous war activities the U.S. military gets involved in, by enumerating to its sister branches an enemy’s position, intention, status, and pattern of methodological behavior, the Signal Corps is the enabler that allows the sister services to act with both precision and objective intent. In other words, because of the information communicated by the Signal Corps, its sister services, such as the Infantry, are able to use this knowledge to their collective advantage. In today’s modern world, it would be said that the Signal Corps enables the Infantry to turn its troops into knowledge workers.[1] And yet while this seems self obvious to us today, the reader should recognize that the calling to serve this purpose is not only a far cry from the job the Signal Corps originally set out to do when it was founded, it is as equally far a cry from that which it did during the second world war and Korea. The Signal Corps has evolved. As pundits would say today, it’s not your father’s Signal Corps anymore.

To see what the Land Warrior System will look like in 2050 for a signaleer assigned as combat support for an infantry unit, click the picture above. Once opened, click to zoom in for a better view. For even more detail, use your computer tools to zoom in... such as changing the size of the page resolution.

As we saw in the previous two articles, WWII challenged the Signal Corps to develop several capabilities that it did not previously have, while the Korean War helped the Signal Corps to figure out how to better deliver these capabilities. One of the more important of these capabilities involved expanding the role of the Signal Corps to support a method of war-fighting originally developed by Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, but not fully applied since then until WWII. A basic tenet of how America fights wars even today, Grant’s doctrine revolved around the emphasized, overwhelming, and continued application of military force directly against the enemy army, as well as indirectly against the enemy's civilian population (read: the civilian-industrial sector), to prevent the civilian sector from acquiring the resources (including the availability of civilian manpower itself) needed to support the military. With no insult meant, Colin Powell’s famous Powell Doctrine of the application of overwhelming force in time of war is simply a restatement of Grant’s original war strategy, and a not very original one at that.[2]

World War II then served as a crucible in helping mold from the tailings of the old-school military of World War I a modern Signal Corps able to apply newer and rapidly evolving forms of technology to the purpose at hand. What it failed to do however was help the Signal Corps develop an organizational structure able to anticipate and respond to the sort of quickly changing battlefield conditions that were looming (as WWII was brought to a close) just over the horizon.

Unfortunately, as with the end of WWII and every war that preceded it, with the suspension of combat operations in Korea America’s federal government set about the task of looting the military one more time, in a mad rush to reorganize it, ostensibly to “learn from the lessons of Korea.” Why the U.S. government continues with this charade of cutting military expenditures once a war has ended (under the pretense of making the military more efficient or effective), one can only imagine. Yet, like clockwork, as soon as a war has ended, government leaders set about wielding their ax to the military… as though the U.S. will never again fight another war.

---

You are visitor number  since July 4, 1998

 Permission granted to link this website to your webpage, or cite its text. However, you may not reproduce graphics or pictures without prior written permission. NOTICE: All pictures, articles and stories are © Copyright U.S. Army Signal Corps OCS Association. They may not be copied, reproduced or distributed in any manner without the express, advance, written consent of the U.S. Army Signal Corps OCS Association.
If you would like a reciprocal link on our Other Links page, please contact us.

Top of page

- - - - -

Footnotes:

[1] In business a knowledge worker is someone who is empowered, because of their access to real time, detailed information about an event, to make policy changing decisions as to how a company should respond to the event. They key element in this definition being access to real time, detailed information as an enabling force to empower an employee to make a decision that would either form new company policy regarding the issue in question, or go against company policy completely. In a combat environment, a knowledge worker would thus be someone who, again because of their knowledge of real time, detailed information of the event in progress, makes real time leadership and tactical decisions based on that information. The Signal Corps, in making available the delivery of such information to field combat personnel through its fully integrated communication networks, enables the empowerment of soldiers to act as knowledge workers, rather than simply forcing them to follow orders that, while they may have been proper for the occasion when first issued, are no longer relevant because of changes to the circumstances on the ground. The purpose of a knowledge worker's existence then is to gain real time access to the information needed (both audio, visual, and data) such that they are able to make a decision as to how an event should be addressed, while that event is in progress and in real time contact with the knowledge worker.– To return to your place in the text, click here:

[2] The "Powell Doctrine" is a journalist-created term that begins with a long list of questions that should be answered before war is begun, and ends by asserting that when a “nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing US casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate.” – To return to your place in the text, click here: