Army - The New Germ War

Your Guide to the AUSA 2016 Annual Meeting Enclosed
The Magazine of the Association of the United States Army
ARMY
September 2016 www.ausa.org $3.00
The New Germ War
Army Medicine Engages Viruses
Historian Had Big Role
In Medal of Honor Award
Page 19
Five Capabilities Needed
In the Next Five Years
Page 40

THE ULTIMATE MULTI-ROLE PLAYER: MEDIC,
SOLDIER, POLICE OFFICER, SCOUT AND HERO.
The PC-12 NG Spectre doesn’t just define special-mission versatility, it owns it.
The Spectre can be quickly reconfigured for multiple roles. Nine passenger transport
to full cargo. Med-vac. Airdrops and jumps. Sophisticated ISR operations. And common
to all its roles: high-altitude, high-speed dash and long loiter capabilities, matched to
very low costs of acquisition and operation. For the Spectre, it’s all in a day’s work.
Pilatus Business Aircraft Ltd • +1 303 465 9099 • www.pilatus-aircraft.com

ARMY
The Magazine of the Association of the United States Army
September 2016 www.ausa.org Vol. 66, No. 9
DEPARTMENTS
LETTERS....................................................4
WASHINGTON REPORT ...........................6
FRONT & CENTER
Post-Vietnam Lesson Learned, Now a
Memory
By Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, USA Ret.
Page 7
Military Needs Should Drive
Personnel Reforms
By Lt. Col. James Jay Carafano, USA Ret.
Page 8
Tackle Gaps in Transportation Corps
Mission
By Maj. Gen. Fred E. Elam, USA Ret.
Page 10
ON THE COVER
The New Germ War
Brainpower Is Their Weapon:
Scientist-Warfighters Support,
Defend Against Bioagents
By Laura Stassi
The uniformed and civilian scientists
and support staff of the U.S. Army
Medical Research Institute of Infectious
Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md., are
protecting and defending soldiers
against all enemies biological. Page 32
Zika Vaccine Is Focus of Army
Researchers
By Chuck Vinch
Scientists at the Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research are working on developing a vaccine against an emerging DoD
health issue. Page 35
Cover Photo: Threadlike Ebola virus particles bud from a cell in a scanning electron micrograph.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
War of Ideas: More Than Simple
Deception
By Lt. Col. C. Richard Nelson, USA Ret.
Page 12
The Three Rs: Research, Recon and
Rehearsal
By Maj. Wayne Heard, USA Ret.
Page 14
HE’S THE ARMY......................................17
FEATURES
19
Valor Revisited: Amateur
Historian’s Work Leads to
Vietnam Vet’s Medal of Honor
By Chuck Vinch
Through volunteering with the
Veterans History Project, a retired
social worker and Army veteran
uncovers the incredible story of a
helicopter pilot’s courage under fire.
Page 19
NEWS CALL ............................................55
SEVEN QUESTIONS................................58
SOLDIER ARMED....................................59
THE OUTPOST........................................61
SUSTAINING MEMBER PROFILE ...........64
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING.....................65
REVIEWS.................................................67
FINAL SHOT............................................72
Unintended Risk: Policies Designed ‘Not
to Lose’ May Make Winning Less Likely
By Maj. (P) Samuel Linn
Combat remains a messy business, but the
Army has developed processes that when
applied over time decrease the probability
of accidents. Page 23
23
September 2016 ■ ARMY 1

Use ‘Mental Models’ to
Outthink the Enemy
By Maj. Joe Byerly
Military leaders who
complement experience
with self-study can
develop a psychological
tool that enables them
to dominate on the
battlefield. Page 25
25
46
28 40
Operation Lightning Forge: Making
The Most of Home Station Training
By Col. Donald M. Brown, Lt. Col. Matt
Skaggs and Maj. Jeremy Ussery
For the two brigade combat teams of the
25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks,
Hawaii, a rotation to the Joint Readiness
Training Center at Fort Polk, La., comes with
a hefty price tag and time commitment.
Operation Lightning Forge is a prudent and
effective alternative. Page 28
Picturing the Art of Strategic Thinking
By Keith Ferguson and Chief Warrant Officer 5
Nicole Woodyard
Strategic thinking is pondering, analyzing
and identifying
the relationships
among various
components in a
complex
system. It helps
prioritize and
identify risks and
potential
opportunities,
providing
guidance
for longrange
planning.
Page 38
38
Five in Five: Capabilities
The Army Needs for Future Conflicts
By Daniel Goure
Let’s say the United States has five years
to prepare for war. How would defense
planning and acquisition priorities be
different? Here are five categories of
capabilities where the Army should
prioritize investments. Page 40
43
Character Development: Initiative
Focuses on What It Takes To Be a
Trusted Professional in Today’s Army
By Col. John A. Vermeesch and Lt. Col.
Francis C. Licameli, USA Ret.
Character is essential to earning,
strengthening and retaining trust, which
is the foundation for success on every
mission and in all our relationships. The
Center for the Army Profession and
Ethic is leading the effort to identify
and develop this important
attribute. Page 43
New Challenges Require Network
Evolution
By Maj. Gen. Robert M. “Bo” Dyess, Bill Lasher
and Gary Martin
Well-suited for counterinsurgency missions
in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army’s digital
revolution looks significantly different
against today’s operational landscape. The
question is, what comes next? Page 46
Email Etiquette: Step Up Your
Messaging Game With These Tips
By Chief Warrant Officer 3 Kevin Palmer,
USA Ret.
With the number of business email accounts
expected to grow to 1.1 billion by 2017,
some ground rules should be established
to correctly and efficiently perform tasks
through this medium. Page 51
Strategies for Managing Army
Organizations
By Maj. Allen M. Trujillo
Leaders at every level are constantly
seeking methods and practices to improve
their capabilities. Complexity science
offers innovative strategies that leverage
relationships to create adaptive and agile
organizations capable of succeeding in
today’s complex operational environment.
Page 52
52
2 ARMY ■ September 2016

Letters
‘Stupidity’ of the Somme
■ Thanks to retired Lt. Gen. Daniel
P. Bolger for the interesting article on
the Somme battle and Alan Seeger
(“American Poet Among Lions Led by
Donkeys,” The Outpost, July). I live
near the Place des Etats-Unis, where
there was an impressive ceremony on
July 4. At the bottom end of this park,
there is a monument dedicated to the
American volunteers who fought for
France before our country entered the
war. A bronze infantryman, modeled on
Seeger, tops the stone where other
names are inscribed. The best French
military band was there, and a Foreign
Legion squad formed the honor guard.
Your articles usually get me to thinking,
and this one on the stupidity of the
Somme was no exception. How is it that
the generals who must make the big decisions
are so poorly informed? After
two years of digging and shelling, surely
the effects of the artillery prep on the
deep dugouts could have been known.
And then the interlocking fires of the
machine guns that came back up out of
the dugouts did the rest.
I am a Vietnam veteran. I served a total
of 30 months with Vietnamese soldiers.
When Gen. William Westmoreland, in
full uniform, told the joint session of
Congress and the American people that
all was well and we were winning, I was
deeply ashamed.
Later, I read Frank Snepp’s book Decent
Interval. I was dumbfounded. It is hard to
believe that after all that time, we were unable
to know the Vietnamese armed forces
had no heart for the fight. A soldier fights
with his heart—we know that!
There is one bright spot today: The
Army has created an intelligence branch.
Hopefully, those who are likely to know
the truth are better protected.
Thanks for the thoughtful articles.
Maj. C. Alex Brassert, USA Ret.
Paris
‘Wholesale Slaughter’
■ In retired Lt. Gen. Daniel P. Bolger’s
July article, “American Poet Among
Lions Led by Donkeys,” we are reminded
of the terrible slaughter at the
Somme and all of the Great War battles
that literally obliterated an entire generation
of Europe’s best and brightest. But
the Somme, as bad as it was, may well
have saved France.
I am no fan of the “chateau generals”
who often never saw the killing fields
into which they sent men to fight and
die, but the British Expeditionary Force
commander, Field Marshal Sir Douglas
Haig, contended that he fought at the
Somme only to support the French
fighting for their lives at Verdun.
Gen. Carter F. Ham, USA Ret.
President and CEO, AUSA
Lt. Gen. Guy C. Swan III, USA Ret.
Vice President, Education, AUSA
Rick Maze
Editor-in-Chief
Liz Rathbun Managing Editor
Joseph L. Broderick Art Director
Chuck Vinch Senior Staff Writer
Christopher Wright Production Artist
Laura Stassi Assistant Managing Editor
Thomas B. Spincic Assistant Editor
Contributing Editors
Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, USA Ret.;
Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, USA Ret.; Lt.
Gen. Daniel P. Bolger, USA Ret.; and
Brig. Gen. John S. Brown, USA Ret.
Contributing Writers
Scott R. Gourley and Rebecca Alwine
Lt. Gen. Jerry L. Sinn, USA Ret.
Vice President, Finance and
Administration, AUSA
Desiree Hurlocker
Advertising Production and
Fulfillment Manager
ARMY is a professional journal devoted to the advancement
of the military arts and sciences and representing the in terests
of the U.S. Army. Copyright©2016, by the Association of
the United States Army. ■ ARTICLES appearing in
ARMY do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the officers or
members of the Council of Trustees of AUSA, or its editors.
Articles are expressions of personal opin ion and should not
be interpreted as reflecting the official opinion of the Department
of Defense nor of any branch, command, installation
or agency of the Department of Defense. The magazine
assumes no responsibility for any unsolicited material.
■ ADVERTISING. Neither ARMY, nor its pub lisher,
the Association of the United States Army, makes any representations,
warranties or endorsements as to the truth and
accuracy of the advertisements appearing herein, and no
such representations, warranties or endorsements should be
implied or inferred from the appearance of the advertisements
in the publication. The advertisers are solely responsible
for the contents of such advertisements.
■ RATES. Individual membership fees payable in advance
are $30 for two years, $50 for five years, and $300 for Life
Membership, of which $9 is allocated for a subscription to
ARMY magazine. A discounted rate of $10 for two years is
available to members in the ranks of E-1 through E-4, and for
service academy and ROTC cadets and OCS candidates. Single
copies of the magazine are $3, except for a $20 cost for the
special October Green Book. More information is available at
our website www.ausa.org; or by emailing membersupport
@ausa.org, phoning 855-246-6269, or mailing Fulfillment
Manager, P.O. Box 101560, Arlington, VA 22210-0860.
CORRECTION
Due to an editing error, an incorrect location was given for Holy Cross
College in retired Lt. Col. Kelly C. Jordan’s biography for his July Front &
Center article, “ArmyU Can Claim Unique Intellectual High Ground.”
Holy Cross College is in Notre Dame, Ind.
CLARIFICATION
The August article “Making the Case for Army Data Scientists” (Maj. Gen.
John W. Baker and retired Lt. Col. Steven J. Henderson) referred only to the
DoD Information Network and related military infrastructure.
ADVERTISING. Information and rates available
from AUSA’s Advertising Production Manager or:
Andrea Guarnero
Mohanna Sales Representatives
305 W. Spring Creek Parkway
Bldg. C-101, Plano, TX 75023
972-596-8777
Email: andreag@mohanna.com
ARMY (ISSN 0004-2455), published monthly. Vol. 66, No. 9.
Publication offices: Association of the United States Army,
2425 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22201-3326, 703-841-
4300, FAX: 703-841-3505, email: armymag@ausa.org. Visit
AUSA’s website at www.ausa.org. Periodicals postage paid at
Arlington, Va., and at additional mailing office.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to ARMY Magazine,
Box 101560, Arlington, VA 22210-0860.
4 ARMY ■ September 2016

While it is true that the French commander,
Gen. Joseph Joffre, had pleaded
with his British counterpart to attack
and take the pressure off the beleaguered
French forces fighting for their lives at
the fortress city on the Meuse, the area
in Picardy where Joffre wanted the
British Expeditionary Force and attached
French units to launch an offensive
was ill-suited for battle.
Haig, showing a glimmer of tactical
acumen, had wanted to attack in Flanders,
where the ground was better and
he believed he could be in position by
August. The French said this date would
be too late to help them defend Verdun
and save France. It was a hard argument
to disagree with, and the attack went
forward.
The fortress of Verdun had been attacked
by the German 5th Army on Feb.
21, 1916. The Schlieffen Plan had failed
but under guidance from German General
Staff chief Erich von Falkenhayn,
the Germans intended to grind the
French down until they sued for peace.
He had earlier authorized the first use of
gas as a weapon of war; what he had
failed to achieve by firepower, chemicals
and maneuver, he now intended to accomplish
by brute force. Attrition warfare
would continue for both sides until
America’s Army and the Allies turned
the tide in 1918.
The Germans may have said the Allied
generals were donkeys, but so were
they. The German attack on Verdun
failed and cost both the French and the
Germans over half a million casualties.
The sacrifices by British and French soldiers
at the Somme contributed to successful
defense of Verdun but as the soldier-poets
on both sides told the world,
ARMY magazine welcomes letters to
the editor. Short letters are more
likely to be published, and all letters
may be edited for reasons of style,
accuracy or space limitations. Letters
should be exclusive to ARMY
magazine. Please send letters to Editor-in-Chief,
ARMY magazine, AUSA,
2425 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA
22201. Letters may also be faxed to
703-841-3505 or sent via email to
armymag@ausa.org.
the battles of 1916 were not tactically
brilliant. Wholesale slaughter was the
result.
Lt. Col. Kelly Milton Morgan
Florence, S.C.
Exchanges, Reading Offer Insight
■ Retired Lt. Col. C. Richard Nelson’s
Front & Center article in the May
issue of ARMY, “Understand What
Makes Our Partners Tick,” is wise counsel
and especially important as we try to
broaden our coalition efforts to defeat the
Islamic State group and other threats.
I have long had the impression that
we don’t get maximum mileage out of
the various foreign exchange and liaison
programs in which we partake. Do we
actually have a viable system or mechanism
to evaluate and exploit the observations,
writings and resulting insights
from these sometimes several-year exchanges?
Learning from other armies and cultures
ties in with Nelson’s thoughtful
feature in the March issue, “Reading:
The Key to Critical Thinking.” The synergy
of combining learning from other
military cultures and professional reading
helped us immensely as we prepared to
join World War II. In early 1941, it was
clear to Army Chief of Staff Gen.
George C. Marshall Jr. that the U.S.
needed a comprehensive strategic plan
to guide the total war effort. The task
of writing it trickled down to then-
Maj. Albert C. Wedemeyer. The service
schools had not given him the sort of education
he would need for this task. His
competence as a planner emerged largely
from his conscientious professional reading
and study, a characteristic of many
officers of his generation.
Wedemeyer was also able to apply
what he had painstakingly learned as
an exchange student, particularly at
the strategic level, at the German general
staff college, the Kriegsakademie.
Although, as Nelson states, such an assignment
might pose a promotion risk
today, this particular exchange provided
valuable other-culture strategic
insights otherwise unattainable and had
a profound effect in shaping Wedemeyer’s
knowledge and critical thinking,
all of which ultimately enabled the
Victory Plan.
The payback to the War Department
and the nation from this exchange assignment
is unmeasurable, but only because
Wedemeyer so diligently applied himself
to it as part of his continuing military education
in concert with his professional
reading and formal military education.
The Center of Military History publication
An Unknown Future and a Doubtful
Present: Writing the Victory Plan of
1941, by Charles E. Kirkpatrick, tells this
fascinating story. Every soldier should
read it.
Col. William Florence, AUS Ret.
Springfield, Va.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 5

Washington Report
Missed Opportunity for Beleaguered Budget
The Army’s effort to divert money from upkeep of excess
infrastructure to help pay for improved combat readiness appears
to be failing yet again in Congress, as one congressional
panel after another has outright barred DoD from making any
plans for base closure and realignment.
It is a frustrating exercise for Army leaders. Lt. Gen. Gwen
Bingham, assistant chief of staff for installation management,
believes the Army is missing an opportunity and wasting
money.
Bingham estimated the Army is spending $450 million to
$500 million a year maintaining
buildings that are
unused or underused. That
money could be better used
on training, she suggested,
citing a specific example.
The Army’s 2017 budget request
to Congress proposes
19 combat training center
rotations at a cost of about
$25 million each. The Army
could double such rotations
if it wasn’t spending money
on excess infrastructure.
“Right now, we are in fiscally
constrained times, so
being able to garner back
dollars on reducing excess infrastructure is important,” Bingham
said in an Army News Service article about trying to
shrink the Army’s footprint.
“If you could imagine recouping that amount of money
every year and think about how we can invest that in the
readiness of our soldiers, that is huge.”
Defense Secretary Ash Carter has tried without success to
persuade lawmakers to allow another round of base realignment
and closure. In a letter to House and Senate negotiators about
the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, he pleaded for
them to drop their provisions blocking base closings.
“Maintaining excess infrastructure is costly and wasteful,”
he wrote, “and it deprives the department of the ability to reallocate
scarce resources to address readiness, modernization
and other national security requirements.” That is the same argument
used by Bingham.
It has been 14 years since the Pentagon was authorized to
conduct a round of base closing and during that time, the military
has gotten smaller. The Army had 570,000 active-duty
soldiers at its peak, but it stands at about 480,000 today.
In the 2017 budget, DoD seeks $3.53 million to begin developing
base-closing recommendations, a request that has
seen no support from the committees responsible for defense
policy and appropriations.
A March report to Congress estimated DoD has 22 percent
excess infrastructure, based on the planned 2019 force structure.
There are big differences among the services. The Army
has 33 percent excess capacity, the most of any of the services,
the report says. The Air Force has 32 percent, the Defense
Logistics Agency has 12 percent, and the Navy has 7 percent.
Carter, showing his frustration, said in his letter to Congress
that lawmakers have been very critical of inefficiency in
the services, yet “it is Congress
that has continued to
fail to remove the most readily
evident excess in our enterprise:
excess infrastructure
and the support functions
that go with it.”
“To ignore the costs the
department is forced to
shoulder in sustaining excess
infrastructure while
criticizing DoD for wasteful
spending or decrying the
lack of resources available
for modernization of equipment,
among many other
department priorities, is not
only misguided but also a disservice to America’s taxpayers,”
Carter wrote.
The last round of base closings came in 2005. Since then,
DoD has asked five times for Congress to authorize another
independent commission to study and recommend closing and
realignment, but the effort has proved politically unpopular,
especially among lawmakers who serve on defense-related
congressional committees who often have posts and bases in
their congressional districts. In an election year—like 2016—
very few lawmakers would be willing to vote for something
that could have a negative impact on their local economy.
The National Commission on the Future of the Army
slightly muddied the waters of the push to close Army installations
by suggesting in its January final report that the Army
might need to maintain some excess infrastructure as it gets
smaller so it has room to grow in if more troops are needed.
“Retaining excess infrastructure in peacetime could facilitate
future expansion, but at a cost—and such costs do not easily
compete in an environment of declining resources,” the report
said. “Differentiating between unused capacity necessary for
expansion and excess capability would lead to better planning
and decisions.”
6 ARMY ■ September 2016

Front & Center
Commentaries From Around the Army
Post-Vietnam Lesson Learned, Now a Memory
By Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, U.S. Army retired
Over the past few months a number
of columnists, consultants and others
have been offering thoughts and
proposals concerning the National Military
Strategy. I certainly agree that the
current strategy is not an adequate expression
of how to cope with today’s
military threats, but I find most of the
proposals are too narrowly focused and
ignore the question of capability, a
problem common to the past few
decades. So in a continuation of recalling
lessons learned from World War II
(as I wrote in my July Front & Center
article, “‘Learned’ Lessons Were Mostly
Ignored”) the post-Vietnam period provides
another example.
We began the Vietnam War in 1965
with an active Army of about 960,000
soldiers, a nebulous purpose and the
piecemeal deployment of battalions; then
an airborne brigade followed by one division
at a time until more than 500,000
land power soldiers, Marines and allies
were in-country by mid-1968. An initial
decision preventing the use of National
Guard and Army Reserve forces required
a major reorganization of the Army;
many units had to be inactivated or converted
to provide the manpower and materiel
for replacing the reserve units not
available. The Army grew to a strength
exceeding a million and a half, built and
sustained by a healthy growth of volunteers
but also by a draft that grew evermore
unpopular.
At the termination of American involvement
in the war, the overall experience
caused Army Chief of Staff Gen.
Creighton Abrams, newly appointed after
many years in Vietnam, to recommend
a consistent commitment to an active
Army of 16 divisions and 780,000
end strength. He made it clear at the
time that the Army could not go to war
without mobilizing reserve component
units. He obtained confirming agreements
from both DoD and Congress,
and the Army Staff went to work shaping,
building and training the force.
The main concerns at the time were the
Cold War threat of the Warsaw Pact and a
North Korean attack into the Republic.
Deterrence was the principal objective and
the ability to fight one-and-a-half wars
was the understood requirement. The
deputy chief of staff, operations—today’s
G-3—designed the force, the number and
type of divisions, and special requirements
such as the nuclear-equipped units; and
studied war plans that might identify potential
future operations.
The Army force structure following
World War II had been a flexible and
versatile organization. It reconstructed itself
for the Korean War after the drastic
reductions that occurred in the late ’40s,
then reorganized as the Pentomic Army
to satisfy the Eisenhower concept of massive
retaliation and a nuclear battlefield.
The Kennedy administration restored requirements
for land power, emphasizing
Special Forces operations, that influenced
the structure available for the Vietnam
War. The Abrams Army provided the
flexible, versatile forces that could respond
immediately to a crisis to keep
from losing while constructing a total
force necessary for sustained operations.
The Army Staff worked to fill the designed
structure. The assistant chief of
staff for force development prepared the
tables of organization and equipment; the
deputy chief of staff for personnel provided
the now-volunteer manpower and trained
and educated to fill myriad requirements
for gunners, mechanics, engineers, pilots,
communicators, medics, leaders and so on.
The deputy chief of staff for logistics, with
the technical service chiefs, procured the
materiel and sustenance required. The assistant
chief of staff for force development
coordinated the effort hoping to time the
arrival, for example, of properly trained
tank mechanics and gunners with the arrival
of the new M1 Abrams tank.
The deputy chief of staff for personnel
maintained the troop basis, a listing
and description of all units and organizations
in the Army. The assistant chief
of staff for force development developed
the force basis, a projection of Army reorganization
programs for up to seven
years in the future, incorporating new
equipment and accommodating new organizational
designs and revised strategic
thinking. The deployable elements of
the Army were described in three segments:
the divisions, each about 16,000
strong; an initial support increment of
16,000 soldiers needed to support a division
during the first 30 days of combat;
and a sustaining support increment of
16,000 more to sustain combat beyond
30 days. The active Army comprised 16
divisions and their initial support increment.
The reserve components provided
eight more divisions, their initial support
increment and all the required sustaining
support increment.
The Abrams Army existed through
the Cold War and the Kuwait liberation,
the First Gulf War. It contributed
markedly to deterrence and bolstered
confidence in our treaty obligations with
NATO, the Republic of Korea and other
free-world nations. It furnished the disparate
forces needed for airborne invasions
of Grenada and Panama, then the
armor force that overwhelmed the Iraqi
army that had subjugated Kuwait. Those
campaigns employed properly staffed,
equipped and trained forces, purposely
organized to accomplish clearly established
missions. Successes were achieved
in a matter of days with minimum casualties
on both sides and little collateral
damage. Each campaign offers a paradigm
for conducting war.
The end of the Cold War and the
Kuwait campaign and the popular, media-promoted
“peace dividend” expectation
resulted in a required reduction
of defense budgeting and the size of
September 2016 ■ ARMY 7

the military forces. The Army proposed
a force of around 650,000, over
300,000 less than the force that began
the Vietnam War and more than
100,000 less than the Abrams Army.
The George H.W. Bush administration
reduced that recommendation to
about 540,000, followed almost immediately
by President Bill Clinton’s further
reduction to 485,000.
With that sized Army, we went to war
again a decade later to defeat the Iraqi
army and capture Baghdad. For the first
time ever, we went to war without an increase
in the size of the Army. We converted
units of the reserve components to
be employed as part of the operating
force, began the repetitive rotations of
the career soldiers of the too-small
Army, and began hiring contractors to
provide supporting forces not otherwise
available. Contracts grew piecemeal, unprogrammed
and at increasing costs until
they totaled about 200,000 employees, a
number equivalent to the military personnel
engaged in the mission. The
combination of reserve units and contractors
proved again the validity of the
initial support increment and sustaining
support increment requirements, fielded
in this case at far greater costs. It is a
cost, incidentally, that is still being paid
as contract personnel in Afghanistan and
Iraq outnumber the military strengths
now committed.
Whether that contrast contributes a
lesson learned is arguable, but a return
to the Abrams kind of Army apparently
would be a system better able to cope
with today’s threats, especially the longterm
demands with which we are now
contending. We should decide first
what we must accomplish, asking the
generals and admirals how to do it and
what forces will be needed (the strategy
connected to the capability). Then we
should take the time necessary to guarantee
not losing, and then to win. We
would restore the World War II pattern
and reincarnate the Abrams Army,
achieving both the flexibility and versatility
that served so well in the ’80s and
’90s. Perhaps the next president will understand
the need.
■
Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, USA Ret., formerly
served as vice chief of staff of the
U.S. Army and commander in chief of
U.S. Army Europe. He is a senior fellow
of AUSA’s Institute of Land Warfare.
Military Needs Should Drive Personnel Reforms
By Lt. Col. James Jay Carafano, U.S. Army retired
Defense Secretary Ash Carter recently
rolled out a number of personnel
management reforms to break down the
Pentagon’s current system of recruitment,
retention and promotion that is
largely a one-size-fits-all approach governing
the total armed forces.
Carter’s proposals are numerous and
far-ranging. There is zero chance that all
of them will be adopted before the
Obama administration times out. But
here’s hoping the initiatives will outlive
the secretary’s tenure. They ought to be
the start of something big.
America’s military works best when
how the military manages personnel
matches how America runs. Through
the Civil War, the nature of military service
dovetailed well with a largely agrarian
society. Throughout the 20th century,
a military career didn’t look much
different from a career at General Motors
or AT&T. But the workers and professions
of 21st century America are
quite different, and our military services
should reflect that reality.
The U.S. workforce has never been
more diverse. People work longer and
change careers more frequently. There
are plenty of people in the workforce—
though the supply of skilled workers is
tight. Different generations value different
things and bring a variety of skills to
the workplace. Older workers tend to
value teamwork, for example, while
younger workers may be more creative,
adaptive, and open to change.
Americans overall are less physically
fit. About 80 percent of American adults
don’t get the recommended levels of aerobic
physical and muscle-strengthening
exercises. A recent study in the Mayo
Clinic Proceedings concluded that only
about 3 percent of Americans actually
live a healthy lifestyle.
New laws intended to expand workplace
benefits and protections are competing
with employers struggling to keep
human capital costs under control. As a
result, American workers are increasingly
dissatisfied with care and benefits in the
workplace.
The armed forces, particularly the
Army, have some competitive advantages
in tapping into the maelstrom that
is the U.S. worker marketplace. The
Army remains ranked as one of the most
highly respected institutions in the U.S.
The military offers dynamic, challenging
and satisfying careers, and service in uniform
can foster a healthy lifestyle and
provide first-class health care and benefits.
The U.S. military also has an ethos
of leadership and mentorship that can
help individuals feel a sense of satisfaction,
growth and community.
The U.S. military has proven it can recruit
and retain talent, even in a time of
war and constant deployments. But the
demands on the military keep growing,
and it needs soldiers who can keep up.
Matching the military’s strengths as
an employer with the complex American
workforce requires a better bridge than
the industrial-age career patterns that exist
today. Carter’s proposed reforms include
many of the elements that would
transform the Pentagon’s human capital
practices into a better set of instruments
for getting the armed forces the troops
they need, when they need them.
Proposals to modify the “up or out”
model would allow soldiers to delay consideration
for promotion, authorize the
commission of midcareer professionals,
and allow the services flexibility in adjusting
timelines for promotion. All of
these ideas make sense.
The odds that Congress will address
these changes now are grim. On the other
hand, leadership on the House Armed
Services Committee has shown the patience
and discipline to commit to a systematic
reform agenda. There is every reason
to believe that Carter’s proposals will
receive additional consideration next year.
8 ARMY ■ September 2016

There is also much more work to be
done to maximize the capability of
the armed forces to get the most out of
the American workforce. Getting people
is not enough. They must then be integrated
into the ethos of selfless military
service; taught the right skills, knowledge
and attributes for the jobs they’ll have to
perform; and given the kind of military
experience that makes soldiers value their
service. All these are part of the transformation
needed to align the nation and
our Army.
For example, there should be a better
process for assigning people to places.
Being able to recruit across a broad spectrum
of talents is great, but it won’t accomplish
much if the military doesn’t
then direct the best talent to the right
jobs. In his book Bleeding Talent, economist
Tim Kane made the case for a more
market-oriented system for matching
talent to missions. Kane is on the right
track; the assignment of personnel has to
be more flexible and less impersonal.
In addition, as the Army diversifies its
workforce, it needs leaders worthy of their
roles. Values and ethical training, for example,
are more important than ever. The
more diverse the workforce, the more important
it is to emphasize the common
bond that holds soldiers together: the profession
of selfless service to our nation.
Mentoring in a diverse work environment
is particularly crucial because it
turns leadership from a wholesale to a
retail exercise, tailoring professional development
to the needs of individuals.
Mentoring is also more challenging, requiring
leaders who can understand and
influence a more eclectic workforce.
Of course, more flexible workplace
policies also open opportunities for abusive
practices—from commissioning individuals
who don’t deserve it to retaining
soldiers who are not doing their jobs.
Getting the oversight right and rooting
out abuses could be a real challenge. It
makes no sense to add flexibility and
adaptiveness to recruiting, retention and
promotion if the services and Congress
then overlay a rash of risk-averse policies
intended to prevent abuse that also
neuter the effectiveness of the reforms.
Keeping the system honest needs to be
part of the transformation from the start,
and it just might be the biggest challenge
in making the system work right.
There is also a great danger, already in
evidence, that the demand to tap into a
diverse workforce becomes a goal in itself.
Diversity is not an element of combat
power. Personnel reforms should be
guided by military necessities, not the
other way around. Further, accessing a
diversity of talent is not the same as demanding
the military reflect a diversity of
the population.
The Pentagon needs to find a better
balance between military effectiveness
and diversity goals that are driven to
satisfy political and social agendas.
Whether it is competing in cyberspace,
outer space or the close quarters of
crowded villages, the future all-volunteer
military can provide for the common defense.
What’s required are the right rules
for tapping the American workforce. ■
Lt. Col. James Jay Carafano, USA Ret., a
25-year Army veteran, is a Heritage
Foundation vice president in charge of
the think tank’s policy research in defense
and foreign affairs.

Tackle Gaps in Transportation Corps Mission
By Maj. Gen. Fred E. Elam, U.S. Army retired
From the earliest westward expansion
of our nation to global deployments
in World War II to more recent combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, expeditionary
missions have always been
part of the U.S. Army’s DNA.
But how the Army organizes, trains
and prepares for such missions is becoming
more complicated. Today’s rapidly
evolving national security threats demand
that expeditionary Army forces from all
components, ranging from teams to divisions
to corps headquarters, must be
ready to strategically deploy anywhere in
the world with little or no notice, with or
without unit equipment, and alone or together
with allied forces, as well as provide
DoD-wide support through the U.S.
Army Military Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command.
What’s more, the closure of some
overseas bases raises the likelihood that
these forces will have to deploy from
stateside installations over much greater
distances.
At the Association of the U.S. Army’s
most recent Global Force Symposium
and Exposition, Lt. Gen. Patrick J. Donahue,
deputy commander of the U.S.
Army Forces Command (FORSCOM),
put it bluntly: “The way we’ve been deploying
is not useful for the world we
live in now. We’ve gotten rusty.”
The “expert bench” at all levels has
been seriously weakened and diminished.
This has significant long-term implications
for the U.S. Army and the U.S.
Army Transportation Corps, along with
its many functional experts throughout
the force structure who must plan for
and execute the growing multitude of
complex deployment scenarios in coordination
with the Air Force; Navy; combatant
and joint commands; and the
many civilian organizations that provide
departure and arrival airfield, surface port
of embarkation and debarkation, and rail
and highway convoy support operations.
To meet the strategic deployment
challenges of the 21st century, the Army
must identify and address the gaps in
doctrine, organizational structures, training,
education and functional assignments
essential to the mission of the
Transportation Corps. Here are five
things we can do:
■ Centralize the transportation focus.
There’s a lack of centralized functional focus
within this multifaceted arena, a
problem that only grows as budgets
shrink. The chief of transportation should
reorganize the current Deployment
Process Modernization Office, and establish
an Army Center of Strategic Deployment
Excellence reporting directly
to the chief of transportation to be responsible
for developing concepts, doctrine,
organizations, training, education
and equipment required to meet new deployment
requirements. All deployable
Army units and assigned personnel must
be trained and exercised on their individual
and collective reception, staging,
onward movement, integration and redeployment
(RSOI&R) mission responsibilities.
To develop the future logistics leaders
who will be needed to project and sustain
an expeditionary force, the U.S. Army
Transportation School should assume
the lead role in overseeing assessments
and educational and career assignments
for all officers, warrant officers, soldiers
and Department of the Army civilians.
These are the key individuals whose
functional specialties involve strategic
deployment and working with the U.S.
Army Human Resources Command to
properly code specific positions to MOS
88 series so they reflect the skills required
to manage assignments to ensure that
sufficient bench expertise is achieved and
sustained.
Given RSOI&R’s functional importance
to the Army’s mission, serious
thought should be given to realigning
the U.S. Army Military Surface Deployment
and Distribution Command
back to a direct-reporting Army command,
with the 7th Transportation
Brigade realigning back to a directreporting
FORSCOM unit. This would
give the Army and FORSCOM direct
oversight/direction of these two missionessential
organizations.
■ Formalize and standardize strategic
deployment expertise. The U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command, and
the Transportation School led by the
chief of transportation, should take
concrete steps to restore deployment
and RSOI&R skill sets that have atrophied
over the past 15 years.
Through training and associated
doctrinal development, tasks associated
with unloading, organization, staging,
and moving to final destinations and
redeployment must be essential elements
of transportation training, along
with knowledge of available infrastructure
and coordination protocols in destination
countries.
Since deploying Army forces are quite
likely to encounter anti-access and area
denial environments, such capabilities as
joint logistics over the shore also are essential
and must be incorporated into
Transportation Corps officer, warrant
officer, NCO, civilian and unit training.
■ Get all transportation personnel
schooled on automated logistics systems.
Army transporters must know, and be
U.S. Army/Staff Sgt. Corinna Baltos
10 ARMY ■ September 2016

able to use, automated transportation systems
as a force multiplier. Specifically,
Army transporters must know the capabilities
of the automated Joint Operations
Planning and Execution System, and also
must be trained in the use of the various
outputs from the automated Joint Flow
Analysis System for Transportation.
Similarly, Transportation Corps officers,
soldiers and civilians must be fluent
in how to fully exploit the capabilities
of the Global Freight Management
system. The Transportation Coordinators’
Automation Information System
and Cargo Movement Operations System
are two additional automation systems
in which transporters must have
expertise. The ability to accurately plan
for and coordinate the shipment of supplies
and equipment for deploying units
is vital to ensuring efficient use of scarce
organic, joint and civilian transportation
resources.
The U.S. Transportation Command
hosts joint flow and deployment conferences
for appropriate war planners.
Army officers with deep transportation
functional expertise should attend these
conferences to include personnel assigned
to a renamed Army Center of
Strategic Deployment Excellence.
■ Reprise maneuver branch for transportation
officers. During the past four
fiscal years, no transportation branch
lieutenants have been detailed for a maneuver
branch two-year assignment.
This situation arose because the number
of Transportation Corps accessions were
not adequate to support the program.
Why? The number of yearly accessions is
based on captain authorizations. The
failure of the Transportation Corps as a
“donor” branch to support the maneuver
branch detail can be traced to one of two
factors: Either the Transportation Corps
branch has done a poor job of recruiting
at West Point, ROTC and Officer Candidate
School; or the captain authorizations
need to be increased.
Maneuver branch assignments give
Transportation Corps officers a
unique opportunity to understand the
strategic deployment challenges of deploying
infantry, armor and artillery
units. Recent policy changes allowing
female officers to serve in the combat
arms set the stage to once again have all
Transportation Corps officers serve maneuver
branch assignments.
■ Share ideas. Finally, Army transporters
at all levels, across all components,
should be encouraged to share
ideas and thoughts on these issues at
every opportunity, using all available media,
to help ensure the Army develops
and maintains a robust 21st-century
strategic deployment capability. ■
Members of an informal group of Army
Transportation Corps officers calling themselves
the STAMMTISCH Group contributed
to this article.
Maj. Gen. Fred E. Elam, USA Ret., served
over 33 years and commanded at all levels,
including as the chief of transportation
and the first commander of the
Transportation Corps Regiment. He had
two combat tours in Vietnam. He is a
graduate of the Command and General
Staff College and the Naval War College.
He holds a bachelor’s degree from the
University of Arkansas and an MBA
from Michigan State University.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 11

War of Ideas: More Than Simple Deception
By Lt. Col. C. Richard Nelson, U.S. Army retired
In the late 1970s, a Soviet scholar introduced
me to the concept of reflexive
control—a sophisticated kind of
perception management. He cited an
example wherein the Soviet Navy ran an
anti-submarine warfare exercise involving
a destroyer and a submarine. The
ships’ crews were informed of the exercise
area and the times the exercise
would begin and end. However, the real
game was not a simple anti-submarine
warfare exercise, but a test of the destroyer’s
crew to deal with surprise and
uncertainty.
The true exercise area was larger and
involved a second Soviet submarine.
The destroyer would be tested to find
the second submarine and determine if
it was Soviet or American that was collecting
information on the exercise or
some other phenomenon. The idea was
to deceive a target audience about the
true nature of the game being played
and test their responses.
Reflexive control, however, is more
than simple deception. It involves developing
a detailed understanding of an opponent’s
thinking and decisionmaking
to achieve a desired outcome. In a simple
example, the Soviet scholar then had
me play a mind game involving several
alternating moves, each requiring a series
of choices on my part. He predicted
at the outset the position where I would
end, so I was determined to avoid such a
conclusion.
He won in spite of my knowledge that
I was being manipulated. That left me
with a tremendous sense of vulnerability.
What if I had been a key participant in
important negotiations with the Soviets?
I was impressed with the concept of reflexive
control.
For decades, Soviet and Russian scholars
and military officials studied how to
compel opponents to make desired decisions
independently by conveying certain
information about motives, reasons and
other factors. Such efforts involved a
wide range of communications for deception,
disinformation, distraction, encouragement,
coercion, deterrence and
other purposes, including the war of
ideas.
Disinformation, deception and distraction
were important features of the
recent Russian intervention in Syria. On
Sept. 30, 2015, Russia began launching
airstrikes in Syria accompanied by public
statements that the targets were the Islamic
State group. Two days earlier, at
the United Nations, Russian President
Vladimir Putin announced the goal of
establishing a broad international coalition
against terrorism and convening
peace talks on Syria. The vast majority of
Russian airstrikes, however, were in support
of the forces of Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad, despite Russian claims
to the contrary. These Russian claims
were supported by credible but falsified
video clips.
After nearly six months of Russian
airstrikes, including the use of banned
cluster munitions and the targeting of
mosques, hospitals and water treatment
facilities, a cease-fire was declared and
Putin announced that the objective had
been generally fulfilled, ordering the
withdrawal of the main Russian forces
in Syria.
The Russian intervention helped secure
the threatened Russian naval forces
sustainment center at the Syrian port of
Tartus; strengthened the position of
Assad forces that had been deteriorating;
and created a massive refugee crisis that
imposed enormous costs on Turkey,
other neighboring countries and Europe.
The intervention also diverted attention
from sanctions against Russia
for intervention in Ukraine and Crimea.
For domestic audiences, it also distracted
attention from a faltering Russian
economy and bolstered Russian nationalism
by appearing to play a decisive role
in Syria thus to gain a strong position in
negotiations. Most of these developments
were at the expense of the U.S.,
suggesting that Moscow carefully framed
information operations with the domestic
audience, the U.S. and other target
audiences in mind.
The war of ideas has long been an important
component of geopolitical competition.
Indeed, Russian experts credited
the U.S. with clever use of similar information
operations techniques. For example,
a major general at their General Staff
Academy suggested the Strategic Defense
Initiative in the 1980s was deliberately
designed to cause the Soviet leadership to
over-react and spend more than was sustainable
in efforts to keep pace, eventually
bankrupting the Soviet Union. While this
may be giving us too much credit for
clever manipulation, it also raises the issue
of how well the U.S. has been performing
in the critical war of ideas.
In the past, American information operations
have been fragmented, with the
State Department and the U.S. Information
Agency handling political and public
diplomacy programs at the strategic
level. Military efforts were planned, organized
and conducted at the operational
level. Typically, military efforts were an
afterthought and incorporated in an annex
to a combined campaign plan and
subsequent plans for military operations.
Currently, the U.S. Information
Agency has been disbanded with its
broadcasting function moved to the
Broadcasting Board of Governors and
other functions incorporated under the
undersecretary of state for public diplomacy
and public affairs. Similarly, in
the military, psychological operations
have been incorporated into information
operations by combining psychological
operations with electronic warfare,
computer network operations,
military deception and operations security.
Primary responsibility for information
operations is concentrated at the
combatant command level in a cell under
the J-3. Additionally, the U.S. Strategic
Command and the U.S. Special Operations
Command have information operations
responsibilities.
However, burying information operations
under the operations staff, rather
than the planning staff, almost assures it
will be an afterthought. In World War
II, Gen. George C. Marshall Jr. alerted
us to the importance of carefully separating
the planning and operations functions
because of the strong tendency of
day-to-day operations to overwhelm
longer-term planning.
Nevertheless, today we have a disparate
and loosely coordinated group of
12 ARMY ■ September 2016

cultures, ranging from public affairs to
military deception, attempting to adapt
old approaches and programs to current
challenges. This is a longstanding shortcoming
in the American approach to the
war of ideas. In this critical dimension of
strategic competition, nobody is responsible
for designing and orchestrating a
whole-of-government approach. Thus
we are seldom able to capitalize on our
advantages in terms of persuasive arguments
and communications skills. Terrorism
is a prime example where we need
a comprehensive, long-term strategy to
communicate effectively the right messages
to the right target audiences.
Conceptually, this is not a difficult
problem. It begins with identifying the
desired behavior we want to achieve
from key target groups—the traditional
approach to psychological operations.
Then we determine how best to persuade
specific target groups to adopt
this behavior with tailored communications.
Critically, the focus is on desired
behavior, not ideas. Although the two
are related, what matters more is behavior
and that is more easily measured.
Institutionally, the problem is more
difficult. The National Security Council
is the obvious locus of such efforts, but
there is little evidence it has been used in
such capacities effectively. As a result,
important components of a whole-ofgovernment
approach such as cyber warfare,
arms control and foreign military
assistance are poorly integrated. For certain
key issues in the war of ideas including
terrorism, a comprehensive, integrated,
national-level campaign is critical
with primary responsibility assigned to
one official.
Amore integrated approach to the war
of ideas would also involve a wellcoordinated
division of labor among
government agencies so influential opinion
leaders in specific target audiences
may be targeted with the most effective
means of communications—including
direct actions—not just leaflets and loudspeakers.
Such a division of labor is consistent
with the Army’s efforts to play
important roles in influencing the human
domain, especially through relationships
with counterparts.
In many cases, face-to-face communications
have proven to be the most effective.
To sustain such efforts, however, it
may be necessary to keep in place key
U.S. officials who would otherwise be
rotated frequently, thus losing the benefits
of establishing effective personal relationships.
However, lacking better planned and
integrated efforts, the U.S. will likely
find itself perpetuating a scattered approach,
thus underutilizing major advantages.
Dozens of U.S. agencies will be
playing independently different games
that Russia may have rigged. Indeed, we
can learn a lot from the study of reflexive
control and similar concepts used by foreign
powers. The war of ideas should not
be an afterthought.
■
Lt. Col. C. Richard Nelson, USA Ret.,
Ph.D., served in Vietnam and on the
Army Staff, and taught at the U.S. Army
Command and General Staff College. A
graduate of the U.S. Military Academy,
he holds a master’s degree from the University
of Michigan and a Ph.D. from
the University of Kansas.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 13

The Three Rs: Research, Recon and Rehearsal
By Maj. Wayne Heard, U.S. Army retired
One of the greatest privileges I had
while in uniform was serving as an
assistant professor of military science at
Georgia Southern University. I must admit
that, when notified of the assignment,
I did not relish the prospect of being
out of a tactical unit; I chafed at being
away from soldiers. But the tour provided
opportunities to teach, train and mentor
not only university cadets, but cadet cohorts
at three advanced camps.
Preparing cadets for camp and Ranger
challenge competitions kept the dust
from accumulating too thickly on my
Ranger handbook and soldier manual. In
truth, I probably learned as much from
the cadets as they from me.
I began the block on troop-leading
procedures and patrolling by asking:
“What is meant by the three Rs?” The
common response was the old-school
reading, ’riting and ’rithmatic. I countered:
“In this setting, the three Rs will
represent research, recon and rehearsal—
three keys to successful operations.”
At GSU, we employed a guest speaker
program to support the cadets’ education
and training. Retired Col. Elliott
P. “Bud” Sydnor Jr., legendary combat
leader and Son Tay raider during the
Vietnam War, twice spoke to the cadets
about the planning, preparation and execution
of the POW-camp raid of Nov.
21, 1970.
Before his selection as ground force
commander for the raid, Sydnor had already
developed an extensive resume as
an infantry, Ranger and Special Forces
leader. He had served with Col. Arthur
D. “Bull” Simons in the White Star program
in Laos; participated in the British
Special Air Service exchange program;
and commanded a battalion in Vietnam.
Sydnor would later command the 1st
Special Forces Group, and serve as director
of the U.S. Army Infantry School’s
Ranger Department before his retirement
in 1981. The nation lost this great
leader and teacher in August 2014.
As Sydnor’s escort officer, I observed
his rigorous attention to detail as he prepared
for each briefing. His disciplines in
preparing for this relatively simple exercise
revealed a mindset that, in any other
profession, would border on the obsessive.
In the profession of arms, it could
be a lifesaver.
Before computer-generated presentations,
a well-developed briefing was often
converted to 35 mm slides; adjusting
a presentation required serious effort.
Also, slide projectors had expensive and
sensitive bulbs, which were notorious for
burning out.
When Sydnor agreed to speak, his instructions
included:
■ The projector must have two working
bulbs with a new bulb still in the box
as a standby.
■ There had to be an extension cord
that would reach to the electrical outlet
farthest from the projector, should the
nearest outlet fail.
■ The nearest electrical breaker box
had to be located so I could take immediate
action during the presentation if
the electricity went out.
■ The room had to be darkened so
slides could be clearly seen, but there
must be windows to allow outside light.
When Sydnor arrived two hours early,
he reviewed the room and my preparations.
Even though he had given this
presentation dozens, if not hundreds, of
times, he set the carousel into the projector
and dropped every slide to ensure
each would fall smoothly.
He confirmed that no slide had been
mistakenly inverted or rotated since his
last presentation. After reviewing the
slides, we locked the room and left, taking
the carousel with us to safeguard it. I
believe he also carried a second set of
slides in case of emergency.
Sydnor’s presentation included doctrinal
discussions of the organization of a
combat patrol and the principles of patrolling.
He explained how the raid planners
applied this information to their
mission planning, thus reinforcing the
cadets’ patrolling classes.
Throughout the discussion, he offered
tips on small-unit combat leadership. He
discussed the post-raid, predeparture accountability
procedures of the marshaling
area control officer, and the post-departure
verification by chalk leaders.
Sydnor also discussed changes to the
initial plan and the decision to employ
a left-handed shooter. Rehearsals had
revealed that one shooter on the left
side of the target would need to expose
too much of his body when suppressing
the guards. A left-handed shooter was
recruited. The force rehearsed over 100
times. Even though the right-handed
shooter would participate in half of
those rehearsals, he would not be part
of the raid force unless the left-handed
shooter was pulled from the mission.
Ultimately, the right-handed shooter
was left behind.
Sydnor discussed Simons’ leadership
with obvious admiration. When the demolitions
expert told Simons the amount
of explosives it would take to breach a
wall, Simons told him to double the
amount and make two charges. Simons
ensconced guarantees into his plans.
These same habits and disciplines were
clearly evident in Sydnor.
He described the contingency plans and
naming conventions, and how the force
would be alerted to a change going into
effect. He discussed actions on the objective
and how adjustments unfolded. The
U.S. Army/Spc. Craig Philbrick
14 ARMY ■ September 2016

16 ARMY ■ September 2016
CAREER CENTER

He’s the Army
Helping an Army Minority—Male Spouses
Army spouses come in all shapes and sizes, from a variety of
educational backgrounds and walks of life. But the general
assumption continues to be that they are all women.
Dave Etter is working hard to correct that.
“The narrow mindset of ‘wives only’ may be loud … and
may be persistent in their disapproval of us guys being ‘milspouses,’”
said Etter, who is married to Sgt. Stephanie Etter, a
respiratory therapist.
However, “they are the minority,” Etter said. “And senior
ranking spouses are on our side, I
promise.”
Etter, a former submariner and
nine-year Navy veteran, was serving
as commander of the American Legion
post in Safford, Ariz., when he
met Stephanie. They were married in
2000 and in 2011, at Etter’s urging,
Stephanie enlisted in the Army to
further her education and career.
Etter gave up his job as program
director at a country radio station and
a successful taxi business to become
an Army spouse. He was expecting to
make instant friends who would impart
any information he needed—
similar to what he had seen on the
TV drama Army Wives. But after arriving
at Fort Campbell, Ky., their
first duty station, he discovered his
expectations didn’t meet reality.
Dave Etter
That’s when his volunteer work and passion for helping other
Army spouses began.
In the five years since he became an Army spouse, Etter has
volunteered more than 1,200 hours with a variety of Army
Community Service programs, including Army Family Team
Building and Army Family Action Plan. He was also part of a
pilot program to train spouses to become resilience counselors.
Etter is now leader of a company family support group at
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, where he and
his wife live with two of their six children.
“Fortunately, the Army has amazing resources through
Army Community Services, and I have been honored to be
able to volunteer to teach and train with them,” he said.
Etter also is moderator of the Male Military Spouse Radio
Show, a weekly, call-in web-radio program that streams live and
can be accessed as a podcast at blogtalkradio.com. He is also
making plans for a second radio show, Spouse Spouts, which will
be co-hosted by an Air Force wife. The goal is to provide resources
for both male and female spouses across all the services.
This passion and commitment to military families led to
Etter’s selection as the 2016 Military Spouse of the Year by
Armed Forces Insurance. He was the first man to earn this
recognition.
Etter plans to establish a resource library for military
spouses worldwide. He has already started collecting pertinent
information for a searchable, sortable, downloadable database.
The final step will be writing a smartphone application for it.
“One of my pet peeves is not knowing something,” Etter
said. “New military spouses must be
extremely clever to navigate the information
available at orientation to
a new duty station.”
“I want to create an all-inclusive
information tool that has useful data
that all family members can use to
feel less alienated. The plan is to help
spouses and family members learn
the resources available to find the information
they need.”
About 6.6 percent of spouses in
the active-duty Army are men, according
to the most recent available
statistics. And while Army family
programs are technically inclusive,
there may be a subconscious slant
toward female spouses. Indeed, the
club for Army officers’ spouses in
the Washington, D.C., area was still
known as the “wives’ club” in 2014
when Ray Horoho, the husband of now-retired Lt. Gen.
Patricia Horoho, served as club president.
“Other than the obvious removal of all gender-choosing
terms like ‘Hey ladies,’ and gender-specific events like spa
days, there isn’t much that needs to be changed,” Etter said,
adding that a dynamic family readiness group leader “will
make sure” that male military spouses “are welcomed into the
group.”
Male spouses are seeking the same inclusiveness and welcoming
atmosphere as female spouses are, Etter said. “We
don’t bite. Please don’t bite us.”
Joking aside, Etter notes that some of the responsibility for
feeling included lies on the shoulders of the men themselves.
According to Etter, less than 1 percent of all male military
spouses are actively involved in family support groups.
The best way to forge their way into already established
spouse organizations and programs is to simply join, Etter
said. “We need to swallow our male pride and just jump in.”
—Rebecca Alwine
Courtesy Dave Etter
September 2016 ■ ARMY 17

Valor Revisited
Amateur Historian’s Work Leads
To Vietnam Vet’s Medal of Honor
By Chuck Vinch, Senior Staff Writer
White House/Chuck Kennedy; inset: U.S. Army
President Barack Obama presents the Medal of Honor to retired Vietnam War helicopter pilot Lt. Col. Charles “Chuck” Kettles.
Retired Lt. Col. Charles “Chuck” Kettles, a member
of the Association of the U.S. Army’s Arsenal of
Democracy Chapter in Detroit, was awarded a belated
Medal of Honor after a fellow veteran was
amazed by the Vietnam War helicopter pilot’s retelling of the
story of one day in battle.
As a volunteer for the Library of Congress’ Veterans History
Project, William Vollano, 85, has recorded the service
narratives of 80 to 100 veterans.
The retired social worker, who lives in Ann Arbor, Mich.,
has been part of the Veterans History Project (VHP) since 2005
after an acquaintance, a history professor at Eastern Michigan
University, called and asked Vollano if the local Rotary Club to
which he belonged would be interested in getting involved with
the project, which relies solely on volunteers.
Vollano, an Army veteran who served from 1955 to 1957,
readily agreed. VHP officials explained how it worked, and
Vollano received three small grants through his Rotary Club to
September 2016 ■ ARMY 19

purchase cameras, recording devices and other gear to do interviews
with veterans. “And we were off and running,” he said.
Vollano’s path to meeting Kettles, who lives in Ypsilanti,
Mich., was forged when he heard that name while interviewing
other veterans for the VHP. “That’s the way a lot of these
stories come to us,” Vollano said. “One veteran recommends
another one and says, ‘Why don’t you talk to that guy?’”
But when Kettles began to tell his story, Vollano quickly realized
he’d never heard anything quite like this—even though,
he said, Kettles recounted it almost reluctantly, in a matter-offact,
unembellished way.
In fact, Kettles probably wouldn’t have brought it up at all
had his wife not nudged him. “At one point while he and I
were talking, she said, ‘Don’t forget to tell him what happened
on May 15,’” Vollano recalled with a chuckle, adding that
Kettles “was one of the most low-key guys I had ever met. I
had to almost pull the story out of him.”
‘This Guy Is Really Superman’
Even as Kettles finally began to talk about what had happened,
he repeatedly sought to downplay his own role. But as
Vollano at last heard the events of that day, he recalled saying
to himself: “‘Oh my God, this is crazy. This guy is really Superman.’
And after he tells me all of this, he just looks at me and
says, ‘Eh, piece of cake.’ I mean, you’ve got to be kidding me.”
At one point in their conversation, Kettles mentioned his
gunner, Spc. Roland Scheck, who was wounded during the
battle. Scheck lived in Maryland, so Vollano arranged for a
VHP volunteer in that state to get Scheck’s recollections of
the battle. Scheck subsequently named other soldiers who had
been involved and over the next couple of years, Vollano followed
up with them by email.
Kettles had received the Distinguished Service Cross, the
nation’s second-highest award for valor, but as Vollano pieced
together a full picture of the battle, “There was no question in
my mind that this was a Medal of Honor action. It was obvious
to me that he did some extraordinary things.”
What happened on May 15, 1967, unfolded in a thick Vietnamese
jungle swarming with enemy troops, a place American
troops had nicknamed “Chump Valley”—supposedly because
only a chump would go there.
Then-Maj. Kettles, who had deployed in early 1967 as a
platoon leader and aircraft commander with the 176th Aviation
Company, part of the 14th Combat Aviation Battalion in
the Americal Division, led his unit in dropping a reconnaissance
patrol into the valley.
The patrol was quickly confronted by a heavily armed, battalion-sized
enemy force. In the ensuing battle that raged for
hours, Kettles made four helicopter trips into the white-hot
landing zone being raked by heavy enemy fire to bring in am-
U.S. Army/Courtesy photo
Then-Maj. Charles “Chuck” Kettles stands beside his bullet-riddled Huey in 1967.
20 ARMY ■ September 2016

munition and troop reinforcements and, eventually, evacuate a
total of 44 soldiers.
Almost 40 Holes in Helicopter
On his final run to pick up the last eight American soldiers
on the ground, his was the only helicopter left in the unit that
could still get in the air. When he finally nursed his aircraft
back to base, leaking fuel all the way, the ground crew counted
almost 40 bullet and shrapnel holes in it.
That condensed summation pales in comparison to the full
narrative of the furious action that day, recounted on Kettles’
Medal of Honor web page at https://www.army.mil/
medalofhonor/kettles. In fact, it reads so incredibly that during
the White House medal ceremony, President Barack
Obama described it as “like a bad Rambo movie.”
But getting to that ceremony took time. Vollano’s first step
was to approach his member of Congress at the time, Rep.
John Dingell, to map out a strategy. “He had one of his
staffers, Sharon Vespremi, take that on, and she was very
helpful,” Vollano said.
Vollano spent a lot of time arranging for and collecting detailed
statements from all the veterans involved in the battle to
whom he had talked to support an official Medal of Honor
nomination. Not until after they had been collected did he realize
that such statements had to be notarized, so they had to
go back to the veterans who made them to get that done locally.
That took another chunk of time.
Yet Another Hurdle
Another hurdle involved the need for legislation for a onetime
waiver of the normal time limit on Army Medal of
Honor awards, which must be given within five years of the
date of the associated military action.
The effort went on so long that it outlasted Dingell, who
retired from Congress in January 2015. He was succeeded by
his wife, Debbie Dingell, whom Vollano said was more than
happy to take up the cause.
Finally, the finish line began to come into view. Defense
Secretary Ash Carter said that after Kettles’ “remarkable” story
was brought to his attention last year, he directed Pentagon
officials to draft legislative language allowing a one-time
waiver of the five-year limit.
In November, Dingell and Sens. Gary Peters and Debbie
Stabenow, both of Michigan, introduced such legislation and
Congress approved it, paving the way for Obama to award
Kettles the Medal of Honor at the White House in July.
The day after the White House ceremony, Kettles, now 86,
was inducted into the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes in a ceremony
hosted by Carter. “How many Thanksgiving tables have
had an extra chair through the years because of his actions?”
Carter said of Kettles. “How many weddings, childbirths and
graduations were made possible because Maj. Kettles and his
crew returned, again and again, to the hot landing zone on the
Song Tra Cau riverbed? We can only wonder.”
Courtesy William Vollano
William Vollano
preserves veterans’
stories.
True to Form
For his part, Kettles remained true to form—dutiful, humble,
unassuming—as he was feted by top U.S. government officials
at the ceremonies. “That’s just what war is,” he said at
the Pentagon ceremony. “We completed the thing to the best
of our ability, and we didn’t leave anyone out there. [Now]
let’s go have dinner.”
He insisted his Medal of Honor should be seen as recognition
of everyone who fought in that battle on that long-ago
day almost half a century ago. “It belongs to them as much as
it belongs to me,” he said. “The bottom line on the whole
thing is simply that those 44 did get out of there. … The rest
of it is rather immaterial, frankly.”
Kettles joins the ranks of more than 100,000 other veterans
who have told their stories to Veterans History Project volunteers
all over the country since the project began. They’ve submitted
original photos, illustrations, letters, diaries and other
personal documents.
More than 24,000 of those stories are digitized and available
for viewing and research online at www.loc.gov/vets.
What is now the nation’s largest oral history archive continues
to grow at a rate of about 100 new narratives each week.
Volunteers Sought
But VHP officials note that with 22 million veterans still
living in the U.S., there are many more narratives to be collected—and
they’d love to expand the ranks of the volunteers
who collect them. More details, a downloadable “field kit”
and a how-to video can be found at http://www.loc.gov/
vets/kit.html.
For his part, Vollano intends to keep working with the VHP
as long as he’s able, and said he’s proud of the “small role” he
played in initiating the Medal of Honor process for Kettles.
“I had four uncles, a brother and a cousin who were in
World War II. They’re all gone now, and we don’t have word
one about what they did,” he said. “Somewhere in my head,
Chuck Kettles might have been a way of making up for that.”
“There are so many stories, so many great stories that need
to be told. And they need to be preserved.” ✭
September 2016 ■ ARMY 21

SPONSORSHIPS AVAILABLE
HOT TOPICS
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FORUMS
FOCUSED ONE-DAY EVENT SERIES
AUSA Conference & Event Center • Arlington, VA
ARMY
MEDICAL
22 SEPTEMBER
ARMY
CYBER
3 NOVEMBER
ARMY
CONTRACTS
1 DECEMBER
Join us in the new AUSA Conference Center. This state-of-the-art facility will provide
a unique setting to participate in the discussion, engage with key leaders and learn
about the future of the Army.
WWW.AUSA.ORG/AUSAMEETINGS/HT
Event Information
Melissa Wenczkowski
703-907-2672 or mwenczkowski@ausa.org
Sponsorship Information
Gaye Hudson
703-907-2401 or ghudson@ausa.org

iStock/Gustavo Andrade
Unintended Risk
Policies Designed ‘Not to Lose’
May Make Winning Less Likely
By Maj. (P) Samuel Linn
The U.S. Army’s policies designed to mitigate risk may create a distortion for
commanders by weighing tactical risk as less important than accidental and
causing suboptimal decisionmaking.
There is no such thing as eradicating risk on the battlefield. Act too quickly, and
you will make mistakes. Wait too long, and the enemy will punish you mercilessly.
We expect commanders to properly balance this tension; we give them staffs, access,
proximity to the battle, and authority to make decisions.
Yet combat is still a messy business.
The Army proves this time and again by
making mistakes such as friendly fire and
civilian casualties, and causing collateral
damage. Things go wrong; this is known
as the fog and friction of war. As a responsible
profession, the Army has gone
to great lengths to develop processes to
mitigate these risks. As we apply them
over time, the probability of accidents
goes down.
In practice, this represents actions
such as confirming the impact area is free
of friendly troops, conducting a collateral
damage estimate assessment to decrease
the likelihood of civilian casualties, and
checking the path of munitions to ensure
they don’t shoot down friendly aircraft.
Each of these tasks takes time and decreases
the risk of shooting at ourselves
or noncombatants, or causing other collateral
concerns on a crowded battlefield.
Time Matters
By applying more time and process,
we can continue to squeeze out risk.
This seems responsible; there is no reason
to risk damage to equipment or people’s
lives when it’s avoidable. But time
matters in combat; this is one goal of
training. By rehearsing people and
processes for a given amount of time, we
can decrease the level of accidental risk
incurred. Simply put, we can execute our
procedures faster, without degradation
of quality. By taking our time and training
hard, we can squeeze out of a task
nearly all of the risk.
Accidental risk, however, has an evil
twin called tactical risk. Tactical risk can
be defined as the risk to friendly troops
as time passes from the moment of detection
to the execution of a decision by
the commander.
Picture a platoon of light infantry in
Iraq. They identify enemy in a building
and the longer they wait to take action,
the more tactical risk they incur. The
enemy may be preparing an attack, calling
for reinforcements, or planting
IEDs behind them. The idea is that as
time passes, the risk to the decisionmaker’s
troops increases. By conceptualizing
these two phenomena occurring
simultaneously, we can start to visualize
the overall risk.
What we want to find and give to
commanders is the point at which the
September 2016 ■ ARMY 23

overall risk is minimized. At this point, even though we can
continue to decrease accidental risk by taking more time and
applying more process, the mitigation of risk occurs at a lower
rate than the increase in tactical risk, meaning the overall risk
is increased.
‘Tactical Patience’
Conversely, if we act too quickly and make a decision before
this optimal point, the accidental risk is still dropping rapidly.
This means that by delaying a little longer in what’s often
called “tactical patience,” we can decrease overall risk. We’ll
call this optimal point, the point where the lines cross, the total
risk crossover—the point at which the reasons to execute
exceed the reasons not to execute. Where suboptimal decisions
can occur is when the nature of the tactical risk changes.
Take a situation where small amounts of time incur large
tactical risks. No longer in Iraq where the enemy rarely formed
a complete squad, envision a company of enemy tanks that the
friendly infantry platoon encounters. This time, the tactical
risk of inaction increases much more rapidly. Instead of a slow
and relatively low-grade response by the insurgent force, this
new enemy uses the time to maneuver on the platoon, destroys
the formation, exploits the advantage, and continues wreaking
havoc on the units behind.
What we see as the tactical risk profile becomes more sensitive
to time is that a new optimal decision point emerges, one
that encourages more rapid decisionmaking and execution.
This can be quite a shift in mentality. After so many years of
prioritizing collateral concerns, we have become fixated on
procedures to mitigate accidental risk. It may be an individual
approval authority, or a process designed to bring us down the
accidental risk curve, but both take time and may force us to
blow right past our new optimal total risk crossover point.
My claim here is that the idea of “mitigating” risk in this
scenario is not possible. The idea that we can reduce risk in
the moment ignores that any time deviating from total risk
crossover assumes additional overall risk. All we can do is
manage it beforehand with training, and optimize within the
constraints in execution. Therefore, we aren’t mitigating it; we
are transferring it between accidental and tactical, and should
be searching for the optimal point to execute.
This decision is made difficult or impossible due to the rules
in place, and the authority required to break these rules. It may
be time to take another look at who can turn on and off the
accidental risk mitigation measures.
Allocation to Commanders
Take a closer look at the decisionmakers. Unconstrained,
we can envision commanders reading the above analysis, having
their operations research/systems analysts collect the data,
derive the risk curves, and spit out a matrix for making optimal
decisions. In practice, what we observed was that commanders
are subject to policies; doctrine; and tactics, techniques
and procedures from 15 years of counterinsurgency that
either discourage or forbid them from taking such liberties. So
who bears the tactical and accidental risks, and does the resulting
incentive structure facilitate optimal decisionmaking?
There are two types of accidental risk: collateral damage and
fratricide. Both of these outcomes are extremely undesirable,
and rightly so. The U.S. Army is not in the business of killing
itself or noncombatants. When either of these events occur,
commanders are immediately involved in the ensuing investigation.
Procedures are analyzed for compliance, and new measures
are designed to prevent another such incident.
We have come to expect additional “control measures” to
prevent repeat offenses. It appears as though the commander
and staff fully internalize the penalty of assuming excessive accidental
risk. This makes rational sense, since making the
same mistake twice is often an unforgivable sin. What is clear,
though, is that specific individuals, especially commanders, are
held accountable.
On the other hand, tactical risk does not appear to be so
cleanly internalized. Maybe because we as a military haven’t
encountered steep tactical risk profiles in recent memory (as
will occur given a near-peer adversary), we have lost the decisiveness
that comes from that type of mentality. Another possible
cause is that in general, it is harder to exactly identify the
root cause of negative tactical outcomes. Inefficient adherence
to standard procedure is not a common finding when examining
why we lost a battle; usually the historian identifies this as
the issue.
Empower Decisionmakers
Commanders at each level are left with asymmetric internalization
of tactical versus accidental risk; they are individually
incentivized to favor tactical risk over accidental. By recognizing
this distortion, we can empower our decisionmakers
with the tools and support they need to make the right calls in
the field, underwrite good decisions that happen to have bad
outcomes, and buy back some accidental risks we have delegated
to the lowest levels.
The idea is to set the framework for a discussion that can
realistically result in deregulation of commanders’ decisions
and processes. Success would look like a brigade commander
requesting a daily or weekly—rather than shot-by-shot—collateral
damage estimate approval, citing excessive assumption
of tactical risk as the reason. It could also look like a battalion
commander asking for respite from training requirements
when they are crowding out more efficient allocations of time.
We can afford for pundits to judge sports teams on outcomes
instead of decisions, but if readiness and leader development
are to be the Army’s priorities, we will need to support
decisionmakers with the constitution to defend their decisions
on the decisions’ overall merit rather than just on whether or
not they were successful. Leadership is oftentimes defending
the unpopular.
✭
Maj. (P) Samuel Linn is a professor of military science at Fordham
University, N.Y., and has served as an assistant professor of economics
at the U.S. Military Academy. He has deployed with the
101st Airborne Division; 75th Ranger Regiment; 5th Stryker
Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division; and most recently with 4th Infantry
Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort
Carson, Colo. He holds a bachelor’s degree from West Point, and
an MBA from the Wharton School of Business at the University
of Pennsylvania.
24 ARMY ■ September 2016

Use ‘Mental Models’ to
Outthink the Enemy
By Maj. Joe Byerly
U.S. Army/Pfc. Daniel Parrott
2nd Infantry Division soldiers at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif.
By the end of August 1944, Gen. George S. Patton Jr.’s
III Corps had left a swath of destruction across Europe.
They had captured or destroyed over 4,300 German
tanks, artillery pieces and vehicles while losing
fewer than 500 of their own tanks and artillery. Even the death
toll was lopsided. As of Aug. 23 of that year, the Germans had
lost 16,000 soldiers, killed at the hands of III Corps, compared
to approximately 2,000 U.S. service members killed in action.
Patton’s rapid 500-mile trek across Europe can be summed
up in one word: Attack! The speed at which he moved left the
Germans confused, and it paved the way for the Allies’ race to
the Rhine.
Almost 60 years later, in the summer of 2002, retired Marine
Corps Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper led the opposing force during
Millennium Challenge, a joint forces exercise simulation. He
played the role of a rogue Middle Eastern commander whose
technological capabilities paled in comparison to those of the
U.S. The purpose of Millennium Challenge was to validate a
new way in which the U.S. military fought. During the 1990s,
leaders thought that technology would lift the fog of war and
allow U.S. commanders to see first, understand first, then act
decisively.
Van Riper’s performance during the exercise proved that the
contemporary U.S. way of warfare was inconsistent with the
nature of war. He used asymmetric methods to counter technological
dominance, couriers instead of cellphones to communicate
among his forces, World War II-era practices to get
his airplanes off the ground when his communications systems
September 2016 ■ ARMY 25

Gen. George S. Patton
Jr. in Germany in 1945
were knocked out, and a surprise attack on Navy ships—which
would have killed approximately 20,000 service members and
sunk 19 ships. His technologically inferior force outthought
and outfought the U.S. military in the exercise.
While Van Riper and Patton served in different capacities
and in different eras, they both dominated the battlefields
where they fought. One reason was that both complemented
their experiences with a lifetime of self-study, gaining an understanding
of war and warfare and thus, developing “mental
models” that allowed to them to outthink, outsmart and outfight
their opposing commanders. These mental models were
the foundation of their competitive advantage, and their personal
examples should provide leaders with the impetus to
adopt the same practices in their own careers.
Lifetime of Experience, Education
Mental models or schemas are prerecorded bits of information
stored in our brains that enable us to quickly understand
the world. They also influence how we take action. Mental
models are developed through a lifetime of personal experiences
and education. They are the reason two individuals can
look at the same information, or two commanders can look at
the same terrain, and draw two very different conclusions. The
types and variances of experiences, and how we make sense of
them, will determine how our mental models are shaped.
Even military strategist Carl von Clausewitz commented on
the power of mental models when he discussed coup d’oeil as a
prerequisite to military genius in his
book On War. Great military commanders
intuitively understand the power of
this idea and deliberately supplement
their experiences with the practice of
reading and reflection. They do not rely
on the organization for development;
they take their development into their
own hands.
Reading Shapes Patton
Patton’s way of war, for example, was
not shaped by doctrine and field problems
alone. Throughout his life, he complemented
his experiences with a disciplined
effort of reading and self-study.
As his wife, Beatrice Ayer Patton, recounted
in a 1952 edition of Armor magazine,
by the age of 8, young George was
familiar with the works of Homer,
William Shakespeare and Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle. These books and plays,
which were the fictional reflection of the
human condition in conflict, shaped the
future general from a young age.
Patton continued the practice of reading
into his early 20s, using the margins
of books, notebooks and notecards to
capture his thoughts and reflections, further
enhancing his self-development. As
a cadet at West Point, he scribbled “rear
attack” and “flank attack” in the margins of his books. Decades
later, these words would define his aggressive nature as a field
commander.
During his senior year at the military academy, Patton
wrote that to become a great soldier, it was important “to be so
thoroughly conversant with all sorts of military possibilities
that whenever an occasion arises, he has at hand without effort
on his part a parallel.”
To achieve this, Patton wrote, “I think that it is necessary for
a man to begin to read military history in its earliest and hence
crudest form to follow it down in natural sequence, permitting
his mind to grow with his subject until he can grasp without effort
the most abstruse question of the science of war because he
is already permeated with all its elements.”
Patton took extensive notes on Frederick the Great,
Napoleon Bonaparte, Ardant du Picq and Helmuth von
Moltke, studying not only their successes but also their failures.
Roger Nye, author of The Patton Mind: The Professional
Development of an Extraordinary Leader, wrote that the source
of Patton’s genius was “in his library and in on-the-job learning,
rather than in the Army schooling system; his less creative
contemporaries averaged more than 10 years in student and
faculty time while Patton served little more than four years.”
After World War I, Patton could have rested on his wartime
experiences, claiming that he was combat-tested and ready to
lead at higher levels of responsibility. But he didn’t. He used
the period between the wars to continue to develop the mental
U.S. Army
26 ARMY ■ September 2016

models that would later lead him to victory over the Germans.
He also shared his growing understanding of war and warfare
with his subordinates, giving weekly lectures to the officers
in his unit. Some of these officers would later enable him
as a commander, as they served on his staff during his breakouts
in World War II.
Like Patton, Van Riper began his intellectual journey early
in his military career. In an essay titled “The Relevance of
History to the Military Profession: An American Marine’s
View,” he recounts the books he read from the rank of private
to lieutenant general and how they shaped his mental models.
He discusses reading S.L.A. Marshall’s Men Against Fire as a
company grade officer and how the book impacted his leadership
decisions during field exercises. He shares how T.R.
Fehrenbach’s This Kind of War led him to develop challenging
training and enforce discipline in his organizations.
Van Riper says studying the past enables “practitioners of war
to see familiar patterns of activity and to develop more quickly
potential solutions to tactical and operational problems.”
‘Symbiotic Connection’
“I could never identify a direct cause-and-effect relationship
between the orders I gave in combat and the books I previously
read,” he writes, “but clearly a symbiotic connection existed.”
The essay spans several decades and several hundred books
and articles, but the point is clear and succinct: Van Riper’s
habit of self-development gave him the intellectual tools necessary
to move beyond conventional thought and doctrine to develop
the mental models required to win.
“The proof of the value of reading is
not straightforward. Performance on the
battlefield provides the final test,” he
writes. His performance in Millennium
Challenge is proof that his practice of
reading throughout his career helped
him succeed on the battlefield.
Van Riper focused on his own development;
he also encouraged subordinates
to do the same. As a division commander,
he set an hour aside on his daily
schedule for professional reading, with
the hope his subordinate leaders would
follow suit. He directed the purchase of
6,000 books for unit libraries. Finally, he
hosted a monthly reading group at his
quarters in which lieutenants through
major generals discussed a book they
were reading together.
See What Others Miss
Both Patton and Van Riper spent
decades building mental models on the
foundation of a deep understanding of
war and the human condition. They
read history, the humanities and biographies
that enabled them to lead, fight
and develop the next generation of leaders.
Their efforts allowed them to see
U.S. Marine Corps
what others missed and not only interpret events through
well-developed lenses but also act faster than their opponents.
We do not have to wait for our leaders or professional military
education institutions to develop us. We can follow the
example of these two individuals and start developing the
mental models that will help us fight and win our nation’s
wars. And we can begin our journey of developing mental
models no matter where we are in our careers. This will positively
influence our training, our leadership, and how we fight.
I recommend starting with the Maneuver Leader Self Study
Program, and picking a book or article that interests you. Join
the sergeant major of the Army’s book club, a program that
looks to focus on one book each quarter. Peruse articles from
ARMY magazine, Military Review, The Strategy Bridge, Small
Wars Journal or The Military Leader.
As we continue to train in preparation for the next war, we
need leaders with mental models that go well beyond field exercises
and doctrine. We need leaders who can outthink, outsmart
and outmaneuver the enemy. This can be achieved only
by following in the footsteps of Patton and Van Riper, both
practitioners who dedicated their lives to the development of
their intellectual abilities.
✭
Maj. Joe Byerly is an armor officer and executive officer for the 2nd
Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat
Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo. He holds a
bachelor’s degree from North Georgia College and State University,
and a master’s degree from the U.S. Naval War College.
Retired Marine Corps
Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper
September 2016 ■ ARMY 27

Operation Lightning
Making the Most of Home Station Training
U.S. Army/Sgt. Ian Ives
As the Army works to regain its strengths in decisive
action and combined arms maneuver after 15 years
of counterinsurgency and advise-and-assist missions,
the development of division-led, home station
training exercises to externally evaluate brigade combat
teams and battalion task forces is imperative.
For the two brigade combat teams of the 25th Infantry Division
at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, a rotation to the Joint
Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, La., has an estimated
$35 million to $45 million price tag. The costs, along with up
to five months of commitment based on deployment, transit
times and readiness, are enormously important. It is imperative,
then, that we maximize home station training exercises.
Operation Lightning Forge is the 25th Infantry Division’s
home station training event, immersing the entire brigade
combat team into a challenging exercise at a cost of approximately
$2 million to $3 million. This 15-day event is our way
of replicating what Army combat training centers do better
than anyone in the world: Expose the team to a complex and
fast-paced operational environment where it must fight
against a free-thinking opposing force with hybrid threats and
gray zone attributes.
Without question, Lightning Forge increases readiness and
enables soldiers through commanders to go to a combat training
center rotation at a higher level. While a brigade combat
team can crawl and walk at home station, it is able to “run” at
the combat training center, resulting in a higher level of training.
At the completion of this evolution, we believe the Army
gains a brigade combat team at a higher level of readiness,
compared to units that haven’t had a similar experience.
Readiness Increased
The 25th Infantry Division, in conjunction with the 196th
Training Support Brigade, planned, resourced and executed
two Lightning Forges in the past two years; a third is planned
for November. The exercises have increased readiness not only
of the brigade combat team executing the training, but also of
every other brigade formation and the division command posts
based on their supporting missions of opposing force, observer
controller/trainers, intelligence, fires and sustainment missions.
Higher-echelon support was provided by the division artillery
and division sustainment and combat aviation brigades.
The 196th Training Support Brigade provides a unique capability
in the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Capability,
and this multicomponent brigade enhances our rotational
brigade’s experience and the 25th Infantry Division’s ability to
train. Most importantly, this effort is supported by the creation
of a unique, challenging and realistic operating environ-
28 ARMY ■ September 2016

Forge By
Col. Donald M. Brown, Lt. Col. Matt Skaggs and Maj. Jeremy Ussery
U.S. Marine Corps/Lance Cpl. Harley Thomas
ment to emphasize each warfighting function.
A two-week preparation phase has preceded each Operation
Lightning Forge iteration. This phase involves observer/
coach trainer and opposing force academies, academics, full instrumentation,
and a full reception staging onward movement
and integration designed to model the Joint Readiness Training
Center experience as well as real-world Pacific Theater missions.
Reception staging onward movement and integration allows
rotational brigade combat teams and battalion Mission Command
nodes to establish themselves ahead of the companylevel
nodes and begin their battle rhythm events, intelligence
collection and targeting so they are prepared to “receive” their
subordinate units. This results in maximum training value
from the field portion.
Lightning Forge requires efforts from the entire division,
including the nonrotational infantry brigade combat team as
well as the three enabling brigades: the 25th Combat Aviation
Brigade, division artillery and the 25th Sustainment Brigade.
The division can effectively weave the efforts of its other four
brigades and the multitude of supporting organizations and
efforts to achieve a synchronized operational environment.
Simply put, it takes a division commander and his staff to correctly
train a brigade combat team and battalion task forces.
Operation Lightning Forge is a competitive, challenging
training event for soldiers and leaders. It places the rotational
brigade combat team into a complex and realistic operating
environment that exercises and stresses warfighting functions,
increasing overall unit proficiency and readiness across all
warfighting functions and mission-essential tasks.
The objective is easily stated, but it’s difficult to execute at
home station without innovative approaches that create the
complex and realistic hybrid threat and gray zone operating
environment needed to fully stimulate a brigade combat team.
Total Army Integration
The 196th Infantry Brigade, Joint Pacific Multinational
Readiness Capability (JPMRC) is unique for the forces stationed
in the Pacific area of responsibility. It provides units with
realistic, combat training center-like, instrumented exercises
that stress the training unit’s full range of warfighting functions
while allowing them to remain at home station. During Lightning
Forge, the 25th Infantry Division operates as the higher
headquarters to the rotational brigade combat team while the
196th Infantry Brigade operates as the exercise controllers.
JPMRC also uses a Pacific-based decisive action training environment
that incorporates a multifaceted enemy set ranging
from near-peer to criminal forces, and all elements in between.
Working together, the two organizations create a much better
training event than if either were to tackle the task alone.
Providing and portraying a realistic, free-thinking enemy
inside a complex operating environment and then fully exercising
the intelligence warfighting function is the most challenging
component of this collective training event. A freethinking
enemy stresses the unit at the tactical level. The
portrayal of an enemy in multiple forms and threat streams
and through all-source information collection forces the
brigade combat team staff to
develop visualization tools to
build the commander’s situational
awareness and drive
decisionmaking.
The 25th Infantry Division
has capitalized on significant
lessons learned from
both iterations of Lightning
Forge. The most important
was that a brigade combat
team needs much more than
a “white card” of master scenario
events to stress the entire
staff and drive them to-
Opposite: 25th Infantry Division
soldiers during home station
training Operation Lightning
Forge 16 in Hawaii; left: Maj.
Val Moro acts as a ground force
commander during the exercise.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 29

ward achieving training objectives. The brigade combat team
intelligence warfighting function—specifically, the intelligence
collectors and single analytical source enclaves such as human,
signals and geospatial intelligence—are grossly underutilized
and undertrained without a rich intelligence scenario.
We simultaneously leveraged the support of the 500th Military
Intelligence Brigade, Intelligence Electronic Warfare Tactical
Proficiency Trainer, Operational Environment Training
Support Center (a component of the U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command G-2) and the Pacific Foundry platform.
All are intelligence training programs of record provided by Intelligence
Center of Excellence, the U.S. Army Intelligence
and Security Command and the Army G-2. We also leveraged
other simulation services provided by the Schofield Barracks
Mission Training Complex.
The collective efforts of these programs allowed us to provide
a realistic training environment that emphasized information
collection and analysis capacity through live and simulated
collection. This had a valuable cascading effect on the
brigade combat team staff and maneuver elements.
The 715th Military Intelligence Battalion, through the division
intelligence section, provided national-level signals intelligence
and assisted with processing exploitation and dissemination
of the signals intelligence collection. The 715th
also provided additional tactical signals intelligence collection
capability.
Similar to signals intelligence collection training, tactical human
intelligence training has been a constant challenge to train
at the division level. A human intelligence collection environment,
aided by the 500th Military Intelligence Brigade and Pacific
Foundry, was established. Role-players from the 500th
Military Intelligence Brigade allowed both the 35M human intelligence
and 35L counterintelligence MOSs to conduct tactical
questioning, source operations and interrogations.
In order to provide an environment that was fluid enough to
maintain pace with the tactical scenario, the division had to
fabricate the body of reporting that is needed to provide an
enemy common operating picture. We built both “wheat” and
“chaff” reporting that requires analysts and collectors to determine
which reporting is valuable.
Live Environment
Peacetime limitations on intelligence
collection typically result in degraded
collection and fusion opportunities in a
brigade combat team collective training
environment. Signals and human intelligence
collection are often “hand-waved,”
and not exercised to the extent they
should be to prepare the military intelligence
company multifunction teams for
a combat training center.
To remedy this, the 25th Infantry Division
established a live, constructive intelligence
collection environment with
the help of the 500th Military Intelligence
Brigade, the Pacific Foundry platform,
and the National Security Agency’s
Kunia facility in Hawaii. This environment
provided a closed network that supported
the simulation feeds that drove
the overall scenario. The brigade combat
team collected and analyzed enemy communications,
which provided indicators
of activity and enabled raids. Intelligence
gleaned from these actions drove the
brigade combat team’s decisionmaking
and propelled it to execute additional
training objectives.
Soldiers prepare to assault a building during
Operation Lighting Forge 16 in Hawaii.
30 ARMY ■ September 2016

Full-motion video provided by unmanned aerial systems has
become a staple in the modern tactical operations center.
JPMRC helped provide a realistic video feed by overlaying live
training telemetry, which was assimilated into the simulated
video feed. This provided real-time positional data to the
brigade combat team commander through his intelligence systems;
enemy positional data was manifested on the video
screen by realistic avatars. Analysts at the division and brigade
level could track troop movements in real time, providing indicators
and warning of enemy actions.
Expanding the Scope
From an intelligence perspective, the most fundamental
skill targeted during this training event was a strong fluency
with the Distributed Common Ground System. This goal was
achieved by utilizing exercise simulation provided by the Intelligence
Electronic Warfare Tactical Proficiency Trainer at our
Maneuver Training Center.
The trainer has typically been used with the Foundry platform
to train single-source collectors and analysts, focusing
U.S. Army/Sgt. Ian Ives
on signals and human intelligence. The Hawaii platform has
significantly expanded the scope of what is typically provided.
In addition to the simulated full-motion video mentioned
earlier, the trainer simulated theater collection by providing
ground moving target indicator, signals, synthetic aperture
radar and electronic intelligence in a multitude of reporting
formats.
These reports were provided directly to the division analysis
control element, which passed the reporting to the respective
single-source node at the brigade combat team. The reporting
also populated the division Distributed Common Ground
System tactical entity database, which is shared by division to
the battalion level. This feed then populated the brigade combat
team and battalion operations center’s common operating
picture through the Command Post of the Future.
The 25th Infantry Division initially intended to use the
support of the military intelligence training programs for a
more intense training environment for the brigade combat
team’s intelligence sections. However, it had the added benefit
of stimulating the entire brigade combat team staff, allowing
them to conduct realistic targeting boards and provide the
commander with visualization tools to enable decisionmaking.
Furthermore, the simulation put stress on the network architecture,
which allowed both operators and maintainers to
gain proficiency through problem-solving and repetition on
workstations. This effect not only impacted the brigade combat
team’s architecture; the entire division intelligence enterprise
was trained as it served as the interface between simulation
outputs and the brigade combat team.
Lightning Forge is an enormous investment of division resources,
units and leader time, achievable only through the entire
division committing to execution. However, we believe
this investment is both prudent and fundamental to maximize
the return the U.S. Army makes in the form of combat training
center rotations. Not only does the Army gain a more
ready brigade combat team at the completion of the rotation,
but the entire division benefits from the execution of Lighting
Forge. It’s a “pennies on the dollar” investment that provides a
more ready brigade combat team for any mission. ✭
Col. Donald M. Brown is the divisions operation officer of the
25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. He has
served multiple leadership roles from platoon leader through battalion
commander. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the U.S.
Military Academy and a master’s degree from Troy University,
Ala. He is also a graduate of the School for Advanced Military
Studies and the U.S. Naval War College. Lt. Col. Matt Skaggs
is the head of intelligence training and resources at the U.S.
Army G-2 and previously was the 25th Infantry Division G-2.
He has served as an intelligence professional at all levels, including
the Joint Special Operations Command and U.S. Pacific
Command. He has a bachelor’s degree from Northwest Nazarene
University, Idaho, and a master’s degree from the Naval War
College. Maj. Jeremy Ussery serves in the Army’s Office of Chief
Legislative Liaison-Senate Liaison Division. He was a tactical
officer at West Point and served in the 101st Airborne and 25th
Infantry divisions. He holds a bachelor’s degree from West Point
and a master’s degree from Columbia University, N.Y.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 31

Cover Story
Brainpower
Is Their Weapon
Scientist-Warfighters Support, Defend Against Bioagents
By Laura Stassi, Assistant Managing Editor
U.S. Army scientists trained these
staff members with the Liberian
Institute for Biomedical Research
to test blood samples for Ebola.
Randal J. Schoepp
32 ARMY ■ September 2016

Warfighters wielding the most powerful weapons
in the world—their brains—are working in a
seemingly unremarkable building on the
grounds of Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md.
They are the uniformed and civilian scientists and support
staff of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious
Diseases, and they protect and defend soldiers against all
enemies biological.
“The easy way to look at it is, we deal with things that kill
you,” said Randal J. Schoepp, applied diagnostics branch chief
at the institute, known as USAMRIID.
That explains why the institute is playing only a minimal
role in working to find a vaccine for the Zika virus. The institute
is conducting a few small studies, but Zika “is not in our
wheelhouse,” Schoepp said. Although Zika can make people
sick, “it’s not going to make that many people sick,” he said.
About 10 percent of those who are exposed to Zika
actually become ill.
“And it’s not going to kill” soldiers, he
said. “Aside from the microcephaly aspect,”
a condition where a newborn
baby’s head is much smaller than
normal because of damaged brain
development, “it’s not that bad
of a virus.”
Ebola, however, is that bad
of a virus. The two-year wave
in West Africa that began in
March 2014 was unprecedented
in magnitude and
scope, said Travis K. Warren,
principal investigator in the
molecular and translational sciences
division of USAMRIID.
During that period, more than
28,600 cases of the hemorrhagic fever
virus were reported in Guinea, Liberia and
Sierra Leone, according to the World Health
Organization. Approximately 11,300 people died.
“West Africa experienced a terrible epidemic,” said Tom
Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). “What’s less well-recognized is that the
world avoided a global catastrophe.”
USAMRIID played a key role in containing the health crisis,
which had “significant humanitarian, economic, political
and security dimensions,” said then-chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey.
Research by the institute led to a diagnostic test, or assay,
for Ebola infections while the Army scientists rigorously continued
investigations into therapeutics to treat, and vaccines to
prevent, the often-fatal disease. It’s not a question of whether
there will be another Ebola epidemic, said Maj. Anthony P.
Cardile, an infectious disease physician at USAMRIID, but
when. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
Lab Coats on the Ground
USAMRIID stood up in 1969 to protect warfighters from
biological threats and investigate disease outbreaks and other
public health crises. Its scientists have been at the forefront in
making strides against deadly menaces such as anthrax, botulism,
plague, ricin, and hemorrhagic fever viruses such as
Ebola.
“While they are low incidence, they have extremely high
consequences,” said David A. Norwood, chief of the institute’s
diagnostic systems division.
Hemorrhagic fever viruses damage the organs and immune
system and can lead to uncontrollable bleeding. Most of these
viruses are zoonotic, which means they exist in animals and
can infect humans. Rodents, ticks and mosquitoes
are the main carriers of many hemorrhagic
fever viruses, but the natural host of
Ebola has not yet been confirmed, according
to the CDC.
Scientists believe that in Africa,
people became infected first by
handling wild animals hunted
for food, or from contact with
infected bats. The virus then
was spread person-to-person
through direct contact. It is
fatal in more than 50 percent
of all cases, though the statistic
was as high as 90 percent
at the beginning of the latest
crisis.
The Ebola Zaire strain, one of
four known strains of the virus, was
the culprit in the West Africa outbreak.
When the crisis began unfolding, a
small team from USAMRIID was already on
the ground in Sierra Leone with prepositioned assays,
working on a project on hemorrhagic fever virus identification
and diagnostics. They immediately volunteered to start
testing samples from sick people, Schoepp said, to determine
whether it was Ebola or another virus that was making them ill.
After several months, as the disease spread throughout the
region, a group from the CDC arrived in Sierra Leone to continue
work there. The Army team turned its focus to Liberia,
establishing an Ebola virus diagnostic laboratory at the Liberian
Institute for Biomedical Research (LIBR).
National Institute of Allergy andInfectiousDisease
‘Medical Diplomacy’
For the next two years, USAMRIID teams of two and three
people rotated in-country every three weeks, working 10-hour
September 2016 ■ ARMY 33

days seven days a week to test blood samples and
also train five LIBR staff members to do “this
really complex and dangerous work,” Schoepp
said. “It’s capacity building, or medical diplomacy.
That’s the way the Army does things.”
The USAMRIID team tested over 32,000
samples. “At the height of the outbreak, we
were getting up to 120 samples a day,” said
Schoepp, whose total in-country time was
about six or seven months, and “90 percent of
them were positive, really positive.”
Despite less-than-state-of-the-art equipment
and safety precautions—the researchers
wore multiple pairs of disposable gloves that
they taped to protective suits instead of the
highly specialized, encapsulating “space suits”
with built-in gloves that are usually worn in
the lab when dealing with dangerous toxins—
“we never had a single fever watch, not a single
potential exposure,” Schoepp said, adding that
the work was grueling, but also gratifying.
“I’ve trained my entire life to do this type of
work,” Schoepp said. “Other people with my
experience may never get to go on an outbreak,
let alone the largest Ebola outbreak in human
history.”
Randal J. Schoepp
Validated for Canines
Back in the U.S., Army researchers worked
with the Food and Drug Administration to
Above: Capt. Melissa
Duggan helps Capt.
Mark Bailey prepare
to enter the biocontainment
laboratory
in Liberia to begin
Ebola testing; left:
This diagnostics system
was used for the
Army-developed assay
for Ebola testing.
Randal J. Schoepp
34 ARMY ■ September 2016

quickly get an emergency use authorization for the assay that
was being used in Liberia. With approval granted in record time
of just under a month, “It was the first assay that was developed
for human testing in the United States on U.S. citizens,” Norwood
said. That assay was used in state public health laboratories
throughout the U.S. as well as in DoD labs all over the
world.
Researchers also proved the assay would work in diagnosing
Ebola in canines as the Army considered deploying military
working dogs with their units when it began making plans for
Operation United Assistance, deploying about 2,800 troops to
Liberia to set up mobile testing labs and provide engineering
and infrastructure support, among other duties.
Ultimately, the military dogs weren’t deployed. But the assay
was put to good use after a dog-owning nurse in Texas
contracted Ebola from one of her patients, a Liberian man
who was visiting family in the Dallas area when he became ill
and subsequently died. (The patient, Thomas Eric Duncan,
was the first person to be diagnosed with Ebola in the U.S.)
“There was concern over what to do with this dog who had
been in close proximity and potentially exposed to Ebola,”
Norwood said. CDC and Texas public health officials agreed
to send to USAMRIID blood samples from the nurse’s dog,
Bentley, while he was quarantined for 21 days. Testing confirmed
Bentley had not been exposed.
“The good news is that the nurse survived,” Norwood said.
“After she was released from the critical care unit, she was reunited
with Bentley.”
In contrast, around the same time a nursing assistant in
Spain contracted Ebola from a missionary who had been in
West Africa. The nurse survived, but her untested dog was euthanized
as a precaution.
‘Mammoth Process’
When the emergency in West Africa began, no therapeutics
existed that fit the necessary criteria for use, including a ready
supply and data regarding efficacy and safety. Cardile, who deployed
to Liberia with the 1st Area Medical Laboratory to
support the U.S. response, said there were “fantastic efforts”
by outside groups working with the Army researchers to bring
therapeutics to clinical trial. But by the time they were able to
get the approvals to do so, the outbreak was winding down.
“It’s a mammoth process to go through,” Cardile said.
Still, “we screened tens of thousands of compounds and
have a very strong lead candidate” for a therapeutic “that
emerged from that,” Warren said. “And we have additional
compounds that we are actively pursuing right now.”
Additionally, “We are building … capability to respond
more quickly to another outbreak, whether it’s a virus we’re
familiar with or something new,” Cardile said, adding that
USAMRIID is focusing on medical logistics planning and
preliminary conversations with government and medical officials
in East Africa because “that’s where we feel there most
likely will be a future outbreak.”
“Everything would be essentially preprogrammed so when
there’s an outbreak, we could just hit ‘play,’” Cardile said.
Additionally, several Ebola vaccines are in various stages of
clinical trials, said John M. Dye Jr., branch chief of viral immunology.
“Pretty much every vaccine that is currently being
assessed for FDA approval has been through USAMRIID at
Zika Vaccine Is Focus of Army Researchers
Scientists at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
are working on developing a vaccine against the Zika
virus. One candidate has progressed to the stage of clinical
study in nonhuman primates, according to the Army, and
officials are hopeful that human trials can begin this year.
“We started to conceptualize the development of the
Zika vaccine actually a couple of years ago,” said Col.
Stephen Thomas, an infectious disease physician who is
leading a team of about two dozen researchers at the institute,
located in Silver Spring, Md.
But with the spread of the virus accelerating in some
parts of the world, that effort has taken on new intensity,
and “we very, very quickly started to conceive animal studies,”
Thomas said.
The Army initiative is part of a broader DoD effort under
which several military labs are getting $1.76 million in extra
funding to expand Zika virus surveillance worldwide and assess
the potential impact of the virus on the health and
readiness of deployed U.S. service members, officials said.
Zika is spread through the bite of the Aedes aegypti mosquito.
The common symptoms—fever, rash, joint pain and
red eyes—are usually mild and last several days or a week,
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC). But the unborn babies of pregnant women
who become infected can develop microcephaly as well as
other severe fetal brain defects, the CDC says.
New vaccines normally take up to a decade to be licensed,
but Thomas said a potential Zika vaccine may
move more quickly. “I don’t think we’re looking at the normal
timeline,” he said. “We’re in the middle of an epidemic
and an outbreak that’s taking a significant toll on the affected
countries.”
As of early April, 4,905 confirmed cases and almost
195,000 suspected cases had been reported in 33 countries
in the Western Hemisphere, according to the Armed
Forces Health Surveillance Branch.
Thomas said the virus is “emerging” as a DoD health issue:
Four soldiers and about a dozen other members of the
U.S. military community were recently infected by Zika after
traveling to Central or South America.
Since the virus is most prevalent in that part of the
world, troops deployed to areas in U.S. Southern Command
are most at risk, he said.
—Chuck Vinch
September 2016 ■ ARMY 35

Lt. Col. Kurt Schaecher
works with blood
samples submitted
for Ebola testing in
Liberia.
Randal J. Schoepp
one point or another,” he said. “They were either developed
or tested here.”
Three Steps of Testing
Any therapeutic or vaccine must proceed through three
steps before proceeding to FDA approval for a clinical trial in
humans, Dye said. “First, does the vaccine work in a petri
dish? Then, does it work in rodents? The final step is, is it efficacious
in non-human primates?”
The FDA considers data from animal studies when it’s too
dangerous or otherwise not possible to conduct initial testing
in humans—and this is the stage that can become uncomfortable.
“It’s personally painful doing those types of studies,” Dye
said. “I have a 5-year-old and a 3-year-old at home. I see a lot
of the same tendencies in my non-human primates” that he
sees in his children. “When I do a monkey study, I’m a miserable
person at home.”
“It wears on you. It can’t not,” he said. “If it doesn’t wear on
you, you shouldn’t be doing the work.”
However, “those of us who do it, we’ve come to the understanding
that we believe it’s for the greater good,” he said. “I’ve
made my peace with it, that in order for me to help humanity,
this is what I need to do for this particular virus.”
The institute’s animal research laboratory has been certified
by the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory
Animal Care. Most of the veterinarians are active-duty Army,
Dye said. In addition, many of the veterinary technicians are
retired or former Army whose skills are highly prized.
“They’re accustomed to this environment and they understand
the Army system, which can be imposing if you’re not
already familiar,” Dye said. “They are very specialized, so they
are a valuable commodity.”
Safety and Security
The Army scientists’ work with toxic viruses takes place inside
containment labs with the highest safety and security
measures possible. There are strict protocols regarding entrances,
exits and emergencies, said David Harbourt, the institute’s
biosafety officer. All employees must complete a threeday,
intensive course on protocol before they’re cleared for
escorted access.
“It took me 11 months to get unrestricted access” to the
biosafety level 4 labs, Harbourt said.
Additionally, “people go through extensive screening and
background checks to make sure they’re qualified,” he said.
They also undergo a thorough medical evaluation “to make
sure that they’re fit for duty” to work inside the laboratory environment,
he said.
A new building for USAMRIID is under construction at
Fort Detrick. The workforce will begin moving into the $650
million facility in 2017. Meantime, the Army’s cutting-edge
research continues.
“I can literally walk down the hallway and talk to the preeminent
toxicologist of the world,” said Dye, a virologist. “I
can walk down the other hallway and talk to … the biggest
anthrax researcher in the world. This is an amazing work environment.”
✭
36 ARMY ■ September 2016

2016 AUSA
ANNUAL MEETING
AND EXPOSITION
A Professional Development Forum
3-5 October 2016 | Walter E. Washington Convention Center | Washington, D.C.
All ticket purchases will be held for pickup at the Ticket Pickup Counter of the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.
A government-issued photo identification will be required for pickup.
Payment must accompany this order • Please print or type
No refunds for ticket orders cancelled after 16 SEPTEMBER 2016
Cancellation in writing only
AUSA MEMBERSHIP NUMBER

Picturing the Art of
Strategic Thinking
By Keith Ferguson and Chief Warrant Officer 5 Nicole Woodyard
Picture this: You are at a movie theater and realize
there are only three empty seats. One is in the front
row, one is in the middle, and one is in the last row.
Which seat should you choose? Is one location better
than the others and if so, why?
It is amazing how many decisions a person needs to make to
choose the seat that would best suit their needs. The fact that
a military area of operations is called a theater is not lost with
this analogy. Let’s explore the seats and identify why the lack
of a strategic vision can impact one’s world.
If you sit in the front row of a movie theater, you can see
the screen—and that is about all. Once the movie starts, it is
as if you are in the action. The characters onscreen loom
larger than life, almost forcing you to look at the screen and
nowhere else.
In the middle seat, your perspective changes. Not only can
you see the screen where all the action takes place, but you
have a wider view of what is going on around you. You are
able to see the exits. You are able to see other people in the
theater, and you can see their reactions to the story portrayed
on the screen. Their reactions might actually impact your interpretation
of the film. However, you don’t see the big picture.
You are not able to see or judge what is happening behind
you unless you actually turn around.
A seat in the last row gives you the biggest picture of all. You
can see the screen and all the action it contains. You can see all
the exits. You can see everyone who enters and exits the theater.
You don’t have to look behind you because there is nothing
behind. By sitting in that last row, you gain strategic vision.
Strategic Thinking Defined
Strategic thinking is the act of pondering, analyzing and
identifying the relationships among various components in a
complex system. Strategic thinking enables people to develop
effective plans. It helps prioritize and identify risks and potential
opportunities and provides guidance for long-range
planning.
Gen. David G. Perkins, in the Army Operating Concept
“Winning in a Complex World,” laid out the strategy and
concepts that must be explored in order to accomplish that
goal. This strategy is a big-picture vision of where the U.S.
Army must go to accomplish its mission. It is the epitome of
strategic thinking.
Does sitting in the last row guarantee that you will see the
big picture? No. You can be sitting all the way in the back and
still focus your attention on only one thing. The strategic vision
comes only if you choose to
look at the whole theater.
How does one become a strategic
thinker? Are strategic
thinkers born, or are they developed?
Is there a method in Army
education and training that specifically
addresses the skills and
knowledge required to be an effective
strategic thinker?
Move Away From the Action
Further back and further up. This concept tells
the thinker/observer that in order to more completely
understand circumstances, effort is needed
to figuratively move away from the action to see
it more in its entirety. One must realize
that most problems are threedimensional.
The furtherback
portion looks at
a problem within
one dimension,
but from multiple
perspectives
within that dimension.
As a result,
you must use
the connected concept:
further up. It is the
deliberate, purposeful approach
to look at problems
at multiple levels.
This principle informs the thinker
of the need to get the largest view as
possible of an entire operation before
proposing or implementing a solution to any
given problem. Teaching people to step back and
step up is a skill that can be taught in a schoolhouse.
Interactive multimedia instruction is an educational
strategy that can be used to teach this skill.
The onion principle. Nothing is ever as simple as
it first appears. It is necessary to look at the multiple
layers of a problem. There are always problems
within problems; strategic thinking requires
the ability to peel back the multiple layers that make
up a problem. This principle is easily taught through
38 ARMY ■ September 2016

scenario-based or outcome-based education. It can be taught
in the schoolhouse and also using interactive multimedia instruction.
The multiple component principle. Another analogy can be
used to explain this concept. When I (Ferguson) was young, I
always wondered how things worked. I often took
things apart and then reassembled them. I found
that I was pretty good at doing that until I
took apart my dad’s single-lens reflex camera.
It was easy to disassemble. The
problem was trying to put it back together.
As I took it apart, I discovered
many things about cameras and lenses.
I learned some things about gears and
mechanics. I learned all the specific
elements that made up the camera
and how they were used.
Unfortunately for me—and for
my dad—when I was done putting
the camera together, there were
pieces left over. These pieces were
in some way essential to the camera
working because it never worked
properly again. I kept telling my
dad I could fix it and kept taking it
apart and putting it back together,
but I never figured out the right
combination.
The multiple component concept
focuses on the skills of analysis.
Analysis means you can identify
components of a system and
find or understand the relationships
among those components.
National Gallery of Art/Auguste Rodin
In strategic problem-solving, you must know how to disassemble
a dilemma, but you must also be able to put the parts
back together in a combination that gives you the desired
effect.
Person-to-Person Works Best
Multiple component theory introduces students to the
need for a team-based approach to solving problems. Following
the concepts introduced by the Army Learning Model,
collaboration among individuals can be achieved more easily
in a resident environment where students interact in real
time. Although some technologies allow collaboration from
remote locations, person-to-person interaction seems to be
the best approach for teaching this skill.
The crystal ball principle. This is an exercise in imagining future
scenarios. For any given problem, there are multiple solutions
accomplished through many potential courses of action.
Some will be better than others. The crystal ball
exercises the ability to recognize possible futures based on the
many courses of actions that might be taken. Accurately predicting
outcomes is a skill that requires experimentation and
modeling.
This skill is learned in the arena of scenario-based education,
which can be conducted in a classroom through written
scenarios or during field exercises using role-playing. Collaboration
is an excellent tool to see the possible futures of many
courses of action. Courses of action are proposed by groups
collaborating based on the futures posited by these groups.
The Army uses the crystal ball approach during field training
exercises at the tactical level.
The contingency principle. Have a plan for every possible
imagined future. There are times when a future has been
imagined but is thought to be so unlikely that a plan to solve
its problems is never created. Failure to plan for every contingency
can be especially costly in lives and treasure. Contingency
planning is best taught through scenario-based education
in residence courses or in field training exercises.
Strategic thinking can be taught. More importantly, it can
be learned. That means that although there might be natural
strategic thinkers, the rest of us can learn it and use it to better
ourselves and our organizations.
✭
Keith Ferguson is an instructional systems specialist with the
Training Integration Directorate, Learning Enterprise Division
at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. An
educator for over 30 years, he has worked at Fort Jackson, S.C.;
Fort Lee, Va.; and the FBI Academy, Va. He has a bachelor’s
degree from Wheaton College, Ill., and a master’s degree from
Plymouth State College, N.H. Chief Warrant Officer 5 Nicole
Woodyard is a team lead in the Ordnance Leader Development
Branch of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command.
She has been in the Army for 26 years and has served as director
of training at Army Logistics University’s Technical Logistics
College, Fort Lee. She is also the founder of the Warrant Officer
Women’s Mentorship and is senior adviser to the Department of
the Army Women’s Mentorship Network. She has a bachelor’s
degree from Campbell University, N.C., and a master’s degree
from Central Michigan University.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 39

Five in Five
Capabilities the Army
Needs For Future Conflicts
By Daniel Goure
There will be war. This should be the fundamental assumption
behind U.S. national security and defense
planning by the next administration. When I say war,
I mean a conventional conflict between the U.S. and
a major power, of which there are only two plausible candidates—Russia
and China. This would be a great-power conflict
coupled with the possibility of a two-front war involving
hostile regional actors.
A succession of senior defense officials, military leaders and
intelligence experts have made a point of the growing danger
of conflict between the U.S. and at least one hostile power. At
a June conference at the Center for a New American Security,
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter went so far as to acknowledge
that all U.S. war plans had been revised to take into account
the ongoing aggressive behavior and major arms programs
of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, as well as the
continuing challenge of defeating the Islamic State group.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the United States has five
years to prepare for war. How would defense planning and acquisition
priorities be different? What can be done now, with
what is available, to improve the Army’s capability to fight a
major power?
Over the next five years, the Army should prioritize investments
in five categories of capabilities: enhanced lethality, enhanced
force protection, aviation upgrades, communications
systems, and electronic warfare beyond cyber.
Most Likely Adversary
Russia has been identified as the most serious problem
child. Moscow is employing a host of political, economic, informational,
cyber, criminal and military means to undermine
civil societies in Eastern Europe, weaken NATO and paralyze
the European Union. These efforts are supported by intelligence
operations, paramilitary forces and even high-end conventional
capabilities such as those present in Ukraine. As a
June report by the Atlantic Council observed, “Russia’s aggressive
military actions in Ukraine and Crimea and threats to
Eastern Europe constitute the single greatest challenge to
[NATO] since the Cold War.”
In its new military doctrine, signed by Russian President
Vladimir Putin in December 2014, the Kremlin returned the
favor, identifying NATO as the No. 1 military threat to Russia.
Since then, Moscow has acted in an ever more belligerent
fashion, violating the terms of the Minsk Protocol; bombing
U.S.-backed Syrian rebels; threatening to use nuclear weapons
against states that permit deployment of the European Phased
Rehearsing for an exercise in Bulgaria
Adaptive Approach missile defense system; conducting multiple,
major undeclared military exercises in the western border
areas with Ukraine and NATO; and harassing NATO ships
and aircraft in the Baltic and Black seas.
Robust Modernization Program
Supporting these demonstrations is a robust military modernization
program involving new strategic and theater nuclear
systems, advanced integrated air defenses, more capable tactical
aircraft and helicopters, enhanced mobility capabilities for
conventional forces, increased use of drones, long-range precision
munitions, and a world-class ability to shut down opposition
communications systems through a combination of cyberattack
and electronic warfare.
The U.S. and NATO have thought it necessary to respond
to Russian aggression with their own military moves designed
40 ARMY ■ September 2016

U.S. Army
to reassure European allies and deter Moscow. NATO aircraft
are conducting continuous air policing patrols over the Baltic
States. U.S. warships have repeatedly sailed into the Black Sea
in the face of continual Russian harassment.
Despite vociferous Russian objections, the first Aegis Ashore
missile defense site was declared operational in Romania in
December 2015. Washington is spending billions through the
European Reassurance Initiative to bolster U.S. and NATO
military capabilities in Eastern Europe and create a very high
readiness joint task force capable of being deployed in 48 hours.
A U.S. heavy brigade combat team will be continuously rotated
through the Eastern European members of NATO.
Similar to the half-decade before the assassinations in Sarajevo,
the environment in Europe appears to be heading for
confrontation and, possibly, armed conflict. An article in the
July 3 edition of The Washington Post carried this headline:
“Near Russia’s border with the Baltics, soldiers on both sides
are practicing for war.”
Prudent U.S. war planners and force providers should be
asking themselves two questions: How much time do we have,
and what can be done in that time to enhance military capabilities
so we have the best chance of deterring war?
Army Has Farthest to Go
This would be a particularly useful exercise for the U.S.
Army. While it would unquestionably play a leading role in
the event of a NATO-Russia conflict, the Army has the farthest
to go to deploy forces of sufficient size and capability to
take on the Russian army. As U.S. Army Europe commander
Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges has said, he is trying to make 30,000
soldiers look like 300,000.
The other reason to focus on the Army is that by all appear-
September 2016 ■ ARMY 41

ances, its modernization cupboard is bare. Starkly put, the
Army has spent the past 30 years destroying its modernization
program and wasting more than $40 billion on major new
programs that were eventually canceled. The other services
have plans in place and programs underway. Not so the Army.
This might not be a problem if the Army had 20 or 30 years
to straighten out its acquisition system, something it is just beginning
to do. But the Army has been the service leading the
chorus on the imminence of the Russian threat. At the same
time, even a cursory perusal of Army planning documents
gives the impression that the authors believe they have all the
time in the world to address the threat of major conventional
conflict. They don’t.
Here are the capabilities where the Army must prioritize
investments:
1Enhanced Lethality
The Army made the correct decision when, in response
to an urgent operational needs statement from
U.S. Army Europe, it decided to up-gun one Stryker
brigade with a new 30 mm cannon. But it plans to rest on its
laurels for three years before doing another one. Instead, it
should do at least a brigade per year. Proposals to add Javelin
missiles to Stryker vehicles need to get a quick evaluation.
Plans to enhance the lethality of both the Bradley fighting
vehicles and Abrams tanks with sensor and targeting upgrades
and, for the latter, a new multipurpose round, need to be
funded in the near term. Discussions need to be held with the
contractor to see if the Paladin Integrated Management program
can be accelerated. The Army badly needs new precision
munitions for its artillery, Multiple Launch Rocket System
and mortar systems to defeat enemy armor, but also rocket
launchers and massed artillery.
2Enhanced Force Protection
After a decade of learning how to defend against
IEDs, it is time for the Army to move forward to defend
itself from more sophisticated ground and air
threats. If planned tests this summer of available active protection
systems show reasonable effectiveness, even if only against
rockets and anti-tank guided missiles, the Army should buy
brigade sets annually to equip Strykers, Bradleys and Abrams.
Similarly, the Army needs to become responsible for defending
itself against air and missile threats. The Army has been
pursuing improved defenses against threats from and through
the air with its multimission launcher that can support the advanced
medium-range air-to-air anti-aircraft missile as well as a
future miniature hit-to-kill interceptor to counter rockets, artillery
and mortars. Area defense could be achieved by acquiring
the combat-proven Israeli Iron Dome system. An even more effective
and lower-cost solution would be a tactical laser such as
the Boeing system recently tested aboard a Stryker vehicle.
3Aviation Upgrades
There is no time to introduce new or even modernized
helicopters into the Army’s aviation fleets. But
with the help of Congress, the Army can get the
additional new-build Apache AH-64Es, preserve its Black
Hawk production goals, and add enhancements to the force.
In particular, the Army should rapidly deploy available navigation
systems for degraded visual environments. Not only
will this save lives, but it can give Army aviation the ability
to operate in weather that would ground hostile aircraft.
4Communications Systems
Remember when these were the Army’s top modernization
requirements? They still should be if the
Army plans to fight outnumbered across the vast
plains of Eastern Europe. The Army has already acquired 20
unit sets of Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment
2, which provides reliable on-the-move communications.
It needs to triple that number in the near term to provide
this capability to forces that would be deployed to
Europe in the event of war. Another capability that should be
acquired rapidly is the new Handheld, Manpack and Small
Form Fit radio systems.
5Electronic Warfare Even More Than Cyber
Perhaps it could be true, to paraphrase a former U.S.
secretary of state, that gentlemen do not jam each
other’s communications. But the Russians do. Russian
operations against Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine
have shown a sophisticated ability to manipulate and jam private,
government and military communications and weapon
systems that depend on navigation signals to reach their target.
Hodges described the Russian electronic warfare capabilities
as “eye-watering.”
The Army’s electronic warfare challenge is not simply technological.
Essentially, the Army got out of the electronic warfare
game at the end of the Cold War. It returned to it only
insofar as this was part of the effort to counter terrorist radiotriggered
IEDs. The Army lacks the systems, personnel and
concepts of operations to adequately conduct modern electronic
warfare.
Fortunately, the new Russian military is becoming just as
dependent on electronic sensors and communications as ours
is. So the U.S. Army has the opportunity not only to figure
out how to protect its own systems from attack, but also ways
to turn everything dark for the Russians. Ironically, both sides
may have to learn how to fight in the electronic dark.
One of the most apt commentaries on human nature was
by the 18th-century British writer Samuel Johnson. He observed
that “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight,
it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” If war is coming,
then the only question that matters is this: What can be
done to prepare for it, thereby deterring conflict, if possible,
but also providing the best chance of winning such a collision?
Army leadership should focus on this as the principal, if
not the only, factor in developing its force plans, acquisition
objectives and resource allocations.
✭
Daniel Goure is vice president of the Lexington Institute think
tank. He has held positions in government, the private sector
and academia. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Pomona College,
Calif., and a master’s degree and doctorate from Johns
Hopkins University, Md.
42 ARMY ■ September 2016

Character
Development
Initiative focuses on what it takes
to be a trusted professional
in today’s Army
DoD
By Col. John A. Vermeesch and Lt. Col. Francis C. Licameli, U.S. Army retired
The concept of character has been getting a lot of attention
lately. Discussions about the character—or lack
thereof—of world leaders, elected officials and even
entire generations abound in the media. The U.S.
Army is working to identify the attributes of character and assess
the success of current and past efforts to develop character.
To support that undertaking, the Center for the Army Profession
and Ethic is leading a character development project
team and recently published a white paper called “Developing
the Character of Trusted Army Professionals: Forging the Way
Ahead.”
But while society’s interest in character seems newfound
and the Army’s Character Development Initiative itself is
new, the character of our soldiers and Army civilians and the
requirement to develop and strengthen that character to meet
the evolving challenges of modern warfare have always been
of critical importance. Since our earliest establishment as an
Army in 1775 and continuing today, we must fight and win
our wars the right way. The importance of character and its
continuous development is indisputable.
Beginning with some of his earliest advice to the American
Army, Gen. George Washington placed us squarely on the
right path. In a 1776 letter to Congress, he wrote, “If …
proper care and precaution are used … (having more regard to
the Characters of Persons, than the Number of Men they can
Inlist [sic]) we should in a little time have an Army able to
cope with any that can be opposed to it.”
In his farewell address to the Continental Army, Washington
appealed to American soldiers to “prove themselves not
less virtuous and useful as Citizens, than they have been persevering
and victorious as Soldiers.” So it is evident that while
Soldier for Life—serving as an exemplar after service—is a
relatively new term, it is not a new concept.
Expressed in Army Ethic
At the heart of these statements is the conviction that to
have a values-based American Army built on moral principles,
character is essential for success. Our identity as trusted Army
professionals and these principles are now expressed in the
Army Ethic, as published in Army Doctrine Reference Publication
1: The Army Profession, in June 2015.
So what is this elusive essential, and how do we define and
discern it? Intrinsically, character is one’s true nature including
identity, sense of purpose, values, virtues, morals and con-
September 2016 ■ ARMY 43

science. Character, in an operational
sense, is revealed in an Army professional’s
dedication and adherence to the
Army Ethic, including Army Values, as
consistently and faithfully demonstrated
in our decisions and actions.
The belief in the fundamental importance
of character continues to be an
important topic of discussion among
Army professionals. The reason is simple:
Character is essential to earning,
strengthening and retaining trust, and
trust is the foundation for success on
every mission and in all our relationships.
To win our nation’s wars in the
right way and continuously reinforce
that trust, we require professionals who
are leaders of character. This demands
that our character, as revealed in our decisions
and actions, be above reproach.
The requirement of exemplary conduct
is not just a lofty aspiration; it is the
law. U.S. Code Title 10, Section 3583
explicitly directs Army leaders to:
■ Show in themselves a good example
of virtue, honor, patriotism and subordination.
■ Be vigilant in inspecting the conduct
of all persons who are placed under
their command.
■ Guard against and suppress all dissolute
and immoral practices and correct,
according to the laws and regulations
of the Army, all persons who are
guilty of them.
■ Take all necessary and proper measures
under the laws, regulations and customs
of the Army to promote and safeguard
the morale, physical well-being
and general welfare of the officers and enlisted persons under
their command or charge.
Even though the importance of character is reiterated in law
and throughout Army doctrine, regulations, policies and other
publications, the Army acknowledges that we currently lack
both the ability to identify character attributes and the means
to assess the success of our efforts to develop character. Reports
such as “Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession,”
by Leonard Wong and Stephen J. Gerras, paint a darker
picture and demonstrate the need for immediate attention.
U.S. Army
Chief of Staff Priority
Perhaps in part due to the interest generated by the articulation
of the Army Ethic in Army Doctrine Reference Publication
1, character development came to the forefront of discussion
and the Army, through the Army Profession and Leader
Development Forum, approved the character development project
initiative as part of its Human Dimension Strategy. The effort
was designated as a chief of staff of the Army (CSA) priority.
The Army is now pursuing the creation of a concept for
character development integrated within the continuous process
of leader and professional development of Army professionals.
To meet the objective, character development must advance
competence and commitment and be applicable across all the
Army’s communities of practice and components. It also must
resonate among all cohorts: junior, midlevel and senior soldiers
and Army civilians. The challenge is to gain consensus in determining
how to achieve this objective, and then to integrate
character development within all activities that contribute to developing
trusted Army professionals.
The character development project team is comprised of
representatives from a variety of institutional and operational
organizations, including the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command, U.S. Army Installation Management Command,
U.S. Army Forces Command and service component commands.
The project team is further augmented through engaging
with civilian subject-matter experts at universities and other
institutions across the nation. Together, they are serving in
44 ARMY ■ September 2016

CAPE Wants You
The Center for the Army Profession and Ethic is interested
in your thoughts, experiences and suggestions
on character development. To read more about CAPE’s
initiative and provide feedback, visit http://cape.army.
mil/character-development-project.
in Washington, D.C., in December. This project will thus engage
with and seek input from all communities, components
and cohorts.
There are ethical considerations in everything we do in service
to our nation, from completing forms and reports to conducting
training and combat operations. Therefore, the quest
to live our shared identity as trusted Army professionals and
uphold the principles of the Army Ethic should be lifelong
and strengthened through institutional, operational and individual
development that concurrently develops character,
competence and commitment.
leadership, assistance or support roles to accomplish the various
tasks essential for completion of this important project.
Gathering Perspectives
Since the publication of the white paper, the team is now engaged
in gathering the perspectives of leaders at all levels of the
Army. Insights from Army civilian and noncommissioned, warrant
and commissioned junior leaders were solicited at the Junior
Leader Army Profession Symposium, hosted by I Corps at
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash., in April. In July, the project
team engaged captains at the CSA’s Captain Solarium III
at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. Field grade officers attending intermediate-level
education will contribute through discussions and
papers generated in electives focused on character development.
Before the end of the year, the team will attempt to gain the
perspectives of drill sergeants and recruiters as well as senior
Army leaders at such venues as the Army War College and the
Sergeants Major Academy. Finally, they will hear the ideas of
the Army’s senior stewards at the CSA Army Profession Forum
Use Every Opportunity
Leaders at all levels must be aware and take advantage of
every opportunity to observe and assess character, identify challenges,
and integrate character development. It will require all of
our combined wisdom and judgment to realize the goal of character
development becoming a routine component of all training
and education; after-action reviews; evaluations and assessments;
and every coaching, counseling and mentorship session.
Our success in assessing, developing and strengthening character
will enhance individual and unit readiness, build cohesive
teamwork, support the Army family, and strengthen the Army
culture of trust. It will also help address warfighting challenges
and improve combat effectiveness and readiness across the
force, reinforce trust with the American people, and ensure we
are ready to win in the right way in a complex world.
Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark A. Milley clearly expressed
the Army’s expectations in September 2015 remarks at
the 137th General Conference of the National Guard Association
of the United States.
“We want leaders that are tough, resilient, that can think,
and outfight and outsmart the enemy,” Milley said. “We want
them to be adaptive and agile and flexible. And we want them
not only competent, but we want leaders of character.” ✭
Col. John A. Vermeesch is director of the Center for the Army Profession
and Ethic. He is a former battalion commander and served
two tours in Iraq. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the U.S. Military
Academy; and master’s degrees from Long Island University,
N.Y., and the U.S. Army War College. Lt. Col. Francis C.
Licameli, USA Ret., is a research analyst and technical writer at
CAPE. He previously served as assistant course director for
MX400-Officership at the U.S. Military Academy, and has both
active-duty and National Guard service, including battalion
command and a combat tour. He is a graduate of Fordham University,
N.Y., and the Command and General Staff College.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 45

New Challenges Require
By Maj. Gen. Robert M. “Bo” Dyess, Bill Lasher and Gary Martin
It’s the early 2000s, and the digital environment is alive and well at home. The
iPod hits the market, the Segway is invented, and the first digital cameras are
shipped commercially. Text messages are becoming a preferred way to quickly
communicate anytime, anywhere.
Yet for soldiers in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom,
it’s a very different environment. They are geographically dispersed and operating
out of numerous forward operating bases, some the size of small cities. The extensive
FOB infrastructure provides soldiers with the network connectivity they need.
Unlike back home, however, as soon as soldiers leave the FOBs, there is little
communications backbone in place to support their situational awareness or decisionmaking.
Combat net radio systems that were used a decade earlier in Operation
Desert Storm no longer keep up with the pace of battle. A new network is needed.
In response, the Army begins to field mobile voice, data and video communications
systems. Adapting existing commercial technology, the Army expands on-themove
digital communications down to company level.
Continuous Changes
As technology progressed and users reported feedback from the field, the Army
introduced annual events such as Network Integration Evaluations to enable integration
of the various network programs of record and the numerous industry solutions.
As a result, continuous network changes were made and provided to the force.
The Army also revised the way it fielded the network, implementing capability set
fielding as a new approach to deliver the network as a packaged, integrated suite of
communications systems.
This push for military information dominance proved highly effective for a counterinsurgency
environment, but it had definite drawbacks for decisive-action operations.
Rapidly expanding command posts became cumbersome with significantly reduced
tactical mobility. The size and complexity of the command, control,
communications and computer architecture made it difficult to adjust operations on
the fly. Lower-echelon soldiers received digital tools that changed their view of the
battlefield, but also added complexity and required significant contractor field support.
Well-suited for counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army’s
digital revolution looks significantly different against today’s operational landscape.
The question is, what comes next?
That Was Then, This Is Now
The Army of today and tomorrow will fight as part of a joint, interorganizational
and multinational team. It will deploy rapidly into unexpected locations and transition
quickly into high-tempo, dispersed operations. Thus, we are evolving the network
for new challenges. We know our current and potential adversaries have studied
the U.S. closely and are developing advanced asymmetric capabilities to counter
our strengths, increasingly in the cyber and electronic warfare realms. These threats
include nation-states and near-peer entities that can apply significant resources toward
converting commercially available technology into asymmetric capabilities.
An example is the current situation in Ukraine. Russian-backed separatists employ
a hybrid approach to warfare, executing both conventional and unconventional
tactics. While still using artillery and armor formations, they rely heavily on electronic
warfare and jamming to deteriorate communications, radars and networks.
All of this is aided by surveillance drones that accurately pinpoint Ukrainian troops.
These methods are hard to trace and disruptive or even deadly. They show significant
vulnerabilities not only in the Ukrainian army but also in our own. Today’s ad-
All photos: U.S. Army
46 ARMY ■ September 2016

Network Evolution
A soldier from the 1st Brigade Combat
Team, 101st Airborne Division trains
with one of the Army’s newest networkequipped
vehicles at the Joint Readiness
Training Center, Fort Polk, La.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 47

versaries are not deterred by our technology—in fact, they seek
to exploit it.
The operational reality is driving Army efforts to
strengthen and enhance our network. The focus: a Mission
Command network that is assured, interoperable, tailorable,
collaborative, identity-based and accessible at the point of
need, while meeting individual commanders’ requirements
based on echelon and formation. Together, the U.S. Army
Forces Command (FORSCOM), Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC), Materiel Command and program
managers will modify network capability requirements, many
of which were written a decade ago against very different
threats and operational environments, and adjust them in real
time to integrate new technology, reduce operator complexity,
improve training and streamline fielding efforts.
Need for a New Network
The Army essentially pieced together its network during the
first decade of the 2000s based on maturing technology and
available commercial solutions. That was appropriate due to
the immediate demand of operations and the need to provide
basic, on-the-move network capability. However, in optimizing
the network and command, control, communications and
computer architecture to support the FOB-based counterinsurgency
fight, the Army developed solutions that did not
support its core decisive-action missions.
Soldier proficiency and training were also sacrificed because
of the operational tempo, as the Army began relying heavily on
contracted field support to overcome knowledge gaps. Now,
with a smaller fighting force and decisive-action focus, we are
rebuilding soldier proficiency and returning to fundamentals,
including use of network and Mission Command systems.
For all the network provides, the Army must ensure it does
not become an operational hindrance. The release last year of
the Army Warfighting Challenges shaped a framework for future
force design that better focuses Army modernization and
integrates network modernization with the operational force.
Based on the Army Operating Concept, the warfighting
challenges are first-order questions that guide the Army’s
readiness and modernization efforts. The warfighting challenges
establish the need for a regionally aligned expeditionary
Army, which directly correlates to the need for a commanderfocused
network tailored to formation, echelon and mission.
Broad Mandates
The 20 warfighting challenges include broad mandates: developing
situational understanding; conducting space and cyber
electromagnetic operations and maintaining communications;
and ensuring interoperability and operating in a joint, interorganizational
and multinational environment. These will directly
focus how we develop, enhance and use our network capability.
The network must provide voice as a primary means of tactical
communications, supported by digital tools to provide
data where and when the commander needs it. The strategy
also calls for command posts that are tactically and strategically
mobile, enabled by a network that allows troops to reach
forward and back with a minimal footprint.
To help align network priorities with user needs, the Army
is regularly uniting the user, doctrinal and materiel communities
to assess network doctrine and materiel capabilities from
the perspective of our operational formations. Informed by
these events as well as direct input from corps, division,
brigade and battalion commanders, FORSCOM recently outlined
a broad set of Mission Command network priorities.
In short, the vision is for a simplified network that achieves
common levels of modernization among like-type units and
includes systems that facilitate expeditionary operations. Modernized
network and Mission Command systems must be
transportable; flexible; and easy to set up, secure and operate.
To improve communications interoperability and training
2nd Infantry Division
intelligence soldiers
conduct cyberspace
operations at the
National Training
Center, Fort Irwin,
Calif.
48 ARMY ■ September 2016

proficiency across the force, FORSCOM
also requested fewer different system
baselines in the field.
Commander-Centric Framework
Together, the Army Warfighting Challenges,
FORSCOM priorities and the
TRADOC-led “Mission Command
Network: Vision and Narrative” provide
a framework for capabilities that are
built for the tactical environment and
are, in essence, commander-centric instead
of network-centric. In fielding a
more uniform suite of simplified Mission
Command and network capabilities,
commanders can focus on individual
and collective proficiency and
fundamentals, allowing soldiers to be
better prepared for future fights.
Acting on user feedback from both
operational deployments and operational
exercises, we have enhanced the expeditionary
network by integrating new technology;
implementing new training practices;
and streamlining fielding efforts to
make the network less complex, scalable,
and simpler to operate. We delivered a
software upgrade to Warfighter Information
Network-Tactical vehicles that
resulted in a one-button initialization for
the system. We also continue to reduce
the intricacies of our web-based Mission
Command tools and are simplifying network
operations and unit task reorganization
for general-purpose users.
These efforts will simplify the effort
required to initialize and configure the
various network components, including
over-the-air reprograming and rekeying network radios. We
are also fielding the friendly force tracking and situational
awareness tool Joint Battle Command-Platform to operational
units, bringing online battlefield chat rooms, a Google Earthlike
map and touchscreen.
Simplicity to the Field
Already, the Army is finding answers. We are enhancing current
program efforts with agile command posts and early entry
network capability. We are working to reduce network baselines
to provide users a common, intuitive experience across locations,
formations and operations. Cyber protection is being established
upfront, as are sustainment plans. Technology, training
and fielding efforts are underway to enable less complex
network initialization, configuration and management.
For example, the emerging command post integrated infrastructure
effort, currently in the requirements definition phase
of development, will simplify command posts to improve the
Army’s ability to conduct expeditionary maneuver and sustain
high-tempo operations. The infrastructure aims to remove the
Tactical Mission Command systems consolidate information at one workstation.
burdens posed by cumbersome, complex legacy command
posts that require hundreds of feet of wires and cables, a deluge
of transit cases and tents, and an entire day and a platoon
of soldiers to assemble. While the right enabling technologies
now exist—from wireless tactical networks to intelligent
power systems to Mission Command apps—how they fit together
into different command post models will vary by formation,
echelon, and phase of operation.
Also supporting a more expeditionary force are new software-defined
radios that serve as an integral part of the communications
network. Acting more like mini-computers that
exchange voice, data and video over the air using high bandwidth
waveforms, the radios enable soldiers to stay connected
even in the most austere and remote locations. Not only is the
Army working to simplify these radios while reducing size and
weight, we’re also looking at improved security.
Soldier Feedback Utilized
Listening to soldier feedback, the Army is also working to
reduce the number of fielded Mission Command system
September 2016 ■ ARMY 49

A 101st Airborne Division soldier can
communicate on the move.
software versions. For example,
there are currently multiple versions
of software in the field for
the Command Post of the Future
system; each has its own
testing, training and sustainment.
This is just one example
of the added complexity we have
placed on our operational units.
We are now exploring the possibility
of moving to only two
baselines: the software version
fielded with capability set 11/12;
and the new version that will be
fielded with the Command Post
Computing Environment and
Mounted Computing Environment,
slated to appear in 2019.
In developing these and other new technologies, we are also
moving beyond the concept that Army labs are in competition
with industry. Early entry capabilities such as Enroute Mission
Command Capability are a showcase for this collaboration.
The Army worked closely with industry in the aviation
field on this program, which acts as a “flying command post”
by providing Mission Command and secure voice, video and
data communications to commanders and soldiers en route to
drop zones. Similar to the internet access found on today’s
commercial airlines, airborne units utilize EMC2 to maintain
situational awareness and collaborate with higher headquarters
and other units while in flight.
Another Innovation Source
Small business is also a source of innovation, providing a
new duo of lightweight, portable satellite terminals known as
Transportable Tactical Command Communications, now in
low-rate initial production phase. Within minutes of hitting
the ground, these terminals will enable early entry forces to access
the Army’s tactical communications network via satellite.
Deploying in transit cases the size of carry-on luggage, the
satellite terminals provide connectivity so soldiers can obtain
the advanced situational awareness and Mission Command
capabilities needed to conduct early entry operations and set
the stage for follow-on forces and a buildup of additional network
infrastructure. They also will support command posts
and FOBs in mature operations.
Of course, none of this matters if soldiers are not proficient
in operating the systems, and the Army is addressing network
training as well. By assessing trouble tickets entered by units
during their combat training center rotations, we found patterns
and trends that are enabling us to right-size contractor
field support and better target areas where units struggled in
systems operations and maintenance.
This insight has resulted in a number of actions, including
streamlining system initialization and configuration steps, and
instituting processes to reduce the soldier burden. These efforts
include a home station training initiative that utilizes mission
training centers, signal universities and additional resources to
establish proficiency on network communications systems.
It has been said—and reiterated in the Army Operating
Concept—that it is impossible to predict the precise character
of the next conflict. However, the key is to not be so far off-target
that it is impossible to react, innovate and adjust. By providing
our force with multiple options such as a scalable, intuitive
and secure network—one that is also integrated and operational
across multiple domains—we will be closer to that mark. ✭
Maj. Gen. Robert M. “Bo” Dyess is deputy director of the Army Capabilities
Integration Center. He has held a variety of command
and staff positions including director of requirements integration
at the center and director of force development on the Army Staff.
He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy, and holds master’s
degrees from Virginia Tech and Air University. Bill Lasher is the
deputy G-6 at the U.S. Army Forces Command. He is a West
Point graduate and holds a master’s degree from the University of
Texas at Austin. Gary Martin is the program executive officer for
Command, Control and Communications-Tactical. He holds a
bachelor’s degree from Norwich University, Vt., and a master’s degree
from the University of Pennsylvania.
50 ARMY ■ September 2016

Email Etiquette
Step Up Your Messaging Game With These Tips
By Chief Warrant Officer 3 Kevin Palmer, U.S. Army retired
As a person who has been linked to the U.S. Army
logistics community for almost 30 years, I have
taken great pride in conducting my job in the highest
manner possible. Because the Army has grown
as an enterprise into a more automated establishment, and
because we all should strive to be the most efficient and effective
we can be, it is imperative to follow some basic guidelines
when conducting business via email.
According to the Radicati Group, a technology market research
firm, business email accounts
accounted for 929 million
mailboxes worldwide in
2013 and are expected to grow
to 1.1 billion by 2017. These
statistics fully support the idea
that as an enterprise, the Army
performs its daily business predominantly
through email.
Because we all utilize this technology,
some ground rules should
be established in order to correctly
and efficiently perform our
tasks through the medium of
email. First, professionals from
the lowest grades to the highest
staff levels must grasp the fact
that we all work in a demanding
environment. The flow of information
is imperative for timely and accurate mission accomplishment,
and the misuse of email can put a strain on that goal.
Although email has been used to a high degree for 20
years, many professionals still fail to understand some of the
key do’s and don’ts of conducting business via email. One
such “don’t” that often gets overlooked is using all capital letters.
When this is done, the reader thinks the writer is yelling.
It’s advisable not to use this technique. It is not effective and
looks unprofessional.
Another key item to remember is that when responding to
an email, be extremely cautious about using “reply all.” This is
one of the most misused features. No one wants to read
emails from 20 people that have nothing to do with them.
Hitting “reply all” can frustrate others and add to the volume
of emails that can hamper productivity. Only reply to the parties
who need to know the information.
Here are some other tips:
■ Utilize the subject line concisely. People often decide
whether to open an email based on the subject line. Write
one that gives readers a clear idea of what you are addressing
and how it relates to them.
■ Address recipients professionally. Refrain from using
Shutterstock/dani3315
common expressions like “Hey, you guys,” or “Yo.” Instead,
address all readers in a professional manner regardless of the
nature of the email. Stay away from using pet names or other
informal titles when drafting professional emails.
■ Be succinct. Save long conversations for the old-fashioned
telephone. Respect the recipients’ time, and communicate
clearly with as few words as possible.
■ Avoid exclamation marks. If you must include one, use
an exclamation mark to indicate genuine excitement. Using
more than one can convey an inflated
sense of emotion or unprofessionalism.
■ Be careful when using humor
in your emails. Humor without
accompanying voice tone or
body language can easily miss the
mark.
■ Proofread emails before sending
them. Errors will be easily noticed
by those who read your messages.
Using poor grammar or
misspelled words can create a negative
impression.
■ Confirm that you’ve selected
the correct recipient. Pay close attention
when choosing recipients
from your “auto-populate” address
book. It is easy to select the
wrong name, creating some embarrassment on your part and
confusion on the unintended recipient’s part.
■ Reply to emails you receive. In The Essentials of Business
Etiquette, Barbara Pachter states, “It’s difficult to reply to
every email message ever sent to you, but you should try to.”
A reply isn’t always necessary but serves as good email protocol,
especially if this person works in the same company or industry
as you. It alerts them that you have received and understood
the information sent to you. Just because someone
doesn’t ask for a response doesn’t mean you ignore them.
■ Always acknowledge emails in a timely manner. If you
cannot respond to an email promptly, reply with a confirmation
that you received the email, and give a date when the
sender can expect your response.
✭
Chief Warrant Officer 3 Kevin Palmer, USA Ret., is a logistics
management specialist for the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade
logistics support team at Fort Campbell, Ky. He served almost
21 years in U.S. Army logistics. He holds a Level III certification
as a certified acquisition professional with specialty of life cycle
logistics from the Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir,
Va., and also has an MBA from Bethel University, Minn.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 51

Strategies for Managing
By Maj. Allen M. Trujillo
The U.S. Army is a human-centric institution. Leaders
at every level are constantly seeking methods and
practices to improve their capabilities. Complexity
science offers innovative strategies that leverage relationships
to create adaptive and agile organizations capable of
succeeding in today’s complex operational environment.
The three strategies leaders can use to improve their organizations
are sense-making, learning and improvisation. These
strategies can help leaders at every level manage organizational
complexities.
Complexity science defines all organizations’ complex adaptive
systems. According to a 2007 article in Performance Improvement
Quarterly, these systems are characterized by diverse
“agents” who learn; interact with each other in nonlinear ways
and therefore, self-organize; have emergent properties; and
co-evolve with the environment. Understanding complex
adaptive systems helps leaders identify what is actually happening
in their organizations.
Start Making Sense
The first strategy to improve a complex adaptive system is
sense-making. Sense-making is the process in which agents in
a complex adaptive system understand their environment. One
task for a leader to improve sense-making is to develop an organization
that has a collective voice. Leaders must ensure that
each agent in their organization has the ability to be heard. If
everyone truly believes they matter as an individual and their
opinions and concerns will be heard, the overall flow of information
in the organization will improve.
Subsequently, leaders will be able to make sense of what is
happening as well as help the agents improve their overall situational
understanding. The better a leader interacts with the
agents in his or her organization, the better the agents will be
at identifying problems or concerns.
Collective training provides leaders with excellent opportunities
to enhance sense-making. When leaders develop collective
training, it is just as important to improve relationships among
agents during the training as it is to actually accomplish the primary
task of the training. Leaders must try to understand the
nonlinear interdependencies within their organization. If leaders
focus on these interactions, they will gain a better understanding
of how their organization deals with uncertainty.
Collective training also provides agents with opportunities
to see their leaders in action. During such interaction, agents
gain a better understanding of how their leaders perform as
well as how their individual actions affect the collective whole.
The more that individual agents focus on understanding the
interdependencies among each other, the better the organization
will collectively understand the agents’ environment.
Sense-making in an organization can also develop if leaders
U.S. Army/Sgt. Uriah Walker
52 ARMY ■ September 2016

Army Organizations
change the way they view information and decisionmaking.
Traditional views of organizations assume that leaders use
information to try to gain an understanding of past events in
order to make an accurate prediction of what will happen in
the future. However, research suggests that effective decisionmakers
process more information in less time than do ineffective
decisionmakers.
These findings show that effective decisionmakers use information
to make sense of the environment; they do not try
to make sense of the information itself. As leaders, we must
train our organizations to view information as a real-time picture
of the environment. The quicker the agents in an organization
make sense of what is happening, the quicker they will
be able to make decisions.
Learning for Understanding
The second strategy to improve a complex adaptive system is
learning. Learning is the nonlinear interaction among agents in
order to gain a shared understanding of an unknown idea.
Contrary to traditional views of learning, learning is a social
activity done in the presence of one or more agents. It is important
for leaders to develop an organizational culture where
learning is highly valued and necessary for the constant progression
of the organization.
Additionally, according to a 2003 article in Health Care
Management Review, “we must move away from the idea that
we learn about the world and then act rationally. We must understand
that learning is concurrent with action. We must act
in order to learn.”
Learning can also progress if leaders make learning itself a
constant priority. Leaders should help their agents view
knowledge as a base of power. Agents should strive to gain
and understand knowledge; they must understand that the
more knowledge they acquire, the better their organization
will perform directed tasks.
The performance of an organization will increase when leaders
understand and recognize communities of practice. It is important
to recognize that communities of practice may already
exist within an organization. If they do, it is up to the leader to
find a way to improve the efficiency of both formal and nonformal
interactions. Additionally, leaders should develop a
method for sharing information within the entire community.
If a community does not exist, leaders should focus on creating
conditions where agents are strategically forced to interact
with each other in as many settings as possible.
A Place for Innovation
Communities of practice should not be a way to learn best
practices; rather, they should be a place for innovation and
problem-solving. The military as a whole could do a better job
in not using lessons learned and best practices as a way to
teach organizations what to do. Instead, lessons learned
should be a way to show smaller units how their peers imple-
September 2016 ■ ARMY 53

U.S. Army/Christie Vanover
ment sense-making and learning as strategies to improve their
respective organizations.
Leaders should constantly legitimize and acknowledge
communities of practice. The sooner leaders realize they are
not omniscient and their subordinates often know more than
they do, the quicker they will be able to implement strategies
that will be successful in managing their organization.
Leaders can also enrich learning if they properly use diversity
to analyze infrequent events. In “On the Diversity of Diversity:
Tidy Logic, Messier Realities,” David A. Harrison and
Katherine J. Klein state that diversity itself consists of three attributes:
variety, separation and disparity. All three elements
are critical for leaders to consider when implementing diversity
as a strategy for learning from infrequent events.
Diversity Is Critical
Diversity is a critical component in improving the reliability
and validity of the learning that takes place from infrequent
events. Organizations cannot experience or even re-create infrequent
events; as a result, they are left with two options.
They can increase the number of events similar to what they
are trying to interpret although often, this is not possible; or
they can increase the number of people producing observations
and analysis about the event they wish to learn from. If a
leader employs either of these options to analyze infrequent
events, he or she must realize that quality analysis will require
a significant amount of time, resources and energy.
Organizations should analyze infrequent events at numerous
points within the spectrum of time. Generally, more information
becomes available as time passes. As a result, additional
learning can be done on a previously studied event.
Diversity must consider multiple points of view at one point in
time, and it should provide multiple interpretations at numerous
points in time. Learning is not a one-time process; learning
is constant. In order for organizations to learn, infrequent
events should be constantly evaluated and re-evaluated.
The third strategy to improve a complex adaptive system is
improvisation. In a 1998 issue of Organization Science, Frank J.
Barrett said improvisation is the ability of multiple agents to
perform in the presence of uncertainty a series of tasks that
have never been explicitly taught or rehearsed at a very high
level of performance.
The idea of improvisation is most commonly seen in jazz,
according to Barrett. However, the concept is not totally foreign
to the military. In the profession of arms, improvisation is
embodied in being able to teach a soldier how to think, not
what to think. This statement implies that the Army strives to
produce men and women who are capable of executing missions
in situations where they lack guidance and direction.
Improvisation is difficult to teach and implement; it is the
most powerful strategy to develop an organization that can
adapt quickly to an unforeseen challenge. Leaders must constantly
think of creative ways to expose their agents to scenarios
where improvisation can be practiced while simultaneously
making sure that the agents themselves understand what they
are doing. It may be something as simple as improving the
process of how agents think as well as seeing what they do to
solve certain types of problems.
So what are the best things leaders can do to manage an organization?
■ Admit they do not know enough about the organization
they are trying to lead.
■ Realize their subordinates are the resident experts of their
organization and that they have access to the most useful information.
■ Understand the best way to manage the organization is to
use sense-making, learning and improvisation as the basis for
managing strategies.
✭
Maj. Allen M. Trujillo is operations chief for the 2501st Digital
Liaison Detachment, Eighth Army, South Korea. Previously, he
served as company commander, 4th Battalion, 6th Infantry
Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division,
Fort Bliss, Texas. He has deployed twice to Iraq. He holds a
bachelor’s degree from the U.S. Military Academy and a master’s
degree from the University of Texas.
54 ARMY ■ September 2016

News Call
Larger Army Presence Planned in Europe
The U.S. Army continues to reverse
post-Cold War cuts in its European
troop levels, with two big commitments
coming in 2017. Early next year, the
Army will begin rotating an armored
brigade through Europe on heel-to-toe
deployments that will boost the 30,000
permanently based troops by another
4,000. Additionally, the U.S. has committed
to providing a similar rotation of
a 1,000-soldier armored brigade combat
team to Poland and will preposition
more equipment in the region.
An additional presence there is the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe
District, which is managing the construction
of an Aegis ballistic missile defense
system in Redzikowo, near the
southern shore of the Black Sea. The
system is expected to be operational in
2018.
The rotating armored brigade combat
teams will bring their own equipment and
deploy for nine months to train and conduct
exercises with European forces. History
is repeating itself, as Polish soldiers
once helped the fledgling U.S. Army
strengthen its foundations and skills. Military
architect Tadeusz Kosciuszko served
as a colonel in the Continental Army,
designing and guiding construction of
fortifications, including those at West
Point, N.Y. Casimir Pulaski helped rescue
Gen. George Washington’s forces
at the 1777 Battle of Brandywine and
went on to train and build America’s
cavalry.
The most recent training the two nations
shared was the 10-day Polish national
exercise known as Anakonda,
which took place just weeks before the
Warsaw summit. In Anakonda 16,
12,000 U.S. soldiers—about 9,000 from
units based in the U.S.—joined nearly
20,000 foreign continental troops, an
epic display of NATO might.
During Anakonda, U.S. Army Europe
commander Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges told
the BBC he worries most about Russia’s
“freedom of movement.” Hodges, who
has led USAREUR since 2014, said
Russia is “able to move huge formations
and lots of equipment a long distance
very fast.” He believes Russia could conquer
the Baltic states in as few as three
days, faster than NATO could get there
to defend them. The four new NATO
battalions will add flexibility and move
power closer to the threat.
These changes come as U.S. Army
leaders have taken on new roles and will
also have critical input. Gen. Curtis M.
Scaparrotti, NATO’s supreme allied
commander and commander of European
Command since May, lauded the
steps taken at the summit in Poland
but also advised bolstering air and sea
capabilities. In June, Maj. Gen. Mark
Schwartz assumed the lead of the U.S.
Special Operations Command Europe.
Two U.S. brigades stationed in Europe
were withdrawn in 2011. Back-toback
rotations will replace one of them.
A White House fact sheet emphasized
that the European Reassurance Initiative
“does not fund an increase in the number
of U.S. troops permanently stationed in
Europe.”
Into the Woods
Members of the Massachusetts Army National Guard contend with a smoke screen during an exercise in Louisiana.
U.S. Army National Guard/Sgt. Harley Jelis
September 2016 ■ ARMY 55

Relocation Begins in South Korea
Soldiers in South Korea have finally
started moving south to new quarters at
Camp Humphreys, near Pyeongtaek.
Most of the major units will complete
the relocation by the end of 2017, with
the rest onsite by mid-2019.
The relocation of Eighth Army U.S.
Forces Korea headquarters, Eighth
Army and the 2nd Infantry Division
was originally scheduled for 2008 but
was postponed three times. The first
major unit to move, 2nd Battalion, 8th
Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division,
transported heavy equipment by
rail and in late-night convoys to reduce
traffic jams in Seoul. The unit is serving
a nine-month rotation that began in
February.
The 2nd Infantry Division has been a
fixture near Seoul for more than 60
years. “Today, we make the first move,
tangible evidence that the long-promised
and long-awaited move south to Pyeongtaek
is actually going to happen,” said
the 2nd Infantry Division commander,
Maj. Gen. Theodore Martin, at the casing
of the colors.
Eighth Army has held town halls to
facilitate the move and describe new facilities
that include schools, fitness centers,
chapels, movie theaters and a
300,000-square-foot post exchange. The
Eighth Army commanding general, Lt.
Gen. Thomas S. Vandal, has said the
quality of life “will be absolutely superb.”
Much of the construction is complete,
but building will continue for another
several years. Eighth Army has established
a website of relocation information
at http://8tharmy.korea.army.mil/
transformation.
Texas Partnership Helps
Transitioning Soldiers
Soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, who
are within six months of leaving the
Army can benefit from a new internship
program the city of Austin has
launched. Three interns are slated to
work in Austin’s Fleet Services Department,
where they will maintain, repair
and transport vehicles of all types for
up to 18 weeks.
The Army covers the salaries and ben-
‘ ’
Briefs SoldierSpeak
On Resiliency
“Living is coping and we just gotta get through it,” Command Sgt. Maj.
James Wills, the Army Reserve’s interim senior enlisted leader, said during
a visit to Kaiserslautern, Germany. “If you put that smiley face on the calendar
six months from today, you’ll look back six months later and you’ll say,
‘I can’t even remember what I was upset about or what really held me
back that day.’”
On Realistic Training
“You have to train hard, because our enemies are training hard,” said
Command Sgt. Maj. John Wayne Troxell, senior enlisted advisor to the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a workout in Afghanistan. “We
have to train under conditions that are harsh, brutal and extreme so that
our minds, our bodies and our souls are prepared for that kind of fight.”
On Expectations
“We try to exceed the expectations of our customers,” said Sgt. 1st Class
Andrew Propes, a culinary management specialist at Fort Drum, N.Y. “We
want things to be better. We want people to come out to the field or in
garrison and be like, ‘Hey man, this is the best food. I want to go out there
and eat their food all of the time.’ You want to put that smile on everyone’s
face all the time.”
On Toughing It Out
“Although we experienced heat up to 116 degrees and 50 mph winds
while drinking 100-degree water, eating nothing but MREs and not showering
for more than 14 days, the motivation, excitement and willingness
to improve every day makes me humble and proud,” said Col. Robert
Intress, commander of the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry
Division, Army National Guard, after a rotation at the National Training
Center, Fort Irwin, Calif.
On Staying Young
“It’s always great to get out with soldiers to run, especially when I’m surrounded
with some really strong 19-year-olds who help me feel young,”
said Lt. Gen. Gary Cheek, director of the Army Staff, after a 3-mile morning
run with soldiers at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Va.
On Details, Details
“Attention to detail, that’s pretty much the main key and we stress it
throughout the course from beginning to end,” said Staff Sgt. Raymond
Fields, Phase 3 chief at the 25th Infantry Division Lightning Academy.
“You have to understand that one minute detail might cost you a mission,
it might cost you a sling load—might cost you somebody’s life.”
56 ARMY ■ September 2016

efits for the soldiers, who can compete
for any vacant positions at the end of
their internship. Austin has a policy
mandating that 20 percent of the candidates
interviewed for any open position
Maj. Gen. P.M.
Benenati, USAR,
from Cmdr. (TPU),
USARSC, First U.S.
Army, and Dep. Cmdr.
(TPU), First U.S. Army,
Rock Island, Ill., to
DCoS, TRADOC,
Fort Eustis, Va.
GENERAL OFFICER CHANGES*
Maj. Gen. J.J.
Daniels, USAR,
from Asst. DCoS,
Intel. (IMA), ODCoS,
G-2, USA, Washington,
D.C., to DCoS,
FORSCOM, Fort
Bragg, N.C.
must be military veterans.
The internship program will become
fully operational over the next several
months, with positions opening up for
other municipal jobs.
Maj. Gen. G.B.
Davis Jr. from
Cmdr., CSTC-A,
USF-A, OFS,
Afghanistan, to
Dir., J-3, EUCOM,
Germany.
Brigadier Generals: M.D. Hoskin from CG, ECC, RA, to Dir. for Contracting, OASA (AL&T), Washington, D.C.;
R.A. Karmazin, USAR, from Dir., AREC (IMA), USARCENT, Shaw AFB, S.C., to Dep. Cmdr. (IMA), Mobilization
and Reserve Affairs, USSOCOM, MacDill AFB, Fla.; T.T. Murray, USAR, from Cmdr. (TPU), Gulf Training Div.,
75th TC, Birmingham, Ala., to Dep. Asst. CoS (IMA), J-3, USFK, ROK; P.H. Pardew from Dir., Forward OCSIC,
CENTCOM, Qatar, to CG, ECC, RA.
■ AFB—Air Force Base; AREC—Army Reserve Engagement Cell; CENTCOM—U.S. Central Cmd.; CoS—Chief of
Staff; CSTC-A—Combined Security Transition Cmd.-Afghanistan; DCoS—Deputy Chief of Staff; ECC—Expeditionary
Contract Cmd.; EUCOM—U.S. European Cmd.; FORSCOM—U.S. Army Forces Cmd.; IMA—Individual
Mobilization Augmentee; MDA—Missile Defense Agency; OASA (AL&T)—Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology); OCSIC—Operational Contact Support Integration Cell; ODCoS—
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff; OFS—Operation Freedom’s Sentinel; RA—Redstone Arsenal; ROK—Republic
of Korea; Spt.—Support; TC—Training Cmd.; TPU—Troop Program Unit; TRADOC—U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Cmd.; USA—U.S. Army; USAR—U.S. Army Reserve; USARCENT—U.S. Army Central; USARSC—U.S.
Army Reserve Support Cmd.; USF-A—U.S. Forces-Afghanistan; USFK—U.S. Forces Korea; USSOCOM—U.S. Special
Operations Cmd.
*Assignments to general officer slots announced by the General Officer Management Office, Department of the
Army. Some officers are listed at the grade to which they are nominated, promotable, or eligible to be frocked.
The reporting dates for some officers may not yet be determined.
SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS
Maj. Gen. D.P.
Hughes from
Dep. CG for Spt.,
CSTC-A, USF-A,
OFS, to Dir. for
Test, MDA, RA,
Ala.
Tier 2 photographs unavailable. P. Bechtel from Dir., Capabilities Integration Directorate, DCoS, G-3/5/7, to
Dir. of Supply Policy, DCoS, G-4, both Washington, D.C.; N. Godwin from Dep. Asst. DCoS, G-3/5/7,
FORSCOM, Fort Bragg, N.C., to Dep. G-3/4 for Current Ops., HQ, AMC, RA, Ala.; R. Goodman from
DCoS/Asst. Surgeon General, Force Mgmt., MEDCOM, to CoS, MEDCOM/OSG, both Falls Church, Va.;
R. Miele from Exec. Dir., OTC, Fort Hood, Texas, to Exec. Tech. Dir./Dep. to the Cmdr., ATEC, APG, Md.;
E. Porter from Asst. DCoS, G-1, FORSCOM, to DCoS, G-1, FORSCOM, both Fort Bragg; D. Salo from Dir.,
DBFA, Arlington, Va., to Dep. Asst. Secretary, Military Personnel/Quality of Life, M&RA, Washington, D.C.;
B. Samson from Dep. to the CG, ECC, HQ ECC, RA, to Dep. to the Cmdr., SDDC, Scott AFB, Ill.; W. Whitlock
from Assoc. Admin. for Civil Rights, FHA, DOT, to Dep. ASA (Diversity and Leadership), OASA (M&RA), both
Washington, D.C.
Tier 1: F. Allen from Chief Counsel, AMCOM, RA, to Dep. Cmd. Counsel, HQ, AMC, RA; S. Kaina to Asst. CoS,
G-8, USARPAC, Fort Shafter, Hawaii; K. Krewer from Dep. Cmd. Counsel, HQ, AMC, RA, to Chief Counsel,
ASC, Rock Island, Ill.; M. Mazzanti from Chief, Programs Mgmt. Div., HQ, USACE, Washington, D.C., to Div.
Programs Dir., Southwestern Div., USACE, Dallas; B. Sotirin from Dep. Dir. of Program, J5, HQ, AFRICOM,
Stuttgart, Germany, to Dir., LIA, ODCS, G-4, Fort Belvoir, Va.; W. Staley to DCoS, G-8 (Resource Mgmt.),
USAREUR, Wiesbaden, Germany; D. Tamilio to Dir., NSRDEC, Natick, Mass.; K. Tycer from Chief Counsel,
ACC, RA, to Chief Counsel, AMCOM, RA.
■ ACC—Army Contracting Cmd.; AFB—Air Force Base; AFRICOM—U.S. Africa Cmd.; AMC—U.S. Army Materiel
Cmd.; AMCOM—U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Cmd.; APG—Aberdeen Proving Ground; ASA—Assistant
Secretary of the Army; ASC—U.S. Army Sustainment Cmd.; ATEC—U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Cmd.; CoS—
Chief of Staff; DBFA—Defense Biometrics and Forensics Agency; DCoS—Dep. Chief of Staff; DOT—Dept. of
Transportation; ECC—Expeditionary Contracting Cmd.; FHA—Federal Highway Administration; FORSCOM—
U.S. Army Forces Cmd.; LIA—Logistics Innovation Agency; M&RA—Manpower and Reserve Affairs;
MEDCOM—U.S. Army Medical Cmd.; NSRDEC—U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering
Ctr.; OASA—Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army; ODCS—Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff; Ops.—
Operations; OSG—Office of the Surgeon General; OTC—Operational Test Cmd.; RA—Redstone Arsenal;
SDDC—Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Cmd.; USACE—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
USAREUR—U.S. Army Europe; USARPAC—U.S. Army Pacific.
Alaska No. 1 for Retirees
Alaska is the top state for military retirees,
according to the personal finance
website WalletHub, which based its
evaluation on economic environment,
health care availability, and quality of
life. South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming
and Florida round out the top five on the
annual list.
The worst state for military retirees,
according to the ranking, is Rhode Island.
Also at the bottom are the District
of Columbia, Indiana, Oregon and New
Jersey.
The complete list is available at http://
www.wallethub.com.
COMMAND
SERGEANTS
MAJOR
and
SERGEANTS
MAJOR
CHANGES*
Command Sgt.
Maj. B.J. Houston
from USAES, Fort
Leonard Wood,
Mo., to JIDA, Washington,
D.C.
Command Sgt.
Maj. P.L. McCauley
from SOCCENT to
USSOCOM, both
MacDill AFB, Fla.
Command Sgt.
Maj. T.A. Guden
from MDW, Washington,
D.C., to
USMA, West Point,
N.Y.
Command Sgt.
Maj. M.A. Judkins
from IMCOM Central
to IMCOM, both JB
San Antonio-Fort
Sam Houston.
Command Sgt.
Maj. T.W. Sims
from HQ, Operations
Group, NTC,
Fort Irwin, Calif.,
to 101st Abn. Div.
(AASLT), Fort
Campbell, Ky.
■ AASLT—Air Assault; AFB—Air Force Base;
HQ—Headquarters; IMCOM—U.S. Army Installation
Mgmt. Cmd.; JB—Joint Base; JIDA—Joint
Improvised-Threat Defeat Agency; MDW—Military
District of Washington; NTC—National
Training Ctr.; SOCCENT—Special Operations
Cmd. Central; USAES—U.S. Army Engineer
School; USMA—U.S. Military Academy; USSO-
COM—U.S. Special Operations Cmd.
*Command sergeants major and sergeants major
positions assigned to general officer commands.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 57

Seven Questions
Former 3-Star Tackles Medicine’s Front Lines
Retired Lt. Gen. Mark P. Hertling knew he “didn’t want to work
as a defense contractor” after relinquishing command of U.S. Army
Europe and Seventh Army in 2012, but he did want to continue
serving the nation. In 2013, he accepted a senior vice president position
with Florida Hospital, based in Orlando, and created the hospital’s
Physician Leader Development Course. He joined the President’s
Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition in September 2013.
quick assessment, I told him I thought I could. That was how
we started the successful physician leadership course, which is
modeled after many of the lessons I learned from the military.
Doctors, nurses and administrators all attend the course. I
quickly found that most of the things we learn in the military
aren’t taught in civilian institutions, and they desperately want
to learn how to be better leaders.
1. How did you get involved with Florida Hospital?
During my last year in command of U.S. Army Europe, I
was giving Memorial Day speeches at
several battlefield cemeteries, as I did
every year, and one of those was Luxembourg
American Cemetery in Hamm.
By coincidence, the U.S. ambassador
was a board member of Florida Hospital,
and he introduced me to some of
the executives who were visiting at the
time. They were looking for someone to
lead a new global initiative and asked if
I might be interested in the job.
2. Did you have any prior interest in
the medical field?
I’ve always been impressed with
health care professionals, and I have a
master’s in exercise physiology, which
the Army provided before I taught at
West Point. So while I didn’t have any
specific interest in the medical field, it
turns out that health care is a pretty fascinating
profession and a great second
career. And there certainly are a lot of challenges.
Retired Lt. Gen. Mark P. Hertling
5. How did your Army training help you adapt?
Coming out of the military, it’s easy to try and fit everything
into a military context and say, “Well,
this is the way we used to do it.” That
doesn’t work. You have to be more nuanced,
and more accommodating, when
you apply what you’ve learned through a
military career to the private sector.
But what really works is understanding
others’ motivations, applying different
influence methods depending on
the situation, building teams through
consensus, and treating everyone with
respect and empathy. Be more than
you appear to be. That generates trust
with your team, which is key to being a
great leader.
Florida Hospital System
6. Were any of the health care professionals
former military?
Many of the doctors were, and many
of the nurses used to be medics and they
stayed in health care. It’s amazing how
many people have come up to me and
told me we had served together someplace in the world.
3. What was your focus after coming on board?
Like in any new organization you join in the military, the
first things I did were find ways to learn the organization and
engage with the people. I talked to the doctors and the nurses,
and traveled to the nine different hospitals in our system to see
how they conducted operations. It was intimidating at first,
but then I realized that there were great people everywhere,
and they all wanted to contribute to taking care of others.
Health care, like the military, is very selfless in its approach.
4. What was your most notable challenge?
After being at the hospital for a few months, the chief medical
officer, who I had become friends with, asked me if I
could take some of the leadership lessons I had learned in the
military and help the doctors become better leaders. After a
7. What have you learned from working at the hospital?
I’ve learned that doctors, nurses and health care administrators
are extremely dedicated and selfless. They are on the front
lines, and they really do a phenomenal job in a very tough profession.
I also learned they are exceedingly smart in the science
of health care, but they all want to improve in the art of leadership.
They sometimes need to be forced to see the other person’s
position, and they need to talk in language that the common
person understands, much like we do in the military.
They also spend a significant amount of personal time away
from their families. There is a misconception that doctors
spend a lot of time on the golf course. … Most are paying
back college and medical school loans, and most of them are
overworked. They are a lot like soldiers on the front lines.
—Thomas B. Spincic
58 ARMY ■ September 2016

Soldier Armed
XM1147 Advanced Multi-Purpose Cartridge
By Scott R. Gourley, Contributing Writer
Few could argue that the M1 series Abrams main battle tank
is one of the most lethal systems on the modern battlefield,
with much of that lethality coming from the Abrams’ 120 mm
main gun.
Service planners working with industry partners continue to
maintain the lethality of the Abrams against new and evolving
threats through the introduction of new ammunition options.
For example, to address possible future operations against armored
targets equipped with explosive reactive armor and active
protection systems, the Army recently introduced the
M829A4 Armor-Piercing, Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot
with Tracer cartridge. This 120 mm, fifth-generation, kineticenergy
round achieved full materiel release in early May.
But not every potential target is another tank. Examples of
other threats include dismounted infantry at close range, and
anti-tank guided missile teams at extended ranges. Additionally,
in performing its role as a key member of the armored
team, the Abrams may be required to take action like creating
breaches in concrete structures. Moreover, these sorts of
threats are evolving, with an example seen in the so-called dismounted
infantry swarming tactics that were observed in 2006
in Lebanon.
The Abrams clearly has the capability to engage this full
spectrum of targets. However, the capability is provided in the
form of multiple different cartridges such as the M830 High
Explosive Anti-Tank Round, M830A1 Multi-Purpose Anti-
Tank Round, M908 Obstacle Reduction Round and M1028
Canister Anti-Personnel Round.
It’s much more than an issue of logistics and “battle-carry”
decisions for tank commanders. The decision process—sometimes
dubbed dilemma—stems from a limited number of
spaces for 120 mm ammunition and the need to assess the
threat and anticipate specific target types. Bottom line: Having
the right round available at the right moment saves critical
seconds and enhances survivability against these evolving
threats.
One answer to the battle-carry dilemma is the new XM1147
Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) High Explosive Multi-Purpose
with Tracer cartridge now under engineering and manufacturing
development. Not only will AMP provide a singleround
consolidated solution to replace the four rounds noted
earlier, it will also provide enhanced tactical capabilities.
“The biggest thing that this round does is, it combines the
capabilities of four different rounds into one,” said Lt. Col.
Kyle McFarland, product manager for large caliber ammunition
within the office of Project Manager for Maneuver Ammunition
Systems.
McFarland said this is in addition “to giving the soldier two
new capabilities that we haven’t had on the tank before. What
the soldier has to deal with right now is, if they’re in the tank
and they’re getting ready to go into possible contact, they have
to choose which round to carry. They can have only one function.”
With AMP, however, “they can battle-carry that AMP and
be ready so as soon as they make contact, no matter what target
that is, they can be confident that they’re going to have effects
on it,” he said. “They’re going to save valuable seconds
when making contact with the enemy.”
“In addition, these rounds give you the capability to breach
walls [and] reinforced concrete, and engage personnel out to a
range of 2,000 meters, which just has not existed on a tank
before,” McFarland said. “Given lessons learned from Iraq
and Afghanistan, and fighting in urban
environments and a little bit more extended
ranges with enemy anti-tank
missile teams, these capabilities are huge
that they’re informed, and give our soldiers
a new capability to fight in that
environment.”
U.S. Army/Spc. Daniel Parrott
An M1A1 Abrams tank at the National Training
Center, Fort Irwin, Calif.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 59

U.S. Army/Maj. Randy Ready
Soldiers from the 7th Infantry Regiment fire an M1A2 Abrams tank at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany.
Early program descriptions noted that the Army had developed
a conceptual technical data package “for informational
purposes.” McFarland credited the U.S. Army Armament
Research, Development and Engineering Center for developing
the concept.
“We made that technical data available to the contractors,
but they are not required to use it,” he said. “They are completely
open to propose their own designs for the state of the
competition.”
Planned acquisition includes a two-phased engineering and
manufacturing development (demonstration phase I and completion
phase II, a low-rate initial production phase and two
full-rate production options). Full-rate production is estimated
at approximately 3,500 cartridges per year.
Shortly before the Association of the U.S. Army’s Annual
Meeting and Exposition last October, the Army awarded
XM1147 engineering and manufacturing development phase I
contracts to Orbital ATK and General Dynamics Ordnance
and Tactical Systems.
“Our ammunition innovations like advanced kinetic energy
penetrators and airbursting munitions are providing
combat overmatch for our warfighters—which is our company’s
mission,” said Dan Olson, vice president and general
manager for Orbital ATK’s Armament Systems division of
the Defense Systems Group. Pointing to the company’s recent
qualification of the M829A4 fifth-generation kineticenergy
round, he said, “Our ability to innovate comes from
a long history of creating new capabilities for existing systems
through our expertise in fuzing, warheads and platform
integration.”
In his own AUSA booth briefing, Emil Kovalchik, senior
director of marketing and business development for General
Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, highlighted a
predecessor 120 mm Multi-Purpose High Explosive Round
fielded on an urgent basis by the U.S. Marine Corps.
“They actually did that directly with Rheinmetall [round designation
DM11], who is our partner in Defense Munitions International,”
Kovalchik said. “We got pulled in after they started
building those for the Marines. But we’ve gotten extraordinary
results.”
Kovalchik said the multipurpose high explosives were fired
“in combat in Afghanistan—we had Marine Corps tanks
there—and we got great feedback from the Marines. So the
task before us under the AMP process is to pretty much
‘Americanize it,’ if you will.”
“By doing that, basically we’re going to simplify the design,”
he said. “We’re looking at materials that we might be able to
substitute” to make it more competitive and a better value.
The new AMP “takes out the guesswork,” and makes the
Abrams crew “much more effective on target in almost all
cases,” Kovalchik said.
“And those targets are everything from lightly skinned vehicles,
anti-aircraft type targets, manmade bunkers, troops in the
open and concrete walls,” he said. “So one round does it all
and ultimately makes the soldier or Marine on the battlefield
that much safer—not having to go through the situation
where they have a particular target that they can’t service. So
it’s a great, great idea that is more than past its time.”
Pointing to the current development program, McFarland
said the Army would down-select to one of the two independent
designs during the first quarter of 2017 based on demonstrated
performance and cost.
“We expect that in the January to February time frame,” he
said. “From there, we’ll complete development with one contractor,
finalize the design, qualify it, and get it through operational
testing and out into the field” in fiscal year 2021.
“I think the takeaway is that in conjunction with the Abrams
platform, we are providing the soldiers with additional capabilities
as well as making their lives better by reducing their battlecarry
dilemma,” McFarland said, “and in saving them precious
seconds in the direct firefight in contact with the enemy.” ✭
60 ARMY ■ September 2016

The Outpost
Tense Hours in Standoff at Checkpoint Charlie
By Lt. Gen. Daniel P. Bolger, U.S. Army retired
It was the most iconic symbol of the Cold War. If you ever
wanted to know the difference between them and us, the
communists versus the free world, all you had to do was look
at that 27-mile-long wall splitting the city of Berlin. The
barbed wire, machine guns, sentry posts and guard dogs all
faced east. That told its own tale.
The Berlin Wall starred in two big movies last year. In director
Steven Spielberg’s critically acclaimed Bridge of Spies, Tom
Hanks played American James Donovan, a special envoy sent
into East Berlin to arrange a swap of intelligence officers. In this
re-creation of true events of the early 1960s, the building and
operation of the Berlin Wall was depicted, with consequent
chilling scenes including heavy-handed East German intimidation
and an attempted escape that ended in machine gun fire.
Historians quibbled about details of timing and some of the
usual Hollywood dramatics, but nobody questioned the brutal
presentation of the Berlin Wall. Viewers saw half a city
ground under the treads of menacing T-54 tanks and the
boots of implacable armed guards. Those images stuck with
you long after the movie ended.
The other movie, director Guy Ritchie’s attempt to reboot
the tongue-in-cheek ’60s television series The Man from
U.N.C.L.E., did not garner Oscar buzz or big box office numbers.
It did, however, start with a wild high-wire escape from
the East across the Berlin Wall. It was ridiculous and frankly,
an insult to those who lived—and died—during the actual division
of Berlin in 1961. Most movie fans may have thought
so, too. That one sank with hardly a ripple. But it sure showcased
that ugly wall.
Yet 55 years ago, the Berlin Wall didn’t exist to serve as
movie scenery. It was real and brand-new. It popped up like a
rank of evil mushrooms in the pre-dawn darkness of Sunday,
Aug. 13, 1961. While officially an East German initiative, the
puppet masters in the Soviet Union called that shot. They had
noticed that despite Pearl Harbor and the invasion of South
Korea, Americans still liked to sleep late on Sunday mornings.
In hot, humid Washington, D.C., August is a down month.
Congress goes into recess; the various departments and agencies
empty out; and the B-team, if that, is in charge. So if an
ambitious foreign power wanted to try something shady while
catching the U.S. drowsing, a Sunday in August would sure be
the time to do so.
The East Germans moved swiftly. A long line of silent
men, 8,000 strong, stood shoulder to shoulder all along the dividing
line between their side of Berlin and the Western side.
The so-called Combat Groups of the Working Class, paramilitary
Communist Party troops with PPsh-43 burp guns,
faced the West. They meant business. Behind that taciturn
U.S. Army Military History Institute
American tanks face
off against Soviet
armor at Checkpoint
Charlie in Berlin in
October 1961.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 61

ow, actual East German soldiers erected barbed wire entanglements.
And east of that effort, labor gangs with hand tools
began knocking apart the pavement.
By day’s end, the streets were cut and a man-high fence
made of multiple rolls of concertina wire marked the boundary.
Within a week, cement blocks went into place. The physical
wall would be up in a month, remaining for nearly three
decades: 12 feet high, 4 feet wide and with 100 yards of open,
flat ground on the communist side to permit East German
sentinels clear fields of fire. For most of its length, crossing the
line meant death.
Yet there were nine places to go through; Checkpoint Charlie,
in the American sector, became the best-known crossing
point. Because of arrangements made in 1945 as Nazi Germany
surrendered, Berlin remained under military occupation of the
four victorious powers. By agreement, members of each country’s
contingent could visit either side of the city. Of course,
even before the wall, getting to or from the communist East had
always been tricky and bureaucratic. And now East Berlin became
very hard to reach—but not impossible. Confronted by
the wall, the U.S., British and French wanted to ensure they
could still exercise their occupation rights. The East Germans
and their Soviet backers would see about that.
In the East, regardless of nominal East German authority,
the Soviets ran the show. In the West, the French, British and
Americans allowed an independent local government to run
day-to-day matters. Each of the Western powers stationed a
combat brigade in their sector. But those three brigades, and 2
million West Berliners, lived in an enclave isolated 100 miles
inside hostile East Germany.
Between them and the free world stood 20 Soviet Army divisions
and six East German divisions, too. In 1948, the Soviets
cut the tenuous land routes into Berlin, compelling the U.S. and
Britain to mount the famous airlift to
keep the city supplied. But only the U.S.
had atomic weapons then; the USSR
backed down. By 1961, the Soviets had
nuclear arms, too—and the rockets,
bombers and submarines to deliver them.
Times had changed.
President John F. Kennedy had tried
to deter the Soviets. A meeting between
Kennedy and Soviet dictator Nikita
Khrushchev in June 1961 had ended in
acrimonious deadlock. About a month
later, three weeks before the wall went
up, Kennedy gave a televised address.
Worried about Soviet threats to cut off
West Berlin, a renewal of the 1948 crisis
but probably including air routes too,
Kennedy asked Congress to provide for
more draftees, an increase in Army and Marine Corps end
strength, $3 billion more in defense spending, and authority to
call up reserve components. Ominously, he warned Americans
to build and stock fallout shelters. To borrow from nuclear
strategist Herman Kahn, the real-life Dr. Strangelove,
Kennedy was thinking about the unthinkable.
Khrushchev blew it off. He saw that the open gap of West
Berlin allowed 4.5 million East Germans—20 percent of the
1945 population—to flee to the West since the Nazi surrender.
That had to stop. A tough survivor of the Russian Civil
War, former dictator Josef Stalin’s cruel party purges, and the
fighting at Stalingrad and Kursk in World War II,
Khrushchev had little regard for Kennedy. The Soviet leader
had smashed the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, promised to
bury the West, and banged his shoe on the desk at the United
Nations. He built what he called the “Anti-Fascist Protective
Wall” and dared America to do something about it.
In response, Kennedy called up 148,000 National Guardsmen
and Reservists. Additional nuclear-capable aircraft deployed
to American bases in Europe. Kennedy made it clear
that the U.S. and its allies deplored the wall. But given the
precarious position of the U.S. Berlin Brigade and the other
Westerners in the surrounded city, he didn’t push it.
He did, however, send in retired U.S. Army Gen. Lucius D.
Clay, the key military commander in the 1948 airlift, as his
special adviser on the ground. Clay intended to push American
access rights to East Berlin.
The 1945 Potsdam Agreement specified that any clearly
identified U.S. soldier or diplomat could pass to or from East
Berlin without impediment. On Oct. 22, at Clay’s direction, a
U.S. diplomat in a properly marked car went right through
Checkpoint Charlie, whizzing by flabbergasted East German
police. A U.S. Army MP escort overwatched the event from
the Western side. Informed of the passage, the Soviet com-
Retired Gen. Lucius D. Clay talks with
President John F. Kennedy at the White House.
National Archives
62 ARMY ■ September 2016

A Soviet tank withdraws
from Checkpoint
Charlie in Berlin
in October 1961.
National Archives
mander objected. He hinted that another such bold crossing
would not be tolerated. Commenting on the U.S. armor company
known to be in West Berlin, the Russian said, “We have
tanks, too.”
On Oct. 27, the U.S. diplomat again went through Checkpoint
Charlie. Within minutes, 10 Soviet Army T-54 tanks
rumbled into the street to back up the East German police.
The Russian crews had service ammunition aboard and orders
to return fire if engaged. The lead tank was 50 yards back from
the checkpoint. Its leveled 100 mm main gun pointed right at
the Western side.
Within a few minutes, 10 M-48 Patton tanks of Company
F, 40th Armor Regiment clanked into position. They, too,
halted half a football field short of Checkpoint Charlie. The
Americans carried live ammunition and also had orders to
shoot back if attacked. The American tanks aimed their 90
mm cannons at the stationary Soviet tanks. It was 5:25 p.m.,
just getting dark. It looked like it would be a long night.
Brilliant white floodlights lit up the West side. American
tankers stood in their vehicles. Some ate from mess kits. But
on each M-48, one soldier constantly manned the turret
cupola, scanning the far end. Over in the East, the Russian
tanks squatted in darkness, frozen in place. An 80-year-old
East German woman took the opportunity to walk unhindered
from the communist side to the West, probably the
safest defection in the long, bloody history of the Berlin Wall.
Across West Berlin, the French and British increased their
alert postures. The French assembled at their barracks. The
more aggressive British pushed two anti-tank guns and patrols
right up to the Brandenburg Gate. Across Europe, NATO
forces increased their readiness. In America, the nucleararmed
Strategic Air Command also took precautions. No hotline
connected Washington to Moscow—that wouldn’t come
for a year, in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis. But both
sides communicated.
Kennedy, through intermediaries, made it clear he’d quit
grousing about the wall if the Soviets pulled back their tanks
first. In Berlin, Clay argued for sending M-48 tanks with
dozer blades to punch open the wall. But the general wasn’t on
active duty anymore, and he didn’t know everything Kennedy
knew about the USSR’s nuclear arsenal. It’s easy to argue that
the U.S. had a preponderance of hydrogen bombs. But even if
only a few Soviet weapons hit their targets, which U.S. cities
were worth sacrificing to force the issue in Berlin, way behind
Soviet lines? As Kennedy put it, “a wall is a hell of a lot better
than a war.” Khrushchev agreed.
At 10:30 a.m. the next day, under orders that came directly
from the Kremlin, one Soviet tank ran up its engine and
reversed out of position. A few minutes later, a U.S. tank did
likewise. One by one, each side pulled away its armored vehicles.
That ended it.
The Berlin Wall came down starting on Nov. 9, 1989. A
few segments remain as memorials. Pieces of the wall can be
found around the world, including in a Pentagon display. In
Berlin, a replica of Checkpoint Charlie and a nearby museum
mark the spot of the standoff. It all reminds us of a few tense
hours when the discipline of a small number of American soldiers
made a difference in Berlin and indeed, in the long
march of history.
✭
Lt. Gen. Daniel P. Bolger, USA Ret., was the commander of
Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan and
NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan. Previously, he served as
the deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, and as the commanding general,
1st Cavalry Division/commanding general, Multinational
Division-Baghdad, Operation Iraqi Freedom. He holds a doctorate
in Russian history from the University of Chicago and has
published a number of books on military subjects. He is a senior
fellow of the AUSA Institute of Land Warfare.
September 2016 ■ ARMY 63

AUSA Sustaining Member Profile
EIZO Rugged Solutions
Corporate Structure—President & CEO: Selwyn L. Henriques.
U.S. Headquarters: 442 Northlake Blvd., Altamonte Springs,
FL 32701. Telephone: 407-262-7100. Website: www.EIZO
rugged.com.
EIZO Rugged Solutions (formerly Tech Source Inc.) has been
developing graphics and video solutions for air traffic control,
military and embedded applications for over 28 years. The ISO
9001:2008-certified company offers a range of commercial offthe-shelf
products, including graphics processors targeted to
general-purpose graphics processing unit applications and highperformance
display, video input solutions, video compression
and streaming boards, imaging cards, recording solutions and
software libraries.
EIZO has specialized in graphics and video solutions since its
inception, when the company developed display solutions for air
traffic control applications. Over the years, its experience diversified
into display systems for medical imaging and other demanding
graphics markets. During Sun Microsystems’ peak
years as the leading workstation and server provider, the company
served as the primary OEM graphics supplier.
Over the years, the company’s highly talented team of engineers
has developed technologies to serve the long-term needs
of its customers. For example, dedicated graphics processing
units, multiple overlay extension hardware and highly optimized
encoding algorithms have enabled it to be more responsive to
customers. More recently, EIZO Rugged Solutions has leveraged
its core intellectual property into rugged graphics and video systems
deployed into the avionics; intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance; naval shipboard; unmanned aerial vehicle; and
vetronics markets.
EIZO designs and manufactures its core MIL-STD-810 graphics
and video products in the U.S. from its manufacturing facility in
Altamonte Springs, Fla. These include the Condor and Tyton series
of rugged graphics, video capture, encoding and streaming
products serving customers in the defense, security, aerospace,
avionics, transportation, maritime and industrial markets.
EIZO products address demanding mil/aero graphics display
and video acquisition applications. The Condor product line offers
support for input and output of many different video standards.
These can be configured for graphics output only, or
video input and frame grabbing, along with associated graphics
output. The latest version, Condor 4107, supports high-definition
serial digital interface input and output, which is increasingly
in demand in avionics/vetronics applications.
The VC-100 series adds the capability to encode video for
streaming or recording purposes. Standards supported today
are H.264 and H.265, utilizing all levels within the standard. A
box-level product called Tyton offers similar functionality packaged
in a rugged chassis. Condor addresses general-purpose
graphics processing units computing, utilizing AMD or NVDIA
processors for both Compute Unified Device Architecture and
Open-CL standards in both XMC and 3U VPX form factors. All
products are available as air or conduction cooled, front or rear
input/output.
EIZO has built a reputation for its flexibility and responsiveness
to customer requirements, offering engineering support
pre- and post-sale and a willingness to modify designs to fit
unique customer needs and bring their projects to life. This
might include, for example, a board re-spin or developing custom
software, firmware or drivers. Furthermore, as a company
that serves the military and aerospace markets, EIZO is fully committed
to supporting products for up to 15 years.
EIZO products have been chosen for major defense programs
in the U.S. as well as in 40 other countries including France, Germany,
Spain, Chile, Norway, the Netherlands, India, Japan, China,
Taiwan and South Korea. Customers are mostly systems integrators
committed to commercial off-the-shelf technology in their
embedded systems architecture and include original equipment
manufacturers such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop
Grumman, Thales, DRS Technologies and Boeing. Importantly,
products are not subject to International Traffic in Arms regulations.
EIZO Rugged Solutions is a group company of EIZO Corp., a visual
technology company that develops and manufactures highend
display solutions. Consequently, in addition to developing,
manufacturing and selling high-quality, safety-critical and mission-critical
graphics and video solutions, EIZO Rugged Solutions
will also offer other high-end display solutions from the EIZO
group into the global rugged commercial off-the-shelf market.
EIZO Corp. integrates hardware and software technologies
with consulting, web hosting and other services to help customers
in business, graphics, gaming, medical, maritime, air traffic
control and other fields work more comfortably, efficiently
and creatively. EIZO has research and development and manufacturing
facilities in Japan, Germany and the U.S., and representation
in more than 80 countries.
EIZO Rugged Solutions attends and exhibits at several industry
trade shows annually. The company sells direct as well as
through industry representatives and international distributors
worldwide. Vital technology partners include AMD, NVIDIA and
Cambridge Pixel.
EIZO Rugged Solutions is honored to be a sustaining member
of the Association of the U.S. Army and appreciates the opportunity
to support U.S. soldiers worldwide with its products and
membership. The company is committed to attending this year’s
AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition in Washington, D.C., in
Booth 424.
64 ARMY ■ September 2016

Historically Speaking
Operation Attleboro a Vietnam Snapshot
By Brig. Gen. John S. Brown, U.S. Army retired
Sept. 14 marks the 50th anniversary of the start of Operation
Attleboro, a 10-week campaign that was a pivotal
event in the Vietnam War. It is no accident that the operation
perches on the divide between two operational histories published
by the U.S. Army Center of Military History—Stemming
the Tide: May 1965 to October 1966 and Taking the Offensive:
October 1966 to October 1967. Operation Attleboro
marked the period wherein the U.S. Army in Vietnam shifted
from a primary emphasis on building up forces to a primary
emphasis on taking the battle to the enemy. It also featured
characteristics that for better or worse, we have come to associate
with the Vietnam War.
The initial introduction of American ground forces into
South Vietnam had been during desperate circumstances, with
political turmoil extant and military collapse imminent. Fierce
fighting in the Ia Drang Valley from Nov. 14–18, 1965, and
elsewhere blunted communist offensive capabilities, buying
time for U.S. forces to build up and for the South Vietnamese
government to restabilize.
The American commander in Vietnam, Gen. William
Westmoreland, encouraged arriving forces to launch limited
offensive forays. These were largely to keep the enemy off-balance
while more Americans arrived and South Vietnamese
forces continued or resumed pacification.
As further U.S. and allied forces flowed in, engineers constructed
or improved on a proliferation of bases, airfields and
other facilities. By October 1966, American forces in Vietnam
had risen to 351,572, of whom 221,067 were Army. South
Vietnam reported 735,900 under arms, and other American
allies fielded 32,600. At the same time, the North Vietnamese
and Viet Cong seem to have had in South Vietnam about
131,000 conventional forces, 113,000 militia forces and
39,000 political cadre.
Westmoreland foresaw an extended war of attrition toward
a “crossover point,” after which communist losses in South
Vietnam would exceed their capacity to replace them by ever
wider margins. American firepower would achieve this result,
hopefully with a minimum of American casualties.
A network of airfields, brigade-sized base camps and ostensibly
temporary fire bases emerged. Fire bases were roughly
10,000 meters apart to keep troops on the ground under continuous
umbrellas of artillery coverage. Like Operation Overlord
in 1944 or Pusan in 1950, the first task had been to get
sufficient forces ashore to achieve a strategic effect. The second
task would be to close with and destroy the enemy.
Westmoreland envisioned the onset of the November 1966–
May 1967 dry season in the south as the most opportune time
to shift over to broad and sustained offensives. As fate would
have it, the arrival of the 196th Light Infantry Brigade fit in
rather well with this timeline. Recently settled in south of Tay
Ninh, it launched Operation Attleboro—named after the
Massachusetts town where the brigade had been formed—to
keep pressure on the enemy and give itself field experience.
Results were minimal, at first. But on Oct. 23, the brigade
happened upon a huge cache of rice near Dau Tieng. Encouraged,
it got on with evacuating the rice while further combing
the jungle for other facilities.
Westmoreland was not the only one who envisioned combat
opportunities in the dry season. Gen. Nguyen Chi
Thanh, the North Vietnamese commander in South Vietnam,
believed he could take advantage of havens in Cambodia
and War Zone C as well as superior terrain knowledge
and elusiveness to force battles at times and places of his
own choosing. If he could pick off isolated American units,
he could pursue an attrition strategy of his own. The 9th People’s
Liberation Armed Force (PLAF) Division feinted at
Tay Ninh West and Suoi Cao, and collided with elements
of the 196th combing the terrain north and east of Dau
Tieng.
Elements of the 9th PLAF settled into prepared positions
across the expected path of the 196th. Their ambush on Nov.
4 proved deadly, complicated because American companies
were strung out, had been reinforced by companies from another
brigade, and were intermingled. American losses
mounted, and a withdrawal and reorganization of the bloodied
units proved necessary.
The 1st Infantry Division, commanded by Maj. Gen.
William E. Depuy and positioned nearby, rushed units in and
took charge of the battle. Air mobility proved invaluable in
getting forces to the battlefield, although subsequent efforts to
helicopter troops around the battlefield proved dangerous.
The newly arriving American units got the better of the now
disorganized enemy and inflicted heavy losses. Meanwhile, the
9th PLAF Division had gathered other forces for an assault on
1st Infantry Division elements elsewhere.
This was a mistake. The targeted brigade was ready and
swept its assailants away with hurricanes of direct and indirect
fire. Reinforcements including the 25th Infantry Division
poured in, and command and control effectively bumped up to
the II Field Force temporarily commanded by Maj. Gen.
Frederick Weyand.
The II Field Force set off in pursuit of their retreating enemy.
Communist attacks on Tay Ninh West, Trang Sup
and Dau Tieng proved ineffectual. Brief firefights occurred
between Tay Ninh and the Cambodian border, causing further
communist losses. Artillery barrages, airstrikes and
September 2016 ■ ARMY 65

U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center
American soldiers during Operation Attleboro in South Vietnam in 1966
even B-52 “Arc Lights” further battered the communists,
albeit with unknown results. The pursuit continued to the
Cambodian border, although many communist forces seem
to have fled to jungle hideouts in or near War Zone C
rather than actually crossing the border. Attleboro ended on
Nov. 24 as the American forces paused to regroup in anticipation
of further operations.
Allied losses had been 155 dead and 494 wounded during
the 10-week campaign. The Americans counted 1,016 enemy
bodies, but U.S. intelligence surmised 2,130 had actually
been killed and 900 wounded. The difference was explained
by the difficulty of finding body parts in deep jungle pulverized
by bombardment, and by communist efforts to evacuate their
dead and wounded.
These intelligence estimates were reasonable. However,
they reinforced a tendency to use “body counts” as a metric for
success. With terrain not counting for much and attrition the
avowed purpose, what else was there? An inability to adequately
measure success would haunt American commanders
throughout the war. U.S. analysts did note that 2,400 tons of
rice, 24,000 grenades, 2,000 pounds of explosives and 68 enemy
base camps had been seized.
American tactics matured during Operation Attleboro. The
inexperienced 196th Infantry Brigade had started off combing
the jungle with rifles and found itself delivering too many men
into the kill zones of ambushes. The more experienced 1st Infantry
Division had perfected techniques of near hook “cloverleaf”
patrolling, making initial contact with small groups of
Brig. Gen. John S. Brown, USA Ret., was chief of military history
at the U.S. Army Center of Military History from December
1998 to October 2005. He commanded the 2nd Battalion,
66th Armor in Iraq and Kuwait during the Gulf War and returned
to Kuwait as commander of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry
Division in 1995. Author of Kevlar Legions: The Transformation
of the U.S. Army, 1989–2005, he has a doctorate
in history from Indiana University.
men but piling on with masses of artillery fire and nearby
ground reinforcements. Infantry became a means to set up air
and artillery bombardments. In three weeks, the 1st Infantry
Division fired 100,000 artillery rounds, and Attleboro consumed
12,000 tons of aircraft munitions.
If detected or provoked to attack, communist forces were
hammered by direct and indirect fire. Cargo planes and helicopters
quickly delivered further forces to the battlefield. Getting
safely around the battlefield on helicopters required further
thought, as Americans experimented with suppressive
fires and other techniques for dealing with a “Hot LZ.”
Of 21 infantry battalions that ultimately participated in Operation
Attleboro, only three were South Vietnamese. This
tendency to shoulder aside the South Vietnamese in favor of
more immediately effective American units would have later
consequences for the development of an effective South Vietnamese
army. Pitched battles now pitted Americans against
North Vietnamese or Viet Cong, and the attritional contest
envisioned by both Westmoreland and Thanh was on. Both
sides recognized that willpower was involved. Would the
North Vietnamese be willing and able to sustain thousands of
casualties at a time for longer than the Americans were willing
and able to accept hundreds?
✭
Additional Reading
Carland, John M., Combat Operations: Stemming the
Tide, May 1965 to October 1966 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Army Center of Military History, 2000)
MacGarrigle, George L., Combat Operations: Taking the
Offensive, October 1966 to October 1967 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1998)
Stewart, Richard W., American Military History: The
United States Army in a Global Era, 1917–2003 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 2005)
66 ARMY ■ September 2016

Reviews
New Standard for Senior Leader Biographies
Jacob L. Devers: A General’s Life.
James Scott Wheeler. University Press of
Kentucky (an AUSA Title). 616 pages.
$39.95
By Col. Gregory Fontenot
U.S. Army retired
With the publication of Jacob L. Devers:
A General’s Life, retired Col.
James Scott Wheeler has closed a serious
gap in the historiography of the U.S.
Army during World War II. Equally
important, he has redressed an imbalance
in historical assessment of Devers’
career and leadership in combat.
Until recently, the only biography of
Devers merely summarized a great
soldier’s career. Devers, unlike Gens.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar N.
Bradley, George S. Patton Jr., Mark W.
Clark and Lucian K. Truscott, is not
well-known. Wheeler, a retired U.S.
Military Academy history professor and
author of several previous works, ably delivers
on his goal to give Devers “the full
biographical assessment he deserves.” He
does so in the context of re-examining
leadership in the U.S. Army leading up
to and during World War II. The result
is a deeper understanding not only of
Devers but also of those with whom he
served.
Devers graduated from West Point in
1909. He and two of his classmates, Patton
and Gen. William H. Simpson, rose
to high command during World War II.
Of the three, Devers arguably took a career
path ideally suited to joint and combined
command at the senior level.
An artilleryman, Devers served most
of his career with troop units but also
had a number of assignments that today
would be termed “developmental.” During
World War I, he led artillery units
ranging from pack howitzers borne by
mules to the newfangled motorized artillery.
He honed his skills as a trainer
and organizer while preparing units to
deploy. He developed a reputation as a
problem-solver in managing projects and
resources.
Ultimately, he came to Gen. George
C. Marshall Jr.’s attention as an operator
comfortable in joint and combined operations.
In June 1940, Devers pinned on
his first star. That summer, Marshall assigned
him to work on the committee to
choose sites for U.S. installations in the
Caribbean in return for 50 obsolescent
destroyers. Devers demonstrated insight
and the ability to work with both the
Navy and the British during that effort,
which began the collaboration with
Great Britain.
In October 1940, Marshall assigned
Devers to command the 9th Infantry
Division. In addition to training the division,
he was to get the construction of
Fort Bragg, N.C., back on schedule.
With the Army moving in high gear to
mobilize and develop new formations,
Marshall called on Devers again. In the
summer of 1941, Devers replaced the
terminally ill Lt. Gen. Adna Chaffee in
command of the newly formed armor
force.
Wheeler’s narrative moves nearly as
rapidly as Devers rose in grade. He captures
Devers’ energy and zest for soldiering
and soldiers. Yet this biography is
not a panegyric. It is decidedly a work of
professional scholarship weaving the
Army story throughout.
The author also is adept at illustrating
the role of personality and the culture of
the “Old Army.” The Army of the interwar
period could be every bit as cutthroat
as some perceive the Army is today.
Branch politics and intrigue were part
and parcel of an Army career. According
to Wheeler, Devers did not do well at
politics and intrigue because of his enthusiasm
and directness.
Wheeler’s case is compelling, since
other historians also ascribe these characteristics
to Devers. As a young officer,
Devers served in Gen. Lesley J. McNair’s
battery but had no qualms about disagreeing
with him directly while in command
of the armored force. Devers
thought tank and anti-tank battalions
should be assigned to the infantry divisions,
whereas McNair wanted to pool
them at higher echelons. McNair got his
way but thought no less of Devers for his
forthright objections.
Devers fared less well with Eisenhower,
Bradley, Patton and Clark, all of
whom were far thinner-skinned than
McNair. Further, as expert Army politicians
they were suspicious of Devers—
and practically everyone else.
Devers ran afoul of Eisenhower innocently.
Soon after Operation Torch,
Marshall sent Devers to North Africa
to assess operations and equipment.
Wheeler argues that Eisenhower likely
perceived Devers’ visit as threatening,
possibly because the report Eisenhower
had rendered on his predecessor after a
similar visit led to that officer being sent
home. Even though Devers offered
Eisenhower his observations while reporting
nothing derogatory about him
to Marshall, Eisenhower perceived De-
September 2016 ■ ARMY 67

vers as critical and never fully trusted
him afterward.
Unlike Devers, Eisenhower had no
difficulty sharing his negative views
with the chief of staff. But Devers, to his
credit, apparently never felt let down or
disappointed. Later, he would openly
support Eisenhower’s campaign for the
U.S. presidency.
Devers continued to rise in responsibility.
He took over command of the
European Theater of Operations so
Eisenhower could focus on the Mediterranean
Theater of Operations. When
Eisenhower returned to the U.K. and
command of the European Theater to
prepare for the Normandy invasion,
Devers took over in the Mediterranean.
There, he managed the combined operation
in Italy and planned the assault
on Southern France. He commanded
Operation Dragoon/Anvil and in fall
1944 activated Sixth Army Group.
There he directed the efforts of Seventh
Army, commanded by Gen.
Alexander Patch, and French First
Army, commanded by the difficult and
irascible Gen. Jean de Lattre de Tassigny.
He managed this difficult Vichy
officer while keeping the peace between
de Lattre and the equally difficult Gen.
Jacques-Phillippe Leclerc.
After the war, Devers commanded
the Army Ground Forces before retiring.
He lived until age 92, contented
despite his relative lack of fame.
Wheeler is sympathetic to his subject
but not blindsided by him. Devers was
not perfect; like those with whom he
worked, he had his foibles. However, he
deserved better than he got from his colleagues.
Wheeler’s book sets the standard
for biography of senior leaders.
Col. Gregory Fontenot, USA Ret., commanded
a tank battalion in Operation
Desert Storm and an armor brigade in
Bosnia. A former director of the School of
Advanced Military Studies and the
University of Foreign Military and
Cultural Studies, he is co-author of On
Point: The United States Army in
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Front Line Medical Care Vividly Portrayed
Battlefield Surgeon: Life and Death
on the Front Lines of World War
II. Paul A. Kennedy; edited by Christopher
B. Kennedy. University Press of
Kentucky (an AUSA Title). 288 pages.
$39.95
By Col. Leif G. Johnson
U.S. Army retired
If I only knew then what I know now:
That piece of sage perspective is why
all U.S. Army Medical Department
personnel—officers, NCOs, enlisted
and civilians—should read Battlefield
Surgeon: Life and Death on the Front
Lines of World War II. Make it part of
the Basic Officer Leaders Course or
Advanced Individual Training, or inprocessing
for civilians.
Why? Because now-deceased Capt.
Paul A. Kennedy’s World War II diary,
medical journal, medical illustrations
and photographs paint a vivid and
poignant picture of what front line medical
care is all about. Yes, it’s World War
II and yes, surgical techniques, practices
and doctrine have evolved, all for the
better. But as you read this informative,
educational and entertaining book, you
find yourself validating the axioms of
current battlefield medicine: flexibility,
agility, mobility and modularity. You
gain an immediate appreciation for the
necessity of early, far-forward surgical intervention,
stabilization and evacuation.
The 2nd Auxiliary Surgical Group, to
which Kennedy was assigned, was essentially
a surgical force provider for the
field hospitals operating in support of
front line divisions. This, more often
than not, put the teams in range of enemy
artillery. Analogous to today’s forward
surgical teams, the 2nd Aux teams
were generally comprised of two surgeons,
an anesthetist, an operating
room nurse, and a couple of medical
technicians. They were designed to plug
into one of three 100-bed platoons of a
field hospital to provide definitive care.
Kennedy’s diary entries follow the war
as it takes him from North Africa to
Sicily, Italy and finally Germany via
southern France. Most immediately,
one gains an appreciation for a loving
and lonely husband and father who
yearns for the war to end and to be back
with his family. Unfortunately, as we
know and Kennedy laments, it takes
three long years for that to happen.
During that time and thanks to his
dedication to writing, we learn by both
location and patient case how World
War II battlefield medical care evolved.
The fits and starts of North Africa and
the “bloodying” of U.S. Army combat
troops were also the proving grounds
for Army front line medicine. Subsequent
campaigns in Sicily and Italy
fine-tuned new and innovative surgical
techniques and established a viable doctrine
for the employment of medical assets
in support of combat operations.
Through his photographs and case
illustrations, one gains insights into
the character and quality of Kennedy
as a man, a soldier and a surgeon. One
cannot help but appreciate his innate
skills at documenting each patient who
crossed his operating table. He is the
consummate professional as he learns
and applies new surgical techniques
right up to the end of the war.
68 ARMY ■ September 2016

His dedication and compassion to the
task at hand are without question. But
you also learn firsthand that Kennedy
does not suffer fools kindly—though I
suspect what is written in his diary was
probably not transmitted orally. My enjoyment
in this book could have been
improved only with the addition of
some maps depicting the various locations
and relative battle lines.
Lastly, one has to commend Kennedy’s
son Christopher, who did a superb job
of collating and editing a vast amount
of information into a very readable and
informative book.
That Christopher chose to take on this
task, we can be thankful. From the foreword
by Rick Atkinson to the afterword
by John T. Greenwood, the book flows
beautifully. This is a fitting tribute to his
dad and an amazing testament to the fortitude,
compassion and dedication of front
line surgical teams during World War II.
Col. Leif G. Johnson, USA Ret., served
more than 26 years in the Medical Service
Corps, commanding at every level
from medical company to medical group.
Lots of Plot Twists With
These Real Housewives
Lincoln’s Generals’ Wives: Four
Women Who Influenced the Civil
War—for Better and for Worse.
Candice Shy Hooper. The Kent State
University Press. 432 pages. $39.95
By Nancy Barclay Graves
Candice Shy Hooper has chosen an
interesting way to tell a story of the
Civil War. Concentrating on the wives
of four of President Abraham Lincoln’s
generals, Hooper presents the rise and
perhaps fall of these generals through the
extant letters between them and their
wives.
Hooper, educated as a historian, has
written for The New York Times and The
Journal of Military History, among other
publications. This is her first book and
actually, it is four books, one devoted to
each wife. Her eight years of diligent research
give readers very personal accounts
of Gens. John C. Fremont, George B.
McClellan, William T. Sherman and
Ulysses S. Grant, with emphasis on the
influence the wives brought to bear on
the men themselves, or by entreaty to
Washington, D.C., insiders including
even Lincoln.
Hooper’s father was a hospital corpsman
in the Navy, so she is cognizant of
the role of the military wife in supporting
her spouse. In many ways, that role
has changed little since 1860. By using
personal letters as her primary source,
Hooper has produced intimate portraits
of four generals and how their respective
family lives may have influenced military
decisions.
Hooper writes that Jessie Benton
was introduced by her father, Sen.
Tom Benton of Missouri, to Fremont,
who was in the U.S. Army Corps of
Topographical Engineers and was already
well-regarded for his surveying
Recent Publications
from the Institute of Land Warfare
All publications are available at:
www.ausa.org/publications-and-news
Land Warfare Papers
• LWP 109 – The Uncertain Role of the Tank in
Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience
in Hybrid Warfare by Michael B. Kim (June 2016)
• LWP 108 – Are U.S. Army Capabilities for
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction at
Risk? by Thomas C. Westen (September 2015)
• LWP 107 – Integrating Landpower in the Indo–
Asia–Pacific Through 2020: Analysis of a Theater
Army Campaign Design by Benjamin A. Bennett
(May 2015)
• LWP 106 – American Landpower and the
Two-war Construct by Richard D. Hooker, Jr.
(May 2015)
National Security Watch
• NSW 16-1 – African Horizons: The United States
Army Working Toward a Secure and Stable
Africa by Douglas W. Merritt (February 2016)
• NSW 15-4 – These Are the Drones You Are
Looking For: Manned–Unmanned Teaming and
the U.S. Army by Richard Lim (December 2015)
• NSW 15-3 – Innovation and Invention: Equipping
the Army for Current and Future Conflicts
by Richard Lim (September 2015)
NCO Update
• Lead Story: Senior NCO Punches PTSD in the
Face (2nd Quarter 2016)
• Lead Story: Brainpower is the Next Frontier in
Army’s Arsenal (1st Quarter 2016)
Special Reports
• AUSA + 1st Session, 114th Congress = Some
Good News (December 2015)
• Profile of the U.S. Army 2014/2015: a reference
handbook (October 2014)
• Your Soldier, Your Army: A Parents’ Guide
by Vicki Cody (also available in Spanish)
Torchbearer Issue Papers
• Delivering Materiel Readiness: From “Blunt
Force” Logistics to Enterprise Resource
Planning (June 2016)
• The Mad Scientist Initiative: An Innovative
Way of Understanding the Future Operational
Environment (May 2016)
• Sustaining the All-Volunteer Force: A Readiness
Multiplier (April 2016)
• Strategically Responsive Logistics: A Game-
Changer (October 2015)
Defense Reports
• DR 16-3 – Strategic Readiness: The U.S. Army as
a Global Force (June 2016)
• DR 16-2 – National Commission on the Future of
the Army: An Initial Blueprint for the Total Army
(February 2016)
• DR 16-1 – Until They All Come Home: The
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action
Accounting Agency (February 2016)
Landpower Essays
• LPE 16-1 – The State of the Cavalry: An Analysis
of the U.S. Army’s Reconnaissance and Security
Capability by Amos C. Fox (June 2016)
• LPE 15-1 – Strategic Landpower in the 21st
Century: A Conceptual Framework by Brian M.
Michelson (March 2015)
September 2016 ■ ARMY 69

of the Western territory. It was an introduction
the senator later greatly regretted.
But Jessie proved to be as
strong-willed as her father and despite
her parents’ opposition, Jessie and John
were married, embarking on a life fast
rising and equally fast falling.
Fremont was named a major general
but overstepped his role by declaring
emancipation in the area under his
control before Lincoln had made his
Emancipation Proclamation. Removed
from his command, Fremont stayed in
the Army but did not receive further
commands. He became the darling of
the emancipationists and accepted,
with his wife’s encouragement, their
nomination for president against Lincoln.
He withdrew before the actual
election. He resigned from the Army,
and made a fortune on the sale of his
California land. He and Jessie squandered
their wealth and were forced to
live on what Jessie could make from her
writing. Hooper paints a very personal
account of the highs and lows of their
tempestuous life.
Mary Ellen “Nelly” Marcy was born in
the Wisconsin territory, the daughter of a
highly regarded Army officer and Western
explorer. When she met McClellan,
it was love at first sight for him but her
interests were elsewhere. She didn’t consent
to marry him until five years later
but thereafter, her devotion and admiration
for her husband never faltered.
Hooper empathizes that Nelly was
much more interested in the social position
of the general in Washington than
in doing any supportive work for the
troops. Through her husband’s periods
of hesitation on the battlefield, she supported
or even abetted him. Hooper
makes a strong case that McClellan’s
conversion to his wife’s Presbyterian
tenets influenced his decisionmaking.
The third wife in Hooper’s account is
Eleanor “Ellen” Ewing, the eldest daughter
of Thomas Ewing, a prominent Ohio
FREE TO AUSA MEMBERS
Receive AUSA’s Legislative Newsletter
electronically each week. Stay current on
legislative activity that affects you.
E-mail AUSA at jrudowski@ausa.org using the subject line
“Newsletter” to begin your free subscription.
politician who served two terms in the
U.S. Senate and as secretary of the treasury
before becoming the first secretary of
the interior. Thomas Ewing had taken in
9-year-old William Sherman, the son of
a close friend who had died.
Sherman eventually married Ellen
who, like Jessie and Nelly, was devoted
to her husband despite strong differences
in religion and politics and supported
him through the setbacks as well as the
successes of his life. Sherman resigned
from the Army in 1853 and tried various
occupations including banker, professor,
and president of a railroad in St. Louis,
finally returning to military duty after the
firing on Fort Sumter, S.C.
Ellen traveled as often as possible to
be with her husband, a reluctant leader
who often expressed the desire to not be
given a major command. He also suffered
from depression. Hooper writes
that when news stories said he was insane,
Ellen used all her contacts to dispel
these stories, at the same time writing
Sherman letters of love and reassurance.
The fourth spouse that Hooper covers
is Julia Dent, Grant’s wife. Unlike the
large numbers of letters available for research
of the first three wives, there are
only five from Julia, but many from
Grant to her. Julia was born with poor
eyesight and crossed eyes, making reading
and writing very difficult. Because of
this infirmity and the fact that she was
born into a slave-holding St. Louis family,
she was catered to all her life.
Grant’s military rise after he returned
to active duty was not always smooth.
He suffered depression with his lack of
confidence, but Julia was able to use her
influence in Washington to get him a
less demanding command. As he was
promoted, he was able to have his family
with him. As with the other generals,
this support gave him confidence,
leading to Lincoln’s recognizing him as
the leader he needed. To quote Hooper,
“Julia was essential to Grant. He was the
man he was—the general that Lincoln
needed—because of her.”
Hooper has written a highly readable
portrayal of four generals, their wives,
and the times in which they lived.
Nancy Barclay Graves is an Army wife
and freelance writer who lives in Arlington,
Va.
70 ARMY ■ September 2016

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY
Membership Benefi ts*
AUSA Platinum Visa
With the AUSA Platinum Visa from First Command Bank,
you’ll enjoy a low variable interest rate, no annual fee, and great
rewards. Call 855-565-AUSA (2872) for additional information.
Institute of Land Warfare
ILW offers writing programs; conducts conferences and
symposia; publishes essays, Defense Reports, newsletters;
and provides research on defense issues. Call 800-336-4570,
ext. 4630 for details.
AUSA Mastercare Group Insurance Plans
• Active Duty & Retiree TRICARE Supplement
• Accidental Death and Dismemberment Plan
• 10-Year Level Term Life Insurance Plan
• Group Term Life Insurance Plan
• Short-Term Recovery Plan
• Long Term Care Plan
Call 800-882-5707 for more information.
Dental and Vision Discount Plans
Discounts offered to AUSA members on dental services
and vision exams. Call 800-290-0523.
This plan is not available in the states of MT and VT.
Emergency Assistance Plus
If you or a family member gets injured or sick while on
travel, this plan will provide medical assistance, bring a
medical specialist or loved one to your side and much more.
Call 888-633-6450 for more information.
Geico Insurance – Auto, Home,
Condo/Renters, and Boat
In states where available, a special member discount
may apply. Call 800-861-8380.
Dell Member Purchase Program
AUSA members can now receive discounts on Dell PCs.
Call 800-695-8133 for more information.
GovX
GovX offers access to exclusive, significant savings for those
who protect and serve. From major league sports tickets to
20,000+ premium products. Visit www.GovX.com/AUSA.
Book Program
Members receive discounts on selected military books.
Army Times/Federal Times
Subscription discounts on Army Times/Federal Times.
Call 800-368-5718.
AUSA Career Center
AUSA members can now post their resumes and employers
can advertise any new openings they have. Visit our website
and go to the Resources drop-down, then Career Center.
University of Maryland University
College (UMUC)
University of Maryland University College (UMUC) is pleased
to offer undergraduate and graduate study programs to
AUSA members worldwide. For some program participants,
a discounted tuition rate will apply. Call 800-888-UMUC.
Armed Forces Services Corporation
AFSC guides you through the details on military entitlements
for your retirement and survivor planning/assistance for your
spouse. Call or e-mail: 888-237-2872, info@AFSC-USA.com.
Choice Hotels International ®
AUSA members can receive discounts on hotel rooms
at the following hotels.
• Comfort Inn ® • Cambria Suites ®
• Comfort Suites ® • MainStay Suites ®
• Quality ® • Suburban Extended Stay Hotel ®
• Sleep Inn ® • Econo Lodge ®
• Clarion ® • Rodeway Inn ®
Call 800-258-2847 and use the code 00800700.
Car Rental Program
Use the reservation codes on the back of your membership
card and save at:
• AVIS 800-331-1441 • Hertz 800-654-6511
• Budget 800-455-2848 • National 800-Car-Rent
• Alamo 800-354-2322 (rental for under age 25 available)
Publications
• ARMY Magazine every month, including the October
ARMY Green Book.
• AUSA NEWS every month.
* Member discounts and services are subject to change.
For more details visit Members Only Benefits and Services at www.ausa.org
or contact Member Support at membersupport@ausa.org or 855-246-6269 / 703-841-4300

Final Shot
U.S. Army/Sgt. 1st Class Brian Hamilton
A rope bridge is no obstacle for
this 13th Infantry Regiment soldier
at Fort Jackson, S.C.
72 ARMY ■ September 2016

Preliminary Program
2016 AUSA
ANNUAL MEETING
AND EXPOSITION
A Professional Development Forum
3 -5 OCTOBER 2016
Walter E. Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC
ausaannualmeeting.org

2016 AUSA
ANNUAL MEETING AND EXPOSITION
A Professional Development Forum
The Association of the United States Army Annual Meeting and Exposition is the
largest land power exposition and professional development forum in North America.
Located at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C., AUSA’s
Annual Meeting will host more than 500 exhibits and 26,000 people from around
the world. This is the premier event for the Army Profession.
Registration and housing information is available at www.ausaannualmeeting.org
Preview of Events
Sergeant Major of the Army
Noncommissioned Officer and Soldier
Forum
Monday, 3 Oct., 0800–0900. Opening address by GEN Carter
F. Ham, United States Army, Retired, President and CEO,
Association of the United States Army. Announcement and
presentation of the SGM Larry Strickland Educational Leadership
Award and the SGM Dawn Kilpatrick Memorial AUSA
Scholarship Award. Soldiers and noncommissioned officers
will meet with SMA Daniel A. Dailey.
MG Robert G. Moorhead Guard &
Reserve Breakfast
Monday, 3 Oct., 0730–0900 (ticket purchase required).
This breakfast recognizes outstanding chapter efforts in support
of Reserve Component Soldiers and Families. GEN Robert B.
Abrams, Commanding General, United States Army Forces
Command, is the speaker.
Sponsored by Veterans United Home Loans.
Opening Ceremony
Monday, 3 Oct., 0930–1115. The Opening Ceremony, featuring
The United States Army Band, “Pershing’s Own,” and the 3rd
United States Infantry (The Old Guard), will be a patriotic pageant
with the presentation of colors and an inspiring, dramatic multimedia
presentation. The HON Eric K. Fanning, Secretary of the
Army, is the keynote speaker.
Corporate Member Luncheon
Monday, 3 Oct., 1230–1430 (ticket purchase required).
This luncheon honors the Corporate Members and their many
contributions to the chapters’ programs to support Soldiers and
families. The luncheon will be held at the Marriott Marquis
Washington, D.C. Corporate Members can receive tickets
through their local AUSA chapters. Seating is limited.
GEN David G. Perkins, Commanding General, United States
Army Training and Doctrine Command, is the speaker.
Sponsored by GE Aviation.
United States Army Noncommissioned
Officer and Soldier of the Year Recognition
Luncheon
Monday, 3 Oct., 1230–1430 (ticket required - no charge).
SMA Daniel A. Dailey will host the awards luncheon to
recognize the Army’s outstanding Noncommissioned Officers
and Soldiers. GEN Daniel B. Allyn, Vice Chief of Staff, United
States Army, is the invited speaker. Awards will be presented to
the United States Army Noncommissioned Officer and Soldier
of the Year by GEN Allyn and SMA Dailey.
ROTC Luncheon
Monday, 3 Oct., 1230–1430 (ticket purchase required -
except cadets and cadre). A luncheon for ROTC cadets,
ROTC cadre and invited guests will be held at the Marriott
Marquis Washington, D.C. GEN Dennis L. Via, Commanding
General, United States Army Materiel Command, is the speaker.
Seating is limited.
Co-sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton and VT Systems.
2 2016 AUSA ANNUAL MEETING AND EXPOSITION

Preview of Events
Retiree and Army Pre-Retirement Events
Monday, 3 Oct., 1400–1600. The Department of the Army
Retirement Services Office will conduct a Military Retiree and
Veteran Update Seminar to provide updates on the Retired
Soldier Program/Benefits, and brief about the new blended
retirement system.
Tuesday, 4 Oct., 1400–1600 and Wednesday, 5 Oct.
1000–1200. The Department of the Army Retirement Services
Office will conduct a Military Retirement Planning Seminar to
provide updates on the Retired Soldier Program/Benefits, and
brief about the new blended retirement system.
President’s Reception
Monday, 3 Oct., 1830–2015 (ticket purchase required).
The President’s Reception honoring the Secretary of the Army,
the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Sergeant Major of the
Army affords everyone a chance to meet the Army leadership,
socialize with colleagues from the worldwide Army community
and see old friends.
The Sergeant Major of the Army’s
Professional Development Forum
Tuesday, 4 Oct., 0800–1100. SMA Daniel A. Dailey will host
this forum. This event is open to all Soldiers attending the
Annual Meeting.
Dwight David Eisenhower Luncheon
Tuesday, 4 Oct., 1230 (ticket purchase required). GEN Mark
A. Milley, Chief of Staff, United States Army, is the speaker. The
luncheon will be held in the Walter E. Washington Convention
Center Ballroom.
Department of the Army Civilian
Professional Development Seminar
Wednesday, 5 Oct., 0930–1130. Panelists will discuss the
current challenges and issues facing government leaders as
they plan for the civilian human resource requirements of the
future. There is no charge for this professional development
event, held at the Marriott Marquis Washington, D.C.
Government employees are welcome.
Outstanding Soldiers Tour of Arlington
National Cemetery and Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, 5 Oct., 0930–1300. The buses depart at
0930 (first come, first served) from the L Street entrance
of the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. For
information, contact AUSA NCO and Soldier
Programs, 800-336-4570, ext 2680.
Department of the Army Civilian Luncheon
Wednesday, 5 Oct., 1200–1400 (ticket purchase required).
This luncheon will honor government civilians and recognize the
AUSA Regional Activities Department of the Army Civilian of
the Year award recipients. The HON Patrick J. Murphy, Under
Secretary of the Army and Chief Management Officer, is the
invited speaker. This luncheon will be held at the Marriott
Marquis Washington, D.C.
Sponsored by PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC.
Sustaining Member Reception and Luncheon
Wednesday, 5 Oct., reception beginning at 1130
(invitation only). This luncheon recognizes Sustaining
Members for their support of AUSA and the United States Army.
Gen Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, is the keynote speaker. In addition, the John W. Dixon
Award will be presented to a distinguished industry leader who
has made considerable contributions to America’s defense.
George Catlett Marshall Memorial Reception
and Dinner
Wednesday, 5 Oct., 1830–2130 (ticket purchase required).
The 2016 George Catlett Marshall Memorial Dinner will be an
impressive climax to the meeting’s events. GEN Gordon R.
Sullivan, United States Army, Retired, former President and CEO
of the Association of the United States Army, is this year’s
Marshall Medal recipient. The United States Army Band,
“Pershing’s Own,” will provide entertainment.
Institute of Land Warfare (ILW) Publications
ILW publications will be on display and available during exhibit
hours at the AUSA Pavilion, Booth 407 in Exhibit Hall A.
Educational materials published by ILW are provided free
of charge.
ILW Contemporary Military Forums
ILW will host a series of Contemporary Military Forums on
topics of current interest to Army professionals and AUSA
members. All ILW forums will take place in the Walter E.
Washington Convention Center. Go to AUSA’s Annual Meeting
website (www.ausaannualmeeting.org) for details.
America's Army: Ready Today, Preparing for the Future 3

Preview of Events
AUSA Book Program Presentation
Monday, 3 Oct., 1300–1700. In cooperation with Th
Press of Kentucky and Helion and Company, AUSA
sponsored more than eight books in 2016 as part
book program. Authors will be on hand to speak a
their books during the authors’ presentation and w
be available for book signings throughout the meeting
at the AUSA Pavilion, Booth 407 in Exhibit Hall A.
All AUSA books will be available for purchase
(discounted for AUSA members).
y
AUSA Military Family Forums
AUSA’s Military Family Forums allow Army senior leaders and
experts in the field of family readiness to provide their views on
the status of the Army family. Through the presentation of three
forums, speakers will have direct discourse with the attendees.
AUSA Military Family Forum I
Monday, 3 Oct., 1400–1600. “An Update on Military Kids:
How Are They Doing? What Do They Need?” For the past
15 years Army children and youth have been touched by
war at some point in their lives. Recent studies point to
their resilience but also to the stressful impact this wartime
military life has had on them. This forum will explore the
findings highlighted by RAND’s Deployment Life Study as
well as updates on military childcare, EFMP issues, and
introduce specific tools and resources created precisely for
this special population of military family members.
AUSA Military Family Forum II
Tuesday, 4 Oct., 0900–1200. “Preparing for a Life in or
Outside the Army through Financial Readiness, Military
Spouse Employment and Entrepreneurship” Military families
know that now more than ever a healthy financial portfolio
reduces stress, increases confidence, and prepares you for the
uncertainty of the future. However, military spouses continue to
find challenges in seeking employment and maintaining career
progression. The Department of Defense’s Spouse Education
and Career Opportunities (SECO) offers many options and
hands-on support for traditional employment career paths, and
many military spouses are also taking control of their future job
prospects by starting their own businesses. All these options
and the accompanying resources will be explored in this forum.
AUSA Military Family Forum III
Wednesday, 5 Oct., 0900–1100. “A Town Hall with Senior
Army Leaders” This popular forum allows direct interaction
with the HON Eric K. Fanning, Secretary of the Army; the Chief
of Staff of the Army GEN Mark Milley and Mrs. Hollyanne Milley;
and the SMA Daniel A. Dailey and Mrs. Holly Dailey. We will
also take this opportunity to introduce the 2016 AUSA Volunteer
Family of the Year and celebrate 10 years of Your Soldier, Your
Army: A Parent’s Guide, an AUSA publication written by Vicki Cody.
Army Staff Senior Warrant Officer Events
Tuesday, 4 Oct., 0730-0830 (ticket purchase required).
Warrant Officers Breakfast.
Tuesday, 4 Oct., 0900-1100. Warrant Officers Professional
Development Forum. There will be a panel discussion of issues
critical to the United States Army Warrant Officer community.
Army National Guard and Army Reserve Events
Monday, 3 Oct., 1500–1630. CSM Christopher P. Kepner, Army
National Guard, and CSM James P. Willis, United States Army
Reserve, will hold a joint breakout session along with SMA Daniel
A. Dailey.
Tuesday, 4 Oct., 1000–1130. LTG Timothy J. Kadavy, Director,
Army National Guard, will speak.
Tuesday, 4 Oct., 1500–1630. LTG Charles D. Luckey, Chief,
United States Army Reserve, will speak.
International Military VIP Program
Each year, AUSA invites international VIPs representing
militaries from around the world to attend the AUSA Annual
Meeting. In 2015, representatives from 69 countries responded.
We expect this number will increase in 2016. Chiefs of Staff
(or their representatives) and attachés located in the Washington
area, as well as students from the United States Army War
College, take part in dedicated events at the Annual Meeting,
including the International Military VIP Reception and an international
breakfast. Both events are also heavily attended by industry
representatives. AUSA is very proud that this program continues to
grow each year, making the Annual Meeting a truly international
event. Sponsored by Lockheed Martin Corporation.
AUSA Pavilion
The AUSA Pavilion (Booth 407, Exhibit Hall A) is the ideal
central meeting and networking location at the Annual Meeting.
It offers seats, coffee and free Wi-Fi. While there, you can
connect with AUSA affinity partners and learn how to take advantage
of exclusive member discount programs, browse the
Institute of Land Warfare papers, chat with one of the invited
authors from the AUSA book program or check out the AUSA
store. Not a member or need to renew? You can conveniently
join or renew here at the reduced 2016 membership rates
with one of the friendly AUSA staff.
4 2016 AUSA ANNUAL MEETING AND EXPOSITION

AUSA Small Business Pavilion
AUSA will be offering small businesses (including AUSA
Corporate Members) an opportunity to showcase their products
and services to more than 26,000 people from around the
world, including senior leaders from the Army, Department of
Defense and Congress. To qualify, your company must be classified
as a “small business” (as defined by the Small Business
Administration). This offer is very affordable and waives the
membership fee requirement. For more information, call Rand
Meade at 571-332-6977 or visit www.ausaannualmeeting.org.
Warriors To The Workforce Hiring Event
Presented by GES
This one-of-a kind event is part of the American Freedom
Foundation’s initiative to help our veterans, transitioning military
servicemembers and spouses find employment. The event will
bring together major companies from throughout the country to
profile their services and provide employment opportunities for
our veterans. Attending veterans will have the chance to meet
with some of the top employers in the country, submit qualifications,
and even participate in job interviews on the spot.
To help veterans better prepare for their job interviews, there will
be workshops held each day on a variety of subjects including
mental readiness, confidence building, networking and presentation
skills, résumé writing, interviewing techniques, job searching,
career planning through goal setting, and translating military
skills and training into civilian life and corporate experience.
This event is free to all veterans, transitioning military
servicemembers and spouses. For more information, visit
www.warriorstotheworkforcedc.net. You may also contact
Ted Hacker, Co-founder, President & COO, American Freedom
Foundation Inc., 615-330-9394 (cell), iammgt@mindspring.com,
www.americanfreedomfoundation.org.
AUSA Homeland Security Pavilion
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Pavilion will
showcase DHS missions and capabilities from across the
Department in multiple exhibits. Program managers and subject
matter experts will be available to discuss DHS requirements
and technologies, including some exhibiting in the pavilion, in
the areas of aviation security, biometrics, border security, cyber,
forensics, immigration, research and development, security,
wearable technologies and talent acquisition. Organizations in
the Pavilion will include:
National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of
Cybersecurity and Communications (NPPD/CS&C)
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
United States Secret Service
Science and Technology Directorate
The Homeland Security Pavilion will be located in Hall A ,
booth 229.
AUSA Veterans Pavilion
The AUSA Veterans Pavilion will feature organizations
dedicated to helping veterans, their spouses and their families.
The Pavilion will be located in Hall A. Groups with a focus
on employment, health care, education, financial and other
veterans’ services are invited to display.
The following organizations under the Department of Veterans
Affairs have now confirmed they will be exhibiting at this
year’s event:
Department of Labor
National Cemetery Administration
Veterans Benefits Administration
Veterans Employment Service Office
VA Health for Life
Veterans Health Care
VA Mental Health Care & Vet Centers
VA Rehabilitation & Prosthetic Services
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
Assembly Area
The United States Army Training and Doctrine Command
(TRADOC) Assembly Area supports engagements and meetings
between TRADOC senior leaders, members of the media,
industry, foreign military leaders, and government. This venue
provides leaders and dignitaries traveling to the Fall AUSA event
from installations worldwide with an ideal site for collaboration.
The TRADOC Assembly Area is conveniently located in Hall B
of the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in booth 2925
and a short walk from the Army Exhibit. This location is optimal
for accommodating planned or impromptu engagements
throughout the duration of this event.
Installation Management Community –
Meet and Greet Assembly Area
More than 100 Senior Army Leaders, Region Directors, Garrison
Commanders and Sergeants Major, and subject matter experts
representing the Army’s Installation Management Community
will be scheduled for one-hour open sessions to discuss management
and making our installations the Army’s home. They
will be available to meet Soldiers and Families as well as local,
state, regional or national participants of AUSA’s Annual
Meeting. Schedules will be posted at the Meet and Greet
Assembly Area. Individuals are encouraged to just drop by.
Scheduled meeting requests with specific individuals will also
be accommodated, if possible.
Industry and Military Exhibits
Exhibit Halls A, B, C, D and E in the Walter E. Washington
Convention Center will feature over 500 exhibits. The exhibit
hall schedule for the 2016 AUSA Annual Meeting is:
Monday, 3 Oct., 0900–1700
Tuesday, 4 Oct., 0900–1700
Wednesday, 5 Oct., 0900–1700
America’s Army: Ready Today, Preparing for the Future 5

2016 Annual Meeting Exhibitors (as of 3 August 2016)
3M Company
A
A Head for the Future
AAFMAA
AAR Corp.
Abaco Systems
Accenture Federal Services
Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC
Acromag, Inc.
ADS Group Ltd
ADS, Inc.
Advanced Turbine Engine Company
AECOM Government Services, Inc.
AEL J.V.
Aeroglow International
Aerojet Rocketdyne
AEROSERVICES S.A.
AeroVironment, Inc.
Agility, Defense & Government Services
Aimpoint
Air Radiators Pty Ltd
Airborne Systems
AirBoss Defense
AIRBUS GROUP
AirTronic USA
AITECH Defense Systems, Inc.
Alaska Structures
Alcoa Defense
Alfresco Software
Allison Transmission
AM General LLC
Amerex Defense
American Freedom Foundation, Inc. /
Warriors To the Workforce Hiring Event
American Plaque Company Inc.
American Red Cross Service to the Armed Forces
AMERICAN-HELLENIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Ameriforce Media, LLC
Amphenol Fiber Systems International
Amsafe Bridport
AmSafe, Inc.
APV Safety Products Pty Ltd
Armada International
Armed Forces Insurance
ArmorSource LLC
ArmorWorks Enterprises, LLC
Army & Air Force Exchange Service
Army Fisher Houses
Army Historical Foundation
Army Women’s Foundation
Arts In the Armed Forces
ASELSAN A.S.
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology) Assembly Area
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations,
Energy and Environment)
Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) Pavilion
ASUS, Inc.
ATI
AUSA Cyber Pavilion
AUSA Department of Homeland Security
Pavilion
AUSA Family Readiness Pavilion
Australian Department of Defence
Australian Pavilion
Avalex Technologies Inc.
Avenge Inc.
Aviall, A Boeing Company
Aviation Week Network
AVL Powertrain Engineering Inc.
Avon Protection Systems, Inc.
AxleTech International
B
B.E. Meyers & Co., Inc.
B/E Aerospace
BAE Systems, Inc.
Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
Banneker Industries, Inc.
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.
Barry Controls
Battelle
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
Benchmade Knife Company, Inc.
Beretta
Beth-El Zikhron Yaaqov Industries Ltd.
Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd
Blue Marble Geographics
BlueSky Mast, Inc.
Bluewater/Vorbeck
Boeing
BOH FPU Systems - A Division of Boh
Environmental, LLC
Bosch Automotive Service Solutions
Bose Corporation
Boulder Crest Retreat for Military and Veteran
Wellness
Breezer Mobile Cooling
Bren-Tronics, Inc.
Brighton Cromwell
C
C.E. Niehoff & Co.
CACI, Inc.
CADSI SME AREA
Camber Corporation
CamelBak Products, LLC
CAMSS Shelters
Canada: Partners in Defense Pavilion
Canadian Association of Defence and Security
Industries
Carson Industries Inc
Caterpillar, Inc.
CCO Creative Consulting GmbH
CEIA USA, Ltd.
Century, Inc.
Cevians LLC
CGI Federal
Champlin Tire Recycling, Inc.
Chemical Plant “NITRO-CHEM” S.A.
ChemLight powered by Cyalume Technologies
Chemring Group Plc
CIRCOR Aerospace & Defense
Clark Testing
Club Beyond/Military Community Youth
Ministries
CMI Defence
Cobham
Coges Eurosatory / GICAT
COJOT OY
Colt Defense LLC
Columbia Helicopters, Inc.
Columbia Southern Education Group
Columbia Southern University
Combined Systems, Inc.
Compulink
Compusearch
Comrod, Inc.
Comtech Mobile Datacom Corporation
Connect Tech Inc.
Connexta, LLC
Consortium for Command, Control and
Communications in Cyberspace (C5)
Consumer Cellular
Contact! Corporation
Control Solutions LLC
Corvias Military Living
Creative Electronic Systems
Cresa
Crystal Group, Inc.
CTG
Cubic Global Defense
Cummins, Inc.
Curtiss-Wright
Cyalume Light Technology
D
D. I. Optical Co., Ltd.
Dana Holding Corporation
Daniel Defense
Danner
Darley
DASYC S.A.
Data Device Corporation
Datasoft Corp.
6 2016 AUSA ANNUAL MEETING AND EXPOSITION
Datron World Communications
Datum Storage Solutions
Day & Zimmermann/American Ordnance
Defense Centers of Excellence
Defense Commissary Agency
Defense Expo Korea 2018
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense News & Army Times
Defense One
Delco, LLC
Denel SOC Ltd.
Department of Labor
Deployed Resources, LLC
Deschamps Mat Systems, Inc.
DEW Engineering & Development ULC
Dewey Electronics Corporation
DIB Cybersecurity Program
Digital Image Studios, LLC
Digital Systems Engineering (DSE)
Dillon Aero, Inc.
DND
DoD Office of Warrior Care Policy, The
DoD Spouse Education and Career Opportunities
Program
Dodaam Systems
Donaldson Co., Inc.
DRS Technologies / Leonardo
Dupont Kevlar Networking Lounge
DURETEK INC.
DX Korea Committee
DXK CO. ltd
DynCorp International
E
Eaton Corporation
Ecolog, Inc.
ECS Case
EIZO Rugged Solutions
Elbit Systems of America, LLC
Electro Optic Systems Pty Ltd
Electro Optical Industries, Inc.
Elma Electronic Inc/Interface Concept
ELVO S.A. (HELLENIC VEHICLE INDUSTRY S.A.)
eMentor Program
EMW Co., Ltd
Endeavor Robotics
Energy Focus
Enersys
Engility
Enovative Technologies
ENTERPRISE GREECE
Epiq Solutions
ERAP Korea
ESI Motion
Esri
Esterline
Excelitas - Qioptiq
Extreme Engineering Solutions (X-ES)
F
Fabryka Broni “Lucznik” - Radom Sp. z o.o.
Fair Management Ltd.
FALCK SCHMIDT Defence Systems A/S
Faraday Cases
FAUN Trackway
Fedbid Inc.
Federal Resources
Federation of Genealogical Societies
Federation of German Security & Defence (GWM)
FEDITC, LLC / Blue Wolf Inc.
Fidelity Technologies Corporation
Final Mile Logistics
First Command Financial Services
Fischer Connectors, Inc.
FLIR Systems
FLUOR
FN America, LLC
FNH USA, LLC
Focus Optech
Fort Fisher National Guard Training Center
Fox Defense
French Army
French Pavilion
FT Technologies LTD.
G
G.H. Varley Pty Ltd
GATR Technologies, Inc.
GE Aviation
GE Intelligent Platforms
Gehring L.P.
General Atomics
GENERAL DIRECTORATE FOR DEFENSE
INVESTMENTS & ARMAMENTS (GDDIA)
General Dynamics Land Systems
General Dynamics Mission Systems
General Dynamics Ordnance & Tactical Systems
General Kinetics Engineering
General Micro Systems, Inc.
General Motors LLC
Gentex Corporation
Gerber Gear
German Pavilion
GigaLane
Glenair, Inc.
Global Seating Systems LLC
Glock, Inc.
GNB Industrial Power, A Div. of Exide
Technologies
Golight, Inc.
Gonzalez Production Systems
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
GovPlanet
GPSat Systems Australia Pty Ltd
Green Beret Foundation
GSI International, Inc.
H
Hall A Small Business Pavilion
Hall C Small Business Pavilion
Harris Corporation
HDT Global
Heckler & Koch
HELLENIC AEROSPACE INDUSTRY S.A.
HELLENIC DEFENCE SYSTEMS S.A.
HELLENIC MANUFACTURERS OF DEFENCE
MATERIAL ASSOCIATION (SEKPY)
Hellenic Pavilion
Hendrickson
Heritage Foundation, The
Heroes Linked
High Impact Technology, LLC
Hirtenberger Defence Systems GmbH & CO KG
Holmwood Highgate Australia Pty Ltd
Homes For Our Troops
Honeywell
HPP Precision Products GmbH
HUBER+SUHNER AG
Hutchinson Industries
HWI Gear, Inc.
I
I3 Cable and Harness
i3system, Inc.
IAI North America
IAP Worldwide Services
IBM Corporation
IDS International
IDSI A Crescend Technologies Company
IEC/Precision Remotes
iED Detection Systems LLC
IEE
IHS Global, Inc.
IMSAR LLC
Indiana Economic Development Corporation
Indiana Tech
Industrial Fabrics Assn. Intl., Military Division
Inert Products LLC
Innodisk USA
Innosense LLC
Innovative Algorithms
Insitu Inc.
Insopack
Installation Community Assembly Area
IntelliPower
Intercontinental Hotels Group
International Armored Group
Inventus Power
IONES
See map inside.
Open carefully. Pages are glued.

Iridium Communications LLC.
IRTS
Isodyne Inc.
ITT Cannon, LLC
IXI Technology
J
JENOPTIK Advanced Systems, LLC
John Deere
Johnson Controls, Inc.
K
Karem Aircraft, Inc.
KBR
KDH Defense Systems, Inc.
KDIA Korean Pavilion
Kearfott Corporation
Kentucky Trailer Technologies
KIGRE, Inc.
Kipper Tool
Klas Telecom Services
Kokam
KONGSBERG
Korea Defense Industry Association (KDIA)
KOTRA
KOTRA Korean Pavilion
KOUIMTZIS S.A.
KPCM
KVH Industries
L
L-3
Laclede
LANCO
Laser Technology, Inc.
Leading Technology Composites
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
Leidos
Leupold & Stevens, Inc.
Lewis Machine & Tool
Lind Electronics
LMI Government Consulting
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Logo Mat Central, LLC
Logos Technologies, LLC
LRAD Corporation
LS MTRON ltd.
LWRC International, LLC
Mack Defense, LLC
MAG Instrument, Inc.
Magpul Industries
ManTech
Marathon Targets
Marvin Group
Maven Engineering Corporation
Maxim Defense Industries
MaxVision
mb-microtec ag
Med-Eng
Meggitt
Mercury Systems, Inc.
Meritor, Inc.
MESKO Spólka Akcyjna
Michelin North America, Inc.
Micreo Limited
Midcom
MilDef Inc
Military Officers Association of America
Military OneSource
Military Spouse Advocacy Network
Militarybyowner Advertising, Inc.
Milliken & Company
Minelab Electronics Pty Ltd
Missile Defense Agency
Mistral Group
MoTeC Pty Ltd
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
MTU America
Mutualink, Inc.
N
NADIC
NAMMO Talley
National Cemetery Administration
See map inside.
Open carefully. Pages are glued.
National Defense Corporation
National Defense Industrial Association
National Manufacturing Co., Inc.
National Military Family Association
National Museum of the U.S. Army
Navistar Defense
Navy Federal Credit Union
Nevada Automotive Test Center
Next Evolution Water Solutions
Nicomatic
No Magic
Nobles Worldwide, Inc.
Norotos, Inc.
Northrop Grumman
NorthStar Aviation USA L.L.C.
Northwest Territorial Mint
Norwich University Army ROTC
NovAtel
Nucor Steel
O
Oakley, Inc.
Oceus Networks
ODU USA
Olin-Winchester
Omnetics Connector Corp.
Omni Housing LLC
Omni Housing LLC & Portafloor Flooring
O’Neil & Associates, Inc.
Operation Homefront
Operation Ward 57
Optimum Vehicle Logistics (OVL)
Oran Safety Glass
Orbit International Corp.
Orbital ATK
Orion Technologies, LLC
Oshkosh Defense
OSS Society, The
Otis Technology, Inc.
OTTO
Our Military Kids
Oxx
P
Pacific Northwest Defense Coalition (PNDC)
Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Co.
Parker Hannifin Corporation
Partsmaster
Pearson Engineering Inc
Pelican Products
Pentagon 2000 Software, Inc.
Perkins Technical Services, Inc.
Persistent Systems, LLC
Phantom Products, Inc.
Phoenix Defence
Photonis
Physical Optics Corporation
Plasan SASA
Point Blank Enterprises
Polaris Industries, Inc.
Polartec, LLC
Polish Pavilion
Polo Custom Products
Poongsan Corporation
Prime Universal Group, LLC
Profense, LLC.
Progress Solar Solutions, LLC
Projects Unlimited
Protonex Technology Corp.
Q
QinetiQ North America
Qnexis, Inc.
QTI Sensing Solutions
Quantico Tactical
QuickSilver Analytics, Inc.
R
Radio Reconnaissance Technologies, Inc.
Rafael USA, Inc.
RallyPoint
RAM Mounting Systems
Rapiscan Systems, Inc.
Raptor Photonics Ltd
Raydon Corporation
Raytheon Company
Real Warriors Campaign
Red Hat
REDCOM Laboratories, Inc.
RedSeal Inc.
Reflections of Generosity Foundation (RoG)
Revision
Revolution Lighting
Rheinmetall AG
Rite in the Rain
Ritter&Stark
Rivera Group
RIX Industries
Roboteam North America Inc.
Rockwell Collins
Rocky
Rogerson Kratos
Roketsan Missile Industries
Rolatube Expeditionary Systems Ltd
RUAG Defence
S
Saab Defense and Security USA, LLC
Sabre Ballistics, A Sydor Technologies Company
SAIC
Saint-Gobain Ceramics
SAPA Transmission Inc.
Schaefer (Tactical Power Group)
Schaefer Electronics Inc.
SCI
Secure Communication Systems
Seiler Instrument, Inc.
SEK Solutions, LLC
Sekai Electronics, Inc.
Sepson AB
Shephard Media
Siemens Government Technologies, Inc.
Sierra Nevada Corporation
SIG SAUER
Sikorsky
Small Arms Defense Journal
Smith & Wesson
Soosung Defense Industries (SDI)
Soucy International Inc.
SOUKOS ROBOTS S.A.
Sparton Navigation & Exploration
Spectro Scientific, Inc.
SPI - Connects
Sprung Structures, Inc.
SRC, Inc.
SRI International
SSAB
Standard Armament, Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker
Stanley Machining & Tool Corporation
Stars and Stripes/DoD
Stertil-Koni
Stevens Aviation
Steyr Motors North America
Strategic Armory Corps
Super Brush LLC
Surefire, LLC
SureID, Inc.
Swiss Pavilion
SynQor, Inc.
Systel, Inc.
SYSTEMATIC
T
Tactical Defense Media, Inc.
Tactical Environmental Systems, Inc.
TE Connectivity
TEA Headsets/INVISIO
Team Wendy, LLC
Teijin Aramid USA, Inc.
Telephonics Corporation
TenCate
Terrafix Ltd
Textron Systems
Thales
Themis Computer
THEON SENSORS
Thomas Global Systems
Thrift Savings Plan
TOPINS
Tragedy Assistance Program For Survivors (TAPS)
Transhield, Inc.
Travis Manion Foundation
trigalight
Trijicon, Inc.
Trinity Wing
TROY
Truck-Lite Co., LLC
TT Electronics
Tungsten Heavy Powder & Parts
TURBOMED S.A. YIANNIS PARASKEVOPOULOS
ABEE
Turkish Armed Forces Foundation
Tutor.Com
TYR Tactical
U
U.S. Army Exhibit
U.S. Army Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff
for Installation Management
U.S. Army Soldier for Life Program
U.S. Army TRADOC Assembly Area
U.S. Tower
UIC Government Services/Bowhead
Ulti-Mate Connector Inc.
Ultra Electronics
Unifire, Inc.
United Kingdom Pavilion
United Through Reading
Unitron Power Systems
University Of North Georgia
US Ordnance, Inc.
USAA
USAA Educational Foundation
UTC Aerospace Systems
V
VA Health for Life
VA Mental Health Care & Vet Centers
VA Rehabilitation & Prosthetic Services
Vectronix Inc. (Safran)
Vectrus
Veteran Tickets Foundation
Veterans Benefits Administration
Veterans Employment Service Office
Veterans Health Administration
Veterans Health Care
Veterans Pavilion
Veterans United Home Loans
Victorinox AG
Vietnam War Commemoration
Virginia Economic Development Partnership
VirTra Systems
Vitzrocell Co., Ltd.
VMI Army ROTC Battalion
VT Miltope
VT Systems
W
W & E Platt Pty Ltd
W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Warn Industries
Wegmann USA, Inc.
Wells Fargo
West Point Center for the Study of Civil-Military
Operations
West-Mark, Inc.
WFEL Limited
Widener University, Commonwealth Law School
Wilcox Industries Corp.
Wiley X, Inc.
Will-Burt Company, The
Wind River
WINZER
Wojskowe Zaklady Uzbrojenia S.A.
WOOJINPRECISION CO., LTD
X - Z
XMW Inc.
Z Microsystems, Inc.
Zanfel Laboratories, Inc.
ZODIAC AEROSAFETY SYSTEMS
Zone Products Australia Pty Ltd
America’s Army: Ready Today, Preparing for the Future 7

Schedule-at-a-Glance
GEN Carter F. Ham
United States Army Retired
President and CEO
AUSA
GEN Gordon R. Sullivan
United States Army Retired
Marshall Medal Recipient
HON Eric K. Fanning
Secretary of the Army
Gen Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.
Chairman
Joint Chiefs of Staff
GEN Mark A. Milley
Chief of Staff
United States Army
(All events take place in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center unless otherwise noted.)
SUNDAY, 2 OCTOBER
1800–1900 Chapter Presidents and Delegates Reception*
Marriott Marquis Washington, D.C.
1900–2200 Chapter Presidents Dinner*
Host and Keynote Speaker:
GEN Carter F. Ham
United States Army, Retired
President and CEO
Association of the United States Army
Marriott Marquis Washington, D.C.
MONDAY, 3 OCTOBER
0730–0900 MG Robert G. Moorhead Guard/Reserve Breakfast*
xSpeaker:
GEN Robert B. Abrams
Commanding General
United States Army Forces Command
0800–0900 Sergeant Major of the Army Noncommissioned
Officer and Soldier Forum
0900–1700 Exhibits Open: Halls A, B, C, D and E
0930–1115 Opening Ceremony
Keynote Speaker:
HON Eric K. Fanning
Secretary of the Army
1230–1430 Corporate Member Luncheon*
Speaker:
GEN David G. Perkins
Commanding General
United States Army Training and Doctrine Command
Marriott Marquis Washington, D.C.
1230–1430 ROTC Luncheon*
Speaker:
GEN Dennis L. Via
Commanding General
United States Army Materiel Command
Marriott Marquis Washington, D.C.
1230–1430 United States Army Noncommissioned Officer and
Soldier of the Year Recognition Luncheon*
(CSMs, GOs, NCOs & Soldiers of the Year)
Host:
SMA Daniel A. Dailey
Sergeant Major of the Army
Invited Speaker:
GEN Daniel B. Allyn
Vice Chief of Staff
United States Army
1300–1700 AUSA Book Program (Author Presentations)
1330–1430 Digital Learning Session
1400–1600 AUSA Military Family Forum I
An Update on Military Kids: How Are They Doing?
What Do They Need?
Speaker:
Terri Tanielian
Senior Social Research Analyst, The RAND Corporation
Panel Moderator:
Helen A. Roadarmel
Program Manager, Child, Youth & School Services
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management
Panel Members:
Lt Col Eric M. Flake, MD, FAAP, U.S. Air Force
Program Director Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics
Madigan Army Medical Center
Cherri Verschraegen
Chief, Child, Youth & School Services
Installation Management Command
Cicely K. Burrows-McElwain, LCSW-C
Military and Veteran Affairs Liaison
National Policy Liaison Branch
Division of Regional and National Policy, OPPI
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration
Video: MilitaryChildCare.com
1400–1600 ILW Contemporary Military Forums I, II & III
8 2016 AUSA ANNUAL MEETING AND EXPOSITION

HON Patrick J. Murphy
Under Secretary of the
Army and Chief
Managment Officer
GEN Daniel B. Allyn
Vice Chief of Staff
United States Army
GEN Dennis L. Via
Commanding General
United States Army Materiel
Command
GEN David G. Perkins
Commanding General
United States Army Training
and Doctrine Command
GEN Robert B. Abrams
Commanding General
United States Army Forces
Command
1400–1600 Military Retiree and Veteran Update Seminar
Presentations:
Update on the Retired Soldier Program/Benefits.
New blended retirement system.
1430–1630 A Vietnam Retrospective
1500–1630 Sergeant Major of the Army & CSM, ARNG & CSM,
USAR Breakout Session
SMA Daniel A. Dailey
Sergeant Major of the Army
CSM Christopher P. Kepner
Command Sergeant Major
Army National Guard
CSM James P. Willis
Command Sergeant Major
United States Army Reserve
1730–1830 International Military VIP Reception*
1830–2015 President’s Reception*
Honoring:
The Secretary of the Army
The Chief of Staff, United States Army
The Sergeant Major of the Army
TUESDAY, 4 OCTOBER
0730–0830 Warrant Officers Breakfast*
0800–0900 International Military VIP and Industry Networking
Breakfast*
0800–1100 Chapter Presidents and Delegates Workshop
0800–1100 The Sergeant Major of the Army’s Professional
Development Forum
0830–0930 Congressional Staff Breakfast*
Speakers:
HON Eric K. Fanning
Secretary of the Army
GEN Mark A. Milley
Chief of Staff
United States Army
0900–1100 Warrant Officers Professional Development Forum
0900–1200 AUSA Military Family Forum II
Preparing for a Life in or Outside the Army through
Financial Readiness, Military Spouse Employment
and Entrepreneurship
Speakers:
Hollister K. (Holly) Petraeus
Assistant Director, Servicemember Affairs
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
LTG Robert F. Foley
United States Army, Retired
Director, Army Emergency Relief
Panel I Moderator:
COL James (JJ) Love
Deputy and Chief of Staff
G9, Installation Management Command
United States Army
Panel I Members:
Steven Yearwood
Office of Assistant Chief of Installation Management
USAA Educational Foundation
Panel II Moderator:
Barbara A. Thompson
Director, Office of Family Readiness Policy
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Military Community and Family Policy)
Panel II Members:
C. Eddy Mentzer
Program Manager, Department of Defense Spouse
Education & Career Opportunities and DoD/USDA
Partnership for Military Families
Cameron Cruse
Co-Founder, R. Riveter
Amanda Patterson Crowe
In Gear Career, Military Spouse Program
0800–1400 Army Small Business Seminar
0900–1700 Exhibits Open: Halls A, B, C, D and E
1000–1130 Director, Army National Guard Seminar
LTG Timothy J. Kadavy
Director
Army National Guard
* Ticket or invitation required.
America's Army: Ready Today, Preparing for the Future 9

Schedule-at-a-Glance
SMA Daniel A. Dailey
Sergeant Major of the Army
LTG Timothy J. Kadavy
Director
Army National Guard
LTG Charles D. Luckey
Chief
Army Reserve/
Commanding General
United States Army Reserve
Command
1000–1200 ILW Contemporary Military Forums IV & V
1230 Dwight David Eisenhower Luncheon*
Speaker:
GEN Mark A. Milley
Chief of Staff
United States Army
1400–1600 Military Retirement Planning Seminar
Army Retirement Services
1430–1630 International Military Sales Seminar
1500–1600 ILW Contemporary Military Forum – Department
of Homeland Security Breakout Session
1500–1630 Chief, Army Reserve Seminar
LTG Charles D. Luckey
Chief
Army Reserve/Commanding General
United States Army Reserve Command
1500–1700 ILW Contemporary Military Forumd VI & VII
WEDNESDAY, 5 OCTOBER
0700–0930 AUSA Region Breakfast Meetings
Marriott Marquis Washington, D.C.
0800–0915 Senior Executive Service Meeting
Marriott Marquis Washington, D.C.
0900–1100 AUSA Military Family Forum III
A Town Hall with Senior Army Leaders
Invited Speakers:
HON Eric K. Fanning
Secretary of the Army
GEN Mark A. Milley
Chief of Staff, United States Army
SMA Daniel A. Dailey
Sergeant Major of the Army
Mrs. Hollyanne Milley
Mrs. Holly Dailey
Honoring Ten Years of Your Soldier Your Army
Mrs. Vicki Cody
Mrs. Christi Ham
0900–1100 ILW Contemporary Military Forums VIII
0900–1600 Army Small Business Seminar
0900–1700 Exhibits Open: Halls A, B, C, D and E
0930–1130 ILW Contemporary Military Forum IX
0930–1130 Department of the Army Civilian Professional
Development Seminar
Marriott Marquis Washington, D.C.
0930–1300 Outstanding Soldiers Tour of Arlington National
Cemetery and Washington, D.C.
1000–1100 ILW Contemporary Military Forum – Department of
Homeland Security Breakout Session
1000–1200 Military Retirement Planning Seminar
Army Retirement Services
1130–1330 Sustaining Member Reception and Luncheon*
Keynote Speaker:
Gen Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.
Chairman
Joint Chiefs of Staff
1200–1400 Department of the Army Civilian Luncheon*
Invited Speaker:
HON Patrick J. Murphy
Under Secretary of the Army and Chief Management
Officer
Marriott Marquis Washington, D.C.
1400–1500 ILW Contemporary Military Forum – Department of
Homeland Security Breakout Session
1400 –1600 ILW Contemporary Military Forums X & XI
1830 –2130 George Catlett Marshall Memorial Reception
and Dinner*
Recipient:
GEN Gordon R. Sullivan
United States Army Retired
(All information as of August 3, 2016, and subject to change)
10 2016 AUSA ANNUAL MEETING AND EXPOSITION
* Ticket or invitation required.

Annual Meeting Fast Facts
Join More Than 26,000 People
The Association of the United States Army welcomes all AUSA
members, military and civilian employees of the United States
armed forces, designated representatives of exhibitor and
member companies, invited guests of the Association and
others who have an identifiable relationship with the United
States Army. Military family members are welcome to attend
the Annual Meeting. Some events such as social functions
may not be appropriate for children.
All attendees must provide proof of identity by a governmentissued
photographic ID and must demonstrate that they have
an “identifiable relationship” with the United States Army.
Following are examples of acceptable demonstrations of such
a relationship:
Membership in AUSA
Membership in any component of the United States military
Civilian employee of the United States federal government
Member of a law enforcement agency
Employee or guest of an exhibiting company
Member of a United States military or veterans’ association
Member of an accredited federal, state or municipal law
enforcement agency, firefighter or EMT/EMS
Member of a military force of a foreign nation
(passport ID required)
Employee of any AUSA member company
Invited guests of AUSA
Registration
Registration for the Annual Meeting is free. Visitors with
registration badges are admitted at no charge to all program
sessions and exhibit areas. For security reasons, badges must
be worn at all times. Attendees may register Friday, 30 Sept.,
through Saturday, 1 Oct., in the West Registration area and
Sunday, 2 Oct., through Wednesday, 5 Oct., in both the
East and West Registration areas located in the Walter E.
Washington Convention Center. See the schedule below for
specific dates and times.
REGISTRATION DESK HOURS
Exhibitors / Attendees
Friday, 30 September: 0800–1700
Saturday, 1 October: 0800–1700
Sunday, 2 October: 0800–1800
Monday, 3 October: 0700–1900
Tuesday, 4 October: 0730–1700
Wednesday, 5 October: 0800–1930
Ticketed Functions
Ticket orders must be received by 16 Sept. Members and
nonmembers are encouraged to use the advanced individual
registration forms in the current issues of ARMY magazine
and AUSA News or go online at ausaannualmeeting.org. Full
payment must accompany all orders; a receipt will be provided
by email. Tickets can be picked up at the AUSA Ticket Pickup
desk located in the West registration area beginning at 0800
on Friday, 30 Sept., through Wednesday, 5 Oct. Refunds for
cancellations will be made only upon written request received
by 16 Sept. Tickets will also be available for sale onsite at the
Sales Booth beginning at 0800 on Friday, 30 Sept.
Dress
All events except the President’s Reception and the Marshall
Reception and Dinner are informal.
Military Dress Code:
Guard/Reserve Breakfast: Duty Uniform (ACU)
President’s Reception: Army Service Uniform/Class A
Opening Ceremony: Duty Uniform (ACU)
Marshall Reception and Dinner:
- Officers: Dress Blues/Mess Dress
- Soldiers: Dress Blues/Mess Dress, Army Service Uniform/
Class A with white shirt and bow tie or civilian black tie.
Exhibit Floor and all other events: Duty Uniform (ACU)
Award Recipient: Army Service Uniform/Class A
Speakers: Business attire, Army Service Uniform/Class A
or Duty Uniform (ACU)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Registrants with special needs who participate in our Annual
Meeting will be accommodated to the fullest extent possible.
If you need special arrangements, please advise us when
you register.
Sponsorships and Exhibit Space
Still Available
Sponsorships: Gaye Hudson – ghudson@ausa.org
Exhibit Space: Rand Meade – rmeade@ausa.org
Advertising Opportunities
Green Book Advertising
AUSA News
Both publications will have bonus circulation at the
Annual Meeting.
Contact Andrea Guarnero
andreag@mohanna.com
214-291-3648
America's Army: Ready Today, Preparing for the Future 11

Walter E. Washington Convention Center
2016 AUSA Annual Meeting & Expos
America’s Army: Ready Today, Preparing for the Futu
3–5 October 2016 • Washington, D.C.
To view the current floor plan visit www.ausaannualmeeting.org
(as of 3 August 2016)

HALL 'C' ENTR
ition – A Professional Development Forum
re
.
HALL 'D' ENTRANCE

ANCE
HALL 'B' ENTRANCE

HALL 'A' ENTRANCE
AUSA PAVILION

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY
2425 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201
800-336-4570 • 703-841-4300 • 703-243-2589 fax • www.ausa.org
www.ausaannualmeeting.org