A Simple Leadership Philosophy

Concentrate on doing a single task as simply as you can, execute it flawlessly, take care of your people and go home.

I've read many wordy leadership philosophies that rambled on for several pages, and not a one of them said as much as the above statement. In my opinion its absolutely perfect.

Concentrate on a single task - This tells you to focus on the task at hand and nothing else;

execute that task flawlessly - It's the age old adage: If somethings worth doing, it's worth doing well;

take care of your people - The number one function of a leader;

go home - Complete the task and go spend time with your family and friends.

Unfortunately, this philosophy is not my original idea, but I can't tell you where it comes from... I believe I read it in a book about USMC bootcamp, and I've seen it attributed as a Marine leadership philosophy, but I've been a Marine for fifteen years and have never seen it utilized as a command philosophy.

The key with any leadership philosophy is in the execution. It's one thing to have a philosophy written on a piece of paper and communicated to your organization, it's another thing to live it every day and truly believe in the philosophy.

Image property of the Random Thoughts blog.

Let’s Not Forget the Timothy McVeigh Example…

HOMELAND SECURITY: “Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe,” by Cam Simpson and Gary Fields, Wall Street Journal, 17 April 2009; and “The Enemies Within,” by Charles M. Blow, New York Times, 18 April 2009

The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

Some Republican lawmakers, talk-show hosts and veterans groups complained this week after the internal DHS assessment cited the potential for …extremists groups to target returning combat veterans for recruitment.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said… he was offended that veterans were characterized as potential domestic terrorists.

…“although individuals with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, they frequently occupy leadership roles.”

I really don’t understand the uproar associated with this issue. The bottom line is that this is an attempt to get out front of a potential problem.

As a U.S. Marine, I welcome this type of policing of the force – as long as the spirit is to identify those trending toward white supremacy/domestic terror groups and not to start a “witch hunt,” which is a very fine line.

Blow sums this issue up nicely, “If they only recruit a few, that is still too many. Terrorists have shown the world time and again that a few well-trained men is all it takes.”

A marginally trained, former member of the military is infinitely more dangerous in one of these organizations than someone without prior military service.

Let’s not forget Timothy McVeigh…

Gates and the Defense Budget

DEFENSE: “Inside the War Against Robert Gates,” by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Esquire, 14 April 2009

Cognizant that our military might in conventional, big-war capabilities was driving all of our real-time opponents toward pronouncedly asymmetrical, small-wars strategies, Gates decided to end…the Defense Department's institutional bias against preparing for such "low-intensity" scenarios. Low intensity, he understands, has become the all-too-intense norm of modern warfare.

This is long overdue. As a knuckle dragging Marine, I have little use for gilded $140 million aircraft that do everything, when a much cheaper airplane that can do most everything is good enough. As Barnett points out, the reason we are in this position is because no near peer can stand toe-to-toe with us. The only way to slow down the U.S. military is to go unconventional – roadside bombs, snipers, hit-and-run tactics, etc.

In other words, is the Pentagon really in the business of making this world a safer place for America and its citizens? Or is it just some freewheeling job-creation scheme sponsored by the federal government and ignorant of the world's trends in global security?

This is the bazillion (not million) dollar question. The reason previous secretaries of defense have not been able to change the paradigm. However, I would argue that Gates is in the “perfect storm” to make this change. He has two unconventional wars being waged, a burgeoning Somalia pirate problem, and a crappy economy.

America hasn't fought a war against another great power since 1945, coincidentally the year we obtained and first used nuclear weapons. Since then, no two great powers armed with nukes have ever gone to war — one of the longest droughts since nation-states were invented. Since the Cold War, meanwhile, our global-security environment has witnessed a serious ratcheting-up of transnational terrorism, failed states, internal strife, and all the accompanying interventions by outside great powers and international organizations.

History does not lie. However, for some reason, those that would continue to push for over budget technology that may, or may not, eventually work always roll out the China threat. The Chinese defense budget (at least what they declare) is about $70 billion (more likely north of $100 billion). The U.S. defense budget is about $515 billion. Not too mention the current technology the U.S. has so outpaces any near peer, it would be decades before someone was able to match it.

But you ask, “What about staying ahead of the curve?”

And neither does Gates, who offers a sensible breakdown of his budget proposal as being 10 percent small wars-centric, 50 percent large wars-centric, and 40 percent dual-use. As bureaucratic tipping points go, this mix strikes me as supremely sensible — even conservative.

In actuality, the budget is not being cut, it’s just being reapportioned. Fifty percent of the budget will still go towards high tech weaponry for near peer wars. Gates’ budget plan just forces the Pentagon to be very precise with the weapon systems chosen for development.

Also see:

Gates Against the Establishment

Gates the Pragmatist

Obama's National Security Structure

Prioritizing and orchestrating the decision making process for the nations most pressing national security issues is a daunting, and often misunderstood process.  It is a fine balance between “fighting fires” and truly getting ahead of national security issues.

In this day of modern communications, where national security issues travel at the speed of the twenty-four hour news cycle, fighting fires occupies a lot of time for the NSC.

Most folks that work within the process complain that the current national security structure, implemented as a result of the 1947 National Security Act, is an outdated relic of the Cold War – too cumbersome to maintain pace with the current threats to our national security.

Enter retired Marine Corps General (former Commandant of the Marine Corps) James L. Jones, Obama’s choice to be national security advisor (Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs).  Jones is in a position to modernize the national security decision making structure.

The NSC is as powerful as the president wants it to be – that is to say if the president is involved with his NSC, than his national security advisor and the council will be powerful.

All indications suggest that Obama will be heavily involved in the national security decision making process, and that Jones will hold significant sway within the interagency for orchestrating the information that Obama receives and makes his decisions with.

The below Washington Post article describes Obama’s presidential directive (his first) for the organization of his national security council.  The directive adds the attorney general, the secretaries of energy and homeland security, and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as statutory members of the formal National Security Council.

National Security Structure Is Set

“Obama's security directive…establishes an elaborate system of interagency policy committees to coordinate analysis and reviews of issues "for consideration by the more senior committees . . . and ensure timely responses to decisions made by the President."

Time will tell if Obama will stay true to the organization and the processes of the NSC.  After all, the NSC is designed to provide the president with the best advice possible for making national security decisions.  However, history shows that most presidents, when confronted with difficult national security decisions, rely on a small number of trusted advisors and pay lip service to the NSC.