Is Wen·Rounded Actually Better?

In this changing wor1d, where things become ever more complex, the need for specialization increases. This is evident in the professional world. In the field of medicine, for example, doctors can no longer just be general practitioners. They must specialize in neurology, orthopedics, radiology, podiatry, etc. Often, they enter sub-specialties, such as gaslroinlerology or child psychology. Lawyers also specialize in constitutional, international, contracting, or criminal law. Investors specialize, engineers specialize, salesmen specialize. Success in almost all professions is geared to a narrow field. The dictionary defines a profession as Man occupation or vocation requiring training in the liberal arts or sciences and advanced study in a specialized field.· If the Army considers itself a profession of anns, then why does it feel necessary to make officers and leaders generalize. changing tracks in the name of development? 00 we need a "well-rounded" officer or an officer who is an expert at his job? The Army needs to once again focus the branches into specialties or tracks, as it once did. Armor and cavalry are both under one branch yet they are still workfs apart. Armor deals with fire and maneuver to destroy the enemy, while cavalry maneuvers to gather intelligence and avoids decisive engagement. The arguments are also valid for infantry (light/mach/airbome), field artillery (tubeirockeV light/mach), aIr defense (MANPAOS, SHOAAD, HI-MAO), aviation (attack/1ift/assault), and so on. All branches can.be broken down into some smaller sub-branch because information for each specialty (branch) has increased so much over time. The only way for people to keep up with changes in their fields is to stay focused. To do thai, we need to sub-specialize within branches. The reason professions must focus on certain areas is simple. With the improvement of technology, information lor each specialty has increased, and it is realty impossible for one person to fully understand and master the different techniques and thought processes required for each branch. We must concentrate on one area and become masters 01 it in order to make the whole system work. A good parallel to combined arms operations is in the realm of medicine. The attlefield" is the operatIng room. The combat anTIs officers are the surgeons. They win do the actual "battle: There is no way helshe can win the battle without support. The combat support personnel are the anesthesiologists and nurses. They are on the attleflekf' providing the support to the Mcombat anTIs officers: Finally, there are the order1ies, medical suppliers, and others not on the "battlefield" who provide the Mcombar service support. All are needed to win the battle. Yet, you will not find a nurse doing the anesthesiologisfs job, nor the podiatrist or orthopedist doing the neurosurgeon or heart surgeon's job. They camot, because too much knowledge is needed to handle the one job well. This is especially true when someone's life is on the line. And life and death is as much apart of the military profession as it is in the medical profession. Equipment is an area where specialization will benefit Each branch and sub-branch uses different equipment to accomplish its respective mission. This is very evident in armor. Tankers will use M1Als to accomplish their mission. Cavalry wi. use M3A2s and M1Als to accomplish theirs. In the current system, an office( who was prevlously cavalry may go into an armor battalion and vice versa. llle officer must learn a whole new vehicle, both in tenns of operations and maintenance. He starts behind everyone else in his unit If one were to stay either armor or cavalry, the knowledge and experience gained and used over a career can be carried over. The leader no longer starts from behind. This is already done, to a limited degree, in Army aviation. Aviators will be geared toward a specific aircraft, which in tum gears them for a specialized mission (i.e. assault). If we want well trained officers who know their equipment, then branch tracking is geared towards that end. Tactics is another area where branches can benefit by narrowing their focus. Armor operations and most cavalry operations are tike night and day. The main purpose of armor operations is to close with and destroy enemy forces by mass, firepower, and shock effect The main purpose of cavalry is to conduct reconnaissance and security operations. The same comparison can be made in infantry operations. Ught infantry tactics are different from those of mechanized Infantry. Though they both fight in generally the same way (close with the enemy by fire and maneuver), the methods and scopes are differt. The requirement for specialization is evident in the fact that the Army publishes separate doctrinal manuals lor armor and cavalry, light and mach infantry, and so on. There is no way one can absorb all that knowledge and all that experience in a three-year tour. 11 an officer goes from a cavalry unit to an armor unit, much of the knowledge cannot be carried over and is thus wasted. The same is true for an armor officer who moves to a cavalry unit. The knowledge and expert-ence gained by an armor officer cannot be carried over to cavalry. The same argument can be applied to any branch. We expect that lawyers will stay with one type of law. For a business lawyer to practice criminal law would be considered outrageous. He would be taking someone's life into his hands. In our profession the price is the same - people's lives. We cannot afford to waste precious knowledge when we are dealing with lives. With this knowledge comes experience that is irreplaceable. As the Army grows smaller, and money for training gets lighter, experience carried from one as· signment to the next will be a key element in main· taining readiness. II the knowledge and experience can be carried over to Mure assignments, then it can only make the unit stronger. One of my peers, an artillery offICer, is one of the few officers who has experience with MLRS and ATACMS during DESERT STORM. He is being urged by his superiors that he now needs to be in tube artillery, thus wasting all his valuable knowledge and experience with the MLRS and the ATACMS. Would a cavalry squadron com· mander rather have someone who has cavalry experience fill the boots of a commander in the middle of battle or someone with only armor experience? Probably the one with the cavalry experience. The reason would be logical. Just by virtue of his past, and all other things considered equal, he would have the edge. He would have the knowledge and experience to carry out what he has practiced. There are many arguments heard against speciali· zalion within branches. One argument is that it will impede the development of officers as they move to higher level operations. A primary purpose of a commander is to train his subordinates to take command in the future. Alight infantry commander will teach and prepare his lieutenants for company command. Most of his experience and guidance will be from his command in light infantry. When the lieutenant moves on and takes command of a mech infantry company, he loses some of the relevance of what he has learned because of the new environment. One can say, "But we are trained to be commanders." This is true to a certain degree, but to be the best commander possible, a critical aspect is experience, and this is missing if the Army switches officers within branches. Another argument is that, when one does not specialize, he is more knowledgeable of the "big picture-and is thus able to be, as a peer stated, "a conductor of an orchestra." When a commander reaches a level of command where he is a Mconductor,· he is among a very small percentage of Army officers. He has worked with all branches by that time and integrated them at one level or another. CGSC and senior level offICer courses teach and train officers to integrate all types of forces at a point where they fight on levels of brigade or higher. Moving officers from armor to cavalry, or light to mech infantry, is not warranted for the few offICers who reach a level where they will need to be ·conductors: and who will leam this art from schools, as well as experience. Another argument is that officers learn to transition from one specialty to another - that scI100ls give the offICer a basic overview of his new job, but a majority of his training is "on the job.· Advance courses do not teach tactics. They teach operations and staff execu· tion for the most part. The school response was that the previous commanders, not the school, teach taco tics. Again, the critical aspect of experience is miss· lng. What happens to career opportunities if branches do specialize? Instead of Mpromotion pyramids· get· ting smaller, there will just be more of them. And instead of having more infantry offICers, or annor officers, there will be fewer light infantry officers, mech infantry officers, annor officers, and cavalry officers. To this point, the question of inbreeding and the effectiveness of leaders arises. This is already present in some areas, such as the armored cavalry regi· ments and the Ranger battalions. To my knowledge, there is no decrease in the efficiency of these units. In fact, I would venture to say that these units are more efficient and have a higher level of esprit then most units due to all the experience and camaraderie of everyone knowing one another. The debate on whether to make officers more "well· rounded" or more specialized will go on for some time, but these facts and others should be looked at and considered. The Anny already manages enlisted personnel by specialties and MOS. Rarely does one leave their MOS. The time has come for offICers to specialize as most armies do, and as most profes-- sians do. The decrease in size of the Anny warrants a return to specialization. Specialization will provide officers who are technically and tactically more profi-- cient, as well as an experience base that can be used by officers in the future. They can then pass it on to those who follow in their footsteps. The boHom line is to create an Anny that is the best it can be. This is especially true when dealing with lives, both those we defend and those we command. Captain George J. Salemo is currently the com· mander, C Troop, 2-4 cav, 24th 10. He is a gradaute of AQBC, SPLC, Scout Commanders Course, AQAC, cavalry Leaders Course, and AirOOme and Air As· sault Schools. His previous assignments include platoon leader, A and B Troops, 3-4 Cav, 310; XQ, HQ and B Troops, 3-4 Cav, 310; and assistant 53, 2-4 Cav, 24th 10. 47