A Functional Need for Mentorship: a Tough and Smart Bunch of Warriors

In an era when U. S. Army officer retention is an acute challenge, why professionals choose to stay in the Army is increasingly important.1 To be sure, current members of the U. S. Army officer corps possess incredible amounts of love of country, devotion to freedom, dedication to duty and a commitment to both the Army’s values and its Soldiers. Moreover, the U. S. Army officer corps (not to mention its enlisted and noncommissioned counterparts) also possesses an impressive array of talent. These values, ideals and professional traits are the sacred touchstones of military service in a time of war. As for me, I choose to stay in the Army based on another important factor: my fellow officers. In theory at least, and in reality, for the most part the Army is a profession comprised of inspiring individuals who value learning and teaching. For example, when COL J. B. Burton was leading his brigade in 2007 in a demanding full-spectrum-op- A Functional Need for Mentorship: A ‘Tough’ and Smart Bunch of Warriors by MAJ Jonathan L. Due erations fight in the heart of a very volatile Baghdad, he wrote a memorandum providing feedback on proposed officer-retention bonuses and in it described the American Army officer corps as a “very tough crowd of warriors” who “have spent the last four years in a continuous cycle of fighting, training, deploying [and] fighting.”2 Burton also described the group of officers he led and fought with as dedicated and brave individuals who, although they had been “ridden hard,” viewed their service as much more than “financial gain.”3 In fact, Burton’s suggestion to the Army regarding officer-retention rates de-emphasized monetary bonuses and emphasized time for development and learning. Burton’s conclusion is important, as it highlights a key strength of the officer corps. Significantly, Burton described something far more than just “tough, brave or dedicated officers” – he described a body of professionals who are tough and smart. These qualities are critical to victory on the battlefield and institutional success in accessing, developing and retaining talented officers. On a personal level, these “tough and smart” officers are the reason I wear the uniform. In short, there are two primary reasons I stay in the Army: my mentors, who embodied the ideals of “smart and tough” warriors, and those whom I have mentored, who share the same qualities. Together these experiences have presented me with many opportunities to learn and develop as a member of the profession of arms (and maybe become a bit tough and smart myself). My mentors Mentorship, defined in Army Regulation 600-100, Army Leadership, and Field Manual 6-22, Army Leadership: Competent, Confident, Agile, as “the voluntary developmental relationship that exists between a person of greater experience and a person of lesser experience that is characterized by mutual trust and Soldiers participate in a Best Warrior Competition. (Photo by PFC Shane Samuels) 5 respect,” has long been an important part of Army officer development.4 A quick survey of American military history underscores the importance of mentorship. Dwight Eisenhower spoke eloquently of his relationship with Fox Connor, a senior officer who encouraged him to read – and think deeply – about his profession. Likewise, officers such as Omar Bradley and especially Matthew Ridgway, consistently mentioned the formative mentorship they received from George C. Marshall. For me, the chief point of similarity with each of my mentors was the fact that, to an individual, they were excellent teachers who valued the critical importance of learning and intellectual development. My mentors came armed with a slew of advanced degrees, to include multiple doctorate degrees and diplomas from the School of Advanced Military Studies, and they demanded clear thinking and concise communication skills in a variety of environments. Perhaps most importantly, each of my mentors expected – in fact, they demanded – that I do my own thinking. When discussing professional and intellectual matters with them, I had to demonstrate evidence of my own independent thoughts. Agreeing for agreements’ sake was forbidden territory. However, it only took a few glances and some pointed comments to make that point clear. In the end, each of my mentors not only offered their own personal examples but also a steady string of conversations and opportunities to demonstrate what a “tough and smart” warrior looks like. Perhaps more importantly, they each demonstrated how a Soldier-scholar thinks and acts. My mentorees (and self-development) Interacting with the subordinates I mentored complemented the professional development and satisfaction I gained from interacting with my mentors. Ranging in rank from cadet to major, my interactions with peers and subordinates often challenged me intellectually as much as my interactions with my superiors did. In fact, on many occasions, those I mentored challenged me more. Reflecting on my own experiences, and sharing them in classroom and social settings with peers and subordinates, forces me to analyze and synthesize my experiences in the context of military theory and history. Combat experience, broadening educational assignments and the opportunity to teach and discuss the intersections of those experiences and scholarship did much to formalize my thinking on the important considerations of the military profession – to include my continued participation. Remaining challenges Taken together, these elements of learning have kept me in the Army. However, one must fully acknowledge that the Army – despite the immense amounts of personal loyalty and selfless devotion demonstrated daily – is an imperfect beast. The big green machine is too big (and bureaucratic) and too busy (and anti-intellectual) to be the learning and mentoring organization many would like it to be. Thus the challenge to think, mentor and fight for a deeper understanding of war and our profession remains. As we continue to think, mentor and fight, we must keep in mind the qualities, resources and time required to develop current and future generations of “tough and smart” warriors. MAJ Jonathan Due is an Armor Branch officer assigned to 3rd Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, TX. Assignments have included squadron executive officer, squadron operations officer and regimental planner, 3rd Cav, Fort Hood and Contingency Operating Site Kalsu, Iraq; lead concept writer, Joint Army Concepts Division, Army Capabilities Integration Center, Fort Monroe, VA; assistant professor and instructor, History Department, U. S. Military Academy, West Point, NY; and troop commander, Troop A, 1st Battalion, 10th Cavalry, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood and Tikrit, Iraq. His military education includes Intermediate Level Education, Command and General Staff Officer Course, Fort Leavenworth, KS. He holds a bachelor’s of science degree in history from USMA and a master’s of arts degree in military history, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Notes 1 One of the most important studies concerning officer retention and the management of “talent” is sponsored by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and the Strategic Studies Institute. See SSI publication, Talent: Implications for a U. S. Army Officer Corps Strategy, available online at https://www.officer-strategy.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/. Other SSI military-leadership publications can be found at https://www.strategicstudiesinstitute. army.mil/military-leadership/. 2 Burton, COL James B., memorandum for record on U. S. Army officer retention, July 8, 2007, Small Wars Journal, available online at http://smallwarsjournal.com, accessed Jan. 11, 2010. 3 Ibid. 4 AR 600-100, Leadership, U. S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, March 8, 2007; and FM 6-22, Army Leadership: Competent, Confident, Agile, GPO: Washington, DC, October 2006, Glossary-3. In fact, the 1985 Professional Development of Officers Study, headed by then-MG Charles Bagnal, identified mentorship in units and in military classrooms as a critical element in developing a competent officer corps. AR – Army regulation FM – field manual GPO – Government Printing Office SSI – Strategic Studies Institute USMA – U. S. Military Academy Acronym Quick-Scan 6