Ideal characteristics and actions of a National Commander

[CAP428]

What are some ideal characteristics and actions of a good National Commander?  Conversely, what are some bad?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Everybody scared to reply?

OK, I'll try:

The National Commander should be a general.  He should look, talk, and act like a general. 

Officers have to change their leadership style at various points in their careers to continue to be effective.  Lieutenants can have the luxury of hands-on leadership.  Captains have to distance themselves a little, to allow the lieutenants to engage in hands-on leadership, and must mentor them in those tasks.

Once you are a senior-level commander, (Battalion or Group), you have to recognize that your leaderhip is much different than that which worked as a captain.  You have both a staff and subordinate commanders.  You cannot run the subordinate units, but you still have the responsibility for directing those units, while allowing the subordinate commanders to actually command.  This is a tough transition to make, striking a balance between allowing commanders to run without any supervision at all versus micromanaging your subordinate units.

A general must realize that every grunt, whistle, glance, movement, word, group of words, or grooming gesture will be scrutinized by subordinates.  An offhand comment can, without his even realizing it, have substantial consequences throughout the organization.

I was a general's aide.  I spent a lot of time talking to senior officers to make the general's wishes clear.  I was with him when one of our units was getting ready to go overseas to Central America.  They had their bush hats, and were trying them on.  The General made a remark to the commander that he hated the bush hat in Vietnam, since troops wore that instead of the helmet that they should have been wearing.  Within an hour, the word had gone out to the unit to leave the bush hats behind, because the "General doesn't like them."  I explained the General's comment to the commander, and told him to take his bush hats and wear them in the tropical environment.  That's what they are for.

The power of a general's words are like fire.  Controlled, it can forge steel.  Used carelessly, it is destructive.

[mikeylikey]

I was a general's aide.  I spent a lot of time talking to senior officers to make the general's wishes clear.  I was with him when one of our units was getting ready to go overseas to Central America.  They had their bush hats, and were trying them on.  The General made a remark to the commander that he hated the bush hat in Vietnam, since troops wore that instead of the helmet that they should have been wearing.  Within an hour, the word had gone out to the unit to leave the bush hats behind, because the "General doesn't like them."  I explained the General's comment to the commander, and told him to take his bush hats and wear them in the tropical environment.  That's what they are for.

I have to disagree with the story.  A Generals feelings are often times his wishes.  In fact, he made a good point about the bush hats, helmets may have saved more lives if they were to been worn.  I am curious, this commander was he a battalion or brigade CO?  I have run into a few generals aids, and each time they think they speak for the general and try to give commands on behalf of the general.  I will allways accept the advice of an aide, but will allways follow the wishes of the BOSS.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I was a general's aide.  I spent a lot of time talking to senior officers to make the general's wishes clear.  I was with him when one of our units was getting ready to go overseas to Central America.  They had their bush hats, and were trying them on.  The General made a remark to the commander that he hated the bush hat in Vietnam, since troops wore that instead of the helmet that they should have been wearing.  Within an hour, the word had gone out to the unit to leave the bush hats behind, because the "General doesn't like them."  I explained the General's comment to the commander, and told him to take his bush hats and wear them in the tropical environment.  That's what they are for.

I have to disagree with the story.  A Generals feelings are often times his wishes.  In fact, he made a good point about the bush hats, helmets may have saved more lives if they were to been worn.  I am curious, this commander was he a battalion or brigade CO?  I have run into a few generals aids, and each time they think they speak for the general and try to give commands on behalf of the general.  I will allways accept the advice of an aide, but will allways follow the wishes of the BOSS.

The advantage of being the aide is that you get to know the general.  You know his family, you know his moods, and you know what makes him mad.  In this case, I knew that the general did not intend to order that bush hats not be worn.  The mission the troops were going on was low-threat/no sweat.  The principal concern was heat casualties, since it was February in Michigan where the unit was from, and well over 90 degrees most days in Honduras.  He made the observation recalling his Vietnam experience, and his only point that might have been made was that if helmets were needed, they should be worn instead of soft covers.

When I heard that the unit was ditching the bush hats, I asked the general if that was his intention.  His response was "Hell, no... they're gonna need them down there.  I was talking about Vietnam."

So... My next step was to stop by wherever the unit CO was, and tell him that the general was not expressing an "I wish or I desire" order.

And... at the time, our unit was a Major USAR Command.  Clinton later downgraded the unit to an operating brigade, but I was retired by then.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Re-reading your post, I may have misunderstood.  WE were a Major USAR Command, but the unit deploying was a TO&E 19-77 Military Police Company.

[Guardrail]

I think a National Commander must put the people (esp. the cadets) first, not the corporation.  He/She must make decisions that will be to the benefit of the members, live up to the core values of the AF/CAP, and set a great example for the members.  A National Commander must also wear the appropriate uniform according to his/her grooming and weight standards and not look sloppy or unprofessional.  And he/she must be a great leader, follower, and manager who is compassionate and knows how to manage people without treating them as resources, but as people.  And finally, I believe a National Commander must make every attempt to model CAP as closely to the Air Force as possible, in keeping with our status as the USAF Auxiliary. 

[mikeylikey]

Re-reading your post, I may have misunderstood.  WE were a Major USAR Command, but the unit deploying was a TO&E 19-77 Military Police Company.

Thats a Combat MP Company if I am not mistaken....that was before they all pretty much became combat (Iraq).  The Clinton Administration was real good at downgrading the USAR.  It is a shame, since everything he and his people did we are paying for in manning, equipment and reorganization today.

Back to subject though.....I have always believed the AF should have some say in who becomes the NC.  Other than that, the person needs to be competent and fairly versed in things military.  I think the only thing TP will be remembered for is the uniform he invented.  That is a shame, because he has a real opportunity to create change for the better.

[flyguy06]

Everybody scared to reply?

OK, I'll try:

The National Commander should be a general.  He should look, talk, and act like a general. 

Officers have to change their leadership style at various points in their careers to continue to be effective.  Lieutenants can have the luxury of hands-on leadership.  Captains have to distance themselves a little, to allow the lieutenants to engage in hands-on leadership, and must mentor them in those tasks.

Once you are a senior-level commander, (Battalion or Group), you have to recognize that your leaderhip is much different than that which worked as a captain.  You have both a staff and subordinate commanders.  You cannot run the subordinate units, but you still have the responsibility for directing those units, while allowing the subordinate commanders to actually command.  This is a tough transition to make, striking a balance between allowing commanders to run without any supervision at all versus micromanaging your subordinate units.

A general must realize that every grunt, whistle, glance, movement, word, group of words, or grooming gesture will be scrutinized by subordinates.  An offhand comment can, without his even realizing it, have substantial consequences throughout the organization.

I was a general's aide.  I spent a lot of time talking to senior officers to make the general's wishes clear.  I was with him when one of our units was getting ready to go overseas to Central America.  They had their bush hats, and were trying them on.  The General made a remark to the commander that he hated the bush hat in Vietnam, since troops wore that instead of the helmet that they should have been wearing.  Within an hour, the word had gone out to the unit to leave the bush hats behind, because the "General doesn't like them."  I explained the General's comment to the commander, and told him to take his bush hats and wear them in the tropical environment.  That's what they are for.

The power of a general's words are like fire.  Controlled, it can forge steel.  Used carelessly, it is destructive.

I agree but if you ever met LTG Honore you would disagree. He is NOT your typical General officer. Like you said most Generals have a different leadership style than say a Captain. Not GEN Honore. He gets into the weeds with soldiers. He is very hard on officers to do their job and wil cuss you out in a heartbeat. I met him when we were training up for Iraq and he was a pistol. usually a General comes around and tells us what a good job we're doing and how we are Americas hero and all the other political stuff they are supposed to say ( and the soldiers dont buy it for a minute) But Honore came by and actually conducted an After Actin Review (AAR) which I have NEVER seena General officer do in my life. And he knoew his stuff too. Considering he probaly hasnt been in a line unit in years he was very tactically sound. I was very impresse. I am going to hear him speak tomorrow at a Black history event at my church ( yeas he is black. Many people dont realize that because of his light skin)

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have, of course, heard of Honore.  From what I hear his elevation to general officer rank appears to be some sort of bizarre failure of the system.  He has actual character, and is not afraid to show it.  I will never forget his statement during the Katrina operation.  "I keep telling you what I need, and you keep looking at the calendar... I'm looking at my watch!"

Obviously, he did not absorb the lessons offered in the General Officers' Selectee Course (Charm School).

[afgeo4]

Everybody scared to reply?

OK, I'll try:

The National Commander should be a general.  He should look, talk, and act like a general. 

Officers have to change their leadership style at various points in their careers to continue to be effective.  Lieutenants can have the luxury of hands-on leadership.  Captains have to distance themselves a little, to allow the lieutenants to engage in hands-on leadership, and must mentor them in those tasks.

Once you are a senior-level commander, (Battalion or Group), you have to recognize that your leaderhip is much different than that which worked as a captain.  You have both a staff and subordinate commanders.  You cannot run the subordinate units, but you still have the responsibility for directing those units, while allowing the subordinate commanders to actually command.  This is a tough transition to make, striking a balance between allowing commanders to run without any supervision at all versus micromanaging your subordinate units.

A general must realize that every grunt, whistle, glance, movement, word, group of words, or grooming gesture will be scrutinized by subordinates.  An offhand comment can, without his even realizing it, have substantial consequences throughout the organization.

I was a general's aide.  I spent a lot of time talking to senior officers to make the general's wishes clear.  I was with him when one of our units was getting ready to go overseas to Central America.  They had their bush hats, and were trying them on.  The General made a remark to the commander that he hated the bush hat in Vietnam, since troops wore that instead of the helmet that they should have been wearing.  Within an hour, the word had gone out to the unit to leave the bush hats behind, because the "General doesn't like them."  I explained the General's comment to the commander, and told him to take his bush hats and wear them in the tropical environment.  That's what they are for.

The power of a general's words are like fire.  Controlled, it can forge steel.  Used carelessly, it is destructive.

If he has to look, walk, and talk like a General then he has to be paid like a General. By the way, not all Generals are good leaders and not all good leaders are Generals.

[SAR-EMT1]

Would it be acceptable and or beneficial if the NC was in 'reality' a retired General Officer?
I know it has happened in the distant past...and I cant help but think that it would do miracles in getting us closer to the USAF.

[flyguy06]

No, becasue then people like me couldnt aspire to be the National Commander.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Everybody scared to reply?

OK, I'll try:

The National Commander should be a general.  He should look, talk, and act like a general. 

Officers have to change their leadership style at various points in their careers to continue to be effective.  Lieutenants can have the luxury of hands-on leadership.  Captains have to distance themselves a little, to allow the lieutenants to engage in hands-on leadership, and must mentor them in those tasks.

Once you are a senior-level commander, (Battalion or Group), you have to recognize that your leaderhip is much different than that which worked as a captain.  You have both a staff and subordinate commanders.  You cannot run the subordinate units, but you still have the responsibility for directing those units, while allowing the subordinate commanders to actually command.  This is a tough transition to make, striking a balance between allowing commanders to run without any supervision at all versus micromanaging your subordinate units.

A general must realize that every grunt, whistle, glance, movement, word, group of words, or grooming gesture will be scrutinized by subordinates.  An offhand comment can, without his even realizing it, have substantial consequences throughout the organization.

I was a general's aide.  I spent a lot of time talking to senior officers to make the general's wishes clear.  I was with him when one of our units was getting ready to go overseas to Central America.  They had their bush hats, and were trying them on.  The General made a remark to the commander that he hated the bush hat in Vietnam, since troops wore that instead of the helmet that they should have been wearing.  Within an hour, the word had gone out to the unit to leave the bush hats behind, because the "General doesn't like them."  I explained the General's comment to the commander, and told him to take his bush hats and wear them in the tropical environment.  That's what they are for.

The power of a general's words are like fire.  Controlled, it can forge steel.  Used carelessly, it is destructive.

If he has to look, walk, and talk like a General then he has to be paid like a General. By the way, not all Generals are good leaders and not all good leaders are Generals.

You're supposed to look, walk, and talk like a major.  How much was your last paycheck?

[davedove]

Would it be acceptable and or beneficial if the NC was in 'reality' a retired General Officer?
I know it has happened in the distant past...and I cant help but think that it would do miracles in getting us closer to the USAF.

I think it would be beneficial, BUT that would severely limit your applicant pool.  And what would happen if none of those who qualified wanted the position.  Just because hey held a general's slot at one time doesn't mean they would want it again.

[ZigZag911]

Desirable characteristics in CAP National Commander:

1) INTEGRITY

2) someone who understands and lives CAP Core Values

3) LONG (minimum 15 years) CAP experience

4) 5 plus years command experience (minimum of a wing and at least a
    squadron or group command

5) Master Rating in one of the core mission areas

6) reasonable familiarity with and experience in all 3 missions

7) someone whose concerns are the members and the missions

[SAR-EMT1]

Would it be acceptable and or beneficial if the NC was in 'reality' a retired General Officer?
I know it has happened in the distant past...and I cant help but think that it would do miracles in getting us closer to the USAF.

I think it would be beneficial, BUT that would severely limit your applicant pool.  And what would happen if none of those who qualified wanted the position.  Just because hey held a general's slot at one time doesn't mean they would want it again.

I apologize for not making myself clear:  Im not saying it should be a requirment. Im just asking 'WHAT IF' we could get a real BG/ MG in as CAP/CC.

[sandman]

I apologize for not making myself clear:  Im not saying it should be a requirment. Im just asking 'WHAT IF' we could get a real BG/ MG in as CAP/CC.

I'd love it! But the cost: O-8 >22 yrs= $13,375 per month (or $14,500 if HQ in DC) plus one less O-8 in the "warfighting" decision loop.

Thats a lot of fuel for sorties!

[SAR-EMT1]

LOL..he wouldn't have to be AD...retired would work.  What my end point was: someone who has real experience as a Flag Officer. Putting the experience, leadership and military management skills to work. Someone who can cut through our CORPORATE Red Flagging Tape and bring us closer to and more useful for our parent organization.
Someone who can put us more on par with the USCG-Aux.

As for the Pay grade.... what does our own MG and BG get salary wise? -- not trying to pry, this is honest curiosity.

[afgeo4]

Everybody scared to reply?

OK, I'll try:

The National Commander should be a general.  He should look, talk, and act like a general. 

Officers have to change their leadership style at various points in their careers to continue to be effective.  Lieutenants can have the luxury of hands-on leadership.  Captains have to distance themselves a little, to allow the lieutenants to engage in hands-on leadership, and must mentor them in those tasks.

Once you are a senior-level commander, (Battalion or Group), you have to recognize that your leaderhip is much different than that which worked as a captain.  You have both a staff and subordinate commanders.  You cannot run the subordinate units, but you still have the responsibility for directing those units, while allowing the subordinate commanders to actually command.  This is a tough transition to make, striking a balance between allowing commanders to run without any supervision at all versus micromanaging your subordinate units.

A general must realize that every grunt, whistle, glance, movement, word, group of words, or grooming gesture will be scrutinized by subordinates.  An offhand comment can, without his even realizing it, have substantial consequences throughout the organization.

I was a general's aide.  I spent a lot of time talking to senior officers to make the general's wishes clear.  I was with him when one of our units was getting ready to go overseas to Central America.  They had their bush hats, and were trying them on.  The General made a remark to the commander that he hated the bush hat in Vietnam, since troops wore that instead of the helmet that they should have been wearing.  Within an hour, the word had gone out to the unit to leave the bush hats behind, because the "General doesn't like them."  I explained the General's comment to the commander, and told him to take his bush hats and wear them in the tropical environment.  That's what they are for.

The power of a general's words are like fire.  Controlled, it can forge steel.  Used carelessly, it is destructive.

If he has to look, walk, and talk like a General then he has to be paid like a General. By the way, not all Generals are good leaders and not all good leaders are Generals.

You're supposed to look, walk, and talk like a major.  How much was your last paycheck?

I'm not supposed to look, walk, OR talk like a Major. First of all, I'm Captain. Second, I'm a volunteer and am required to do my best as best can be assumed of a volunteer. If you want me to be a professional, well... stick to the definition... pay me!

[afgeo4]

LOL..he wouldn't have to be AD...retired would work.  What my end point was: someone who has real experience as a Flag Officer. Putting the experience, leadership and military management skills to work. Someone who can cut through our CORPORATE Red Flagging Tape and bring us closer to and more useful for our parent organization.
Someone who can put us more on par with the USCG-Aux.

As for the Pay grade.... what does our own MG and BG get salary wise? -- not trying to pry, this is honest curiosity.

Umm... same as you and me. The MG and BG are both volunteers and are not part of the NHQ paid staff.