This week the Association of the United States Army held their Winter Symposium in south Florida. Yes, Florida! Way to go AUSA! Anyway, a couple of weeks ago I was invited by senior leadership from AUSA to moderate a panel on operational energy. I immediately agreed and started packing my sunscreen. A couple of days later I got a call from a more senior AUSA member of leadership to disinvite me to moderate, although they did offer to pay my cover charge if I came anyway. When I agreed to moderate, I took on the expense of travel, hotels, etc., because I felt it was important. When the gentleman called to waive me off, he explained it was because the senior member of the panel decide he did not want a moderator. Interestingly, it will be the only panel that will not have a moderator. I was assured it had nothing to do with my, sometime, contrary opinions in this page and it was a personal decision on the part of the senior officer on the panel. The gentleman that disinvited me did not have to make that personal call; he could have left it to other folks farther down the food chain. But as I said, he is a gentleman. I believe his assurances that it had nothing to do with my opinions.
Often, at the various energy conferences hosted by or including DOD, the group essentially sits around and sings Kumbaya. Only rarely will someone with a known contrarian view be invited and asked to speak at these events. Last week in Arizona, the REF broke these rules. At their NetZero at the Tactical Edge Conference they invited BG(R) Steve Anderson to present. Steve was one of the first senior officers in uniform to recognize the vulnerabilities associated with the profligate use of energy in theater. As Petraus' Loggie, Anderson set about finding solutions for energy security in Iraq. Since retiring, he has crisscrossed the Nation sounding the tocsin for operational energy security, speaking, writing and appearing on TV to get DOD to move faster in implementing energy conservation measures that could save lives in theater. He has been a relentless critic of DOD leadership and he did not disappoint.
When Sharon Burke finished her presentation, Steve's hand shot up in the air. Once of the folks from the REF ran over and asked him to be nice; not a good move. Steve asked Ms. Burke how DOD could claim that energy was a priority when the new SECDEF failed to include it in his list of priorities? Ms. Burke provided a diplomatic answer if not a very informative one. As I attempted to slide at least one seat away from Steve (never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are) I could sense the room's displeasure at the question. "How could he treat the Army's honored guest this way?" seemed to be the question on everyone's mind. The fact is, although it was an unpleasant question to ask, it was not unfair.
On the final day, BG(R) Anderson got up to speak and harangued the largely Army crowd with DOD's failure to act with alacrity in securing operational energy. The Army folks looked around and said, "Wait, we work for the Army and we are moving out smartly." The criticism of DOD, although accurate was misplaced and the crowd did get a bit sulky. Again, the criticism was not unfair, just poorly targeted.
The fact remains, the REF did something brave by bringing in a known, contrary view. One of the things I always tell any staff on which I work or works for me is, "If all of us are thinking the same way, some of us are not necessary." We need to encourage and listen to the dissident voices out there. Disagreement is not disrespect. Of course, we need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Dan Nolan
4 comments:
Fellow DOD Energy Blog Readers:
Despite insinuations to the contrary in the post above, I was NOT disagreeable or disrespectful in the question I posed Ms. Burke. As board members are responsible to their stockholders, she is a public servant and accountable to all within our community, and my question was completely justified. It’s why she gets paid the big bucks.
And if it’s not OK to ask a question after a 45 minute speech on the state of DOD operational energy, then when is?
Here is essentially what I asked: “Ms. Burke, I’m concerned about the recent publication of the SECDEF’s “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices” document. In reading this 15 page document, I was disappointed to discover that energy, energy efficiency or anything regarding energy demand or cost reduction was not addressed in the least. I believe this is a significant oversight that indicates our DOD leadership doesn’t really under the opportunity and obligation we have to cut energy costs and reduce risks to our troops. How do you account for this oversight?”
This is a completely legitimate question and, in light of the lack of progress or effective policy in the operational energy area over the past several years, a question that I believe revealed admirable restraint!
My “contrarian” mantra over the past few years as not waivered from this central thesis: Our Nation and DOD are missing a tremendous strategic opportunity to significantly cut our energy costs (in both blood and dollars) because we don’t have effective POLICY from the top to REQUIRE energy efficiency. Until it’s a priority from our leadership, it won’t be a priority to anyone else.
The professional bureaucrats of the Pentagon will argue DOD is making steady progress and that they simply need more time with such a large and complex organization; they claim that “strategies” or “implementation plans” will ultimately get the job done, and that our processes will eventually prevail. Forgive my impatience, but we have been in combat in Afghanistan now for over ten years and I am convinced there is a better way, as suggested in the briefing: a declarative statement by the SECDEF making energy efficiency a real PRIORITY within DOD (similar to what was done to kick-off the incredibly successful MRAP program by then-SECDEF Gates) thru the following directives:
• Energy demand reduction and efficiency is requirement throughout DOD
• Energy efficiency is a KPP in all activities, operations, and acquisitions
• DOD will track and report energy use at every level
• DOD leaders at every level will be held responsible and accountable for energy consumption within their organizations
Here is a link to my presentation and I encourage you review it and draw your own conclusions:
http://netzero.asu.edu/presentations
Thanks, Steve Anderson
BG(Ret) US Army
sanderson@gorelyant.com
The lack of a clear policy is merely a symptom of the short-sighted nature of the American business model of the last few decades. Until corporations are chartered with a built-in incentive to plan and operate with longevity and stability as a priority, policy will reflect their reality.
Useful information ..I am very happy to read this article..thanks for giving us this useful information. Fantastic walk-through. I appreciate this post.
Concept Actvity Research Vault
Post a Comment