Military Police contains information about military police functions in maneuver and mobility support, area security, law and order, internment/resettlement, and police intelligence operations.
Issue link: https://militarypolice.epubxp.com/i/115206
Regimental Chief Warrant Officer Chief Warrant Of¿cer Five Leroy Shamburger Warrant Of¿cers Can No Longer Afford to Be Mere Technical Experts W arrant of¿cers have a long tradition of supervising systems and equipment operations that are vital to the success of the Army and of providing sound advice to senior leaders. And warrant of¿cers are still recognized as technical experts in their chosen specialties today. According to a relatively recent warrant of¿cer study chartered by the Chief of Staff of the Army and conducted by the Army Training and Leader Development Panel, "Through progressive levels of expertise in assignments, training, and education, the [warrant of¿cer] administers, manages, maintains, operates, and integrates Army systems and equipment across the full range of Army operations. [Warrant of¿cers] are innovative integrators of emerging technologies, dynamic teachers, con¿dent war¿ghters, and developers of specialized teams of Soldiers."1 While it is great that senior Army leaders recognized warrant of¿cers as technical experts, the warrant of¿cer study failed to address the leadership role of warrant of¿cers in the Army or the impact that warrant of¿cers have in working on strategic assignments outside of their technical specialties. In today's Army, warrant of¿cers who are recognized only as technical experts are not considered relevant and ready; the same will be true in Army 2020. The Army's expectation of the warrant of¿cer has expanded throughout the past 10 years, as evidenced by the assignment of warrant of¿cers to strategic positions as advisors to some of the Army's most senior leaders. For example, warrant of¿cers have served as advisors to the Secretary of the Army; the Chief of Staff of the Army; the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army; the G-3/5/7 staff of¿cer, Department of the Army, Military Operations; the Strategic Initiative Group staff of¿cer, Army Human Resources Command; and branches and regiments. At the operational level, warrant of¿cers of some branches are embedded in the command teams of their organizations and are assigned detachment/company level commands. To ful¿ll these expanded roles, warrant of¿cers need to embrace the Army's changing perception—yet remain technical experts in their specialty areas. The Army is currently conducting a study of the Warrant Of¿cer Education System to determine whether it meets the needs of Army 2020 and to ensure that warrant of¿cers are properly postured for expanded assignments. The ¿nal report is slated to be published in March 2013. I expect the results to indicate a need for the Warrant Of¿cer Education System to more closely mirror the Of¿cer Education System. According to Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet (Pam) 600-3, Commissioned Of¿cer Professional Development and Career Management, the goal of the Of¿cer Education System is "to produce a broadbased corps of leaders who possess the necessary values, attributes, and skills to perform their duties in service to the Nation. These leaders must know how the Army runs and demonstrate con¿dence, integrity, critical judgment, and responsibility while operating in an environment of complexity, ambiguity, and rapid change. To build effective teams capable of supporting joint and multinational operations in this environment, they must be adaptable, creative, and bold amid continuous organizational and technological change."2 On the other hand, the goal of the Warrant Of¿cer Education System is to produce of¿cers who are "highly specialized experts, trainers, and leaders; fully competent in technical, tactical, and leadership skills; creative problem solvers able to function in highly complex and dynamic environments; [and] pro¿cient operators, maintainers, administrators, and managers of Army equipment, support activities, and technical systems." There are distinct differences in the training currently provided by the two education systems. Considering the list of strategic positions recently held by warrant of¿cers and the upcoming force structure changes, the Army will soon reach (if it hasn't already) a decision point regarding the employment of warrant of¿cers. If warrant of¿cers are to be properly prepared for what I expect to be their expanded leadership roles at the strategic and operational levels, they will need advanced training regarding how the Army operates; broadened assignments; and exposure to joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational training. In fact, warrant of¿cer leadership training and professional development issues are currently under discussion at the four-star level. I envision that, in the near future, warrant of¿cers who are selected to attend the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (which is designed to develop ¿eld grade of¿cers who are capable of operating at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of the military) will be placed on a glide path to strategic and operational assignments. In order to build a bench of warrant of¿cers who are prepared to meet the requirements of Army 2020, the number of authorizations for warrant of¿cers to attend the Command and General Staff College must be increased—or the quality of training offered at the Command and General Staff College must be integrated into the Warrant Of¿cer Staff Course and the Warrant Of¿cer Senior Staff Course. MILITARY POLICE . 19-13-1 5