Benjamin Grimes

The 181st Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course arrived in Charlottesville on Friday. They’ve been training since Super Bowl Sunday at Fort Lee and are now beginning 10 ½ weeks of academic training here at The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. Today was the first day of PT here at the School. As we’ve done for the last two OBC classes, MAJ Montas and I are running a few days a week with one of the run groups. We’re not the fastest group, but everyone seems motivated, anxious to enjoy themselves and to get ready to head out to their units.

This was the first day of PT for me in about 2 months. I sprained my back while shoveling some of C’ville’s record snow in December. (Nothing like throwing your back out to make it clear you’re not as young as you used to be.) It was absolutely great to get out running again – a clear, cool morning with a deep red rising sun. Beautiful!

Now it’s back to writing (and class, of course). The research paper is due in about 2 weeks, so it’s time for the final push!

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Yesterday was another great discussion about leadership here at the Grad Course.  Because this is more than 'just' and LL.M. program, we are spending time talking about leadership.  The goal is to make all of us more ready to take charge of our corners of the JAG Corps when we head off to our new assignments this fall.

This semester, our Professional Development Program includes a series of small group discussion with some of the senior officers on the faculty.  It's an opportunity to sit down with about a dozen classmates and talk about what we've seen in our previous assignments and what we hope to do when we get back out to the field.  In the first four weeks of discussions we've talked about: the levels of organizational leadership; authority and influence; organizational vision and culture; and team building.  The exchange of ideas and perspectives has been great; we don't always agree, and that leads to some great back and forth. 

For yesterday's discussion, I live-Twittered via my Twitter presence, @MAJGrimes.  I ran it by my group's 'mentors' and they've given me the go-ahead to do so for the next couple weeks' conversations.  So, if you're interested in what sort of thoughts go into the building of JAG Corps leaders, tune in.  To make it easy to follow, I'll be using a hashtag (#jagcldrship).  Or better yet, offer some thoughts I can share with the group!   I hope this will be an interesting opportunity for everyone involved.  Our next meeting will be on *xxxxxxxxxxx*, from 1000-1200.  Tune in!

(By the way, the hashtag I chose has some significance.  It incorporates the Judge Advocate General's Corps' initials (JAGC) with the acronym we use for the Army Values (pronounced: "leadership"): Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honesty, Integrity, and Personal Courage.)

UPDATE: Next leadership discussion (#jagcldrship) will take place on March 10th, 1000-1200.

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

As I look back at some of my recent posts, I realize I've talked a lot about my thoughts on leadership sparked by various events here, but I've been pretty lean on offering a glimpse of the lighter side of life here at the Grad Course.  So today I'm taking a look at the last week -- here are a couple of the recent events keeping me from finishing my research paper...

(I apologize for the quality of the first couple photos -- blame my BlackBerry.)

Here are some photos from the recent OBC Dining In.  Our newest crop of Judge Advocates graduated last week, and before they did they held their first military dining in.  This is an opportunity for them to have some fun before they head out to get to work!

This is me and 1LT Hugh Murray.  He's one of the Judge Advocates that I actually interviewed as an applicant to join the JAGC.  He's totally psyched to be part of the JAGC and chose to head out to Fort Bragg to start his Army career.

Me and (USMC) Maj. Sunny Montas.  She and I handled one of the OBC run groups together.  She's a lot of fun and was a great source of inspiration for the lieutenants, and gave us a look at things from the Marine Corps perspective.

Here I am with The Judge Advocate General of the Army, LTG Dana Chipman, and CPT Evan Seamone.  Evan was an OBC classmate of mine and is currently the editor of The Army Lawyer, one of the JAG School's academic publications.  He, too, is a great guy and one of the smartest guys I know.  And LTG Chipman is pretty cool, too.

Finally, this last weekend we had even more snow here in Charlottesville.  I never would have thought I'd see so much snow here in the South, but we got another 15 inches or so.  To celebrate, Caleb and I explored the winter wonderland.

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Since the second semester of school has started here in Charlottesville, the Graduate Course has included formal mentorship sessions with some of the senior faculty members.  The goal has been to talk about leadership and to help us all develop an understanding of what our role will be in our next jobs (since most of us have been recently promoted) and improve our own leadership skills.

Today's session was talking about formal vs. informal leadership -- the strengths, techniques, and roles of each type of leadership.  One of the guys in my small group -- MAJ Jeff Dietz -- mentioned that our responsibilities in our next jobs will be, in large part, to take a greater role as informal leaders, with greater obligations to the office, the unit, the installation and the JAG Corps.  That got me thinking about some of the things I've been doing -- writing this blog, running in the mornings with the new Judge Advocates going through the Officer Basic Course, volunteering as a Field Screening Officer.  And it also got me thinking about starting to put some of these things in context with my recent (as of the last 2-3 years) serious thoughts about leadership, officership, and responsibilities.  I still working on putting it all together.  But one thing that became clear is that I feel an obligation to the Army, generally, and to the JAG Corps, in particular.  And I think this is a responsibility that every Judge Advocate should share (though I recognize that not everyone will see this responsibility the same way).

I think we've got a responsibility to take care of our Corps.  Part of our jobs -- above and beyond the day-to-day work in accordance with out particular 'job description' -- should be to 'keep the JAG Corps healthy.'  I see this in a couple different senses.  First, we've got an obligation to take care of each other.  We should make an effort to talk to each other, and take the initiative to talk to junior members of the JAG Corps -- offering our experience and any practical expertise to make the corporate body stronger.  I've complained (in private) about a sense that the JAG Corps hasn't lived up to my hopes for mentorship from senior Judge Advocates.  I'm beginning to believe I was wrong, that I just wasn't seizing mentorship opportunities.  And I'm hoping -- by interacting with new Judge Advocates at the OBC -- to make it explicit to new JAs that senior officers are available to them, to answer questions and to generally help them along, in any way possible.  We've got an obligation to keep the JAG Corps strong.  This is not only making sure that everyone is trained (in both legal and military skills) but making sure that new JAs are the best possible candidates.  In this regard, I take my work as a Field Screening Officer very seriously.  I try to be honest and fair, and I try not to shy away from making a recommendation that someone not be offered a position any more than I am anxious to advocate for someone I think needs to be in the JAG Corps.  (Incidentally, honesty in furtherance of keeping the JAG Corps strong also means speaking up when things need to change.  I think this is really important, too, and may address this separately later.)  Finally, I think we all have an obligation to 'be the face of the JAG Corps.'  We should all be ambassadors to the public and to the rest of the Army.  We do that in obvious ways (like this blog), but we also do this through the academic work we publish (like many of the papers written during the Grad Course) and through our day-to-day interaction with other agencies and unit commanders and their staffs in the pursuit of our work.

Another great point was made by MAJ Chris Beese who said that a critical part of generating commitment in subordinates (vs. just creating compliance) is sincerity.  People want to see and feel real sincerity in their leaders -- formal or informal -- in virtually every interaction.  This is especially true for Judge Advocates when our folks are nearing the end of their first tour of duty and are debating whether to stay in the Army or to transition back to civilian life.  When those conversations happen, young Judge Advocates on the fence about continuing their service can see through insincerity in a second.  They need to know that you have their interests at heart when giving advice, even if their path is leading them away from the Army.  In these conversations, the 'party line' just isn't enough.

All in all, it was a useful, thought-provoking morning.  And now, I'm off to discuss more law of war topics (my 'Advanced Topics in the Law of War' elective) -- Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I.  Good stuff!

One of the things I really appreciate about writing this blog is the ability to converse; so, please, feel free to comment.

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Well, after a long, school-sized holiday break, we're back in class this week.  I've got things pretty good this quarter because our academic schedule has changed a bit and is made up mostly of elective courses.  I've only got one elective this quarter, which means that except for our 'plenary' classes from 10-12, I've only got classes on Wednesday afternoon.  I'm excited to have a little extra time to both work on my paper (which is coming along slowly) and spend more time with my family.

I kicked things off yesterday with a very light hour of class -- "Writing for Senior Officers."  At this point, most of us have written more than a handful of memoranda for generals and such, so the instructor didn't seem to concerned about talking about anything substantive except for the writing assignment we have to exercise this particular skill.  Today, though, our plenary session was much more interesting: a lecture from the Deputy Judge Advocate General, Brigadier General 'Butch' Tate (soon to be promoted to Major General), giving us his take on the fundamentals of leadership. (*Note: mentioned with permission of BG Tate, with due consideration of the School's non-attribution policy.)

As BG Tate pointed out, the fundamentals are (as you might expect) pretty simple concepts; the real art (and difficulty) is in putting everything together in practice.  For him, these are the fundamentals: Have a Vision and a Mission; Communicate Your Expectations; Provide Opportunities; Train and Educate; Coach, Teach, and Mentor; Have Leader Values; Provide Information; Manage Un-met Expectations.  Looking at this list, you can see that BG Tate is right; the concepts presented are pretty basic.  But mastery of any skill -- playing an instrument, martial arts, leadership -- requires a thorough familiarity and comfort with the fundamentals.

From his discussion of these eight fundamentals, I took heart to hear him emphasize a few points.  First, he talked about "underwriting your team's mistakes."  I think this is critically important to build a strong team.  Everyone needs to know that when they make a mistake, the boss will be there to support them.  That's not to say this is a blank check to screw up constantly, but if you're going to empower your people - give them a goal and let them figure out how to get it done; give them new and challenging tasks - they will eventually make a mistake.  Leaders need to be there to support them, not 'throw them under the bus.'  Another point I liked was BG Tate's emphasis on knowing your subordinates.  He told a story of a colleague who worked for a guy for two years and the boss never got his name right (called him 'Tim' when his name was really 'Rich').  For two years!  Leaders should not only know everyone's name, but should be familiar with their families and what else they've got going on in their lives.  If leaders invest in the team, it will be easier for everyone else to do so as well.  Finally, a point that came up more than once was that leaders should be self-reflective.  If a subordinate fails to meet your expectations, the first question should not be 'why did s/he screw up,' but rather 'did I effectively communicate my expectations?'  The only way to make sure everyone is on the same sheet of music is to MAKE SURE everyone is on the same sheet of music.  Understand what your goals are and pass them on to your team.  Oh wait, he's a bonus note: leaders don't just fix problems, they emplace systems to prevent problems.  Being reactive only gets you so far; to really excel, to take your team to the next level, everyone should be thinking about how problems can be prevented, not just resolved once they pop up.

I finished my afternoon with my one elective for the quarter, Advanced Topics in the Law of War.  The class has got representatives from each of the services (except for our Coast Guardsman) and all four of our foreign officers (from Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, and Israel), as well as five civilian students from UVA Law.  The conversation today was very good and I'm looking forward to a good class.

But for now, that research paper calls ...

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

It's been a long, busy 6 weeks (yikes!) since I've posted anything here, so I'm hitting it hard today with some long-over-due answers and this update on what's happening at the Grad Course.  (I know I still owe you part II on the lecture by P.W. Singer - which I still think was the best thing to happen here all semester - but it will have to wait a little longer.)

It feels like we've been taking tests non-stop since my last update about 6 weeks ago.  Obviously that's not true, but we've definitely been busy.  We've had exams in Environmental Law, Standards of Conduct/Ethics, Crim Law, Operational/International Law, and two (yes 2!) Contracts exams.  And right before Thanksgiving we had to turn in a 'progress submission' for our research papers (about a 10-20% snapshot of how the paper is shaping up).  Through in a little Thanksgiving family time (in Florida for us this year) and it's been a busy couple weeks.

This week is another chance for us to focus on writing (at least after turning in our third and final(!) take-home exam from the Contract and Fiscal Law Dept.).  I met with my writing adviser on Monday to discuss my paper, how it's shaping up, and where it's going.  I found his comments to be really helpful and I'm anxious to get back to the business of writing -- which is pretty important because the first draft of our papers will be due before the end of January.  That will leave us a lot of time to polish them up before final submission, so we should see a lot of great quality writing coming out of this course.

We've got a few days off around Christmas/New Years, so we'll be heading up to see my family in Pennsylvania.  Then we're back for more work and the downhill trek toward graduation.  And this reminds me of the biggest news of the last few weeks!

On 11 December we were finally notified of where each of us (Army folks) will be assigned next.  This was something most of us have been waiting for since we got here at the beginning of August and the days leading up to the notification event were anxious ones.  And it was an event.  We all gathered (some with their spouses) with snack and beers (for those choosing to drink) and watched as each of the available assignment locations was shown on the big screen followed by a list of who was assigned there and what they'd be doing.  There was cheering; there were jokes; and only one time did I hear "I'm sorry, honey!"  I was very fortunate to get assigned to be the Senior Defense Counsel for Fort Lewis, WA.  This will be a GREAT job in a fantastic location.  I really couldn't have asked for anything better and I'm very excited to get back to working for the Trial Defense Service - "Defending Those Who Defend America."

So, with that mid-term goal of getting ready for that job, I have to get back to my short-term goal of writing a really solid research paper.  I'll keep you posted.

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Here's a recent question: ... I have been considering what I might do, if I am not accepted. I don't know what could make my application much better, I am about to finish school among the top 10% of my class, and have interned and volunteered in a variety of public service areas. I expect to be offered a job in one of those fields....for someone whose true goal in life is to be a JAG Corps. Officer...would you suggest enlisting as a 27D, or going through OCS...rather than taking a job outside of the army?

Which do you think would best help my odds of someday becoming a Judge Advocate? Also, if I was to start in another branch, would I be able to transfer after a few years?

These are great questions, and I have a couple answers.  Please keep in mind, though, that these are simply my opinions.  While I think I've got a pretty good sense of the selection process and what the JAG Corps is looking for in new Judge Advocates, there are never any guarantees (especially in a 'total person' selection system like ours that uses the subjective judgment of a board of officers to choose new officers).  Disclaimer out of the way, here it goes....

First, for those of you in this boat, of having done everything you can to be competitive (grades, class rank, volunteer work, sincere commitment to service in the JAG Corps), look for that extra element of improvement.  For this applicant, that might be making the effort to become an athlete (or a better one).  Take up a new sport (running is a good, useful one) or take on a bigger physical challenge.  Always wanted to hike the Appalachia Trail?  Start preparing for it and do it!  Run a marathon, take up triathlon.  Give capoeira a try!  (These are some of my favorites, but the point is to just get out, try it, and work to get better.)

Once the application is out the door and you're planning for the possibility of not being selected (and in this VERY competitive market it's a real possibility for MOST applicants) you've got real choices to make.  And there are pros and cons to each of the three options presented in the question.

1.  Enlist in the Army as a paralegal (27D).  This is a good option for a) learning about the Army from the ground up; and b) possibly getting an enlistment bonus to help pay school loans.  On the flip side, you will not practice law.  After three years getting ready to do this, it might be a tough think to put off.  Both enlisted and officer members of the Army may apply to the JAG Corps - just like their civilian counterparts - as long as they otherwise meet our minimum requirements (like having passed the bar, etc.).

2.  Officer Candidate School (OCS) to become an officer in another branch.  Another good option for learning about the Army.  Probably less availability for signing bonuses and such (though this is not my area of expertise).  Again, you will not be practicing law, and you will not have much of a choice about what branch you end up in (it will depend on "the needs of the Army").

3.  Take a civilian legal job.  You get to practice what you've been preparing to do for the last three years.  You may (or may not) have a chance to make big $.  You will not be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan (even if you're anxious to go, this can be a real burden to your family (in addition to the possibility of significant personal risk); I don't want to dissuade anyone who is committed to serving in combat, I just want to make sure you've thought about all it means, both good and bad).

So what are the relative values of each course of action to the possibility of future selection to the JAG Corps?  It depends who is sitting on the board and what they're looking for.  Serving in uniform, either as an enlisted paralegal or as an officer in another branch, shows a real commitment to military service and, I think, will be a big plus when it comes to the selection process.  But don't discount the value of actually practicing law in a civilian capacity and then being able to say to the Field Screening Officer, "I like what I'm doing, but it isn't as satisfying as I expect being a Judge Advocate will be.  I took this job [as whatever you're doing] in order to become a better candidate for the JAG Corps."

At the end of the day, it really depends on where you think you will be most comfortable.  (My philosophy here is the same as my opinion about what classes you take in law school: do what you're interested in and what you enjoy -- you'll be more successful because you'll be more invested, and ultimately you'll be happier.)  You may get out to a civilian public service job and realize you found your calling; you may discover as paralegal or as a Transportation officer that the Army isn't at all what you expected; you may do more homework and talk to more people and find out that you're a better fit in the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.  And you may go home at the end of another day at Legal Aid that there's something left that you need to do, and that thing is serve, if only for 4 years, in the JAG Corps. 

I wish I could give you the answer.  No matter what choice you make, your decision to apply again is what matters.  You will need to articulate why you still want to be a Judge Advocate; and, hopefully, you'll be able to talk about what you've done since the last application to make yourself a stronger candidate.  Get fit, volunteer, read, write, think; be committed.

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Before I get into the meat of this post, here's a quick note about the JAG School's 'Non-attribution Policy' -- in order to encourage the free expression of ideas and foster robust discussion, the opinions offered by students, faculty, and guests are to be kept private.  This allows us to have really great discussions about really tough topics without the stifling effect you might expect because of fear for negative career effects.  And our guests can rest assured that anything they say won't be used against them or taken out of context after a visit here.  Out of respect for this policy, I solicited Dr. Singer's consent before writing about his lecture today.

And what a lecture!  This was BY FAR the best event of the year to date.  Dr. Singer spoke for an hour about the way warfare is changing with the development and use of robots for the battlefield (captured in his book, "Wired for War").  But is lecture wasn't so much about the actual technology that's available (or on the way) so much as it was about the issues raised by these leaps in technology.  A recurrent theme was ethics -- how does the availability of such technology (that allows for the remote application of force or the use of force removed from human control) change the way we think about, conduct, and control warfare?

He mentioned at one point how technology has made the battlefront more accessible -- easier communication with Soldiers on the front line; video games that simulate war; the ability to watch YouTube clips of war on your phone, etc. -- and at the same time made it less personal, in a way less real.  It reminded me LTC Dave Grossman's book, "On Killing," in which he argues (among other things) that the way we train our Soldiers for combat has made it easier to wage war but has also dehumanized the cost of war. 

Dr. Singer also talked about the cycle of technological development and the dangers involved in both reluctance to embrace new technology and the tendency to latch onto 'the next big thing' before that 'thing' is actually determined (through competition or real-world testing) to be the best choice.  (One of the examples he used was the Commodore computer -- many of us had them growing up, but they didn't last in the market because there were better ways to do the same thing; the same is true with military technology.)

All in all, it was a great lecture, and I intend to go through my notes this weekend to add a few observations in a subsequent post.  In the meantime, you can learn more about Dr. Singer and his book at wiredforwar.pwsinger.com.

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting the newest group of Judge Advocates and talking with them for about an hour about 'officership.'  The latest Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course started on Sunday and much of their first few weeks on active duty with the JAG Corps is spent learning about the Army and how to do many of the basic 'Soldier stuff' we do.  I was able to take a few hours away from class to talk to them a little bit about what is expected of them as officers and what (I think) they ought to expect of themselves.

Most of what we talked about was the 'school house' answer about what officership involves.  My goal was not to make great officers in an hour, but rather to give them some things to think about as they grow up in the JAG Corps.  Many of the things we talked about didn't really make it onto my radar until I'd been in the Army for a few years.  But I've thought about it a good bit the last 2-3 years, and I wish I'd started doing so sooner!

We talked about the four facets of officership:

- the officer as a warrior - not just a warfighter, but someone reasonable for the disciplined application of force; someone who fights according to the laws of war; someone fights (and lives) according to a warrior ethos

- the officer as servant of the nation - our oath of service is not to the President (who appoints us) but rather to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic."  This sets us apart from many other military forces; we're not fighting to support a person, political party, or particular policy; we serve to ensure the continued survival of this nation's bedrock document.  I think that's a pretty noble cause.

- the officer as a professional - members of the JAG Corps actually have a greater obligation than most other officers in the Army because we are members not only of the 'profession of arms,' but we are also members of our respective state bars.  We have obligations to both professional communities and are subject to the ethics and legal obligations each imposes.

- the officer as a leader of character - often it is not enough to just be an effective leader.  What I mean is, it's not always enough to just get the job done; how we do that, how we lead is just as important as the end product of our leadership.  A leader of character should set the example, make morally and ethically correct decisions, and should show compassion for those subordinate to them.

The hour we spent talking went very quickly and we touched not only on the four facets of officership above but also on some of the etiquette, customs and courtesies that are a fundamental part of the Army's history and how we operate on a daily basis.  We talked about some of the leadership challenges they will face when they get to their duty stations.  All in all, they were a very eager, thoughtful bunch.  I think the JAG Corps will be in good hands.

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Last weekend my Mom and one of my sisters made the trip down from Pennsylvania to visit me and the family.  Though Saturday's weather wasn't so good (and Caleb got sick), we managed to get out Sunday to Shennandoah National Park and drive up Skyline Drive to check out the fall colors.

It was great to see them - it'd been quite a while since we were able to see them, and with a new assignment in the offing, it might soon be even harder to make that happen.

 Email

 Print

 Comments

• Share:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•