Latest / Five Questions for a General / General Joe Votel

Transcript

General Joe Votel · Five Questions for a General

• 0:00
  Speaker A: Foreign.
• 0:03
  Speaker B: You're listening to five Questions for a General, a production of the modern Morris Institute at West point. I am Dr. Charles Feint, the team lead for this podcast series which features interviews of senior military leaders conducted by specially selected and trained West Point cadet hosts. These exchanges produce timely, relevant, and inspirational insights for professional development of leaders at all levels.
• 0:24
  Speaker A: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the west point class of 1974 recording studio and the five questions for a General podcast. I'm Cadet Zach Olson, your host. It's my pleasure to be here today with retired General Joe Votel. General Votel is a West Point graduate and was commissioned in 1980 as an infantry officer. Over the course of his career, he commanded the 75th Ranger Regiment, the Joint Special Operations Command, U.S. special Operations Command, and U.S. central Command. He joins us today for a discussion about coalition building, great power, competition, and decentralized leadership. General, welcome to the show.
• 0:56
  Speaker C: Hi, Zach. It's great to be here. Looking forward to it.
• 0:58
  Speaker A: General Boutel, welcome. What led you to decide to join the army, and why did you decide to attend West Point and branch Infantry?
• 1:03
  Speaker C: Well, interesting. I didn't decide to go to West Point. My first exposure to a service academy was to the Naval Academy down in Annapolis. I went there when I was 10 years old. My brother lived in Baltimore, and he took us out there. It was right after Martin Luther King had been assassinated, so there were curfews in place. But you go out during the day. And one of the day trips we took was out to Annapolis, and I went out there with my parents and my brother and some of my siblings, and we looked around and watched it, and I was amazed. I, just a kid from Minnesota, had never seen anything like this. And so I was. I remember turning to my dad and saying, hey, this is where I want to go to school. So that was kind of what I was thinking about. Then as I kind of got into high school and started the application process, somebody suggested, you know, you ought to consider applying for West Point as well. And I thought, oh, West Point. I don't know about that, but I did. And I ended up getting into West Point and not getting into the Naval Academy. And so I literally showed up here, Zachary Sight on scene and never been here, never seen the campus, anything else. You know, got off the bus at Mikey Stadium on a very warm July morning and had instant buyer's remorse, but got over it pretty quickly and then really grew to like it. You know, interestingly, about six or seven years after I was commissioned, I actually was doing an exercise and I was out on a Navy ship as part of the exercise, and I instantly knew that I'd made the right choice in coming to the army and being in the Army. So, you know, I don't know, it kind of happened by accident, but I loved it. I loved my whole experience here at West Point. I loved being around troops. I thought there was a very personal aspect to leadership in the army, and I really, really liked that. It just kind of kept me going.
• 2:44
  Speaker A: Sir, as a former commander of U.S. sOCOM, you emphasized the importance of professionalizing that SOF experience to meet emerging threats. What did you believe Special Operations forces must evolve to remain relevant in the next era of great power competitions?
• 2:58
  Speaker C: Yeah, I think one of the things that we did really well over the global war on terrorism with special Operations forces, as we became much more integrated with the conventional forces, this was not always the case. And really well into the global war on terror, I'm talking years into the global war on terror, we still really had two kind of separate organizations. I mean, they were friendly and everything else, but we were not completely synchronized with that. And over time, you know, the trust that is necessary between, you know, two different parts of the military, I think really improved. We had SOF officers that were going over into more senior leadership, leadership positions. General Kristol being a good example of that on the conventional side. And we had much more exposure, and there was a much greater appreciation for what each side could do for the other. So the conventional force side appreciated what SOF could do in helping shape the battlefield and create effects out there. And the SOF community appreciated that a lot of what they were doing had to be enabled by conventional forces. So there was this symbiotic relationship between them. So it's kind of a long answer to kind of tell you that. I think as we move forward, we've got to maintain that. We've got to be able. We've got to be. We've got to be well linked. We've got to be integrated. We have to be synchronized between the two forces. And I think that SOF officers and SOF operators appreciating how they contribute to conventional force campaigns is really, really critical. So, you know, as we. I think as we've kind of pivoted more towards China, I think there's actually been a greater realization for how SOF can shape partnerships out in the Asian Pacific, how we can do things to help the Indo PACOM commander, things like that. I think those are really, really, really the most important things. And it's. And it's really critical, I think, for going forward, for soft and conventional forces to have a high level of trust and confidence between each other.
• 4:58
  Speaker A: Do our soft forces, are they prepared for a conflict operational perspective where right now they're operating, they're engaging in partnership building and coalition building. If we get into a conflict, is soft ready to support the conventional force in maybe a different way or in the same way it is right now?
• 5:15
  Speaker C: I think they are. I think one of the, one of the things that you find in the soft community is, I think one of the really great attributes of the soft community is adaptability, and it is being able to morph and become what the nation needs you to be. So, you know, after we, after we kind of, you know, got involved in Afghanistan and then Iraq, we needed, we needed a force that could go out and really hammer the networks, and that's what we needed to do. That wasn't necessarily a natural inclination. When we first went to Afghanistan in 2001, we were a good force, but a different force than what we eventually became just a couple years after that. So the adaptability aspect of it is really, really. And of course, all the traditional things that special operations forces do in terms of building partnerships and developing relationships and gaining an understanding of the area of operations and doing kind of economy of force efforts where you can use a few people to do things as opposed to large formations, all of these will be very, very critical going forward. So I have pretty high confidence in the SOF community to do what is needed in the future. I think the challenge is going to. Going to be a policy and authorities in terms of doing this, you know, what's happening out in the Pacific now is different than what we did during the global war on terrorism. We were actively involved in combat operations. We're not actively involved in combat operations out in the Pacific. And as a result, the authorities and rules of engagement, other things are different. And that means that we can't do everything we'd like to do. So we have to really be inventive about it and we have to be prepared for when things do change. We do get the authorities and policies that allow us to, you know, to be more fully engaged kind of going.
• 7:04
  Speaker A: With those authorities and policies. Do you see a, A major internal threat to that symbiotic relationship between soft and the conventional force? And then also counteractively, do you see the biggest external threat to that relationship?
• 7:17
  Speaker C: Well, I, I don't, I don't necessarily see a huge internal. I, I mean, I think one of the concerns, you know, for me and seen. I've begun to see this since I've been out of the military a little bit, is as we have gone, as we have come out of kind of these areas of constant combat in the east and other places, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. And although we do have some forces in some of those locations now, you know, the dependencies and the trust that was built between conventional forces and soft forces, that becomes a little more sporadic. So I think one of the biggest concerns I have would be losing that, losing the trust, losing the relationships, using the confidence that we. That we have in each other going forward. And so, you know, I would hate to see us have to go through a period where we have to rebuild, build all that. It's likely that we might have to. I think that could. That could be a. That could be a challenge. The other thing is, is what I think what you find in kind of the. What I would describe as kind of the interwar years, where you come out of a war and you're preparing for another, is there is a tendency for the services in particular to really focus in. On. On themselves and to be less concerned with, you know, other elements like the soft formations, things like that. I think we've seen that. So a little bit of that in. In the army today, where there's been some reductions in the soft, especially the component of special operations that, you know, have been difficult, I think, for people in the SOF community, but I think have, you know, have been necessary from an army standpoint. And my point is, is that when you don't have, like, a burning platform, like a war in this particular country, where people are dying and you're having to fight and you're having to do things, people have a tendency to go back and protect their base. And in some cases, it's protecting your budgets, protecting the development that needs to take place on the services. And sometimes that causes the trust, the confidence, the partnerships. Other things take a little bit of a backseat. I'm a little worried about that. I think we've got good muscle memory from our previous time together, but I think it's something we always have to be cognizant of.
• 9:20
  Speaker A: Sir, one of the hallmarks of your leadership has been empowering subordinates and decentralizing decision making. In an era of increasingly rapid information flow and constant surprises, how can leaders balance mission command with the demands of accountability and precision?
• 9:34
  Speaker C: Yeah, I think this is a real challenge for military leaders today because the information environment is so dynamic, it's moved so quickly, and people have the ability to know everything all the time right now. And that goes up and down the chain of command. So I think there really is a real premium on that. I actually think the basics of leadership really, really matter. You know, we had, when I was at centcom and I have kind of started was developing this certainly when I was at JSOC and socom. But it really came home to me when I was a CENTCOM commander is about how you really have to enable decision making at the lowest competent level. And that doesn't necessarily mean that the lowest level, it means the lowest competent level. Sometimes that was me, sometimes it's the people below me, sometimes it's people way, way down the chain of command. And I think you enable that by building trust by promoting what I kind of call a feedback culture where feel comfortable sharing information up and down the chain of command. You know, one of the great things you learn out of a guy working with a guy like General McChrystal or Admiral McRaven is they really put a premium on sharing information, you know, almost to the point of being uncomfortable with that. But what you find is when you do that, when you enable people with information, they have a tendency to protect that and they have, they appreciate that and they want to, they want that to continue because they understand what's happening. In turn, when people feel comfortable providing feedback up the chain of command, then I think that makes it easier to push decision making down to the lowest competent level. And that was my experience at centcom was I think we felt very, very confident that we had a very good feedback loop. People felt confident sharing information, they could deliver bad news, they weren't going to get shot in the face for doing it. And we were going to accept that and move on from there and really try to empower decision making again at the lowest competent level, leader that's in the best position, that has the resources, can understand what it is, has the right communication tools to let people know what's going on. That to me was really the critical thing. And I don't think it changes with the information environment. I think it might be a little more difficult because people can step in and know what's going on. But I think leaders have to enforce that as they go forward. We have to enforce allowing people at the right level to make the decisions and exercise the initiative that they, that they have.
• 12:08
  Speaker A: Are there any enduring principles from the lieutenant level leadership to even just battalion command or brigade command when you need to create that sense of that feedback culture, how do you create that?
• 12:17
  Speaker C: Yeah, I think One of the things you do is you focus in, on building relationships. Relationships are really, really important. You know, relationships give way to building trust. You know, when, when you have a good relationship with somebody, you're more, you understand where they're coming from, you understand what their motivations are and you're, you have much more trust, much more conf them. So I think that's a really, really critical, critical aspect of it. I think, you know, being a good communicator and emphasizing good communication techniques both up and down the chain of command, I think are really, really important. You know, one of the things I learned is as I kind of went through my career, is that oftentimes you have to adjust your communication styles to the people that are, that are above you, that you're working for. You know, it's our job oftentimes to comport to those above us. And so you, you have to be flexible. You have to be adaptable in terms of how you communicate, but you got to be able to push information. I think one of the big things we've learned out of all this is the importance of flat, fast, proactive communication. I think you want to prevent people from guessing about what you're doing. I never wanted people to guess what was happening at centcom. I wanted them to know, here's what we are doing and if you don't understand it, we'll help explain it, or if it's not in accordance with your guidance or whatever, then we'll make changes, changes to it. But I want you to know what's going on. Sometimes we have a tendency, I think, and this I think is a mistake for, for leaders is to, is to protect information and not share it and not let people know what's going on. Because I think when you don't fill in the gaps for people, guess what happens, they're going to fill in the gaps themselves. And in most cases they're gonna, they're gonna always assume the worst about what your intentions are or what you're doing or how you're approaching things. And I just, I think that's a waste of time. It's a was effort, especially when you get, when it's so easy just to share information with people. So this idea of relationships, leading the trust, communication between all levels of command, creating these feedback loops that move information up and down and creating this idea of shared awareness, a shared understanding of what the threat is, what the risks are, what the actions are, we're going to take those kinds of things, I think are really, really critical and I think they will be critical in future conflict. They will been very critical to us in the past. And I think those are the kinds of things leaders need to be focused on developing.
• 14:52
  Speaker A: Is there a way followers can affect this kind of change? How do you see the role of the follower in creating this kind of feedback culture?
• 14:58
  Speaker C: Well, the feedback culture is a two way system. So it has to involve the followers that provide feedback back up. I mean you have to be able to provide clear, articulate, well articulated feedback back up to the leadership and let them know. I think the idea of reading things back and back briefing and things like that are important things to do for leaders to say, okay, I heard what you said, here's how I'm interpreting that. Here are my actions. Again, this is constant flow of communication up and down the chain of command. And so I think the role of followers is to be involved in that. None of this works. If information just comes down and it stops, it doesn't come back up. I mean the whole enablement of trust is when you. It was easy for me to trust subordinate leaders because I knew when something was going on, they were going to pass information to me, they weren't going to hold it, they weren't going to sit on things. And that's what has to happen. So followers, I think play a very critical role in this. They've got to be engaged in it. They've got to have the same developmental skills in terms of building relationships and promoting trust and being good communicators and understanding how the people above them receive information and trying to give it to them in the best way that they, they can absorb it. So yeah, I think followers are absolutely essential to this.
• 16:24
  Speaker A: So the reading list you published with the Modern war Institute in 2017 included five different categories. Leadership, managing complexity, strategy, region, understanding and innovation. Your list clearly emphasizes the importance of broad intellectual participation. How have you translated the importance of being a well read leader to your formations?
• 16:42
  Speaker C: Well, I think one of the things by always talking about it, one of the, one of the officers that I served under multiple times was Marine Gen. Jim Mattis, who you know, at the last point I served under him when he was Secretary of Defense. What he exhibited through his leadership style, even, especially when he was in uniform was he was, he was, he was, he was a student and he was an advocate of history and so he could relay, he could tie things back, things that we were doing now back to historical examples and talk about them. And he emphasized, I think, the importance of, of reading, being curious about your own profession. And so I think one of the things that I tried to do was really promote kind of professional curiosity about the things we're doing. I mean, I think you can look in a variety of different things and find lessons learned. One of the really good books, in fact, today, one of the things I do through my LinkedIn thing is I actually about every couple weeks I share a book that I've read and I give a very brief synopsis of why I read it, what I took out of it, and then I end up sharing on my website. But one of the books I recently featured on, there was a book called Endurance, which is about Ernest Shackleton. Now he's not, wasn't a military leader, but I got to tell you something, talk about a guy that overcame adversity in something. I mean, he literally took his crew of 30 down to south America with a plan to go to the South Pole. It almost immediately went wrong. He spent 18 months, his whole ship was crushed. He was left on an ice floe. He had to work his way through all of that and brought everybody back alive and figured it out. So, you know, talk about leadership and pulling things out of that. So I think what you have to do is you have to look for, you have to look for opportunities of leadership and in a variety of resources and try to share those with people and encourage people to read widely and to absorb the lessons, not just military lessons, but lessons that, you know, come from other sides. You know, when I retired, my first job was running a non profit organization that worked with business people who shared their expertise with, with people in national security enterprise. And one of the things I really learned, I mean, sometimes you begin to think the leadership is the domain of those in uniform or the domain of the military. It's really not. I tell you something, I met dozens and dozens of business leaders who had never served in the military, but yet they internalized all the same things you or I would, you know, that we'd be taught right here at West Point about leadership. They understood taking care of people, they understood setting an example, they understood the importance of culture, they understood the example of the, you know, leading by example kind of thing. So, you know, I think you gotta, you gotta, you gotta look at those kinds of things and I, I always wanted to talk about those. Of course, you gotta try to demonstrate that with your own actions. As, as.
• 19:32
  Speaker A: Well, this is a little bit of a charged question, I suppose, but do you see the role of podcasts differently than the role of books? Or do you think they are about one in the same.
• 19:38
  Speaker C: In terms, I. I like podcasts, and I routinely listen to podcasts. I try to vary some of my, you know, my diet of podcasts. So I get, you know, a little bit on different sides of the perspective, know different political views on things, and it gives you a romp. I think it's. I think it's very relevant, and you can hear about how people are thinking about relevant topics. In my view, that's the importance of podcasts. And at least as. As I kind of look. As I kind of look at them, is that people are talking about things that are happening right now, and you're getting different perspective on it, and it causes you to think them. You know, I think one of the skills you have to develop as a leader in all of this, and maybe it goes back to the last question you asked here, is, is the ability to hold two competing ideas in your head same time. You know, sometimes in an information environment that's very polarized right now, it would be very easy to say, hey, this is where I am. I'm very certain about this. But the fact of the matter is, you know, one of the things you have to be able to do as a leader is be able to hold competing ideas in your head at the same time. And not everybody's going to be completely aligned. You have to have a perspective of that. As a senior officer, I was oftentimes advising our civilian leadership. They sometimes had a different view on things. So being able to kind of wrestle in your own own mind with competing ideas and try to find opportunities to move forward in that and to understand how people are looking at things, I think are really important. Reading does that. Listening to podcasts does that. Listening to other programming that's out there, I think helps broaden your perspective and develop this capacity to hold a couple different ideas in your head at the same time.
• 21:15
  Speaker A: So during the Peace and Dialogue Leadership Initiatives conference last March, you characterize the Middle east as chaos and opportunity. Has that characterization changed? And if so, why?
• 21:26
  Speaker C: No, it hasn't changed at all. And I think we're now beginning to see the opportunities that exist there. A couple weeks ago, I led a delegation from the Middle East Institute to Damascus, Syria. And I'd never been to Damascus. I've been to Syria, of course, the part of Syria that we were fighting ISIS in many, many times. But I'd never actually been to Damascus. But we took a group to DAMASC it in conjunction kind of with our. With our government and with the support of them and to, you know, make Contact to introduce some, you know, prominent American citizens to people in the new Syrian government. I think this is, this is Exhibit A in terms of the opportunity right here. I mean, this, it's extraordinary. I mean, we met with people who are ministers, but, you know, a year ago were on the target list, frankly, you know, I had been associated with extremist organizations, but they've kind of migrated over. And while I think, you know, you do have to build trust and confidence as you move through and I mean, they're, they're saying a lot of the right things and the ability to create stability in a place like Syria, you know, that is so critical to the region, I think is really, really important. I mean, I think there's three big things we gotta be thinking about in the Middle East. We gotta be thinking about what's, how we work through this Gaza situation. We gotta think about what happens with Iran and we gotta think, think about Syria. Those three things I think could really help. Those are the opportunities right there for us to really move forward. And, you know, I think you see some of that with our current administration and some of the things that there are things that are doing. I mean, it's hard for people to kind of get their heads around why we have Mohammed bin Salman in the White House last week. I mean, that's an important relationship. We understand all the background to all of that. But, you know, you've gotta, you've, in order. Order to seize opportunities, you got to start grabbing onto things, opportunities like that. And I think the area is ripe for opportunity and for us to move forward on. It's not going to be easy, it's going to be difficult. There are probably going to be setbacks. It's probably not going to be as perfect as we want it to be. But there really are ways to move forward. So, yeah, I think it's all about chaos and opportunity.
• 23:37
  Speaker A: Talk about holding two different ideas in your head.
• 23:40
  Speaker C: Head.
• 23:40
  Speaker A: I think sometimes as a leader, it feels like you're holding a million different ideas or a million different perspectives in your head, trying to balance all these competing interests, especially on international scale, with the Middle east or in Europe. As a leader, how do you develop the strength of character to just make the decision? When do you know when it is the time to just choose one side or the other?
• 24:01
  Speaker C: I think it's important to appreciate the timing of decisions. Sometimes people feel compelled. This is sometimes a challenge of senior leadership is that sometimes you do feel compelled, compelled to just make a decision. And you know, you talk to business leaders, talk To a guy like Jeff Bezos, for example, I've heard him speak several times. I mean, he talks very deliberately about making decisions and the decisions that he makes. You know, he doesn't make every decision that, you know, when he was in a position at Amazon that affected Amazon, you know, he talked about the idea I make decisions that are one way decisions where when I make the decision, we close the door and the ability to go back is not possible. So you gotta appreciate, I think, the nature of decision making as you move up. You know, we've all seen this, we've read all about this of militaries and others here. Businesses where all decision making was centralized at a very high level and one leader was trying to make all the decisions and it was disastrous for the organization. It didn't build trust, People weren't confident in it. And ultimately that person couldn't see enough to make the right decision. So you gotta appreciate what decisions are that need to be made. One of the things that, that I tried to do that I think really helped my decision making was finding ways to think about the problems that we were dealing with, whether it was a JSOC or SOCOM or centcom. And what I mean by that, Zach, is that we would sit down, for example, with the planning group, the J5, the planners at Centcom and I would oftentimes say, hey, listen, you guys got, why don't you throw some topics out and let's just have a discussion about these topics. And what it was, is it was an opportunity for to hear them talk about it, and it was an opportunity for them to hear me talk about it. And we could begin to identify where there were similarities and where there were differences in our approach. And oftentimes that helped really inform my way of thinking about things. And so having that forum without the burden of having to make a decision, I mean, we're just talking about things right now, was a really valuable way to help sharpen my decision making. So when I did come to the point where I had to make a decision, I kind of knew what people were thinking about it. I knew what the risks involved in. I knew how I was leaning towards something. And I think it, I think that really, really helped. I think the other thing is that one of the things that, that you do learn over time and you know, as cadets right now, you don't have a lot of this, but you will over time is the development of judgment and wisdom over time with decision making comes experience and everything else. My decision making as a battalion commander was completely different than my decision making as a company commander. We enter a platoon leader. You would expect it to be right because I had more experience, I had learned a lot of things, I'd seen a lot more. So your instinctual decision making gets sharper and you're more informed by experience and things you've done in the past. And you can think through the ramifications of the decisions you're making, and they become better over time. So those things right there of finding ways to help inform yourself, to share information before you have to make decision, knowing when you have to make decision, what decisions have to be made at what level, and then developing confidence and trust and judgment over wisdom over time, I think are really ways that I think military leaders, and in fact all leaders, I think, develop their decision making capabilities.
• 27:25
  Speaker A: Is there a formative decision that you remember making, either kind of naturalistic in the moment, that gut level decision, or a rational decision where you're able to think it out? Is there kind of a formative something that you can remember where it's like, yeah, I learned a, a lot from that moment?
• 27:39
  Speaker C: Yeah, I did. And I had, I did as a company commander. And we had. This would have been the mid mid 1980s. So I was a little bit ago and trying to make sure we had the best, you know, situation in terms of NCOs, platoon sergeants, things like that. And I was making decisions about putting people into positions. And in some cases, I think I made the right decision. In other cases, I think I made the wrong decision. And I learned a lot about that. I. And when I went back and looked at it, I was trying to analyze, well, why did, why did I make this decision? What I found was a lot of my decisions were based on emotions, were based on how I felt about people, and less about what I thought that person could do or what was right for the organization. And that was a mistake on my part, frankly. And I learned out of that as we move forward. I think the decision to remove people from leadership positions as a battalion commander, I did that several times. It's a very difficult one. But by the time I had become a battalion commander, I had the opportunity to command two different battalions. By the time I got to the 2nd Battalion that I commanded, 1st Ranger Battalion, I was pretty sharp in terms of that. It wasn't like we were relieving people all over the place. You don't want that either. That's a failure on my, my part is. But you do have to make decisions when people are not meeting the standards or not meeting the needs of the organization to, to do that. That became, I don't want to say easy. It wasn't easy. It was never easy. But it, I understood how to do that better as I, you know, making decisions like that, making especially decisions about personnel, I think were really critical ones to the success of organizations that I had the opportunity to lead.
• 29:17
  Speaker A: So how is emerging technology such as AI going to affect warfare, especially as it relates to decision making?
• 29:23
  Speaker C: Theoretically, it's going to make it easier, faster and more comprehensive for leaders and the staffs and those that are supporting them to be able to understand what is happening out there and be able to process large amounts of information that, you know, are germane to the decisions that we are, that we are making. And so, I mean, I think that's, that's the promise of artificial intelligence as, you know, is being able to, to go through all of that. And I actually see some examples of that, you know, and look at kind of the things we're doing for Ukraine and things like that. I think we're beginning to use some of these tools to help understand complex environments where you've got drones, you've got missiles, you've got, you've got sophisticated air defense systems, you've got electronic warfare and helping people parse through all that information to make really good decisions about the military things they're doing. So I think that's kind of the promise of technology. There, there could be a limit to this as well. Ultimately, people have to decide. And so all the things we talked about before remain very critical. Good judgment, good wisdom, feedback, you know, from people getting decisions at the right, you know, keeping decisions at the right level where people have the best situational awareness. All of those things, you know, still matter. But I think things like artificial intelligence can really help with, if nothing else, just processing the information, understanding the environment and putting it together in a more rapid, comprehensive way for leaders to, to absorb, you know, So I, I mean, I think, think that's, that's the promise of it.
• 30:59
  Speaker A: Do you see AI as a possible way to enhance the development of a leader's ability to make good decisions? Or is it more of a possible detriment where it might start to take over some of those decision making faculties and we might lose things that we previously had?
• 31:14
  Speaker C: I mean, I'm, I'm kind of an old dog here. So I, I do have some concerns about it taking over. I mean, I, I appreciate the promise of artificial intelligence, but I am not yet there in terms of artificial intelligence being able to do A lot of decision and take things over and use machine learning associated with it to actually do things. I am still very much a human not in the loop. A human making the decision, you know, at the top of the loop, frankly, approach to this thing. So I, I do have some, I do have some concerns about that, you know, and that's why I think fundamentals still matter. The fundamentals of leadership still matter. I mean, people still have to be competent. They still have to understand the capabilities of their systems. They can't, you know, you can't just put somebody in a position and say, oh, don't worry about this person's experience or judgment or things that he's done, he or she has done in the past. Because we've got artificial intelligence to cover all that. That, that would be disastrous. So I have a tendency to look at it as a tool, another way that enhances the ability to make good decisions. Another tangent on the feedback loop, so to speak. If I could kind of describe it, that that's the way I look at it now. That might change over time as I become more comfortable. I artificial intelligence, I use it for things I'm doing. I use it for my own research and other things that I'm going to speak or write or do things on. And I've become pretty comfortable with that. And I've learned how to fact check and look at sources and things like that. Those aren't things I normally would have done. So I begin to be more confident in it. But ultimately I think people have to decide, leaders have to decide. And so there are some other innate skills that contribute to that beyond chatgpt or perplexity or grok or whatever it is that you're, that you're using.
• 33:00
  Speaker A: So you've described the counter ISIS fight as one of the most complex operations of your career. What are some aspects of that operation that you'd think AI could not have completed that you needed that human element for?
• 33:12
  Speaker C: Yeah. So I'll tell you one. You know, as we were, we, when we got into the, into the later phases of chaos campaign, particularly in Syria, as we were moving back down the Euphrates Valley away from the area, the traditional areas where the Syrian Democratic Forces, our partners, our Kurdish and Arab partners on ground further away from the areas where they, you know, had their sources of strength, you know, we were making decisions on the pace of the campaign and the, and how we move from village to village as we went, went down that thing really based on human dynamics. We were meeting with local tribal leaders who were Very concerned about us coming in and destroying their villages and leaving a rune in the wake of our destruction of isis. And so we frequently stopped, we frequently looked for other ways to get ISIS out of these villages so we didn't have to go in and destroy them. We had to take a much more patient approach. And that required people communicating, understanding, seeing things on the ground that could not have been done by artificial intelligence. To me, that was the quintessential example. Now I'll give you another example where I think artificial intelligence could have really helped us in the early phases of it. We had foreign fighters were coming to ISIS, were coming from well over 100 different countries around the world, making use of social media. Facebook, you know, Twitter at the time, Telegram, all these other things that were out there. And you know, when we appreciated that, we, you know, organized an element that was, you know, basically scraping the social media sites to get information. Artificial intelligence could have really helped us there, helped us look for the right things, develop the algorithm and looked for the right things to help us understand what was happening there. Ultimately we did, but it took a while to do that. That's an area where I think technology, in particular, artificial intelligence could have helped. So I think the challenge for leaders is going to be what are the things that are innately the human touch, human connection, human eyeballs, human brains looking at things? And what are the things that can be done by artificial intelligence that can help us move through masses of information quickly and arrive at conclusions that can make our decision making sharper and more accurate and more on spot with our campaign objectives.
• 35:43
  Speaker A: So with how fast everything's moving these days, sometimes the world feels a little small, especially for maybe some of these, some low level leaders, even cadets. I think we feel this pressure to understand so much of the strategic world and so much of the international world. How much understanding would you expect of your second lieutenants or your platoon leaders to understand of these strategic issues, to be proficient and competent at the tactical level?
• 36:08
  Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, I don't think I'm looking, I don't think I was looking for platoon leaders or company commanders to, you know, be strategists. And with that, I mean, I clearly, I think that most of them had a fight in front of them. They had something they were trying to do and they're trying to do their very best to get it done. So I don't necessarily expect that of the lower level leaders. That said, I think it's important for leaders at all levels to be able to explain big ideas to our soldiers. I go back to a story that I heard from somebody that I'm pretty closely associated with, and she was a transportation platoon leader in Iraq. She took me through a story, and in fact, up here, she gave a. She kind of laid it out for a group of cadets in one of the classes we taught together. But she talked about the importance of being able to explain to her platoon what was happening out there, why people were trying to kill us, what the different things are that were influencing them. And she wasn't trying to solve the problem, but what she was trying to do was be an explainer and help improve the perspective of those who were actually doing it, Sergeant and privates and others that were actually doing things. So they had a bigger idea about that. So I do expect leaders at all levels to have an understanding of the big ideas and be able to be in a position where they can logically explain kind of the big things about what's going on out there. I think that's really, really critical. And again, it goes back to this idea of feedback loops and making people comfortable. They can share information. They can ask questions into something. And I think a lot of that goes with the idea of leaders who are good explainers and can help inform their organizations, even at a low level.
• 38:01
  Speaker A: Can you point to an experience you had at the academy or while you were here the whole time that really taught you a lot about communication or prepared you to be a lieutenant?
• 38:11
  Speaker C: Yeah, good question. I think the one thing I think about, and I actually wrote about this recently, recently actually occurred when I was a plebe. And it was right after we came out of Beast barracks and we were assigned to our companies. And as we talked about before I went to i3, the very first day we all went up there, it was, you know, it was right before. At that time, reorgy week was right before the Labor Day weekend. And so all the upperclassmen were gone. Of course, all the plebes were still there. And we all were piled into the day room. Well, not room. Room not much bigger than the one we're in right now, you know, and you can imagine there were 25, 30 of us in there, sweaty, stinky plebes. And our TAC came in and talked to us. It was really. It was extraordinary. I mean, he was a guy named Bob Brace. He'd been attacked for a year or so before we were there. And he was our TAC for the next couple years. But he was an infantry Officer, class of 68, from West Point. And he came in and he Talked about his experience as a lieutenant lieutenant in Vietnam. And it was the first time in my life, at least, that I'd ever heard, you know, somebody in a position of authority talk about leadership and how you. How you led people that in this case were drafted, largely draftees, in an unpopular war, and how he kind of went. How he kind of worked through that. And he. And he cited several examples and he talked about. Talked about, you know, some ups and downs as a part of it. But that left really, this really searing vision in my mind of, you know, I. I think he did it to remind us why we were at West Point. Even as we were getting ready to start the academic year. It's like it was a kind of reminder, hey, don't forget why you're here and what you're doing. And. And that never. That never left me. And I often thought about. Later on, he became my battalion commander, commander when I was a company commander. I was kind of a weird parallel universe that kind of came. Came there and. And it was funny, when I saw him, we both, you know, he said, man, I didn't think you were going to make it. I said, well, I didn't think I was gonna make it either. And. But I did, and here I am. And we had a great relationship. But. But, you know, those. Those kinds of experiences I thought were really important. And, you know, we had. The generation of officers that. That were at West Point when I came here were almost, almost, you know, we had Vietnam, we had Korean War veterans, and we actually had some that were World War II. We still had people serving in uniform that were World War II veterans. So they definitely. And particularly the Vietnam officers have definitely had a different perspective. And when you could get them talking about things they didn't always want to talk about, when you got them talking about things in the classroom, it was. It was super formative in terms of that. And you really got you thinking about, you know, what you were doing here and what the challenges were. Were going to be out there in the field and how you thought about it. And of course, you know, the big transition that had taken place between the time they were lieutenants and the time that I was going to be lieutenant. We'd gone from this, a draft army to a volunteer Army. I mean, people were. People volunteered to come in the army at that particular point. So it was a different dynamic. And those things were, I think, really, really important. When I think about something that was formative to me as a cadet, that was. It happened very early, and it never off me Absolutely.
• 41:29
  Speaker A: I'm fascinated with some of the World War II veterans or the Korean War veterans. Was there anything you learned from them while you were at West Point that you found to be false as you moved through your career in the Army?
• 41:40
  Speaker C: I don't know that there was anything that. That was false. I think what I maybe didn't appreciate at the time was I. I had a tendency to think of war as one thing. It was, you know, you're in war in World War II, you're in war in Korea, Korea, you're more in Vietnam. It's all kind of the same thing. But it really. Those were fundamentally different wars with different political objectives, with, you know, a different view from the American public in terms of those things and a different way that we were operating, excuse me, on the ground. And so, you know, I think over time, what I didn't appreciate as a cadet was the differences and the nuances that were involved in each of those conflicts. But that became very apparent to me as I undertook my own service and then began to be in positions where I was in leadership positions in wars that had varying levels of popular support from the American people and that had different strategic objectives and things like that. So I can't say I've learned anything that was false. I mean, I think there are a lot of common things. I mean, in many respects, leadership is leadership. What was good leadership in World War II was probably good leadership in Vietnam and would probably be good leadership in Afghanistan or Iraq. I mean, it was those kinds of things where people could promote trust. They, you know, they were involved, they took care of their people. All of those kinds of things always matter. And this is, I think, something that. That I think it's. It's important for young officers to appreciate is that. And. And I have commented on this several times as I got more senior in the military, the basics actually mattered more. That's why I talk to you about things like relationships or communication or. Or as I became really senior, just learning to be able to provide advice to people, to our civilian leaders. Those three things, those were the three skills that were most important to me. That's pretty basic stuff. I mean, it's just, how do you treat people? How do you develop a relationship? How do you promote trust? How do you communicate effectively so people can understand what they're supposed to do and in return, feel confident in communicating to you? And then how do you develop a relationship with somebody who in most cases doesn't have the same experience. Experience you have, but has the constitutional authority over military Forces and who you're hoping is going to make some really good decisions about what you're doing. How do you, how do you do that? Those, to me, were really, really critical. And it always kind of came down to the basic and, you know, setting a good example as a CENTCOM commander was as important as setting a good example was the platoon leader, 2nd Platoon, A Company, 1st to 4th Infantry. It was the same thing, the different scale, obviously, but those kind of ideas were the same. Sir.
• 44:20
  Speaker A: Knowing what you know now, what advice would you offer to Cadet Votel or to Second Lieutenant Votel?
• 44:25
  Speaker C: Be patient. One of the things I, over time, when I would meet cadets up here, I came back as a senior officer or when you get out to the, get out to the organizations you're leading, you'd sit down and talk to a young officer, you know, a young lieutenant, and they'd immediately be focused on what was next. You know, how, how do I get to the Ranger regiment? You know, I'm in this battalion right here. How do I get to the Ranger regiment? And my, my response over time would, well, first of all, don't worry about that. You really need to concentrate on doing a good job right where you are. I guess the thing I would emphasize to myself and, and I, I found myself that being that way, you're always kind of plotting about what you're doing next. And, and I think, I think the idea is to be wholly into whatever it is you're doing right now and do as good a job in that learn. Suck as much as you can out of, from that learning experience, you know, use that to go forward. I found over time that, you know, good people that did good in whatever position is, they created their own opportunities to move forward. People took notice of that. You recognize that the member of the chain of command appreciated it. They knew, hey, this person's reliable, we can move him or her forward, they're going to do great success stuff. And so I, I think the idea, just being patient and learning as much as you can, just extract as much as you can on every experience that you, that you have. And, and each one of those, I can get you ready for the next one. So that's what I'd tell Cadet Votel.
• 45:54
  Speaker A: Sir, is there an aspect of character or a trait or some word that you would ascertain to that idea of being patient and living in the moment instead of always looking to plan in the moment?
• 46:04
  Speaker C: Aristotle used to talk about three qualities of the great men, great people, people that rose and do things. And he talked about three important qualities. The first was prudence. And what he meant by prudence was the effort to prepare yourself to do what you needed to do to make sure you were competent at the level that you were at and that you were aspiring to go to. So prudence. The second quality that he talked about was passion, and that is feeling the passion towards what you. You're doing. I mean, being involved in loving it, making it your life's work, and really embracing it. And then the third was patience is, you know, being able to put up with a whole bunch of bs to be able to, you know, work with people who were less patient or less prudent or less passionate and be able to move the organization forward. So, you know, I guess if I was to highlight three qualities, there are three character qualities. It would be those is the importance of preparation, prudence, the importance of passion, loving what you're doing, and the importance of patience. And that is being able to work through the challenges and obstacles that come in your way and still get things done.
• 47:15
  Speaker A: General Votel, thank you for your time today and for this great conversation about curiosity, great power, competition, and patience. On behalf of Colonel Pat Sullivan, the director of the Modern war Institute, and Dr. Charles Charlie Fee, the director of this podcast series, it's my pleasure to present you with this rare and coveted MWI coin.
• 47:33
  Speaker C: Good. Thank you, Zach. I appreciate it. Wow, that's great. Now I know I've made it. There we go. Thank you. Appreciate it.
• 47:43
  Speaker B: This has been an episode of Five Questions for a General, a production of the Modern War Institute of West Point. If you like what you heard today, please download, like, subscribe and share this podcast to help us reach an even larger audience. All statements in this podcast represent the personal views of the speakers and do not represent an official position of the United States Military Academy or the United States government.