________________________________________________________________________Richard S. Kem
As commandant I took a proponency role in trying to work with the engineer colonels
assignment officer as to what kind of needs there were and so forth. I often got calls from the
assignment officer saying, "I'd like to check one out with you; what do you think of this
one?" I think he was also calling the Chief of Engineers doing the same kind of thing.
Q:
So, do you think, from your perspective, that was an advantage of having this input that, say,
your infantry or artillery counterpart didn't have? Was he sort of--struggling in the dark is
too strong--but operating without those sorts of contacts?
A:
They always seemed to manage. I guess you always had a commander of the Officer
Personnel Directorate who was infantry, armor, and artillery, so they got their help there. All
the generals who wanted help were calling him, so they had a lot more interaction there.
Also it depended on the branch chief. Lou Tixier knew the Chiefs of Engineers. He knew
them from having served with them; he respected them; and he said, "Sam, you've got a
special relationship with the Chiefs of Engineers. I expect you to make that relationship
work. You got any problems, call me, but don't feel reluctant to dialogue with them to make
it work."
So, I really had his mandate--and really it all followed common sense. I mean, everybody--
the Chief of Engineers, the Deputy Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Colonels Division, me,
and the individual were all trying to make sure we got a round peg in a round hole and square
pegs in square holes and did the right kind of thing.
Now certain people had views; they'd say, "Well, so and so doesn't seem right to me." I'd
say, "How come?" They'd tell me how come, and then it would usually be obvious--it didn't
seem right.
Before centralized command selection, it was different; of course, this is a little hearsay from
me because I was at the end of that period. Oftentimes generals and colonels would want
their favorite person to go command one of the top engineer troop units, even though he was
not the best qualified person. So, our recommendation would go forward. The messages
would come back saying, "How come him? So and so was certainly a better commander than
the one you're nominating. I don't understand you guys; you just don't know what you're
doing."
However, we had the personnel file, and it might show that same person he insisted upon
having as his colonel commander was relieved from battalion command as a lieutenant
colonel. It was a matter of principle--you don't reveal that stuff. So, we were saying, "No, he
is not recommended for command and can't go in to command." Now later on, the
centralized command selection basically took care of that problem, though a lot of people, of
course, would say, "So and so is not selected. We don't understand it."
Over time, we basically have an understanding of how it goes. That was a phenomenon that
occurred back early on, and one of the reasons why centralized command selection came
about.
151
Previous Page
