Interesting to note this is an Annual evaluation; but the language indicates MAJ Connor changed jobs during the year. That should have generated an evaluation in almost all cases. Wonder why the chain of command didn’t do that evaluation?

On MAJ Connor’s end or tour evaluation (ending 25 Apr 2008) he received a “Center of Mass” rating. Compared to 14 in that group again that means he’s the 8th best Major rated (at the best).

The words on the evaluations, while impressive, are as previously stated very standard boilerplate statements. If you were on a promotion board you’d read nearly the same statements over and over except for those that are truly extraordinary or in desperate need of elimination from service. There is nothing exceptional about these evaluations.

Moving from 9th at the worst to 8th at the best is a pretty narrow band. Clearly LTC Connor fell smack dab in the middle of the other Majors he served with in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately this undermines the argument that his service is so exceptional as to provide evidence of his fitness to be second in command of South Carolina.

Fortunately for us as Americans, that means we have a fantastic set of Officers out there defending us.

That may be a result of the other majors (likely all of them graded center of mass) or just an oversight when filling out the eval. Read the comments closely. They are specific to the duties then Maj Connor was responsible for and don’t seem boiler-plate at all.

Today is the first time I’ve read them completely and I like the guy even more.

There certainly isn’t a better candidate.

As amusing as lectures in manhood from a sailor are, I’m not buying what you’re selling. Listen, my “alpha-male” friend, serving as a Corpsman on Camp Lejeune, while honorable, doesn’t exactly constitute serving “with” the Marines. To paraphrase you; for the record, as a Marine who served on Camp Lejeune, I might know what I’m talking about. Same goes for the scary impressive “Lebanon/Grenada-era military veteran” thing on your web page. Not everyone serves in combat (psst, that’s a good thing). There’s nothing to be ashamed of about that. Playing fast and loose with language as pertains to your military service in order to seem more butch like you did? Lil’ bit shameful. Just saying.

Being the author of several books is impressive. Being the author of several books that you published yourself through a vanity publishing site? Less so. Another thing, on-line degrees aren’t exactly worthless but they aren’t exactly good enough that you can put on airs. Know what I’m saying? Don’t get me wrong, brother, I have one too. They’re good for moving up the ladder in the service. That said, not rubbing anybody’s nose in my Thomas Edison Bachelor of Arts degree.

As pertains to MAJ Connor’s OER, or candidacy in general, I have no dog in this fight. I stumbled across this site because someone complained on a different site about attacks on candidate Connor. I came here to see what was what. For what it’s worth, the language in both evals is pretty boilerplate. Noteworthy is that he was rated “center of mass” in his first eval. To quote George Piccirilli, the Total Army Personnel Command officer evaluation system chief, “A senior raters’ ability to give above-center-of-mass ratings is limited by regulation to less than 50 percent of the reports rendered in a particular grade,” Piccirilli said. “It allows senior raters the opportunity to advance their best, with the confidence others can’t inflate.” That means that out of 14 Majors rated, MAJ Connor was 8th, at best. He made above center of mass on his final in-theater eval. Shitbag? Not in the least. You can, and may very well, earn promotion with those evals. Should his observations from the front be taken as gospel? Eh, maybe not as much.

So, does candidate Connor have the most impressive record for a Lt.Governor? I’ve seen better. Seen worse too. It’s typically a ceremonial position anyway. That said, it’s important to vet your Lt. Governors carefully. If you want proof of that, check out what happened in New York.

Rob

P.S. By the way, Mr. Pratt? I’m a member of the Democratic Party and I have a Bronze Star. The two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Does that medal make me an expert on foreign affairs or exempt from criticism? Not hardly.

I, for one, take my vote quite seriously and will be looking with great interest to see if the Guard leadership deems Mr Connor’s professional pedigree worthy of battalion command.

If you want to roll the dice and elect a political neophyte to the second highest office in the land in charge of a 60,000-employee failing enterprise, that’s your business.

On the other hand, WTF. Can we really do any worse than our present line-up?

Attacks like this are politics as usual. There’s a response from one of the guys in the convoy in Afghanistan located at http://palmettostatepolitics.blogspot.com if you want to hear the truth about this man.

One almost wants to triangulate this latest installment with a handful of contemporary national politicians: Kennedy, Webb, Kerrey, Kerry, McCain, Cleland, and Obama and see what the optics say.

Consider the following attributes:

Military controversies: Kennedy’s heroics with PT-109 came about from reckless exposure of boat and crew in combat; Webb’s stands on principle (women can’t fight, resignation as SECNAV over shipbuild; Kerrey’s MOH tainted by Thanh Phong massacre; Kerry’s three PHs, BS and SS in record time with fallacious combat claims; McCain had none; Cleland’s self wounding, received BS and SS; Obama – no military experience.

Military “street cred” with peers and subordinates (would you serve with him again): Kennedy – moderate, almost too popularized; Webb – high; Kerrey – high; Kerry – controversial; McCain – average with high POW factor; Cleland – above average with sympathy; Obama – none.

Books: Kennedy – “Profiles” as a statement of values; Webb- “Sense of Honor”, etc; Kerrey – memoir in 02; McCain – “Flags of Our Fathers” before POTUS run; Cleland – none; Obama – two biographies.

Experience before national/prominent politics: Kennedy: military as gateway to politics; Webb: military, author, lawyer, professor, public sector, business; Kerrey: medically retired from military, businessman for 10 years; Kerry: military, protestor, DA, private law, LtGov; McCain: military; Cleland: medically retired from military, state legis. Obama: community organizer, state legis.

Juris doctorate: Kennedy- no; Webb- yes; Kerrey – no; Kerry – yes; McCain- no; Cleland – no; Obama – yes.

Natural constituencies: Kennedy: democrat populist/machine; Webb: democrat populist, veterans; Kerrey: democrat populist, veterans, business; Kerry: democrat populist/liberal, attorneys, unions; McCain: moderate republicans, business, veterans; Cleland: moderate democrats; Obama: liberal democrats, unions.

Ripeness for prominent office sought: Kennedy – young possessing relevant experience; Webb – well qualified; Kerrey – mature business and leadership portfolio; Kerry – reasonable political progression; McCain – natural transition from mature military career; Cleland – reasonable political progression; Obama – limited experience beyond campaign stage.

The Silver Bullet: Kennedy – Family money, power, charisma, machine politics; Webb – The genuine article; Kerrey – MOH and American Pie in the corn-fed state; Kerry – Manufactured facade operating in liberal machine politics; McCain – POW with second wife’s money and influence; Cleland – Purple Heart and moderate democrat presence; Obama – mastery of optics and machine politics in the campaign mode.

Would you trust him to run a government? Kennedy – no; Webb – yes; Kerrey – yes; Kerry – no; McCain – maybe; Cleland – yes; Obama – maybe.

Would you drink a beer with him (mainstream populist perception)? Kennedy – yes; Webb – yes; Kerrey – yes; Kerry – no; McCain – yes; Cleland – yes; Obama – maybe.

Would you trust him with the life of your son/daughter: Kennedy – no; Webb – yes; Kerrey – yes; Kerry – no; McCain – yes; Cleland – yes; Obama – maybe.

Success after achieving office: Kennedy – mixed; Webb – trending up; Kerrey – yes; Kerry – marginally yes as a Senator with limited signature legislation; McCain – yes; Cleland – moderate; Obama – maybe.

What does all this mean?

-SC does not have a recent history of electing constitutional office candidates with military experience comprising the bulk of their vitae. Even the Adjutant General usually has experience beyond the uniform.

-Having an image and track record of achievements and experience that allows voters to understand a candidate usually helps get votes. You need at least one of the two above (see Obama below).

-The book thing worked for Obama, but generally is not used by prospective candidates to introduce themselves to electorates.

-Relevant experience is usually a reasonable predictor on future successes in office (see Obama and early Kennedy years).

-The voting public will generally not consider deeper than/beyond a record of successful uniformed service.

-Having a JD is revenue neutral, unless you are Rudy Giuliani or Elliot Spitzer or specialize in the defense of child molesters.

-Resilient natural constituencies can make a successful electoral run easier.

-Timing is everything in the electoral process. Even a blind pig will find an acorn on occasion, and particularly in a barren field.

Getting back to triangulation, one can take the above attributes and rack and stack our candidate for some interesting comparisons and contrasts, since there are precious few leading SC pols who have tried to run on, much less possess, military service as their main draw card.

Thanks for the interesting read. Some thoughts for the viewing public:

Most folks know that, particularly in a Joint or Combined environment, evals are somewhat (often grossly) inflated because there are limited peers from the same service, rank, or even country from which to truly grade shape a proper eval (”Major Bill Connor has few peers within this command” – pretty safe on THAT one!). Heck, most times gaining headquarters are happy just to get a warm body (a reason why a neophyte senior Major -no background in Combined/Joint Pol-Mil- from the SCNG could even get this opportunity), so you will generally see high (inflated) evals and end of tour awards like Bronze Stars flying off the shelves like candy.

Some more insight: Many Joint and most combined evals are first drafted by the member being evaluated. There is some wisdom here, because each service or nation has nuances for evals, and most evaluators want to assist and not penalize members for doing a good job (whch in many instances is just breathing and not killing anyone).

Trying to keep the high road here, but one could take a leap and presume that an officer who had sufficient time to write a book in a combat theater (most sleep when they are not working) would have exercised proper diligence in crafting a marketable paper trail if one is jaundiced enough to presume that said officer might be calculating enough to be contemplating a run for statewide office in his or her home state.

Back to task: The Brits, in particular, have made an art of their word crafting of evaluations. Many are true things of beauty.

So, summing up:

-Some pretty impressive verbage, most of which would be seen in a typical officer’s record for this type tour of duty (so no harm, no foul – it’s a record of service). Good fodder for the general public – could probably make a run for public office on it, and good stuff for career progression as Joint/Combined paper in combat conditions.

-The above-cited evals present facts that cannot be held in dispute since they are now official documents (am relying on faithful transcriptions from originals, here). The conditions surrounding these facts (the story behind the story on the edited final version) might prove interesting. For example:

“Bill led a combat convoy that survived a massive Taliban ambush involving small arms, automatic weapons fire, RPGS (including 2 vehicle hits), mortars, and IEDs for over 7Km without a single US casualty.”

Convoys are under duress all the time. One might wonder, was he the convoy commander or a/the senior member? Is this the only instance where he was leading a convoy that was attacked during a whole year of service?

This stream could go on forever, but you get my drift……

-The candidate most probably had an opportunity (like most other officers) to ensure the inclusion of key careerist phrases like:

“…as one of our Army’s brightest future senior leaders”

“Promote to Lieutenant colonel, select for battalion command” (pretty standard boilerplate).

“A tough combat leader Major Connor has performed well under intense enemy fire.” This one is interesting, since intense enemy fire for a grunt is different from that for a MilAd – it couldn’t have been too intense if there was enough time to write a book, but I am parsing here.

And my personal favorite:

“Find him a Lieutenant Colonel position in the South Carolina National Guard. Make him a Battalion Commander. He has the potential to be a Brigade Commander and wear a star”

I know of Brigadier McKay through his amazing reputation and many would consider him a most gracious and generous man. Small world indeed! Frankly as a selfless warrior, thoughtful scholar, and dedicated family man, HE is the type of citizen-soldier candidate I would support for LtGov or even governor. Now THAT would be an interesting race!

View the actual documents at voteconnor.com. Click “About Bill” and scroll down to the “evaluations” link

Lieutenant Colonel Connor stood out among a cast of superstars. He led from the front demonstrating personal courage in the face of the enemy fire on a near daily basis… LTC Connor led a 2-week clearing operation around the villages of Kariz de Baba and Kariz de Chalgah resulting in 100 Taliban KIA and 50 Taliban captured. Despite over TICs and multiple indirect fire attacks, not one ANP was wounded or killed. British General McKay singled LTC Connor out for praise.

Find him a Lieutenant Colonel position in the South Carolina National Guard. Make him a Battalion Commander. He has the potential to be a Brigade Commander and wear a star.

Lieutenant Colonel Bill Connor has performed in an absolutely outstanding manner as the Afghan National Police mentor in Helmand Province, Afghanistan… he has performed well under intense fire and always leads from the front… Unlimited potential, select for battalion command followed by attendance at a senior service college…

MAJ Connor is a fearless, consummate combat leader. He has served as a brigade-equivalent operations officer and as a battalion-equivalent commander of all Police Mentor Teams (PMTs) in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, the most volatile province in southern Afghanistan… Bill led a combat convoy that survived a massive Taliban ambush involving small arms, automatic weapons fire, RPGS (including 2 vehicle hits), mortars, and IEDs for over 7Km without a single US casualty. Bill placed himself in harm’s way numerous times to accomplish his missions…

Select this warrior for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel now, and send to Senior Staff College upon eligibility…

An absolutely outstanding performance as a Provincial Police Team Mentor in Southern Afghanistan. Major Bill Connor has few peers within this command. He possesses unquestionable competence, leadershiop savvy, and a broad perspective to excel as one of our Army’s brightest future senior leaders. He is unflappable and a seasoned, mature decision maker… A tough combat leader Major Connor has performed well under intense enemy fire and always led his men from the front. Promote to Lieutenant colonel, select for battalion command.

I believe the oil gig Liz refers to is the trans-stan connector into Pak/India markets (no credible estimates on drillable oil in Afg per say). Hard to build infrastructure now because of Taliban resistance. Same with the northern loop road into China. Both projects would capitalize on Afg geolocation as a historical trade hub/connector.

I was alluding more to nat gas and coal production for Afg’s economic dev. Of course, Kyoto could put a damper on that…