GEN Petraeus vs. Ralph Peters on Graduate Education for Officers

[jonSlack]

GEN David H. Petraeus - Beyond the Cloister (http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=290&MId=14)


"The most powerful tool any soldier carries is not his weapon but his mind. These days, and for the days ahead as far as we can see, what soldiers at all ranks know is liable to be at least as important to their success as what they can physically do. Some key questions before the U.S. military in changing times therefore must be: How do we define the best military education for the U.S. armed forces, and what are the best ways to impart that education? What should be the ideal relationship between soldiering and the schoolhouse?"

I wonder if the unnamed professor at Princeton was Michael Walzer.

[whsieh]

I just started hanging around here, so apologies if this was already referred to (I haven't seen a reference to it at least).

Enclosed are two links on the role graduate education at civilian universities should (or should not) play in a serving officer's career. The first is a piece by GEN Petraeus, the second by Ralph Peters--the latter includes a thinly veiled and extremely critical reference to LTC Nagl and the current COIN manual:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=290&MId=14

http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=291&MId=14

WWSH

[Shek]

General Petraeus' article was posted here, http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3294, but Ralph Peters' piece wasn't posted yet.

[Rob Thornton]

Welcome aboard sir. :) Your comments and insights will be value added.

[SteveMetz]

I just started hanging around here, so apologies if this was already referred to (I haven't seen a reference to it at least).

Enclosed are two links on the role graduate education at civilian universities should (or should not) play in a serving officer's career. The first is a piece by GEN Petraeus, the second by Ralph Peters--the latter includes a thinly veiled and extremely critical reference to LTC Nagl and the current COIN manual:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=290&MId=14

http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=291&MId=14

WWSH

This goes way back. Ralph (along with Ed Luttwak) are in what I call the "mailed fist" school of counterinsurgency. They basically see it as a variant of conventional war. They recognize that insurgents attempt to make the pscyhological and political battlespaces decisive because they can't compete with the government (and its supporters) in the military battlespace. My response to them I've stolen from Harry Summers' made up quotation which he attributes to a North Vietnamese colonel: "That is true, but irrelevant." The United States does not do the mailed fist. It might should we be struck by WMD terrorism but, alas, we will not until then.

3-24 is derived more from the ideas of people like Robert Thompson and David Galula. This approach assumes that counterinsurgents, if adept, can compete with insurgents in the psychological and political realms.

[whsieh]

I actually liked Luttwak's book on Strategy--it was very subtle in lots of ways--and I've heard good things about his book on the Romans, which I've never actually read. But yeah, I've seen his stuff on counterinsurgency, and I agree that there's a certain unreality to it. I thought his op-ed a while back on the strategic possibilities of the Sunni/Shia split for larger American policy in the region to be really interesting, but that was a different issue than COIN. I did see Dr. Kilcullen's response to Luttwak here, and I thought he had the better part of the argument. Schultz and Dew had a more interesting critique of the COIN manual in a NYT Op-ed a while back, but I think that that was when the manual was still in draft form.

Peters is well... Peters. I actually think he has some good ideas, and the odd thing about the piece I mentioned is that he does endorse MA degrees and language learning, but there's just so much.... invective involved. And I was quite flabbergasted by the extraordinary repeated exchange regarding LTC Nagl.

WWSH

[SteveMetz]

I actually liked Luttwak's book on Strategy--it was very subtle in lots of ways--and I've heard good things about his book on the Romans, which I've never actually read. But yeah, I've seen his stuff on counterinsurgency, and I agree that there's a certain unreality to it. I thought his op-ed a while back on the strategic possibilities of the Sunni/Shia split for larger American policy in the region to be really interesting, but that was a different issue than COIN. I did see Dr. Kilcullen's response to Luttwak here, and I thought he had the better part of the argument. Schultz and Dew had a more interesting critique of the COIN manual in a NYT Op-ed a while back, but I think that that was when the manual was still in draft form.

Peters is well... Peters. I actually think he has some good ideas, and the odd thing about the piece I mentioned is that he does endorse MA degrees and language learning, but there's just so much.... invective involved. And I was quite flabbergasted by the extraordinary repeated exchange regarding LTC Nagl.

WWSH

The clearest recent expression of Luttwak's thinking was in Harpers. And you're right about the NYT op ed: they were working off of the interim manual which I also though was very bad. I made 83 detailed, line in/line out comments on an early draft of it, some simply factual corrections, and none of them were used.

[Tom Odom]

Peters standard of writing (and speaking I suppose) is designed to appeal to base instinct and lesser intellect; he has great emotional tug with an audience that is frustrated and wants to strike back.

that is not to say that some of his ideas are cogent but they get lost in the hyperbole and lack of realism. A case in point was his presntation in Italy concering redrawing borders. A superficial consideration might say he is correct but any deeper look asks the foillow up questions--the ones that Peters ignores. In that regard, he is much like (but not the same as) the neocons espousing forcefully exported democracy as an answer to the ills of the Middle East.

Tom

[Steve Blair]

Peters makes a great emotional connection with his fiction as well. It tends to be sparse on specifics and deep in emotion, which makes for a good read but one that often leaves you without a firm sense of place or space but very deep characters (IMO, anyhow).

I've found this with both his Peters stuff and the Civil War stuff he did under the name Parry. I think he carries this trend over into his policy commentary. His earlier writing on fighting warrior societies had the feel of being somewhat visionary and was saying things that (at the time) weren't being understood in many quarters. Since then I got the feeling that he's been trying to recapture that moment.

Just my take, anyhow, and apologies for derailing the thread....:o

[SteveMetz]

Peters makes a great emotional connection with his fiction as well. It tends to be sparse on specifics and deep in emotion, which makes for a good read but one that often leaves you without a firm sense of place or space but very deep characters (IMO, anyhow).

I've found this with both his Peters stuff and the Civil War stuff he did under the name Parry. I think he carries this trend over into his policy commentary. His earlier writing on fighting warrior societies had the feel of being somewhat visionary and was saying things that (at the time) weren't being understood in many quarters. Since then I got the feeling that he's been trying to recapture that moment.

Just my take, anyhow, and apologies for derailing the thread....:o

Geez, I love the Owen Parry series. I was asking him a couple of days ago when he was going to do another one (not for a year).

True that he often devolves into flame throwing, particularly in presentations. But I think there is erudite, astute thinking that underlies it. I don't always agree with him, but always find him worth consideration. I think his many Parameters articles may be best because they were toned down, allowing the analysis to shine through.

[Ski]

There is a reason why Peters writes for the New York Post.

[Dominique R. Poirier]

While perusing General David Petraeus’ essay, Beyond the Cloister, I spotted in it the following excerpt which struck me.

“What General Galvin meant was that military professionals often live a cloistered existence that limits what we experience first hand. At the same time, we have our noses to the grindstone, which tends to make us unaware of what we’re missing. We don’t pause and look up often enough, because we don’t have the time.”

Actually, my point just aims at putting the emphasis on this pertinent statement. For, I personally experienced it with huge benefits. It applies to civilians and scholars as well!

During some years of my professional career in communication and media I busied myself doing, teaching, writing, meeting, chitchatting, exchanging inormation, going here and there, and, the last but not the least: reading and studying.

Eventually, an event in my life put a sudden end to all this frenzy, and I began to remember: past conversations, readings, people, events. That’s from this moment on that I came to realize and understand many things, many meanings, many important details I totally missed to see until that moment because my mind was overwhelmed at jumping from one event to another and at memorizing; but not synthesizing since I just didn’t have the time and the rest for. I ventured into my mind as I would do while looking in the shelves of a library.
Pursuing on my metaphoric comparison, dusty “books” and “records” and “files” where all here--including the oldest and forgotten ones--painstakingly put side by side, but oten unconnected each with others.

That’s when I began to “read” slowly all of them, one by one, sometimes breaking this “rule” when compelled to jump from one to another located at the farthest end of the “shelf” because a new hypothesis was surging up. Physically, I was doing nothing; I even didn’t read. At best, I could passively watch television, but in an absent-minded manner as anyone could easily notice it. In reality, my mind was truly piecing bits of memory together. That way I retrieved countless unnoticed details, anecdotes and pieces of old readings that now found their relevancy and importance.

I learned a great many things from that new experiment. Things I previously memorized without properly analyzing them. I did it like that, without doing anything; in appearance only.

How enlightening and profitable was this experience to me. Now, I do not exclude the hypothesis that my mind may possibly not have the capacity to read, learn, and properly the flow of incoming information all at the same time. What about you who read me?

When I was in the army I learned that the mind of the soldier must be made busy by all possible means so as to prevent him from thinking. For, it was said, a soldier is not supposed to think, but to execute orders; and discipline is broken as soon as the soldier begins to think.

Does this military rule still prevail nowadays as General David Petraeus seems suggest it?

[Mark O'Neill]

From where I sit, I think attitudes like Peters' account for why there has been so much trouble in some folks 'waking up' to what was wrong in Iraq.

Much of his writing appears unnecesarily polemical. If I had a junior officer or intern who wrote in such a style I would do my utmost to change it.

I have never met the guy, but to my mind he writes like he might have a few 'roos loose in the top paddock. This in turn obscurates any good points that he might actually have.

I think his article in The American Interest lacked rigour, justification and intellect - in fact, it was the perfect argument against what he was arguing for.

Shame that he is not still serving. I would love for him to try and implement some of his ideas in the AO and see how far he got before his chain was pulled tight. My bet is it would not be too far at all... Then again, I think that thoughts like his are the last thing we need in Iraq or Afghanistan at the moment.. He has probably found his niche in monday morning quarterbacking...

[SteveMetz]

From where I sit, I think attitudes like Peters' account for why there has been so much trouble in some folks 'waking up' to what was wrong in Iraq.

Much of his writing appears unnecesarily polemical. If I had a junior officer or intern who wrote in such a style I would do my utmost to change it.

I have never met the guy, but to my mind he writes like he might have a few 'roos loose in the top paddock. This in turn obscurates any good points that he might actually have.

I think his article in The American Interest lacked rigour, justification and intellect - in fact, it was the perfect argument against what he was arguing for.

Shame that he is not still serving. I would love for him to try and implement some of his ideas in the AO and see how far he got before his chain was pulled tight. My bet is it would not be too far at all... Then again, I think that thoughts like his are the last thing we need in Iraq or Afghanistan at the moment.. He has probably found his niche in monday morning quarterbacking...

Ralph's position is that he doesn't need speaking or writing fees to make a living, so he feels he can say exactly what he thinks. If people don't like it, they shouldn't read or listen. He truly is free. And I'm pretty sure he has no inclination to be a policymaker and implement his ideas. I think there is an important place for people who don't want to exercise power but simply to challenge and provoke those who do.

I personally wish that he would tone things down a bit so that his ideas had more impact. (And I myself have had to write letters of apology to people insulted by a talk he gave at an event I organized). That said, I just filter out the bluster and focus in on his core ideas. Even when I disagree with them (as, for instance, his insistence on a "mailed fist" approach to counterinsurgency), I always find them worth considering.

I am also extremely envious of his immense talents as a prose stylist and speaker. As I mentioned in another thread, I HATE to follow him on stage.

[Old Eagle]

1. Military thinking. Had a 4-star boss once who told all of us in the office that for at least 15-30 minutes every day, we should prop our feet up on our desk, look out the window, and think about the good of the Army. It was some of the best advice I ever received, and I attempted to practice it for every subsequent assignment. Mind you, he had an E-ring office that looked out on verdant lawns and Arlington Cemetary, whereas we had interior offices that looked out on the ventilation system and the offices in the next ring over. Not much scenery, except when the secretary changed clothes on the way to the gym... but I digress. Free thinkers are the biggest boon the Army (or any organization) has.

2. Ralph. I love Ralph. I loved him when he was on active duty and I love him now. His original pieces about the devolution to "mad max" scenarios in some parts of the world were critical, but essentially overlooked. Even when I disagree with what he's saying, he makes me think. You too, I guess, or you wouldn't be commenting.

[Tom Odom]

Ralph's position is that he doesn't need speaking or writing fees to make a living, so he feels he can say exactly what he thinks. If people don't like it, they shouldn't read or listen. He truly is free. And I'm pretty sure he has no inclination to be a policymaker and implement his ideas. I think there is an important place for people who don't want to exercise power but simply to challenge and provoke those who do.

Steve where Peters goes wrong for me is in his polemical calls to hate and kill on a scale that would make Attila smile. He is free to voice his opinion and he is free of the consequences; that makes him at best irresponsible and more probably uncaring. It does not, however, render him free of guilt in stoking hate. I have seen first hand what happens when the type of murderous forces Peters often advocates are unleashed. In that regard, Peters is very much like a Western version of a fundamentalist fanatic; he is articulate. He polarizes and paralyzes rational thought. And above all, he offers his position as the only true choice, a page right out of Eric Hoffer.

Best

Tom

[Mark O'Neill]

Steve where Peters goes wrong for me is in his polemical calls to hate and kill on a scale that would make Attila smile. He is free to voice his opinion and he is free of the consequences; that makes him at best irresponsible and more probably uncaring. It does not, however, render him free of guilt in stoking hate. I have seen first hand what happens when the type of murderous forces Peters often advocates are unleashed. In that regard, Peters is very much like a Western version of a fundamentalist fanatic; he is articulate. He polarizes and paralyzes rational thought. And above all, he offers his position as the only true choice, a page right out of Eric Hoffer.

Best

Tom

Point well made Tom.

Often the only difference between folks like the Interahamwe and people who casually espouse violence and killing as if it had no more consequence than a transaction at the commissary is opportunity. How else can we account for things like you witnessed, or the actions of so many otherwise 'regular' folks who committed so many atrocities during the Holocaust or the ethnic cleansing in the FYRP?

We let people who espouse theories regarding violence and killing off the hook in 'peacetime' if we do not call them to account for their 'thoughts', by saying 'that is their right to free speech'. This, in my opinion, makes us complicit in any evil that follows.

[SteveMetz]

Point well made Tom.

Often the only difference between folks like the Interahamwe and people who casually espouse violence and killing as if it had no more consequence than a transaction at the commissary is opportunity. How else can we account for things like you witnessed, or the actions of so many otherwise 'regular' folks who committed so many atrocities during the Holocaust or the ethnic cleansing in the FYRP?

We let people who espouse theories regarding violence and killing off the hook in 'peacetime' if we do not call them to account for their 'thoughts', by saying 'that is their right to free speech'. This, in my opinion, makes us complicit in any evil that follows.

That's an interesting argument but also a slippery slope. Using it, we could also argue that Richard Perle and Rush Limbaugh are responsible for the violence in Iraq today.

But flip comments aside, I see an important ethical distinction between advocating aggressive illegal violence (the Interhamwe) and advocating forceful methods against enemies. To the best of my knowledge (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), Ralph's argument has been that we are in a state of war but have imposed restraints on ourselves that states do not normally impose when in a state of war. Now, I personally disagree with that. In the monograph I'm working on now, I argue that "war" is not the appropriate response to the threat we face. But IF one buys the notion that we are at war, I think Ralph's position is at least reasonable.

[Granite_State]

That's an interesting argument but also a slippery slope. Using it, we could also argue that Richard Perle and Rush Limbaugh are responsible for the violence in Iraq today.

But flip comments aside, I see an important ethical distinction between advocating aggressive illegal violence (the Interhamwe) and advocating forceful methods against enemies. To the best of my knowledge (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), Ralph's argument has been that we are in a state of war but have imposed restraints on ourselves that states do not normally impose when in a state of war. Now, I personally disagree with that. In the monograph I'm working on now, I argue that "war" is not the appropriate response to the threat we face. But IF one buys the notion that we are at war, I think Ralph's position is at least reasonable.

I read Peters for the first time a few years back, initially liked him a lot, but in the wake of Iraq some of his stuff looks increasingly irresponsible and indeed ludicrous, the article about redrawing the borders of the Middle East being the best example. Saw him speak in DC once about four years ago, did enjoy him and thought he held his own with the likes of Christopher Hitchens.

I agree about the Parameters pieces, especially the one on warriors, prescient for when it was written. But he seems to rely on emotion and instinct far, far more than evidence, as others have noted. I didn't find his piece on the dreams of the Arabs all that persuasive. And I remember a cover story he did on suicide bombings for the Weekly Standard a little while back, was excited to read it but it became virtually unreadable about halfway through.

Here's a question though, bit of a digression from the original thread: does the "mailed fist" even work? Didn't seem to for the Germans in Yugoslavia, nor the Russians in Afghanistan, although us arming the mujahideen changed the playing field obviously. German genocide in Africa pre-WWI did the trick though. The Romans, of course, "made a desert and called it peace." Other historical examples are escaping me at the moment, not sure where you'd put Israeli COIN, certainly not genocide but not hearts and minds either. So even if we were to remove all the media and political consequences, is there a level of violence we can use, short of actual genocide, that would defeat a strong insurgency? I think Bill Lind, for what it's worth, would say the Hama model works, you can be very violent, but it has to be quick.

[SteveMetz]

I read Peters for the first time a few years back, initially liked him a lot, but in the wake of Iraq some of his stuff looks increasingly irresponsible and indeed ludicrous, the article about redrawing the borders of the Middle East being the best example. Saw him speak in DC once about four years ago, did enjoy him and thought he held his own with the likes of Christopher Hitchens.

I agree about the Parameters pieces, especially the one on warriors, prescient for when it was written. But he seems to rely on emotion and instinct far, far more than evidence, as others have noted. I didn't find his piece on the dreams of the Arabs all that persuasive. And I remember a cover story he did on suicide bombings for the Weekly Standard a little while back, was excited to read it but it became virtually unreadable about halfway through.

Here's a question though, bit of a digression from the original thread: does the "mailed fist" even work? Didn't seem to for the Germans in Yugoslavia, nor the Russians in Afghanistan, although us arming the mujahideen changed the playing field obviously. German genocide in Africa pre-WWI did the trick though. The Romans, of course, "made a desert and called it peace." Other historical examples are escaping me at the moment, not sure where you'd put Israeli COIN, certainly not genocide but not hearts and minds either. So even if we were to remove all the media and political consequences, is there a level of violence we can use, short of actual genocide, that would defeat a strong insurgency? I think Bill Lind, for what it's worth, would say the Hama model works, you can be very violent, but it has to be quick.

Luttwak contends that German occupation policy in World War II actually WAS effective. The idea that partisans were having much effect--he says--is mostly myth written by the victors. Take that for whatever you want.

It also worked for Imperial Russians and Soviets in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Advocates of the mailed fist would say it didn't work in Afghanistan because the Soviets never put in enough troops. It also worked in Guatemala, the United States, and Scotland.

[Tom Odom]

I see an important ethical distinction between advocating aggressive illegal violence (the Interhamwe) and advocating forceful methods against enemies. To the best of my knowledge (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), Ralph's argument has been that we are in a state of war but have imposed restraints on ourselves that states do not normally impose when in a state of war. Now, I personally disagree with that. In the monograph I'm working on now, I argue that "war" is not the appropriate response to the threat we face. But IF one buys the notion that we are at war, I think Ralph's position is at least reasonable.

Steve

I would say that is a question of how you define the enemy and how you see the conflict. I see it as a conflict that requires much less force and a broader spectrum of tools. I also see the enemy as a smaller and inherently dangerous foe not given to negotiation. A mailed fist is the wrong tool, one likely to spread the conflict.

Tom

[SteveMetz]

Steve

I would say that is a question of how you define the enemy and how you see the conflict. I see it as a conflict that requires much less force and a broader spectrum of tools. I also see the enemy as a smaller and inherently dangerous foe not given to negotiation. A mailed fist is the wrong tool, one likely to spread the conflict.

Tom


I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is that I think it's valid to critique Ralph's position on the basis of effectiveness or on the basis of incongruence with the American national culture (which was my line of attack against Luttwak), but I don't think you can say, ipso facto, that it's immoral IF one assumes we are at war. I buy Ralph's point that IF we are at war, we should behave as if we are at war. I do not buy the point that we are at war (or, more accurately, that war is the appropriate and effective response to the threat we face).

[John T. Fishel]

Steve--

I would contend that the "mailed fist" in Guatemala largely prolonged the war. Granted, military operations specifically targeted on insurgents were effective but those targeted on civilian, Indian communities were counterproductive. What worked for the Guatemalans was their Civil Affairs program called "Polos de Desarrollo" that created armed villages - Mayan language speaking - with significant economic, political, and social rewards. Indeed, it never was the scorched earth campaign initiated or expanded by Rios Montt that brought an end to the war but rather the return of democracy and a population centric strategy coupled with intelligence driven operations against the insurgents that won the fight.

I would also take issue with you regarding the notion that the insurgency in Iraq (and by extension other insurgencies) is not war. Indeed, isurgency is probably the most total war around requiring a real mobilization of the societies under attack or by the attackers if they would achieve success over thelong term. That does not mean repression as the strategy. Sure, absolute repression does work for a while. But to use the Guatemalan case again, the most recent insurgency was the third generation - the first two were wiped out - repressed absolutely - but insurgency was resurgent.:)

Cheers

JohnT

[Merv Benson]

I think an argument can be made that it was pretty effective for Saddam for several years. However, it was at the cost of several mass graves. That is a cost we are not willing to accept. I think the approach that is being suggested by Peters could work without the mass graves, but it would require more troops than we would ever be willing to commit to Iraq. I think the current surge suggest there is a more effective approach using more economy for force.

[SteveMetz]

Steve--

I would contend that the "mailed fist" in Guatemala largely prolonged the war. Granted, military operations specifically targeted on insurgents were effective but those targeted on civilian, Indian communities were counterproductive. What worked for the Guatemalans was their Civil Affairs program called "Polos de Desarrollo" that created armed villages - Mayan language speaking - with significant economic, political, and social rewards. Indeed, it never was the scorched earth campaign initiated or expanded by Rios Montt that brought an end to the war but rather the return of democracy and a population centric strategy coupled with intelligence driven operations against the insurgents that won the fight.

I would also take issue with you regarding the notion that the insurgency in Iraq (and by extension other insurgencies) is not war. Indeed, isurgency is probably the most total war around requiring a real mobilization of the societies under attack or by the attackers if they would achieve success over thelong term. That does not mean repression as the strategy. Sure, absolute repression does work for a while. But to use the Guatemalan case again, the most recent insurgency was the third generation - the first two were wiped out - repressed absolutely - but insurgency was resurgent.:)

Cheers

JohnT

I spent quite a bit of time working on a reply to your thoughtful post. Here's what I came up with: "Sez YOU!!!"

[Tom Odom]

I spent quite a bit of time working on a reply to your thoughtful post. Here's what I came up with: "Sez YOU!!!"


Oh man I am laughing so hard my gut hurts :D

[SteveMetz]

Oh man I am laughing so hard my gut hurts :D


Different issue. Category: Army Africanists. Do you know Mike Smith? I'd lost touch with him over the past few years, but spent an hour in his office in State PolMil today. He's doing great work.

[Tom Odom]

Steve,

The name rings a bell but I cannot place him.

Best

Tom

[Jimbo]

Mike is a really great guy.

[yamiyugikun]

Hi,

I am a civilian that just joined a while ago, but I enjoy reading the Small Wars Forums, because there are many things I can learn and apply to my life. While a librarian isn't a "warrior" per say, I learned many important things like motivation and why knowledge is important in my own professional/educational career.

Sincerely,
Naomi Chiba