Fiasco at the Army War College?
We’ve been tracking two Posts by Tom Ricks at his new blogosphere home (The Best Defense) at Foreign Policy. The first post, Fiasco at the Army War College concerns one of our Council members – Dr. Steven Metz. The second post, an offshoot of the first, Fiasco at the Army War College: The Sequel concerns Mark Perry, an author of several books on defense issues, who wrote to say that a series of experiences two years ago at the college so concerned him that he sent a letter outlining his worries to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen.
If you feel compelled to comment here or at the SWJ Blog on either post keep it professional and in context of the issues presented by Ricks – personal attacks won’t cut it. Thanks much.
Couldn't be the case that someone has yet another new book
to sell on a topic that many are 'over' could it? No such thing as bad publicity....
Got to disagree, Bob's World
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
When I was at the War College as a student, I was both surprised and disappointed at the general atmosphere in regard to job of the school as being to support the strategy coming out of the Pentagon, as opposed to using their tremendous intellectual horsepower and academic environment to get out in front of the Pentagon to shape strategy.
The system doesn't work that way and it absolutely should not. The boys in the Five Sided Funny Farm, regardless of talent and intellect, are responsible for strategic thought and effort -- in the military arena (the WH and State, rightly or wrongly, are responsible for the total strategy) -- the Colleges are not responsible for that but they do have the task of teaching folks how to think, not what to think and all have serving Officers in their heirarchy and said officers have primary responsibility to their service and to DoD, not to the nation.
The object is to have elected persons -- or their properly ratified appointees in charge; not a group of faculty members squabbling about tenure and saddled with service parochialisms...
What you propose is tantamount to saying that Harvard should should have responsibility for some government functions, say economic, fiscal and social policy...
I'm reminded of William Buckley once saying "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty."
Quote:
I remember my small group instructor talking about one visiting professor who had been publishing some material outside the party lines like he was a pariah to be avoided.
I think that might be judged dependent upon who it was an how far outside the party line on what topic. While I agree that exposure to different and even severely contrary views is desirable, there are or should be some limits if for no other reason than some possibles would be more disruptive than helpful...
Quote:
I've always felt that the service colleges should be shapers of strategy, not followers, perhaps this lifting of the skirt will help promote change in that direction.
I'll counter your hope by hoping not -- I'd rather see them concentrate on their job -- educating thinking officers. The Constitution works and I think we ought to use it more, not sidetrack it.
There are more than enough talking heads and would be strategic geniuses without adding the Colleges to the mix. Though their Professors should contribute to the opinions on strategic direction -- and my belief is that most do so and that all do not follow the party line to any, much less a great, extent. I've read a number of papers from all the senior Colleges over the last few years that take quite contrary positions on things.
Useful last post Selil, Thanks.
I thought your explanation of Academic Freedom as understood / advocated by the AAUP offerred an appropriate context through which to analyse the claims made by both protagonists.
I will declare my bias toward's Steve's side. I am a government employee (serving Army officer ) detached to working at a Civilian Think Tank http://www.lowyinstitute.org. I think there definitely is a requirement to maintain a 'balanced' perspective out of due deference and respect to your 'position' , what it represents to observers, and the organisation that pays you. It has been my experience that most people understand that, and that it does not detract from being able to contribute.
I cannot imagine it being any different at the SSI, my experience of visiting there has been of wide ranging and open debate / discussion, not only with Steve but other Civilian Academics, Visiting Fellows and Military Officers on the faculty / staff. That said, I do not think that SSI and AWC is meant to (nor should they) replicate UCLA Berekley in the late 60s...
Cheers
Mark