Can you get a presidential pardon for violating the laws of nature?
Particularly when the academicians involved have no military experience. I realize that I'm probably stepping on a whole slew of toes with that statement, and I mean no disrespect to the people to whom this applies, but shouldn't military experience be part of the "advanced degree leading to consulting the military" gig?
Hi Jeff,
Hmmm, I don't think so - and here is why. I think its wise to consider a person's experiences when it comes to weighing out their opinion - that may mean given a certain set of conditions one piece of advice might outweigh another, but I still want to hear it. If it comes to communicating an idea, it may be that the ability to think critically and logically is more valuable then an idea that feels right based on experience, but remains isolated and unspoken.Quote:
but shouldn't military experience be part of the "advanced degree leading to consulting the military" gig?
There is also an allot of things that are going to come up in military operations that will require niche, but specialized knowledge - sometimes that is hard to come by - this is part of what attracted me to the SWC a year ago - it provided me access to folks who were different, who had spent years developing their skill sets, but who were also interested in helping out.
So while I feel military service is helpful in bridging the communications gap - a good idea can and should stand on its own. Likewise, I think there is something to be said for those who've spent their lives in the military, who might also be able to contribute to other fields (private, civil or otherwise).
I do think if more veterans will communicate their military experience we can better leverage and prepare those folks who have not had the opportunity to serve, or for whatever reasons have pursued other vocations; as well as prepare those appointees, executives and lawmakers elected or appointed over us who might make decisions regarding the military.
Best, Rob
Jeff
I agree with Rob about how important it is to allow and even seach for input from all sectors and in doing so use what works regardless where it came from.
I guess sometimes I just get concerned that we may forget which horizons we are in, while searching for the answers.
This thread started because Ralph Peters criticized the new COIN doctrine. Now we're talking about bringing more academia into the military, and I know howling Ralph did an article on that also previously, where he said too much education can make a man stupid. Actually that wasn't exactly what he said, but not suprisingly he wasn't overly thrilled about the concept of Harvard educated officers. I am beginning to see a common thread in his rants, they all seem to be indirect attacks on Gen Petraeus, so it makes one wonder if howling Ralph lost a push up contest to him once upon a time?
I heard that entrophy law is once again a theory, but I can't recall my source, but it was probably People Magazine or Sports Illustrated. We all know if you put energy into an insurgency (is it a system, a series of systems, or the by product of a system[s]) that the insurgency will either crumple, or become increasingly powerful. I guess that goes back to the positive and negative energy thing that Slapout is preaching. If you put positive energy into it the insurgency gets weaker (Yin and Yang), but if you put negative energy into the insurgency (leg 3 of the McCormick Diamond Model) it gets stronger (Yang and Yin). There is something here, but I will address it on Slapout's targeting thread.
Slapout, do you drink white lighting or green tea with your Tofu? Not that's there anything wrong with that.
Sorry if I'm dragging the conversation in another direction, but just wanted to say that from what little I've seen of him Ralph Peters seems like a heck of a Johnny One-Note. About three years ago I saw him and some other big names (Christopher Hitchens was one) speak on a panel about Iraq in DC somewhere. His message was, our Army is really good at killing people, the only thing keeping us from winning is the media/political correctness, this could be wrapped up in a few months if we took the gloves off. He was very gracious and helpful when I hung around to ask him a question about the Stryker vs. M-113, but his basic speech seemed pretty much the same as "Dishonest Doctrine."
Tons of political hacks and polemicists make the same points (John Podhoretz advocating mass killings of Sunni males a while back, then backtracking, for example), but isn't Peters, unlike those idiots, too smart and experienced not to understand the current moral and media climate we live in?
Bill, white lightning or tea I can handle but forget the tofu stuff, to me seems like eating Play-Dough. The targeting thread is an ongoing project I am going to add stuff to it as part of my SBW theory (Slapout Based Warfare). So jump in on the targeting thread anytime, anybody else to.
I do agree with that, particularly in terms of gauging advice based on conditions, what the issue is that's being advised, etc. However, I'm not sure I would make the assumption that an advanced degree equals the ability to think critically (if that's what you were implying).
Good point.Quote:
There is also an allot of things that are going to come up in military operations that will require niche, but specialized knowledge - sometimes that is hard to come by - this is part of what attracted me to the SWC a year ago - it provided me access to folks who were different, who had spent years developing their skill sets, but who were also interested in helping out.
AgreedQuote:
So while I feel military service is helpful in bridging the communications gap - a good idea can and should stand on its own.
Thanks for your thoughts, Rob.
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
We agree here - I've seen plenty of folks with advanced degrees and/or with experience in a given field who professed expertise, but were unable to think critically. There is a good thread on the SWC somewhere about "experts" that highlights the question of "what makes and "expert" qualified to call themselves an expert. Whenever I hear someone claim expertise, be introduced as an expert I start looking for their bias to emerge.Quote:
I do agree with that, particularly in terms of gauging advice based on conditions, what the issue is that's being advised, etc. However, I'm not sure I would make the assumption that an advanced degree equals the ability to think critically (if that's what you were implying).
Best Regards, Rob
Morning GS,
I've never met MR Peters (although I know we have some SWC members who have), but I think he is largely sincere in the remarks he makes. I also think that however one-sided he may be in making his arguments (again I think this is probably a product of conviction and sincerity - I'm a "benefit of the doubt" kinda guy), it never fails to sponsor good debate that burns up more then a few brain cells.
I think he does understand it, he just seems to have his own perspective on what it means and what its useful for. From the pieces he's written that I've read, he often starts with one issue, then purposefully applies it to other broader issues that I think concern him. I think in his own way he's tried to retain his objectivity about a variety of issues. I have seen him reshape (not retract) some of his previous pieces once he's had a chance to observe something and reflect on new information.Quote:
Tons of political hacks and polemicists make the same points (John Podhoretz advocating mass killings of Sunni males a while back, then backtracking, for example), but isn't Peters, unlike those idiots, too smart and experienced not to understand the current moral and media climate we live in?
Anyway, without writers like R. Peters we'd have less reason to challenge our thinking, and express our own thoughts in writing:)
Best, Rob
Steve,
- In that regard we all had to begin somewhere:D - although some here might refer to themselves as a "former-spurt":DQuote:
I always identify myself as an ex spurt.
Best, Rob
I have had the honor of spending a bit of time with Ralph over the years (hanging around Garmisch, for instance). I'm a huge fan. We agree on a lot but even when we disagree, I find him passionate, brilliant, and challenging. I just like people who are unabashedly what they are and make no bones about it. Heck, I like Cindy Lauper for that precise reason.
I was watching a clip of John Boyd the other day - fascinating stuff by the way - and he had some fascinating ideas about doctrine. Two things stood out to me:
1. He said "I don't talk much about doctrine because the day after it's written it tends to become dogma." Heh.
2. He also said - " I don't care much about German, or Russian, or British doctrine. You should learn all of them and have them in your kitbag so you can use them when the situation dictates."
Little bit of paraphrasing there but you get the point.
That's why it's nice to read FM 3-24 and the rest of the Army manuals once, and highlight the stuff that matters to you as an individual. Then it goes back on the personal library shelf until I need to pull it out again.
Doctrine is a guide nothing more, nothing less. The day people start preaching to the choir about doctrine is the day I turn the channel and watch the Teletubbies. Nothing worse in the Army than a field grade officer who pontificates about doctrine. I can read and process information and formulate ideas and conclusions like anyone else.
That's also why, to me, some of the best doctrine I've ever read is the USMC Warfighting series. It's intended to be exactly what you're saying: more a framework for thinking about conflict than prescriptive, box-checking methods. You also saw some of this during the early days of air cav, when the scout units in Vietnam were pretty much making it up as they went and passing it back for use and study. Sadly, most of the stuff they came up with seems to have been lost, along with the loose attitude that allowed them to even create the stuff in the first place.
Steve
Yeah, agree about the USMC Warfighting series - I have the entire original collection - and use them a great deal more than any Army doctrinal publication.
Rob,
Ralph Peters panders to raw emotion and that is not a good platform for rational discussion. We can handle it here but in the larger US community Peters touches base instinct with deft fingers. That puts him firmly in the ideologue for money camp.
Best
Tom