I like the doctors and chaplains as a basis for the new specialties. My thought would be that you bring them in young through ROTC, just like doctors or chaplains. They are uniformed officers - Civil Affairs Branch.
Printable View
I think you underestimate a good General. I think we do that a lot. We assume that all the Army can handle is killing and breaking things. I think we are just as capable at building once we determine that is what we are really going to do. It is an institutional mindset that needs to change.
If you were really that worried about it you could have seperate Division Headquarters specificaly trained to take over once the ground is secure. I actually would prefer that in the short run until it becomes a norm.
Hi,
My own bias is that a profession is any area of labor that cannot be routinized.
In my opinion, many professions labeled as such have subcomponents whose work is, in fact, routinized. I doubt filling cavities changes much from patient to patient. Atul Gawande's book Complications has a nice section about a medical clinic that performs one procedure, and one procedure only.
There may be some seemingly hard-and-fast rules at any point in time. Few medical professionals would advocate performing surgery in sewers. The rationale and logic seem self-evident. That said, bodies of knowledge are not static. Aristotelian physics is not Newtonian physics is not Einsteinian physics (so far as I know - in the spirit of full disclosure, I took "Rocks for Jocks"). For all I know, a hundred years from now, tremendous benefits will be found to accrue to those who undergo surgery in fetid, oozing piles of raw, untreated sewage.
Second, professions seek to increase the likelihood of getting the right answer: the best way to fill a cavity given people are different, the best way to win a battle given [fill-in-the-blank] is different, the best way to perform an audit given companies are different. Because of the ambiguity involved in these tasks, debate will ensue. The presence of debate is a sign of a profession.
Third, arguably war is the one area of human endeavor where professionalism is most likely to persist. One does not fight oneself; one fights an enemy, with all the action-reaction complexity that entails. I suppose companies will change, and thus best accounting practices will change too, but companies don't try to fight their auditors in the same way as two combatants do.
Fourth, none of this necessarily supports or fails to support military education of any sort. (Again, full disclosure: I have not served in the military.) I can understand the reasoning that it is better to learn from the mistakes of others than from one's own, and to ignore the lessons contained in books is to commit a grave error. I can also understand that there is no substitute for experience, and reading books can perhaps not only add but marginally to one's capabilities, but rather in fact detract from them. I can also see the argument that while both are important, one is more important than the other, and time and emphasis ought to be weighted accordingly. I'd simply point out, first, that education exists in varied forms across professions, and second, the absence of consensus over the optimal means of professional education does not negate the presence of a profession.
Regards
Jeff
Hi,
I would approach from a few different perspectives.
1) Good question; when phrased this way, I'm not sure. I would say that to me, what defines a profession is (a) there is uncertainty over how to perform its tasks, and (b) consequently, most professions debate the best way to perform their given tasks. To caveat, there are probably some professions that don't do this, and others for whom the frequency of doing this varies quite a bit.
2) There are no bright-line rules, but rather degrees of difference. There are differences of opinion about the best way to mow a lawn, but there is probably less dispute about the best way to mow a lawn than when and how to perform a given medical procedure (or fight a counterinsurgency). Lots of endeavors might debate the best way to perform a given task, but the debate tends to be proportionate to the complexity and ambiguity of the task.
3) I think one possible line of argumentation that is different from the above, but still worth noting, and perhaps what you're getting at, is that a profession is socially constructed. A profession is something society deems a profession. Hence some of the possible anomalies in the prior post: members of a profession who are professionals because they have entered what society deems and constructs as a profession (e.g., dentists who have passed licensing requirements, but whose work is fairly routine), or people not nominally professionals who nevertheless deal with tasks of complexity and novelty on a regular basis.
Hopefully I'm still coherent and haven't contradicted myself too much.
:-)
Best
Jeff
My wording was cynically-phrased perhaps, but no disrespect to any officer rank was intended. I just am not sure that anyone has the knowledge and experience for the full spectrum of COIN operations, so to speak. I don't believe many in the military have experience and backgrounds in economic development and anthropology, for instance.
I am realizing I'm running in a circle here - I don't think the military alone has the sufficient experience to handle all the facets of COIN, yet I don't want the experts "impressed," as it were, into the services to give the chain of command the necessary expertise, and then I complain that commanders don't have the knowledge necessary to effectively do their jobs. I don't know what the solution is here; maybe you're idea of getting these guys in uniform as advisers or whatever to various commands is the way to go - it just doesn't sound right to me.
Maybe. Although wasn't the transition from V Corps to JTF-7 in 2003 that very idea?
Though I grant you JTF-7 was crippled by far larger problems than headquarters structure. . .
I'm sorry for kind of busting your ideas without any real answers of my own; I just don't have any that sound right.
Matt
Don't worry, I did not think that you were and we should be able to express our opinions as long as it is with respect. I was reading a piece on LTG Petraeus while he was still with the 101st. According to the piece he had started to pump money into the local economy via work programs when he suddenly realized that without an influx of additional goods, all he had done was initiate a cycle of rapid inflation. So, without authorization, he opened the border with Syria to bring in goods. I doubt there were many Generals who would have realized that Just so happens that LTG Petraeus' degree was in economics. So in many ways you are right. I just think that as if the S&R mission was taken seriously then the right people would recieve the training they need to become adept in the subject required.
Don't worry about that one. I often complain about things that just feel wrong. I can't put my finger on it, it just does. With time the reason you don't like it will either jell into a clear thought or you will realize that I was right. Of course, I perfer the later.:D