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
I've had a mixed (civilian & PME)
academic career. 15 years at a mid-level state university, adjunct at 5 private universities, adjunct at a community college, 5.5 years full time at CGSC plus Consulting Faculty status for 20 years, 8.5 years at NDU, and now 2.5 years at a major state university.
My experience has been that I have generally experience more freedom to pursue my professional interests both in the sense of fewer restraints and mor positive support in the PME institutions than in all the rest. The exceptions (negative and positive, respectively) to that statement come from one component within NDU under one Director - no longer there - and currently at the U. of Oklahoma. Generally, academic freedom in the PME institutions I've been associated with has been well respected in terms of the AAUP definition. In those terms, it has also been generally respected in the civilian insttuions. The positive support side is where both have fallen down in those cases where they did not meet the ideal. In civilian institutions there can be pressure to conform to a model of political correctness. Bob notes a similar "pressure" from his experience at AWC but it was one I never felt at either CGSC or NDU. I would also note that at American U - one of the most Liberal institutions in the country - the Dean of the AU School of International Service, Dr. Louis W. Goodman, made certain that PCitis did not reign and that all political pursuasions were treated with respect. I would say that the same attitude exists at OU and at CGSC, AWC/SSI, and NDU when I was there.
Cheers
JohnT
We can disagree and do so amicably. If we do in fact...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
120mm
I agree with Bob's World on this one. I think the STUDENTS should not only be driving the curriculum, but the students, who actually have recent and relevant experience in warfighting, should be shaping our country's warplans, not some 75 year old contractor in the CTD who's last military service was 40 years ago.
That's fine -- and I do not disagree with you on the students shaping war plans but that's not what Bob's World said; he said "strategy." Not the same thing at all. I also agree with you on the contractors.
Quote:
I am disgusted by the paternal, "I'll tell you what's good for you" mindset of the current PME system.
Your prerogative though I doubt that said disgust has done or will do much to change that -- people will do people things...
I had the dubious distinction of attending several civilian institutions of higher learning, two State and two private in my brief and abandoned pursuit of a degree in Political Science. I went to four schools and abandoned that pursuit because I could not stand "I'll tell you what's good for you" mindset at ALL of those universities. People will do people things...
Quote:
But we've had this discussion before.
And may again. :D
From Bob's World:
Quote:
"...While I respect Ken's insights, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Not a problem.
Quote:
First, the Constitution does not come into play on this issue, so save that round for another fight.
Sure it does or else I wouldn't have mentioned it. The Executive Branch is responsible for the Foreign Policy and the Military efforts of the US as funded and more or less agreed by Congress. While the service colleges are part of the Executive Branch and should certainly have inputs to the development of strategy to execute the will of our elected leaders, those leaders and those they appoint to positions that by law are charged with the 'shaping of strategy' are the ones that should do just that. Diffuse the effort and you diffuse the responsibility -- committees do not make good decisions...
There's a chain of responsibility and you're advocating ignoring it?
Quote:
I've worked at the Pentagon, I've served on MACOM and Combatatant Command staffs...
So have I but I'm now retired so all I can do is offer sympathy for your pain. :D
Quote:
and too often the guys who should be thinking the most, just do not create the time to do just that. (see back to comments about how to be successful)...
I agree and often saw the same thing at the same level. Much of their lack of time in my observation came from their efforts at micromanaging things that they didn't even need to know about, much less be involved with and more came from their golf games and inclinations to do other things. Regardless of reasons, I agree your point that there are distractions is totally valid.
Quote:
...But the guys at the Service Schools, armed with the ever refreshed perspectives of their students, have just that.
Perhaps, I'm not sure but I suspect they have as many distractions as the folks in the echelons above reality.
Quote:
I think it is a cop out to simply be an amplifier for putting out the party line.
I agree with that but I am not at all sure what you suggest is the case.
Quote:
I think the Secretary and the Service Chiefs need to put these guys to work to challenge and shape strategy. Obviously any product is just input; and needs to then be sent to the decision makers to consider as to if they will use it or not.(emphasis added / kw )
Ah, so we do not disagree after all. Had you said that earlier, I would merely have pointed out that they in fact do that on a regular basis and that this study LINK which was produced prior to the invasion of Iraq in an attempt to shape (provide input) to developing strategies was just what your addition to your earlier comment now advocates and with which I agree.
Or perhaps this LINK more current product aimed at doing the same thing? :eek:
I think the Colleges are doing their part -- I also think 120mm and Bob's World have a legitimate bone to pick with the folks in the Pentahooch on not paying attention to some inputs.
I also suspect all of us can agree with some inputs and disagree with others... :cool:
I can visaulize the frustration
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Concur on who creates strategy. I have a team that is dying to produce strategy; and get quite frustrated when I remind them that at the Combatant Command level we are far more the consumer of strategy, rather than the producer.
because when you're at that level, you know far more what's going on in your world than some clod in DC knows. The flip of that, naturally, is that said clod may know things you don't. No easy solution to that conundrum.
Quote:
Yet produce we must, but the real important big ideas, we wrap up real nice and share them with those who, if they do not produce the strategy that we must consume, at least have audiance and sway with the same. Its a slow game. But every now and then you see good things burble their way up to the top, and come back down for your further consumption.
Yep, shame that we can't just provide brilliance to those in power and have them bless it but they will insist that it be their idea -- so you've gotta flank 'em to get them to believe it is their idea. Heck of a way to run a railroad. :D
Come to think of it, aren't the railroads in trouble because they thought they were in the railroad business instead of the actual business they were in? :wry:
That's what I thought, just didn't say it
well. Leaves me with the impression that either Schmedlap or Mark O'Neill are correct above and / or that I am with the 'undue' umbrage remark -- emphasis on the undue...
As I tried to point out and as you said:
Quote:
"So when it comes to academic freedom in PME, my personal opinion is that there's nothing to see here folks--let's move along and discuss issues that really need it."
I also agree with Rank Amateur...
Oh, I frequently agree with you
but your creative bent sometimes leads you off track just a tad... ;)
True also on the emotion bit, I suspect...