Concession / Clarification
In reference to the center-of-gravity for any given environment. What is the difference between the Military COG and Civilian Strategic COG.
I could definately agree to both, not the same, or somtimes same.sometimes not.
In Iraq as stated by Gen McCaffrey and by several posters on this an other threads - National Government
Is it really the COG for the military or for the mission as a whole.
If a military becomes the overarching builder/trainer/gov rep to a populace it would it seems lose some of it's outside the representative government scope.
Now I'm sure the demands placed on us through combinations of circumstances/ Gaps in civilian capabilities, etc. have required us to fill this role and one would think this is probably what really concerns many of those in the pol sector. (the old once it tastes blood deal).
But if security and defense are to be the focus of a defense force than their efforts(COG-sortof) must be focused on those who need securing. The whole idea of securing the government takes my brain for a spin in trying to relate to how a military really has any part other than advisory there. That probably is too much to ask of a service that it be able to play both sides of all tables at the same time.
Therein is the importance in quickly growing our civilian capabilities to the point where they can do their job and the soldiers focus on theirs. One of the largest and heaviest duties of a government is to make the calls of what is best for those they represent. If we place our forces in a position of continually doing that as well as just doing their jobs how long before you end up with some who lean towards taking it the next step, some who can't take it , or some who simply begin to look elsewhere for employment.
No wonder theres so much concern at Echelons above reality:eek:
In answer to the famous question
of Baron Munchhausen, "Vas you dere, Charley?', Gian, I wasn't involved in the writing of 3-24. That said, I think that the group of slugs assembled was probably better than the run of the mill bunch of slugs. I think rather well of John Nagl and Con Crane who are both better writiers and have greater depth than John Hunt ( a good friend) who was the principal author of the SASO manual that was to replace FM 100-20 of 1990. I would also say that the writers of 3-24 had real support from Petraeus and Mattis and on up the chain of command. Hunt had no support whatever from either CAC or TRADOC. The drafters of 100-20 in 1986 DID have support from the CSA and Larry Welch, the CSAF at the time of the writing. But by 87, the TRADOC commander was so opposed to LIC that he sat on the document until 1990 when he left.
I certainly believe that the doctine writing process can and should be improved. We need the best slugs possible to write and we need enough of them. Moroever, the writing should not be divorced from the schoolhouse - students who have been in the field provide a good reality check. Finally, the vetting process used in 3-24 with outside folk is something to be emulated in major manuals. But, as a practical matter, I expect that these kinds of thing will be the exception rather than the rule no matter what changes are made to the process, Improvement in process will come incrementally, if at all. And improvement of process is no guarantee of an improved product.
In the end, despite sounding pessimistic, I am really the opposite. I see improvement in both process and products over time and in application as well. But there are no silver bullets, just us slugs - old and retired and young and full of piss and vinegar!:wry:
Cheers
JohnT