Major agreement, minor quibble...
The quibble is solely on Schwartzkopf. He did okay but not great -- and he did okay mostly because a few subordinates including Cal Waller, a couple of smart Colonels and yes, Tommy Franks, saved him from himself. Colin Powell had to virtually force that to happen...
That said, I totally agree with your hypotheses. We do tend to overdo the 'oneness' bit. In the old US Army it was GP -- General Purpose -- and it was and is overdone.
I'm firmly convinced that attempts to make battle command and tactical decision making a 'check the box, matrix driven, quasi scientific exercise is not only flawed but is in fact downright dangerous.
Combat is an art, pure and simple. Some attempts to codify aspects to assist those who are competent artists (as opposed to the few great ones...) and to determine who possesses the basic talent are necessary. However, it is not necessary simply so anyone can perform the functions to achieve some mythical plateau of egalitarianism to attempt to convert the art into a science. Unnecessary and inimical to force survival, mission accomplishment or goal attainment.
That gets people killed unnecessarily. As you say, there was an element of natural selection in both major wars and it was highly beneficial at all levels from Private through Flag Officer to President or Prime Minister. We cannot totally replicate that in peace time but we can certainly do a far better job than we are doing (that applies to the US but I suspect elsewhere as well).
Wilf is correct on the very good at what they did comment. That too cannot be completely copied lacking all the trauma -- but we can do a much more competent job of producing combat soldiers and leaders than we are at present...
Originally Posted by Ken White
Bookmarks