The Army: A Profession of Arms

[bumperplate]

My comments are in bold within Mr. Owen's quote.

How long you got? Some consultant will charge you millions for stating what follows here,

Based on speaking to many US Officers and what gets written here, it seems to me you do not have a teaching as what War is, or any basic theory as to how to fight or how to conduct Warfare. If I remember correctly, in the WWI and WWII eras, German officers were taught theory and principles of warfare and began their education at the operational level by studying BN & BDE ops, and working their way down to Squad/Team levels. It is the opposite in the US, at least it was for me. I'd say you are correct. I believe the USMA approaches this topic. However, given the product I see coming out of the USMA, I'd say the majority of the efforts there are related to producing professional students and large underground networks for cheating. Exceptions are there, but exceptions create the rule.

What you have in place is loose collections of concepts, opinions and TTPs, none of which are actually based on a coherent agreement as to the aim, purpose and limitations of armed force. I've heard it said, more than once, that part of the success of US military forces relates to this loose collection and a loose adherence to doctrine, philosophical style of warfare, etc. However, on the graph relating rigor to effectiveness there is a definite inflection point where less rigor leads to less effectiveness. So, to your point, I think we could use a bit of education and rigor. Conversely, adhering too strongly to one brand of warfare or one philosophy also takes you to an inflection point where effectiveness suffers. But, so long as this education does not produce inflexibility then I believe such a point will not be an issue for our forces.

FM3 says

That is utterly wrong, and clearly proves that the US Army is confused as to its purpose, and the US Government does not understand the use of armed force. Fix that and the rest will fall into place.

FM 3-0 sucks, plain and simple. It has become a waste of paper. And yes, it certainly does highlight that the Army has lost an appreciation of purpose. I don't read 3-0 any longer and I pay no attention to the moronic and incessant changes released as some group of people, in some location, dissect mission command from command & control and create circular discussions rather than operationally significant documents.

I applaud GEN Dempsey for publishing this Profession of Arms document. There are good points in it. For instance, it mentions the "zero defect" mentality and the ills it produces. Also, it mentions the following, "A recent report suggests that today‘s operating forces after nine years of war, exhibit more the traits of a profession than the force-generating, or institutional, side of the Army." That's a pretty good rebuke of all that TRADOC does and is - the test will be whether or not TRADOC fixes this issue. It's good that it was pointed out though, albeit in the beginning and in passing.

Negatives to follow.