Posted by Bob's World

I think about thing differently than most, and that I tend to spend
more time attempting to sort out why things are the way they are in a quest to find insights to offer to guide the efforts of the decision makers above me.
I don't disagree and your insights are often helpful and informative, but as you know one size seldom fits all. This gets to my or our next point.

What I am talking about is the art of strategy. What does one understand about the things going on around them, how does that make them think about the guidance they have received, and what recommendations or questions does that suggest to inform how everyone can get to a better place at the least possible cost and with the lowest likelihood of negative consequences.
No daylight between us on this observation. At least in the military, and I see it in other government agencies also, we're quick to label a problem (insurgency, terrorism, gun violence, drunk driving, drugs, etc.) and then apply some doctrinal approach and adjust our foolish measurements or what we measure so we can demonstrate success (and maintain funding for our efforts). Despite lip service to the contrary we spend very little time gaining understanding of the problem, to include the real root causes (even if we can't fix them, we should endeavor to understand them). Einstein allegedly said something along the lines that if I had an hour to solve a problem I would spend 59 minutes gaining understanding of it first, and then a minute to solve it. We don't produce thinkers like that in our mass education system, and that includes the military PME system. I don't know if it is possible to produce thinkers like that, but when they're identified they should be treated as a high value item that needs to be protected, but more often than not we send them to our version of re-education camps to ensure they conform to our "group think."

Most strategists focus on identifying and cataloging lists of things that are, and then applying against those lists the framework of guidance from their own boss and bosses higher in the command structure. This is important, but is the science of strategy. What can I measure, what have I been told to do, how do I apply that at my level. This is objectively assessable.
I think, but I'm not sure, what this paragraph is getting after?

I don't think we prioritize the art of strategy as highly as we should, nor do I think we attempt to identify early and nurture over time that type of artistic talent in the US military.
As stated above we tend to destroy it, the only ones that can openly express this type of talent are Admirals and Generals (assumed they had and retained this ability after years of suppressing it). The critics in the media still serve us well.

Instead we seem to think that once one achieves a certain rank or educational degree, or is assigned to a headquarters commanded by a person possessing a certain number of stars that one is automatically "strategic." That, IMO, is "arrogant."
Couldn't agree more.

We are, too often, the very type of "intelligent fool" as discussed by Mr. Einstein below. I too often count myself within that number of intelligent fools. The only difference in me is that I actively seek to avoid that natural tendency that Einstein described. I realize sometimes that makes others uncomfortable. Just shut up and color, right? There is a comfort in following orders and applying tactics with vigor and effectiveness. We have become too comfortable in that regard. We need to start trying to make ourselves uncomfortable, as that is what leads to discovery and growth.
Lot's of people are uncomfortable, discovering, and growing. Perhaps more than you give credit for. The issue is changing the system that does become more complex and engrained overtime. That is the nature of bureaucracies. They don't tend to gravitate to simple and effective, rather their processes and rule books just get thicker and thicker, and result in serious snagnation.