I would agree with that opinion. Been pondering an article or something along those lines for some time now. And they do themselves no favors with that attitude.Originally Posted by SteveMetz
I would agree with that opinion. Been pondering an article or something along those lines for some time now. And they do themselves no favors with that attitude.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
You're probably familiar with it but the classic work on service cultures was Carl Builder's The Masks of War.
Having spent most of the career working for the Army, I've always liked the fact that it tolerates loyal iconoclasts (even though it doesn't promote them to flag rank). Krepinevich, MacGregor, McMaster, and Vandergrift come to mind. I was worried that under GEN Shinseki, the attitude seemed to be spreading that the Air Force routinely trounced the Army in budget battles because it "spoke with one voice." So the Army appeared to be moving in that direction. Luckily it was a passing fad.
The Marines seem to have a similar philosophy, and the Navy at least lets them ramble in the pages of Proceedings. Sadly, with the AF it's more a matter of "burn the heretics" than it is anything else. Or they let them write interesting papers for the Air University and then shuffle them away.
I took a course from Don Vandergiff last year. Very interesting guy. I just missed MacGregor when he had the Quarterhorse at Fort Riley, which is something I regret. He was seriously interested in the squadron's history and really pumped his troopers up with it.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Macgregor is an interesting cat. Utterly brilliant guy but I get the impression that he very quickly decides whether he considers someone he's met worth taking seriously. If not, it doesn't matter who they are. I remember an incident when he was a LTC (in uniform at the time) and he was in my office, pounding his fist on the desk yelling, "The Army Chief of Staff is an idiot!!" (An idea he was not alone in holding). Doug was my student at CGSC back in the day, and we've always gotten along fine.The Marines seem to have a similar philosophy, and the Navy at least lets them ramble in the pages of Proceedings. Sadly, with the AF it's more a matter of "burn the heretics" than it is anything else. Or they let them write interesting papers for the Air University and then shuffle them away.
I took a course from Don Vandergiff last year. Very interesting guy. I just missed MacGregor when he had the Quarterhorse at Fort Riley, which is something I regret. He was seriously interested in the squadron's history and really pumped his troopers up with it.
Don is a good friend of mine, and I can't say enough about what he has helped with in my career. The Army should have made him a LTC at least for his work however.
I've only met MacGregor once, and I found him to be probably the smartest officer I've ever met, but with an ego that matches his intellect. I'd rather have 100 of these types of men than the opposite.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks