On your #3, I would remark that there are good reasons for this. First of all, what is offered in military schools should not really count as "education." "Training", yes. "Indoctrination", most definitely. Military "education" is an oxymoron, imo. And military people rightfully understand that, and avoid it like the plague. Now, if only MBA candidates would do the same....Originally Posted by Old Eagle
One of the main issues I have faced, and will face, is that civilians consider most advanced degrees carried by military people to be a sham. A product of some of the "diploma mills" which target military folks, perhaps?
My MA from Boston U. is a real MA, but when academics find out I got it while on Active Duty, their eyes get "that look", so I neglect to mention it.
Likely the issue is "Active Duty" and not the location of the degree.
That's a topic for another day though.
The military is targeted by the diploma mills, and the get a Doctorate in three months programs.
There is also an obsessive hierarchy of universities rated in tiers and by many a degree from anything not ivy league is looked down upon. The private "commercial" colleges are suspect, and private religious schools are only marginally better.
There is also the "research" focus. A degree from a college that values teaching over research can be denigrated by academia. This is a sad state when you think that teaching is taking a back seat to research.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
"To the Point" radio program on Yingling's article. Thomas Ricks, Robert Gard, Jr., Everett Dolman, and Stephen Biddle. Program starts at 12:07. There an immigration segment before it, but it's short and most of the show is about the article.
Last edited by tequila; 05-02-2007 at 08:42 AM.
Great Tom Ricks, it just made my do not listen list.
120 --
Not sure what colored your view of PME, but as a product of both world class civilian grad programs and Army PME, I can tell you that CGSC, AWC and the Defense Strategy Course all challenged me just as much as the high speed grad schools did.
I have seen a lot of ILE bashing. I am curious how many of those peopel went through it, I am not going to say it is end-all, be-all, but give it credit for trying, and as some will point out if you just had over 100 guys graduate early due to needs of the Army, it might be the current answer. So as great as it would be for more options for PME "credit" be it Operational/MiTT/Grad School, but there is a huge need to gte guys back into the field.
CGSC/ILE is a hoop that you jump through. While there is the occasional student who does serious research and academic work, for the great majority it is an "achieve the 70% solution and move on". The only people I've ever met who think it's "great" tend to be CGSC/ILE instructors, and they will defend it tooth and nail. I kind of like the interaction between the branches, but the rest of it, I could've done without. Massive waste of my time and energy.
I judge the AWC not by actual knowledge of it's content, but by the drooling idiots it sometimes produces. "How the hell did THAT guy get through?" has become something of a mantra, here. Again, YMMV.
In addition, up through CGSC/ILE, you are graded on the "school solution". Which everyone with more than two functioning brain cells knows is crap. But you do it that way in order to graduate.
Last edited by 120mm; 05-03-2007 at 04:45 AM.
I see that that is moving to a discussion of formal PME. I can only speak of the Marine Corps, but I think that, internal to the schools themselves, there is great potential for good. There is always quibbling about content and process, but in general, the instructors are of the capability to challenge, and the content--war and peace, and things in between--is certainly worth investigating for the students who will practice it.
What 120mm points out, to my mind, is that the military has not provided enough incentive on why the students should care or really try. I don't know how many generals, in discussing their military school experience to subordiantes say "The education's alright, but the important thing is to 1) connect with your peers and/or 2) reconnect with your family." So why not just give us a reading list and send us all to the O club every day from 0900-1600?
What brings out a useful experience is where the students come wanting to learn and to challenge the instructors. To my knowledge, that happens regularly in the 2d year programs (SAMS/SAW/SAAS) because the student officers have indicated a desire to learn. It happens less frequently in other PME because the students do not necessarily think what the school has to offer is really important or applicable--they have been chosen to be there. Its a "hoop to jump through". And without any real grades or, in the Marine Corps, an observed fitrep to worry about, its not something you have to try real hard at.
We need to find a way to make officers realize the value of the PME--not to their career, but to their ability to perform in their profession. That is not a problem for the schools, but for the service culture and leadership. The fact that we are at war, strangely enough, does not produce this desire by students. As exemplified by the post-WWII Army, its officer corps thought they had learned all they needed to know in combat and that a school had nothing to teach them. That's a fear I have of today's military.
Well, I never heard any of my mentors tell me that CGSC was a great moment in that they became some kind of mini-Clausewitz/Jomini/Sun-Tzu able to synergize these theories into a tactical plan. It never did that, hell in WWII, it did even less. Currently, ILE has gotten off of doctrine because it is all being rewritten, so it turns into wht people have seen work (as of right now). As far as people who think being a CGSC instructor is an end all be all, then I am going to assume you are talking about the IT division "ILE/CGSC" battalions. In which case, you are making an apples and oranges comparison. Most of the faculty at Levenworth are civilians (recently retired O-5's).
severe system failure/ non adaptable
Yingling is looking with candor at the system that produces our military hierarchy. A system which focuses its officers to work for the fit rep and awards required for advancement with a known short rotation schedule.--- And at the High end with an obvious retirement bail out on or near the top philosophy ( Did IKe, Patton, Halsey, Bradley retire while the war continued?) It is only due to the multiple war rotations that this comes to light (only so many sugar coats can improve the taste of dry desert cake)
Ironiclly the first few responses to this very post confirm the pervasive mentality in the DOD that the subordinate will pay for speaking the truth.
"Proceedings" did a great peice on this topic a few years ago called Between Schilla and Carbdis --Odeseuss's Monsters on right and left---The Machine that directs an individual to WAR and the Enemy found there. Their conclusion --Few messengers to congress or the Pentagon will get wine from the table most get vinegar but that is why US Officers take an Oath to defend the Constitution as Primary allegance and obeying superior officers comes second or third if people are looking at the unlawful orders thing.
If Yingling does get parked it only confirms part of his point.
severe system failure Peace time officer selection may not win wars
I do not think he effectively made the case that a second language and or advanced degrees are infact what wins wars since his central fulcrum for failure is lack of integrity
As Duke and the academies have recently proven undergraduate and advanced degree programs have the integrity of the social fabric they attract.
School solutions went the way of the jeep...there aren't any school solutions, yellow sheets, or whatever floating around anymore. I think CGSC has shifted more to an open thought process than a "give me the school solution" process.
In my opinion, you get out of CGSC (or any military school for that matter) what you put into it, just like any other school. You can go to CGSC/Duke/Rockland Community College. If you don't assert yourself, do the readings and approach education with an open mind, you'll get nothing out of the program regardless of where you are. If you, however, try to suck as much knowledge, personal reflection and self improvement as you can during the courses, than you've just made yourself a better officer/civilian/person, whatever.
I'm not a pro-CGSC guy by any means. There are some courses, instructors and programs I'd like to see revamped or scrapped. However, I will say I learned a ton about the other end of the Army, the side I rarely got to see as a tactical focused company grade officer. I loved the strategy blocks, enjoyed learning about some of the great theorists, and had first rate instructors who gave as much to you as you gave to them. It was a great experience which also gave me the time to improve on my writing/research and briefing skills...all valuable tools for a field grade going back into the fight.
I'll argue that you can either jump blindly through the hoop taking nothing away from the experience other than "I'm glad its over" or learn as much as you can about the hoop, how you jumped through it, and how to improve because the next "hoop jump" you do may cost the lives of US soldiers. If you don't then you've not only wasted a valuable opportunity to better yourself as a professional (that what professionals do...they continue to learn and self improve) but demonstrated that it may be time to find another career path, one that doesn't involve professional self-development.
Oh yeah, back on topic...Go LTC Yingling!
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
I am not a fan of the Yingling article because he took the GO's to task on the wrong issues. A majority of the areas he criticises the GO's on, are really filures in the civilian leadership in the NSC and the Defense Department. If those guys don't want to listen to their SME's, then what do you do. I mean Yingling could come out and be specific. I mean I guess that only answer would be to call a press conference and air it all out. Personally, I beleiev there is a better article on all of this in the current issue of Foreign Affairs called Bush and the Generals. It actually sets up how and why the system is out of balance. It is pretty good in my opinion.
Behind Success in Ramadi
An Army Colonel's Gamble
This article may be an indication that Yingling's paper might be a day late and a dollar short?Pentagon officials say the encouraging episode in Ramadi is a poignant reflection of shifting leadership tactics within the U.S. military, which is trying to develop a generation of officers who can think creatively and are as comfortable dealing with tribal sheiks as they are with tank formations on a conventional battlefield.
There is always the other side of the coin. This is why I am always suspicious of one side that is too critical, which requires further research to avoid over inflated recommendations as well as contempt prior to investigation.
Last edited by Culpeper; 05-04-2007 at 03:43 AM. Reason: grammar
I don't disagree with you, in principle. But your last paragraph implies that the military education system is the end-all to "professionalism". Question: Could I have dropped courses from my ILE curriculum to study something else I thought would be more valuable to "saving soldiers' lives?" The implication that the "military education system" has cornered the study of war and any who disagree with it are "killing soldiers" is ridiculous, and reflects the kind of "mind-numbed robots" who appear to inhabit, and even scarier, believe in the system.
BTW, I'm a former ROTC instructor and current Reserve ILE instructor and I am underwhelmed by either "professional development" curriculum. Mostly because the great majority of the courses appear to be geared toward the non-professional. After all, shouldn't the "professionals" already know this stuff? And how does taking "professionals" away from the practice of actual war make them better at waging it?
I have received much better learning opportunities from forums like Small Wars Council than I ever have from any of the Army schools.
Amen. You can go to an Ivy league university, do the minimum required, and later stun the world with inept foreign policy.In my opinion, you get out of CGSC (or any military school for that matter) what you put into it, just like any other school. You can go to CGSC/Duke/Rockland Community College. If you don't assert yourself, do the readings and approach education with an open mind, you'll get nothing out of the program regardless of where you are. If you, however, try to suck as much knowledge, personal reflection and self improvement as you can during the courses, than you've just made yourself a better officer/civilian/person, whatever.
But on topic. I taught at CGSC and I later attended CGSC. It was the same as it was in elementary schol---those who want to learn, learn. Those who do not, regardless of reason or rationalizing do not. I hate dumbing material down--the instructions to use PPT style bullets in place of prose because "busy" leader need it short and sweet. Leaders need it accurate. I hate it when some PPT ranger sticks a slide show on that has embedded rock music on it because the message is so thin he has to cover it with a higher decibel level. I do not accept the common excuse "I am too busy to read." It really means I am too lazy to read; the same folks tend to give guidance like a blind man painting by the numbers.
If you are reading this, you are obviously on SWJ. That means you have a thirst for knowledge and you are motivated enough to seek a high quality source.
You are a minority
For God's sake keep reading because you are reading for the majority
Tom
Tom,
Amen! Here's two fun links dealing with this topic. The first is the Gettysburg Address in PowerPoint, and the second is Edward Tufte raging against the PowerPoint machine.
Shek
http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5557/Edwar...-of-PowerPoint
120mm: As an instructor, isn't the onus on you to enhance the system to make the "professional development" more in tune with where you think our officers need to go? Like Tom said, you get out of it what you put into it. Half my small group was purely interested in playing golf or going out drinking...not that I don't mind either. But there is a time to FO and a time to work. While at CGSC, why not try and develop yourself further professionally while enjoying some well needed time off. In my personal opinion, if you don't try and get something out of it, you're wasting time. It doesn't have to be cirruculum specific. I learned more from discussions with my peers, from forums like this or from personal reading that I did from some of my instructors. Bottom line is the professional development cirriculum is not the "be all end all" of military education. The good ones throughout history, sought other opportunities to build on what they learned.
I never said in my earlier comments that the military education system has the corner on the market...far from it. While I think its great that we still do bridge crossing operations as part of CGSC, I'd rather spend more time on COIN and SSTR operations than how to cross the Kura River. I think my comments merely pointed out that those who choose to not seek self improvement when presented with the time and resources to do so are suspect in my book. You make your own opportunities for self improvement. My time at CGSC presented numerous chances to further my self-development. Sorry to here that the ILE you are teaching fails in that regard.
Last edited by marct; 05-04-2007 at 07:34 PM. Reason: fixed quotes
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
Does anyone know how the Army has reacted so far?
Hello--I'm new to this site, but my name's Fernando and I'm an active duty Special Forces officer attending grad school at Harvard. Some quick comments I'd written earlier:
I think the Paul Yingling is dead on. But what makes his article so interesting is not necessarily its content–though insightful and accurate, the criticism is not new. Many others have written similar accounts in newspaper articles or books such as “Fiasco” and “Cobra II.” What is so striking about the article is that it was written by a successful active duty officer and then published in a military journal. If Yingling isn’t immediately fired or blacklisted, this will mark a clear change in the military’s internal climate. Public sentiment may be so negative over Iraq that military officers can dare to say “the emperor has no clothes” and still keep their jobs. If this is the case, expect the floodgates to open soon–dozens of similar articles by military officers will follow. The change will be both postive and negative: Positive because the American public will have greater insight into the real dynamics of the war as seen by those fighting it. Negative because the insight will be bleak and feed the frenzied call for immediate withdrawal.
Regardless of the potential outcomes, we should all be watching the career of Paul Yingling very closely. The stakes are much higher than we can imagine.
For more, check out our new national security blog at www.roguelystated.com
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks