Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[Dominique R. Poirier]

This Colonel seems to be a prepossessing person.

By the way, is there any department within the DoD which would be in charge of selecting and training officers publicly expressing themselves about current issues and else; so as to treat the Army's image with care, I mean?

[SWJED]

This Colonel seems to be a prepossessing person.

By the way, is there any department within the DoD which would be in charge of selecting and training officers publicly expressing themselves about current issues and else; so as to treat the Army's image with care, I mean?

...he is retired so he is his own person, he is highly respected within and out of DoD, he has served from Vietnam through Iraq to inlude Somalia, Sri Lanka and Lebanon, and he is a colleague and a friend of mine. I'd do some homework before attacking the person and not the message. Message - fair game - personal attacks - off limits here. Thank you.

[Rob Thornton]

By the way, is there any department within the DoD which would be in charge of selecting and training officers publicly expressing themselves about current issues and else; so as to treat the Army's image with care, I mean?

Dominique, I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Although the institution that is the Army could be considered an entity, we tend to view the U.S. Army as the people who serve in it. This may be very different from other states (the nation types) in which an Army or other military branch might have had been its own sort of political body. Since around the late 1700s , we've had the same constitution, albeit with a few ammendments. I think we're a culture apart in that regard - meaning the circumstances of that have created some uniqueness to our military culture. That is why the chiefs are sworn to give their best military advice to the government and not just a sole branch, and also why we take oath to the Constitution, and not a party or sitting president (although he is in our chain of command).

OK - that was the long answer. The short answer is no, and I think if we did adopt a sort of political education we'd quickly move to the shallow end of the gene pool and drown in blue blood.

Hope that helps - Regards, Rob

[Dominique R. Poirier]

I am sorry if you felt offended in some way by my comment, and I sincerely regret it.

It intended to be a critic, as you rightly assumed; but on the form, not the content which I do not question at all, indeed.

It all comes from my professional experience in communication, a middle in which one uses to be highly sensitive about the form which exerts tremendous influence upon image.
This applies to politics and to public services too and, as in the realm of communication for private companies, this factor is as much influential as the content of the discourse.
In the history of politics, many very good candidates lost just because they lacked and neglected training and experience in public speeches before a camera.

However, I do not regret my remark since I consider that it is of no service not to warn when such problem occurs; quite on the contrary.

I have once read somewhere that Napoleon 1st would have said (I quote in substance from recollection): “Never warn an enemy who he is doing a mistake.”

Sincerely,

[Dominique R. Poirier]

By the way, and still in order to make my talk constructive, the best example of the good way of expressing oneself before a camera I have ever seen while talking about the U.S. Army in particular and the DoD in general is this of Colin Powell who does it with mastery.

Although it’s a personal opinion about which, I concede, not everyone may agree with, it’s a professional opinion nonetheless.

[Rob Thornton]

Dominique,
I believe there are several different expectations to public discourse. Often those of an admistration, while thoughtful, are constrained to "staying on message". Col Anderson was engaging in a different type of discourse. As a guest without an admistration's agenda, he has the intellectual freedom to discuss things in a more give and take way. I just watched it and think he did us a world of good on several different levels by discussing key issues (many of which we discuss here). By doing so he raises questions and provides insights that many of us beleive are critical to both the health of the Armed Services, and their ability to carry out policy objectives in the post 9/11 world. This was not a FOX Sunday with Chris Wallace where we hear political themes and talking points aired, but a very informative type of Q&A that provides the context required to have serious public debate.
Hope that helps, Rob

[Steve Blair]

Dominique,

I can see where to an extent you might consider Anderson's presentation prepossessing, but it's also important to remember that he comes from a branch that actually values speaking your mind. A quick browse through the pages of the Marine Corps Gazette as compared to, say, Field Artillery may show you some strong differences in presentation and dialog. He's a product of his environment to a degree, just as Powell was of his.

Personally, I found his presentation refreshing as compared to the soft-shoe act often put on by folks like Powell (I should also mention that I'm not a huge fan of the former secretary) or the babble put forward by Franks and others. He's looking at and talking about things that need to be brought forward.

Anderson may look a bit wooden in front of a camera, but he's also not a politician. Powell is and was.

If you just listen to the audio (as I'm doing while typing this) he comes across quite well. But I also find his presentation refreshing. Listening to other military types talk, I have to keep the BS filter and translator running full blast. With Anderson you don't have to, and that's a major plus.