Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
I'm not sure how one could say one way or the other. I would just say that a Division Commander's leadership style, personality, reputation, et cetera, is no match for the organizational culture of the unit that he commands, the existing informal procedures that are the real SOPs, and the social networks within the unit by which tasks get accomplished and decisions are made. Those things can change, but they are not likely to change during the short time period that spans the commander's tenure.
While only a brief snapshot, having worked alongside both 101ABN and 4ID at the end of OIF I, I'd say that the descriptions forwarded by Ricks in Fiasco match up with what I experienced and reflect the portrayal offered of GEN Petraeus and GEN Odierno.

While I agree that organization culture may be difficult to overcome, I think that this is a red herring in this context, as actions in my mind did reflect their commander's approach, and so for me, the only question is how much did the terrain influence each commander towards the path they took. Given GEN Petraeus' background and GEN Odierno's background, I think the issue comes back to their educational paths to division command, and while both possessed graduate education, GEN Petraeus' lended itself to "getting" COIN from the get go.

As the counterfactual and a different angle to the thesis of mechanization/COIN, absent his particular graduate schooling/education path, would GEN Petraeus, growing up through the ranks in light/airborne formations, have developed the same campaign plan?