How to Think, Not What to Think at Leavenworth

[Ken White]

Guys, the 7 post G-N CJCS were:
1. Navy - Crowe
2. Army - Powell
3. Army - Shali
4. Army - Shelton
5. Air Force - Myers
6. Marines - Pace
7. Navy - Mullen
The VJCS, by law, is different service. In the longer view, since 1986 four of the CJCS have been ground force guys. For 14 of the last 21 years the CJCS has been a ground guy. Final note: there was an article I read a while back (wish I could remember the author and title) that pointed out that at the highest levels of decision making, people at least partly shed their organizational identities and interact as individuals. It's a point that can be developed from Graham Allison's Essence of Decision.

Cheers

JohnT

Now if we could just get the right service at the top at the right time with some assurance...

The Army has had more than its share and there was indeed Pace, of course and I do not question that all of them have been able to put parochialism aside, truly. The Vice is always of a different service but he is not in loop to advise the Prez, only the Chairman is statutorily. A smart President will ignore that and Bush obviously did and has since.

My point was not parochial but that a deep seated knowledge of capabilities and limitations may not be there at the appropriate time and a fuss budget Prez or SecDef may hew to the letter of the law and not seek advice elsewhere. It is IMO not a big thing, just a minor glitch in the law.

[120mm]

Might just be the instructor and group dynamics out here at ILE Belvoir - but we've been given allot of flexibility - maybe we just take it - so far the folks that have dropped in from LVN have all been pretty happy (although at first they looked both disturbed and concerned) - the staff ride was pretty much student run and the quality of discourse is very good. ELOs & TLOs are introduced and I'd say met, but the real value comes from the interaction in the classroom vs. the readings (which provide a vehicle to jump from) or say the writing assignments (which give you the chance to think a bit more on a subject). I'd say I feel like I got my $$$ worth - but then I'd have to bring up the issues with DFAS - and that since I've pretty much paid my own way through they might use my satisfaction with the course to justify never reimbursing me: The piece I did on non-linearity for the SWJ Blog got picked up on by my History guy - and he said it met the requirement for his paper - as a result I was able to spend more time thinking about other stuff.
Best, Rob

After today's festivities, I'd guess you are correct about the instructor/dynamics. I found it ironic that the collaborative learning class was 95% lecture, by the instructor.

And I agree with you that while you can have ELOs and TLOs, and even meet them, the real worth of this kind of school is the interaction on various subjects.

In fact, why cannot new military theory be developed in the military schools, and then tested in training? Once upon a time, it is my understanding that this is the way it was done. I've heard more exciting, well-thought out and seemingly viable military theory developed in the school, with the understanding that those good ideas would never see the light of day, than I'd care to think about.

And we're not talking about wild-eyed lotus eaters, here, thinking them up. We're talking combat-experienced officers with a wide breadth and immense depth of experience.

[Rob Thornton]

I found it ironic that the collaborative learning class was 95% lecture, by the instructor.

I believe I'd rather swallow my pistol then sit through that.

And we're not talking about wild-eyed lotus eaters, here, thinking them up. We're talking combat-experienced officers with a wide breadth and immense depth of experience.

This is where I give big kudos to the mostly DA Civilian staff here at the Belvoir campus - they look for ways to allow us to bring our experiences into the classroom within the broader context of the lessons - this generates more discussion and gets at the truth of things. I'd also say that existing theory is questioned in terms of applicability and utility toward a number of conditions.

This type of participation feeds back into the system not only as peer to peer collaboration, but also shapes the next subject and discussion (and into the next new ILE class) for the various instructors. There are several instructors worth mentioning - but Chris Carnes, Fred Sanders, Ed Coss and Dick Tracey are all top notch - and rather then teaching disconnected classes they have taken the time to go the extra mile in building threads of continuity so it comes across as an integrated course. They've obviously worked on it and went beyond what they've been paid to do - don't mind saying it now that all the course assessment stuff and papers have been turned in and marked up

We've got to provide the guys & gals coming to these PME experiences both the enduring foundations, tools & opportunities to help them better understand their own experiences, but also encourage them to take their operational experiences and apply them toward considering new theory and solutions. If we can't do that - focusing on the "how" and not the "what", then we'll just get a rehash of the same down the road.

Best, Rob

[John T. Fishel]

about your point that G-N's big flaw is that only the CJCS is tabbed to advise the P. The CJCS website says that all the Chiefs are statutory advisors to the P and SECDEF and render advice if asked or on their own initiative THROUGH THE CJCS! Does that mean that the CJCS can short circuit advice from the Chiefs he doesn't like? Of course, while it's not ethical, it has happened. And not just by the CJCS but by the SECDEF for both the CJCS and individual chiefs. On this one, if I were king, I would change G-N to give the Chiefs (individually) the right to take their advice to the SECDEF or the P, over the objection of the CJCS. No guarantees but it would provide some check on the arbitrary use of power by a CJCS or SECDEF.

JohnT

[SteveMetz]

about your point that G-N's big flaw is that only the CJCS is tabbed to advise the P. The CJCS website says that all the Chiefs are statutory advisors to the P and SECDEF and render advice if asked or on their own initiative THROUGH THE CJCS! Does that mean that the CJCS can short circuit advice from the Chiefs he doesn't like? Of course, while it's not ethical, it has happened. And not just by the CJCS but by the SECDEF for both the CJCS and individual chiefs. On this one, if I were king, I would change G-N to give the Chiefs (individually) the right to take their advice to the SECDEF or the P, over the objection of the CJCS. No guarantees but it would provide some check on the arbitrary use of power by a CJCS or SECDEF.

JohnT

Wait a minute--I thought you *were* king!!

[selil]

Wait a minute--I thought you *were* king!!

That would make him......the...... Fishel King....

[SteveMetz]

That would make him......the...... Fishel King....

Don't give up your day job, Sheky!

[Ken White]

I agree. As I said, no big gig -- just been my experience that the occasional micromanager who has all the answers can gum up the works and I agree with the Ol' Founding Fathers -- checks, balances and structure the laws to prevent human fouibles to the extent possible...

[Kreker]

In discussing adaptive leaders these two articles by Vandergriff are worth the read and future discussion. Basically it boils down to having the right instructors/teachers/mentors who can impart their knowledge on "how to think" versus"what to think."

http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/TEUE-789NBT/$File/Vandergriff.pdf?OpenElement

http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/TEUE-794RBW/$File/Vendergriff.pdf?OpenElement

Best--
Kreker

[John T. Fishel]

too old and decrepit. Besides, I abdicated long ago.