Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 121 to 127 of 127

Thread: A Modest Proposal to Adjust the Principles of War

  1. #121
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Penta View Post
    Societal expectations, I think. You can raise the same question with chaplains as you do with doctors (indeed, there's even *more* of a quandary there, it could be argued).

    The reason why we have both, in some sense, is because we always have. If chaplains had never been a part of the force since before medieval times, and were proposed to be added these days, do you really think the incorporation of clergy into a military force like that would ever be countenanced? Similarly with doctors...If the question were being newly raised, today, would society, would the medical profession, countenance it?

    In both cases, it would be up for debate, I think. (Query: After 1991, did the former Soviet states establish chaplains in their airmed forces? Are there any "First World" states which don't have chaplains?)

    Meanwhile, these other professions you may have mentioned...They came of age, in most cases, quite recently (as recognized professions/fields of academia). They've built their whole identities in the societal conditions of the last 50-100 years, which tend to allow less for those in academic fields to apply their talents to war, it seems.
    I like the doctors and chaplains as a basis for the new specialties. My thought would be that you bring them in young through ROTC, just like doctors or chaplains. They are uniformed officers - Civil Affairs Branch.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  2. #122
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
    To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I want all those capabilities under direct military control. Putting economists, anthropologists and everyone else under some MG up in Kirkuk is not necessarily a good fit in my estimation.

    I see the analogy to doctors, but they have free reign within their sphere - namely, treating soldiers. They can do whatever they have to do in order to save a life. But an economist under MNF control would not have that free reign - to accomplish anything he would need the approval of the local commander or higher, and I don't see the services handing over tactical control to outside experts in uniform.

    Granted, that's still a huge problem if they're outside the military chain of command, but, simply put, I am very leery of putting outside experts under direct control of military officers, no matter how "broadened" they may be. Besides, try getting some developmental economists to work for the US Army. The few I've talked to or study under can't stand USAID, let alone the US military.

    Of course, the issue then is who can be the overall commander - it can't just go up the chain to the White House. Perhaps you'd have to have some sort of council consisting of the local military commanders, and the heads of various agency task forces.

    I did like the article, however. The United States hasn't really used its national power since World War II. It would be eye-opening if it ever did again.

    Matt
    I think you underestimate a good General. I think we do that a lot. We assume that all the Army can handle is killing and breaking things. I think we are just as capable at building once we determine that is what we are really going to do. It is an institutional mindset that needs to change.

    If you were really that worried about it you could have seperate Division Headquarters specificaly trained to take over once the ground is secure. I actually would prefer that in the short run until it becomes a norm.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 12-22-2007 at 02:18 AM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  3. #123
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    26

    Default Professionalim

    Hi,

    My own bias is that a profession is any area of labor that cannot be routinized.

    In my opinion, many professions labeled as such have subcomponents whose work is, in fact, routinized. I doubt filling cavities changes much from patient to patient. Atul Gawande's book Complications has a nice section about a medical clinic that performs one procedure, and one procedure only.

    There may be some seemingly hard-and-fast rules at any point in time. Few medical professionals would advocate performing surgery in sewers. The rationale and logic seem self-evident. That said, bodies of knowledge are not static. Aristotelian physics is not Newtonian physics is not Einsteinian physics (so far as I know - in the spirit of full disclosure, I took "Rocks for Jocks"). For all I know, a hundred years from now, tremendous benefits will be found to accrue to those who undergo surgery in fetid, oozing piles of raw, untreated sewage.

    Second, professions seek to increase the likelihood of getting the right answer: the best way to fill a cavity given people are different, the best way to win a battle given [fill-in-the-blank] is different, the best way to perform an audit given companies are different. Because of the ambiguity involved in these tasks, debate will ensue. The presence of debate is a sign of a profession.

    Third, arguably war is the one area of human endeavor where professionalism is most likely to persist. One does not fight oneself; one fights an enemy, with all the action-reaction complexity that entails. I suppose companies will change, and thus best accounting practices will change too, but companies don't try to fight their auditors in the same way as two combatants do.

    Fourth, none of this necessarily supports or fails to support military education of any sort. (Again, full disclosure: I have not served in the military.) I can understand the reasoning that it is better to learn from the mistakes of others than from one's own, and to ignore the lessons contained in books is to commit a grave error. I can also understand that there is no substitute for experience, and reading books can perhaps not only add but marginally to one's capabilities, but rather in fact detract from them. I can also see the argument that while both are important, one is more important than the other, and time and emphasis ought to be weighted accordingly. I'd simply point out, first, that education exists in varied forms across professions, and second, the absence of consensus over the optimal means of professional education does not negate the presence of a profession.

    Regards
    Jeff

  4. #124
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Question So in trying to get my head around this

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffWolf View Post
    Hi,

    My own bias is that a profession is any area of labor that cannot be routinized.

    In my opinion, many professions labeled as such have subcomponents whose work is, in fact, routinized. I doubt filling cavities changes much from patient to patient. Atul Gawande's book Complications has a nice section about a medical clinic that performs one procedure, and one procedure only.

    There may be some seemingly hard-and-fast rules at any point in time. Few medical professionals would advocate performing surgery in sewers. The rationale and logic seem self-evident. That said, bodies of knowledge are not static. Aristotelian physics is not Newtonian physics is not Einsteinian physics (so far as I know - in the spirit of full disclosure, I took "Rocks for Jocks"). For all I know, a hundred years from now, tremendous benefits will be found to accrue to those who undergo surgery in fetid, oozing piles of raw, untreated sewage.

    Second, professions seek to increase the likelihood of getting the right answer: the best way to fill a cavity given people are different, the best way to win a battle given [fill-in-the-blank] is different, the best way to perform an audit given companies are different. Because of the ambiguity involved in these tasks, debate will ensue. The presence of debate is a sign of a profession.

    Third, arguably war is the one area of human endeavor where professionalism is most likely to persist. One does not fight oneself; one fights an enemy, with all the action-reaction complexity that entails. I suppose companies will change, and thus best accounting practices will change too, but companies don't try to fight their auditors in the same way as two combatants do.

    Fourth, none of this necessarily supports or fails to support military education of any sort. (Again, full disclosure: I have not served in the military.) I can understand the reasoning that it is better to learn from the mistakes of others than from one's own, and to ignore the lessons contained in books is to commit a grave error. I can also understand that there is no substitute for experience, and reading books can perhaps not only add but marginally to one's capabilities, but rather in fact detract from them. I can also see the argument that while both are important, one is more important than the other, and time and emphasis ought to be weighted accordingly. I'd simply point out, first, that education exists in varied forms across professions, and second, the absence of consensus over the optimal means of professional education does not negate the presence of a profession.

    Regards
    Jeff
    Your a professional as long as your working constantly towards finding a better way of accomplishing what it is you do?

  5. #125
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    26

    Default You May Just Be a Professional If

    Hi,

    I would approach from a few different perspectives.

    1) Good question; when phrased this way, I'm not sure. I would say that to me, what defines a profession is (a) there is uncertainty over how to perform its tasks, and (b) consequently, most professions debate the best way to perform their given tasks. To caveat, there are probably some professions that don't do this, and others for whom the frequency of doing this varies quite a bit.

    2) There are no bright-line rules, but rather degrees of difference. There are differences of opinion about the best way to mow a lawn, but there is probably less dispute about the best way to mow a lawn than when and how to perform a given medical procedure (or fight a counterinsurgency). Lots of endeavors might debate the best way to perform a given task, but the debate tends to be proportionate to the complexity and ambiguity of the task.

    3) I think one possible line of argumentation that is different from the above, but still worth noting, and perhaps what you're getting at, is that a profession is socially constructed. A profession is something society deems a profession. Hence some of the possible anomalies in the prior post: members of a profession who are professionals because they have entered what society deems and constructs as a profession (e.g., dentists who have passed licensing requirements, but whose work is fairly routine), or people not nominally professionals who nevertheless deal with tasks of complexity and novelty on a regular basis.

    Hopefully I'm still coherent and haven't contradicted myself too much.

    :-)

    Best
    Jeff

  6. #126
    Council Member MattC86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    REMFing it up in DC
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    I think you underestimate a good General. I think we do that a lot. We assume that all the Army can handle is killing and breaking things. I think we are just as capable at building once we determine that is what we are really going to do. It is an institutional mindset that needs to change.
    My wording was cynically-phrased perhaps, but no disrespect to any officer rank was intended. I just am not sure that anyone has the knowledge and experience for the full spectrum of COIN operations, so to speak. I don't believe many in the military have experience and backgrounds in economic development and anthropology, for instance.

    I am realizing I'm running in a circle here - I don't think the military alone has the sufficient experience to handle all the facets of COIN, yet I don't want the experts "impressed," as it were, into the services to give the chain of command the necessary expertise, and then I complain that commanders don't have the knowledge necessary to effectively do their jobs. I don't know what the solution is here; maybe you're idea of getting these guys in uniform as advisers or whatever to various commands is the way to go - it just doesn't sound right to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    If you were really that worried about it you could have seperate Division Headquarters specificaly trained to take over once the ground is secure. I actually would prefer that in the short run until it becomes a norm.
    Maybe. Although wasn't the transition from V Corps to JTF-7 in 2003 that very idea?

    Though I grant you JTF-7 was crippled by far larger problems than headquarters structure. . .

    I'm sorry for kind of busting your ideas without any real answers of my own; I just don't have any that sound right.

    Matt
    "Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall

  7. #127
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
    My wording was cynically-phrased perhaps, but no disrespect to any officer rank was intended.
    Don't worry, I did not think that you were and we should be able to express our opinions as long as it is with respect. I was reading a piece on LTG Petraeus while he was still with the 101st. According to the piece he had started to pump money into the local economy via work programs when he suddenly realized that without an influx of additional goods, all he had done was initiate a cycle of rapid inflation. So, without authorization, he opened the border with Syria to bring in goods. I doubt there were many Generals who would have realized that Just so happens that LTG Petraeus' degree was in economics. So in many ways you are right. I just think that as if the S&R mission was taken seriously then the right people would recieve the training they need to become adept in the subject required.

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
    Maybe. Although wasn't the transition from V Corps to JTF-7 in 2003 that very idea?

    Though I grant you JTF-7 was crippled by far larger problems than headquarters structure. . .

    I'm sorry for kind of busting your ideas without any real answers of my own; I just don't have any that sound right.

    Matt
    Don't worry about that one. I often complain about things that just feel wrong. I can't put my finger on it, it just does. With time the reason you don't like it will either jell into a clear thought or you will realize that I was right. Of course, I perfer the later.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •