On the Paper
I am still working on getting through the paper, because I do as several others have also stated, believe that getting the dialogue started is a large part of the greater battle to bring about understanding and consideration of the realities of warfare.
I think the term hybrid is a useful term due to the fact that it is a largely encompassing term requiring the user to look outside of one or two linear
lines of thought. There may also be the added benefit that so many in our current political structure associate it with progress in relation to their energy and automobile choices
It is this very fact however that concerns me more than much of the literature which is being created. Mr. Hoffman as well as others are doing everything they can to forward the considerations necessary to be effective as armed forces in the long run and for that I applaud their efforts. Were they not doing so it is absolutely certain, considering historic precedence, that the greater structure would change very little other than in the short term. That I'm afraid is human nature and as such must always be held close to the heart when trying to determine any way forward.
We all know that the effectiveness of our military directly correlates to the ability and agility of our commanders and and enlisted soldiers in the field to overcome adversity and utilize whatever they have available to accomplish the mission. It is this idea of getting political buy-in to understanding the need for a well diversified portfolio of capabilities and contingencies, and to hopefully provide financing and approval for these various operations that bothers me.
Yes at the base of it the military is subordinate to it's civilian leadership and that is as it should be. But by enlarging the pool of those to whom you try to sell your wares don't you also bring more into the decision making process than should be in the first place? Isn't that a fairly historic problem (IE: to many Team leads not enough teams )
If we have to engage in this manner in order to get our own leadership to adopt or at least accept it in some form than ok, but is there a point at which we limit the overall audience to whom we give authority to make the ultimate decisions. Am I wrong in thinking that for real change to be affected it is not always required to be understood at all levels. Rather it is primarily necessary to gain acceptance of ideas based on experience and repute of its presenters.
SME's (the original context, Been There Done That guys )
Bookmarks