Staff Officer Education?

[Onion]

The question I have is what are relevant topics for a curriculum for a staff officer course equivalent to the US Army the Command and General Staff Course or the US Marine Command and Staff Course? What are the most effective educational methods? The course serves the armed forces three small NATO nations which have to seriously consider territorial defense against conventional attack by a large power as well as irregular threats and are sending out expeditionary forces to fight coalition/alliance small wars. There are international students from large NATO and non – NATO nations in the course as well. I am involved in curriculum planning and would like some ideas on what an eleven month course for majors should include. The course covers military theory, leadership, operational planning process, peacekeeping - peace support operations, counterinsurgency, operational trends, defense planning, civil emergency management, ethics, international law and international relations. The international relations teaching in past courses have been heavy in lectures in political science theory. I question how relevant lectures on political science are. How many comparative theories on international relations do staff officers really have to know about? Perhaps it’s good to have some political science, but in more moderation as in our case it takes about 25% of the course time. I wonder if it could be time better spent, perhaps on historical case studies carried by the students and guided by instructors to develop critical thinking on complex operational situations. Any thoughts on what other topics should be covered as well as what educational methods are best?

[John T. Fishel]

staff officers to do at the end of the 11 month course? One of the things I learned teaching CGSC at Leavenworth after being a college professor for 15 years was the above is the right question to ask. Its answer determines subjects and teaching/learning methodology.

Cheers

JohnT

[Onion]

What do you want these staff officers to do at the end of the 11 month course?

That's the million dollar question. That's the question our faculty needs to ask earnestly. Part of our problem is that segiments of cirriculum are planned and taught by civilian academics with little life experience outside of universities. They are generally capable people in their specialities but lack a broad understanding of what professional military education is. The military instructors focus on their own specialized areas of knowledge and are careful not to tread on someone else's turf.

[John T. Fishel]

or somebody senior to you on your suggestion - convene a faculty offsite (retreat) to brainstorm the question?

Cheers

JohnT

[RTK]

Better yet, why don't the academics visit the units and commanders that these majors will eventually work for and ask them. We do that periodically with our basic course, checking with the force to make sure we're on azymuth. Doesn't seem like it would be much different. All you need to ask is three questions:

1. What do you want your Major graduating from our course to be capable of?

2. What things, of the majors you've received in the last two or three years, are things they do very well?

3. What things, of the majors you've received in the last two or three years, are things that they need to improve?

These three open ended questions will usually bring out the pet rocks in most commanders. If a guy has an ax to grind against the school house, these questions would definately afford him the forum.

Best of luck.

[selil]

...Part of our problem is that segiments of cirriculum are planned and taught by civilian academics with little life experience outside of universities. They are generally capable people in their specialities but lack a broad understanding of what professional military education is. The military instructors focus on their own specialized areas of knowledge and are careful not to tread on someone else's turf.....

Oh, so this is just another broad swipe at academics not being good enough, ivory tower, anti-intellectualism post. gotcha. It is a long road from what should we teach, to, there is a credibility gap.

[sullygoarmy]

Having been through the courses and Leavenworth and serving as a staff officer now, here's my takes:

1) Doctrine. Staff officers (especially planners) are expected to know doctrine front and back regardless if it is your branch, your Army or your Alliance doctrine. Know it front and back.

2) Learn to be a problem solver. On top of using doctrine as a building block (think a common language), the ability to step back and analyze a problem is a vital component. The U.S. Army's trials with Commanders Appreciation of Campaign Design or Systemic Operational Design (SOD) are merely different ways to develop the background of a problen then approach it looking for potential solutions.

3) Interaction with people. As silly as this sounds, there are some people that just do not interact well with other people. You've all worked with them. In a staff environment, this makes life 10 times harder if you cannot communicate with a fellow staff member. In my short time with 3ID I've worked with everyone from the literal "Little old lady in tennis shoes" to Joint Staffs...all on variety of different projects CGSC (or SAMS for that matter) never touched on. The ability to understand the problem then communicate with others will help a staff officer regardless of the situation. And by communication, I do not mean via e-mail only either.

4) Simulations and exercises. There are some great debates in the SWC about the value/uses of simulations. A staff needs good training just like a rifle squad or tank platoon. Being able to plan, develop, execute and AAR command post and staff exercises provides valuable experience to a staff. Treat that staff just like any of your maneuver units and train them.

5) No staff is so special that they cannot be out with the soldiers doing training. I am off the Starship Trooper (book, not movie) mentality that everybody drops, everybody fights. Staff members should be at all mandatory training events just like the soldiers. A staff that trains with its units has both a better understanding and relationship with the people they support.

I got a lot out of my CGSC time but I was fortunate enought to get the extra education at SAMS. So far (IMHO) I've been able to put that education and prior experience to good use (my boss may disagree!). Regardless, I know my role is to help the commander make an informed decision...bottom line. We often forget the importance of our staffs. When you have a good staff, you rarely ever hear them mentioned or see what is going on behind the scenes. When you have a bad staff...well I think we've all been there before.

[max161]

If I were king for a day the intermediate level education for field grade officers would consist of history, theory, and operational art (and include planning exercises at the operational vice tactical level). Class time would be limited to 4 hours per day. There would be a heavy reading and writing requirement and the 4 hours class time per day would be focused on student interaction and sharing (and debating) of experiences and ideas (our field grade officers are not a lot more experienced than many of the more senior instructors). Sounds a lot like SAMS I know (at least in the old days). The problem I see with our military education system is that we maintain a training mentality and if there are 8 hours in the training day we will use all 8 hours (and cram 12 hours worth of work into it). But at the field grade officer level we need officers who can think, write, plan (operationally), and solve problems creatively. The other problem is that we have so many things we think we need to teach our officers that we cram in so much we cannot focus on the fundamentals of problem solving and understanding the current and future operational environments.

[Rex Brynen]

The international relations teaching in past courses have been heavy in lectures in political science theory. I question how relevant lectures on political science are. How many comparative theories on international relations do staff officers really have to know about? Perhaps it’s good to have some political science, but in more moderation as in our case it takes about 25% of the course time. I wonder if it could be time better spent, perhaps on historical case studies carried by the students and guided by instructors to develop critical thinking on complex operational situations.

Having both taught IR and worked at a foreign ministry, I would suggest that the vast majority of IR theory is almost entirely irrelevant to understanding how foreign policy processes work in the real world...