He said the PhD -- not education per se -- was not needed to be an effective Officer. That sort passes the "Well, yes" test.
I essentially said that it took an exceptionally good and militarily dedicated officer to use his Phd to be a better Officer rather than spending more time and effort on his PhD field or interest than his military requirements. That,too should pass the "Well, yes" test -- latest learning experience and all that...
Since I've seen a dozen or so examples in the field, I'm quite comfortable with that statement, I can even name them, the times and locations -- but not on an open forum.I thought the former was a given. I'm a civilian and I resemble that remark...Next will be "all civilians are lazy drunk SOB's" followed by the spoiled brats of the apocalypse.
It's up to you, Educator, to keep those SBOTA under control.Not IMO. He had a point; the academies are expensive and are not the only way -- possibly not even the best way -- to do the job. But he knows they aren't going away for all the reasons stated above so he just got some of bias out in ink and his War College crack was totally wrong -- plus, as I said, he also knows Petreaus' PhD is only one of many in the Armed forces and that virtually all Officers, MAJ/LtCdr and above, have advanced degrees. Poor propaganda piece on his part. He's usually a little more subtle than that...Was Ricks right for all the wrong reasons?
Bookmarks