"Tarnished Brass" (new article by Dick Kohn)

[Tom Odom]

I got some very mixed messages from this piece, and they suggest shallow thinking.

Re: politicization - "Officers now vote, in substantially higher percentages than the general population; they identify themselves as Republican or Democrat, and less as independent or non-partisan, much more than the American people as a whole."

This guy needs to get over it. The irony of complaining that officers vote is that most vote by absentee ballots which frequently are not counted at all. Officers exercising civic responsibility. The shock and horror of it all, and to make it worse, they have the audacity to not be independents. If the issue is that officers vote "in substantially higher percentages than the general population", whose fault is this? Kohn should be kvetching about the lack of civilian voter turn out. This is the worst sort of inflammatory populist tripe.

Re: retired officers speaking out - Retired officers should stop speaking out when retired academics and retired politicians stop speaking out. Is the problem that they speak out, or that they have more credibility than other retirees? Candidly, it sounds like retired military officers have opposed his interests and this is his petty way of getting back at them.

Re:
"Now there are many other factors in the Iraq War about which the American civilian leadership was even more derelict than the military"
"(T)he Army War College, dedicated to the mission of educating “strategic leaders,” teaches “about strategy,” in the words of a faculty member there, but not “how to develop strategy.”"
"(T)he navy seems actually to have subordinated strategy to the capabilities of its fleets rather than designing its fleets to fit the larger needs of American foreign policy and national security strategy."

The first point is the key one. National strategy is set by civilian leaders. The AWC is doing exactly the right thing, as it is not a soldiers place in a democratic nation to set national strategy. The Navy is acquiring the fleet Congress approved, again as a reflection of Congress' national strategy. Does Kohn lack the fortitude to look our elected officials in the eye and tell them that they need the education in strategy? And for someone so upset of over the politicization of the officer corps, he is awfully quick to recommend that military leaders do civilian leaders' jobs.

He complains about the politicization of the officer corps, but whines that officers aren't doing the civilian leadership's jobs for them.

Re:"a growing careerism that has led to micro-management from above and a sense that any defect will derail a career, which in turn leads to risk aversion and sometimes to cover-ups, avoidance of responsibility"

The Long War has taken the edge off this problem. Careerism appears to be a poison that enters the military in peacetime. Eight years of continuous conflict have reduced the damage inflicted by the early 1990s draw-downs where 'zero defects' was a survival trait.


His recommendations:
-1. choose a greater proportion of candidates with demonstrated intellectual as well as operational and command ability
-2. undertake a systematic effort to eradicate the careerism, anti-intellectualism, and politicization of their officer corps
-3. institute programs of continuing education to be pursued by officers on their own, separate from and in addition to intermediate and advanced professional military education in residence or by correspondence.
-4. make certain that officers at commissioning are fluent in a foreign language and conversant with a foreign culture, and senior service schools should revise theirs so that strategy, leadership, and command are the focus of a war college education. are the focus of a war college education.

1. The services basically require graduate education to go past O-4. Yes there are exceptions, but a masters is the norm (and minimum) for O-5 and up.
2. "Anti-intellectualism"? Has he actually spoken with General Petraeus, Gen. Caldwell, or Gen Lorenz(USAF AETC cdr)? Politicization and careerism were previously addressed.
3. Continuing education for officers outside PME? We're seeing officers get passed over for not completing PME, where do we find the time and resources to support this? Also, has he looked at the PME curriculum? What else are we supposed to study?
4. I was under the impression that the foreign language requirement was already in place. Re:"strategy, leadership, and command " in war collges, again, has even made an effort to check his research? Has he spoken to anyone at a war college?

These are some shockingly stale and sterotyped accusations that have made it to print with no fact checking and flawed internal consistency.

Agreed. It would fit nicely in the why do liberal professiors hate the military?thread because it fits that category nicely.

[wm]

If he had then he might have recognized that what he is bemoaning is largely an example of such a catch.

On one hand, he describes the lack of strategic abilty, which he also miscategorizes (my opinion, to argue it here is a distraction) as an intellectual failing. On another, he complains about partisanship. I submit that he is arguing along these 2 lines: To be a military strategist requires one to be political; to be political is antithetical to being a military member. For what it is worth, I believe that being partisan is a necessary condition to choosing/fighting for a strategy. Perhaps Kohn and I just have different meanings for partisan and politics.

I am also at somewhat of a loss for his support of LTC Yingling's point about differing punishments for a lost weapon and a lost war. Privates usually have direct control over actions taken to secure their weapons. Flag officers are not so lucky about the degree of control they have in prosecuting wars. Generals do not lose wars by themeselves. They often have to fight the nation's opppnents with one had tied behind their backs. I guess that is as it should be because, according to Kohn's view of things, they are not supposed to be political partisans.

Perhaps our writer might want to review the literature out there on personal and public ethics--the notion that what one does in one's job comes with a set of ethical strictures that may be quite different than the rules one follows as a private citizen. Another point that relates here is the author's unhappiness about the use of contractors. A large number of contractors are former military members who choose to continue to serve in a way that is in keeping with the prior commitment to be apolitical while in uniform. Once the unifrom comes off, former officers may return to support the nation in a way that has a different set of ethical norms.

The UNC-CH basketball staff seems better at its task than this member of its academic faculty.
BTW, was anyone else put off by the use of lower case letters to start Army, Air Force, and Navy, but uppercase for the Marines. Seems like another instance of inconsistent thinking by the author .

[AmericanPride]

the notion that what one does in one's job comes with a set of ethical strictures that may be quite different than the rules one follows as a private citizen.

Yet it is argued in defense of military participation in the political process (i.e. voting) that soldiers are citizens first, and therefore "the rules one follows as a private citizen" ought to supercede the "ethical structures" in "one's job".

A large number of contractors are former military members who choose to continue to serve in a way that is in keeping with the prior commitment to be apolitical while in uniform.

Yet those companies with which contractors are employed are not apolitical.

I think it is important for the purposes of this conversation to differentiate "political" and "partisan".

[Ken White]

Yet it is argued in defense of military participation in the political process (i.e. voting) that soldiers are citizens first, and therefore "the rules one follows as a private citizen" ought to supercede the "ethical structures" in "one's job".

others disagree. IMO, A professional volunteer force for any nation should not have a vote. That 'soldiers as citizen first' mantra is touted by politicians and it is certainly applicable in times of conscription. Thus far that includes the Civil War, the two World Wars and half of the Cold War -- note only half -- the rest of the time the professional armed forces were legally allowed to vote but traditionally most did not do so.

Many support your position, few today will support mine but I think the matter deserves serious thought on the basis that politicization is bound to occur with excessive emphasis on the 'citizen' aspect. That does not bode well.Many will be able to meld the issues but some will not and that will create -- has created -- problems. Fortunately, mostly minor. Thus far...

Yet those companies with which contractors are employed are not apolitical.

Of course they aren't -- they are massive campaign contributors because it's in their interest to do so. The armed forces are not big contributors, the contractors are -- that's why the contractors are about in such massive numbers, Congress appreciates their help...

Most in Congress do not really court the military vote because it is pretty evenly distributed (all ranks) between R, D, Independent and totally uninterested and the absentee ballots often do not get counted (another thread, that). Those factors account for Congress basically wanting fewer people in the Armed forces as a general rule.

I think it is important for the purposes of this conversation to differentiate "political" and "partisan".

Totally agree with that, only pointing out that one tends to lead to the other. That is not terribly significant in a multi-party democracy, it is quite a different thing in a two party state where politics tend to be polar and not diffuse.

P.S
Old Eagle came in while I was doing my hunt and peck routine. He says he always voted -- so did I -- but two of those votes were for Kennedy and Carter, another was for Goldwater. That proves my voting in what I thought was my interest was a crap shoot. Not a very good one at that...

He also says:

"Trust me, we are not a political military."

True and hopefully we'll avoid that disaster.

[jmm99]

from wm
BTW, was anyone else put off by the use of lower case letters to start Army, Air Force, and Navy, but uppercase for the Marines.

From the bio blurb, Kohn was air force, not a Marine - so that's not an explanation. As they say, Colonialement

[Mark O'Neill]

From the bio blurb, Kohn was air force, not a Marine - so that's not an explanation. As they say, Colonialement

that is an excuse then, as he wasn't in the military....

(tongue firmly in cheek)

[goesh]

"The second is political: the absence from the officer corps of partisan political divisions, its subordination to the legally constituted civilian authorities in charge of the state, and its ability to establish an effective working partnership or collaboration with the civilian political leadership regardless of party or faction."

The DC relationship is more often adversarial with the military constantly under the light of interrogation accused of wasting money or abusing people.

The author goes on to whine about retired, senior Officers aligning themselves with political candidates. Conversely, individual Constitutional entitlements should then be defined by occupation but everybody thought it was wonderful when Joe the Plumber got in the lime light.

My favorite:
"......This may require further de-emphasis of mathematics, science, and engineering at the academies, on the grounds that war is first and foremost a human phenomenon, not a technical or engineering problem."

-right, who needs abstract thinking ability these days........