Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
"...The 'change' as understood thus far is cosmetic -- it attacks the symptom, not the problem. I do not question the need for him to do that; I do strongly question WHY he should have to do that..." (emphasis added / kw)It also seems you are corroborating my point that this is a bandaid and that we are attacking a symptom...

Not sniping at you but I think this all too pervasive general idea and attitude "...where the alligators have us by the ass we need to pass on draining the swamp." is endemic in the Army, more so today as it has been increasing in intensity for over 20 years and that it is exactly why we are where we are in a great many respects.

We have a bad tendency today to put out fires instead of removing the combustibles that allow such fires. People acquire credit and gratification from 'fixing' things that are wrong -- and being seen to do so...

Few seem willing to put in the hard thankless effort required to change the direction of the elephant. That attitude is dangerous and is not good for the long term health of the institution -- or the nation.

I'd like to amend something I said earlier: "...that he has to do so is an indicator of institutional failure. The institution really needs to acknowledge that. Append: and fix it before it gets worse..."
No sniping detected. Again I agree on the need for institutional change and I am not saying ignore it. I have advocated change too long to say that. I am saying that whether it is cosmetic or fundamental, an immediate change in approach was needed and McChrystal is doing that. Gates is clearly involved as well.

As for the renaissance or revolution that will come from the younger generation as they move up--at least that is what I hope.

Best
Tom