Initial Officer Selection

[Stan]

Deterrence was proved to be a failure?

I suspect our survival of the Cold War, the history of Switzerland and Sweden as well as a lot of other examples beg to differ.

I sincerely doubt that a nuclear deterrent will hold much water today and your Neutral Nations "cookie cutter" approach will work with any of the current NATO nations. But, you already knew that.

Victory as commonly defined is often a form of failure...

I’ve read your blog (at your invitation) and it seems much of this text is but regurgitation.

(The foolishness of the 2002-2011 Iraq conflict is a good example: pretty much nothing was gained but the busting of a few stupid fantasies. Thousands died, ten thousands were crippled, trillions of dollars were spent - for no real gain.)

I would tend to agree with you there but as JMA pointed out, the trained military officers and NCOs did not decide their fate, rather defended their oaths and positions. Without their training they would have all suffered needless death. That would be what you conclude as precluding foolishness and a few stupid fantasies ? What sort of training would have prepared them for a decision to go to war ? Running to the Canadian border ?

The military shall -in the event of war- achieve the minimal net damage outcome for the country, with political efforts to the same end in parallel.

Very easy to say… Based on your broad military experience and vision ?

So what's the military's purpose in peacetime?
Support the policy in its quest for good outcomes by making war and sovereignty violations less likely. This can be pursued by putting a hefty risk premium on all foreign aggressions. This risk premium is the visible and widely known probability that an aggression would fail to overcome the resistance (at costs that appear to be acceptable to the aggressor's top decisionmakers).

In supporting the current administration I don’t see the choices you are providing. This thread is about professional military education. What exactly would senior officers and NCOs do once the administration has declared war ?

That may be no fool-proof method, not 100% reliable - but then again only fools look for such methods in a world of mortals.

That statement means exactly what ?

To consider a combat-experienced officer corps the way to go, the best scenario, equals the wish for a country's involvement in warfare in at least a 20 year intervals. That's a wish for a periodic failure of the government to keep the country out of a great mess.
It's not even close to a good idea.

Why periodic failure ? What do the Swiss and Swedes do right this second that makes you think their system is better ? Begging for and wasting humanitarian funds and deciding how and who should be eligible to be killed in Africa with little to no experience ? It's a great way to collect insurance premiums, but not for me.