Some more about "failure of generals" thin:
http://eb-misfit.blogspot.de/2014/05...asured-in.html
Some more about "failure of generals" thin:
http://eb-misfit.blogspot.de/2014/05...asured-in.html
As noted in the article, corruption is a problem we create. When you have only two types of diplomacy, the carrot - we give you tons of money to do our bidding; or the stick - we will use our military to destroy you, and then pay your successor to tons of money to do our bidding; then corruption is a necessary evil. If we could learn to understand others instead of assuming we know what they need, then this might change. But sadly, as we move towards a new Cold War because Russia is the enemy of NATO, we have learned ... wait for it ... NOTHING!
Happily, that is another thread entirely.
Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 05-03-2014 at 10:47 PM.
"I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."
Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
---
In the Lind article you see a reference to Col. Michael D. Wyly who is probably one of the finest living military writers that there is, he is a very farsighted individual indeed. He wrote the best part of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook. But the link to the article below is very Germain to this thread. I have posted it before but it defintely belongs here.
P.S. Curmudgy! In it Wyly discusses what every Marine must know about the future of warfare and list 3 suggestions for every Marine(I would think it applies to Army officers to) to know in order to be prepared.
Here is the link to the article as usual comments are welcome.
http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/wyly_4gw.htm
His three points
Don't disagree with any of them, but I think the frst and third points are well known and bring little new to the table. His second point is critical, it is also the point that Gen Rupert Smith makes well in his book, "The Utility of Force," but Wyly doesn't address the so what of this comment (at least in the article you provided a link to). I know I sound like I'm defending military officers, and to some extent I am while also remaining highly critical, but what Wyly is pointing out is deeply flawed understanding of war and its requirements by our civilian leadership that our defense industry reinforces with their insistence that technology will save the day. To some extent they're right, and we don't want to be disadvantaged by being technically trumped by our adversaries, but that doesn't mean people aren't ultimately decisive.First, we must expect the unexpected in terms of new kinds of enemies and new kinds of forces that assume the function of soldiers and nondescript war makers.
Second, we must come to grips with the fact that our traditional form of warfare, i.e., high tech with overwhelming firepower delivered from a distant standoff, no longer solves problems.
Third, the Corps must be a bastion of Americans who really do support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Last edited by Bill Moore; 05-04-2014 at 10:32 PM.
Bill,
Wyly's article was dated 1995 while Smith's book was published in 2005.
Both - obviously - made a contribution to military thinking in their time.
Despite the writings of these two persons the 'civilian leadership' in both respective countries have learned nothing during the intervening years. This is the really bad news.
Slap,
I have a bit of a problem with #3. Interpreting the Constitution is not easy. First, you have to decide if you believe it is a living document that is meant to be read and interpreted by people today, as Justice Roberts would advocate; or is it a dead document that was written in stone the moment it was signed and must be interpreted as the drafters understood things as Justice Scalla believes. If you get past that you have a document that Nine Constitutional scholars can interpret as it applies to a specific situation and still disagree almost right down the middle -- 5 to 4 -- on many key issues. And you want a Marine in combat to make decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution in a split second that these justices have months to research and think about and still not come to the same conclusion? I think that is utter nonsense.
Give them some basic values, like the Army's seven values, and have those guide their decisions. DO NOT expect them to interpret the Constitutionality of any action. Let their senior officers worry about that. They are the ones that need to understand if the orders they are given are just and legal.
Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 05-05-2014 at 02:10 AM.
"I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."
Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
---
Bookmarks