I'll take a stab at Martin's question.

You develop a flexible, non-dogmatic officer corps by continually exposing officers of all ranks to realistic simulations against live, reacting enemies in a free play environment. The army already does this for maneuver warfare out in the desert. The essential requirement now is to extend this attitude to other types of missions, cultures and environments. Especially helpful would be joint missions, where third party forces ally with and oppose US units. Failing that, Special Operations forces might supply a realistic alternative. This doesn't always require a full blown simulation - terrain walks or map exercises can invoke the same principles.

When the results of an exercise hang on whether you grok your ally's cultural and military attitudes, officers of all ranks will break out of their molds real quick.

You fight how you train. Right now, the great bulk of the army trains to do one job (firepower intensive maneuver war) and they do it well. This is because we have devised (through decades of effort) realistic ways of simulating a maneuver war against a thinking, freely acting enemy. If we want the army to succeed at other tasks, we must train for them with the same ingenuity and intensity.