Can you really do this without an outside catalyst? What are the different stimuli for change? Seems there is the outside - which for us means civilian something, and an inside which might be a grass roots from the lower ranks.
How are the two different?
Which one is more effective? In terms of it being reinforced or accepted?
Can there be a blend?
I've only read the out takes of some of the JFK speeches on national service, and the thoughts on UW - not enough to gain the context - but I do know it was not real popular with big Army - for that matter I've found allot of evidence in our 20th Century military history where SOF units and attitudes have not been well received (the creation of special units during WWII) - the argument was a diffusion of resources, but I think it may have something to do with military culture as well.
To fast forward to more recent history, many of Donald Rumsfeld's policies were also not popular with the ground services, but his push toward technology and "Transformation" were more in synch with the USAF and USN - and certainly provided the impetus for the MIL Industrial Complex to push the envelope on US Military tech (however - in my opinion it did so at the expense of people by virtue of what it emphasized).
Its hard for me to consider the trends from any other perspective other then applying the context of the ones I've lived through (with my own set of biases) to the ones which preceded them.
My hunch is that meaningful change is an evolution that occurs over decades as its institutionalized and built upon. To speed this change up in a democratic state's military will require a frank and honest discussion between the civilian leadership outlining the requirements for its policy goals over a decade or two, and the military responding with what that is going to cost - and what the risks are. Somewhere, there has to be compromise and consensus. Since it is a democracy, it has to go beyond the executive branch and include the legislative (appropriations and allocations) in a bipartisan fashion. There is significant risk on all sides - and political risk is something that many professional politicians seem to be averse toward.
Best regards, Rob
Bookmarks