After making the above statement, here is my 2 cents.
Note: I meant to post this last night but I was just too tired.
I have to side with RTK on this, and I don't know if you are quite getting where he is coming from. I don't believe he was being literal when he was referring to reciting The Art of War. He has a point about his priorities. He has another point about book smart people being able to take tests and get the right answers and being incompetent in application. This can be seen in pretty much every area across the board. My favorite example of this is when teachers are required to take tests on Bloom's Taxonomy (in ed school normally) and don't understand that just because you can give answers on something doesn't mean you understand it. There is a difference between the ability to give answers about something and the capability to abstractly apply, modify, reapply, evaluate and modify is a logical leap many people will never make it. The reason I love this example is that Bloom's taxonomy is all about that.
I have to agree with RTK on this side. I have to point out that part of what may have lessened their preconceptions is you and your background (which I am assuming is similar to theirs.) I have found that when discussing with people with these notions about the military there is a bit of a psychological hold up on their part. The discussions are quite often very sanitized (due to the terms of art) and yet about a very brutal subject. It's a bit hard for many people to understand how people can discuss such bloody business so casually or unemotionally. They just don't understand that remaining objective is important. Many could understand a historian, but not someone who's opinions and conclusions potentially could save or kill someone.
Surgeons tend to have a similar problem. Normal people would not deal well with how many surgeons talk about what they do amongst others in their profession. Both in their sense of humor, which is very dark, and in their very calm, and quite often cavalier, demeanor. This is quite often a necessary attitude when performing risky surgeries. When you are performing a surgery where if you are1/20th of an inch off or not done inside 20 minutes the patients dies you cannot have self doubt. Surgeons learn (they do teach this in medical school) how to be diplomatic and how to talk to patients. This is no easy task and many never become adequate and very few master it. The military does not have the time to train officers in this area. I would bet a lot of what makes them good officers (in combat not politics) is what gives them trouble in this area.
Although I agree with RTK in that a lot of things come first this is a good point and I believe it has been looked at by the army (many years ago.) Many large tactical blunders in history have been due to issues stemming from misunderstood or misinterpreted orders. Unfortunately, this is a difficult task which ranks low on "need to do" compared to more bread and butter skills.
On the other hand perhaps we should look at most professionals (including the top of the class out of Harvard, Yale and Princeton.) Their grammar is not what it used to be. For that matter neither is their education. I don't want to go off on this tangent. I'll save it for later.
RTK is right here, but I have to ask should commanders have to push officers and potential officers. Shouldn't they expect a little initiative. I would dare to say that someone who makes no efforts to expand their capabilities and knowledge perhaps should be going into another profession. I should clarify that if the officer or potential officer is simply prioritizing and sticking to more meat and potatoes education initially I think that he may have a good idea (although if he is not yet in the military, with the exception of those in the most strained circumstances, I fail to find it plausible that some spare time for extra study cannot be found.
No, acronyms are the biggest obstacles. It doesn't take a sociologist to guess what human terrain is, but what the hell is a COIN or CJTF. Why is it COIN and not CI? To a laymen that would seem more logical. A cop on the other hand would really be pissed of because he'd have to deal with CI meaning both criminal informant and counter insurgency.
Coming from the Northeast myself be careful about your statements. Say what you want about the Boston area but leave the rest the North East out (it's pretty big.) Look, you probably, like me, came from a nice upper middle class family, lived in a nice upper middle class neighborhood and went to nice upper middle class school. This tends to lead to meeting a lot of people who all live in little boxes on a hillside, whom all go to university and all become identical lawyers, doctors and investments bankers. (I must note for accuracy that my family wasn't one of the identical ones.) Also, quite often the people who talk the most about something are the most ignorant.
The Northeast I believe you are talking about lives mainly in the drift of the universities. NY for all its loud leftist talk is actually split pretty evenly. There are a lot of people going into the service, but I would have to admit most are enlisting. The issue of recruiting officers in the Northeast I will get to in a new post.
Sorry about this long post. I wanted to get my 2 cents in. Actually, let's be honest its at least 75 cents.
What happened to the cent symbol on the keyboard?
Adam
Bookmarks