from Ken
I would further submit that your Bactrian curve applies not only to the counselors at Law but to all the categories I cited, including Private and Generals and to most of the world in most things. Scary, huh?
not really - so long as those who are not really experts in an area (a majority of any diverse group) apply the Eastwoodian philosophy: "A man must realize his limitations".

From what I see here (based on reading a lot of posts by you military types - I came here after all to learn something about COIN; not to preach about law), the military types here are pretty good at realizing their own limitations and looking to others for the expertise that they need.

In fact, if anything, you military types are almost too self-critical - discussions of Iraq and Vietnam are examples in my mind. I keep saying to myself - "give yourselves a break". It (Iraq) is and it (Nam) was a very difficult situation(s) in which singular "solutions" do not and did not readily present themselves.

-------------------------------------
The important question in my mind is how to "rebuild" the civilian part of the equation; that is, can politicians and policy makers be taught Eastwood's gem - and to engage in constructive self-criticism ? Strikes me that "Lessons Learned" and its process should be passed on from the military to the political world - not the other way around - since that world seems rarely to employ limitation or self-criticism.

Of course, there is some reluctance by soldiers to become too involved in the political process - and that is a good thing as applied to partisan politics. But, the US has had a long history of the military feeding into the policy-making process - either directly or indirectly (via former military). The US soldier has not been solely an "instrument to execute policy" (paraphrasing another recent thread). In this area, we seem to differ from our cousins, the British.

I believe that is exemplified by looking at the military backgrounds of British PMs and US Presidents. Did that, and came up with this.

UK PMs Military Experience (12/52 - just below 25%)

1721-1801 3/14 - Pelham (brief), Pitt the Elder (brief), William Petty (col. regular)

1801-1902 - 2/18 - Liverpool (col. militia), Wellington (!)

1902-2008 - 7/20 - Baldwin (2lt. militia), Churchill (2lt.to ltc. pre- & WWI), Attlee (maj WWI), Eden (cpt. WWI), MacMillan (cpt. WWI), Heath (ltc WWII), Callaghan (RN lt WWII).

List is here (but each linked bio has to be checked for military service).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

POTUS Military Experience (31/43 - just below 75%), now 31/44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...litary_service

The longest "dry spell" for military types was the period from William Howard Taft through FDR (6 pres. - hmm..., and which included WWI and WWII).

I believe it is a fair inference that each country has its own culture governing interplay between the military and civilian sectors.