We can disagree and do so amicably. If we do in fact...
That's fine -- and I do not disagree with you on the students shaping war plans but that's not what Bob's World said; he said "strategy." Not the same thing at all. I also agree with you on the contractors.Originally Posted by 120mm
Your prerogative though I doubt that said disgust has done or will do much to change that -- people will do people things...I am disgusted by the paternal, "I'll tell you what's good for you" mindset of the current PME system.
I had the dubious distinction of attending several civilian institutions of higher learning, two State and two private in my brief and abandoned pursuit of a degree in Political Science. I went to four schools and abandoned that pursuit because I could not stand "I'll tell you what's good for you" mindset at ALL of those universities. People will do people things...And may again.But we've had this discussion before.
From Bob's World:Not a problem."...While I respect Ken's insights, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.Sure it does or else I wouldn't have mentioned it. The Executive Branch is responsible for the Foreign Policy and the Military efforts of the US as funded and more or less agreed by Congress. While the service colleges are part of the Executive Branch and should certainly have inputs to the development of strategy to execute the will of our elected leaders, those leaders and those they appoint to positions that by law are charged with the 'shaping of strategy' are the ones that should do just that. Diffuse the effort and you diffuse the responsibility -- committees do not make good decisions...First, the Constitution does not come into play on this issue, so save that round for another fight.
There's a chain of responsibility and you're advocating ignoring it?So have I but I'm now retired so all I can do is offer sympathy for your pain.I've worked at the Pentagon, I've served on MACOM and Combatatant Command staffs...I agree and often saw the same thing at the same level. Much of their lack of time in my observation came from their efforts at micromanaging things that they didn't even need to know about, much less be involved with and more came from their golf games and inclinations to do other things. Regardless of reasons, I agree your point that there are distractions is totally valid.and too often the guys who should be thinking the most, just do not create the time to do just that. (see back to comments about how to be successful)...Perhaps, I'm not sure but I suspect they have as many distractions as the folks in the echelons above reality....But the guys at the Service Schools, armed with the ever refreshed perspectives of their students, have just that.I agree with that but I am not at all sure what you suggest is the case.I think it is a cop out to simply be an amplifier for putting out the party line.Ah, so we do not disagree after all. Had you said that earlier, I would merely have pointed out that they in fact do that on a regular basis and that this study LINK which was produced prior to the invasion of Iraq in an attempt to shape (provide input) to developing strategies was just what your addition to your earlier comment now advocates and with which I agree.I think the Secretary and the Service Chiefs need to put these guys to work to challenge and shape strategy. Obviously any product is just input; and needs to then be sent to the decision makers to consider as to if they will use it or not.(emphasis added / kw )
Or perhaps this LINK more current product aimed at doing the same thing?
I think the Colleges are doing their part -- I also think 120mm and Bob's World have a legitimate bone to pick with the folks in the Pentahooch on not paying attention to some inputs.
I also suspect all of us can agree with some inputs and disagree with others...
Bookmarks