Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
Serious question here, do you think it is because they don't know what worked or because they don't know why it worked (or something else)? I am asking, because I have a gut feeling that institutions that expect to win treat things that "worked" (regardless of who did them) as a reflection on their own ideologies / doctrine - a reinforcement of its correctness if you will - while things that don't work, are either used to reinforce why they don't do it that way, or why they need to adapt. Afterall, if something that has worked before doesn't anymore, it must be "new", right?
MarcT,

Serious indirect answer here. When I got to Bragg, first required stop was to visit the Airborne Museum on post and the Airborne and Special Operations Museum off-post. Prior to command, I participated in a Prop-Blast (a "team building" exercise for new paratroopers). Throughout all three exercises, I learned of the famed legend of LTG James M. Gavin- how he constructed the Airborne Army, how he lead LGOP's (Little Groups of Paratroopers) across Italy, Normandy, and Market Garden, and how he defined the 82nd Airborne Division. That's where the history stopped. We were not taught how he rebelled against policy in Vietnam and of his own thoughts/observations in small wars. I didn't learn about that history until I went to graduate school.

We choose to remember things how we want to see them.

v/r

Mike