Although this may fit better in other threads we've brought it up here - and I think we can make it fit – one of the best pieces of wisdom I’ve heard attributed to a senior leader – was that he only did those things which only he could do. I’ve made mention of that before, but I think it also has relevance here. If we expect our senior leaders – in this case GOs to take on responsibilities which have broad and deep requirements – then we need to put them in positions to where they are informed – preferably in a manner that allows them to verify by seeing. I’m not sure that you can do this out of theater – you can trust up to a point – but to get the type of context that allows you to testify before Congress and convince them of your argument – you need the type of context that they cannot get by reading the Post or through the many people who have access to them – to include those who for one reason or another fly over, make an assessment, and fly back to reinforce and argument they’d already decided on prior to departing CONUS – this requires a persistent presence. This is particularly important in small wars where there tends to be more influcence of domestic politics based on the perception of how that war impacts us - e.g. "is it important enough to sustain our will and why."

I’d also add that were they not there – we’d probably point to the lack of risk and hardship sharing – and that there was an obvious gap in understanding due to geography. There is also the leader development piece – what are the most relevant experiences a 1 star is going to carry forward into his follow on assignment? If we can get a 1 star into a job where he or she gains more experience that better prepares them to assume a 2 star command – we should do so – and so forth up the CoC.

Now – there is a balance to be struck – doing what only you can do – means allowing those under you to do what they can do without much oversight and guidance – trust. To tie it back to the discussion at hand – I think the doctrine emphasizes it well enough – but it can’t force a leader to follow it – a culture change along the lines the LTG Caldwell and others (leaders in general) have argued for can. The culture change can either foster the type of leader development we want, and / or winnow out those who don’t adapt. Lack of a culture change can show indecisiveness and lack of a commitment. Clearly doctrine has a role to play in this, but not by itself – the human factor requires implementation. In many ways I think the latter is harder then the former – everybody who reads it (because of its nature) will pick and choose based on how they perceive the world.

Best, Rob