Fiasco at the Army War College?

[120mm]

The system doesn't work that way and it absolutely should not. The boys in the Five Sided Funny Farm, regardless of talent and intellect, are responsible for strategic thought and effort -- in the military arena (the WH and State, rightly or wrongly, are responsible for the total strategy) -- the Colleges are not responsible for that but they do have the task of teaching folks how to think, not what to think and all have serving Officers in their heirarchy and said officers have primary responsibility to their service and to DoD, not to the nation.

The object is to have elected persons -- or their properly ratified appointees in charge; not a group of faculty members squabbling about tenure and saddled with service parochialisms...

What you propose is tantamount to saying that Harvard should should have responsibility for some government functions, say economic, fiscal and social policy...

I'm reminded of William Buckley once saying "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty."I think that might be judged dependent upon who it was an how far outside the party line on what topic. While I agree that exposure to different and even severely contrary views is desirable, there are or should be some limits if for no other reason than some possibles would be more disruptive than helpful...I'll counter your hope by hoping not -- I'd rather see them concentrate on their job -- educating thinking officers. The Constitution works and I think we ought to use it more, not sidetrack it.

There are more than enough talking heads and would be strategic geniuses without adding the Colleges to the mix. Though their Professors should contribute to the opinions on strategic direction -- and my belief is that most do so and that all do not follow the party line to any, much less a great, extent. I've read a number of papers from all the senior Colleges over the last few years that take quite contrary positions on things.

I agree with Bob's World on this one. I think the STUDENTS should not only be driving the curriculum, but the students, who actually have recent and relevant experience in warfighting, should be shaping our country's warplans, not some 75 year old contractor in the CTD who's last military service was 40 years ago.

I am disgusted by the paternal, "I'll tell you what's good for you" mindset of the current PME system.

But we've had this discussion before.

[John T. Fishel]

academic career. 15 years at a mid-level state university, adjunct at 5 private universities, adjunct at a community college, 5.5 years full time at CGSC plus Consulting Faculty status for 20 years, 8.5 years at NDU, and now 2.5 years at a major state university.

My experience has been that I have generally experience more freedom to pursue my professional interests both in the sense of fewer restraints and mor positive support in the PME institutions than in all the rest. The exceptions (negative and positive, respectively) to that statement come from one component within NDU under one Director - no longer there - and currently at the U. of Oklahoma. Generally, academic freedom in the PME institutions I've been associated with has been well respected in terms of the AAUP definition. In those terms, it has also been generally respected in the civilian insttuions. The positive support side is where both have fallen down in those cases where they did not meet the ideal. In civilian institutions there can be pressure to conform to a model of political correctness. Bob notes a similar "pressure" from his experience at AWC but it was one I never felt at either CGSC or NDU. I would also note that at American U - one of the most Liberal institutions in the country - the Dean of the AU School of International Service, Dr. Louis W. Goodman, made certain that PCitis did not reign and that all political pursuasions were treated with respect. I would say that the same attitude exists at OU and at CGSC, AWC/SSI, and NDU when I was there.

Cheers

JohnT

[Bob's World]

To be clear, I was not aware of any external pressure, or even any internal pressure from MG Huntoon. What I sensed was more an institutional expectation and mindset, for lack of better terms. This is without a doubt a team of great Americans. Most are retired Colonels who made their way up through a very competitive military career field to command combat arms units at the Brigade level. They then have gone on to further dedicate their lives to the service of their country by picking up Ph.D.s and serving at the War College.

The fact is, though, you don't get to this point by being either a rebel or a major risk taker. The senior rater profile system attacks those traits with Darwin-like precision. You get where these guys are by being the very best at doing what the boss wants done. And that is how they see their mission. They may well be right.

While I respect Ken's insights, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. First, the Constitution does not come into play on this issue, so save that round for another fight. I've worked at the Pentagon, I've served on MACOM and Combatatant Command staffs, 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). But the guys at the Service Schools, armed with the ever refreshed perspectives of their students, have just that. I think it is a cop out to simply be an amplifier for putting out the party line. 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.

But what happens when the party oriented senior civil leadership lets politics override the informed professional military positions of the uniformed community? At what point does duty require one to publicly challenge the boss? This is a tough moral courage issue that sadly comes up too often in the annals of history.

But we don't need a cadre of yes-men. My first loyalty is to the aforementioned Constitution. Then the people of the United States.

Sometimes you have to be willing to stand up for what is right, and be prepared to resign if necessary. I once worked as an AGR for a State where loyalty was defined as never challenging the TAG and supporting everything he did no matter what. When he decided that his relationship with an NCO, who happened to be the wife of one of his officers was more important than his duty to the state everyone looked the other way. I sat down with the IG and said this needs to be investigated. I learned that IGs can't touch TAGs, and they can only be disciplined by the Governor. So I resigned from my job and took a position with the largest District Attorney's office in the state, and left a Guard organization that I had come to love and respect tremendously to take a position in the Reserve. (That TAG ultimately was forced to resign, but the guy who leads the charge rarely is there to share in the victory on the objective)

Bottom line, I was raised to think freely, to serve proudly, and to never place myself in front of those I serve. Life isn't about not getting knocked down, and there are plenty who will knock you down for such sentiments. It is about getting back up. I've enjoyed two great follow-on careers (as a prosecutor, and back in the SOF community) that never would have happened if I had just been a good party man and looked the other way.

[Rank amateur]

1. never put anything in an e-mail you wouldn't want forwarded to the person you are writing about, because sooner or later it probably will be forwarded to the person you're writing about.

2. I have nothing but respect for Dr. Metz. I do hope he will bless us with his presence more often.

3. I thought we were all going to buy a copy of Steve's book through a link at the site and then do the Oprah thing online. I'm still up for that if anyone else is.

[Ken White]

I agree with Bob's World on this one. I think the STUDENTS should not only be driving the curriculum, but the students, who actually have recent and relevant experience in warfighting, should be shaping our country's warplans, not some 75 year old contractor in the CTD who's last military service was 40 years ago.

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.

I am disgusted by the paternal, "I'll tell you what's good for you" mindset of the current PME system.

Your prerogative though I doubt that said disgust has done or will do much to change that -- people will do people things...

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...

But we've had this discussion before.

And may again.

From Bob's World:

"...While I respect Ken's insights, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Not a problem.

First, the Constitution does not come into play on this issue, so save that round for another fight.

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...

There's a chain of responsibility and you're advocating ignoring it?

I've worked at the Pentagon, I've served on MACOM and Combatatant Command staffs...

So have I but I'm now retired so all I can do is offer sympathy for your pain.

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)...

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.

...But the guys at the Service Schools, armed with the ever refreshed perspectives of their students, have just that.

Perhaps, I'm not sure but I suspect they have as many distractions as the folks in the echelons above reality.

I think it is a cop out to simply be an amplifier for putting out the party line.

I agree with that but I am not at all sure what you suggest is the case.

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 )

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.

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...

[Bob's World]

Concur on who creates strategy. I have a team that is dying to produce strategy; and get quite frustrated when I remind them that at the Combatant Command level we are far more the consumer of strategy, rather than the producer.

Yet produce we must, but the real important big ideas, we wrap up real nice and share them with those who, if they do not produce the strategy that we must consume, at least have audiance and sway with the same. Its a slow game. But every now and then you see good things burble their way up to the top, and come back down for your further consumption.

[Ken White]

Concur on who creates strategy. I have a team that is dying to produce strategy; and get quite frustrated when I remind them that at the Combatant Command level we are far more the consumer of strategy, rather than the producer.

because when you're at that level, you know far more what's going on in your world than some clod in DC knows. The flip of that, naturally, is that said clod may know things you don't. No easy solution to that conundrum.

Yet produce we must, but the real important big ideas, we wrap up real nice and share them with those who, if they do not produce the strategy that we must consume, at least have audiance and sway with the same. Its a slow game. But every now and then you see good things burble their way up to the top, and come back down for your further consumption.

Yep, shame that we can't just provide brilliance to those in power and have them bless it but they will insist that it be their idea -- so you've gotta flank 'em to get them to believe it is their idea. Heck of a way to run a railroad.

Come to think of it, aren't the railroads in trouble because they thought they were in the railroad business instead of the actual business they were in?

[SteveMetz]

I think this discussion thread and most of the others sparked by Ricks' blog have missed the crucial point: it's about journalistic ethics, not academic freedom.

Specifically, should a reporter use a faculty member in the professional military educational system or a serving military officer as a cudgel against the administration if the opportunity presents itself? In my experience most (but not all) reporters recognize that academic freedom in the military educational system is important but fragile, and using faculty members as anti-administration cudgels can damage not only them personally, but also the acceptance of academic freedom by senior defense leaders.

Should the ethical standard be that the journalist is free to use anything said to him or her in any way they see fit and is under no moral obligation to consider the way their use of the words will effect the person who said them? If so, and people decide it's best not to speak to the journalist and communicate this to their friends and colleagues, does that constitute "blackballing" (assuming the person was only offering advice and not commanding people to avoid the journalist)?

Second, should a reporter portray something written in the professional educational system under the policy of academic freedom as the government position? To take one example, Tom's Foreign Policy blog entry of 31 December is headlined "The U.S. Army Speaks Up For Hamas." It was summarizing a recent publication by an Army War College professor that includes the following disclaimer on p. ii: "The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government." Is this within the confines of journalistic ethics? If not, could it potentially cause senior defense leaders to rethink their support for academic freedom at government educational institutions?

[Ken White]

Journalistic ethics. That is IMO...

Those folks have lost the bubble, they're failing as a business case, TV or print, their credibility is totally shredded and they can't understand why.

Sad or scary, I'm unsure which.

Steve Metz said:

"In my experience most (but not all) reporters recognize that academic freedom in the military educational system is important but fragile, and using faculty members as anti-administration cudgels can damage not only them personally, but also the acceptance of academic freedom by senior defense leaders."

That seems logical to me and would also seem to be something that a reporter would be loath to impugn for fear of losing or antagonizing some important sources who tend to agree with them on most issues...

As I say, those folks appear to be wandering about lost.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I think this discussion thread and most of the others sparked by Ricks' blog have missed the crucial point: it's about journalistic ethics, not academic freedom.

Absolutely bang on, Steve. What is interesting, for me at least, is that the ethical system is quite highly related to that of Anthropology since both journalists and anthropologists "report" on the people they interact with. The primary differences are in the assumed audience for that reporting, the genre of the reports and the assumed goal of the reporting.

Specifically, should a reporter use a faculty member in the professional military educational system or a serving military officer as a cudgel against the administration if the opportunity presents itself?

This is certainly something we have run into in our debates. In general, we assume that anything we say or write will be used by someone with a political ax to grind, and many of the AAA's ethical "guidelines" are designed to control our political use of what we find.

Should the ethical standard be that the journalist is free to use anything said to him or her in any way they see fit and is under no moral obligation to consider the way their use of the words will effect the person who said them? If so, and people decide it's best not to speak to the journalist and communicate this to their friends and colleagues, does that constitute "blackballing" (assuming the person was only offering advice and not commanding people to avoid the journalist)?

Technically, "blackballing" refers to the process of excluding a person from group membership. I don't really think that that is an accurate word to describe the events. Advising colleagues not to talk with someone as a result of past (mis)use of such discussion isn't blackballing - it's environmental information .

Second, should a reporter portray something written in the professional educational system under the policy of academic freedom as the government position?... Is this within the confines of journalistic ethics? If not, could it potentially cause senior defense leaders to rethink their support for academic freedom at government educational institutions?

In that instance, it's poor fact checking which, I believe, is contrary to journalistic ethics. Your final question is interesting, because I believe that it is a question that is purposefully not examined that much. I suspect that the assumed goal of reporting - the public "right to know" - is held as the end point in a chain of responsibility. I'd actually be very interested to know Tom's take on this.

Marc

[Ken White]

Advising colleagues not to talk with someone as a result of past (mis)use of such discussion isn't blackballing - it's environmental information .

not stated is whether the advice was a result of perceived intentional or inadvertent 'misuse' thus it appears that umbrage was perhaps unnecessarily taken...

[SteveMetz]

not stated is whether the advice was a result of perceived intentional or inadvertent 'misuse' thus it appears that umbrage was perhaps unnecessarily taken...

The advice I gave was the result of a series of events spanning an extensive period of time. And, as suggested above, the use of the word "blackballed" in the blog was a distortion. No one in a position of authority said don't talk to Tom Ricks. It was me giving advice to a small group of colleagues. That doesn't fall within the normal use of the word "blackball" (although clearly the use of the word was more publicity generating than a more accurate portrayal would have been).

[Ken White]

well. Leaves me with the impression that either Schmedlap or Mark O'Neill are correct above and / or that I am with the 'undue' umbrage remark -- emphasis on the undue...

As I tried to point out and as you said:

"So when it comes to academic freedom in PME, my personal opinion is that there's nothing to see here folks--let's move along and discuss issues that really need it."

I also agree with Rank Amateur...

[selil]

The advice I gave was the result of a series of events spanning an extensive period of time. And, as suggested above, the use of the word "blackballed" in the blog was a distortion. No one in a position of authority said don't talk to Tom Ricks. It was me giving advice to a small group of colleagues. That doesn't fall within the normal use of the word "blackball" (although clearly the use of the word was more publicity generating than a more accurate portrayal would have been).

I think Mr. Ricks has hurt his standing much more than you have Dr. Metz.

Those who feel negatively towards SSI likely always felt so, but it is unfortunate that this happened.

I have to admit that knowing somebody in SSI is sending out internal emails has made me reconsider ever taking PME position for sabbatical or scholar swap. I'm to much of a curmudgeon to deal with that kind of backstabbing behavior.

[SteveMetz]

I have to admit that knowing somebody in SSI is sending out internal emails has made me reconsider ever taking PME position for sabbatical or scholar swap. I'm to much of a curmudgeon to deal with that kind of backstabbing behavior.

I do need to add that I believe this kind of adolescent, hostile pettiness is much less common in PME than in civilian academia. That's one of the reasons I left a university job for one in PME more than 20 years ago.

[selil]

I do need to add that I believe this kind of adolescent, hostile pettiness is much less common in PME than in civilian academia. That's one of the reasons I left a university job for one in PME more than 20 years ago.

I'll take your word for it as the more experienced scholar. It is kind of a red-herring statement on my part as the chance a PME org would hire me are approaching zero. Ride safe.

[Rank amateur]

I also agree with Rank Amateur...

Sorry I didn't respond sooner; it took me four days to get over the shock of reading the above.

I did want to point out that Mr Ricks gave Dr. Metz one hell of a blurb.

"This is a smart overview from one of our best strategic thinkers. Read it." --Thomas E. Ricks, author of FIASCO: The American Military

It is my understanding that blurbs are very important in the publishing world and given voluntarily. When someone goes above and beyond the call of duty to provide an excellent blurb it is understandable that a relatively minor incident could become emotional.

[Ken White]

but your creative bent sometimes leads you off track just a tad...

True also on the emotion bit, I suspect...

[Bob's World]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/strateg...comment-190711

I had this related blog link sent to me today. I really have no comment as to the assessment of what is taught or who is allowed to teach at the AWC; I was however both amazed and disturbed by the perspective and tone of most of those who chose to weigh in on the issue. (Which of course provoked me to add my own 2 cents worth of commentary at the end)

[Cavguy]

This is my favorite wingnut comment from that link - poor Steve Metz is actually trying to argue with those idiots.

43. fred:


google up Dr. Sherifa Zuhur and you will find that she APPEARS as a Westernized, secularized Arab. I think this woman is either deep cover for the Ummah or is a cultural Marxist hybrid straddling both the Western Left and her Islamic roots. She wears no hijab and certainly none of the required wardrobe associated with female modesty in the Muslim world.

"Deep Cover Ummah". I might have to use that. Sounds like a good band title.

I need RTK's tinfoil hat pic again.