The Army Capstone Concept: the Army wants your comments

[Ken White]

I saw all the flaws mentioned above but ignored them. Is that conditioning or what...

It is, broadly, a waste of time and the taxpayer's dollar -- but it is the way we do business.

It is, as someone mentioned, as much a pre-budgetary guide as it is a pre-doctrinal guide. It isn't a schedule and certainly isn't a map, it is an Echelons Above Reality encapsulation of syllabus. Maybe not even that, maybe a prospectus.

Having worked for a few years at that level, I can thus ignore the flaws and realize that it is to lay the groundwork for doctrinal revamp that is aimed probably far more at the civilian side of government than it is at working Soldiers. Considering the raw ignorance among many in and working for Congress. Particularly dangerous are those with five years or so of service who think they know the system but really do not and are now staffers and exercise baleful influence on the many more with no service...

It is also designed for the proliferation of Think Tanks filled with academics with little or no experience. It will give them things to mull and prate about. Then there's the clueless media who need elementary guides...

The Army used to be able to write tight, clear and very concise documents and publications. It ceased doing that in the late 70s when masses of civilian Educators were hired into all the TRADOC schools and that unintentionally adverse influence became just that only because they caught the post-Viet Nam Army in a state of flux and angst and flapping about. They meant well, were some smart and hard working folks but they sold the Army an extremely poor industrial training system that is totally inappopriate for a professional force and they created a syndrome that believed volume was a substitute for quality of content in writing.

So look at it as a sales brochure for the layperson.

[Steve Blair]

The Army used to be able to write tight, clear and very concise documents and publications. It ceased doing that in the late 70s when masses of civilian Educators were hired into all the TRADOC schools and that unintentionally adverse influence became just that only because they caught the post-Viet Nam Army in a state of flux and angst and flapping about. They meant well, were some smart and hard working folks but they sold the Army an extremely poor industrial training system that is totally inappopriate for a professional force and they created a syndrome that believed volume was a substitute for quality of content in writing.

So look at it as a sales brochure for the layperson.

Personally I think it goes back further than that, and has roots in both the much-maligned civilian educators and the military's own mania for "management education" in the aftermath of World War II...but I digress.

Perhaps instead of simply fault-finding we should try to see what we can get right with this effort and suggest some changes that would make the document more useful for practitioners and others who may need to reference the document. I'm about halfway through it myself, and for one am happy that the loop was actually opened up to get some outside input. Especially given the mania of late for flinging every document in the known universe behind one of the many digital portals out there (regardless of the document's classification or, most worryingly, lack thereof). More to the point, if something sucks, identify it and suggest a replacement or workable alternative. Just saying it sucks because you don't agree with it and leaving it at that doesn't accomplish much and may actually work against this sort of thing happening again...which would negate one of the benefits of cyberspace that Marc mentioned earlier.

[Ken White]

...both the much-maligned civilian educators and the military's own mania for "management education" in the aftermath of World War II...but I digress.

I would suggest in fact that former are merely doing the job they were paid to do while the latter phenomenon is responsible for most all the flaws that accrued and for any errors on the part of the former. If an employee doesn't do what's needed, the employer is generally at fault. Add that misplaced and misapplied fetish with 'management' to the post VN blahs and you had a recipe for a screwup...

...we should try to see what we can get right with this effort and suggest some changes that would make the document more useful for practitioners and others who may need to reference the document...Just saying it sucks because you don't agree with it and leaving it at that doesn't accomplish much and may actually work against this sort of thing happening again...which would negate one of the benefits of cyberspace that Marc mentioned earlier.

True. I did just that the very day the Blog entry was first posted.

However, not to pick at you but merely for thought, I'd also suggest that pointing out that a process has been skewed for various reasons, most of which folks can understand even if they don't agree, has a merit all its own in a hopeful attempt to ask, simply; "What are we doing?" or "Is this really the best way?"

Accepting flawed or questionable concepts without question generally perpetuates or even exacerbates the flaw. It's also been my observation that an item which raises any generic pejorative comments often merits at least some of them and that items whose benefit or utility is obvious rarely raise such comments.

I also think comments are sort of like publicity -- all of them are better than none of them and even bad ones are of some benefit.

[William F. Owen]

I saw all the flaws mentioned above but ignored them. Is that conditioning or what...

It is, broadly, a waste of time and the taxpayer's dollar -- but it is the way we do business.

Actually I think you are being unduly hard on yourself. I think you correctly recognised the art of possible and what you might usefully do to progress improvement.

While I truly believe in what I wrote, I am very aware that it will probably have no impact beyond being the advice those seeking advice do not actually want.