Initial Officer Selection

[JMA]

It depends.
Sometimes very urgent action is required. In this case the superior needs to have enough trust of his subordinates that they execute asap without much 'thinking'.

Those who need bureaucracy-given authority to enforce such a rapid reaction are likely the same who are not competent enough to convince their subordinates in less urgent situations and demand 'unthinking obedience' on such occasions, too.

So this brings us full circle back to leadership.

Got a delightful book the other day (available through the US Marine Corps Association) called 'Battle Leadership' by Captain Adolf Von Schell. A German officer who served during WW1 and then attended US Staff College in 1930-31 the nine short chapters are based on lectures he gave to the US military over that period (so appears not to be a translation).

He says this on leadership:

To be an officer means to be a leader - to be a leader of troops in battle. It is certainly correct that leaders, like great artists, are born and not made; but even the born artist requires years of hard study and practice before he masters his art. So it is with the military leader; if he is to learn the art of war, he must practice with the tools of that art. (page 93)

[Ulenspiegel]

JMA wrote:

Got a delightful book the other day (available through the US Marine Corps Association) called 'Battle Leadership' by Captain Adolf Von Schell. A German officer who served during WW1 and then attended US Staff College in 1930-31 the nine short chapters are based on lectures he gave to the US military over that period (so appears not to be a translation).

IIRC von Schell was there as student, his instructors recognized his qualities and hard earned practical experience and allowed him to give lectures. This is dicussed in "Command Culture" from Joerg Muth.

[JMA]

JMA wrote:

IIRC von Schell was there as student, his instructors recognized his qualities and hard earned practical experience and allowed him to give lectures. This is dicussed in "Command Culture" from Joerg Muth.

Such discussion always takes place on such courses where students draw on the experiences of others. With the arrogance of today's youth probably less likely to happen these days though, sadly.

The lectures in the Von Schell book were however (I quote):

Most of the lectures contained in this volume were delivered either to the students of the Advanced and Company Officers' Classes or to the officers of the 29th Infantry.

[JMA]

So this brings us full circle back to leadership.

Got a delightful book the other day (available through the US Marine Corps Association) called 'Battle Leadership' by Captain Adolf Von Schell. A German officer who served during WW1 and then attended US Staff College in 1930-31 the nine short chapters are based on lectures he gave to the US military over that period (so appears not to be a translation).

He says this on leadership:

To be an officer means to be a leader - to be a leader of troops in battle. It is certainly correct that leaders, like great artists, are born and not made; but even the born artist requires years of hard study and practice before he masters his art. So it is with the military leader; if he is to learn the art of war, he must practice with the tools of that art. (page 93)

Came across this USMC Discussion Guide on von Schell's book. Good to see some Marines are wide awake to the value of von Shell's small book.

The book is available from Amazon I note:

Battle Leadership by Adolf Von Schell

[JMA]

Interested to hear from any who have read this book and possibly served in Vietnam who have comments on the officer training section.

Not a Gentleman's War: An Inside View of Junior Officers in the Vietnam War

[JMA]

In his book Made, Not Born: Why Some Soldiers Are Better Than Others Bruce Newsome makes an argument:

Newsome argues that the capabilities of combat soldiers are acquired through military training and other forms of conditioning, but he does not entirely discount the role of a soldier's individual character. In the age-old nature vs. nurture argument, he finds that intrinsic qualities do count, but that extrinsic factors, such as training and environment, matter even more.

Is it not the other way around?

He concluded:

The Conclusion summarizes the research and makes suggestions for policy and further research. Soldiers are made more than born. To assume otherwise leads, at best, to wasted effort and unnecessary discrimination, and, at worst, retarded combat performance and increased illegal violence.

Does this conclusion make sense?

[AmericanPride]

JMA,

I agree with his conclusion. Intrinisc qualities may create predispositions towards one an ideal soldier, but ultimately it is a learned behavior through training, experience, and conditioning.

[Steve Blair]

JMA,

I agree with his conclusion. Intrinisc qualities may create predispositions towards one an ideal soldier, but ultimately it is a learned behavior through training, experience, and conditioning.

Ultimately is too strong a word here. As always, the ideal comes through a combination of solid training and innate ability. Which part (training or innate ability) is more important? That depends on the individual. Poor training will not create an ideal soldier no matter how good the raw material, but at the same time a "broken" person (or someone lacking an innate ability or grounding) cannot be made into an ideal soldier no matter how solid the training. Good systems recognize this.