Fiasco at the Army War College?

[Bob's World]

When I was at the War College as a student, I was both surprised and disappointed at the general atmosphere in regard to job of the school as being to support the strategy coming out of the Pentagon, as opposed to using their tremendous intellectual horsepower and academic environment to get out in front of the Pentagon to shape strategy.

I remember my small group instructor talking about one visiting professor who had been publishing some material outside the party lines like he was a pariah to be avoided.

I've always felt that the service colleges should be shapers of strategy, not followers, perhaps this lifting of the skirt will help promote change in that direction.

[Ken White]

When I was at the War College as a student, I was both surprised and disappointed at the general atmosphere in regard to job of the school as being to support the strategy coming out of the Pentagon, as opposed to using their tremendous intellectual horsepower and academic environment to get out in front of the Pentagon to shape strategy.

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 remember my small group instructor talking about one visiting professor who had been publishing some material outside the party lines like he was a pariah to be avoided.

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've always felt that the service colleges should be shapers of strategy, not followers, perhaps this lifting of the skirt will help promote change in that direction.

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.

[Old Eagle]

AWC has published some extremely controversial pieces lately. In fact, I firmly believe that Dave Huntoon and his successor have pushed the Army to pretty broad limits of academic freedom.

Nasty bias on my part -- Tom Ricks is a journalist, responsible for selling newspapers; Steve Metz is an academician. They both play vital roles in our system, but we must view their contributions within those contexts. Neither is responsible for the development or execution of policy. Use what they produce positively, whether you agree with it or not.

[Mark O'Neill]

I thought your explanation of Academic Freedom as understood / advocated by the AAUP offerred an appropriate context through which to analyse the claims made by both protagonists.

I will declare my bias toward's Steve's side. I am a government employee (serving Army officer ) detached to working at a Civilian Think Tank http://www.lowyinstitute.org. I think there definitely is a requirement to maintain a 'balanced' perspective out of due deference and respect to your 'position' , what it represents to observers, and the organisation that pays you. It has been my experience that most people understand that, and that it does not detract from being able to contribute.

I cannot imagine it being any different at the SSI, my experience of visiting there has been of wide ranging and open debate / discussion, not only with Steve but other Civilian Academics, Visiting Fellows and Military Officers on the faculty / staff. That said, I do not think that SSI and AWC is meant to (nor should they) replicate UCLA Berekley in the late 60s...

Cheers

Mark

[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?

[selil]

I want to add a few things to Steve Blair's excellent analysis:

Academic freedom rights come in two flavors. The first flavor is the classroom. As a tenured university professor I have the intellectual and ideological freedom to express my own opinions about a topic as long as they are not against the university rules and are part of what the class is about. Yes I have to abide by rules so dropping the "F" bomb as punctuation would likely get me talked to. There is no credible reason in my classes to engage in that freedom. However, a colleague who teaches communication often plays the entire George Carlin "7" words you can't say on television for her class. The context is absolutely there.

I also have freedom to research. My research into cyber warfare as low intensity conflict is decidedly within the scope of information technology and information assurance and security. My research is detested and reviled by several colleagues who hate what I research. They loathe that I even have one friend or colleague within the department of defense. I truly believe everyone of them would stand up for my right to engage in my research agenda and support me. So much do they support me, I don't have to justify it, just do it with respect for their views.

You can tell that most of the people have been commenting in the open on other websites really don't know what academic freedom is and have not researched it. I find even in academia most people have no real idea what academic freedom is and where the principles of it come from.

For about 80 years the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has worked to instantiate academic freedom as a corollary requirement to education accreditation. No academic freedom no accreditation of the University. Though a relatively low percentage of professors belong to AAUP from what I've seen AAUP has worked tirelessly to insure academic freedom exists.

The statement of academic freedom from AAUP

Academic Freedom

1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
   
2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.
   
3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.
   

Like a lot of situations writers, pundits, and politicians have a tendency to only tell you the part of the case that helps them out. Here is where I say shame on Mr. Ricks. Everything claimed about Dr. Metz violating academic freedom is covered by the responsibility clause of academic freedom. If anything Dr. Metz should be applauded for restraint. For all those people making comments on blogs about academic freedom and their fully informed opinions as professionals I say shame. Their fully informed opinions are bankrupt.

Mr. Ricks and the taught strung less than informed professors hoisting Dr. Metz up likely have not reflected on the fact they are engaging in pillory of Dr. Metz for his respect to the full intent of academic freedom. He did not just selectively implement the rights without considering the responsibilities. Said another way, their choice, was not his choice, so they censure him. Ironic on many levels.

I have not seen the "blackball" email but from what Mr. Ricks, and Dr. Metz have said the letter basically was cautioning his fellow faculty, who Dr. Metz might have some responsibility towards, to be careful. From what I've seen the criticism of Dr. Metz has been an attack against the responsibility required by academic freedom. I however do not claim to be fully informed on what I don't know.

Like all truly important topics this is not an easy or simple topic. A lack of academic freedom got Socrates the hemlock tea. Academic freedom has been discussed extensively by academics, and legislatures. The vilification of the Army War College is an example of the stakes people will engage in to put their stamp on the issue. There is a substantial body of literature covering this topic if anybody is truly interested. I would start with AAUP and work towards the deeper literature.

If you want an in depth look at the idea of academic freedom and the military education system I strongly suggest you read this article, "Can Academic Freedom Work in Military Academies?" Like always the truth is a lot messier than a simplistic sensationalist headline by a pundit. Of course, research, thinking, consideration, and examination of the basic literature is a hallmark of the academe not the press.