Comments on: US Army Capstone Concept

By: jumpinjarhead

jumpinjarhead — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:06:14 +0000

Just to clarify what I may have not said clearly:

You said:

“I would like to think that I don’t care who comes up with a great idea, so long as it’s a great idea. Straddling the proverbial divide between the two, as I currently am, I *do* want to push the military to continue to seek out every possible source of great ideas, because we should not hubristically assume that we are the only ones who should be, ought to be, and are thinking about the problems we face.”

My point was more that some in academia (I use this broadly to include the various civilian “think tanks” and the like) IMHO tend on occasion to discount (and in some cases denigrate) the uniformed services’ efforts to change (hopefully for the better). This phenomenon is not unique to the military as I also see the same thing in our business and law faculties when they consider their “real world” counterparts’ efforts at managing their own affairs and “changing” as they go.

My other observation is that much depends on what one considers a “great idea” and what criteria are used in such a determination. While it is in rare cases true that some ideas are so “great” that they almost immediately receive wide acceptance whereas most others are “great” to some and something less to others.

By: Captain Hyphen

Captain Hyphen — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:32:40 +0000

Thanks to all four of you, Cincinattus Jr., Schmedlap, SNLII, and libertariansolider, for your thoughts on the post. I’ll respond to a few of your points:

Cincinattus, Jr.: I’m still mulling over your idea about a ‘climate of change’, and I’m pretty cynical. The change-climate is the often parodied idea that we only get new acronyms because someone needs a bullet on an evaluation. Everyone seems to come in convinced that their predecessor was not nearly as good as they are, so we go about reinventing the wheel from the top down.

On your point about a subtle snobbery against ideas coming from within the military vice from those in academia, I would like to think that I don’t care who comes up with a great idea, so long as it’s a great idea. Straddling the proverbial divide between the two, as I currently am, I *do* want to push the military to continue to seek out every possible source of great ideas, because we should not hubristically assume that we are the only ones who should be, ought to be, and are thinking about the problems we face.

Schmedlap: I was going for a bit of hyperbole in my ‘killing people and blowing *&^% up’ remark. At the same time, I have still heard from multiple sources that two years of grad school and three years teaching is a ‘waste of time’ for an officer. What the military rewards is telling about what it values. In comparative terms, am I pleased about the military’s (esp. the US Army’s and USMC’s) willingness to reflect on how badly things were going in Iraq earlier when held up against our British peers? Absolutely. Do I think we could do better? Yes.

libertariansoldier: I am not saying we are incapable of change as an institution, but we are not an institution that inherently embraces efforts to do things better. It is usually more along the lines of being compelled, either by someone at the top with a great idea and the power to make it happen or from the outside by our civilian masters. Lots of things *have* changed, and mostly for the better, but it’s not an easy process.

Keep keeping me honest and forcing me to think through what I’m saying. Thanks.

By: Pragmatic Euphony » Long-held military misconceptions

Pragmatic Euphony » Long-held military misconceptions — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:04:39 +0000

[...] thought from the must-follow blog, Kings of War would have a few parallels in all armies of the world. First, the thought: So often, the Army’s [...]

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:14:02 +0000

I hear you. Same for the USMC. When I visit a base today and see the apparent quality of the Marines compared to the post Vietnam doldrums of the early 1970s I have to pinch myself to remember it is the same service. On a less “prosaic” level, just a quick scan of all the different school houses, think tanks etc. resident at our major training and doctrine base at Quantico VA screams of change.

By: libertariansoldier

libertariansoldier — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:25:50 +0000

Cincy, my day was then, too, April and October 1, change the uniforms. I was not going to metion something as prosaic as that. But I watched doctrine change every decade–I was an LT when the 1976 version of FM 100-5 (as it was called then) changed our basic doctrine, and saw it change again in the 80s, the 90s and the 00s. Our divisions have gone from ROAD to DIV86 to AOE (with light and motorized divisions thrown in for good measure) to essentially none. And I have to wonder how many of the complainers are even aware of those gut-wrenching, institution changing evolutions the Army went through in just my career.
As an LT I spent too many evenings walking through the barracks with a locked and loaded 45 looking for drug deals, and checking every bathroom stall twice a night looking for ODs. I think too many people have forgotten–or never learned–what the Army was and how much it has changed itself.

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:24:01 +0000

I had to smile at your post. In my day (too long ago) in the Marines we had a saying to typify the ever-changing “word”—”Brown [or green depending on the time of year] side out” that was an allusion to the reversible camouflage cloth covers for our steel pot helmets. In fairness to the other posters who raise the issue of “change” in the military, however, I realize they are referring to something a bit more substantial and and broader scope than which color camouflage to wear on a given day.

By: libertariansoldier

libertariansoldier — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:30:57 +0000

Cincy Jr., what YOU said.
“Perhaps the significance of this in the context of your post is not so much whether the (US) military either generally or within its constituent parts is an institution of “change” but rather is more qualitative in terms of what “kind” of change and by whom is it urged? ”

Having lived through the Army changing everything from its structure to its doctrine to its training methods, the idea that it is an institution incapable of changing is ludicrous to me. I think the complaints come from people who are not happy with what has changed or how long it took to do it.

By: SNLII

SNLII — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:18:33 +0000

Ibid.

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:13:04 +0000

What you said.

By: Schmedlap

Schmedlap — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:18:29 +0000

“But taking time to understand ideas and their origins requires too much effort and gets in the way of killing people and blowing *&^% up…”

I don’t know which unit(s) the author served in, but I am sorry he was subjected to such attitudes. Luckily, I don’t think most of us were subjected to similar nonsense in any units that we served in. An unintelligent commander or staff officer, or two, in a unit? Sure. An institution of anti-intellectualism? Sounds like he was dealt a bad hand and it scarred him.