For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.
These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress.
... for a long time now, during and after Vietnam, it has been rumored that our military officers, especially generals, are being ill-trained. This article lends support to this idea.
7 comments:
What happened to my comment?
Tiger,
I am becoming increasingly convinced that there are alot of people that really cannot take the truth. They seem to be threatened by facts that disturb their established opinions. The colonel is probably correct.
I think if you keep your wits about you, you can get to be a major. By the time you get to be a light bird, you are very much peer reviewed. The full bird comes with the politics and after that you are very much a political animal. I doubt the military is ever going to tolerate free thinking general officers. The joint chiefs are political appointees and that has to work it's way down the ladder.
Is someone following me?
Hi Deuce,
I think Blogger is having gas pains again and doing lots of burping. The Google takeover hasn't been a painless activity.
... Yes, I figured he was correct but wanted to hear from another, more experienced with this arena.
With my "cynical" nature, I'm one of these people that have no problem accepting the fact we have big problems in society and its institutions. I have problems when the "leaders" lie and refuse to "see" and act on the reality.
This attitude of their's goes hand in hand with PC and control of the masses. We are very quickly becoming a society where one can lose their job or be arrested for simply speaking truth. And, NONE of our leadership; government, military, clergy, et al; are willing to fight on the side of freedom.
In reviewing perhaps a dozen “milblogs” referencing LTC Wingling’s essay, I am struck by two things: first, none disagree with his diagnosis, i.e. there is a crisis of leadership; but all blithely dismiss him as more or less a tattletale, based solely on a single facet of his multi-facetted remediation plan, i.e. for suggesting Congressional oversight. Now, I grant some personal qualms with Congressional oversight of anything more strategically important than the next crop of interns; however, to right-off, in toto, such a well reasoned thesis over a single point of dispute shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty and an unhealthy lack of objectivity. Partisanship will be the death of the United States.
For whatever it is worth, I find most milbloggers, on the whole, lacking.
write-off
Yes, Allen, I agree. Congressional oversight for our military officer corp would be like placing the toddlers in charge at the daycare.
This is a societal problem, IMO, and can be traced back to the massive change in public education over 30 years ago. Chairman Mao's little red book really works!
One approach to correct it is to completely revamp public ed. But, alas, GW agrees with the LIBS on this one.
Post a Comment