Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
A Failure In Generalship In America
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Brown Dog" data-source="post: 152077" data-attributes="member: 1622"><p>Interesting article. </p><p></p><p>It misses the failings of the politicians who set the context for the ongoing 'angst'. Generals are an easy target; politicians (such as our current UK crop who don't "do resignation" over gross errors of judgement, lies and matters of honour) are not.</p><p></p><p>The enemy of military planning is the over-intellectual, unimaginative and risk-averse leader. The point made [ QUOTE ]</p><p> In a system in which senior officers select for promotion those like themselves, there are powerful incentives for conformity. It is unreasonable to expect that an officer who spends 25 years conforming to institutional expectations will emerge as an innovator in his late forties.</p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] is well known viewpoint and widely considered to be spot on. </p><p></p><p>But, to my mind, he goes on to advocate a requirement for intellectualism. He lists Fuller's recommended qualities of "courage, creative intelligence and physical fitness" (should point out here that Fuller's 'Physical Fitness' doesn't mean marathon running; it means not having a long term illness/weighing 300lbs/having gout etc) as support for a requirement for Generals to be selected on the basis of, for example, academic papers on international relations. </p><p></p><p>He is confusing Fuller's call for 'creative intelligence' with a requirement for intellectualism.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brown Dog, post: 152077, member: 1622"] Interesting article. It misses the failings of the politicians who set the context for the ongoing ‘angst’. Generals are an easy target; politicians (such as our current UK crop who don’t “do resignation” over gross errors of judgement, lies and matters of honour) are not. The enemy of military planning is the over-intellectual, unimaginative and risk-averse leader. The point made [ QUOTE ] In a system in which senior officers select for promotion those like themselves, there are powerful incentives for conformity. It is unreasonable to expect that an officer who spends 25 years conforming to institutional expectations will emerge as an innovator in his late forties. [/ QUOTE ] is well known viewpoint and widely considered to be spot on. But, to my mind, he goes on to advocate a requirement for intellectualism. He lists Fuller’s recommended qualities of “courage, creative intelligence and physical fitness” (should point out here that Fuller’s ‘Physical Fitness’ doesn’t mean marathon running; it means not having a long term illness/weighing 300lbs/having gout etc) as support for a requirement for Generals to be selected on the basis of, for example, academic papers on international relations. He is confusing Fuller’s call for ‘creative intelligence’ with a requirement for intellectualism. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
A Failure In Generalship In America
Top