--- Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, Gautam, things are not as you describe > them. > Under the new traditions set in place by (once > again)George Marshall, the US military is one of the > few that has revolutionized and re-invented > doctrines > without having to undergo a defeat/trauma first. > > They are undergoing another major re-invention as we > speak. > > Oh, and the American senior officer corps is the > third > best educated group, after professors and doctors.
Dr. Brin, have you ever heard the phrase don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs? Defense reform is one of my specialties. First, I'm not sure what you mean by the "new traditions of George Marshall." Great though he was, he _wasn't_ a tactical innovator to any great extent. Second, the modern American military transformation is a _product_ of defeat and trauma. That defeat and trauma is, of course, Vietnam. I'd recommend reading _Prodigal Soldiers_, probably the best book on the topic, if you're really interested. Third, what I was describing was a brief statement of some ideas expressed by Barry Posen in _The Sources of Military Doctrine_, the standard political science text on the development of military doctrine. I happen to disagree with some of Prof. Posen's arguments, but that's not really relevant to what we have here. One of Posen's central insights is that only pressure from outside the military are really capable of triggering meaningful doctrinal reform. Some political scientists disagree - Prof. Steve Rosen is one of them. I think Posen's right, though. If you're really interested, we can discuss why. Prof. Rosen's book on the field - also really good, btw, - is called _Winning the Next War_. Rosen believes that reform is usually generated internally - he agrees, though, that civilian support is crucial (I think, it's been years since I discussed the issue with him). Fourth, _any_ organization usually reforms only under pressure. That's a general characteristic of large organizations, particularly large highly successful ones. That's the role that Secretary Rumsfeld is trying to play right now, as a matter of fact. My thought - and it was a thought, not an argument, meant to get the insights of someone with military experience, as opposed to my fairly theoretical education on the topic - is that the stress caused by running the force at capacity might help encourage American senior officers to be more willing to accept innovation. Military officers are naturally very conservative for obvious reasons. That conservatism extends to a reluctance to embrace doctrinal change, so you usually have to generate external stresses in order to encourage it. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
