Old and new school

ARTICLE: Beyond the Cloister, By David H. Petraeus, American Interest

ARTICLE: Learning to Lose, By Ralph Peters, American Interest

This is a typical Old School/New School split. Peters wants his kinetics, pure and simple, and he wants uncomplicated officers to wage such war. Petraeus sees a more complex world, where war and peace aren't separable. He wants officers capable of navigating that seam.

So Petraeus wants officers who understand the everything else, while Peters, the former intell guy, protects his turf.

Petraeus is a good example of the danger of "too much" education: he doesn't protect his rice bowls like he should, thus he's obviously a "careerist."

This is why I don't think grand strategists can arise from within military ranks: because those who try are inevitably branded as traitors to their particular tribe. That's what happened to Cebrowski. That's what happens to them all: once they get out of the box, they're out of the club.

Thanks to Nathan Machula for sending this.

[Editor's note: Petraeus' title matches up pretty well with Tom's Esquire article that featured him (among others): The Monks of War]

Comments

[brian]

Looks like it's more than just an academic argument.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118306191403551931.html?mod=hps_us_pageone

[Hal]

Not sure its as much about protecting turf or ricebowls as it is about understanding, as you say, war in the context of everything else. As a military officer I'll attest to the fact that while we all learn Clausewitz's dictum regarding war being the extension of politics, we tend to act as though it is not. The bottomline is Petraeus is absolutely right, the mind is your most important weapon. I have little doubt that if confronted with a traditional nation state enemy with a conventional army that guys like Gen Petraeus would do very well fighting that kind of fight as well, because he is an intelligent, tough warrior who can quicly grasp the problems at hand. I think guys like Peters make the mistake of trying to apply a kinetic solution to ALL problems. As for sending military officers to civilian institutions for education that has been and remains a good idea. Probably as important though, is adjusting our military education to address the types of conflicts we face today, and emphasizing the view of war in the context of everything else. Think that process has started, but has a ways to go.

[Bill C.]

Instead of thinking of war as being the extension of politics (wherein, certain financial opportunities and goals may have to be sacrificed), today we seem to be thinking of war as being the extension of certain financial opportunities and goals -- to ourselves and to others (globalization). Such a fundamental and dynamic change may, indeed, require a very different kind of military officer and a very differrent kind of officer education and training program.