Recommended Reading
Benjamin Kohlmann’s essay, “The Military Needs More Disruptive Thinkers,” struck a chord like no other essay published recently in the Small Wars Journal. In brutal honesty, I have to say that the many sniping comments struck exposed flesh. While an ardent fan of Kohlmann’s essay, I have to agree that his argument was more akin to birdshot at maximum range than a mailed fist to the throat of the problem. Perhaps a better analogy is that his was a marking round lobbed in the general vicinity of the problematic enemy fire. Whatever it was, it was a wildly popular read. For all the comments on the article, the one that rang truest with me came from commener “Null Hypothesis” and asked, “What problem are we trying to solve again?” This was absolutely the right question.
Kohlmann called for disruptive thinkers, but the real question is why? And what are we disrupting? We cannot waste time with harassment and interdiction fires. We must define what targets we are servicing….
Infinity Journal (Frank Hoffman)– The Myth of the Post-Power Projection Era
CTOvision (Alex Olesker) –Fighting Cyber Crime with Transparency
Wilson Quarterly – Pakistan’s Most Dangerous Place
Recommended Viewing:
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
J. Scott Shipman:
April 10th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Hi Zen,
.
The Prine piece is quite good—and reasoned. I’ve watched, and considered a post on Kohlmann’s piece—and still might. Fred Leland and I went back and forth at FB only to agree we were in violent agreement—sort of …
.
That said, those who call for change should lead by example (much like Boyd). To be sure, Boyd complained of the bureaucracy and inept leadership, but he did something more: he did stuff. If these young men persist on active duty, I hope they carry the fire of reform. In my experience, I’ve seen the fire dim as one progresses up the hierarchy—after all, the system railed against is the system that rewards with promotions, etc.
zen:
April 11th, 2012 at 3:21 am
Hey Scott
.
I agree. People get worn down. They feel the weight of familial responsibilities to “go along to get along”. They give up hope of effecting positive change after seeing poor performance rewarded and promoted and look for the exits when a toxic leadership climate of “ruling by fear” is in place. Boyd was a strategist and a tactician and it showed in how he outmaneuvered his bureaucratic opponents. Most dissenters know only one move: open, futile, opposition
larrydunbar:
April 15th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
“suggests that the best way to shake up the stifling complacency of the military bureaucracies is to send junior officers to business school, most especially the one at Harvard.”
*
Bush had a MBA and he used it to almost destroy our country, by opening up the US treasury to contractors, in a global economy. War is fought over economic considerations by people with little economic considerations. Perhaps it’s best to keep it that way.
*
Read more: http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2012/04/09/general-discontent/#ixzz1s9LeMGpi