Unfortunately, HJ, the tests are no longer multiple choice. All essays, papers, and one short answer test. Plus about 900 pages of reading per course. The AF decided they wanted their senior leaders to be better writers; I doubt this will have that effect. I can't say that I disagree with this article and most of the comments regarding AWC. I'd be happy if they shut it down and sent me someplace that is not in Montgomery, AL. Some of us AF officers actually want an intellectually rigorous education, others just want a 1 year vacation from the operational grind. The intellectuals usually don't end up at AWC.

The JPME Phase I courses I am enrolled in are multiple choice, with a one page essay assignment...

Phase I PME is Air Command and Staff College (ACSC), the course for majors. AWC, which is only open to O-5 and O-5 selects (Lt Col or Navy Commander), is currently all essay format. It is true that there are a large number of naval officers enrolled in ACSC distance learning (actually more than the number of active duty Air Force enrollees).

"Combat aircraft are supporting arms at best, a tool in the Commander's box"

The same can be said for ships, armor, artillery, and even infantry. Intel and logistics too. What's that Clausewitz quote about war again?

In the Marine Corps they teach of course "every Marine a rifleman." The idea definitely is that the air wing and tanks and all the others exist to get the infantryman onto and across the objective. Which kinda ties in with what Robert A. Heinlein said in the much debated 'Starship Troopers':

"A good choice'? Son, it's the only choice. The Mobile Infantry is
the Army. All the others are either button pushers or professors, along
merely to hand us the saw; we do the work."

The pedant in me has to point out that the aircraft in the header picture is the Boeing model 299, the prototype B-17, crashed at Wright Field in 1935.

Walt

WP, just trying to point out that we all operate in support of the objectives of a war (or whatever it's being called at the moment) including infantry. Those objectives are set by politicians.

A while ago I was working in the strategy realm and a friend pointed out that unless you were in D.C. you really weren't doing strategy. I was offended as of course I was doing strategy- It said so right on the org chart! As time passed I came to realize how right he was. The entire military (including the infantry) is a support function of the politicians.

Which is why we have civilian control of the military. And of course there's the old Clausewitz quote of "War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means"

Wow, that was about as ignorant and biased as saying all infantry grunts are about as smart as the mud they tread. MV, why don't you use your own advice and STFU.

You mean besides the National War College / National Defense University?

Actually, the idea of turning all of the individual senior service colleges into satellite campuses of the National Defense University is not too bad an idea. Make the campus Commandants beholden to the three-star (four-star to show how important it really is???) NDU President with all GO/FO billets selected by the Chairman.

The truth is that the Army and Marine Corps put a premium (albeit with caveats) on SSC attendance (the SSC board is the most competitive after Brigade CSL)---the guys from those services are generally top performers (at least according to their records) with most just coming out of battalion/squadron command, whereas the Navy and Air Force struggle to fill slots and normally put their has beens and never was-es in those billets at the last second so as to meet requirements (to include sending senior O4s to be student peers with Army senior LTCs and junior COLs). You would be very hard pressed to find a Navy officer attending the Naval War College who just rotated out of commanding a SEAL Team, Fighter Squadron, or Destroyer or Frigate command.

The Joint Advanced Warfighting School is a SSC for the Army. Competitively selected. Other services send Majors and Lieutenant Commanders.

The new CSA will soon institute a requirement in the Army that in order to take Brigade/O6-level Command, you must complete SSC---no more waivers.

The idea of making the other service war colleges subordinate to the National Defense University would make sense if NDU were a serious academic organization.
NDU is a largely hollow shell. The strengths of its best components (especially NWC) lie in the ability of those components to preserve their intellectual and academic independence from the NDU administration.

NWC is an (almost) first-class PME institution. Carlisle and Newport are distant seconds and Maxwell is not even in the running.

The differing degrees of commitment to senior PME within the services remains a core problem. Getting a Navy SWO to read a difficult book (other than a technical manual) is a challenge. Getting an Air Force office to read any book from cover to cover is an even greater challenge. These levels of intellectual disdain are not inherent. They are learned results of service culture.

Tom’s plan to “abolish” all or some of the War Colleges is probably not the place to start. Since both the Army and the Marines seem to take intellectual development somewhat more seriously , the starting point may be looking at ways to move some of those virtues to the other services, and to deepen the commitment within the Army and Marine Corps.
The process will not be easy, nor will it be quick. But just as Frederick the Great understood that a modern army and a winning army needed to be an army led by intellectually acute officers, the American military and its civilian leadership needs to start from the same assumption.

Friedrich der Große didn’t win the grudging admiration of Napoleon simply for the quality of his artillery. The Prussian king debated philosophy with Voltaire and expected his military officers to think in multiple realms as well.

It is time to begin a judicious return to a level of American professional military education that can support our national security interests in a world of ever-smarter challengers.
Closing Maxwell may be a useful symbolic first-shot, but the task is much bigger.

I think in most cases setting-up some kind of arrangement with civilian universities would be better. You would of course still need some military-specific courses, but the ROTC program shows that that is not a show-stopper. Maybe you could even nest the field-grade and senior officer PME program within the existing ROTC framework, using the officers' institutional knowledge to help teach the cadets/midshipmen while simultaneously working on their PME in courses split between the university and the ROTC unit. My hunch is that this sort of arrangement would simultaneously improve the value of PME, reduce costs, and enhance the education of aspiring officers.

Ryan, your suggestion to send officers to civilian colleges, while simultaneously teaching ROTC students "real-world" PME is a great idea.

It means that other DoD agencies have considerable input into all service schools, including the Air War College, thus the need for military faculty to teach the mandated war-fighting requirements, and civilian faculty to teach the international security policy and strategy portions of the curriculum.

But.....We're splitting hairs over a word, and missing the point. You have taken as gospel the words of a disgruntled former faculty member without any effort to validate or refute his arguments...Yes, the Air War College has its problems, which in part stem from its very mission, to supply senior level education to an action-oriented constituency. But the large majority of senior officers of all services, including the Air Force, understand that a final intellectual discussion of strategy, regional policies, and senior joint education is essential for the roles and responsibilities of their next assignments...sure, there can be improvements, which get implemented each year....

So may I suggest that before you accept as truth the next angry federal employee, you might check with his or her colleagues for the rest of the story. (and check your own grammar, as the last post suggested).

Best, 296

296,

So contacting the Commandant of Air War College for his perspective and input for the article doesn't qualify as "checking for the rest of story"? I mean there's only been a half dozen posts on the word suborn so it's not like the tone box with the Commandant's quotation wasn't obvious.

I thought grammar was an overarching term for all the rules of a given language.

And yet it reads as a grammatical mistake. The commandant of the Air War College, of course, does not make his living based on his writing skills, whereas you ....

The broader point, of course, is that you know perfectly well what the commandant meant, even if he (or his subordinates) chose the wrong word. You're just trying to make an ad hominum attack/mockery on him; and since he bothered to give you the courtesy of a thoughtful reply that is not an especially professional response on your part. He noted in response to your criticism that the Air War College's academic program has been validated externally by independent sources and your response is "you chose the wrong word. ha ha ha".

If the Air War College is such a bad place and provides an education that is rubbish, why did Mr. Hughes work there for 18 years?

Sounds like a disgruntled academic to me who felt he did not get the respect he so richly deserved.

I think it has done a lot of good work on unconventional warfare and insurgency. One faculty member, Kalev Sepp, was instrumental in educating the US military in Iraq.
Best,
Tom

Tom,
I must disagree with you here. NPS was on the BRAC list in 2005 and should have been closed. The argument at the time was that the CNO felt it was too risky to outsource graduate education to civilian universities (at least that was the public argument – I’m sure the NPS mafia had a role in this as well). To the Army's credit they make outsourcing work at Baylor, Syracuse, etc. The Navy simply cannot afford NPS and the Naval War College - consider the poor state of readiness and the findings of the Tipping Point study.

That brings up the question of the NEED for graduate education in Business Management or Human Resources by military officers in the first place. Go back and read the recommendations of the Defense Business Board report - too many military officers doing the work of civilians.

Bottom line: NPS is no longer affordable – time to go.

The Air War College changed its distance learning curriculum. Tests are now essay-based and the readings improved.

If you want to find an Air Force officer with an appreciation of history beyond the advent of airpower, find a graduate of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. One of the first books students read at SAASS is Thucydides.

As for the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Mr. Ricks should visit the school before he offers the president advice on trimming the budget. A single data point may not be indicative of the overall pattern.

One of the first books I read as a second former (8th grader) in prep school was Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (in English) along with J. Caesar's De Bello Gallico (in Latin).

Age 38/40 is a bit late to be getting around to the Peloponenesian Wars - especially for a warrior. Although not, perhaps, for an air-warrior.

---
His Caesar ita respondit: eo sibi minus dubitationis dari, quod eas res quas legati Helvetii commemorassent memoria teneret, atque eo gravius ferre quo minus merito populi Romani accidissent; qui si alicuius iniuriae sibi conscius fuisset, non fuisse difficile cavere; sed eo deceptum, quod neque commissum a se intellegeret quare timeret neque sine causa timendum putaret.

Quod si veteris contumeliae oblivisci vellet, num etiam recentium iniuriarum, quod eo invito iter per provinciam per vim temptassent, quod Haeduos, quod Ambarros, quod Allobrogas vexassent, memoriam deponere posse? Quod sua victoria tam insolenter gloriarentur quodque tam diu se impune iniurias tulisse admirarentur, eodem pertinere.

It sounds like you went to an excellent school.

Kriegsakademie-

It is not surprising you studied Thucydides as a second former. I believe the ancient Greek system of pedagogy is a model for all-boys British public schools. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Ah, but that's rude of me, stereotyping all public school graduates with Prussian proclivities as Katte-a-mites. It's as misguided, bigoted, and unintelligent as stereotyping all Air Force officers as poorly educated and anti-intellectual, as RRWesty does in his/her comment. Mea culpa. For that error, and any implied ad hominem attack, I apologize.

Your familiarity with the National War College leads me to conclude you've either taught strategy to military officers or studied as a student at the National War College. Your suggestion that a text as complex as Thucydides is more suitable for grade school than a staff college puzzles me. Perhaps, in your view, the tragedy of the Sicilian expedition is of more utility to school house rugby than to staff officers planning military operations. However, given your penchant for all things German, your comment does make more sense. Schlieffen's obsession with Cannae mirrored the German obsession with battle, which they acquired by being beaten by the French. In the end, that view of strategy worked so well for the Germans (not to mention the Athenians, the Confederates, the Carthaginians, and the Americans in Viet Nam) didn't it?

I prefer Frontinus to Caesar, but alas, I didn't read him until I was in my 30s, while I was serving in the US Air Force.

"Q. Sertorius, quod experimento didicerat imparem se universo Romanorum exercitui, ut barbaros quoque inconsulte pugnam exposcentes doceret, adductis in conspectum duobus equis, praevalido alteri, alteri admodum exili duos admovit iuvenes similiter affectos, robustum et gracilem. Ac robustiori imperavit equo exili universam caudam abrumpere, gracili autem valentiorem per singulos pilos vellere. Cumque gracilis fecisset, quod imperatum erat, validissimus cum infirmi equi cauda sine effectu luctaretur, 'naturam', inquit Sertorius, 'Romanarum cohortium per hoc vobis exemplum ostendi, milites; insuperabiles sunt universas adgredienti; easdem lacerabit et carpet, qui per partes attemptaverit.'"

Sextus Julius Frontinus’ "Strategemata" is well worth reading. One of the reasons for teaching Caesar to beginners is to allow Latin masters to excoriate his weak rhetoric and pave the way for young students to appreciate Cicero in the third form.

I am not suggesting that Thucydides should be read once in the third form and never again. Rather, that it is good to start early.

My second shot at Thucydides came in a Classical Greek history course with Donald Kagan when I was eighteen. Kagan’s seminal four-volume History of the Peloponnesian War was not yet complete, but his impact as a teacher of classical military history was spectacular.

One can re-read Thucydides to advantage at any age.

I have, the distant past, taught military strategy at Fort McNair as you suggest, and I do harbor considerable respect for the 18th and 19th century Prussian approach to military education.

It is not an accident that Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz remains a pillar of the strategy curriculum at so many military colleges around the world.

I should like to ban the "um" beginning on the grounds that it is no longer cute.

Along with "ragtag."

Thanks,
Tom

I am sorry PTS, I think the best way to "stand out" in the military is to do your job to the best of your ability. You know, "Bloom where you are planted ..." Whether you are a staff officer, an infantryman, or a "brown shoe" the job you do in the tasks you are given will be the overriding determinant of your continued success.

Thank you for your service in Iraq and please be safe.

Is that what you were taught? Don't be ridiculous. Your attitude is part of an arrogant mindset that gets AU to this stage. Really unbelievable.

If you aren't able to put up a practical solution to the core problems, then this 'article' is simply ratings-hunting...expected a bit more from FP and Best Defense...this article is more like a Rolling Stone product...if there are problems within the Au and AWC, then shouldn't we be working towards identifying and fixing them...?

You seem to think that the taxpayer has no right to question how his money is spent.

I don't know if you are in this camp, but I worry that a generation of officers has joined the military since 9/11 who have a sense of entitlement. They don't like to be questioned about their use of resources. This is understandable, given that over the last 10 years, the Defense Department has enjoyed an unlimited flood of money.

But that era is ending. Prepare for questioning. "Because I like it" isn't a good enough answer. Nor, in the coming years, will be "because it is sort of useful." Any military institution that doesn't provide clear value is going to face extinction.

Believe me, I am being gentle compared to what Congress will be asking down the road.

Best,
Tom

Mr. Ricks,

Excellent reply. There IS a general sense of entitlement in the military that stems partially from the money that has been flowing freely for the last ten years but is also partially due to the pendulum swing in the public's opinion of the military since the end of the Vietnam War. Rather reminds me of the yellow ribbon posts - more people in the military need to wake up and realize that they are citizens too, not some special interest group that has a right to full retirement and a GS job after 20 years of employment. There is going to be a point where our citizens start asking what we have to show for years and years of war. It’s not service if you don't actually accomplish anything and activity does not equal accomplishment…

Blue,

What have you learned at CGSS that you can put to immediate use in solving our national security problems and defending our Constitution? I am genuinely curious.