Friday, September 10, 2021

U.S. War Colleges Must Teach Their Officers On How To Win Wars

Thomas Bruscino Mitchell G. Klingenberg, City Journal: Putting the “War” Back in War Colleges 

Our nation’s senior-officer educational institutions no longer teach warfighting—and that must change. 

We must reckon with the hard truth that the United States has lost another war. Though errors made by policymakers certainly played a part, our military lost in Afghanistan because it no longer knows how to fight and win wars. This wasn’t because our military professionals lack will or effort but because they have forgotten the real purpose for which militaries exist. Nowhere is this truer than in America’s war colleges—the schools our nation established to teach officers how to fight and win wars. The plain fact is that these schools no longer teach warfighting. This may sound incredible—even unbelievable—but it is true.

Read more ....  

WNU Editor: If you have the time, this is a must read.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Our military fights the types of war that policy makers also are involved in along with intel. Lincoln studied warfare and then took an active part in shaping how the North was and did fight the Civil War.
Those leaders of our war in Nam and Afghanistan were from the war college. How will those who teach generals-to-be how to win wars if they got their teaching jobs from the same system?
In any institution, you can from time to time find a plan to make things better in the organization. You can appoint members of that organization to study and make suggestions for change. Or you can hire outsiders, objective, non-involved, people to study the organization to make suggestions for change. Self-study is a form of self-abuse. It gets the job done and the participant is satisfied. And then all goes on exactly as before

Anonymous said...

WOW!

The 9:51 was composed by a bot troll.

Anonymous said...

if you have nothing to say worth reading, then keep your juvenile remarks for daycare

Anonymous said...

"Show us ..."

Anonymous said...

go forth and sin no more
my point is very clear: it is wiser to have an objective outside group study a situation that needs fixing and understanding rather than using the very people who controlled the situation to fix what they brought into existence.

Fred! said...

Taliban propaganda busted; Northern Alliance reveals Pakistan's role in fall of Panjshir

Anonymous said...

10:54,

If you really had contacts in the military, you would know the military has programs to try to have military commanders think outside the box. One command I was in the commander had spent a year in private corporation so they would think outside the box.

The Military has Foreign area officers to look at developments of other militaries.

http://www.faoa.org/FAO-What-is-a-FAO

The DoD has civilians in foreign countries trying to pick up on what they are developing. Of course the host nation knows this and lets them on on some of it but not all of it.

You take a major command each coast and there will be foreign exchange officers of other militaries. There will be American exchange officers in their militaries.

People get masters degrees in civilian college, so they bring that experience in before their achieve higher rank.

The reason for the purge of boards is to shove CRT into the academy curriculum and other military schools.

Anonymous said...

The article was so high level as to be lacking in many ways. It did not even disclose the actual curriculum in place at our military academies

Anonymous said...

Well, the results are in, and that means Conway and other Trump appointees to the boards of visitors at the Air Force Academy, U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Military Academy at West Point are out. It’s a list that includes the likes of retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor — who once advocated martial law at the southern U.S. border and who was most recently a senior adviser for Trump’s last acting defense secretary — and it’s a list that includes former White House press secretary and “Dancing With the Stars” fifth runner-up Sean Spicer.

The response from the Trump appointees has been particularly spicy given how many of them were unfit for the positions in the first place, with almost all of them refusing to resign. Conway posted her response letter, which accuses Biden of using the decision — which has been in the works for months — as a distraction from the deaths of U.S. service members in Afghanistan.

Anonymous said...

And Fred does a copy and paste job from

https://amsnbc.com/kellyanne-conway-didnt-belong-on-the-air-force-academy-board/

Fred is schizo. He uses "Self-study is a form of self-abuse." to justify getting rid of
General McMcaster and then he uses the AMSNBC essay to justify getting rid of Kelly Anne Conway, Cuz ya know she is not a subject natter expert, because she has no stars.

General Knox had no stars either, when he started out for Fort Ticonderoga. He was all armchair.


Demented Joe could not wait for their 3 year term to expire in 2.5 years, when he would still be putatively still president.

Since China joe could not wait, every one of his nominees and their output will have their asses scanned with an electron microscope. Stay ed tuned as we revel their marxist trash.

Anonymous said...

Fred is a scholasticist and doesn't understand the danger in it, nor cares about Benjamin Franklin's warnings of people like him, pretends to be educated because he's got a PhD decades and decades ago, is misguided and misled by CNN and the likes and cheers it on
Full on programmed NPC

Anonymous said...

Problem is right there, they are teaching out of a book from a country that lost wars. If you consider what victory looks like, look no further then the UK and its once vast terratories, look at the Romans, the Persians and the Caliphates. As bad as it sounds, the USA hasn't won a war in hundreads of years, fixated on their civil wars where, well they only won because of an influx of Irish fighting and dying for the union. But im ignorant on those matter, but from Roman times to future times, i have simulated battles, i killed Jesus that trator, launched nuclear weapons, sent in armies of tanks, flown in WW2 aswell as dog fighted with F22's.

You can't teach warfighting and accept these hippy notions of inclusion, the elite fighting force needs to be void of such complexities like woman and men, like blacks and white. They need to form very strong bonds, inwhich the ultimate sacrifice has to be paid time and time again.

Don't get me wrong, you can fight a war and minimize casualties but sooner or later your going to have to send men to their death. Because if you do not, you will lose, you need to make space, you need to gather intel and most importantly you need to show your enemies your not afraid to die.

End of the day, i think we as a species need to embrace one simple fact. Its in your blood... its shown by science that mice pass down genetic memory, notions of the past about blood, about nobility only highlight this fact. Even the truma that black americans feel when a word is spoken highlight genetic memory of their fore fathers or PTSD in generational warfighters literally reliving their forefathers memories under the right truma.

Too be honest, no one wants to see America winning wars, its not that they can't rather its in peace time their culture is destructive, voilent and filled with arrogance, entitlement and low education standards.

Anonymous said...

You can't fight a war, without men dying.
Just look at 9/11, more people die daily from starvation then died in that attack, look at how the death of 13 Americans is so dramatic that your commander in chef is crying about it.

Biggest difference between Spartans and non spartans, vikings and non viking is simply once a unit loses 50% of it manpower, that unit will run, breakdown and retreat. The Spartans and the Viking imbraced death and fought till the last man, that what dicipline, religion and brotherhood looks like, because any good commander knows the moment you turn tail and run, show your back to the enemey, you havn't just lost, but your at the mercy of your enemey of just how many of your men will be slaughtered in that retreat.

fred said...

Many many generals for the North and for the South were West Point grads and fought during the Civil War. Lee and Grant are of course the first names to come to mind. Yet Lee lost. Grant won. Both went to the Point. An aside: many generals were political apointees. Clearly then winning and losing has more to know about than what gets taught at the Point.

{and now let us say Fred this and Fred that since you seem to offer nothing but badmouthing those you
disagree with in most instances)

Anonymous said...

To attribute a lost war to shoddy teaching at West Point is to neglect the other factors in this war and also Viet Nam. Who trained and taught the leaders of the military in Nam and in Afghanistan to make them so much better than our West Pointers?

Anonymous said...

1:33,

Dishwashers with mental issues could do a better analysis of the Civil war than you could Fred.

" Lee and Grant are of course the first names to come to mind. Yet Lee lost. Grant won"

More horseshit from the mouth

Anonymous said...

ho hum
tedious baby name-calling which seems part of your faulty upbringing. I have read that it is possible to get therapy to go beyond the shabby upbringing that you have had and to become a decent human being. Give it a try.