I think my previous comments are still valid in light of what I’ve read the last couple of days. The commentary is still pouring in on LTC Yingling’s article, though…
Phil Carter likes the article a lot. I guess he either didn’t read Yingling’s recommendations, or they somehow are better than I thought they were. Also, I don’t see how changing generals to fit this war makes the next one better.
Skippy thinks Yingling’s piece is a good article for a military journal. If so, his point only underscores how terribly lame Proceedings and related journals are these days. Me? I think the article is ehh, particularly since we’ve had the Small Wars Journal on the sidebar there for a long time–and there you can get your Nagl and Kilcullen unfiltered. I may be overstating it but I see one article sort of like Yingling’s every month or two…but none of them get on two daily newspapers at the same time.
Gee. I wonder why that is.
Update: Cobb weighs in. I think he’d enjoy a dustup with some of the more procurement-minded military folks such as CDR Salamander–the generals that buy stuff are in a different position than the ones who shoot stuff. Cobb’s got an entertaining point:
Whenever I hear about some general or military officer fussing about what went wrong in Vietnam or what is going wrong in Iraq, the first question I want them to answer is the following fill-in-the-blank. The reason I’m not teaching at the Army War College is: _________.I suspect the most common answer to that would be, I’m not smart enough, but they would likely answer ‘politics’.
In the Navy’s case war college time is not exactly the career plum it is for, say, Air Force. For instance: the Permanent Military Professor program takes officers who agree to finish their career in academe to stay there and teach. Not exactly the Brownian motion between academia, business, politics and think tanks we see in American government.
5 Responses to “More On Yingling”
Trackback URL for More On Yingling: