To begin with, it is abundantly evident to me that we share a different view of the necessary attributes of officers. Yours seem to be quite restricted, and rather "unit-centric": a point of view that I suggest was typical of the Canadian Army until quite recently and traceable, I would argue, to our military cultural descent from the British. I do not quarrel with the need for solid leadership skills at the levels of battalion and below: I have spent 18 of my 30 years of service in Infantry battalions, as both an NCO and an officer, including several operational tours. What I believe is that the bigger Army, and the joint sphere beyond that, demands more of officers, perhaps moreso than it ever did, and that these demands are best met by an officer corps that has had the mental preparation that I believe can best be delivered through post secondary education. I do not believe that merely knowing TTPs, or being able to launch a company assault, or plan a live fre range, are ends in themselves. They are tools, acquired as steps along the way. Of course the posession of these skills and of the experience gained in their application will inform the officer's viewpoint in later years, and may serve to keep him firmly grounded. They will not, in and of themselves, guarantee an officer corps that has the mental agility, flexibility, desire to learn and capacity to reason that are all required of higher commanders and staff officers. Indeed, there probably is no guarantee of such an outcome. That notwithstanding, I remain convinced that PSE is a valuable tool to achieve that outcome. I am sorry if you do not share my opinion on this, or if you feel you must belittle what I have attempted to present. I think we have reached an impasse. Cheers.
Excellent post sir, agree 100%.
Michael
As I said before, I don't agree that
any form of PSE is required for the health of the professionalism of the Officer Corps; as I wrote in my post, this education must be geared towards the military profession. This form of education that PBI and I have advocated is essential as it is the "other half" of the professional officer. It is all great that an Officer can memorize the tedious orders templates, command a company raid, or administer the unit he is responsible for, but that is merely one aspect of a professional Officer.
Do we grant Medical Doctors addmission to the Medical Profession simply on the grounds that he can do a good job with the scalpel or do we admit Lawyers to the Bar solely on the grounds that they can impress a jury with a good argument? No, we don't. As members of professional bodies they are expected to belong to a unique body of knowledge, to contribute to this body, and to understand the ideas and the history behind the techniques that they will use in the conduct of their duties. These are the rigorous mental abilities required of a professional to put him above an amateur who merely takes soldiers to the field and leads them around shooting things up; the professional recognizes that the profession of arms exists within a constantly evolving field of knowledge and he contributes to his adaptation in order to ensure that the fighting force he belongs to can consistently deliver superior performance in the field of battle.
Sure, there will be those who simply like to practice their profession "in the trenches" so to say. Some Doctors will want to simply open up a family practice while some lawyers are content to moving up to a small town judge position. Likewise, some Professional Officers will desire only to serve at the unit level and below, mainly focusing on training and leading troops into combat. That is admirable, and we must give them the opportunity to do so, however, they must also receive a military education in order to ensure that they are fully aware of the profession in which they operate in. However, others in the profession will give full passion to the growth of their profession; Doctors will do medical research and write into the New England Journal of Medicine; Lawyers will take part in Government Committees for Legal Reform, practice law at the international level, or rise to the position of the Supreme Court. The "cream of the crop", so to say, are the ones that we send to Command and General Staff College and the War College. They will rise to Generalship, they are the ones who contribute to military thought and define doctrine, and serve on the planning staffs for operational and strategic execution of the Army Mission.
In the end, the goal of a military education is to ensure the maximum level of the military during peacetime so that it is prepared to fight in war. Compare the performance senior commanders in the Second World War of senior commanders from a professional Army, the German Heer, and two amateur ones, the Canadian and the American Armies. Even though forbidden by Versailles, Von Seekt was able to preserve the professional level of the German Army through an unofficial
Kriegsacadamie run at the unit levels. As a result, the German senior leaders went into the War fully prepared to fight at the operational and strategic level in Europe despite all attempts by the allies to disable them professionally. Look at the successful Generals at the beginning of the war, most of them were excellent commanders throughout the war, and though often replaced on the fickle grounds of Hitler's opinion, they often excelled where ever they were put. Guderian, Model, Von Balck, Rommel, Von Manstein. Even Kesselring, an Air Force General with a professional military education, was able to conduct a brilliant delaying action in Italy that tied down a good portion of the Allied forces there and defeated any Allied idea of taking Germany over from the "soft underbelly" of Europe. We could go on and on naming excellent military commanders; the fact remains that they were drawn from an institution of military professionalism that believed that in order to consistently be successful in war you needed to institutionalize excellence.
One of the core foundations of this excellence was a military education.
Compare the American or Canadian Armies to this system. There was constant turbulence at high level command within both these Armies. Marshall, as a Brigadier General, was taken of the heads of many other officers to become the Chief of Staff. He had to sack hundreds of Generals in order to get rid of amateur cobwebs that had taken over the Army in the interwar period. Even then, he could not ensure a fully professional fighting force led by professional fighting Officers, his Army's first challenge at Kasserine was an abject failure against a hounded German Army in retreat from Egypt. The Canadian Army was no different. Most of the history I have read seems to come to the conclusion that in general the performance of senior Canadian leaders was sub-par. Of course, military genius will rise up under the crucible of fire to lead forces to victory. The US possessed plenty of these 30 year old Generals in the form of Gavin, Abrahms, etc, while for Canada Hoffmeister was a good example. However, this is what a professional system seeks to avoid; awaiting military genius to rise up and lead your Army to victory. The Allies were fortunate in World War II to have a preponderance of material advantage and the fact that the Soviet Union was tieing down a majority of the combat power of the German Army in order to allow their forces to develop the leadership required for victory. Perhaps we will not have that luxury at a future date.
Bottom line, I believe we need a fully professionalized Officer Corps. Although it may seem redundent to have such a high degree of training at low levels such as company command, we need an excellent field with which to draw our Brigade Commanders, our members of the Defence Staff, and ultimately, our Chief of Land Staff and CDS with. By allowing the best sorts of professionals to these levels, we can have tehir calibre of professional excellence filter down into the lower levels of command, ensuring that even the newest Lieutenant will be a true professional fighting Officer.
I don't agree that University broadens the mind, certainly not for the majority of undergrads in non-technical or professional streams. At least not at the U of C, where class sizes precluded anything but writing a single 10 page paper per class and "teaching to" the midterm and final exam.
I, for one, am critical of the way universities seem to attempt to test the knowledge that one has gained. I believe it has a very subjective nature to it. As I alluded to in my original proposal for a professional education, "
Many of these courses will involve work outside of the conventional classroom setting using TEWT's, officer "tours", and visiting other places relevent to the course of study." Obviously, the military education cannot rely on its Officer Cadets turning in one term paper on a subject and making a few classes a week. RMC and its professional instructors will have to think of innovative ways of delivering and evaluating a military education that promotes independent thought in the officers (I can think of a bunch right now).
I think perhaps those who champion "broadening of the mind" via university are mistaking it for the natural accumulation of maturity which come with advancing years.
True, a certain level of maturity is required to attempt to learn beyond the highschool level. This is why I feel many 18 year olds have a hard time with university; they receive such a shock my living on their own and being immersed into a different environment that they cannot focus on their studies. Result: universities must "dumb down" there first and second year material in order to avoid failing many students.
Perhaps this a further argument in favour of my proposal to have all officers drawn from the ranks. In order to ensure that the candidates come into the RMC on the best possible footing to receive a professional education, basic training and two years in the ranks (tempered with training opportunities and perhaps deployment on operations) will mean that the Officer Corps is getting a better supply of "raw clay" on the whole because they have been given the time to develop a mental framework with which to approach a military education?
What do you guys think?
You can broaden the mind with On Job Training, either as an NCM or junior officer, with much less hassle and in fewer than four years, plus have practical benefits of doing that "broadening" directly in your field.
You can only understand the elements of the military profession to a certain degree in the field. If you limit your professional development to this, your essentially "reinventing the wheel". An post ex-AAR can only deliver so much in terms of benefits. A higher form of professional debate and discussion is needed to draw the most from an Army's experience. This is how the Prussians were able to maintain a superior military force going into the Wars of Unification in the mid-1800's, despite having not fought a war for 45 years. They ensured that their leaders were professionals, keen students of the art of war who studied historical case studies, observed how other armies were doing things, and constantly reevaluated their own tactics and techniques. The military profession can demand no less.
If the only reason you have for saying that a university degree is a necessary prerequisite for holding the Queen's Commission because it "broadens the mind", I'd have to say that is a decidedly weak argument to make.
I have argued that a
military education is and essential foundation of a highly professional Officer Corps. Hopefully, I am getting somewhere with my posts. I know you are an avid reader Michael, and if you are still skeptical Michael, I can recommend or lend you the material that I've been looking at that I am getting my ideas from.
Was it nbk who argued that illegal drugs were another way to "broaden the mind"? So what is the difference? And should illegal drugs become part of the training of Canadian officers?
That's silly, and you know it Michael.
Sarcasm aside, I'm looking for a deeper explanation of "broadening the mind" and some idea of what practical benefits a university degree will give the officer. The ability to write 10 page papers on demand and stay awake in 3 hour once-weekly lectures are not what I would include among them. Though I don't suppose those abilities would hurt either.
Okay, at least you acknowledged that that was silly. I feel I've answered your questions on how we must educate the military professional. Remember, the endstate is an officer that knows how to think, not what to think.
