Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Razor
One of the primary contributors (IMO) of this lack of breadth in officers is OPMS XXI. Career tracks may allow for a better chance for promotion to O-6 and above for a greater number of officers, but it limits the variety of experience many Operations track officers were once afforded. When I was a 2LT, I knew many field-grade Infantry and Armor officers having Masters degrees in everything but operations-realted subjects. That doesn't seem to be the case now. If a Field Artillery (FA) captain wants to persue an advanced degree in a language, or international finance to expand his knowledge base, he has limited his chance of promotion within the FA, and needs to consider moving from his primary branch to a Functional Area if he wishes to stay in the Army.
"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." Thucydides
|
I don't necessarily think it's wrong to give preference to officers who focus their studies on their operational fields. There are quite enough subjects and disciplines for an officer to study that will have a direct beneficial effect on his understanding and performance of his military duties.
During times when we have called upon the citizenry to provide officers and men for war, we naturally ended up with a large breadth of training, education and abilities that was often an asset. But these men were something else first, and officers and soldiers second.
Few medical doctors or archaeologists pursue degrees in international finance because the subject has little bearing on their respective fields and offers little in the way of improving their performance.
Career members of our present volunteer "professional" military are supposed to be just that...military professionals. This implies a dedication to the study of fields useful to the management of violence and the winning of wars.