Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_BPK
I think this should make some happy??
Being an FOG long on the outside,, what say you??
|
There are some good points in this article and some good folks both on the panel and those selected but the proof of the pudding will be in the performance. Selection to the next higher grade is for demonstrating the potential to serve at that next higher grade and should not necessarily be for the creation of "mini-mes" who seem to have grasped the finer points of asymetric warfare or any other strategy. Their roles will still be to provide the leadership for those for whom they are responsible and manage both the resources and civilian leadership to enable soldiers to succeed. I, for one, do not agree with Gates about our likely hood of not having to engage folks in major conflicts with conventional forces. There is a host of threats out there that span the entire possible spectrum of conflict for which we need to be prepared and to do that we need folks that have the ability to adapt to the strategies and threats and look beyond the inability of those that cannot seem to correctly identify threats to our national security. I am not criticizing any of the folks selected, but I think Naylor has failed, like Gates, to grasp the realities of tomorrow which cannot be projected on a power point slide from the battlefields of South West Asia.