From Wavell Room: “Military learning is a hot topic. It comes in many different guises: ‘conceptual development’, ‘the intellectual edge’, ‘strategic adaptability’, or ‘innovative by design.’ Yet behind the buzzwords and the dogma, what do we really mean when talk about learning in a military context? And how can we do it more effectively, without sacrificing core areas of enduring strength?
quoting Timothy Kane via Stars and Stripes
Air Force veteran and economist Timothy Kane reached one overarching conclusion after writing two books on the military’s “up or out” promotion system: It’s woefully outdated.
By Charles Heard, Small Wars Journal: “The use of virtual reality and other technologies can’t replace physical training entirely, but they may minimize the amount of physical training required to achieve mastery of tasks.”
By Bradley L. Rees, Small Wars Journal: “Despite the r/evolutionary tenets of warfare that came from precise applications of scientific and technological doctrines, the Modern/Technical School’s misinterpretation of much of Clausewitzian theory ultimately manifested in an over-adherence to Jominian mechanics, Napoleonic maneuver, and von Moltke the Elder’s approach to the application of force.”
By Olivia Garard, Strategy Bridge: “While diverse representation, both of authorship and of content, is necessary and, still, sorely lacking, the general brouhaha fails to heed the crux of the matter. All lists list.”
By David Morgan-Owen, War on the Rocks: “What is the purpose of military education, and how should it be delivered?”
(Army Times) A small group of focused experts is trying to find ways to tailor, accelerate and adapt soldier learning for decades to come — and one slice of that work is an effort to end the dreaded DBPP syndrome, otherwise known as “Death By PowerPoint.”
By Ed, Wavell Room: “Thinking conceptually requires an openness of thought which historically might have been considered anathema to military hierarchy and good discipline."