Book: Officers heavy on tech, light on strategy

[D_Rob]

New book out saying how bad it is for Naval Officers to have technical degrees. I kinda gave the guy some credence until he says that the Academy should separate men and woman because of the "...stultifying air of political correctness..." co-gender classes make. Just like how it really is in the the fleet where Officers will never have to deal with gender issues ... come on. Warning, this link might make you angry.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/12/navy_tactical_120808w/

 

[exhelodrvr]

New book out saying how bad it is for Naval Officers to have technical degrees. I kinda gave the guy some credence until he says that the Academy should separate men and woman because of the "...stultifying air of political correctness..." co-gender classes make. Just like how it really is in the the fleet where Officers will never have to deal with gender issues ... come on. Warning, this link might make you angry.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/12/navy_tactical_120808w/

I think there should certainly be more emphasis on war-fighting then there was when I was there; but that's been awhile. The only real tactics instruction we had was in of second class summer. (Not counting the YP class.) What do they offer now?

I could see where co-gender classes would have an affect on general administrative type policy discussions, but I don't see how they would affect classes on tactics and strategy.

 

[snake020]

The former SECNAV and current junior senator from Virginia said the same thing 3 decades ago. I've posted it before, but it's always a good read.

 

[navy09]

I like the idea about separating engineers out from topsiders in the SWO/Sub world.

I don't follow the logic WRT getting rid of women.

 

[usmarinemike]

I can agree with several of the observations and just scratch my head at others.

The first is that I agree that the Navy and the entire DOD for that matter is way too focused on technology to beat our current enemies. Despite the compelling reasons to prepare for a conventional war versus a near peer competitor you have to pause when you look at the list of enemies that has defeated the superpowers over the past 30 years (think Somalia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc.).

Is there even any empirical evidence that these engineering nerds are poor warfighters or are they just going on tired generalizations? I am in a TBS class with some highly capable engineering types that I don't see having problems dealing with being flexible in tactical situations.

Everybody I know agrees that there needs to be changes in the culture at the Academy, but not so much in the training.

 

[mmx1]

Lind is an ...... interesting ....... guy, full of "interesting" ideas.

 

[bunk22]

Not sure what he means by this:

The book, “America’s Defense Meltdown,” published by the Center for Defense Information, faults the Navy’s culture of elevating officers with technical backgrounds — including aviators and engineers — rather than purpose-trained tactical thinkers. No matter how well engineers perform as commanders in peacetime, argues conservative author William Lind, a wartime Navy requires tactical experts qualified as engineers.

The Navy elevates officers with tactical backgrounds? Not sure what that means. I for one still have not seen anything in aviation that defines what makes a good aviator or officer or even war fighter. Technical major, non-tech major I don't believe makes a difference.

 

[picklesuit]

"Lind, who wrote the book’s Navy chapter, contrasts the dominance of engineers in the Navy to what he describes as the preference for tacticians elsewhere. All U.S. submarine skippers are nuclear engineers, “in strong contrast to Britain’s Royal Navy, whose submarine commanders have nuclear engineers where they belong, in the engine room,” Lind wrote."

Best quote of the article...

I have to say, in a broad stroke, I can understand where they are coming from...too many 50 lb heads, not enough people seeing the problem as a whole...always a problem with a lot of college grads (ever see 45 guys with college degrees trying to learn how to drill/march? Samart ain't always effective)

That being said, we still need the enginerds...todays military is WAY too advanced to be run by just a bunch of Moo-U grads like myself. I have listened to conversations about tactics/weapons employment from some of these guys who understand WHY a missile/sonobouy/electron does what it does, and how to wok that to their advantage. I was way out of my element, Donny.

Every Army needs it's General Patton, but even Patton's Army would be shit without good engineers.

 

[SkywardET]

Try utilizing the AEGIS weapon system without knowing all of its caps and lims. See how far that gets you. The fact is that Naval Officers are responsible for deploying some of the most complex war machines ever constructed and an emphasis on technology is not an inherent weakness.

I can understand a concern with complacency, but the fact remains that we have been a peacetime Navy for two generations, more or less. Has anyone challenged the USN with an opposing navy or air force in recent memory? Only three ships have been damaged by enemy action since Vietnam, unless I'm unintentionally discounting some event. Should the USN invent a naval war to prove it can still fight one?

 

[exhelodrvr]

The former SECNAV and current junior senator from Virginia said the same thing 3 decades ago. I've posted it before, but it's always a good read.

That made a big splash when it was published - the administration tried to minimize the impact.

 

[red_ryder]

I'm guessing Lind majored in underwater basketweaving?

 

[hscs]

I would like to read the whole book, but I would add this:
- Many of our systems are incredibly complicated and you need engineering degrees to operate them in a wartime environment. In a wartime environment, a lower tech system that is fully understood by its operators is often more effective than a higher tech system that isn't fully understood by its operators.
- You don't make tactical experts by having people spend all their time in Luce Hall reading books.
- Our current fleet doesn't completely meet todays GWOT, but efforts have been made to re-tool (e.g. Ballistic Missile Defense for Aegis).
- The problem isn't at the lower levels -- the operational commanders focus primarly on tactical issues and start to cross into operational level issues. The issues he mentions are at the strategic level -- where the O-6 and above crowd hangs out.

 

[A4sForever]

One man's opinion:

Fuck the nuts & bolts of the engineers & "techies". That's for nerds & theoreticians ... not operators. If you want to understand & "know" the Navy ... read Naval history. All of it ....

I did, starting @ 7 years old ... and I didn't crack a book as a 4/C MIDN in NROTC Naval history/orientation classes and 4.0'ed the course ... I'D READ THE BOOK !!! History works -- it's the basis for current/future actions.

Mahan is dead, but: many (most??) of the "forward thinkers" you read today are trying to sell books, trying to be the next Tom Clancy, or going for self-aggrandizement ... if they could see into the future ... they'd all be in Vegas at the blackjack table.

Read Naval history -- w/special emphasis on everything post-SPAN-AM War. It will get your mind right for what worked/what didn't work and what might be a good plan for the future ...

It works. Just my $20 worth ...

 

[DanMa1156]

For the record, in 2/C Year at USNA, we are all required to take Naval Warfare which incorporates tactics and culminates in a planning exercise. I just presented mine yesterday. That's on top of 2 semesters of NAV, 2 of Leadership, 1 Seamanship, 1 Ethics, 1 Naval Law, 1 Practicum for the Junior Officer that is specialized based on your service selection.

Also, I can't say that the first time I did YP's I learned too too much about Naval Strategy and tactics, as I was just a 3/C trying to get an OOD Qual, but the second time around when I didn't have time to qual, in our DIVTAC exercises during the day, I learned a TON about Naval tactics from the British Officer that was stationed on board my ship and my conning confidence and ability skyrocketed. As much as I didn't like my YP Training the 2nd Time around, some of the new knowledge and confidence I learned was pretty valuable.

Do I think we should have more Naval specific training here? Absolutely.

And agreed with A4's, I like doing the reading of Mahan and some of the Navy's 20th Century minds. Granted, I know that the exercises I've planned are WAY Dumbed down compared to a real exercise, but I'd say the 2 that I have planned (1 in Naval Warfare, 1 Amphibious Assualt based off WWII Pacific Landings in Naval Warfare) required a lot of research and work that is again, very valuable reading for the Naval Mind.

But again, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, I'm just a Mid.

 

[mmx1]

Wasn't it a few years ago that the Naval services were praised for producing more globally-aware GO's than its fellow services?