Professional Reading Drop Box

[robav8r]

Guest post over at IDKATS. Someone should write a follow challenging the Navy to actually define "talent."

Great post. I'm reading a great book by Ori Brafman called: "The Chaos Imperative" as part of my curriculum here at NDU. How we deal with chaos & change as leaders has a huge impact on our effectiveness as leaders. It's a good (and easy) read . . . .

 

[Recovering LSO]

An interesting back and forth over the purpose of the military. For full context make sure to click on the link to the War On The Rocks article by MAJ Cavanaugh.

 

[Brett327]

Aptly timed, given Ben K's Navy Times extravaganza.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Know your enemy. Pretty decent long-form piece from Brookings Institution.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Good stuff from a very very smart guy; definitely one of the good ones. Bureaucracies vs Professions.

 

[wink]

It is the sole source of the military's authority and the only thing/ideal the military swears allegiance to.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

 

[jmcquate]

It is the sole source of the military's authority and the only thing/ideal, the military swears allegiance to.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

..........to defend and uphold

 

[Recovering LSO]

This is about "emotional intelligence," but I think many of the traits listed also describe effective leaders. Hmm, maybe effective leaders have high levels of emotional intelligence?

 

[Recovering LSO]

Running the race of a naval career. Looks like the first installment of new series over at USNI.

 

[nittany03]

It should be said that there are successful people who genuinely believe in the idea of a cue-ball-smooth track. There are also those who have a vested interest in you believing that every aspect of the system is fair and equal. In the case of the former, some of these persons may be so laden with talent and charisma that from their unique perspective it all does genuinely appear to be effortless. In the case of the latter, it seems as if (and for whatever reason) they have a vested interest in maintaining the general impression that the system works with a fundamental and graceful fairness, rather than its true nature, which may be more akin to a sausage factory.

Wait. I thought only whiny, disgruntled "millennials" said this, not retired O-6s . . .

 

[Flash]

Wait. I thought only whiny, disgruntled "millennials" said this, not retired O-6s . . .

The difference being that he put the argument forward in coherent and respectful manner, and without obvious whining.

 

[Recovering LSO]

A lengthy read, but a good one.

Sharpening the Spear: The Carrier, the Joint Force, and High-End Conflict - McGrath, Cropsey, and Walton.


"In the pages that follow, this study addresses the question of whether it is worthwhile to continue to build large, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVN), given their considerable cost and mounting Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) threats to sea-based operations. Our conclusion is that the emerging threat environment actually increases the need for aircraft carriers, and that none of the alternatives to the CVN offer an equal or better capability and capacity across the range of military options from peacetime presence through major power war."

 

[robav8r]

Just read this on Google News . . . . . interesting.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/10/the-u-s-navys-self-imposed-blockade/

 

[Recovering LSO]

Andrew Bacevich drops some truth bombs over at the LA Times: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-84731757/

If you've not read much of his writing, give it a go. Start with Limits of Power, and then keep going. You may not agree with everything he has to say (I strongly suspect this applies to the Fox-a-philes in the crowd), but you will come away from it having thought a bit more critically about why things are the way they are.

 

[squorch2]

The American Empire project has several very good books that provide alternative perspectives on, well, everything.