David P. Oakley & Mike Obadal
For over a decade, U.S. military leadership has acknowledged inadequacy in how it intellectually prepares practitioners to face a dynamic and uncertain environment. Despite this acknowledgment, the persistent claim of a broken Professional Military Education (PME) system is proof of either an unresponsive PME or that PME is serving as a useful scapegoat to shield addressing other fundamental issues.[i] There is some truth in the former, but the latter is what has stifled change. Although it is convenient to solely blame PME institutions and their faculty, it is also unfair because it ignores organizational and cultural issues within the military that affect how education is perceived and incorporated into organizational and individual development, thus limiting its value. If the U.S. military wants to harness education to nurture the practitioner, they must appreciate the organizational and cultural issues that currently limit its utility.
First, military leadership must not only acknowledge the failure of an “episodic” approach but prioritize and resource recurring educational opportunities that complement the needed year-long educational experiences. Second, they must appreciate that, while practitioners require training and education, these are distinct and serve different yet complementary purposes. Finally, and most important, they must prioritize intellectual development to the same degree they prioritize physical fitness and incorporate “intellectualism” as a military value.
No comments:
Post a Comment