Still the guy from NTC so lo-o-o-ong ago! 😁

While I agree with you on the need to improve our process to both educate/train and evaluate officers for command, I would offer a couple thoughts.

First — FO/GOs are not responsible for developing national strategy — a point that you and Anderson both seem to miss. National strategy would clearly identify the strategic objective of any use of military force. DS/DS was the last time we really did that. We need to stop blaming senior military leaders for something that’s not their responsibility. I would offer that if each service would identify and focus on their particular set of tactical skills and make officers who were actually masters of their craft at that level, they would be better served to select to officers at the senior level who would be capable of providing the necessary recommendations (key word) on national strategy and able to create actual strategic and operational plans to implement that strategy.

Second — You need to account for the institutional aspects officers play in the endurance of an army. Specifically from my experience, that means putting good officers into positions such as O/Cs; Training, Doctrine and Capability Development; Force Design. I agree with the need to perhaps provide some more focus on “command track,” but we need to make sure those same folks impact the larger Army as they progress. One of the reasons the Army is not modernizing (DOTLMPF-P, not just kit) is because for the last 35 years TRADOC paid the personnel bill to keep ‘flags’ in operational units. Hard to believe serious people think a 1980s era BCT with some tweaks is good for 2030.

GREAT article though! If you’re not making waves, the boat’s not moving!