- By Thomas E. RicksThomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military from 1991 to 2008 for the Wall Street Journal and then the Washington Post. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Patrick Little, a former British infantry officer, blasts the British military for not adjusting in recent years as the U.S. Army has. This is a bit ironic, given that one of the most influential American military books in recent years, John Nagl’s Eating Soup with a Knife, was built on the notion that the British army of the 1950s was a “learning institution,” while the American Army of the 1960s was not.
Writing in the RUSI Journal, Little charges that there are “serious systemic shortcomings” that aren’t being addressed, most notably a command climate in which “bad news is routinely camouflaged.”
The current climate, with themes of deteriorating communication, intolerance of dissent, tolerance of toxicity, poorly designed processes and perceived tolerance of inadequate senior officer performance, is a real obstacles to learning and adapting.”
Where, he wonders, are. Nagls and Yinglings of the British military — or a General Petraeus willing to listen to them and protect them?
He recommends several major reforms, including:
- Seeking foreign perspectives on British strategy, tactics and doctrine, especially from those who have fought alongside the British military.
- “Re-invigorating” professional writing.
- Creating and using “red teams” to critique concepts and policy.
- Educating officers more in sociology, anthropology and international development, with more emphasis on languages
- Introducing 360-degree appraisals
This all makes sense to me. I think he tends to think the U.S. military has changed more than it has, but he is correct in crediting our military has moved in the right direction.
(HT to JB)
Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images