XBradTC

I’m not really a fan of Tom Ricks Best Defense over at Foreign Policy. I tend to find myself in disagreement with him far more than agreement. But he does have a talent for inviting guest posts that are thought provoking and informative.

Here’s one on the Army’s Command and General Staff Course at Ft. Leavenworth.

Here is the difference: We are not talking direct level anymore. We do not want them to be company commanders anymore. We are focusing their education and thinking on the organizational level (battalion level), which could be considered the cusp between direct and organizational and brigade and higher. Our previous students over the past few years had more experience in that area, but the new classes we are receiving have not. It is going back to the way it was before 9/11 where very few, and soon, if any, will have had battalion level jobs.

Third, as for this being a graduate school like its civilian counterparts — to some degree, yes, but not as much as the article led its readers to believe. The graduates do not automatically receive a graduate degree. Only those that put in the extra effort for their Masters of Military Arts (MMAS) or are part of the joint efforts between University of Kansas or K-State. But to equate it to a civilian university/college is again a bit false since our students are on a different path and the military is different. CGSC is a professional school for a professional education at a specific point in the officer’s professional development. The Army is going to be only sending 55 percent of a specific year group to attend the resident CGSC course. The officers that do attend will have been board selected and are expected to be the top 55 percent of their year group.

Maybe our own resident CGSC instructor alum has some thoughts?

—–

Another guest post- 10 things a Marine wished he’d known before company command.  I like the advice about learning in detail the history of a single battle.  There’s some good meat in the comments as well.

—–

DoDBuzz has a couple articles about the Air Force. With the tight budgets of the future should the Air Force:

Get rid of the B-1?

Oddly, it’s one of the preferred platforms for Close Air Support because of its huge bomb load. But it has always been a maintenance hog.

And is it time to retire the KC-10?

Deleting an airframe type from the fleet has cost savings above and beyond just deleting the airframes themselves. The support, training, parts and logistics can all go away as well.  But the KC-10 is a low-density, high-demand item. That is, it’s a really, really good tanker. Maybe they can give them to some of our allies?

—–

Monday,in the wake of the murders at the Washington Navy Yard,  Craig and I were chatting about the insanity of military installations being gun-free zones.

As many people have noted, it’s somewhat incredible that we can trust our troops to fight our wars, but not to have firearms on post.  Few people outside the military understand that even in the Infantry, you spend a majority of your time in the service with your weapons locked up tight in the company arms room.

Should we at least look at having the Staff Duty NCO or the company Charge of Quarters armed?

And Craig pointed out, this is a decision that maybe we ought to be entrusting to our unit commanders. We entrust them with life or death decisions when deployed, but instantly withdraw that authority stateside. Is it any wonder so many of the best and brightest junior officers leave the service when they’re shown by the service’s action that the service simply doesn’t trust their judgment?

At any event, here’s Matt Walsh’s thoughts on a gun-free military.

—–