Criticism of the Officer Corps

A former professor of mine, Dr. Richard Kohn, published this piece in the World Affairs Journal this week. Already I've noticed that it has spawned a lot of debate across the Army-oriented blogosphere, particularly on Small Wars Journal's forum. I can understand, to a certain extent, why people are upset, after all, it is a criticism of military officers (although aimed at people that far outrank lowly peons like myself).

However, I think Dr. Kohn raises some valid points. He breaks his criticism down into three arguments: the lack of an coherent strategy, and overly political Officer Corp and an Officer Corps lacking in moral fiber

Lack of Strategy: this is probably Kohn's strongest argument, but it needs to be remembered that while some criticism is warranted, strategy is also greatly affected by the military's civilian masters. Overall, though, there are some solid points in this section.

Politicized Officer Corps: I agree with Kohn's criticism of General Officers taking sides in elections, however, as unacceptable as this traditionally is, a have fewer issues with Officers speaking out when they believe the US is pursuing a strategy that is destined for failure. If the strategy is already in effect, then yes, Officers should not be criticizing what those on the ground are implementing. But I have fewer issues with Officers criticizing that which is only being proposed, for example, a military engagement with Iran.

Lack or moral integrity among Officers: Maybe this is the least warranted criticism, or maybe I'm just defending the institution of which I am a part. Yes, there have been any number of moral errors over the past few years, but to a certain extent, this in unavoidable in any organization, it is simply human nature. I am not trying to defend the tragedies of Abu Graib or Gitmo, but these issues are far more complex than simply a lack of moral courage among the officer corps. Kohn is very critical off the lack of punishment directed towards General Officers over some of these mistakes, but is that fair? How far up the Chain of Command must you go, meting out punishment, to people who reasonably could have no knowledge of the situation on the ground?

The article concludes with recommendations, several of which are stale at best. "Cadets should learn a foreign language, become familiar with other cultures." This is less than a novel idea and Cadet Command is already encouraging this through incentive pay. One idea was fresh, or at least to me: "Fitness for promotion—and particularly the characteristics recommended here—requires assessment by peers and subordinates as well as supervisors and commanders." I strongly agree with this. It is much easier to pull the wool over your superiors eyes than your subordinates and I believe that a more inclusive officer evaluation will improve the quality of officers that are being promoted.