Too Busy To Learn

Too Busy to Learn
Robert Scales | January 23, 2006


From the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the German invasion of France in 1914 the British Army maintained order from Egypt to Hong Kong with an Army that never exceeded 300,000. A “thin red line” of British infantry fought a succession of small wars against mostly tribal enemies winning virtually all of them quickly. The Achilles heel of the Victorian military system was intellectual rather than physical. The demands of defending the empire created an army too busy to learn. For an institution obsessed with active service, time away from campaigning was time wasted. Staff college attendance was considered bad form. Writing about one's profession gave evidence of a mind unengaged in the necessary business of fighting real wars against real enemies. In the officers mess polite conversation was spent on equine sport rather than the art of war.

The parallels between the British Army then and ours today are striking -- and disturbing. The American military has become so stretched that it has little time to devote to any activity other than repetitive deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. The strains of over-commitment are evident, most disturbingly in the military's crumbling academic infrastructure. The Department of Defense is seeking ways to cut drastically the time soldiers spend in school. In World War II 31 of the Army's 35 corps commanders taught at service schools. Today the Army's staff college is so short instructors that it has been forced to hire civilian contractors to do the bulk of the teaching.

After Vietnam the Army sent 7,400 officers to fully funded graduate education. Today that figure is 396, half of whom are studying to join the weapons buying community. The military school system remains an anachronism of Nineteenth Century pedagogy that fails to make best use of the dismally limited time available to soldiers for learning. Many young officers have voted with their fingers. The most popular learning platforms among lieutenants and captains are self-generated websites rather than established institutions.

While the press of operations lessens opportunities to learn, experience in Iraq reinforces the belief that the need to learn has never been greater. Soldiers today can no longer just practice the science of killing in order to win. They must understand and be sensitive to alien cultures. They must be skilled in the art of peacekeeping and stability operations. They must be able to operate with coalition partners and work with governmental and non-governmental institutions such as the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan junior officers and sergeants make critical life and death decisions that were the purview of colonels and generals in previous wars. Thus in this new and unfamiliar era of conflict the military must prepare soldiers to think critically and analytically much earlier in their careers.

Who is to blame for allowing the learning deficit within the military to grow so wide? The list of the guilty is long. Congress shares much of the blame. In the past they have had a “show me the money” attitude toward funding military Education that required an immediate and demonstrable payback for any fully funded learning program. This policy tended to overstate the need for scientific degrees and minimize opportunities for officers to study culture and the art of war.

This administration is to blame for slighting professional education in an effort to free up the (too small) pool of available soldiers and Marines for deployment into combat. The services are to blame for failing to build progressive learning institutions and to recognize those who demonstrate exceptional intellectual ability. Before Vietnam some of our best universities such as Duke, Yale and Princeton had vibrant defense studies programs that gave future combat leaders the opportunity to learn from many great teachers of the art of war. For the most part those programs and teachers are gone, victims of an academic culture that somehow believes that ignoring the study of war will make wars go away.

While the British Army obsessed on fighting distant small wars the Germans under Helmuth von Moltke developed a system of disciplined learning that rewarded brilliance and creative thought. During the opening battles of World War I the Germans taught the British a lesson in blood: In war the intellectually gifted will win over well practiced dullards every time. The British failed to understand how to transition from small- to large-scale combat; perhaps we are facing a similar intellectual challenge while transitioning from large to small wars. One fact is clear: War is a thinking man's game. Soldiers and Marines need time for reflection, time to learn, teach, research and write. In this new age of warfare we must do more to prepare soldiers to think as well as act.






About Robert Scales

Dr. Robert Scales is currently President of Colgen, Inc, a consulting firm specializing in issues relating to landpower, wargaming and strategic leadership. Prior to joining the private sector Dr. Scales served over thirty years in the Army, retiring as a Major General. He commanded two units in Vietnam, winning the Silver Star for action during the battles around Dong Ap Bia (Hamburger Hill) during the summer of 1969. He ended his military career as Commandant of the United States Army War College.




* * * * * * *
 
 


Like Predecessor, UN's New Rights Body Targets Israel
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
July 07, 2006



(CNSNews.com) - Following a trend adopted by its discredited predecessor, the U.N.'s new Human Rights Council ended its first-ever "special session" Thursday with a resolution condemning Israel over the crisis in the Gaza Strip.

By a vote of 29-11 with five abstentions, the 47-member body passed a resolution demanding that Israel end its military operations in Gaza, expressing concern about the impact the operation was having on Palestinians' humanitarian situation, urging Israel to release detained Palestinian lawmakers and mandating an urgent visit to the area by a U.N. special rapporteur.

The resolution, introduced by the Arab and Islamic blocs, made no specific reference to the factors that triggered Israel's Operation Spring Rain -- Hamas' kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the firing by Gaza-based terrorists of rockets into Israeli population centers.

Army Corporal Gilad Shalit remains missing Friday, with Palestinian leaders maintaining he will only be freed if Israel releases a large number of Arab prisoners. Kassam rockets continued to land in the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon this week as Israeli forces pushed ahead with the offensive.

The HRC resolution was opposed by Canada, Japan and nine countries in Europe after they failed in attempts to insert balancing language into the text.

Japan called the resolution "one-sided and not constructive," while Canada said it was unacceptable that the measure ignored Israel's "legitimate security concerns."

"It must also acknowledge that the Palestinian Authority has a responsibility to prevent the constant firing of rockets into Israel, to resolve the present hostage-taking crisis and to prevent the recurrence of further such criminal acts," the Canadian envoy said.

The U.S., although not a member of the council, delivered a statement during the debate. Envoy Warren Tichenor said the U.S. did not believe a special session should ignore the role of Hamas in the kidnapping; the Palestinian Authority's failure to denounce violence; and "the continued role of Syria in harboring and supporting rejectionists."

Damascus-based Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal ordered the kidnapping of Shalit, who was captured during a June 25 raid on an army base during which two other Israeli soldiers were killed.

Tichenor called on the HRC to act "in an even-handed, fair and equitable way," and he asked council members to consider how their countries could make a constructive contribution towards Mideast peace.


'Clean break'

The U.S. chose not to stand for election in the council's first year because it felt the document creating it did not go far enough to resolve the problems that plagued the now-defunct U.N. Commission for Human Rights.

Human rights advocates say the commission's annual sessions were characterized by selectivity -- Israel faced much more censure than any other country, with routine critical resolutions passed year after year -- and political maneuvering as states formed blocs to gang up on their foes and defend their friends.

It was also discredited by the presence of countries ruled by regimes with widely criticized human rights records.

The commission was replaced by the council as part of a broader program initiated by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and aimed at reforming the U.N.

Annan told the council's inaugural session, which ran June 19-30, that its work should "mark a clean break from the past."

And at a press conference in New York, Annan said: "No country can claim to have a perfect human rights record, and so I hope we are not going to see a situation where the Human Rights Commission focuses on Israel, but not on others."

His call went unheeded, however. During that first two-week regular session, the council discussed only two country-specific situations -- Israel/Gaza and Sudan/Darfur -- and passed only one resolution, again targeting Israel.

Then, shortly after the session ended on June 30, Tunisia -- on behalf of the Arab League -- called for the emergency session, which ran Wednesday and Thursday and ended with the second resolution condemning Israel.

The special session was held because 21 council member states approved the Arab League's request. The council's creating document provides for emergency sessions to be held outside regular meetings if one-third of the members agree.

The innovation was hailed as a positive one, in that it would enable the council to respond quickly to urgent situations.

But a threshold of just 16 countries also means that, with the current membership, the 14 Muslim members only need a couple of extra votes -- most likely from customary allies including China, Cuba and Russia -- each time they want a special session held.


'Israel-bashing obsession'

The meeting and resolution drew strong criticism from human rights and Jewish groups.

U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based non-governmental organization (NGO), said the resolution passed comprised "a long litany of specific condemnations and demands against Israel but says nothing about the Hamas government's role in the hostage-taking that precipitated the current crisis or in perpetrating deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians."

The group's executive director, Hillel Neuer, said the Arab League's request for the session had been "politically motivated, intended solely to target Israel."

He also criticized a move by the Islamic bloc to suspend debate directly before NGOs were scheduled to speak and commented on "the spectacle of Sudan accusing others of 'war crimes.'"

Neuer said it was regrettable that a majority of council members were "showing contempt for Mr. Annan's urgent plea to leave behind the discredited commission's self-destructive obsession with bashing Israel at the expense of urgent human rights situations affecting millions of victims in Darfur, China, Chechnya and in so many other places across the globe."

New York-based Human Rights Watch said while the council was right to draw attention to the situation in Gaza and to call on Israel to take steps to address the crisis, "it failed to address acts of violence by Palestinian armed groups or to recognize that Palestinian authorities can help to resolve the situation."

Citing the humanitarian disaster in Darfur, the group's global advocacy director, Peggy Hicks, said "the council should bring the same vigor to its consideration of other urgent human rights situations as it has to the Gaza crisis."

"It is shameful that, as thousands continue to die in Darfur and millions languish under oppression worldwide, Israel has once again become the decoy of choice for regimes seeking to shield themselves from international scrutiny," World Jewish Congress Director of International Organizations Shai Franklin said in a statement.

Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman said the resolution had predictably blamed Israel "while giving Hamas a pass."

Despite hopes the new council would be more balanced, he said, "this resolution, along with the attempt to establish a permanent agenda item on Israel at every session, shows that this new council is prejudicially weighted against Israel and tainted with the same anti-Israel baggage of the past."

Of the 47 members of the new council, nine -- China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Algeria, Cameroon and Azerbaijan -- are countries that the democracy watchdog Freedom House designates "not free."

Another 13 are "partly free," according to Freedom House, which bases its assessment on scores for political rights and civil liberties.

The full membership is: Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Britain, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Ghana, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, South Korea, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay and Zambia.





* * * * * * *


Turkish anti-West mood 'rising'



Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has warned that moderate Turks are becoming anti-American and anti-EU.

Mr Gul said many Turks were embittered by the US' support for Israel's actions in Lebanon and by Turkey's problems in joining the EU.

He also said Ankara could be forced to act to stop cross-border raids by Kurdish rebels operating from Iraq.

Mr Gul's comments came in a wide-ranging interview with the UK's Financial Times newspaper.

"Moderate liberal people [in Turkey] are becoming anti-American and anti-EU," he said.

"If our young, educated, dynamic and economically active people become bitter, if their attitudes and feelings are changed, it is not good.

"Their feeling has changed towards these global policies and strategic issues. This is dangerous."

On the EU accession talks, Mr Gul said failure to resolve the dispute with Cyprus was "poisoning" the process that was formally launched in June.

Cyprus has threatened to veto the Turkish bid unless Ankara officially recognises it and opens its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot ships and planes.

But Mr Gul said Turkish lawmakers would reject such proposals unless the Cypriots also lifted their veto on any direct trade with the Turkish Cypriot government in northern Cyprus, which is not internationally recognised.

He also suggested that some EU states seemed to be hiding behind the Cyprus issues to delay Turkey's accession talks.


Kurdish issue

On the Middle East issue, Mr Gul said US policies were causing a backlash in Turkey and the region.

Washington's support for Israel did not help solve the problem, he said.

And he again warned that Turkey would have to act if the US and Iraq failed to stop by the Turkish Kurdish rebel group, the PKK, which is operating from Iraq.

Washington - a long-term ally of Ankara - has warned Turkey against taking unilateral military action against PKK bases in northern Iraq.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5198290.stm





 
 

* * * * * * *


Annan lays blame with both Israel and Hizbollah
By Mark Turner at theUnited Nations andGuy Dinmore in,Washington

Published: July 21 2006 03:00 | Last updated: July 21 2006 03:00

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, warned the Security Council yesterday that there were significant obstacles to any quick end to the violence in the Middle East but urged it to demand an immediate end of hostilities to save lives, send aid and to allow space for diplomacy.

In a speech that blamed the Islamist movement Hizbollah for triggering the crisis but also condemned Israel's "excessive" reaction, Mr Annan laid out a formula for a lasting ceasefire and revival of the peace process.

His package included the release of abducted Israeli soldiers, an expanded peacekeeping force, urgent aid and reconstruction measures, and an international conference to set timelines for the restoration of full Lebanese sovereignty and dismantling militia.

Mr Annan had tough words for both Hizbollah and Israel. "Whatever other agendas they may serve, Hizbollah's actions, which it portrays as defending Palestinian and Lebanese interests, in fact do neither," he said. "On the contrary, they hold an entire nation hostage."

But while reaffirming Israel's right to self-defence, Mr Annan condemned its disproportionate reaction: "Whatever damage Israel's operations may be doing to Hizbollah's military capabilities, they are doing nothing to decrease popular support for Hizbollah in Lebanon or the region, but are doing a great deal to weaken the government of Lebanon."

Dan Gillerman, Israel's UN ambassador, claimed that "three key elements of this crisis - terrorism, Iran and Syria" were not addressed in Mr Annan's speech.

"The first thing that must be addressed is cessation of terror, before we can talk about a cessation of hostilities," he said. "Diplomacy can play a part only after terror has been taken care of."

John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, insisted any solution would need to "fundamentally change the realities of the region", but added: "No one has explained how you conduct a ceasefire with a group of terrorists." Nouhad Mahmoud, Lebanon's envoy, described Mr Annan's calls as "the voice of reason. Our first impression is very positive."

Mr Annan said that even while hostilities continued, it was "imperative" to establish safe humanitarian corridors: "The humanitarian task facing us is massive and must be funded urgently." He also urged a peace track for Gaza, where Palestinians were "suffering deeply" and where, he noted, a million people were without electricity after Israel's destruction of the Gaza power plant.

"I call for an immediate cessation of indiscriminate and disproportionate violence and a reopening of closed crossing-points, without which Gaza will continue to be sucked into a downward spiral of suffering and chaos, and the region further inflamed."

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, were due to meet Mr Annan last night.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f4465af8-1854-11db-99a6-0000779e2340.html



 
 
 

 
FIRST WEIGH THE CONSIDERATIONS, THEN TAKE THE RISKS.
--Helmuth von Moltke the Elder