I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Kane. I think the subtitle of the article is a little over the top – America is not going off the rails because there are fewer veterans serving in high office and to make such a claim would seem to be an example of military arrogance. Mr. Kane might think his few years of honorable and heroic military service (per his bio below) has prepared him to be SECDEF or SECSTATE or other high level official but I am not sure I would make the same claim about my military service nor would I think most other Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. Certainly many are well prepared but they are likely just as well prepared as their civilians counterparts.
He of course does not mention Eliot Cohen's book Supreme Command which as we all know illustrates that there are very successful strategic leaders without military experience. I do not think military service is a requirement for high level strategic leadership. Certainly military service at the senior ranks can help develop strategic thinking and leadership and military service at the junior ranks can also provide a level of empathy for the plight of the common foot Soldier but as Eliot Cohen has shown there are some great historical examples of civilians with superior strategic leadership abilities over their military counterparts (or subordinates). I personally just want the best person for the job whether he or she is a veteran or not. Being a veteran should be neither a prerequisite nor a discriminator for high level strategic leadership positions but can and should be considered along with all the other person's qualifications. Just find us the best man or woman for the job regardless of military experience.
V/R
Dave
Fewer veterans are serving in high office in the United States. It's no coincidence that America is going off the rails.
BY PAUL V. KANE | DECEMBER 27, 2012
Looking back at a decade of war -- with $3 trillion spent pursuing victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, millions of our citizens plucked from home for combat deployments, and more than 50,000 of our brethren wounded or killed in action -- Americans need to ask themselves a single blunt question: Are our current military and civilian leaders fit to lead us in the next war?
There's a reason our national experience since 9/11 has been mixed with confusion, pride, trying developments, ruinous expense, and fleeting successes. We have lots of leaders but a national deficit in true leadership. Two trends have brought us to this crisis.
First, the vast majority of our current leaders have only a theoretical, intellectual, and abstract knowledge of the military and war -- not an experiential, visceral, and personal understanding. The proportion of our key decision-makers who have served in the military and have personal experience with defense is in steady decline.
Before 1993, nearly every modern president had served on active duty in uniform, most in wartime, and a few were war heroes. At one point, 77 percent of Congress were veterans. Come 2013, veterans will make up a mere 19 percent of Congress -- and many among this 19 percent have "military service" in their record purely because they sought to avoid the draft and Vietnam combat; they volunteered between 1966 and 1975 for what was then safe, part-time service at home in the National Guard or Reserve.
People who have not served in uniform or combat are often ill equipped to understand how conflict and armies work (or, frequently, how they don't), how war moves to capricious rhythms, and how war plans last only until first contact with the enemy.
Consider the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 -- perhaps the most high-stakes example of this concept.
President John F. Kennedy was a Navy veteran, and his brush with war left him without illusions. He kept his own counsel during the showdown with the Soviets precisely because he had been to war and had his boat sunk in combat. Kennedy was not overawed by the cigar-chomping general with a constellation of stars on his collar who disdainfully told him, "Sir, you have few options on Cuba except ‘surgical strikes' followed by invasion."
JFK knew that using the words "precision" and "bombing" in the same sentence was nonsense. We now know that if he had taken the advice of Gen. Curtis LeMay and others, Soviet commanders at sea and on the island would likely have ordered the use of tactical nuclear weapons -- potentially escalating the crisis beyond the point of no return. Kennedy had the instincts and experience to discern the right course and hold his military to proper account in that unforgiving moment.
Being a veteran does not inoculate someone from making stupid or reckless decisions about war -- not at all. But an executive who's never been to war needs first to be brutally honest with himself -- to know what he does not know -- and second, to surround himself with veterans whom he trusts. The Cuban missile crisis turned out well because Kennedy had served in uniform and he had trusted and experienced advisors who were veterans and could provide a check on the generals; he could walk down the hall to ask Kenny O'Donnell or Dave Powers, two former Air Corps bombardiers from World War II, "Is this the real deal or B.S.?"
(Continued at the link below)
