MD Driver
AH veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2018
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 370
Yeah, a good summary. One thing about military senior leadership that’s worth noting is that they are products of government and bureaucracy. They may think of themselves as conservative, or might at least try to portray an image of being above the political fray, more concerned with the noble cause of national defense. But they’ve groomed within a system that’s very, very big government oriented. That’s all they’ve ever known. Process is everything. Trump is disliked by both sides in Washington, and so was Reagan because they questioned process and stepped on toes. And it absolutely threatens huge government spending in this direction or that.
Milley is a poster child of that northeastern education, graduate education, and Army senior officer schools’ professional military education curriculum. In my Academy class many years ago, you could tell right away who were destined to immerse themselves into the above, compared to those who’d serve their active duty service commitments and then either separate completely, or finish up as an O-5 or O-6 in a Reseve component. This group leaving active duty generally did very well in the private sector, and almost 100% of our STEM academic majors fell into this group. But many of the others… history, poli sci, philosophy majors…. found a home in the same world as Milley and were weirdly compliant, unquestioning, myopic, and risk averse. In our example at least, they were NOT the best and brightest people, not by a long shot.
So, you get what you pay for in developing senior officers. With the rightward, iconoclastic, and questioning shift (Trump) in conservative politics, it surprises my zero that some of these very senior officers push back at those things that threatens all they’ve ever known.
Milley is a poster child of that northeastern education, graduate education, and Army senior officer schools’ professional military education curriculum. In my Academy class many years ago, you could tell right away who were destined to immerse themselves into the above, compared to those who’d serve their active duty service commitments and then either separate completely, or finish up as an O-5 or O-6 in a Reseve component. This group leaving active duty generally did very well in the private sector, and almost 100% of our STEM academic majors fell into this group. But many of the others… history, poli sci, philosophy majors…. found a home in the same world as Milley and were weirdly compliant, unquestioning, myopic, and risk averse. In our example at least, they were NOT the best and brightest people, not by a long shot.
So, you get what you pay for in developing senior officers. With the rightward, iconoclastic, and questioning shift (Trump) in conservative politics, it surprises my zero that some of these very senior officers push back at those things that threatens all they’ve ever known.
Last edited:
I find that humorous, though I admit I am one. Again, and purely from my perspective, what would be better for a "generalist" than to have studied Gibbon, truly understand economics, have a clear appreciation for the historical and current application of power - military and political, and perhaps speak a language or two other than Murican as a very valuable foundation for senior command - particularly if he or she has a proven track record of success in their branch. If I may offer a untempered general observation of my own, some specialist professions represent some of the least educated people I have ever known.
