Feed aggregator

Kositzky Attila nyá. repülő altábornagy előadása.

Opinión - 7/3/2016
Carlos Malamud
La comparecencia de Lula conducido por la Policía ante los instructores del caso Lava Jato ha levantado una tormenta política y mediática en Brasil. Las repercusiones internas y regionales son múltiples.

Greetings! This week’s piece pivots off of the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ comments regarding disruptive thinkers, which intersects nicely with an article I am wrapping up on Evans Carlson and his Raider concept in WWII. It is also influenced by the broader context which seems to favour and privilege innovation. And so, as the tide seems to be in favour, I thought I would just disrupt things a little. Enjoy the piece and join the discussion on Twitter at the hashtag, #CCLKOW.

 

In a call for support from the Corps’ hidden legions of disruptive thinkers, General Robert Neller initiated what amounted to a cultural revolution. Confronting what seems to be an increasingly complex world it is hoped that such individuals, as well as contenders from the rank and file whose experiences can light the path to real world solutions, will aid the agility and effectiveness of the Corps. This latest genuflection at the altar of the novel builds on the larger trend which values innovative thinking.

We are all quite certain this is a good thing, right?

But is it?

First, Neller is correct to note that the culture of the Marine Corps must adapt if this has the slightest chance to offer anything more than fits and starts of short-lived new ideas. For its many strengths, there is an historical resistance to figures whose ideas lie too far outside the standard. Evans Carlson, father of a wildly innovative warfighting unit and concept, did not succeed within the institution. Nor did William Corson, the Marine officer behind the first and very novel Combined Action Program in Vietnam. The successful Marines of the last 75 years have been those who have moderated change at the fringes but not fundamentally altered course. These are the cultural terms of success that will need to be countered. Of course, the problem is that institutional culture is a very difficult thing to change, and it is debatable whether that can be achieved under the tenure of a single commandant.

Second, this effort and others more generally assume that the best answers will come from within the armed forces and in direct response to issues. But important innovation is often found in odd spaces disconnected from the particular problem at hand. Much of the smart advances in air mobility between the two world wars came from the private sector or other public services. While I am not in favour of the thinking which posits that war and commerce as activities are similar, I am not so dogmatic that I cannot see the value of certain competencies crossing between the two areas. This is not to suggest that internal voices not be listened to or even heard, but only to caution that left and right of arc is limited if the box one need get outside of is only the military one.

Third, if everyone is disrupting and innovating, when do the armed forces develop competency? There is a point at which there will be diminishing marginal returns if this trend is pushed too far. Yes, at the extreme of every argument one finds foolishness, but in this case I suspect the frontier to that point is far closer than most people want to admit. And as we heap more praise and value upon innovation and disruption, I suspect the ability to admit that frontier will become more difficult. But at some point armed forces must train and do, neither of which are entirely amenable to constant flux. Alternatively, we can let loose the dogs of intellectual and other creativity and ingenuity because this is truly a period of existential peace. Arguing for both sides, the need to plan, prepare, and execute while simultaneously embarking upon revolutionary change seems only a recipe for disaster.

Fourth, are things really changing at such a rate that constant disruption and innovation are necessary? There are elements to the character of warfare which are shifting, but many stable elements remain, and certainly key principles remain immutable. I heard at the beginning of my career in military affairs that a Marine well-trained to his basic job could, on the basis of discipline and leadership, adapt to any situation. I heard the same thing today in class from a French officer. Despite the seeming revolutionary change of the last two decades of conflict, this basic approach remains a significant touchstone to many. Much like the liberal arts remain a valuable education for many different life and career choices despite every effort to drive novelty in university learning, perhaps the old way needed no superseding.

To close, I would point to the arena of military hardware. There is an unrelenting push to create, deploy, and destroy with the next cycle the technology of war. The F-35 has barely entered service and the next generation of aircraft is already a thing. And it will be a costly thing. Replicated across the armed forces, such a phenomenon acquires a heft that I doubt many can truly comprehend. And to what end? It is uncertain what military advantage is gained, but the costs are staggering. Whether these investments can be maintained indefinitely is entirely questionable. Even if possible, to impose this phenomenon across the armed forces, in thinking, software, and hardware, may not, in the end, achieve any greater marginal benefit than is currently seen with every new, expensive bit of major kit.

So, my questions for discussion are:

What is the innovation that American, British, or other armed forces need?

How do we drive the right innovation? How do we kill the bad?

At what point is disruption merely disruptive and not productive? 

Can the culture of armed forces really change? Or, historically, have the best innovations been the ones which accommodated themselves to the extant institutional culture?

What is the right admixture of innovators, disruptors, and status quo defenders for the armed forces?

Join the discussion on Twitter at #CCLKOW

Dans moins de deux semaines, le Salon du livre de Paris, « Livre Paris », ouvre ses portes au Parc des expositions - porte de Versailles. L’armée de Terre répond une fois de plus au rendez-vous. Retrouvez une grande sélection d’ouvrages d’écrivains militaires sur notre stand, du 17 au 20 mars 2016.

Les auditeurs de la 28e session européenne des responsables d’armement (Sera), se sont retrouvés ce matin 7 mars pour leur première semaine de cours qui se déroulera à l’École militaire...

en lire plus

Le fusil d'assaut commandé pour la BAC est critiqué outre-Rhin. Le président de la filiale française de HK, qui les produit, répond aux critiques.

There is no end in sight to the hardships faced by the majority of Zimbabweans. Political uncertainty and economic insecurity have worsened as the country struggles to develop the necessary foundation to underwrite a broad-based and sustainable recovery.

Az EUrologus birtokába került az uniós csúcs megállapodástervezete. A nyugat-balkáni bevándorlási útvonalat lezárják, az Európai Tanács a csillagokat is leígéri az égről, csak ne történjen nagy baj a Görögországban rekedt bevándorlókkal.

VIDÉO - Suivez en direct l'interview politique quotidienne du Figaro.

Date: Lundi 07 Mars 2016Résumé: Henri de Castries, président de l'Institut Montaigne sera sur le plateau de Ruth Elkrief sur BFM TV pour présenter le rapport Le numérique pour réussir dès l’école primaire.

2016. január 6-tól indult a már többéves múltra visszatekintő bolgár-amerikai közös hadgyakorlatok legújabbika.

This is the Monday edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

Ahmet Davutoglu, centre, meets with his German and Dutch counterparts ahead of the summit

EU leaders gather in Brussels today with Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s prime minister, to once again attempt to sort out a deal that could stop the massive influx of refugees crossing into Europe from Turkish shores. This time, however, rather than high-minded rhetoric, there appears to be a workable deal on the table: Mr Davutoglu has signalled his readiness to agree a scheme that would allow the EU to return tens of thousands of non-Syrian migrants trying to enter Greece back to Turkey. Add in a new Nato mission that was yesterday given the authority to operate in Turkish waters and will help Greek and Turkish authorities hunt down human smugglers, and the pieces of effective response may finally be falling into place.

There’s one small problem, however: the UN isn’t sure the plan is legal under international law, which prohibits “pushbacks” of potential asylum seekers, who under the Geneva Conventions must receive a fair hearing first. Vincent Cochetel, who is leading the UN refugee agency’s response to the European crisis, hinted EU courts would find the tactic in violation of EU laws which incorporate the Geneva Conventions. Human rights groups also question its legality.

Read more

„Ez a hatalom is megbukik, és vele történelem szemlélete is.”

Le commissaire européen Karmenu Vella a présenté le plan d’action de l’Union européenne contre le trafic d’espèces sauvages lors de la conférence Save Wildlife qui s’est déroulée le 3 mars à La Haye. Il a souligné l’importance de s’engager ensemble dans la lutte contre les braconniers et le trafic d’animaux.

Sikerrel teljesítette négyhónapos külszolgálatát a Balti Légtérrendészeti Szolgálat magyar kontingense.

Európa megengedte magának, hogy a végletekig kiszolgáltatottá váljon a török elnök szeszélyeivel szemben, emiatt Törökország ellenzékkel és a kurd kisebbséggel szembeni megtorló akciói is komoly következményeket hordozhatnak Európa számára.

Tovább olvasom

photo Armée de Terre 05/03/2016 Par Michel Cabirol – LaTribune.fr Le contrat Donas d'un montant de trois milliards de dollars signé par l'Arabie Saoudite (le financier), le Liban (le client) et la France (le vendeur) va se poursuivre. Selon le ministre...