Content area
Full Text
The Army has no choice but to face change. It's in a nearly constant state of flux, with new people, new missions, new technologies, new equipment, and new information.
Field Manuel 22-100, Army Leadership
REVOLUTIONS in military affairs (RMAs), whether spawned during peace or war, are accompanied by one constant--change. New enemies, new tactics, new uniforms, and new terminology, to name a few, will be scorned or embraced for whatever reason by whatever individual for centuries to come. During Vietnam, "killed in action" became "killed in hostile action" to make death more palatable for mothers and fathers at home. Last year, the Army's recruiting slogan "Be All You Can Be" became "An Army of One" to make the Army more palatable for the daughters and sons at home. The 1980s also seem to have introduced the less palatable term "risk-aversion"'- -the supposed new mentality that is plaguing American leaders, civilian and military alike. In a EJ.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) leadership lecture, a major asked about this new phenomenon and how the leaders of tomorrow are expected to handle it. The hesitant response, that this question wasn't "useful," though seeming politically correct at the time, appears quite appropriate. Upon further reflection, the real question, and one more useful though difficult to answer, is whether risk-aversion is really the problem.
Today's military leaders operate in a complex politico-military environment, and their decisions involve quite a bit of risk. Their success is hampered by what some observers perceive as an aversion to risk instilled early in their careers. Furthermore, military leaders often do not fully or correctly appreciate the diplomatic or international ramifications of their decisions or actions. The fear of making mistakes or taking risks combined with a lack of understanding for politico-military situations often leads to doing the wrong thing. Doing the wrong thing, even at the tactical level, can mean strategic disaster.
Doctrine alone will not enable strategic military leaders to develop the necessary decisionmaking skills to make the right decisions; however, a study of historical examples might. History provides numerous examples of leaders who failed at international politics and war because they did not appreciate a situation's diplomatic or military subtleties or because they were not astute risk assessors. The...