To fix critical thinking within PME, start at the ground floor with the basic stuff

By
Nicholas Murray

Best
Defense department of restoring standards to PME

The Army
has a critical thinking problem. To fix it, most focus on the need to change
the culture of the organization and the curricula of the staff schools and
higher. Fixing this will help, but only from the mid-career point onward. If we
really want to change the way the officer corps thinks, we need to start from
the ground up. That is, if we are truly going to fix Professional Military
Education, we must begin with a potential officer's undergraduate education.

Having
recently written an article for the Small Wars Journal examining Professional Military Education
through the lens of history, I was struck by the number of other articles
dealing with the general subject area. Almost all of them, however, including
mine, were focused on the staff officer schools or higher. This got me
thinking.

Perhaps
the problem starts much earlier in our system of commissioning. Here at the
CGSC I see a number of perfectly capable and bright officers who lack fairly
basic knowledge of their own history. Additionally, I've noticed that many of
them have never heard of the Treaty of Westphalia, and some have only the
vaguest awareness of international politics. Lacking such a foundation means
that they often flounder in classes where such issues are discussed, and I have
read many complaints about how this affects their ability to understand the
broader context of their role around the world. Additionally, the lack of
educational breadth means it is more difficult for them to grasp how things fit
together. Both Max Boot's and Harun Dogo's recent guest posts address
some of these issues and look at some of the consequent problems; they also
gave me food for thought.

What,
then, can we do to address some of these issues before officers reach the
middle stage of their career? An email from a cadet at the USMA pushed me
further in contemplating an answer (in it he reminded me of a guest post he wrote for Best Defense outlining some thoughts on
his experience). I thus came to the question: Why not do something more radical
than simply tweak what we do at the staff schools and above? Why not start from
the ground up? If all officers in the U.S. Army had to take courses in U.S.
history as a requirement of their being commissioned -- along with one or two
classes in Western civilization (or indeed world civilization), geography, and
international relations -- we might go some way to providing the background of
knowledge that many will need for much of their career. Being an immigrant
myself, I think it is a good idea, especially when considering the number of
serving soldiers who were born overseas. These classes would also facilitate
the broadening of knowledge that is so essential to effective critical
thinking. Of course, to become an officer a candidate needs to have completed a
four-year college degree. That surely solves the problem, right? Well, maybe
not, but it does suggest a solution.

With
that in mind I looked at the ROTC and OCS websites for guidance as to which of
the above classes are required as a part of the program. Disappointingly, these
courses were nowhere mentioned, at least, not that I could find. Furthermore,
simply requiring a four-year degree does not guarantee that an incoming officer
has taken even one of these classes let alone all of them -- it really depends
upon which school they attended and what that particular school's academic
requirements for a degree were. This is important because a solid base in these
subjects would provide much needed context for classes discussing strategy -- which
they will need later in their careers. It would also provide a greater number
of people who know something about the next piece of ground over which we have
to fight. That would be no bad thing. In its defense, the Army does require
that potential officers take a course in American military history, but that is
largely driven by the learning of facts (no bad thing) without the broader
analysis and context of what those facts mean (not a good thing). Thus, it does
not really address the central issue.

We need
to change the way we educate officers before they start their careers. This is
a solution to the Army's critical thinking problem. Additionally, fixing it
this way would at least mean that when officers show up for their education at
the staff schools and above they already have the grounding necessary for them
to focus on the essential. That is, preparing themselves intellectually for the
next ten years. That is, after all, our mission.

Dr.
Nicholas Murray is an associate professor in the Department of Military History
at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College. His book The Rocky Road to the
Great War (Potomac
Books) is due out this year, along with an edited book titled Pacification:
The Lesser Known French Campaigns (CSI). He recently published "Officer Education: What Lessons Does the French Defeat in
1871 Have for the US Army Today?" in the Small Wars
Journal. His views are his own. They are
not yours.