In the article, “The Professional Case for Force Management”, I believe that the author did not make an effective argument. Therefore, I do not support his argument that the importance of professional military officers understanding and studying force management do to the lack of substantive and systemic evidence supporting his thesis.
His argument draws disparate conclusions from examples that he loosely ties back to Force Management. An example of this can be found on page 1-2 of his paper. He uses several examples of the mission of the Army broadly including “the Army Staff is responsible to… prepare for such employment of the Army and for such recruiting, organizing, supplying, equipping, training, servicing, mobilizing, demobilizing, …show more content…
While his argument here is there are principals of force management from the tactical level in MTOE all the way to the strategic level in developing new capabilities, budgeting etc. His example here is correct, there are force management principles at all levels, but just being part of tactical to strategic does not make Force management the singular piece of understanding of “the business of the Army.” While his paper is compelling, his arguments are anecdotal and draw broad conclusions based on his experience both in logistics and force management. He provides no systemic analysis of every future job a senior a graduate of CGSC might have. Leaders graduating from CGSC will face a multitude of challenges upon graduation and be put in many different positions, and yes surely some of them will have force management implications, but one cannot just make the argument that Force Management is one “the business of the Army,” and two it is the most important subject that students will learn while attending CGSC. I respect his perspective based on his experience, but believe being a leader in today’s Army means being a total soldier who can maneuver from tactical to strategic understanding the complexities of being an executive all the while being able to relate to the soldier on the ground doing his/her respective
His argument draws disparate conclusions from examples that he loosely ties back to Force Management. An example of this can be found on page 1-2 of his paper. He uses several examples of the mission of the Army broadly including “the Army Staff is responsible to… prepare for such employment of the Army and for such recruiting, organizing, supplying, equipping, training, servicing, mobilizing, demobilizing, …show more content…
While his argument here is there are principals of force management from the tactical level in MTOE all the way to the strategic level in developing new capabilities, budgeting etc. His example here is correct, there are force management principles at all levels, but just being part of tactical to strategic does not make Force management the singular piece of understanding of “the business of the Army.” While his paper is compelling, his arguments are anecdotal and draw broad conclusions based on his experience both in logistics and force management. He provides no systemic analysis of every future job a senior a graduate of CGSC might have. Leaders graduating from CGSC will face a multitude of challenges upon graduation and be put in many different positions, and yes surely some of them will have force management implications, but one cannot just make the argument that Force Management is one “the business of the Army,” and two it is the most important subject that students will learn while attending CGSC. I respect his perspective based on his experience, but believe being a leader in today’s Army means being a total soldier who can maneuver from tactical to strategic understanding the complexities of being an executive all the while being able to relate to the soldier on the ground doing his/her respective