Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: cmr@cvedc.Prime.Com (Chesley Reyburn) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: prior service Message-ID: <10503@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 23 Oct 89 23:09:05 GMT References: <10330@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Prime Computer, Inc., Beaverton Oregon Lines: 35 Approved: military@att.att.com From: cmr@cvedc.Prime.Com (Chesley Reyburn) In article <10330@cbnews.ATT.COM> baldwin@cad.usna.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes: In article <10230@cbnews.ATT.COM> dee@linus.mitre.org (David E. Emery) writes: I think that we are getting away from the real question posed by Hackworth. His book uses the context of his experiences in Korea and VietNam but I feel that the underlying point was concerned with how to make sure that ALL grades (officer as well as enlisted) have 'combat-savvy'. As I see it, prior enlisted service does not gurantee that a person will necessarily be any good as an officer. Much less an officer in a combat situation. There is an analogous situation in the rest of society. That is the person who plays politics and dosen't get their fingers dirty. Playing politics may help increase ones salary but it does not necessarily do whatever needs to be done. In his book Hackworth cites a conversation between an American Military Officer and a North VietNamese Military Officer. The American asserts that we never lost a battle. The VietNamese agrees but also states that that was entirely irrelevant seeing as how winning the hearts and minds of the people was the main strategical objective in that war. Conflict can occur in many different paradigms. How can we prepare a limited number of people how to be flexible enough and 'savvy' enough to succeed in any given paradigm? This is the real question. Chesley Reyburn ...tektronix!ogccse!cvedc!cmr ECAE Software, Prime Computer, Inc. ...sun!cvbnet!cvedc!cmr 14952 NW Greenbrier Parkway ...sequent!cvedc!cmr Beaverton, OR 97006-5733 Phone 503/645-2410