This guy is accurate and brave. He is pointing to a major deficiency in the training of senior officers that will erode Americas ability to fight and win. Other people have noticed this problem but most haven't formally identified it as Dr Bruscino has. One of the exceptions is Thomas P.M. Barnett in his books. His thoughts can be summed up by saying "leave the war fighting to the war fighters" and the tangential social/political/ economic problems to a legion of 40 year olds who have civilian experience but still answer up through the military chain of command. Such as school superintendents, water district managers hospital presidents ect .
I disagree with those that feel the firefighter analogy is inapt. Firefighters do need to know about building design; they do need to understand chemistry and physics of materials. But they need to know those things in service of a specific purpose: putting out fires, and rescuing people from burning buildings. As it happens, they are also involved in things like building inspections to ensure the building is up to code, for example. That's not the central mission of the fire department, but they do that work. Nowadays, what with EMS services being rolled up into fire departments (for complex political reasons we won't go into here; it's my opinion they should be a third service, like the Air Force, but we digress), they often need to know some human physiology, pharmacology, and so on. But at the end of the day, the purpose of a fire department is to fight fires. The purpose of an Army is to fight wars. And the speaker's thesis, as I understood it, is that he is not sure that our Army, as currently constituted, can effectively fight a modern war. After hearing him speak, I'm not sure either.
His analogy of the firefighter isn't really a very good one. For one thing, firefighters usually DO need to know how buildings are built in order to know what areas of the house might be in danger of collapse. Frankly I appreciate his background, but I don't think his conclusion makes a whole lot of sense.
I'm pretty sure his analogy is just that the firefighters show up, do their job, and not make excuses for their performance based on the circumstances in which they arrive. The technical specifications of the house for the firefighter or the military available to the officer are inconsequential. They must accept the hand they've been dealt and continue with the task at hand.
He doesn't appear to be arguing that war leaders don't need to know anything about, frex, cyber, but rather that the time spent studying the particulars of a domain can be better spent practicing strategic planning, which is their core responsibility. A war leader would need to know about chemical weapons, but not the particulars of their chemistry. Strategic planning and organization is a domain of expertise itself, and people have limited bandwidth.
Eisenhower should have been stripped of his command and court marshalled. The man operated with literally zero oversight, presided over not one but many often intentional embarassments to the US military, resulting in most of Europe falling to the Communists, and paving the way for the Cold War and the very problems we face today. The man was also a traitor, having a affair with his secretary, who thus influenced by MI6, is estimated to have cost over 100,000 american casualties that could have either been British or otherwise avoided completely. Hitler himself was more effectual to allied victory over Nazism than Eisenhower was, And had He not allowed the NKVD to murder Patton (after several internal failed attempts) Patton would have ran for president, won against Truman by a landslide, thus with a competent foreign policy in the post war era, would have likely avoided both the Korean and Vietnam wars altogether, Weakened the USSR and China, and paved the way for American Peace and Safety for a hundred years from today even... Eisenhower is above all men, most responsible for our current state. It is not evil dictators who will destroy America... Many have tried and all have failed. It is those who dictate evil to us from within our own nation. Our Nation and our Republic were and are the best on earth. Our government, even when run by Morons or even traitors like Ike... Our military too... are still the finest on the planet. But American Exceptionialism is not an excuse for lawlessness, especially lawlessness from those who are wield the law, such as presidents and generals. Praise God for our Nation, and Praise God that by His Grace, not Fascism, Communism, nor even our Republic has been able to destroy our Liberty, even if it comes close at times. We are the Good guys, but only if we choose to be. This is liberty. This is the American exception... remember that.
This guy is accurate and brave. He is pointing to a major deficiency in the training of senior officers that will erode Americas ability to fight and win. Other people have noticed this problem but most haven't formally identified it as Dr Bruscino has. One of the exceptions is Thomas P.M. Barnett in his books. His thoughts can be summed up by saying "leave the war fighting to the war fighters" and the tangential social/political/ economic problems to a legion of 40 year olds who have civilian experience but still answer up through the military chain of command. Such as school superintendents, water district managers hospital presidents ect .
I disagree with those that feel the firefighter analogy is inapt. Firefighters do need to know about building design; they do need to understand chemistry and physics of materials. But they need to know those things in service of a specific purpose: putting out fires, and rescuing people from burning buildings.
As it happens, they are also involved in things like building inspections to ensure the building is up to code, for example. That's not the central mission of the fire department, but they do that work. Nowadays, what with EMS services being rolled up into fire departments (for complex political reasons we won't go into here; it's my opinion they should be a third service, like the Air Force, but we digress), they often need to know some human physiology, pharmacology, and so on. But at the end of the day, the purpose of a fire department is to fight fires. The purpose of an Army is to fight wars. And the speaker's thesis, as I understood it, is that he is not sure that our Army, as currently constituted, can effectively fight a modern war. After hearing him speak, I'm not sure either.
His analogy of the firefighter isn't really a very good one. For one thing, firefighters usually DO need to know how buildings are built in order to know what areas of the house might be in danger of collapse. Frankly I appreciate his background, but I don't think his conclusion makes a whole lot of sense.
I'm pretty sure his analogy is just that the firefighters show up, do their job, and not make excuses for their performance based on the circumstances in which they arrive. The technical specifications of the house for the firefighter or the military available to the officer are inconsequential. They must accept the hand they've been dealt and continue with the task at hand.
Nathan is correct. Josh, you are incorrect.
@@bbmtge I disagree
He doesn't appear to be arguing that war leaders don't need to know anything about, frex, cyber, but rather that the time spent studying the particulars of a domain can be better spent practicing strategic planning, which is their core responsibility. A war leader would need to know about chemical weapons, but not the particulars of their chemistry. Strategic planning and organization is a domain of expertise itself, and people have limited bandwidth.
✍️
Eisenhower should have been stripped of his command and court marshalled. The man operated with literally zero oversight, presided over not one but many often intentional embarassments to the US military, resulting in most of Europe falling to the Communists, and paving the way for the Cold War and the very problems we face today. The man was also a traitor, having a affair with his secretary, who thus influenced by MI6, is estimated to have cost over 100,000 american casualties that could have either been British or otherwise avoided completely. Hitler himself was more effectual to allied victory over Nazism than Eisenhower was, And had He not allowed the NKVD to murder Patton (after several internal failed attempts) Patton would have ran for president, won against Truman by a landslide, thus with a competent foreign policy in the post war era, would have likely avoided both the Korean and Vietnam wars altogether, Weakened the USSR and China, and paved the way for American Peace and Safety for a hundred years from today even...
Eisenhower is above all men, most responsible for our current state.
It is not evil dictators who will destroy America... Many have tried and all have failed. It is those who dictate evil to us from within our own nation.
Our Nation and our Republic were and are the best on earth. Our government, even when run by Morons or even traitors like Ike... Our military too... are still the finest on the planet. But American Exceptionialism is not an excuse for lawlessness, especially lawlessness from those who are wield the law, such as presidents and generals.
Praise God for our Nation, and Praise God that by His Grace, not Fascism, Communism, nor even our Republic has been able to destroy our Liberty, even if it comes close at times.
We are the Good guys, but only if we choose to be. This is liberty. This is the American exception... remember that.
You are a nutcase