Subdeacon Joe Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Just ask Kerry APIn the run up to Marine Gen. James Mattisdeployment to Iraq in 2004, a colleague (presumably a junior) wrote tohim asking about the importance of reading military history for anofficer, those of whom often find themselves “to busy to read.” His response went viral over military email. Security Blog “Strife” out of Kings College in London recently published Mattis’ words with a short description from the servicemember who found it in her email. Their title for the post: With Rifle and Bibliography: General Mattis on Professional Reading [Marine,] The problem with being too busy to read is that you learn byexperience (or by your men’s experience), i.e. the hard way. By reading,you learn through others’ experiences, generally a better way to dobusiness, especially in our line of work where the consequences ofincompetence are so final for young men. Thanks to my reading, I have never been caught flat-footed by anysituation, never at a loss for how any problem has been addressed(successfully or unsuccessfully) before. It doesn’t give me all theanswers, but it lights what is often a dark path ahead. With [Task Force] 58, I had w/ me Slim’s book, books about theRussian and British experiences in [Afghanistan], and a couple others.Going into Iraq, “The Siege” (about the Brits’ defeat at Al Kut in WW I)was req’d reading for field grade officers. I also had Slim’s book;reviewed T.E. Lawrence’s ”Seven Pillars of Wisdom”; a good book aboutthe life of Gertrude Bell (the Brit archaeologist who virtually foundedthe modern Iraq state in the aftermath of WW I and the fall of theOttoman empire); and “From Beirut to Jerusalem”. I also went deeply intoLiddell Hart’s book on Sherman, and Fuller’s book on Alexander theGreat got a lot of my attention (although I never imagined that my HQwould end up only 500 meters from where he lay in state in Babylon). Ultimately, a real understanding of history means that we face NOTHING new under the sun. For all the “4th Generation of War” intellectuals running aroundtoday saying that the nature of war has fundamentally changed, thetactics are wholly new, etc, I must respectfully say … “Not really”:Alex the Great would not be in the least bit perplexed by the enemy thatwe face right now in Iraq, and our leaders going into this fight dotheir troops a disservice by not studying (studying, vice just reading)the men who have gone before us. We have been fighting on this planet for 5000 years and we shouldtake advantage of their experience. “Winging it” and filling body bagsas we sort out what works reminds us of the moral dictates and the costof incompetence in our profession. As commanders and staff officers, weare coaches and sentries for our units: how can we coach anything if wedon’t know a hell of a lot more than just the [Tactics, Techniques, andProcedures]? What happens when you’re on a dynamic battlefieldand things are changing faster than higher [Headquarters] can stayabreast? Do you not adapt because you cannot conceptualize faster thanthe enemy’s adaptation? (Darwin has a pretty good theory about theoutcome for those who cannot adapt to changing circumstance — in theinformation age things can change rather abruptly and at warp speed,especially the moral high ground which our regimented thinkers cede fartoo quickly in our recent fights.) And how can you be a sentinel and nothave your unit caught flat-footed if you don’t know what the warningsigns are — that your unit’s preps are not sufficient for the specificsof a tasking that you have not anticipated? Perhaps if you are in support functions waiting on the warfighters tospell out the specifics of what you are to do, you can avoid theconsequences of not reading. Those who must adapt to overcoming anindependent enemy’s will are not allowed that luxury. This is not new to the USMC approach to warfighting — Going intoKuwait 12 years ago, I read (and reread) Rommel’s Papers (remember“Kampstaffel”?), Montgomery’s book (“Eyes Officers”…), “Grant TakesCommand” (need for commanders to get along, “commanders’ relationships”being more important than “command relationships”), and some others. As a result, the enemy has paid when I had the opportunity to goagainst them, and I believe that many of my young guys lived because Ididn’t waste their lives because I didn’t have the vision in my mind ofhow to destroy the enemy at least cost to our guys and to the innocentson the battlefields. Hope this answers your question…. I will cc my ADC in the event hecan add to this. He is the only officer I know who has read more than I. Semper Fi, Mattis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 What a great answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jake1001 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 That's why this man is a General, he understands stuff. Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 That's why this man is a General, he understands stuff. Jake Well....this general does anyway. A lot of Generals are simply political, ticket punching, egpotistical, paper-pushing, weasels who infest the halls of the Pentagon. We need more fighting Generals like Mattis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tascosa, SASS# 24838 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 "Roger that" Utah. Tascosa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 That's why this man is a General, he understands stuff. Jake A good one indeed. GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted May 11, 2013 Author Share Posted May 11, 2013 Well....this general does anyway. A lot of Generals are simply political, ticket punching, egpotistical, paper-pushing, weasels who infest the halls of the Pentagon. We need more fighting Generals like Mattis. From what I have seen in the press, and in congressional hearings the past decade or two, many generals mistake "management" for "leadership." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 From what I have seen in the press, and in congressional hearings the past decade or two, many generals mistake "management" for "leadership." That is so true. Get all the paperwork right and to hell with getting the job done well and at least cost in "manpower". (Sorry,ladies, us dinosaurs have a right to live, too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.