Why graduate studies are important for officers

Forwarded to me by a friend is this recent article in the National Interest 'Beyond the Cloister' by Gen David Petraeus in which he makes the case for why officers ought to take part in civilian graduate studies. In a nutshell, because it:

1. Takes military officers out of their intellectual comfort zones;

2. Provides exposure to diverse and divergent views;

3. Provides specific skills and knowledge on which an officer may draw during his or her career;

4. Assists officers to develop and refine their communications skills;

5. Contributes to critical thinking skills; and,

6. Imparts a degree of intellectual humility.

Music to my ears of course, since I make my living running a masters programme the purpose of which is to provide just such things to people, such as but not exclusively, military officers whose occupational responsibilities tend to preclude taking a year out to live in central London as a residential student. Says Petraeus:

The most powerful tool any soldier carries is not his weapon but his mind. These days, and for the days ahead as far as we can see, what soldiers at all ranks know is liable to be at least as important to their success as what they can physically do. Some key questions before the U.S. military in changing times therefore must be: How do we define the best military education for the U.S. armed forces, and what are the best ways to impart that education? What should be the ideal relationship between soldiering and the schoolhouse?

Excellent question. Indeed I'm writing a paper for a Marine Corps conference on Pedagogy for the Long War just now on this question which perhaps no doubt I'll share with readers of this blog (all two of you). But, as my wry and always on target friend points out, an equally interesting question is whether and to what extent the relationship is two way. If it's such a great idea for warfighters to have experience of academia is it equally useful for academics to have experience of warfighting? I wonder if Petraeus has this somewhere in the back of his mind unconsciously; otherwise why title it 'Beyond the Cloisters' instead of 'Beyond the Barracks' which actually would have made sense?

That said, I reckon that if I walked into a British Army recruiting station as a 38 year old ex-Canadian Forces reservist I'd be quietly directed to the exit for geriatrics and lunatics and rightly so. Still I can't help thinking that if Petraeus really is right in the basic premise expressed in his first sentence that the most powerful weapon is the mind then the future ought to see the targeting for recruitment of the mature if not elderly. The main problem with maturity and wisdom is its strong correlation with physical decrepitude (or in my case more precisely expanding waistline); hence fresh-faced 18 year olds are still on the whole rather better soldierly material than deep-thinking 38 year olds, or 78 year olds for that matter. Yet the march of technological progress will change this; in fact we are already seeing a sort of such a convergence as recruitment ages rise and phsyical requirements diminish. The idea is explored a fair bit in science fiction novels such as Old Man's War by John Scalzi, and (my personal favourite) A Boy and his Tank by Leo Frankowski, both of which deal with protagonists enticed to join the military and to fight by the chance of a second healthy life, if only they can survive the term of service. But it's not so far as I am aware something which the military is thinking about which is odd when you think about it. If you're accustomed already to thinking about the technology of weapons systems and platforms such as aircraft carriers which you expect to last for 50 years or so, why assume (if we really are on the cusp of a Bio-tech revolution) that the current physical parameters will be constant and not variable?