Contesting Conventional Thinking: Placing War Strategy Back at the Forefront of Military Training and Education

In the realm of professional military education (PME), both the United States and Russia are striving to prepare their military forces for the complexities of modern warfare. However, recent events have highlighted the need for a reevaluation of the approaches taken by each nation.

The Combined Arms Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation boasts an extensive academic programme, awarding master's degrees from eight different academic councils. The Military University in Moscow, for instance, offers over two thousand subjects in thirteen areas, including arts and humanities, command, modern languages, economics, and law. This breadth of study is commendable, yet it seems that the hiring of professors with expertise other than war has led to a shift in focus. Over the past twenty years, war colleges in Russia have transformed into counterinsurgency academies, with an emphasis on all-of-government studies over the study of war.

In contrast, US PME institutions have been criticized for their lack of focus on the art and science of war. Despite the Joint Chiefs' instructions to educate strategic-minded joint warfighters and "applied strategists," the response from most US PME institutions has been to double down on what is clearly not working. The removal of the "Strategic Studies" field in U.S. War Colleges to better prepare U.S. forces to match Russia's competence level has been a point of contention, although the person making this criticism remains unidentified.

The level of Russia's military incompetence has been on display for several months, stunned the world, and has led to a reevaluation of their professional military education. Operation Bagration, an offensive launched by the Red Army in June 1944, which tore apart three of the four armies comprising Germany's Army Group Center, is a stark contrast to the current state of Russian military operations.

The needs in the US PME are narrow, such as understanding how economics works in the real world and its influence on strategic decisions. Senior leaders do not have to know how to code or set up networks in the new domains of warfare like cyber, but they have to understand how to integrate it into an overall scheme of maneuver. The Joint Chiefs have issued guidance to fix this issue, instructing the war colleges to focus on educating operational maneuverists, well-versed in military strategy and who can comprehend the strategic context in which wars are fought.

The problem with US professional military education lies at the war college level, where the art and science of war is being deemphasized in favor of policy, grand strategy, sociocultural studies, and other topics irrelevant to the conduct of war at the theater or multi-theater level. Given the substantially changed strategic environment, it is professional malpractice for the war colleges and other PME institutions to refuse to return their primary focus to the study of warfare.

In conclusion, both the US and Russia are in need of reform in their professional military education systems. The US must refocus on the art and science of war, while Russia must rediscover its focus on the study of war, particularly at the operational level. The world watches as these two superpowers navigate the complexities of modern warfare, and the need for well-educated, strategic-minded military leaders has never been more critical.

Contesting Conventional Thinking: Placing War Strategy Back at the Forefront of Military Training and Education