Military Education at a Crossroads: Hegseth Pushes for a Return to Warfighting

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has initiated a significant review of the military’s senior service colleges, signaling a potential shift in focus towards prioritizing warfighting skills and severing ties with 22 academic institutions. This move, announced last week, reflects a growing concern that strategic leaders are not adequately prepared for the complexities of modern warfare. The debate centers on whether to emphasize tactical proficiency or maintain a broader, more strategic approach to military education.

The Critique of Current Military Education

The impetus for reform stems from a perceived disconnect between tactical competence and strategic achievement. Critics argue that the current system, while producing highly skilled tacticians, struggles to translate battlefield successes into broader strategic objectives. This concern was highlighted in a recent opinion piece by Bradford T. Duplessis, a retired Army infantry officer and National War College graduate, who contends that Washington’s policy and resourcing decisions are at the root of the problem, not a lack of warfighting instruction. Duplessis points to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, noting the U.S. Army’s own history identified a failure to understand the strategic environment – Iraqi politics, society, and government – as a significant failing in invasion planning. War on the Rocks

Hegseth’s Vision: A Patton-esque Approach

Secretary Hegseth appears to favor a more aggressive, warfighting-focused approach to military education, invoking the example of General George S. Patton. Hegseth believes military officers should be encouraged to take calculated risks and prioritize decisive action, mirroring Patton’s willingness to defy convention and pursue bold strategies. USA Today. He has emphasized the need to produce “warfighters and leaders” rather than focusing on what he deems less critical aspects of national power. Meaww

The Historical Context of War Colleges

The concept of military education is not fresh. The Prussian military, after suffering defeat at Jena-Auerstedt in 1806, established the War Academy – the world’s first war college – to develop leaders capable of strategic thinking. This model, emphasizing military art and science, history, politics, and economics, was later adopted by the United States with the founding of the Army War College in 1901. The National War College, established in 1946, further broadened this approach by including civilian professionals and experts in national security policy, recognizing the interconnectedness of military and civilian leadership.

The Debate Over Civilian Involvement

A key point of contention is the role of civilian faculty and interagency students in war colleges. Some, like Anderson, advocate for their removal, arguing that it would streamline the focus on warfighting. However, Duplessis and others counter that this would exacerbate the military’s existing struggles with linking tactical actions to strategic objectives. They emphasize the importance of understanding the broader political, economic, and diplomatic contexts in which military operations occur. Removing civilian expertise, they argue, would create a strategic capability gap and hinder effective decision-making.

The Importance of a Holistic Approach

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s guidance reinforces the need for a holistic approach to military education, emphasizing the ability to operate across the “competition continuum” – encompassing conflict, competition, and cooperation. This requires an understanding of all instruments of national power, not just the military. The Army’s shift towards multi-domain operations further underscores the need for officers who can navigate complex, hybrid threats that leverage political and economic warfare.

Looking Ahead

The ongoing debate over military education highlights a fundamental tension between tactical proficiency and strategic thinking. While a renewed emphasis on warfighting skills is warranted, it should not come at the expense of broader strategic understanding and civilian-military collaboration. The most effective leaders will be those who can seamlessly integrate tactical expertise with a comprehensive grasp of the political, economic, and social forces shaping the modern world. Any reform must consider the entire officer development pipeline, from pre-commissioning to senior leadership roles, to ensure a balanced and effective approach to preparing future military leaders.