Page 12 - The Cormorant Issue 14

cesses and doctrine that can readily be conveyed and under- stood across the institution. Military organisations therefore confront the imperative to codify professional knowledge in routines and standard operating procedures inferred from what has worked in the past. This generates the maxim that “lessons learned” can be identified, codified in doctrine and then scientifically applied to solve future problems.5
• On the other hand, as Michael Handel points out, a core assumption is “that war is an art, not a science – that each military problem has many potential solutions (not just a single, optimal solution) which are arrived at through the military lead- er’s imagination, creativity and intuition”.6 The nature of war is inherently violent, competitive, complex and constant, but each strategic situation requires a unique application of tacti- cal, operational and strategic assets. This generates an alter- native maxim: “what worked today may not work tomorrow”.7
The fundamental added value that an ACSC education provides is to enhance the strategic literacy and innovative capacity of its graduates by enabling them better to analyse and solve prob- lems within the “science/art” dichotomy across a range of prac- titioner settings. This is achieved by developing two distinct but complementary modes of reasoning in its graduates.
The first reasoning mode requires the application of “calculative rationality”, or the “ability to initiate and carry through a sequence of reasoning that results in action”.8 Calculative rationality is predi- cated on the identification and application of rules and principles for solving problems that are codified in the military profession s existing processes and doctrine. Development of reasoning in this mode is essential to consolidate individual and organisational understanding of institutional knowledge in the form of guide- lines and maxims required to diagnose and resolve recurring or “tame” problems of varying levels of complexity, thereby ensur- ing commonality of approach across participants and functional integrity across organisations. The ACSC hones this reasoning mode through a range of activities that include presentations from high-level military practitioners and student participation in practi- cal simulation exercises that include the Defence Programming and Strategic Planning study, campaign planning exercises and the Theatre War Game. These course elements increase student expertise in the “science” aspects of military professional knowl- edge by instilling a more comprehensive understanding of organi- sational processes predicated upon what has worked in the past.
The second reasoning mode requires the application of “delib- erative rationality”: an approach to thinking that blends analytical perspectives with “interpretive, critical and imaginative skills” in situating and resolving problems.9 This reasoning mode is essen- tial in addressing the “wicked” problems identified in the FCOC that are characterised by uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity and volatility. Deliberative reasoning requires a thorough understand- ing of the military profession’s pre-existing and codified knowl- edge base, the intellectual agility to frame new problems and to improvise “situationally sensitive maxims for guidance”, and also the confidence to challenge institutional assumptions where they do not work.10 The ACSC inculcates deliberative rationality through its embedded King’s College London academics work- ing in partnership with the military directing staff. This military- academic partnership facilitates this with three approaches:
5 See, for example, T Farrell, “The Dynamics of British Military Transformation”, International Affairs, 84:4, 2008, pp. 777–807.
6 M I Handel, Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought, (London: Frank Cass), 2005, pp. 24-25.
7 Lonsdale, op. cit., p. 40.
8 C Winch, Dimensions of Expertise, (London: Continuum), 2010, p. 139.
9 C R Paparone, “Beyond Ends-Based Rationality: A Quad-Conceptual View of
Strategic Reasoning for Professional Military Education”, in G Marcella (ed.), Teaching Strategy: Challenge and Response, (Carlisle Pa: Strategic Studies Institute), 2010, p. 313.
10 Winch, 2010, op. cit.
10
• Situationally-based reasoning is enhanced by offering multiple perspectives on framing problems and crafting solutions. This is achieved through a postgraduate level programme of study that exposes student to contending theoretical perspectives derived from the social sciences the ”ologies” and “isms”!
• Interpretive capacity is developed through in-depth analy- sis of strategic theory, international relations, military history, sources and potential solutions to conflict in the international system, civil-military relations, command, leadership and management studies, and through independent student research projects.
• Experiential and tacit forms of knowledge are harnessed in small-group seminar settings, war games and staff rides to enable students to blend systematic academic study with their own professional “reflection-on-action”.
These approaches ensure that ACSC graduates are acutely aware of established rules and practices, and that they are equipped with an intellectual toolkit to challenge orthodoxies that may no longer work. In sum, the value-added of an ACSC education to Defence’s conceptual component is through the development of a military professional that can understand the wider security context, and resolve complex problems quickly in order to make telling decisions about the utility and employment of military force.
What about possible future changes to the ACSC and the JSCSC s longer-term comparative international position in the post-SDSR era? What is certain at the time of writing is that the future of UK professional military education remains in a state of flux and the subject of ongoing review and scrutiny. Any speculation is therefore tentative. However, it seems reasonable to infer that postgraduate level command and staff education will be remain essential in the post-SDSR and FCOC era to augment the conceptual component of fighting power and, more fundamentally, to develop the military profession s body of abstract and practical knowledge.
It also seems likely that the JSCSC will be asked simultaneously to improve the quality of its outputs while reducing the cost of its inputs. These twin imperatives might lead to closer consideration of options that include: reducing, where beneficial, the length of residential courses through more extensive adoption of blended learning and e-based educational media; broadening the pool of those officers that are educated beyond the core executive career path; increasing the agility of JSCSC courseware through more extensive modularisation, thereby creating greater flexibility to enable wider participation from the UK security community; and, enhancing Defence’s awareness and utilisation of the JSCSC “talent bank”, particularly student Defence Research Papers.
Whichever options are pursued, the JSCSC is likely to remain the UK’s intellectual hub for the education of the military profession. The key challenge for Defence decision-makers will be to find solutions that preserve the unique attributes of the JSCSC edu- cational model and continue to hone the calculative and delib- erative reasoning skills of its graduates. The significance of the stakes in this reform agenda should not be underrated; indeed, the possible consequences if military education reformers get things wrong are eloquently summarised elsewhere in this edi- tion by Lieutenant General Andrew Graham’s observation that:
Without reflective, educated leaders & the ability to come to rea- soned responses to unpredictable situations will be stunted; the capacity to think beyond experience, plan beyond tenure and avoid failures of imagination will be constrained.
I am sure that you will share my hope that the post-SDSR mili- tary education reform process produces the same logic, rigour and imagination that underpinned the foundation of the JSCSC model in the late-1990s.W