In this paper, I will look at how the interwar Army groomed its most promising officers for strategic leadership. There were no official guidelines for this, of course, but one can discern a general method for and pattern to the professional development of the most talented officers by looking at the interwar careers of men who went on to attain four star rank. Although each of their career paths were unique, they did share common threads—threads that I plan to outline in this paper.
Before beginning, I would like to point out two features of the system I am about to outline. One was that the system rested upon a thorough pre-commissioning vetting of officer aspirants. Both officers who graduated from the Military Academy or were accessed from civil life had to undergo rigorous intellectual screening. West Pointers had to pass a grueling four-day examination to be admitted to West Point and then navigate a rigorous STEM-heavy curriculum to earn their commissions (a feat that only 60-65 percent who were admitted accomplished). The strict admissions standards and the STEM-heavy curriculum worked together to produce very intellectually capable officers. Those officers who entered the officer corps from civil life also had to pass a rigorous exam to be commissioned, an exam that, depending on the branch, required a very good grasp of those subjects studied in a four-year program at a very competitive civilian university. The officers that earned commissions, then, had the intellectual capacity to become excellent field grade officers.
A second feature that shaped the system was the mobilization model under which the Army operated. This model, whose basis was laid in the NDA of 1920, was designed to enable the nation to project a citizen army across vast distances in a global war. It involved not only military preparations but the economic and social mobilization of the country as well—encompassing all elements of national power. And this required strategic thinking.
Comments