The military, historically, is a conservative institution, and no more so than in the general officer corps. Conservatism rises through the ranks, and the survivors tend to embody the conservative values that got them into the upper ranks. Apart from that, generals have their own ranks, positions and survival to conserve. This last is key to everything else. Once they "have theirs," they don't want to endanger it or risk their pensions at their highest ranks. This is not a culture that stimulates innovation, creativity or leadership.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/09/3003912

This isn't really any news to anyone.

However, Col. Schrock's suggestion that the "upper management" of the military identify the "unconventional thinkers" is almost as close to rank heresy as it is silly. After all, he is suggesting that the "conventional thinkers" identify the useful "unconventional thinkers" and then work to promote them (so that they can replace the "conventional thinkers").

An analogy would be to the "Rifles Regiments" which required "unconventional thinkers" in order to actually do the job that the military recognized needed to be done - but which the "line regiments" simply weren't capable of doing with the leadership that they had. The "unconventional thinkers" were given command of those regiments - for as long as the war lasted - and seldom promoted past that point because they "Just weren't 'Gentlemen' like us, you know.". And, once the war was over, they were quietly shunted aside because the "Just weren't 'Gentlemen' like us, you know.".

Without a fundamental restructuring on the military (i.e. reducing the "tooth to tail ratio" to something that doesn't requires that over seven 'support' positions exist for every 'combat' position) the maxim "The pension is mightier than the sword." will continue to prevail.

I dissent from calling a culture that stimulates not innovation, creativity, or leadership conservative; sounds more dormant, sedentary, or reactionary. Nobody would mistake Gen. Geo. C. Marshall for a liberal, but according to Col. D. MacGregor's essay, Fire the Generals! (the predecessor to the Yingling article), Marshall forced retirement on 54 generals in his first year as Army CoS: now that's innovation, epecially if you don't want seniors clogging up the works. As MacGregor noted, the culture's not so much conservative as risk averse: it may be politically conservative, but it's practically risk averse; & for flag O's, the latter's all that matters.

Indeed -- and to paraphrase Winston Churchill with regard (here) to the United States' general officer corps..."the United States' general officers are the worst general officers in the world -- except for all the others." I think our generals must be doing something right on the whole. How much better than 'best' does our nation's military have to become in the world rankings, in order to satisfy the requirement?