When you, and you alone, know the ONE problem at the root of it all, altruism, and no one can even see why that might be a problem, perhaps you should rethink your standing. What seems blindingly obvious to one person only is generally not the most likely scenario.

Further, you seem to be arguing that all decisions must be rationalized on the basis of self over community. But the fact is, that leads to anarchy, not community. It is fundamentally unhealthy for humans, either in conflict or in peace. We all, in every community around the world, subordinate our personal desires to some extent or another.

Frankly, to state rather baldly that service members are incapable of thinking independently just because they work to achieve some goal larger than themselves is insulting. Could it be, perhaps that independent thought led them to decide to serve such an organization? Mr. Wilmes premise is foolish on its face and rude to boot.

How does a selfless person think?

How does a leader make a decision?

The correct answers to those questions will show that a selfless leader is a contradiction.

But you also missed the entire point…

The first conversation regarding Tom Ricks on this blog had to do with his book, where he suggested “there was little competition” among strategic thinkers “in the Navy, which in recent years has tended to be weak, intellectually” in regards to producing a strategic concept that was resonating loudly within the DoD post 9/11.

The first point is true IMO, for reasons I have stated elsewhere. The evidence suggests however that the second part is factually incorrect; the Maritime Strategic Concept of the Navy resonates loudly with Gates and the Obama administration, but not very well inside the Navy itself.

Unfortunately, that is not how this conversation started as you suggest. This conversation started because Tom Ricks proposed the idea to close down West Point in a Washington Post editorial. I think the debate his proposal has produced has been useful, even as his recommendation is not.

I’m really not sure what you are trying to contribute to this conversation, but I would fail your leadership class and philosophy class, and I’m OK with that result. If the value system you are promoting is the alternative to the status quo, the status quo just won the debate in my opinion.

Is it the group that thinks or each separate individual?

Rick, there’s two issues here. First is the strategic “thinking” issue–and Ricks, coming at this from a COIN/Long War approach, is correct to say that the Navy hasn’t been dominant. Why should they? It hasn’t been their war, really. (as an aside here, I’ve been really interested in how the Marines are finding their voice; they were, a few years ago, really kinda wooden. But now they’ve got all kinds of bright, well-spoken war veterans ready to make their voices heard)

Then, second, there’s the matter of cost-effectiveness. Are we getting our money’s worth out of the service schools and academies?

So Rick, I I kinda think the two topics are independent of one another.

Keep in mind what started this debate, Mr. Ricks thinks that the Navy has intellectually weak strategists.
Why and how did that happen?

I don’t know about all problems facing the U.S., but I would argue that all problems facing the military are either A) the result of poor leadership, or B) emerging issues that can be solved through good leadership.

Being in the military means subordinating your life to a mission greater than yourself. The military could not work unless this is so. If a service member does not understand this, then this person will not only reduce the effectiveness of the unit, but will also endanger the others in the unit.

You said that you were at the Naval Academy; how long were you in the service of your nation?

Identifying the effects will not stop the cause.