seminar learning?

the value of extended exposure to each other

The National War College educates the future leaders of the national security communities in the United States and the partners and allies around the world. It began in September 1946 after the leadership bringing us through World War II recognised that military service members were unaware of the skills, organisation, and capabilities (among other things) of the portions of the military other than their own, much less the civilian sectors to include the State Department.

George C. Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, and their counterparts who represented the United States with our British allies (these were the friendlies, guys) deemed us unprepared in our negotiations through the war, because the Army and Navy were stovepiped, much less completely separate from our diplomats who represented us abroad. They sought an institution to assure learning across and within our government to know more about the whole of what we do, think, and have the capability to achieve.

The College opened its doors to educate about national objectives and power but also to familiarise students about the scope of the national security field. The College is a unique venue where active duty and serving personnel study together for 10 months to earn a master’s degree. That learning occurs around seminar tables where each student has the opportunity to learn about those individuals she or he will work with at the highest, most intense levels of government in crisis and in peace.

The opportunity to see how an individual—in uniform or civlian—appraises the world is part of the value of the experience. The student also sees over an extended period how others think about so many topics because no two services, people, or countries are exactly the same. The opportunity allows each student to explain in clear ways how he would approach to using any power to achieve stated goals or why another student would not do it that way at all. the addition of international voices in the mid-1980s added richer detail about the world which is turning out invaluable in the era of alliances and partnerships.

It is an incredibly intense set of interactions over 10 months. The examples cited barely scratch the surface of topics leadership need know about their interlocutors, their adversaries, and partners or allies for various future scenarios, many completely surprising. Yet patterns of analysis develop from this master’s program, allowing so much clearer recognition of motives, differences, emphases, and various nuanced points which are critical to future engagements. The truth is one lets down one’s guard when interacting with people in small, on-going, less fraught exposure to each other.

How does that happen on Capitol Hill these days? What extended chance do politicians have to converse with each other rather than hurl insults or assert assumed intentions? How many times has any Member or Senator taken the chance to play baseball on the same team with her opponents? How often do Executive leaders meet with the rank and file in Congress?

Even more relaxed venues where people see each other have tremendous long-term benefits. Yes, I know they play an anuual Dem versus Republican softball game but how about interspersing to learn from and about each other rather than assuming rhetoric explains everything?

What kind of interactions do we see over any lengthy period with our overseas partners? CODELs (Congressional Delegations) appear largely partisan in composition these days with only token representation from the other side. How about conversations with hosts beyond a 15 minute ‘meet and greet’?

Part of the reason we are having trouble solving the debt ceiling crisis is we have leaders who don’t know each other, don’t care to know each other, and don’t share much. They truly seem to see each other as monsters because they have little reason to ever make a move to learn about each other. That is a recipe for further failures all along the line on policy questions.

The close numbers in both Houses of Congress illustrate not a dominance by one side over the other but a split fairly closely in popular opinion. We need find more opportunities for conversations—that by my definition is a mutual discussion rather than a one-sided declaration in front of the cameras—about advancing interests rather than continuing to focus on getting reelected and undermining the other party.

We pay them to work. We pay all of them to legislate. We pay the Executive to execute. Right now we need, as my colleague Janet pointed out this afternoon yet again, places for these women and men to meet in non-threatening locations and events. I would go further: we need put these fragile egos in places they see how much more alike they are than different but simultaneously allow them to discuss why differences do exist. It will create a more powerful nation, undoubtedly.

The National War College seminar discussion approach to education does not end the distinctions between the services or the State Department or Department of Treasury. It does, however, provide the chance to hone skills and knowledge that we have ample evidence is severely needed to advance the nation’s work. Congress and Executive leaders would do well to appreciate it too can advance the nation’s objectives if it models some of its time on finding National War College-type learning about themselves and their colleagues.

A learning opportunity can be vital for the future of the United States.FIN