以職業為中心的硬幣：回顧性

這篇文章是《小戰爭雜誌》新系列中的第一篇文章，稱為回顧。在本系列中，我們要求社區的作者提交

This essay is the first in a new series at Small Wars Journal called RETROSPECTIVES. In this series, we are asking authors from our community to submit articles that reflect on their own works from 10+ years ago. Ideally, these are essays that you published with us or articles that were frequently cited by SWJ as part of the discourse on small wars and irregular warfare. We ask that you reflect on your thesis with the power of hind-sight on a personal and professional level. For our inaugural article, our Editor-in-Chief, Ken Gleiman, is reflecting on the first article he ever published back in September of 2011.

這篇文章是《小戰爭雜誌》新系列中的第一篇文章，稱為回顧。在本系列中，我們要求社區的作者提交反思10多年前自己作品的文章。理想情況下，這些是您與我們一起發表的文章，或者經常被SWJ引用為小型戰爭和不規則戰爭的論述的一部分。我們要求您在個人和專業層面上以後視的力量來反思自己的論文。在我們的首發文章中，我們的主編肯·格里曼（Ken Gleiman）正在反思他在2011年9月發表的第一篇文章。

I published an essay in Small Wars Journal in 2011 that coined the phrase, “Career-centric COIN.” I was a Special Forces Major at the time and had just entered my second year at the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) at Fort Leavenworth. The essay was a sort of a Jerry Maguire moment in my career, or at least it felt that way for me. If you’re not familiar with the movie, there is one scene where the title character, played by Tom Cruise, is speaking to an audience of executives at a large sports management firm. He becomes visibly flustered and pours his heart out into a monograph that highlights everything that’s wrong with their industry, the firm he works for, and how to fix it. He then prints multiple copies and leaves one for every person in his company. Initially greeted with praise, McGuire is soon fired for his vision that goes against the grain.

我於2011年在《小戰爭雜誌》上發表了一篇文章，該文章創造了“以職業為中心的硬幣”一詞。當時我是一名專業的專業，剛剛進入了萊文沃思堡的高級軍事研究學院（SAMS）。這篇文章是我職業生涯中的傑里·馬奎爾（Jerry Maguire）的一個時刻，或者至少對我來說是這種感覺。如果您不熟悉這部電影，那麼在一個場景中，湯姆·克魯斯（Tom Cruise）扮演的標題角色正在與一家大型體育管理公司的高管觀眾交談。他顯然感到慌張，並將自己的內心傾注到專著，該專著突出了他們的行業，他工作的公司以及如何解決的所有問題。然後，他打印了多個副本，並為公司中的每個人留下一個。最初受到讚譽，麥奎爾很快因與穀物的願景而被解僱。

I did not get fired for my essay. I did receive some praise and attention, though not nearly as much as another Special Forces Major, Jim Gant, whose essay One Tribe at a Time made an undeniable impression across the national security community. While I admired (and still do!) Jim Gant, I didn’t think much of his piece which I called “Gant’s Rant.” Perhaps with a touch of jealousy, but I believed Gant put too much focus on tribal engagement. In retrospect, I think a bit more of it. It was personal, passionate, and very persuasive. My monograph and article were historical, analytical, and empirical. Despite the moderate praise I received for my very academic article, there was a patronizing dismissiveness from more than a few senior Army leaders who agreed with my arguments but cynically suggested that’s just the way it is. They would pat me on the head. Somehow, I was smart, yet stupid, for pointing out the scandal of the haphazard organization of the COIN campaign in Afghanistan that wasn’t optimized with centralized authority and decentralized execution. Gant got sent back to Afghanistan to do what he loved best—engage with tribes and raise Afghan Local Police. He then tragically spiraled. I was sent to Afghanistan to do plans for the special operations command and try to figure out how to sustain the Afghan Local Police program politically, logistically, and operationally.

我沒有被我的論文解僱。我確實得到了一些讚美和關注，雖然不如另一位專業的專業吉姆·甘特（Jim Gant），他的一篇文章一次在國家安全社區中給人留下了不可否認的印象。當我欽佩（仍然這樣做！）吉姆·甘特（Jim Gant）時，我對他所說的“甘特（Gant）咆哮”的作品並不多。也許有些嫉妒，但我相信Gant對部落的參與過多地關注。回想起來，我認為更多。這是個人，熱情和非常有說服力的。我的專著和文章是歷史，分析和經驗。儘管我對自己的學術文章獲得了溫和的讚譽，但少數高級軍隊領導人的不屑一顧也令人讚嘆不已，他們同意我的論點，但憤世嫉俗地建議這就是這樣。他們會拍我的頭。不知何故，我很聰明，但很愚蠢，因為他指出了阿富汗硬幣運動的偶然組織的醜聞，該組織沒有通過集中權威和分散的執行進行優化。甘特（Gant）被送回阿富汗，做他最喜歡的事情 - 與部落與阿富汗當地警察培養。然後，他可悲地螺旋式螺旋式。我被派往阿富汗為特殊行動司令部製定計劃，並試圖弄清楚如何在政治，邏輯和操作上維持阿富汗地方警察計劃。

The Argument

論點

The central thesis of my essay was two-fold. First, the United States designed its counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan against all evidence of what might be considered best practice from both history and theory. Second, the United States justified its counterinsurgency design on secret and sometimes overt military service and bureaucratic interests, as well as on the interests of their leaders, and those of other civilian agencies. The evidence backing my thesis was everywhere—from the decisions made about doctrine, to staffing, tour length, talent management, and especially in chain of command and command-and-control relationships. The military had replaced unity of command with a thin veneer called “unity of effort” top to bottom.

我的論文的中心論點是兩倍。首先，美國設計了在阿富汗的平叛運動，反對所有證據，表明歷史和理論中可能被認為是最佳實踐的證據。其次，美國在秘密，有時以及公開的兵役和官僚利益，以及其領導人的利益以及其他平民機構的利益方面辯護了其平叛設計。支持我論文的證據無處不在 - 從關於學說的決定，人員配備，巡迴演出，人才管理，尤其是指揮和指揮與控制鏈的關係。軍方用一個名為“努力統一”上到底部取代了指揮的統一。

The Journey

旅程

The essay was based on my master’s thesis (more of a book really) that I had written while attending Command and General Staff College (CGSC). The Organizational Imperative: Theory and History on Unity of Effort in Counterinsurgency Campaigns was no ordinary CGSC paper. I came to CGSC unwillingly. I already had a master’s degree. I had graduated from Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute (now the McCourt School of Public Policy) several years before. I had two combat tours and numerous operational deployments, but it wasn’t enough. I was young and arrogant enough to believe that I didn’t need any additional directed education. I studied and read widely enough on my own and I had heard that CGSC was not very rigorous. But I was compelled to go to clear a hurdle for promotion; and so, I went.

這篇文章是基於我在參加指揮和一般參謀學院（CGSC）時寫過的碩士論文（實際上是一本書）。組織的命令：在平叛運動中努力統一的理論和歷史不是普通的CGSC論文。我不情願地來到CGSC。我已經擁有碩士學位。幾年前，我畢業於喬治敦大學的公共政策研究所（現在是麥考特公共政策學院）。我進行了兩次戰鬥之旅和許多運營部署，但還不夠。我還很年輕，很自大，以至於我不需要任何額外的定向教育。我自己學習和閱讀足夠廣泛，聽說CGSC並不是很嚴格。但是我不得不去清除晉升的障礙。所以，我去了。

I found the intellectual experience at CGSC wanting, despite some very committed professors. There was no challenge. It was easy to pass, hard to fail, and annoying to others if you excelled. At that time, academic excellence had no real impact on one’s career, assignments etc. Senior leaders who occasionally stopped by to address the student body openly belittled the curriculum routinely playing to audience of students by saying

儘管有一些非常堅定的教授，但我發現CGSC的智力經歷想要。沒有挑戰。如果您表現出色，那很容易通過，難以失敗和煩人。當時，卓越的學術卓越對自己的職業，任務等沒有真正的影響。高級領導者偶爾會停下來以公開對待課程的學生通常會對學生的觀眾說話，以說明學生的職業。