Dempsey’s Reading List Sucks

Dempsey’s Reading List Sucks

By all accounts, the 37th Chief of Staff of the Army and the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin E. Dempsey is a helluva smart, articulate and inspiring man, as high-rising bureaucrats go.

That’s why I’m surprised at the middle brow pile of horsesh** he’s masquerading as the CSA’s Professional Reading List.

Dempsey might intend for his catalog to serve as something of a blueprint to educate soldiers, but he also must not think much of them.  I say this because his list refuses to acknowledge lasting works of literature, history, memoir, psychology, economics and cinema, books and films that not only shall give some meaning to a military mind but also challenge us to think critically about our democracy, service and life.


While there are many outstanding books on Dempsey’s list, he cheats the professional men of arms by inflicting upon them the wooden writings of Thomas Friedman (twice!), the chipper but not exactly revolutionary Malcolm Gladwell and the solid but hardly probing journalism of Robert D. Kaplan.

This is the sort of professional education an officer or NCO can get during long waits at the dentist’s office or pinched from the remainder bins of airport bookstores.

Unlike the Commandant’s list for Marines, one also notices the conspicuous absence of the U.S. Constitution from Dempsey’s canon. I suppose that in this age of Petraeus and McChrystal, Army generals no longer feel the itch to mention that obsolete pile of parchment.

Andrew Exum over at Abu Muqawama already has weighed in with his worthy substitutes, and I couldn’t improve on his pick of E.B. Sledge’s With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa or the very fine compilation he plucked from the graduate student’s syllabus, Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age.

I was surprised that Exum, a former scholar of the classics, didn’t include Thucydides, Homer or any of the Greek tragedies, but he’s a puzzler, that Exum.

Might be the beard.

I’ll let you in on a blogger’s secret:  Writing blogs kind of sucks.  One never knows what to scribble and, well, one always wonders what original idea can be scratched out of the latest Tricare legislation or the sundry New York Times’ article about the Korengal Valley.

That and, most candidly, the stupidest things I post are the ones you like the most.  If I pen something that features iteratively the word “poop” or something that pokes fun at Rolling Stone or Barack Obama, you love it.

I can’t tell you how disheartening that is.

But when I took this gig I thought we might make a different sort of blog, and so I’m going to carry out the game plan until they fire my ass (noting that when I write about fashion, photography and the other arts I tend to do a brisk business and bring in readers who normally wouldn’t want anyone to see a milblog in their history cache).

I’ve been mulling over a project:  Fifty or so important modern (and post-modern) works about war that I think every serving officer and NCO should read but often  don’t.

Journalism, poetry, film, literature, history, memoir, letters and analysis.  About once every week, I’ll come out with a book and stake my argument about why it should be read and how it might apply to today’s lot of the modern military member.

The reason I pause is because rereading these pieces and regurgitating them (none of you ever clicks a link and you know it) takes time, and I’m already working 100 hour weeks.

But Dempsey’s list bugged me.  He might estimate your ASVAB score between moronic and slightly above average, but I refuse to do so.  I’m going to continue to show you the respect you’ve earned by treating you like a bright, informed adult (who seems also to like poop jokes).

Perhaps because my studies at the grad level were in literature, history and the law, I gravitate toward those fields, which is all the better because they’re disciplines hardly fallow when one goes to harvest good reads, right?

So we’ll begin next week.  And I have some surprises (alas, most of them don’t involve poop).

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

Once an Eagle — Just kill me now.

Sad, a let down, that we don’t want to think of our subordinates as having the ability to critically think, to read beyond their preceived levels, to make them true professionals. The goals of a leader is to build a solid team to accomplish given missions supporting long term outcomes, but most importantly, is to develop your subordinates to be better than you are! iT IS NOT TO BUILD ONE’S CAREER. I pleasant surprise was hearing about Univ of Tennessee’s coach Derek Dooley, using Shakespeare’s Richard III to educate his team, to show them how lack of attention detail can destroy a kingdom (the poorly placed horseshoe nail). While, I contend that most of players, probably mocked the coach under their breath, my hats off to the coach to continually showing that being a renaissance man is a good thing (he has done this many times before).

May I be selfish and recommend one of my books to your list, Path to Victory: America’s Army and the Revolution in Human Affairs (2002). It is on the Army War College reading list (but I retired as a major, not due to incompetence, but due to too much candor).

Thanks Carl, keep up the great work, Don

What would you recommend, TVLJR?

You may. It was an excellent book, Don. And you began your career enlisted (and in a different service).

Hope you include some of Gary Brechters blogs. See http://​exiledonline​.com/​l​i​b​y​a​-​t​h​e​-​b​e​r​b​-​b​u​r​b​-​a​l​lia… as an example. I know he is shrill and occasionaly wrong, but as examples of contrarian thinking, complex terrain understanding and mixing strategy, tactics and old fashioned plain speaking: He is (in my eye) quite extraordinary.

So far, your revised list looks like my SAMS reading list. Just add Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Saw Exum’s list and Makers of Modern Strategy surprised me too. As an undergrad War Studies student I can say I’ve spent more time with that text in my hands than any other over the last two years. However its HUGE and extremely dense, terrific for academic work but not exactly the kind of book I can imagine a Jr Officer or SNCO walked by in Barnes and Noble and say ‘we’ll this’ll make some nice Sunday afternoon reading’. For an academically dense text that covers much of the same ground in a more accessible, and time saving manor I’d have recommended Machel Handel’s Masters of War. Granted it cuts out a lot of the peripheral figures in Masters of War (Machiavelli, Mahan etc.) but it does a pretty solid job of hitting the high points of the strategic trinity of holy ghosts.

Greetings, Don!! Long time no see, and here you are in a blog entry. nice.

Now, on to the critique — objectively, I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest in your assessment here. To start with, as I recall, the Army gave you open access and lots of attention when you came out with your book. They gave much more than a casual nod to your critique, and that came all the way from the top. That’s high praise for a Major and we know it.

Second, I value a good critique, but both Prine and Exum are awfully heavy handed here. I learned a cardinal rule a long time ago about critique: we weaken what we exaggerate. “Sucks”? “Horseshit”? “One of the worst novels ever written”? I don’t need to praise Dempsey’s list to call such critiques sensational and guilty of playing to base instincts and akin to the very thing being criticized (i.e. Dempsey’s list doesn’t speak to the critical thinkers). Shoot me a note…let’s catch up! Mark.weber@us.army.mil
Cheers,
Mark

Carl — please see note to DOn Vandergriff above. I’ll add that I think you’re a damned good writer — really enjoyed your entry — but you cheapened it with exaggeration. And you seem to know right where that cheapness lies (i.e. poop and Obama critiques). Use your powers for good, Jedi. I’m an intellectual geek, but even I need a rest from the so-called classics.

Cheers,
Mark

I pulled punches. I wouldn’t give the CSA’s reading list to a college freshman much less a military professional.

And he knows better. The man has a degree in literature, if I recall.

While the Marines at least include the Constitution, the Commandant’s reading list also doesn’t offer much to the inquisitive reader (although it offers far, far more than Dempsey’s effort).

One moreover wouldn’t play to “base instincts” when one at the same time embarks on a weekly professional reading program that — unlike Dempsey or the USMC’s various commandants — treats readers as if they’re adults of some intelligence.

Dempsey’s list sure didn’t. And that, my friend, is horse****.

Yeah, I agree with the heavy-handed part. I’m pretty critical of the military’s intellectual practices, but I just don’t see the outrage here.

I think the worse problem is that reading lists don’t mean anything. It’d be better to have a real discussion circle on, say, Friedman’s book than to list some grad-level book that will mostly go unread.

In a way, I agree, but at the same time there are plenty of officers that won’t even read the list or even to the level of the list. My favorite quote on this comes from a guy about to be a squadron commander in a course we sat through together. The instructor (O-6) said that a 6-page article was a varsity read (telling in and of itself). I asked said future commander a day later if he’d read it. “I don’t do varsity reads.”

The reading list is a bare minimum that isn’t even met by some. It is meant to get those who don’t read reading. For the rest, the ones who do think critically, they don’t need a list. Or if they do, they go out and find them on their own. There are lots of syllabi online and lots of places where people post topical reading. BTW, it kills me that the Marine Corps continues to include “The Arab Mind.” In closing, and on a tangent, I recommend Shantaram for reading.

Well, then why not just gather a group of military professionals to read “People” magazine? Or do the TV Guide crossword puzzle?

I find this list insulting. Dempsey is saying that he can earn an advanced degree in literature, but everyone else can work toward getting through the equivalent of a long article in the “New Yorker.”

Why are we dumbing down the military profession? When did we determine that reading widely and critically was wrong? Who thinks that an adult autodidact should be relegated to a high school reading level?

If this list had come from a dullard it would be one thing. But it’s from a bright, articulate man.

The Constitution? I think you presume too much about what does and does not provoke thinking. You declare that you’re going to treat your audience as the intelligent group that they are, but then suggest their reading list include what they should have learned in high school (Civics) and college (the “classics”)? If you actually find Friedman, Gladwell, Brafman, Heath, and Kaplan to be less thought provoking then the unnamed classics you mentioned, I would be tempted to suggest that you have not read them. I would then also suggest that you don’t know what will keep the attentions of an exhausted soldier, NCO, or officer during what little free-time they get.

If I were a young officer I might suggest that this reading list again displays a generational chasm. It’s suggesting that those who are beginning a career should aspire to read throughout their years that which wouldn’t be offered even in a freshman’s introductory class.

When one sets the bar this low, don’t be surprised at how few will attempt to hurdle it.

I guess we differ on seeing some qualitative difference between this reading list and People magazine. Some of these books actually ARE on the reading list in undergraduate classes…at least the ones I took.

To be honest, I don’t esteem the critical reading ability of the average young officer as much as you. Teaching them what to get out of Friedman’s book and what to discard is a necessary prerequisite to denser reads, and if done right, not a step that insults their intelligence. The Army could always give them the option to test out of it.

That is, if the reading list were taken seriously in the first place…

By the way, Killer Angels is required reading for Richard Betts’ grad-level War, Peace, and Strategy class at Columbia. Granted, it’s on the list as a break from tougher reads like Geyer in Makers of Modern Strategy.

First of all, the reading list skews new. There are many slim efforts that were written in the past 10 years, and some I’d argue already seem dated.

Look at the section of “Leadership,” a skill one might suggest career professionals might need to critically consider as they advance in the military. The only (!) text written before 2005 was the redoubtable “The Defence of Duffer’s Drift” by E. D. Swinton.

And then there’s the merely silly. The options for understanding the contemporary world would be something one might find in The Atlantic, but they’re not even the best middle brow literature available. They’re what bureaucrats might read on the plane from Riley to Ronald Reagan International, and we know it.

Sir
, may I humbly draw your attention on my book“1940 victoire-eclair”, written in French, about the road to the second world war and the campaign of 1940, only on the web, not edited .
I studied strategy in Sun Tzu and Clausewitz . The German operation plan for 1940 is in Clausewitz,
chapter Flankenwirkung, the Manstein story is a fake. http://​www​.victoire​-eclair​.com/
Eric van den Bergh
van Edenstraat 5
2012 EL Haarlem
Netherlands
ericvandenbergh@hccnet.nl

I haven’t provided a list.

Yes, having never been an exhausted soldier (and Marine), I couldn’t possibly imagine what they might read in their free time. Are you serious? Perhaps you suffer from Dempseyitis and believe your troops to be dim.

It’s no more difficult to read Cicero or Thucydides in a modern translation than it is to wade through Tom Friedman, and yet readers might get more out of the former than the latter.

Here is one of the more recent versions of the Commandant’s (it probably should be Commandants’ because it has expanded since Al Gray, a former NCO, created it) reading list.
http://home.comcast.net/~antaylor1/usmccommandant…

The Marines apparently don’t think it too much homework for an E-6 to read Liddell-Hart, Lacquer, Lind, Asprey, Rommel and the sole document to which he or she has pledged an oath of enlistment, the U.S. Constitution.

Nor, one notices, do the Marines think the 1st Lieutentant to be intellectually superior to the SSgt.

If the Marines are willing to have their platoon sergeants and warrant officers read works of literature far superior to what’s found on the Army CSA’s reading list, what might that tell you?

It tells me quite a bit.

Can someone explain to me the appeal of “The Starfish and the Spider”? I read it and just don’t get it. Not knowing who the leader is doesn’t mean the organization doesn’t have one. By definition, organizations are…well, organized. I know you aren’t supposed to define a word with the base/root of that self-same word, but someone needs to learn what the hell “organization” means. It implies a level of leadership. Leadership can take many, varied forms, but at the end of the string, there’s someone, maybe more than one someone, leading. Influence is leadership and anonymity doesn’t change that. The book just struck me as business school BS.

“Most officers will never willingly read anything that doesn’t have a centerfold.” Colonel Nicholas Andreacchio, Armor, Retired. Former commander, US Army School of the Americas.

“I suppose that in this age of Petraeus and McChrystal, Army generals no longer feel the itch to mention that obsolete pile of parchment.”

Or, just possibly, he thinks any self respecting Officer would already have read it on their own?

it must contain Thucydides. The Greek reasons for going to war, resulting impacts on Greek society from prolonged war, and the individual motivations and behavior ring true today. The history of the Peloponnesian war is the history of all war.

I’m not sure either McChrystal or Petraeus read it. Why should I assume that a LT has?

I’d suggest you not limit yourselves to this or any other reading list you’ve been issued in the past. I just ask that you read and broaden your perspectives and develop your own passionate curiosity through reading and study.”

—Martin E. Dempsey, 37th Chief of Staff, Army

Then why the list? Why not just say “read” and be done with it? I find this, and similar, reading lists offer nothing real useful. I mean, Gladwell? Really? Limited space on the list and Gladwell is included?

Regardless. The reading list has devolved to a check the block exercise for the staffs of senior leaders. Maybe the items on the list are all GEN Dempsey approved, maybe they’re all books he has liked. My cynical impression is that these lists are just so much noise and produced because they are expected, not because they have intrinsic value. As an Army officer I would much prefer no list to this list.

Because I’ve just insulted the “arrogent men of the milblog world who read Clausewitz and think they know everything” over at zenpundit, I feel the need to write something nice here. Just to even out the karma, karmically speaking. (I should probably go over to zenpundit and apologize, sometime. Really bad form. Why do I let you all get to me? Good for Courtney, you know?) At any rate, I look forward to whatever books you shall review. I love book lists but I’m not exactly the demographic for this site.

(An off-topic “present,” old blog friend, but a little intellectual present: Did you know there was an American Lashkar involved in the original wrangling over Kashmir? The fictions told the American public about our relationships in that part of the world are criminal. So is the “MidEast/Cold War” centric intellectual incuriousity of our institutions. My comment at SWJ: http://​smallwarsjournal​.com/​j​r​n​l​/​a​r​t​/​o​n​-​p​a​k​i​s​t​an-…

Why, some of my best friends are American Lashkars!

I’ve experienced about four different active duty four-star FO/GOs get all squishy about Tom “Captain Obvious” Friedman’s “The World Is Flat”. Must be something in the water in the E ring. To which I respond, “Read Matt Taibibi’s review instead”.

said review link didn’t work, so try this. http://​www​.nypress​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​-​1​1​4​1​9​-​f​l​a​t​h​e​a​d​.​htm…

I don’t even need to check, do I? Valerie B’s ass.

Single most vitriolic book review I’ve ever read. Pretty funny, too.

Carl, there’s a difference between scoring high on the ASVAB (I’m North of 90, not to toot my own horn) and being well read. Before I enlisted, all I had were books, the internet and TV to guide my interests. So, who did I find? Barnett, Friedman and R. Kaplan. I LOVED Friedman’s The World is Flat. Not because it had the intellectual rigor that could keep up with a pedantic IR or Security Studies post-grad, but because he was able to INTRODUCE concepts and ideas to me as a common citizen.

If I can submit any book for consideration for your list it would be Charles Hill’s “Grand Strategies.” Which isn’t about Strategy as much as it is a reading list itself, and how literature informs strategy. (1/2)

But, in reality any GOFO reading list is going to suck. These lists inherently have to appeal to an audience beyond those who think it is awesome to create reading lists. So, the Col. in the CSA’s office can’t include the books they’re reading. They have to include the books that someone who has never read about IR would enjoy reading. That list isn’t even for someone like you or I, it’s for that guy who doesn’t know enough about Friedman to make fun of his ‘stache. (2/2)

–1 for your blog making me break up a middle-length comment…

Carl,
If you are taking recommendations, I would add HEIGHTS OF COURAGE by Avigdor Khalani and EAGLE IN THE SNOW by Wallace Breem. Both tell stories of desperate battles fought by outnumbered forces (one is truth, the other historical fiction). I find Breem’s book, which would make a great BBC six hour miniseries, to be more useful than GATES OF FIRE. We need to acculturate our forces to being able to fight and win when we might just not have all the gizmos we are used to having or in the numbers we are used to.

Whether or not your comments in the piece are vaild or insightful or relevant, how are people going to take your writing seriously or even read your pieces when you use polemic headlines such as “Dempsey’s Reading List Sucks”?

Considering that this has been the most read piece in two weeks I’d say “mission accomplished.”

Ooops. I erred. It’s the most popular piece I’ve written since Aug. 4, according to the metrics machine.

So it seems to have touched something of a nerve.

I’d like to suggest my novel Bright Starry Banner, a fictional recounting of the battle of Stones River. My intention was to present Civil War battle without the aura of romanticism that clouds most fiction about the war. Most critics believe I succeeded. I’ve also written two non-fiction books for adults about the war and a dozen books of military history for young adults. I’ve also written four books about China. The one for young adults is dated, but I think the three for adults stand up well. I would particularly like to recommend China: From the First Chinese to the Olympics and The Scholar and the Tiger: A Memoir of Famine and War in Revolutionary China (written with my dear friend, the late David W. Chang) Please see my web site aldencarter​.com. Thanks for reading, Al Carter, former LT, USN.

Prove that you’re north of 90!

I’ll need a FOIA request from you first. You’re good at those, right?

I would say that “Taken seriously” thus leading to organizational/cultural change (is that not the the goal of commentators?) is a different and much more important than the “it got a lot of hits” metric.
The “it got a lot of hits” metric is short-sighted.

My point was more toward the fact being that trust and credibility are the two essential elements of communication, by alienating a wide swath of people by an infalmatory headline you only hurt your own cause…unless that’s your cause.

I’m paid to give opinion on observations. I’m not paid to change the organization, nor do I arrogate onto myself that role or the competence necessary to achieve the goal.

In sum, I’m paid (not much) to talk back to powerful people and institutions on behalf of others, typically of more junior rank, and I do so in a style that’s certainly my own. Whether this alienates generals or others is unimportant. I don’t believe they’re likely to be swayed by reason or literacy anyway.

Since I actually make my living by communicating and since this particular effort has sparked no small amount of support from the junior ranks, I’ll continue to press on.

I have’nt seen a Good General since Ole Blood and Guts.General George Patton.Read the book Target Patton by Robert K. Wilcox.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement