By the time I left the Officer Basic course, I was pretty good at wrecking Soviet Motorized Rifle Companies. Unfortunately that was 1990 and there was a scarcity of Soviet Motorized Rifle Companies! I would say that some “students” took well to the training. Others not so well. Like any training, it goes back to the student’s motivation and abilities.

The intent of “modern” training system is to gradually build upon the officer’s experience with increasingly higher levels of doctrine introduced in follow on service schools. Of course such did not exist in 1860. Then officers would work on their own, be mentored by their seniors, or learn by osmosis while contributing to committees.

The “modern” system does show maturity and refinement one would expect after 235 or so years of evolution. However, the recent complaint is it does not introduce the junior officers to strategic thought at early phases of development. In today’s world, often a lowly 2nd LT is making decisions that end up leading tomorrow’s news. Not quite the “I started a major battle because my troops needed shoes” stuff, but certainly far reaching.

So in some ways I see this going full circle. If in the old days Jomini was seen as too much for LTs, now days we are concerned our LTs are not exposed to Jomini-level thought early on!

I think, however, the point about professional studies is valid. Serving officers have trouble making time for study of theory. They are often wrapped up on the “practice.” The American use of the military was focused on smaller unit actions than in Europe. Nor were American officers expected to dabble in the strategic or political affairs. That would not emerge as a requirement until 1918.