It’s a curious thing, isn’t it? In the U.S. Army, professional military education (PME) is practically a golden ticket for climbing the ranks. You’d think, then, that being a faculty instructor at these very institutions – the places that shape future leaders – would be seen as a career pinnacle. Yet, the reality, as Colonel Douglas Orsi points out, has often been the opposite: a perceived career pause, or worse, a potential career derailment.
This perception, a gradual shift since World War II, stems from a generation of officers who experienced war firsthand as junior ranks and rose to senior positions without necessarily needing formal PME. But the Army has evolved. Today, it’s almost unthinkable for an officer to reach high command without that structured education. The numbers bear this out, with significant percentages of top performers being selected for intermediate and senior PME.
So, why the disconnect between attending PME and instructing at it? The reference material, drawing from Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) 600-3, 'Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management,' highlights that PME is designed to be 'progressive and sequential.' It’s about building those crucial leader attributes – character, presence, and intellect – across an officer's career. We see this progression from pre-commissioning through primary, intermediate (like the Command and General Staff College), and senior levels (including the Army War College and other senior Service colleges).
But what happens when you flip the script? When you take those experienced officers, those who have navigated the complexities of command and strategy, and place them in front of the next generation? Colonel Orsi argues, and I find myself nodding along, that instructing at these PME institutions is not a career sideline; it’s a powerful broadening assignment. It sharpens an officer’s ability to think and operate at the strategic level, forcing them to articulate complex ideas, synthesize diverse perspectives, and mentor others. It’s a chance to distill years of experience into teachable moments, a process that inevitably deepens one’s own understanding.
Looking back at historical examples, like J. Lawton Collins, we see a pattern. His time as a student and then an instructor at the Army War College between the World Wars clearly broadened his horizons, preparing him for significant future responsibilities. He wasn't just learning; he was teaching, refining his own grasp of military thought and leadership.
The challenge, as the article suggests, lies in shifting the Army’s culture. We need to recognize that the intellectual rigor and leadership development fostered by instructing at PME are invaluable. It’s about training versatile leaders for the future, and that requires a paradigm shift – one that views teaching not as a pause, but as a vital component of a well-rounded, impactful military career. It’s a commonsense guideline, really, that investing in those who educate our future leaders is an investment in the Army itself.
