29 September 2026

Our Generals Are Not Even Good at Tactics: A Hard-Hitting Reply to Gary Anderson

Donvandergriff | Donald Vandergriff

United States military general and flag officers suffer from deep systemic failures rooted in careerism and risk aversion rather than true tactical excellence. American military leadership exhibits institutional deficiencies that stem from the rigid 'up-or-out' promotion model. This legacy system rewards conformity, PowerPoint presentations, and upward management over actual tactical, operational, and strategic adaptability under stress.

Restructuring the officer corps requires dividing personnel into distinct command, staff, and technical tracks evaluated through rigorous wargames and tactical decision games. Replacing the conveyor belt of promotion with performance-based retention and downsizing headquarters by 25 to 40 percent would restore mission command and moral character. Military institutions must cultivate true strength of character, termed Charakterstärke, to prioritize operational reality over careerist compliance and ensure combat effectiveness across future warfare environments.

Comment

Rigid careerist incentives within modern military selection frameworks consistently prioritise administrative compliance over tactical adaptability. Under the prevailing up-or-out promotion model, officer progression depends on managing upward through structured assignments rather than mastering decentralized execution against a thinking opponent.

Strategic Question for Discussion
How does the reliance on standardized promotion metrics within institutions like the US Army undermine the development of genuine tactical adaptability under combat friction?
Standardized personnel metrics reinforce risk aversion by rewarding predictable career paths over innovative problem-solving. This institutional bias ultimately produces senior leaders who manage administrative processes rather than out-maneuvering an adaptive adversary.
Share your assessment in the comments below.